Atheistforums.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

Probably one of the best things I've watched in a while on most of the subjects, even the religious bits.

Jordan Peterson a professor and clinical psychologist talks about the recent compelled pronouns law that has been implemented in Canada and how it and things like it is a huge warning sign of a tyrannical regime.

There is more things talked about in the podcast. Many more. And it's not as simplified as what I have said in one sentence, so before you reply in disagreement (or even in agreement) watch the video in full.

Definitely worth a listen.

I saw Jordan Peterson on The Rubin Report and also watched a video of him debating Bill C-16 at the University of Toronto Faculty of Arts & Science Forum. The debate is worth watching because you hear the other side of the argument. Peterson is definitely an interesting guy and a man of conviction; he becomes verklempt in Dave Rubin's interview. I like Joe Rogan's podcasts but allocating three hours is challenging.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 06, 2016, 03:48:53 PM
I saw Jordan Peterson on The Rubin Report and also watched a video of him debating Bill C-16 at the University of Toronto Faculty of Arts & Science Forum. The debate is worth watching because you hear the other side of the argument. Peterson is definitely an interesting guy and a man of conviction; he becomes verklempt in Dave Rubin's interview. I like Joe Rogan's podcasts but allocating three hours is challenging.

It definitely is a huge chunk of time. I watched it in a couple of sittings while making/eating lunch and finally while I was working on a portrait commission.

Newspeak is double plus good!

Stefan Molyneux is another conservative Canadian I watch some of.  A lot of smart Canadians ... and a lot of SWJ stuff like Euro-peons love.

American culture, western culture over all is and has always been narcissistic. That is the whole cultural idea inherited from Roman Empire which is the supposed roots of Western civilisation. This is not something new. How does that even surprise people?

It's how American capitalism works. It's the American culture itself. People with egos of the size of cathedrals, people who are programmed to think they are entitled to everything imaginable.

As this is something impossible and completely bollocks, under a state and a system that has an overt crushing power over its own people, unfortunately these people have no slightest affect over anything real which is extremely contrary to the state propaganda itself and how they see themselves and this whole thing is how people created a world to fight back.

Something that has always existed in a specific culture and indivudals just got to a tipping point and transformed into a some serious subculture with rising demographics and social media. This is what's happening. You herd a population by constantly pumping it with delusional ideas, inflated claims and attributes of freedom, opportunity, free speech, democracy, superiority and when people actuall start to act as if it was real, you go 'how the hell did that happen?!'. :lol: Dark irony. 

This is not something about Marxism, collapse of the Societ Bloc or blah blah. There is a real problem, but the excuses and answers developed in the video is following the same stupid path as extremist SJWs. And real issues get neglected and drowned under 'pixicans'.


(As my mother language is completely unisex and genderless, I cannot relate what difference they think eleminating gender from language would create. They are in for a surprise.)

Did you even watch the video, shoe? You vaguely referenced one thing in it and the rest of your response is on some completely different tangent that misses the point.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I have watched an hour of it. (58 mins) And my problem is the evaluation of the problem(s) from the beginning. Not the problem(s) itself, I recognise them.  May be you are not aware, I don't know.

There is a system that runs on basic pillars, a system that takes its socio-economic, socio-cultural, socio-political powers from those pillars and in return shapes the society and everything in it. And we have series of people -along with the other videos usually posted- trying to treat a specific problem in a specific culture as if it is the result of something that came/injected from 'outside' and caused some sort of an imbalance in a system through a movement backed up by the fraction of the population. This is the analytical map of it.

Just the words 'marxist ideas' gets thrown around to pyschological relationship between intellectualism and marxist tendencies from an individual point of view gets 'explained' is hillarious.

If someone made any argument about any hot topics from a clinical psyhologists' point to defend his/her one in the forum, this thread would get filled by agressive arguments on what kind of an approach the field of clinical psychology itself is.

@drunkenshoe, should you, I, or anyone be forced to use words that other people want us to use, in your opinion?

You have posted a second post asking me the same question without waiting for my answer and now you are asking me a ridiculous question after I clearly made fun of it and after writing that I recognise the problems presented. OBVIOUSLY I disagree with it.

Pickel, I understand that this video is very enlightening and rich for you. It's not to me. I am sick of you assuming that you know what I think about in this specific topic while almost everything I say flies over your head. Let's not have any conversations in these threads, because honestly, I just can't stand talking to you about it. 

Well, when you reply with such a far off tangent, what do you expect from people? You give the impression that you don't know/ don't care what the original topic was. You give the impression that you want to take the original topic, scrap it and argue about something completely different. You don't acknowledge the topic. You don't address the topic. This is why people get frustrated with you, shoe. And this, you specifically, is the exact reason I said for people to watch before replying.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I find it interesting that you can watch 1/3 of someone's talk and be sure that you know what his points are. This is more of a sign to me and other people that you are just simply replying to argue, rather than actually being informed about what the topic is. Argue if you want, but at least be informed about the topic at hand. and at least give the impression that you are talking about the same topic and not some distant tangent.

If you know their entire premise is based on a misconception, then you know the arguments they have to make are irrelevant. Would you say the same if someone watched 58 minutes of a flat earth conspiracy video, and skipped 2 hours, so how can they know what he has to say and that they aren't just arguing against it to argue?

Quote from: Shiranu on December 07, 2016, 03:25:12 PM
If you know their entire premise is based on a misconception, then you know the arguments they have to make are irrelevant. Would you say the same if someone watched 58 minutes of a flat earth conspiracy video, and skipped 2 hours, so how can they know what he has to say and that they aren't just arguing against it to argue?

She doesn't disagree with the point. From what I understand, she agrees that the compelled pronoun thing is a bad law. She misses the rest. And she tangents on to something completely different, ignoring it. There are many points that she missed. Many topics. Many, many things. Why? because she arrogantly decided she knows what the video is about by only watching 1/3 of it.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 03:01:35 PM
Well, when you reply with such a far off tangent, what do you expect from people? You give the impression that you don't know/ don't care what the original topic was. You give the impression that you want to take the original topic, scrap it and argue about something completely different. You don't acknowledge the topic. You don't address the topic. This is why people get frustrated with you, shoe. And this, you specifically, is the exact reason I said for people to watch before replying.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Stop telling me what people think or feel about me. Stop telling me what my opinion addresses or not. It's not your job. Your job is to warn me when I break any rules. I don't care about your impression about my posts or my concerns about the topic at hand or how much far off tangent you think my posts are. I am not responsible with satisfying you on how I see issues or think about them. I am not required to fit myself into your understanding of some discussion. 

I am sick of your triggered reactions specific to certain topics written from a mod's point while there is nothing actually wrong, but the only problem is either about how you yourself feel about a poster or his/her assumed opinion.

There is a hundred thing that has been said in that video, you just threw me what triggered you when there was an obvious attitude presented against it.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2016, 03:48:23 PM
Stop telling me what people think or feel about me. Stop telling me what my opinion addresses or not. It's not your job.

It's not my job? Really? Who are you to tell me what my job is?

Excuse me for taking part in the forum in ways other than my admin/moderator duties.

QuoteI am not required to fit myself into your understanding of some discussion.

Correct. You are not. But if you insist on giving the impression that you are missing the points or topic of a discussion like you chronically do, it's hypocritical of you to get annoyed when people point out the impression you give them. You give me that impression. and I've seen you give others that impression.

Quote

I am sick of your triggered reactions specific to certain topics written from a mod's point while there is nothing actually wrong, but the only problem is either about how you yourself feel about a poster or his/her assumed opinion.

There is a hundred thing that has been said in that video, you just threw me what triggered you when there was an obvious attitude presented against it.

This goes back to the first thing.

If you think the only thing I should be doing is moderating and I should not be discussing things like a regular member, you are arrogantly and hypocritically on your high horse, trying to dismiss what I have to say.

As I said before. If you want to argue, argue all you want. But if you're going to argue about a completely different topic than the one at hand, don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 03:31:28 PM
She doesn't disagree with the point. From what I understand, she agrees that the compelled pronoun thing is a bad law. She misses the rest. And she tangents on to something completely different, ignoring it. There are many points that she missed. Many topics. Many, many things. Why? because she arrogantly decided she knows what the video is about by only watching 1/3 of it.

Steve, stop talking about what I understand, think, miss or ignore...etc. Stop talking about me. 90 % what you wrote here is about me, what I think about, what people think about me. What Shoe thinks what Shoe ignores, What Shoe does...blah blah. I do not have to get a pass from you to present an opinion.

You're right shoe. I'll move on from the discussion about your inability to communicate. Lets get back on topic, or rather for you, get on topic in the first place.

I haven't watched the video but I know about Jordan Peterson, having read an interview with him just yesterday:
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
I think he makes a lot of valid points about government pushing language on people, but he also goes way the fuck out of his lane into things I don't think he's qualified to talk about. For instance, in that article he blames the rise of feminism on the birth control pill, and not in the way you would think. He blames the HORMONES, saying:

QuoteThere’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

I understand just how much hatred there is for feminism and anything that even has a "fem" root. But this guy is serious trying to claim that at no point in history have women been discriminated against? Really?

That being said, I also hadn't even heard of C-16 but I don't exactly keep up with Canadian government.

I definitely see where this guy is coming from, but when I did some research, a lot of what he's preaching is a slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum argument. Most of Canada's provinces already have this law on the books and no one has been arrested for misusing pronouns. That isn't the intent of the law any more than the intent of libel laws are to arrest OpEd writers for calling someone ignorant or mean.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 04:06:12 PM
You're right shoe. I'll move on from the discussion about your inability to communicate. Lets get back on topic, or rather for you, get on topic in the first place.

I will write whatever I think on the topic, Steve. It's not up to you.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2016, 05:16:22 PM
I will write whatever I think on the topic, Steve. It's not up to you.

I know. I never said it was up to me. But just know that you were not on topic.

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 07, 2016, 05:09:28 PM
I haven't watched the video but I know about Jordan Peterson, having read an interview with him just yesterday:
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
I think he makes a lot of valid points about government pushing language on people, but he also goes way the fuck out of his lane into things I don't think he's qualified to talk about. For instance, in that article he blames the rise of feminism on the birth control pill, and not in the way you would think. He blames the HORMONES, saying:


I understand just how much hatred there is for feminism and anything that even has a "fem" root. But this guy is serious trying to claim that at no point in history have women been discriminated against? Really?

That being said, I also hadn't even heard of C-16 but I don't exactly keep up with Canadian government.

I definitely see where this guy is coming from, but when I did some research, a lot of what he's preaching is a slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum argument. Most of Canada's provinces already have this law on the books and no one has been arrested for misusing pronouns. That isn't the intent of the law any more than the intent of libel laws are to arrest OpEd writers for calling someone ignorant or mean.

I never heard an accusation on the pill/hormones... that sounds pretty off.

That said. The compelled pronouns law is a massive attack on freedom of speech. It's already creeping up on the US, and it seems to me that it was a huge message that he was trying to tell us. Right now in Canada, it is more illegal to refuse to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun. I'm not sure what the punishment is, I'd have to look it up, but at the same time, saying the N word isn't illegal. Not saying something is more illegal that saying something. That is absurd and a massive attack on free speech. It is a fascism.

Forgive me for diverting us off topic, but i wanted to point out that every time DS talks about something like this the focus of the discussion instantly changes to whats wrong with her.

Quote from: Nonsensei on December 07, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
Forgive me for diverting us off topic, but i wanted to point out that every time DS talks about something like this the focus of the discussion instantly changes to whats wrong with her.

I'm sorry. Next time she replies in a completely off topic, argumentative rant, I'll ignore it. The main reason I address it, is because I know she's capable of having great points, but whenever I address her distant off-topic tangents, it turns in to a tangent of it's own.

My mistake.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:24:30 PM
Right now in Canada, it is more illegal to refuse to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun. I'm not sure what the punishment is, I'd have to look it up,

You aren't referring to Bill C-16, are you? If not, would you mind saying what law this is when you look up the punishment?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:43:28 PM
I'm sorry. Next time she replies in a completely off topic, argumentative rant, I'll ignore it. The main reason I address it, is because I know she's capable of having great points, but whenever I address her distant off-topic tangents, it turns in to a tangent of it's own.

My mistake.

You're confusing her being off topic with her thinking different things about the video than you did. You posted this video because it made you think certain things and you wanted to share that. She saw it and her reaction was completely different because her context is completely different. She only seems off topic to you because it spoke to her in a completely different way than it spoke to you.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:24:30 PM
I never heard an accusation on the pill/hormones... that sounds pretty off.

That sounds off as in he didn't say it, or that sounds off because it is? He very much said it, not in the video in the original post, but in the link I posted. This is his full explanation to the question, Are you denying the existence of discrimination based on sexuality or race?

QuoteI don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument. First of all, do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. When George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, the coal miners he studied walked to work for two miles underground hunched over before they started their shift. Then they walked back. [Orwell] said he couldn’t walk 200 yards in one of those tunnels without cramping up so bad he couldn’t even stand up. Those guys were toothless by 25, and done by 45. Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane. People worked 16 hours a day hand to mouth. My grandmother was a farmer’s wife in Saskatchewan. She showed me a picture of the firewood she chopped before winter. They lived in a log cabin that was not quite as big as the first floor of this house. And the woodpile that she chopped was three times as long, and just as high. And that’s what she did in her spare time because she was also cooking for a threshing crew, taking care of her four kids, working on other people’s farms as a maid, and taking care of the animals. Then in the 20th century, people got rich enough that some women were able to work outside the home. That started in the 1920s, and really accelerated up through World War II because women were pulled into factories while the men went off to war. The men fought, and died, and that’s pretty much the history of humanity. And then in the 50s, when Betty Friedan started to whine about the plight of women, it’s like, the soldiers came home from the war, everyone started a family, the women pulled in from the factories because they wanted to have kids, and that’s when they got all oppressed. There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

His claim is that life was hard for everyone, so women should stop whining. It's like he forgot that women weren't allowed to vote or could be legally beaten or raped by their husbands. No matter how much anyone hates modern feminism, I really can't understand how anyone could make the claim that women have never been discriminated against in the whole of recorded human history.

But again, you say it's a massive attack on free speech. In a way, I agree. I think hate speech laws try to be well-intentioned but miss the mark. But have you done research into what C-16 is about? I'm not sure Jordan Peterson has. He keeps coming back to the idea of compelled pronouns like people are being arrested for accidentally calling someone "Ma'am" if they self identify as male. No. One of his colleagues puts forth a compelling counterargument here:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Quote from: Poison Tree on December 07, 2016, 05:44:34 PM
You aren't referring to Bill C-16, are you? If not, would you mind saying what law this is when you look up the punishment?

I'm assuming it is? I don't remember if they cited the actual bill, but this is bill c-16. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

Quote from: Nonsensei on December 07, 2016, 05:47:54 PM
You're confusing her being off topic with her thinking different things about the video than you did. You posted this video because it made you think certain things and you wanted to share that. She saw it and her reaction was completely different because her context is completely different. She only seems off topic to you because it spoke to her in a completely different way than it spoke to you.

She saw 1/3 of it. So of course her reaction is going to be different when you base it on 1/3 of what is said.
And yes, her context is completely different. And she agrees on the main point, that forcing someone to say something is bad. She even said that. I just don't see how she got to arguing about something that isn't even on topic, or that anyone even is talking about.

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 07, 2016, 05:51:11 PM
That sounds off as in he didn't say it, or that sounds off because it is?

No, I mean it sounds off as a claim. It's a very off claim. I believe you, if you saw that he said it.

Shoe is coming from Dialectical Materialism or at least Hegelian Dialectics .. she is saying that there is a thesis (pronoun police) and an antithesis (pronoun anti-police) ... a true reaction to the thesis, isn't anti-thesis, but a synthesis that transcends either.  Don't tell me what you are for or what you are against ... just tell me how you are engaged as the omnipotent narrator ... who excretes wisdom from the agonistic digestion of it all.  But alas, she is able to criticize the menu, but unable to digest the entree.

Some people process internally, others do it externally.  Her posts are external musings ... that have no conclusions.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:57:41 PM
I'm assuming it is? I don't remember if they cited the actual bill, but this is bill c-16. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

I must admit that I'm not an expert in Canadian law (it appears from his bio that Jordan Peterson isn't, either), but I don't see where this bill would criminalize "refus[ing] to say "xe" or "xir"[. . .] but at the same time, saying the N word isn't illegal." The law appears to simply add "gender identity or expression" to "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or [pardoned crime]" for protection against discrimination, hate speech/advocating genocide. I don't see anything about pronoun use. Peterson has claimed that the law   risks criminalizing discussion about aspects of human sexual behaviour and identity  (http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29/u-of-t-prof-rips-bill-outlawing-gender-identity-discrimination) yet, even if we imagine that discussing human sexual identity rose to the grounds of hate speech as defined in Canadian legal theory, it appears that the law already has an exemption for statements in public interest/public benefit which, any lawyer would argue, such discussions would be.

Well, here it is in NYC...

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/politically-correct-transgender-pronoun-mandates-violate-first-amendment

Praise be the death of the first amendment.

QuoteIn Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.72e5f29d6569

QuoteThis is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

56 genders? You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Tumblr has hijacked the government and we need them out.

So I guess that is a somewhat non-direct answer to the punishment for the law question you had. I care less about Canada, now that this extra step towards grammatical tyranny is already here in the U.S. In my own home area, nonetheless.

I hereby declare my pronouns to be bomp bah bomp bah bomp/rama lama ding dong/bomp bah bomp bah bomp-self. If you wish to use normal pronouns instead, you may Paypal me $100 rather than pay $1,000s in fines.

Quote from: pato15 on December 08, 2016, 09:41:12 PM
I hereby declare my pronouns to be bomp bah bomp bah bomp/rama lama ding dong/bomp bah bomp bah bomp-self. If you wish to use normal pronouns instead, you may Paypal me $100 rather than pay $1,000s in fines.

now I know what to do when I'm short on cash. I'll just take a quick 20 min train in to NYC and tumblr it up. I'll be rich in no time at all.

Pronouns get really awkward these days.  You don't see the person you are replying to.  You don't know about transgender possibilities.  I try to stick to the gender neutral  Latin "you. us. them. it".  LOL!

There is nothing wrong with a transgender person claiming to be called by the pronoun of his/her 'preferred' gender. Treating this position as the same thing with someone who think they are 'pixicans' or with other extreme examples only means that your idea of LGBTQ people is as fucked up as religious groups. It seems you simply do not recognise them and also see their reaction to how society treats them AND see them as responsible from the downfall of your society. One step further down from that road is blaming them people for hurricanes and earthquakes.

People are so susceptible to bullshit, so weak minded and far gone in their learned bitterness and misplaced anger, they are not even aware which one is a real problem, which one is a fantasy.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 09, 2016, 06:46:03 AM
There is nothing wrong with a transgender person claiming to be called by the pronoun of his/her 'preferred' gender.

I know. I agree. People can want to be called whatever they want. They aren't entitled to demand that others refer to them the way they want, with the consequence of a fine if they don't. The issue is that there is now laws that will result in a fine if you do not say the words they demand you to say. It's a direct assault on the first amendment and freedom of speech.
People come up with new pronouns every fucking day of the week.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

>That face when you close the wrong tab after writing a good 10 minute response...

(https://adventuresofalabornurse.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/poker-face-gif.gif)

I'll try this again...

QuotePraise be the death of the first amendment.

This is, at it's core, painfully hyperbolic and is one of the fundamental flaws within the "anti-SJW" camp; their arguments come from a place of knee-jerk, reactionary and (yes, I dare say it) emotional responses without fully, or perhaps even partially, understanding what they are actually talking about. Using just the article you posted, but left out most of, it's honestly a very different picture then you want to paint. Likewise delving deeper into the second one (which should be noted is an opinion piece and not a journalist article) this knee-jerk reaction becomes. I will go into the history of CNS news afterwards, because it is relevant to understand their background and their Republican party backings.

QuoteThe New York City Human Rights Commission has issued guidance saying that businesses may be fined for “harassment” if they do not use customers’ desired pronouns in relation to questions of gender, including preferred usages such as “ze” and “hir.”

This sounds "bad" at first, but that is because it leaves out key details.

The word "harassment" is used in quotes to express some sort of emotional triggering by the word, but it should be unparenthesized harassment. This is a situation where the reactionary aspect really shows it's face; when you start to think about the situations that would lead to a harassment charge you realise that it makes perfect sense and is something that is actually perfectly common within our existing law system. And it's not like you just call someone "sir" and they automatically sue you; it is a matter of you saying "sir", them correcting you, and then you intentionally and maliciously continuing to use the word because what YOU believe they are is what's important, and if they don't fit your expectations of what sex or gender they are then they are wrong. That is harassment, not "harassment". If you continued to call a black man, "my homie" when he asked to be call sir, a gay guy "princess" when he asked to be called "sir" or a tomboy "sir" when she tells you she is a she, then you are harassing them.

When digging deeper into this law you will read that (from your second link), "Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. " is what constitutes harassment. I fail to see what is so offensive about this, since we have laws regarding language protecting people from harassment of biological and personal states as it is. Protecting people's biological and sexuality identity should be a corner stone of a civilized society, not something we balk at.

And I honestly don't think you realize this, nor agree with it, but what you are saying when you make these knee-jerk reactions without thinking them through is that harassing people for their sexuality is acceptable, that shaming people for being different is right and that businesses should be allowed to harass people because "you" think they are stupid. You cant lecture people about the dangers of emotions when your own arguments are not only based on emotions (which I don't believe to be an inherently bad thing) but instead come from a malicious, fearful and hateful place. It is cliché, but it's a great example of how even mindless and unintentional "bad" emotions so often put out more "negativity" without it being intended; you don't mean to hurt these people, but the things you say while being hateful or afraid, before you think, have tangible consequences.

QuoteIn Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.” The district has agreed to “develop official guidance documents” for “pronoun usage,” and “[V]iolations of the guidance will be grounds for discipline.”

Again, I don't see how you view this as some type of break down of Western civilization and the death of the first amendment other than you have not actually thought your position through but just believe it "feels" good. I don't believe you actually believe harassment is okay, but you have been tricked by this idea that the "SJW" is out to get you that you are saying that we need to throw the laws that protect people from harassment out. It's just silly, and unfortunate, that this view point is ironically enough the mainstream narrative... and yet within the camp they view themselves as the oppressed ones. It's like Christians crying that atheists are destroying their country, when in truth it is run by a Christian government and society (even the atheists are heavily influenced by Christian doctrine due to our heritage) and they are heavily in the majority... but we have to pass extreme, hateful measures because the atheists dare to question our authority. That is exactly what the "anti-SJW" is doing, and is a large part of why Trump was elected ("He isn't politically correct").

Quote...And they should be free not to use words that ‘set off grammar alarms’” that signal such an ideological message.....

QuoteSimilarly, Professor Volokh notes, it is improper for the government to force people or businesses to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender).

This is progressively getting worse and worse. That is not a political statement, that is a scientific "fact" (insofar as anthropology, sociology and psychology can be "fact"). The entire concept of gender (not sex, gender) is a social concept and for all intents and purposes any Western professor or scientist who studies the fields will tell you this. This isn't even a new concept, this has been around for decades. I really want to say something, but the next quote from your second link just hammers it home...

QuoteWe have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions...

I'm sorry, but this article is what the first one linked to and agreed to... and this single quote should send red flags to anyone who has the slightest grasp of history. This is the EXACT same thing people said when the "Social Darwinist" & Morgan's "Savage, Barbarian, Civilization" view points began to die out; "Wow, these elitists say we have to say all humans are equal! How dare they!", "Wow, the law is saying we cant imply that it's our moral obligation to enslave Africans and Indians because they are civilizations themselves!". It is the exact same argument that is made when, "How dare the law say we cant call them black folk niggers" or "It's illegal to call gays fucking homos? THIS IS OPPRESSION!".

I don't think you should be afraid of anyone, but if you insist on fearing something then fear people who spread this ideology. Actually read your sources, and not just the headlines, the full articles, and take a minute or two to think about the ramifications of what is being said. This is the shit you need to be afraid of, not the boogiemen in the headline.

Edit: I really hope I get this in on time, it just slipped my mind...

QuoteNon-transgender employees have no right to force people to call them by an imaginary or ungrammatical pronoun, so as a matter of simple equity, transgender people should not be able to make such demands, either (and the vast majority of transgender people do not even want to be called “they” or “ze”).

The logical flaws of the first line are hopefully pretty obvious ("Men have no right to complain about 'imaginary' problems they don't have, so women have no right to complain about 'imaginary' problems they actually do have. Equality!"), but the second line... this entire argument boils down to, "How DARE I be forced to be a decent human being and not an asshole!".

If you have to be forced not to be an asshole, then yes... I think businesses and the state have a right to tell you not to be an asshole or face punishment. What is so damn inconvenient about saying, "Oh, I'm sorry x. How may I help you?". Why is the "inconvenience" there more important than the actual inconvenience when someone intentionally starts harassing you because you don't fit their ideal off what they should be? I hear it argued from time to time that we live in a generation of "cry-baby pussies"... is this not the very definition of a cry-baby, someone who whines about how unfair it is that he cant be a jackass?

I'm too tired to write another essay, but I will leave the links to the history of CNS news here if you are interested in seeing what bias they come from...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNSNews.com

QuoteCNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name www.conservativenews.org.

CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle.

Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007. Jeffrey was and remains an editor-at-large for the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events. He wrote editorials for The Washington Times from 1987â€"1991 and was research director for the presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

QuoteIts stated mission is to "proveâ€"through sound scientific researchâ€"that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values."

he MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.[4] Bob Ward has said that it also receives funding from ExxonMobil.

...In its mission to show that there is a "strident liberal bias" [35] in the national news media...

that the media is sympathetic to Communism or "dictators",[37][38] that media coverage of global warming is biased in favor of environmentalism,[39] and that the media focuses on covering the negative side of the Iraq war.

On December 22, 2011, Media Research Center president Bozell appeared on Fox News and suggested U.S. President Barack Obama looks like a "skinny ghetto crackhead."[48][49][50] reacting to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' assertions that Newt Gingrich "looks like a car bomber" with "no media backlash."

The Media Research Center has also faced scrutiny over the group's $350,000 purchase in 2012 of a Pennsylvania house that a top executive had been trying to sell for several years. [51]

On June 31, 2013, Media Research Center president Bozell appeared on Fox News to defend a Fox interview in which Fox journalists conducted almost no research into the interviewee, Reza Aslan's, background and its hypothetical biases.[52]

Again, the "anti-SJW" movement is just politically correct "alt-right" bullshit, and this fear that anything and anyone different is out to destroy our way of life. I really think you need to reevaluate your position because I don't think you are as hateful and terrible of person as this, I think you just have bought into bullshit without realising it.

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Shir. Even though as of now, and possibly for the rest of this thread, we are in disagreement, I'd like to thank you for at least disagreeing about the topic and not talking about a completely different tangent that no one is even talking about.

but anyway...
You can disregard the CNS article, if it makes you feel better. The wallstreet journal had an article of it's own on the same subject, citing an instance where someone was fined for this same bullshit. I don't know if you missed that article that I posted, but it's there.

Anything at this point even slightly in the center of the spectrum, but still on the left will seem extremely conservative to an extreme left worldview. It's to that point now. Just because it isn't extreme leftism, it doesn't mean it's alt-right (or what alt right actually is, Nazi-ism)

Yes. I know and am aware it's about a repeated refusal to call someone by their preferred pronoun, but if you have someone repeatedly insisting to not say a tumblr word of the day, like ze or whatever, it also means that there is someone insisting and persisting repeatedly that they call them that. That persistent demanding of a use of a word is not only harassment in it's self, it's also narcissistic.
We're not talking about using words that are offensive, were talking about not using a word and people being offended by it. It's not like we have people calling people "fags" here. It's an absence of words. People are offended by this? And it's turned in to people getting fined? That is a direct assault of freedom of speech.

It's a funny thing that you bring up alt-right though. Because this is a very totalitarian way of governing. Strict control of words... manipulating people based on their vocabulary... a nazi dream.


In regards to trans, don't most trans people want to be referred by the gender they're transitioning to/transitioned to? like if they were a woman and went to male, they want to be reffered to as "he"/ "him" male to women trans people like to be referred to as "she"/"her". No trans person I've ever came across wants to be referred to as a gender neutral tumblr word. Everything is a micro-aggression. Everything is a hate crime. Everything is harassment.
You know what? it really dilutes when something is ACTUALLY an instance of harassment or hate-crime. Like when someone is spitting racist or homophobic slurs at someone. Real hate. Real violence. Real aggression.

It's about the control of speech. You want to use a word to describe you? That's fine. Use whatever word you want. Add it to the dictionary and make them official parts of our language. That's fine too. There should not be a legislated rule that punishes people for use, or even lack of use of a word. Not once. Not ever. Period. Full stop.  It's is absurd and it's reminiscent of fascism.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 09, 2016, 01:33:13 PM
I know. I agree. People can want to be called whatever they want. They aren't entitled to demand that others refer to them the way they want, with the consequence of a fine if they don't. The issue is that there is now laws that will result in a fine if you do not say the words they demand you to say. It's a direct assault on the first amendment and freedom of speech.
People come up with new pronouns every fucking day of the week.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

No, my point is that in transgenders' situation it is not just a random demand to be called what they are.

On social media their situation is included in ridiculous fantasy identity like pixicans. That is wrong.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 03:26:48 AM
No, my point is that in transgenders' situation it is not just a random demand to be called what they are.

Which is a different subject entirely and one I agree with. If you want to make a thread about that, a completely different subject, go ahead. This is about a law that was passed that results in a fine if you do not wish to participate with their childish demand to force other people use their words.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 10, 2016, 03:30:22 AM
Which is a different subject entirely and one I agree with. If you want to make a thread about that, a completely different subject, go ahead. This is about a law that was passed that results in a fine if you do not wish to participate with their childish demand to force other people use their words.

If I want to talk about it, I can talk about it in this thread. It's an important part of the subject, also mentioned in the video.

But I have already said what I think, so it is not necessary.   

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 04:24:27 AM
If I want to talk about it, I can talk about it in this thread. It's an important part of the subject, also mentioned in the video.

But I have already said what I think, so it is not necessary.   

You positioned it like we were in disagreement with each other about it. I'm confused at why you constantly do this sort of thing; taking a subject that someone hasn't even commented on, stated their opinion on, etc, and go full force in to an argument. It baffles me. It makes it near impossible to have a constructive conversation with you, when you do that.... which is frequently.

Yes, Trangender people face an issue greater than pronouns.  I would say that almost no transgender people want to use "ze" or "hir" or whatever and would rather just be referred to as the gender they transitioned to/are currently transitioning to. The pronouns are the least of their worries though. They recieve hate from the conservative groups, religious groups, and even some secular people.

I didn't position anything against you. I didn't even write it to you. I wrote that first post about it after reading Cavebear's post generally to the thread and you answered to it and tried to make my point clear. We are not having a discussion.

You are looking for excuses to throw some bullshit at me. Enough already. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Cavebear didn't post in this thread until later on, so no, you first few posts in this thread were not in reply to him. You didn't quote anyone, either. You didn't even address anyone with your first, long, seemingly argumentative, drawn out post. I guess it only seemed argumentative because of how you write things, shoe.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Anyway, I'd like to drop this, if you will let it get back on topic. I hope this clears things up and it doesn't keep happening

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 10, 2016, 05:28:03 AM
Cavebear didn't post in this thread until later on, so no, you first few posts in this thread were not in reply to him. You didn't quote anyone, either. You didn't even address anyone with your first, long, seemingly argumentative, drawn out post. I guess it only seemed argumentative because of how you write things, shoe.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Oh god. Are you still going on about that post?! I didn't mean my first post in the thread, but the first post about transgenders as what was the latest conveersation, naturally I thought you were talking about that.

I don't care that if you can't follow my posts or don't understand them. You are full of shit. You have made more posts insulting throwing bullshit about me for no reason than the ones about thread's subject.

I am done with you, Steve. I don't give a slightest fuck about what you think about me or on any issue or what is your opinion. Consider yourself ignored. Do not address me unless it is moderation issue.

Now carry on with your bullshit.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 05:38:33 AM
Oh god. Are you still going on about that post?! I didn't mean my first post in the thread, but the first post about transgenders as what was the latest conveersation, naturally I thought you were talking about that.

I don't care that if you can't follow my posts or don't understand them. You are full of shit. You have made more posts insulting throwing bullshit about me for no reason than the ones about thread's subject.

I am done with you, Steve. I don't give a slightest fuck about what you think about me or on any issue or what is your opinion. Consider yourself ignored. Do not address me unless it is moderation issue.

Now carry on with your bullshit.

Sounds good. Maybe if I thought you weren't talking about those first few posts, I wouldn't have said anything about it. I had a pretty strong impression that you were, from what you typed. It was also unclear that your were responding to Cavebear in the post you actually were just talking about, even in retrospect... That goes back to your unclear wording though. Have a great life.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Oh it is about my wording right now, is it? How did I just go and automatically thought you were saying something about the current conversation? Oh yeah. Who the fuck would do that?

Every fucking thing is wrong with me. That must be a some sort of a record. And every time you disgaree with me, actually not even disagree but when you just don't like what I write on specific subjects, you vomiting posts full of baseless uncalled insults, having a rant about me -repeating the exact same sentences over and over again- have nothing wrong with it and definitely there is nothing wrong with you or your attitude at all. 

If somebody wrote the half of the bullshit you throw at me in one thread, you would scream "harassment!". You have become toxic, you can't even read and follow what a simple two line post is about. Wow. I have never been this wrong about someone. Live an learn eh?

1. Some people like to harass others, by making demands of them to do something, or to stop doing something
2. Some people like to gather revenue from fines, to fund the government or avoid the boredom of being a social meter-maid
3. Combining #1 and #2 is stupid if it is over a triviality
4. Some people like to nickel and dime others to death, it isn't enough to ruin your day over something substantial, they want their narcissism fed
5. I would take Feminists and SJWs more seriously, if they spent their time on more important issues, like the attempt by psychopathic world leadership to destroy this planet, either thru incompetence or malignancy.  But they are partisan about their favorite psychopaths, and are too self-righteous to take criticism
6. It isn't enough to point out that their opponents "do it to" ... two wrongs not only don't make a Right, it doesn't make a Left either

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 06:04:27 AM
Oh it is about my wording right now, is it? How did I just go and automatically thought you were saying something about the current conversation? Oh yeah. Who the fuck would do that?

Every fucking thing is wrong with me. That must be a some sort of a record. And every time you disgaree with me, actually not even disagree but when you just don't like what I write on specific subjects, you vomiting posts full of baseless uncalled insults, having a rant about me -repeating the exact same sentences over and over again- have nothing wrong with it and definitely there is nothing wrong with you or your attitude at all. 

If somebody wrote the half of the bullshit you throw at me in one thread, you would scream "harassment!". You have become toxic, you can't even read and follow what a simple two line post is about. Wow. I have never been this wrong about someone. Live an learn eh?

I thought you were done with me...
Maybe if you think I should look in the mirror for being toxic, you should do the same. I don't have the luxury of putting you in ignore and even if I did, I wouldn't put some on it. I value your take on things, whether you believe me or not. As I've said before, it's a shame you're points get lost in off-topic, argumentative rants. It would be great if I knew I was in agreement with you, if I wasn't so disoriented with your subject changes and tangents.

You seem to take everything as an insult, even when it's just criticism and analysis, but then you do the same to others. I find that interesting.
I also see that as coming full circle for the topic at hand. It's full circle because the extreme sjw camp sees criticism of things like the pronoun law as hostile to them as people... When in reality the law is something that is hostile to the civilization as a whole.... Which I think you agree with, although I'm not sure anymore. Oddly enough I think we're in agreement about the on topics we discussed in this thread, the pronoun law, and even the slightly tangented things like how Trans people face a bigger issue than pronouns. But I could be wrong. It's very hard to tell if I'm in agreement with someone that insists on arguing about the subject.

Now, did you want to finally drop this thing between you and me? Or did you want to keep going? As I said with my first sentence in this post, I thought you were done with me.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Oh I am done with you. You are a random mod. That's a loss for you wether if you get it or not. That doesn't mean I won't adress your bullshit you keep throwing on me right now. You have an assumed idea on my opinion(s) on the subject -whole gender issues actually- and you see me as a target to throw to your frustration at. Just think about the  difference between your reaction to me and Nonsensei. We are saying the same thing in similar ways. And that happened the same before multiple times.

You don't know anything, no actually you don't get anything about my opinions on SJWs, your position is pretty much like pr126's position on one specific religious group and you just ant to be a part of a football team. You are acting like an extreme SJW yourself and when you see something you don't like, you start to throw insults with no base. And what is worst you are doing that with mod talk, by demonising that poster, in this case me, about their general character and everything they do, what people think about them. That's not criticism. That's not analysis. That's an attempt of bullying someone. Unsuccessful as it is, an attempt nonetheless. You have amde more posts about me than what you think about the subject in this thread and they are all the same post. You have been writing the same post to me.

I understand that this video is very enlightening and rich for you. It's not to me. Because my understanding of sociology is not based on the youtube videos posted in the last 5 years.

The video is a bullshit mainstream rant about speicfic groups going from extreme examples and although there is a real problem, it is unable to address this problem, let alone ciritcise it. A clinical pyschologist who literally defends the idea that women have never been oppressed in history is making equal points on identity crisis of 'pixicans' and transgender people as a part of Western society's downfall as a result of cultural marxism.

It jerks off to the oldest boogieman in American society and it blames everything, but the obvious long coming, fundamental flaws in the system. It's basically talking about how stupid and fucked up these people are. Because that sells perfectly to Americans, because everyone besides their group that doesn't fit is either stupid or mentally ill. Americans do not listen anything remotely criticisng their culture or their system; it is a narcissistic, fantasy culture and have the 'best' economical and political system to support it. Everyone who doesn't see the world they live in or agree with them are either stupid (domestic) or an enemy (international).

If something is wrong, then it is the fault of Marxists or Communists or Muslims or this and that boogieman. It's the education in universities! No, it is the compassionate intellectuals! It's the fault of fucking intellectualism over all. (Hello white christian south, your 'secular' fellows up here will come down to apologise from you on insulting you for your 'unique' usage of the word 'intellectual' as an insult.) Yeah. Well, No. How is that you can't see this is the new version same bullshit that was sold to Americans decades ago as what is threatening their own society? It's pure conservatist, right wing bullshit in diguise. And it was so easy to crank it up and smack down with it, guess who recognised the picture and bet the right horse in this elections.

Your culture produced these groups and these movements. They didn't fell down from the sky. And it is not about Marxism or Cultural Marxism or the blah blah boogimen ideology, but it is the result of how the American propaganda, American identity works. How many people in America even have an idea about cultural marxism? How many of these people -besides the academics- heard the words 'cultural marxism' before social media vloggers and bloggers?

People are so powerless against their state, so powerless to affect their own lives and future, the social explosion presents itself in this way in America. (In fucking Turkey, just svereal weeks ago, because of protests and the general opposing stance, the religious government withdrew a legislation, guys. In.fucking.Turkey. And even the worst will happen, it is not gonna happen without a fight. It never happens without a fight. What the fuck are you doing? Ranting about pixicans and blaming SJWs for the downfallof yoru society and taking pics of people sitting in cars in subway and cursing to cultural marxism.)

Society cannot take its own bullshit anymore, don't you get it? Because there is nothing in the country that actually meets the constant propaganda that so mind crushingly brainswashes people from birth. About freedom, freedom of speech, equality, opportunity, survival, the place of their country in the world, their own place in their own country and culture; its so call inflated ideals everything that America constantly tells itself...you name it.


This is your social explosion, because there is no other way-form for America to have one. It is perfect for America and it's perfectly American. People are just giving back the bullshit they have been fed for generations and generations, what the American culture is made of.   

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2016, 06:26:38 AM
1. Some people like to harass others, by making demands of them to do something, or to stop doing something
2. Some people like to gather revenue from fines, to fund the government or avoid the boredom of being a social meter-maid
3. Combining #1 and #2 is stupid if it is over a triviality
4. Some people like to nickel and dime others to death, it isn't enough to ruin your day over something substantial, they want their narcissism fed
5. I would take Feminists and SJWs more seriously, if they spent their time on more important issues, like the attempt by psychopathic world leadership to destroy this planet, either thru incompetence or malignancy.  But they are partisan about their favorite psychopaths, and are too self-righteous to take criticism
6. It isn't enough to point out that their opponents "do it to" ... two wrongs not only don't make a Right, it doesn't make a Left either

Sweety, it is not done this way. First you need to provide an idea, a premise if you will, and then while explaining it you put numbers to each factor or component you provide according to that idea. Otherwise,it is just a post full numbered random sentences without a thinking discourse as it is presented in your post. That's why it works when I do it,  because usually I actually have an idea about the subject that I thought myself while writing it. Stick to copy pasting google definitions of phlosphical concepts, you are not good at producing ideas.

I am perfectly in with criticising SJWs, actually that is what I have been doing all along. The fact that most people here see 'criticism' of this specific subject as condemning and denouncing it without actually discussing what is wrong with this culture and why it is what it is, treating it as some real threat to western civilisation honestly does not affect me. I am not susceptible to mainstream American bullshit or SJWs for that matter. It's equal to pr's general approach to current issues.

Of course, my list, wasn't really about your POV.  It does fit others here.

"Society cannot take its own bullshit anymore" ... this is why Western Civ is toast ... eventually people couldn't take anymore Roman BS, not even Romans ... so I hope you are good with Gothic, because this Romanesque period of the last 500 years, has exceeded its expire date.

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 12:56:40 PM
Of course, my list, wasn't really about your POV.  It does fit others here.

OK then. Sorry about the snap.

Quoteote]"Society cannot take its own bullshit anymore" ... this is why Western Civ is toast ... eventually people couldn't take anymore Roman BS, not even Romans ... so I hope you are good with Gothic, because this Romanesque period of the last 500 years, has exceeded its expire date.

Why does Western Civilisation have to be toast? Nothing is getting toast. The only thing that is gonna toast west civ or the reast of the world over all is a natural disaster of some kind. That's all. The time we have the spent on the planet as species is less than a second.

The world will be changed and overhauled many many times over and over again.

Sorry to give it blunt, but how can anyone be that senseless to think that SJW groups will collapse their society, no actually western civilisation? You need to lose touch with reality as much as someone with a claim of being a pixican for thinking that.

Did you see the videos pr126 posted in his "They are indoctrinating your children" thread, Baruch. Watch the second one, it is very short.

That man is a dangerous zealot, a fanatic preaching the end of the world to people and if you change the word Marxism with Evolution and the Western Civilisation with Christianity, you have the perfect picture of a fundemantal religious extremist preaching.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 10, 2016, 02:12:37 AM
In regards to trans, don't most trans people want to be referred by the gender they're transitioning to/transitioned to? like if they were a woman and went to male, they want to be reffered to as "he"/ "him" male to women trans people like to be referred to as "she"/"her". No trans person I've ever came across wants to be referred to as a gender neutral tumblr word.

What about a normal gender neutral word, like "they", or did you already forget complaining about this?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 08:38:13 PMIn Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.”

Of course, if you'd followed the links back you would have found out that the [alleged] harassment was a little more then just using the wrong pronoun

Quote from: http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2016/05/gresham_barlow_transgender_tea.htmlSomeone smeared Vaseline on Soell's cabinets, the complaint said, and another yelled insults in the school hallway. Others conspired to prevent Soell from using the school's lone gender-neutral bathroom, the complaint said.

Off topic, but important in the larger picture ...

"The world will be changed and overhauled many many times over and over again." ... of course, it matters who's baklava is being stomped on ;-)

There is a wide spread theory that one of the reason why the Roman Empire failed in the West, was thru corruption and mismanagement.  The East was much better managed, less corrupt and had the advantage of the Egyptian grain supply (which ended with Islam, and pretty much doomed the Byzantines, though they could partly compensate by ramping up grain imports from the Ukraine, though that was eventually disrupted too).  It took awhile for W Roman Empire to fail, about 250 years .. things changed more slowly back then).  The barbarians were merely taking advantage of a regional systemic collapse, something they couldn't do until after 391 CE.

So the West must fail, because reality will spank people who are delusional, who are not fact based, not reality based.  This can be kept at bay, for awhile, thanks to injections of fake liquidity (as happened in Rome from 200 CE onward).  Eventually people are forced back to barter, like what is happening in Greece and India right now.  But that liquidity is necessary for civilization higher than agricultural subsistence.  Thus the Roman cities of the West were gradually abandoned, even Rome itself.  Right now in the US, about 90% of us are urban ... when we have to cycle back to Dark Ages subsistence, we will have to lose about 90% of our population, since they will be useless mouths to feed.  This of course works in Turkey too, and has happened many times before (Ephesus, Smyrna etc).  Are you "close" to subsistence fishing or farming?  If not, your future is bleak, as the inevitable cycle of history repeats.

It wasn't until 19th century London, that any city in the West became what Rome was at its peak in the 2nd century CE. ... that is how long the "depression" lasted ... 1700 years.

Quote from: Poison Tree on December 11, 2016, 02:33:59 PM
What about a normal gender neutral word, like "they", or did you already forget complaining about this?Of course, if you'd followed the links back you would have found out that the [alleged] harassment was a little more then just using the wrong pronoun

yes. There is already neutral words like "they". That is fine. And in all seriousness, if someone wants to use "ze", they have their right to say it.
The issue isn't the words; it's the forcing and legislated fines if you don't.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 11, 2016, 04:36:42 AM
I understand that this video is very enlightening and rich for you. It's not to me. Because my understanding of sociology is not based on the youtube videos posted in the last 5 years.

You assume I base all my knowledge of social issues on youtube videos... interesting and fascinating. And also wrong.

QuoteYou don't know anything, no actually you don't get anything about my opinions on SJWs, your position is pretty much like pr126's position on one specific religious group and you just ant to be a part of a football team. You are acting like an extreme SJW yourself and when you see something you don't like, you start to throw insults with no base. And what is worst you are doing that with mod talk, by demonising that poster, in this case me, about their general character and everything they do, what people think about them. That's not criticism. That's not analysis. That's an attempt of bullying someone. Unsuccessful as it is, an attempt nonetheless. You have amde more posts about me than what you think about the subject in this thread and they are all the same post. You have been writing the same post to me.

I actually agree with a lot of your points... but ok. If you insist, I don't. The most of what I've disagreed with you recently is if you were on topic and my expression of bafflement on why you insist on arguing about something no one is even discussing or at the least, showing signs of disagreement with.

QuoteOh I am done with you. You are a random mod. That's a loss for you wether if you get it or not. That doesn't mean I won't adress your bullshit you keep throwing on me right now. You have an assumed idea on my opinion(s) on the subject -whole gender issues actually- and you see me as a target to throw to your frustration at. Just think about the  difference between your reaction to me and Nonsensei. We are saying the same thing in similar ways. And that happened the same before multiple times.

So.... you aren't done with me, if you're going to keep responding to things I post. Who is really spewing bullshit here? And you're calling me toxic... lol

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 11, 2016, 02:47:50 PM
yes. There is already neutral words like "they". That is fine. And in all seriousness, if someone wants to use "ze", they have their right to say it.
The issue isn't the words; it's the forcing and legislated fines if you don't.

Ok, I'm confused. So wanting to be called "they" is fine? Receiving a settlement for harassment like smearing Vaseline, yelling insults  and being prevented from using the bathroom is fine? But the two together is the

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 08:38:13 PM
death of the first amendment

?
While you are clearing things up for me, does Canada's  Bill C-16 actually punish people for refusing

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:24:30 PM
to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun

or not?
Do you actually care about the veracity of these claims or do you just want a cudgel to use against SJWs?

Quote from: Poison Tree on December 11, 2016, 03:08:06 PM
Ok, I'm confused. So wanting to be called "they" is fine? Receiving a settlement for harassment like smearing Vaseline, yelling insults  and being prevented from using the bathroom is fine? But the two together is the ?
While you are clearing things up for me, does Canada's  Bill C-16 actually punish people for refusing  or not?
Do you actually care about the veracity of these claims or do you just want a cudgel to use against SJWs?

I also said they can add it to the dictionary, if they want to make it an official part of our english vocabulary.
SJWs make new words every week. It's impossible for anyone that isn't involved in the extreme left to keep up, and it's ridiculous to enforce a law that punishes people that use a different set of wording.

It's very similar to the hijab. I personally think the hijab is a shitty piece of headwear that is oppressive to the people that wear it... BUT I am passionately against the idea of a ban against hijabs and similar islamic headwear.
Muslims have the right to express themselves religiously whether anyone or even a vast majority agrees with their beliefs or not. That is what first amendment is.

Similarly, if some extreme left sjw wants to use some new word from tumblr to describe themself, they have the right to do so. Fining people for not using that word is facism. It is an assault on on the first amendment in the disguise of protection from harassment. Letting these laws happen, as little as they may seem, it slowly creeps up in to a full fascist state where no one can say anything. It leaks and opens the field for more groups to play the professional victim card, which is already happening. This isn't just about xe or xir. It's actually not about the words they want to use at all. It's about punishment for using/not using words, which is an assault on freedom of speech.

Wanting to be called "they" is fine. Wanting to be called "xe" is fine. Demanding to be called anything and having the other person punished and fined if they don't comply is not. It's fascism.

We could declare that all English words are equally offensive to the N word ... and so everyone can be made to STFU.  Snowflakes ;-(

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 08:18:18 PM
We could declare that all English words are equally offensive to the N word ... and so everyone can be made to STFU.  Snowflakes ;-(

Lol

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 02:38:27 PM
Off topic, but important in the larger picture ...

"The world will be changed and overhauled many many times over and over again." ... of course, it matters who's baklava is being stomped on ;-)

There is a wide spread theory that one of the reason why the Roman Empire failed in the West, was thru corruption and mismanagement.  The East was much better managed, less corrupt and had the advantage of the Egyptian grain supply (which ended with Islam, and pretty much doomed the Byzantines, though they could partly compensate by ramping up grain imports from the Ukraine, though that was eventually disrupted too).  It took awhile for W Roman Empire to fail, about 250 years .. things changed more slowly back then).  The barbarians were merely taking advantage of a regional systemic collapse, something they couldn't do until after 391 CE.

So the West must fail, because reality will spank people who are delusional, who are not fact based, not reality based.  This can be kept at bay, for awhile, thanks to injections of fake liquidity (as happened in Rome from 200 CE onward).  Eventually people are forced back to barter, like what is happening in Greece and India right now.  But that liquidity is necessary for civilization higher than agricultural subsistence.  Thus the Roman cities of the West were gradually abandoned, even Rome itself.  Right now in the US, about 90% of us are urban ... when we have to cycle back to Dark Ages subsistence, we will have to lose about 90% of our population, since they will be useless mouths to feed.  This of course works in Turkey too, and has happened many times before (Ephesus, Smyrna etc).  Are you "close" to subsistence fishing or farming?  If not, your future is bleak, as the inevitable cycle of history repeats.

It wasn't until 19th century London, that any city in the West became what Rome was at its peak in the 2nd century CE. ... that is how long the "depression" lasted ... 1700 years.

Yes, this is true. (By the way, I live in Smyrna. Literally, in the ancient city called Smyrna,lol ) I am somewhat close to subsistance fishing and farming. 

However, the change you are describing is already happenening right now. And while it is happening, it is forcing a change and that change is painted as 'war of religions' or 'war of cultures'. The so called Syria conflict is on based on water crisis, Baruch. But it is as served the bullshit of 'Islamic war on the West.'

What you are wrong about in my opinion is defining that change which has been constant the entire time as something determinate with certain conclusions; you are comparing -again- ancient civilisations and their relationships to present day ones and expressing that change today as 'failure or collapse' as opposed to 'rise'. Roman Empire -as you know perfectly- was just a central power zone. It's just an Empire. Like many others. Aztec, Chinese, Egyptian, Ottoman, British, European, American, ...etc. And in that period the entire 'global economy' was limited to an Empire's power of conquering one place and using it as resource deposit, today while this goes on exactly the same, it is only limited to certain resources, and the rest is on trade - int. politics, because our power and variety of production have changed dramatically since then. If American economy fails so does ours. (I understand why you often compare these two worlds -ancient and modern- but I think besides the certain basics, it is incorrect and I never put modern world in a special place saying that.) Now when the latter; modern global economy is in danger other factors comes into play. Agreements, politics, new alliances and blocs. We depend on each other today in an incomparable way.

So what you express as 'failure' of one civilisations it is just redefining the same civilisation with different traits. When Church lost power, the Age of Empires started. When they lost power, the modern state and new central power zones and blocs occured. During this process the West, East, South and North have constantly been redefined. And after that many times over. New generations get born into new versions of these power zones and it will be the Western culture then. Same goes with others. And they will all complain about the 'failure' of their civilisation and how 'the end is nigh' in their own time. Humans are doing this since they invented the concept of 'the end is nigh' themselves in every period of history. 

To see all this process; development of humanity as 'collapse' of a certain culture actually tells what was wrong to begin with and it is a form of 'religious' thinking. When I say the world is going to get hauled over, I mean it literally. The demography, migration, lack of basic resources will haul the world over. Just 200 years ago world population was less than 1 billion. Less than 1 billion. For thousands of years population grew slowly and then it dramatically jumped for many reasons we all know. 200 years is a very miniscule, tiny fraction of 'time', hell 10 000 years is a tiny fraction of time and sometimes I think people forget that even if they are aware of the historical concept of time in earth scale. (I am not saying universe, I am saying earth.)

In short, the idea that a certain civilisation or culture will collapse and stop being what it is supposed to be in course of humanity resulting an active role to change it fundamentally is a perception of one individual's idea of civilisation as he knows-see of his own. A perception that can very easily shaped and manipulated completely outside of reality for every mass of people in every culture. Besides being the greatest bullshit, it's very arrogant, Baruch. Not to mention ignorant. Western civilisation, Mestern civilisation. What do you really think is going to happen to the world when Western civilisation changes or in your words 'collapses'?



On 17 of August 1999 at 03:02 am, I was awake and roughly 100km away from the center when the Northern Anatolian Fault Zone produced an earthquake at the magnitude of 7.6. Nothing happened to me or to my family. I was just scared as hell. I will never ever forget that. Not because of the loss of life, because that 45 seconds is a very tiny scale reminder of how small we really are, how fragile, how NEW and clueless. How incredibly insignificant in nature, just in this tiny planet's scale. The ultimate truth. There is nothing to beat that. Nothing.

Please take a step back and appreciate the ridiculousness of evaluating one civilisation's 'rise' or 'collapse' on earth as the key influence on humanity's 'fate' and also then compare that with people who are preaching that SJW movement is result of Cultural Marxism and the slow 'end' of their civilisation. (Is there a word in English that combines severe stupidity, narcissism and arrogance at the same time?) I am putting the Earth Clock here for inspiration.



(https://i2.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Time_Clock.gif?fit=620%2C587&ssl=1)

If I don't believe in teleology, Manifest Destiny nor progress ... in what way am I positing anything other than random change?  It isn't two steps forward and one step back even ... but one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back ... basically fatalism denies human agency, and I can never accept that.  So that is one good reason why I can't accept Marx (not that means of production isn't important).  However there are phase transitions ... the Roman Empire arising and falling wasn't, in the long term, just one more day pretty much like the last otherwise Smyrna 1920 wouldn't have happened, and you would be more likely speaking Greek or Armenian.  Heraclitus, from nearly Ephesus, would deny the existence of continuity too.  Would you be less secure if this were 1920, and the Greeks pushed the Turks out of W Anatolia and into E Anatolia?  It is easy to speak, if history happened to run your way..

I knew you vacationed opposite Chios, but didn't know that was your home area.

We have only had regional collapse in history before, not worldwide ... except for Mt Tambora.  The various megadroughts since then have nearly killed off humanity too.  I have been thru many earthquakes of smaller size (thanks to fracking) ... most recently 5.0 scale.  Made you realize people are just nits?  That may comfort you.

Today ... given the importance of the West as consumers ... Chinese and Indian laborers will be severely impacted, because their states can't survive on domestic consumption alone.  This is aside from the cultural loss (and yes, I don't consider Indian or Chinese culture, both socialist today, as at all equivalent.  I am much less chauvinist than others here, because I am an "outsider" on the inside.

Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 06:41:20 AM
If I don't believe in teleology, Manifest Destiny nor progress ... in what way am I positing anything other than random change?  It isn't two steps forward and one step back even ... but one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back ... basically fatalism denies human agency, and I can never accept that.  So that is one good reason why I can't accept Marx (not that means of production isn't important).

You realise that the planet is a limited places with limited resources, right? There is no need of any ideology -which by the way you are treating as some artificial factors themselves. If you are positing random change why you sound as if they are conscious turning points determined by 'cultures' in a linear development?

No forwards or backwards. Best it cuold be defined as 'irregular' circles...but on and on it is just shapes that never fit in human geometric definitions. It's not a matter of accepting or not accepting. Nobody is at the wheel. There is no wheel. It's a delusion porvided by the very short existence of our species.

QuoteHowever there are phase transitions ... the Roman Empire arising and falling wasn't, in the long term, just one more day pretty much like the last otherwise Smyrna 1920 wouldn't have happened, and you would be more likely speaking Greek or Armenian.

No. Smyrna 1920 is a typical event in every Empire's collapse. The Ottoman Empire along with European force and US assistance was defeated by Turks. Even if it was unsuccessful, I wouldn't be speaking Greek or Armenian, I would BE SPEAKING ENGLISH. The region would be a British colony. while they influenced it a lot racing against the French AND the German, they both lost Turkey to America.

Now let's check your historical perspective. You keep saying Greece. What Greece? Ottomans conquered Eastern Roman Empire, the Empire that has ruled over people who spoke some sort of a Greek dialect, for 1100 years. And they have lived under Ottoman rule for more than 350 years, that's roughly 150 years more than the entire existence of the United States. Symrna has ceased to exist centuries ago, but you are talking about it as if it fell yesterday.

QuoteHeraclitus, from nearly Ephesus, would deny the existence of continuity too.  Would you be less secure if this were 1920, and the Greeks pushed the Turks out of W Anatolia and into E Anatolia?  It is easy to speak, if history happened to run your way..

Again who are these Greeks pushing Turks of Anatolia? Who are these Turks? Turks' consciousness of nationality, exported from Europe and applied after the Independence War when the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923. They started as a rebel army fighting to collapse their monarch. Basically soldier comes and unites the 'local people' and tell them, they are Turks and they need to fight for their independence. They follow him. The thing you all Westerners miss that OTTOMANS DO NOT ACCEPT THEMSELVES AS TURKS. Turks are the lowest class of workers, the word Turk is synonym for 'hired hand' in Ottoman Culture. And the Ottoman Empire is just a cake to divide and share for Europeans, to colonise.

You are speaking with a tone that equates the cultural inheritence defined as Western roots; something literally invented and written down in 19th century, what we name as Ancient Greece as if they have had any organic connection with the Greeks or the Greek culture for roughly the last 1500 years as opposed to some other culture's camp. Do you think Greeks and Armenians and Turks have different cultures? LOL

Do you understand the difference between the history 'made' and taught to Western children for over a 100 years now in terms of 'discovering America' versus 'invading America' -as an anlogy- and its consequences? This is the course of your thought in defining civilisations in different camps and see the path of humanity as a linear development with turning points based on the collapse of one camp, in this case the Western civilisation.

It is far away from reality as possible. It's centripetal and centrifugal forces constantly moving altogether like a huge irregular kaleidoscope of shades of grey.

QuoteI knew you vacationed opposite Chios, but didn't know that was your home area.

I live in the Aeagean Site. It's beautiful and still is not touched by the religious gov. Yet.

QuoteWe have only had regional collapse in history before, not worldwide ... except for Mt Tambora.  The various megadroughts since then have nearly killed off humanity too.  I have been thru many earthquakes of smaller size (thanks to fracking) ... most recently 5.0 scale.  Made you realize people are just nits?  That may comfort you.

It's an unbelievably scary and humbling experience without getting any harm. Cannot even imagine to really live it through. I don't think people are just nits, before 7.6, I enjoyed earthquakes, I had had many around 5.0. Don't mock nature. There is no winning.

QuoteToday ... given the importance of the West as consumers ... Chinese and Indian laborers will be severely impacted, because their states can't survive on domestic consumption alone.  This is aside from the cultural loss (and yes, I don't consider Indian or Chinese culture, both socialist today, as at all equivalent.  I am much less chauvinist than others here, because I am an "outsider" on the inside.

Well you are in for a surprise. As I said we are much tightly tied togther in every sense than we were ever in history before.

Love your anthropology.  So Turks were still purely tribal all the way into the 20th century?  I didn't realize that the Sublime Porte was so ... fragmented.

Yes, the idea of civilization is ideological.  You have to have ideology to unify people enough to create a civilization, or to control the narrative to keep it going.  And all ideology is bullshit.  So yes, no such thing as Western, Eastern or Civilization.  But you are too meta still, you pretend that ideology isn't real, when it is very real to the extent that people believe it.

I am not saying that a collapse of industry in E and S Asia would leave the US unaffected ... the opposite .. that a collapse of Europe and the US and Japan ... would have a negative impact on E and S Asia.  The very connectedness of economies is what brings them down.  If they stay at subsistence level, without cities, they are very stable (see ancient Egypt).  The Egyptians had palace/temple economies, but no cities.  The palace and the temple acted as the oligopoly corporations (same as in Babylonia).  But cities were unnecessary, to provide luxury goods ... only for the palace and temple.  Also technology was simple enough, the agriculture didn't depend on city technology (as it does today).

Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
Love your anthropology. So Turks were still purely tribal all the way into the 20th century?  I didn't realize that the Sublime Porte was so ... fragmented.

What do you mean by 'purely tribal'? Turks are moving momads without any written and settled down civilisation back ground. It basically took centuries for them to get into a settled down life. And another reason why they left every 'state' to their own development in this sense. (Example: If you go around in old Ottoman land -which is huge- you wouldn't be able to draw a common characteristic of Ottoman Architecture. Ottoman language; is old turkish mixed with farsi and arabic written in arabic alphabet but completely different language. Very few people understand it) There are still moving clans of tens of thousands in Anatolia today. British likes to make politics with them. Now imagine 21st century and there is a 90 K clan that moves around in summer and winter directed by one man. )

Ottoman is the only one dynasty of an Empire; one family in a system without any aristocratic class whatsoever. Sultan do not get married, do not take Turkish women as wives so there wouldn't be right to throne or inheritence. It's legal for a Sultan to kill his male siblings doesn't matter how many after crowned so the Empire wouldn't get divided. It's the fucking law.

Sublime Porte is an architectural symbol of it. Porte. You are talking about the Emperial Gate of the palace.

QuoteYes, the idea of civilization is ideological.  You have to have ideology to unify people enough to create a civilization, or to control the narrative to keep it going.  And all ideology is bullshit.  So yes, no such thing as Western, Eastern or Civilization.  But you are too meta still, you pretend that ideology isn't real, when it is very real to the extent that people believe it.

How is it that I pretend that ideology doesn't exist. Will you ever stop thinking in theistic terms?

Ideology is neither a supernatural virus nor a ghost infecting people by physical contact or air and water, Baruch. There is nothing, literally NOTHING in this world that doesn't have a rational explanation or nothing that is not connected to reality through basic human condition and survival.

Ideology, like religion only works if it spreads on the fertile ground. In an educated, healthy, highly prospered society you'll find it very hard to manipulate people with religious or political ideologies. Here is a suitable anology for American culture. Think about it like a movie scenario, if you can't make it 'real' in the movie, it doesn2t work. It's just floating around. There has to be a constructed reality for it to work.

A state's power over its people in his ability to wage wars and gain victory against the enemies it creates. This doesn't require some special ideology. It only requires isolated, national-religiious societies which is what the human culture is made of. Since the central militarisation took off which is far before than the Roman Empire or Western civlisation even existed.

QuoteI am not saying that a collapse of industry in E and S Asia would leave the US unaffected ... the opposite .. that a collapse of Europe and the US and Japan ... would have a negative impact on E and S Asia.  The very connectedness of economies is what brings them down.  If they stay at subsistence level, without cities, they are very stable (see ancient Egypt). The Egyptians had palace/temple economies, but no cities.  The palace and the temple acted as the oligopoly corporations (same as in Babylonia).  But cities were unnecessary, to provide luxury goods ... only for the palace and temple.  Also technology was simple enough, the agriculture didn't depend on city technology (as it does today).

OK. I get it better now. But outcome is the same.

Over all, tribal kind of life -it is very important in this sense- doesn't just work subsistence farming level, it also works with sharing of the resources and those immediate products. This is how the most of the Eastern and Middle Eastern societies work. Life is far less individual, far less professional and far less corporate. Every system has its cons and pros; because they are all honed to provide the survival of the majority. There are also positive 'side effects' of underdevelop systems. People are forced to survive with different set of rules. Being tribal is the very definition this base actually. 

If the world is reduced to a ground of that balance being broken the way you describe, East won't have the same scale of trouble with the West. But West has other things to trade for besides the military superiority. Technology, medicine.

So in the end, nothing is collapsing, but changing in an organic process.

Ah yes, the organic process where the king of the Huns drinks the blood of the Gothic king, out of a cup made from the skull of the Gothic king?  Sorry, I can't romanticize organic processes.  Too much compost.