Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

Let's see....


According to her Wikipedia writeup, she's a communist, a linguist, a philosopher, a psychoanalyst, a psycholinguist, a sociologist, and a cultural theorist.  This set of traits and areas of academician are almost as damning of her as the fact that modern feminists object to her work not because it's blatant rubbish but because she's perceived to be heteronormative is to them.

And people wonder why those fields of academia aren't taken seriously!  Folks, you want us to take you seriously, start calling out the fuckwads in your field like this!  Don't ignore them and pretend to be surprised when we don't take *you* seriously when you fly the same flag!  And yeah, in other words, because her stuff wasn't stupid enough, basically.

[Ibrahim90]

And the only reason it wasn't already gone is the real reason the Confederacy lost:  It wasn't as far along in industrialization.  In an essentially agricultural economy, with little to no industrial manufacturing or mechanization, the efficiency of slavery isn't lower by enough to strongly discourage it.  Once you get some serious factories going or some real mechanization in farming, the economics of slaveholding, even if you can transfer some portions of the direct costs to your society in general through the use of government, just don't work well enough to compete with those who don't do it.  (Notice that slavery in most jurisdictions goes out within a generation of the general introduction of mechanization in major industries.  That's why the UK was one of the first to do away with it, being one of the origination areas of mechanization.)

the UK's story regarding slavery--especially England's--is kind of weird. Apparently William the Conqueror made it illegal to own a slave on English soil (apparently so he could make money off of now freed thralls), with laws and synods in England upholding this move afterwards. It remained illegal until slavery itself was totally banned in the 1830's. This was upheld in a couple of court cases in the 1770's.

put bluntly, you couldn't own a slave on English soil, but you can have one in the colonies. Industrialization certainly sped the process up of eliminating slavery in the UK, but the roots go back to the dark ages.

Sargon of Akkad coincidentally made a video a while back on the matter.

anyways:



well, I believe in slow, exquisite and painful (for the target) debunking:

-I was unaware that the cosmic speed limit being supremely important to understanding the universe currently blighted by you, was by its nature sexist.
-similarly, I had no idea that trying to understand nature is sexist.
-The above equation is one of a series of equations regarding matter and light; in fact it's not even complete: this is the reduced form of the equation for an object at rest.

next part:

-science has no trouble understanding fluid dynamics: the various classifications of fluids based on viscosity and reaction to physical changes (velocity and force imparted on it) is a good start (E.G. Newtonian, non-Newtonian, Bingham, and Thixotropic). then there are two basic flows: laminar and turbulent flow (you missed laminar). And these are the things related to the branch of geology I studied most (Sedimentology and stratigraphy).
-if you are jealous of guys not being under the rag or "leaking" to the same extent as women, get a sex-change.
-well, yeah: it's kind of hard not to impregnate women without ejaculating. What this has to do with people's desire to study fluid mechanics is beyond me
-no, it doesn't merely conceive fluid flow as just laminar. There are mathematical ways of expressing turbulent flow: it's imperfect, but only because it is impossible to track every last moving particle in a flow. In fact, did this possibility for simplified viewing being a necessity ever occur to you?!
-fluids exist in science as "non-solids"? WTF?
-or you don't know what you're talking about. (her last sentence).

[evensgrey]

Apparently William the Conqueror made it illegal to own a slave on English soil (apparently so he could make money off of now freed thralls)

This is the same man who used Morton's Fork to justify transferring most of the money in England's (mostly newly) established noble's coffers into his personal coffers, so...

-fluids exist in science as "non-solids"? WTF?

Well, there's liquids, and gasses, and plasmas, and electronic and neucleonic degenerate mater states, all of which are fluids in the sense that they have no external shape maintained by their internal structure like a solid has (there's also supercritical fluids and superfluids, which some of the above are or can be) and that's all the states of mater that I've ever heard of beyond solid.  In that sense, the only truly unifying feature of non-solids is that they are all fluids.

[Ibrahim90]

This is the same man who used Morton's Fork to justify transferring most of the money in England's (mostly newly) established noble's coffers into his personal coffers, so...

as mentioned, it was a quick-rich scheme. Man wasn't famed for his scruples (Morton's fork doesn't hold a candle to his destruction of Northern England). I only remarked on this matter since it had an unintended (if good) consequence.

Well, there's liquids, and gasses, and plasmas, and electronic and neucleonic degenerate mater states, all of which are fluids in the sense that they have no external shape maintained by their internal structure like a solid has (there's also supercritical fluids and superfluids, which some of the above are or can be) and that's all the states of mater that I've ever heard of beyond solid.  In that sense, the only truly unifying feature of non-solids is that they are all fluids.

It isn't that she's wrong as such. It's the implication that they are all treated the same...It's a false dichotomy--or at least an incomplete one.

[dallen68]

as mentioned, it was a quick-rich scheme. Man wasn't famed for his scruples (Morton's fork doesn't hold a candle to his destruction of Northern England). I only remarked on this matter since it had an unintended (if good) consequence.

It isn't that she's wrong as such. It's the implication that they are all treated the same...It's a false dichotomy--or at least an incomplete one.

Also, apparently the British Parliament decided that the Navy was going to start attacking slave ships, and any slave would be free if they landed on British soil (including her overseas possessions) in 1772. Which gives me reason to believe that maybe the goals of the American revolution weren't quite as noble as we're led to believe, or at least not entirely.

As for the other thing, if this is that lady that's on about how men are treated like solids and women like liquids, all I can say is: fallacious comparison.

[AnCap Dave]

If feminism isn't about the personal choice a woman makes on how to run her life, then it has no point in existing at all.

[evensgrey]

If feminism isn't about the personal choice a woman makes on how to run her life, then it has no point in existing at all.

Unless you're one of the people SELLING the fall-back to 3rd wave Feminism, which is so completely a 1960's throwback.  When the original 3rd Wavers faded in the 70's and early 80's and the idea that women should choose what they wanted to do came to the front, Feminism did useful things. Now, Josh is just trying to impose his will on as many women as possible, and Anita is just in it to pick their pockets while he does.

[Travis Retriever]

https://www.facebook.com/CopBlockBlock
Please tell me this is a parody page...
Because being a smug douche is that easy when you're the one with the gun and immunity.  Assholes.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

If feminism isn't about the personal choice a woman makes on how to run her life, then it has no point in existing at all.

Great another communist.

[AnCap Dave]

Great another communist.

It's not surprising. Her boyfriend, and the brains behind it all, has denounced capitalism and praised Marx several times.

[MrBogosity]

It's not surprising. Her boyfriend, and the brains behind it all, has denounced capitalism and praised Marx several times.

Hey, now wait a minute, not so fast! This "democratic participatory planning process" might have something to it!

So, like, everyone gets together and votes on what products companies should make, how many, and who gets them.

Of course, that would be overly complex, but we could make it simpler by everybody voting on the products they want. And to make it more efficient, they can vote at any time.

Now, some products are more difficult to make than others. So people could have multiple votes. Some higher-value products require more of a citizen's votes to obtain.

Of course, we want the citizens to contribute to the process as well, so they can be rewarded by doing so. They can receive votes from others, and can then vote for the things that they want.

That way, ANYBODY could get more things just by doing more things for others and getting votes for it!

So, we'll have a system where citizens provide goods or services from others, and in exchange get votes, which they can turn around and exchange for other goods and services.

SO much better than a market!

[Travis Retriever]

Hey, now wait a minute, not so fast! This "democratic participatory planning process" might have something to it!

So, like, everyone gets together and votes on what products companies should make, how many, and who gets them.

Of course, that would be overly complex, but we could make it simpler by everybody voting on the products they want. And to make it more efficient, they can vote at any time.

Now, some products are more difficult to make than others. So people could have multiple votes. Some higher-value products require more of a citizen's votes to obtain.

Of course, we want the citizens to contribute to the process as well, so they can be rewarded by doing so. They can receive votes from others, and can then vote for the things that they want.

That way, ANYBODY could get more things just by doing more things for others and getting votes for it!

So, we'll have a system where citizens provide goods or services from others, and in exchange get votes, which they can turn around and exchange for other goods and services.

SO much better than a market!

Glad I'm not the only one who thought of it this way.
And yeah, something interesting to share with the Venus Project nutbars who want "economic democracy" or whatever.

[evensgrey]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought of it this way.
And yeah, something interesting to share with the Venus Project nutbars who want "economic democracy" or whatever.

I would LOVE to know precisely what could be more democratic than a free market.

[AdeptusHereticus]

I would LOVE to know porecisly what could be more democratic than a free market.

I think that given McIntosh history, it's quite clear that he is thinking about some rule of the majority. Participatory would only mean that you would vote a lot more, and on things that are currently done by the market. Instead of having competition on a free market, you would have competition on a ballot and the rules of the poll would decide who "wins", which would be pretty neat for his side because, as in politics, they would only need to convince the mass the same way politicians do it. As long as you keep partisanship intact, you can keep what you don't like out of society, and even better, you can actually shame people for their personnal choices.
There are people  who align themself with Sarkeesian, him and others and don't understand why the word marxism always end up in the discussion, but really, this kind of feminists do all the work for us ...

[R.E.H.W.R.]

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/proof-male-privilege/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!