Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

All I've seen is generalisations, stereotypes and far more claim than substance. The post referring to females being withdrawn from school was one of the first to actually refer to a specific genuine issue. If you wish to discuss it further, please fire ahead.

I'm just surprised I have to go back to first principles in an atheist forum which has the view that societies where most people are reasonably secular will tend to be more successful. Islam is the worst of the major religions for enforcing gender roles on women . if that is news to you im glad to be able to point is out. If you knew this already then your posting style is peculiar. If we had some moderate Muslims posting here they would be less defensive than you are

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

I'm just surprised I have to go back to first principles in an atheist forum which has the view that societies where most people are reasonably secular will tend to be more successful. Islam is the worst of the major religions for enforcing gender roles on women . if that is news to you im glad to be able to point is out. If you knew this already then your posting style is peculiar. If we had some moderate Muslims posting here they would be less defensive than you are

It is, yes.

jackofalltrades

Taken from this thread and originally posted by BoJack Hoseman and Biko.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-police-are-not-allowed-to-give-descriptions-of-alleged-criminals-so-as-not-to-sound-racist-a6810311.html

Seems like Sweden has totally lost the run of itself.

Swedish police will no longer be able to give descriptions of alleged criminals for fear of being seen as racist.

According to an internal letter, police in capital city Stockholm are instructed to refrain from describing suspects' race and nationality, according to news website Speisa.

Local newspaper Svenska Dagbadet reported it had seen the letter, which it said outlined how officers should now notify the public of crimes.

Sweden has done so much for refugees. Now it's turned its back on them
The crimes “involve everything from lighter traffic accidents to serious crimes like muggings, beatings and murder,” the paper reported.

The letter specifies that, for everyday crimes such as burglary, basic information such as ethnicity, nationality, skin colour and height should not be given.

And another poster explained just how ridiculous it can get.

biko wrote: »

When police have given a description of a criminal they have been battered by the media about it, so they just became PC enough for the media to back off.

Swedish media are so PC they will even put a photo in the paper - "the police is looking for this person" - and then they pixel the image so no-one can see who it is!


They even go so far as to "white pixel" photos. This means they use light pixling so a black person appears white. Examples:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/ace0390dad44f8e91cd71714d92f226c/tumblr_mymi8zB8Ut1s87hito6_r1_540.jpg
https://cdn2.cdnme.se/cdn/6-2/1473096/images/2010/vitpixling_85301244.jpg
https://40.media.tumblr.com/bb554a005522ec22f2238b86f9ff2dde/tumblr_mymi8zB8Ut1s87hito9_1280.jpg
http://36.media.tumblr.com/40dbca80d83371c787069f6f4d56580e/tumblr_mymi8zB8Ut1s87hito3_r1_1280.jpg


To be honest, if you think right-wing people are obsessed with skin colour you haven't met the Swedish left-wing media!

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And another poster explained just how ridiculous it can get.

....with a load of unsourced pictures with no textual source to back them up.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

....with a load of unsourced pictures with no textual source to back them up.

Loads of exmaples on Expressen.se.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/thomas-mattsson-darfor-visar-vi-bilder-pa-alm/
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/john-osnes-55-foll-offer-for-svensken/
http://www.expressen.se/noje/svenske-artisten-haktad-for-mord/
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/16-aring-atalas-for-mord-pa-miljonar/

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Loads of exmaples on Expressen.se.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/thomas-mattsson-darfor-visar-vi-bilder-pa-alm/
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/john-osnes-55-foll-offer-for-svensken/
http://www.expressen.se/noje/svenske-artisten-haktad-for-mord/
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/16-aring-atalas-for-mord-pa-miljonar/

One paper was doing it, and stopped in 2009. The two examples you have there are from 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pixelization

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

One paper was doing it, and stopped in 2009. The two examples you have there are from 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pixelization

If they stopped doing it in 2009, then why is the first article dated 2010?

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If they stopped doing it in 2009, then why is the first article dated 2010?

The article actually explains why they pixelated it, deals with the accusations, and states it has nothing to do with race or political correctness. Google translate, though clunky and not to my taste, gives a relatively readable version.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

The article actually explains why they pixelated it, deals with the accusations, and states it has nothing to do with race or political correctness. Google translate, though clunky and not to my taste, gives a relatively readable version.

If you're going to quote a question that I asked at least try and answer the question.
Your claim that they stopped in 2009 is incorrect.
The Wiki article you linked to doesn't explain anything.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you're going to quote a question that I asked at least try and answer the question.
Your claim that they stopped in 2009 is incorrect.
The Wiki article you linked to doesn't explain anything.

They did. Your article, that you linked, explains what was going on with the photo in it.

jackofalltrades

Founder of charity Care4Calais has some career advice for Truckers.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6860566/Fury-after-Calais-migrant-charity-chief-says-Brit-lorry-drivers-should-change-jobs.html

A CHARITY boss has sparked fury by saying lorry drivers worried about being targeted by migrants in Calais should get a new job instead.

Care4Calais chief Clare Moseley said Brit truckers had a "safe future" and even if they had to ditch driving for a living because they were afraid of being attacked in the French port it was "not the end of the world".

The charity later apologised after furious haulage bosses slammed her remarks as "absolutely outrageous".

MrPudding

Don't know a lot about this guy, but the article seems reasonable enough.

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Don't know a lot about this guy, but the article seems reasonable enough.

MrP

I'm of two minds on the whole Cecil Rhodes sort of thing. The fact of the matter is he was a racist scumbag and had he been around today, marked down as a notorious war criminal. While I wouldn't like to remove him from history, I would have a hard time leaving him in a place of prominence as if he was some sort of laudable figure.

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

Don't know a lot about this guy, but the article seems reasonable enough.

MrP

wonderful quote from Louise Richardson in that article

“Education is not meant to be comfortable,” she said. “Education should be about confronting ideas you find really objectionable, figuring out why it is you find them objectionable, fashioning a reasoned argument against them, confronting the person you disagree with and trying to change their mind, being open to them changing your mind. That isn’t a comfortable experience, but it is a very educational one.”

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

wonderful quote from Louise Richardson in that article

Yes, I had meant to quote that specifically but suddenly realised I was extremely lazy. To me that more or less sums it up and why this kind of thing should be fought.

MrP

silverharp

lol


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430344/university-oregon-martin-luther-king-quote-inclusive

U of Oregon Students Debated Removing MLK Quote from Wall Because It Wasn’t Inclusive Enough

It says nothing about discrimination based on gender identity! Student leaders at the University of Oregon considered removing a famous Martin Luther King Jr. quote from a wall on its student center on the grounds that it was just not inclusive enough — because it talked only about racial discrimination and not discrimination based on stuff like gender identity. The quote has been displayed at the Erb Memorial Union (which is currently being renovated) since 1985. It’s probably something that you’ve heard before — “I have a dream that my four little children that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream . . .” — without even thinking that it might be problematic. But that’s because you’re just not as smart or culturally aware as these kids. “Diversity is so much more than race,” sophomore Mia Ashley told the Daily Emerald, the school’s official student newspaper.

JPNelsforearm

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/28/barbie-finally-becomes-a-real-girl-with-more-realistic-figure-and-skin-colours

"We believe we have a responsibility to girls and parents to reflect a broader view of beauty."

Barbie to embrace diversity and teach positive body image and transpeciesism by becoming a whale.

The embracing of different body types was welcomed by several charities who champion healthy body image

More work for busybodies with made up degrees, change it ban it, shout it down protest, cry, but never invent the change you want, its always someone elses responsibility.

This whole thing about kids toys is sad, this drive for diversity and reality, so they make them mediocre. My favourite toy as a kid was this skeleton in military fatigues, a beret and sunglasses. Kids dont give a **** about any of this, they pick out toys they like and play with them.

recedite

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

My favourite toy as a kid was this skeleton in military fatigues, a beret and sunglasses.

Was that the Gerry Adams doll?
I think Barbies marketing dept. have only reacted to a change in the market.
Its a bit embarassing to be castigated by another parent for allowing your own child to have a sexist Barbie. So now parents can buy the new versions without fear of recrimination.

JPNelsforearm

Richard Dawkins dropped from science event for retweeting video slagging feminists and Islamists

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html

"We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organisations."


We are in favour of freedom of speech...apart from when you hurt feelings...pathetic.

Here is the song LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Richard Dawkins dropped from science event for retweeting video slagging feminists and Islamists

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html

"We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organisations."


We are in favour of freedom of speech...apart from when you hurt feelings...pathetic.

Here is the song LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

I think that the video was made in response to this situation from a few months back?

"On Monday, Islamic apostate Maryam Namazie spoke at Golsdmith University to the university's Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society. Unfortunately, she ran into predictable bother with Goldsmiths Islamic Society (ISOC) involving allegations of intimidation and violence, a violently disrupted talk, while in fact suggesting that the university should be a "safe space""



"Goldsmiths Feminist Society stands in solidarity with Goldsmiths Islamic Society. We support them in condemning the actions of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society and agree that hosting known islamophobes at our university creates a climate of hatred.

We showed our support on our Facebook page by sharing ISOC’s post with a message of solidarity. Our Facebook page is designed as a space for us to communicate with our members, and their safety is our first priority, under the policies set out by our Student Union. We reserve the right to remove comments and posts that violate these terms or contribute to the marginalisation of students. "

KomradeBishop

Dawkins says about the video "Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious." - then why in the hell is he passing the video on, when it's explicitly aimed at generalizing about feminists?

He's been making some really dumb faux-pas' in the last year or two. Not that I pay attention to him at all, I don't regard him as notable - but even despite that, I've noticed this.


To his credit though, he is aware of and acknowledges that it is not representative of the majority of feminists - so-many people do not spot the very simple fallacy in nearly all of the anti-feminist propaganda that's being put out in the last number of years:
Unsubstantiated/unproven Generalizations about feminists overall.

It's remarkable how many people spouting that kind of stuff, do not understand how it is fallacious to generalize like that, without substantional non-anecdotal evidence, showing that the generalization is justified.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Dawkins says about the video "Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious." - then why in the hell is he passing the video on, when it's explicitly aimed at generalizing about feminists?

He's been making some really dumb faux-pas' in the last year or two. Not that I pay attention to him at all, I don't regard him as notable - but even despite that, I've noticed this.


To his credit though, he is aware of and acknowledges that it is not representative of the majority of feminists - so-many people do not spot the very simple fallacy in nearly all of the anti-feminist propaganda that's being put out in the last number of years:
Unsubstantiated/unproven Generalizations about feminists overall.

It's remarkable how many people spouting that kind of stuff, do not understand how it is fallacious to generalize like that, without substantional non-anecdotal evidence, showing that the generalization is justified.

people get bored of the "no true Scots feminist" argument . Even if you park the real nutters like Julie Bindel for instance , feminists tend not to interested in egalitarianism and the latter day 3rd and 4th wave feminists are daft. its an ideology which is getting more extreme and coming up with insane proposals. and you dont see "the real feminists" being critical of the extremists so I see that as tacit agreement.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

people get bored of the "no true Scots feminist" argument . Even if you park the real nutters like Julie Bindel for instance , feminists tend not to interested in egalitarianism and the latter day 3rd and 4th wave feminists are daft. its an ideology which is getting more extreme and coming up with insane proposals. and you dont see "the real feminists" being critical of the extremists so I see that as tacit agreement.

Take any minority group within Ireland - the most extreme of Republican nutters, who want to go to war with Britain, for example - and then generalize them as being representative of your average Irishman.

That's the basic fallacy in all of the anti-feminist propaganda, except applied to *insert radical/stupid-sounding minority feminist argument here* as representing 'Feminists' in general.

Nobody excludes the radical feminists, from falling under the 'Feminist' label - so that's a false-application of the no-true-scotsman fallacy - the thing that issue is being taken with, is the generalization from a minority group, to the whole - something which (just by acknowledging the minority being a subgroup of the whole) makes the no-true-scotsman fallacy completely inapplicable.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Take any minority group within Ireland - the most extreme of Republican nutters, who want to go to war with Britain, for example - and then generalize them as being representative of your average Irishman.

That's the basic fallacy in all of the anti-feminist propaganda, except applied to *insert radical/stupid-sounding minority feminist argument here* as representing 'Feminists' in general.

Nobody excludes the radical feminists, from falling under the 'Feminist' label - so that's a false-application of the no-true-scotsman fallacy - the thing that issue is being taken with, is the generalization from a minority group, to the whole - something which (just by acknowledging the minority being a subgroup of the whole) makes the no-true-scotsman fallacy completely inapplicable.

the point is what feminists ought one be listening to? , who is the "Gerry Adams" of feminism? the radical feminists are loons, the intersectional feminist are loons, the last feminist I could actually listen to is Camille Paglia but she would probably be no platformed :pac:

even take the Abbey Theatre debacle where the manager lad had to check his privilege because of the lack of female written productions, it was all feelz and no hard questions just a feminist friendly media which rarely challenges whats being said

PopePalpatine

silverharp wrote: »

people get bored of the "no true Scots feminist" argument . Even if you park the real nutters like Julie Bindel for instance , feminists tend not to interested in egalitarianism and the latter day 3rd and 4th wave feminists are daft. its an ideology which is getting more extreme and coming up with insane proposals. and you dont see "the real feminists" being critical of the extremists so I see that as tacit agreement.

As cringeworthy as radfems/SJWs are, do you have any data to suggest a majority of moderate feminists (seeing as you want to "park the real nutters", i.e. radfems/SJWs) aren't interested in egalitarianism?

I'd say that in general, MRAs/"red pillers" aren't interested in egalitarianism either TBH.

KomradeBishop

Here we go - empirical evidence about the number of people in the US, who self-identify as feminist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

If the polling is taken as accurate, up to 60% of women in the US self-identify as feminist - creating a massive barrier for providing burden-of-proof, if anyone wants to justify any generalization about feminists overall.

If we take a valid generalization, as being a majority view, that'd mean >30% of women in the US would need to hold a view, and would need to self-identify as feminist, in order to successfully generalize that view to feminists overall.

Shows pretty clearly that all of the anti-feminist material, attributing cherry-picked extreme views to 'feminists' in general, is just propaganda aimed at straw-manning/smearing the entire movement.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

As cringeworthy as radfems/SJWs are, do you have any data to suggest a majority of moderate feminists (seeing as you want to "park the real nutters", i.e. radfems/SJWs) aren't interested in egalitarianism?

my wife says she is a feminist and there is nothing I would disagree with her on, because I can tell she is coming at it from an equity position. what comes through the media is not about equality. So for instance when the Abbey thing was on the news my wife turned to me and said "..but dont they have to put on productions that will make money?" whereas the media position was just one way traffic and parking privilege.
in the public sphere if moderate feminists were interested in egalitarianism they would challenge the positions which seem to be based on misandry or where the law is lopsided in favour of women. I dont see it, I see a movement which is devisive and where everyone is staying silent.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd say that in general, MRAs/"red pillers" aren't interested in egalitarianism either TBH.

as much as I understand about MRAs it revolves around perceived unfairness in family courts. I dont know the details but an egalitarian would want fairness and not treat one gender more favourabilty? as for "red pillers", thats more an internet meme. to compare it to feminism which owns the media, academia and government policies does not stand up.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Here we go - empirical evidence about the number of people in the US, who self-identify as feminist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

If the polling is taken as accurate, up to 60% of women in the US self-identify as feminist - creating a massive barrier for providing burden-of-proof, if anyone wants to justify any generalization about feminists overall.

If we take a valid generalization, as being a majority view, that'd mean >30% of women in the US would need to hold a view, and would need to self-identify as feminist, in order to successfully generalize that view to feminists overall.

Shows pretty clearly that all of the anti-feminist material, attributing cherry-picked extreme views to 'feminists' in general, is just propaganda aimed at straw-manning/smearing the entire movement.

that is ripe for the Yes Minister treatment


http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/

It looks like most people are still allergic to the f-word. In a culture where feminism seems to be gaining momentum, a new poll appears to contradict that notion, showing that only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves feminists. However, 85 percent claimed they believe in “equality for women.” Despite the popular belief in equal rights, 52 percent did not identify as feminist, 26 percent were unsure, and four percent passed on the question.

Ash.J.Williams

jank wrote: »

Remember the time Universities was bastion of free speech and where vigorous debate was encouraged? Well that as so last century. Welcome to 21st century Britain where left wing group think is official university policy, sensitivity courses are 'mandatory' in an effort to screen out 'pre-rape' criminals, page 3 or a pop song can damage students mental wellbeing and where denying people a platform to speak is welcomed.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Robin thicke has no place anywhere.. .in fact he should be executed

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

that is ripe for the Yes Minister treatment


http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/

That's an inferior poll, with the question on feminism being binary yes/no - leading to a very large 26% proportion choosing 'uncertain' - whereas the one I used is on a spectrum strong-feminst/feminist/not-feminist/anti-feminist - with only (combining and halving percentage of both genders) about 9.5% uncertain votes.

The inferior poll also isn't even about feminism, it has the feminism question way down at question 65 - whereas the poll I cite is strictly about feminism, with the above as question 3; it's a far superior and more accurate poll.