Saturday, September 15, 2018
More from the Tolerant and Caring left
Senator Chris Coons glossed over the really horrible things that Chuck Todd said was happening to Republican Senators including Senator Collins, saying that it was “well justified” because these people have deeply irrational fears brought on by media hysteria.
By the standards of both MSNBC and Senate Democrats, it is “well justified” and “passionate” to threaten to rape a Senator’s young, female staffer because of a Supreme Court nominee even the American Bar Association endorsed as “well qualified.”
There is no way this is not going to lead to actual violence.
That would actually be 'more violence', but the point is correct. And then they'll try to blame the victims for it("They had it coming/what did they expect/they scared people!")
That's one solution
I have two dogs. I love them. I love my dogs a lot more than I love socialists. So let this be a warning:
If you implement socialism, causing me to end up on $10 a month in wages so I can’t afford to buy dog food for my dogs. I will not abandon my dogs. I will grind your socialist voting ass into chopped meat and feed you to my dogs.
Forget coffee cups that say “Liberal Tears.” You will end up in a old coffee can marked “Comrade Brand Dog Chow.”
Although the parasite meat should probably be inspected for any other parasites.
If you implement socialism, causing me to end up on $10 a month in wages so I can’t afford to buy dog food for my dogs. I will not abandon my dogs. I will grind your socialist voting ass into chopped meat and feed you to my dogs.
Forget coffee cups that say “Liberal Tears.” You will end up in a old coffee can marked “Comrade Brand Dog Chow.”
Although the parasite meat should probably be inspected for any other parasites.
Y'know, I could get a lot more fun stuff done
if all this stuff that needs to be done didn't keep getting in the way
Friday, September 14, 2018
The NYeffingTimes: all the news
fit to lie about.
The New York Times story parrots the claim of unanimity. But it does so in a way that is not even technically true. Under the headline, Protection of Voting Rights for Minorities Has Fallen Sharply, a New Report Finds, it states that the report’s “key recommendations were unanimously supported by the commission’s eight members—six Democrats and two Republicans.” That is just plain false.
The EUnuchs decided to make a big step toward destroying the internet as anything except a way of spying on/controlling people. One more reason to tell them 'Screw you'.
1. Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.
2. Article 11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. News sites can charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell altogether, effectively giving them the right to choose who can criticise them. Member states are permitted, but not required, to create exceptions and limitations to reduce the harm done by this new right.
And on, and on.
George Young, the man who gave the anti-rights people in Hawaii a serious kick in the balls.
When he started calling lawyers to get representation, none would take his case. He eventually decided to represent himself—and that was the beginning of the struggle that led to his July 24 victory, when the Ninth Circuit ruled Hawaii’s ban on open carry unconstitutional (while declaring a ban on concealed carry still constitutional).
I'll take 'Politicians who need to be flogged' for $1000, Alex.
And last,
Dear Socialist Asshat:
No. HELL no. Go suffer a crotch fire.
Sincerely, etc.
The New York Times story parrots the claim of unanimity. But it does so in a way that is not even technically true. Under the headline, Protection of Voting Rights for Minorities Has Fallen Sharply, a New Report Finds, it states that the report’s “key recommendations were unanimously supported by the commission’s eight members—six Democrats and two Republicans.” That is just plain false.
The EUnuchs decided to make a big step toward destroying the internet as anything except a way of spying on/controlling people. One more reason to tell them 'Screw you'.
1. Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.
2. Article 11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. News sites can charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell altogether, effectively giving them the right to choose who can criticise them. Member states are permitted, but not required, to create exceptions and limitations to reduce the harm done by this new right.
And on, and on.
George Young, the man who gave the anti-rights people in Hawaii a serious kick in the balls.
When he started calling lawyers to get representation, none would take his case. He eventually decided to represent himself—and that was the beginning of the struggle that led to his July 24 victory, when the Ninth Circuit ruled Hawaii’s ban on open carry unconstitutional (while declaring a ban on concealed carry still constitutional).
I'll take 'Politicians who need to be flogged' for $1000, Alex.
And last,
Dear Socialist Asshat:
No. HELL no. Go suffer a crotch fire.
Sincerely, etc.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
From Madam Hoyt on communist malefactors and idiots*
...If you meet a convinced communist and he’s obviously not stupid, then he’s malicious. His greed for power over others is such that he’s
convinced himself he’s using an “altruistic” philosophy to attain it,
and it will, in the end, be for the good of all. The rational, sane
part of him might whisper that this is bullshit, because it can never
happen, and therefore all they get is power to destroy those they hate
and elevate those they like for a time at least, but that rational
sane voice is tiny, and the monstrous ego that believes if everyone
understood Marxism as the communist does and played its part in the
mental play written according to the Marxist exegesis of the communist,
then there would be utopia.
It’s a powerful siren song for the maleducted and ambitious, which explains for instance, Obama, who hated Reagan for causing the fall of the USSR and wanted to undo everything Reagan did, because without Reagan’s intervention, we’d already have achieved utopia.
...
The only way to make everyone act the way some ideologue thinks they should is to have a totalitarian government, a strong police state, a structure of spying on every action, every thought, every idea.
What those utopians are saying is that they want everyone to live in what’s a perfect society FOR THEM. In other words, they want power over your very soul.
I say it’s spinach, and I say to hell with it.
There is no utopia. Some people will be miserable in the wealthiest, cleanest, most considerate society ever. This is also not a conjecture. They are. And they scream about patriarchy and oppression and white supremacy that exist only in their heads.
*Yes yes, I know I'm repeating myself
It’s a powerful siren song for the maleducted and ambitious, which explains for instance, Obama, who hated Reagan for causing the fall of the USSR and wanted to undo everything Reagan did, because without Reagan’s intervention, we’d already have achieved utopia.
The only way to make everyone act the way some ideologue thinks they should is to have a totalitarian government, a strong police state, a structure of spying on every action, every thought, every idea.
What those utopians are saying is that they want everyone to live in what’s a perfect society FOR THEM. In other words, they want power over your very soul.
I say it’s spinach, and I say to hell with it.
There is no utopia. Some people will be miserable in the wealthiest, cleanest, most considerate society ever. This is also not a conjecture. They are. And they scream about patriarchy and oppression and white supremacy that exist only in their heads.
*Yes yes, I know I'm repeating myself
Took a couple of hours and saw Meg yesterday,
pretty good critter movie. There was the obligatory "We can't kill it, we must study it!" moment from one of the scientists, which got me to thinking:
Say you had a megalodon show up, 40-feet long and hungry.
A: HOW do you plan to study it?
B: How many whales are you willing to sacrifice to keep it around? Because that's the only sea life out there big enough to be suitable prey for something like that.
One of those things I wish they'd had some character ask.
Say you had a megalodon show up, 40-feet long and hungry.
A: HOW do you plan to study it?
B: How many whales are you willing to sacrifice to keep it around? Because that's the only sea life out there big enough to be suitable prey for something like that.
One of those things I wish they'd had some character ask.
Well, either I've got a cold, or
it's sinus/allergy crap trying to kill me.
I bloody hate having a runny nose.
I bloody hate having a runny nose.
Monday, September 10, 2018
No, those numbers don't look good for the anti-rights people
Of course, they wouldn't be there; they plan to send other people to take the risks.
I’ve seen analyses of the long odds the U.S. government would face if it ever attempted to confiscate civilian firearms before. The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny seems like a particularly well done example.
The authors compute that under very generous assumptions there are about 83000 door-knockers available to perform confiscation raids. Dividing that into the estimated number of semiautomatic rifles in the U.S. and assuming that each raid would net three rifles confiscated (which I think is optimistic in the raiders’ favor) each doorknocker would have to execute and survive 864 raids in order for the entire stock of rifles to be seized.
Notice that we’re not even addressing the far larger stock of handguns and other weapons yet. But I’m willing to tilt the conditions of the argument in the confiscators’ favor, because that makes the conclusion more difficult for them to rebut.
I’ve seen analyses of the long odds the U.S. government would face if it ever attempted to confiscate civilian firearms before. The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny seems like a particularly well done example.
The authors compute that under very generous assumptions there are about 83000 door-knockers available to perform confiscation raids. Dividing that into the estimated number of semiautomatic rifles in the U.S. and assuming that each raid would net three rifles confiscated (which I think is optimistic in the raiders’ favor) each doorknocker would have to execute and survive 864 raids in order for the entire stock of rifles to be seized.
Notice that we’re not even addressing the far larger stock of handguns and other weapons yet. But I’m willing to tilt the conditions of the argument in the confiscators’ favor, because that makes the conclusion more difficult for them to rebut.
Weapons malfunctions in terrorist/active shooter attacks
Lot more common than I would have thought. And I wonder why?
I can see some nutcase not taking care of tools, but you'd think a terrorist would want to make sure they worked.
I can see some nutcase not taking care of tools, but you'd think a terrorist would want to make sure they worked.
Sunday, September 09, 2018
It finally stopped raining today,
after a final 'mist all over everything' morning. My problem is that something(mold? fungus? alien spores?) has taken off in all this moisture and I've been doing the stuffed-head/clogged & running nose thing for three days now. And it sucks.
In lieu of anything else, I present to you
In lieu of anything else, I present to you
Thou Shalt Not Publish A Politically-Incorrect Paper
Or Else.
This started with
No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. “As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”
Translation: "The peasants might not be able to deal with this, so shut up."
Which continued to
On September 4, Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that “women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias.” Sergei said he had spent “endless hours” talking to people who explained that the paper was “bad and harmful” and tried to convince him to “withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have.” Ominously, “analogies with scientific racism were made by some; I am afraid, we are likely to hear more of it in the future.”
"Dump this paper, or we'll ruin you."
This is what 'science' has come to with activists: "Say/publish things we don't like, and we'll destroy you and your life."
This started with
No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. “As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”
Translation: "The peasants might not be able to deal with this, so shut up."
Which continued to
On September 4, Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that “women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias.” Sergei said he had spent “endless hours” talking to people who explained that the paper was “bad and harmful” and tried to convince him to “withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have.” Ominously, “analogies with scientific racism were made by some; I am afraid, we are likely to hear more of it in the future.”
"Dump this paper, or we'll ruin you."
This is what 'science' has come to with activists: "Say/publish things we don't like, and we'll destroy you and your life."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)