SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Pastimes"I STILL own the ban button, buddy"


Previous 10 
To: Greg or e who wrote (2122)3/11/2015 3:02:47 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 2133
 
Are the Religion Clauses of the Constitution Contradictory?Mar 11, 2015 | Justin Taylor

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .”

followed immediately by the Free Exercise Clause:

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Together these are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.

Some people suggest that they are contradictory: the Establishment Clause encourages the exercise of “religion” in every possible sense, and at yet the purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to keep religion from being practiced to such a degree that politics are influenced.

Political philosopher J. Budziszewski rebuts the argument:

The Free Exercise Clause does not say that the government should encourage the exercise of religion in every possible sense.

What it says is that Congress must not prohibit it. That’s all.

The Establishment Clause does not say that the government should keep religion from influencing politics.

What it says is that Congress must not make laws concerning official churches, like the Church of England. That’s all.

There is no conflict whatsoever between saying that the national legislature must not prohibit the practice of faith, and saying that it must not make laws concerning official churches.

Conflict arises only when you try to make the clauses mean more than they do.

Budziszewski goes on to argue that the chief reasons advance for the Religion Clauses were themselves religious:

The Framers didn’t want the practice of faith prohibited, because they thought we have duties to God.

But they didn’t want Congress to get into the official church business, because they thought religious truth is best promoted by religious competition.

The states, and the people thereof, were left to do as they thought best.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e9/7/2015 2:19:25 AM
   of 2133
 
Weaponized codes

voxday.blogspot.ca
Expect to see a lot of codes of conduct based on this Open Code of Conduct which is expressly designed for being utilized by SJW entryists in organizations everywhere.
Harassment includes, but is not limited to:

Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, race, age, regional discrimination, political or religious affiliation
Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment
Deliberate misgendering. This includes deadnaming or persistently using a pronoun that does not correctly reflect a person’s gender identity. You must address people by the name they give you when not addressing them by their username or handle
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop
Threats of violence, both physical and psychological
Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm
Deliberate intimidation
Stalking or following
Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes
Sustained disruption of discussion
Unwelcome sexual attention, including gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour
Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease
Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent except as necessary to protect others from intentional abuse
Publication of non-harassing private communication

Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:

‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions

They're not even pretending anymore. This is just straight up thought, speech, and behavioral policing, and it explicitly goes in one direction, the direction that provides the SJWs with political control of the organization.

If you don't resist, you will be ruled by these totalitarian freaks.

Labels: SJW

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e9/27/2015 9:47:07 PM
   of 2133
 
The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings


UN Women/Ryan Brown

by Milo Yiannopoulos25 Sep 2015 8,903

In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.

So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.

Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.

According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”

Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.

In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.

Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.

Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.

The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.

The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)

Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.

Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.

[iframe title="Twitter Tweet" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" style="padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 100%; height: 322.13px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: static; min-width: 220px; max-width: 550px; border-image: none;" allowtransparency="true" data-tweet-id="646800400226611200"][/iframe]

The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”

It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?

Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.

[iframe title="Twitter Tweet" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-1" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" style="padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 100%; height: 205.66px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: static; min-width: 220px; max-width: 550px; border-image: none;" allowtransparency="true" data-tweet-id="285670822264307712"][/iframe]

Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”

Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”

The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?

The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”

As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.

The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.

Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.

You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.

It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.

The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero on Twitter and Facebook

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Greg or e who wrote (2128)9/27/2015 9:57:53 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 2133
 
News flash! A popular stock market chat room has requested that the UN add (asking anonymous posters who claim to be an expert on the bible if they have a relevant post secondary degree) to the list of proposed banned speech.
LOL!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e11/11/2015 12:40:15 PM
   of 2133
 
Modern Educayshun


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e11/19/2015 12:48:29 AM
   of 2133
 
Glenn Reynolds: After Yale, Mizzou, raise the voting age — to 25

In 1971, the United States ratified the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake.

The idea, in those Vietnam War years, was that 18-year-olds, being old enough to be drafted, to marry and to serve on juries, deserved a vote. It seemed plausible at the time, and I myself have argued that we should set the drinking age at 18 for the same reasons.

But now I’m starting to reconsider. To be a voter, one must be able to participate in adult political discussions. It’s necessary to be able to listen to opposing arguments and even — as I’m doing right here in this column — to change your mind in response to new evidence.

This evidence suggests that, whatever one might say about the 18-year-olds of 1971, the 18-year-olds of today aren’t up to that task. And even the 21-year-olds aren’t looking so good...



eyecrazy.blogspot.ca

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e2/7/2016 1:45:56 AM
   of 2133
 
“oh, and Mr Elliott, you’ve been found not guilty.”

Court Ruling Makes Serious Mistake Judging Gregory Alan Elliott’s Character

genuinewitty.com

Eight Important Things To Know About Gregory Alan Elliott’s Twitter Trial

http://www.genuinewitty.com/2016/01/21/eight-important-things-to-know-about-gregory-alan-elliotts-twitter-trial/#more-38586

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e12/15/2016 12:46:06 AM
   of 2133
 
Science Asks: Why Are Angry Atheists Annoying?
December 12, 2016 / Briggs / 71 Comments


The Temple of Reason (the guillotines are just offstage).

What’s more annoying than an atheist who harangues passersby about “rationality”? Easy answer: a scientist who announces a discovery about human behavior that was known by everybody since Adam.

Our tip comes from New York magazine, in its “ Finally, a Psychological Explanation for Why Angry Athiests [sic] Are So Annoying“.

For some (loud, argumentative) people, science isn’t just a collective endeavor to understand the world. It’s a moral system: To be unscientific is to be unethical, and they’ll be happy to tell you all about at the next housewarming party.

As that brand of atheistic evangelism exhibits, rationality taken to an extreme itself turns into ideology.

They’re talking about the peer-reviewed paper “ Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue” by Tomas Stôhl, Maarten P. Zaal, and Linda J. Skitka in PLOS One.

The authors invent the term “moralized rationality” (MR) to describe those folks who prate on about their deep love of “evidence” and such forth. Incidentally, for moralized rationalizers, only that which can be observed counts as evidence, which of course leaves out all mathematics, logic, metaphysics, and, worst of all, the rules of rational argument; a most irrational position.

As is usual, the authors gathered some folks on the Internet and asked them a series of questions to which they assigned arbitrary numbers, submitted those numbers to classical statistics routines, and discovered wee p-values.

[Participants] were presented with a hypothetical scenario: a doctor (Richard) was presented with a devoutly Christian patient (Mary) with diffuse symptoms. In both narratives, Richard told Mary to pray for her health. In one version the doctor did so in order to harness a placebo effect; in the other, he did so because he thought that God answers prayers. The higher people scored on MR, the more upset they said they were about the prayer prescription and the more they wanted Richard punished.

We did not need an “experiment” to tell us that angry atheists are angry at people who recommend prayer. Interestingly, the observational effects of prayer have been striking throughout history. When confronted by this evidence (which they agree is evidence) moralized rationalizers typically extend alternate hypotheses which might explain the observations. That any cause beside God might exist is then used to dismiss the idea God answered the prayers. Yet since for any set of contingent observations endless theories of what might have caused the observations exist, this procedure used by moralized rationalizers can be used to dismiss any causal claim. And that isn’t very rational.

There is nothing in this paper that is interesting. Here’s the opening two sentences.

Human history is replete with examples of new scientific ideas and observations creating tension with normative beliefs of the day. Despite being backed up by strong evidence, defenders of heliocentrism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as the current scientific consensus that human activity causes global warming have all faced ferocious resistance against their ideas.

To which we can say, the myths of scientism are strong in these authors. Here’s the beginning of the paper’s end:

[S]ome people view it as a moral virtue to rely on reason and evidence when forming and evaluating beliefs…Moralized rationality is not only related to the rejection of traditional beliefs that are not backed up by logic and evidence, but also leads to intolerance of those who endorse such beliefs…

Somehow it slipped the attention of the authors that some theists view it as a moral virtue to rely on reason and evidence when forming and evaluating beliefs. Or did the authors want to imply that “reason and evidence” only lead to atheism? That’s not a very rational position to take.

Lastly, “Because moralized rationality centers on the appropriate processes of evaluating beliefs, rather than on their specific contents, it may also be a safeguard against motivated reasoning biases.”

Farmers could fertilize their fields with that one—although what would sprout up wouldn’t be edible.

Contrary to what the authors say, atheists who feel obliged to proselytize (“solemn nonsense” and “grave sin” says Pope Francis) are more like a cartoon (with a varying punchline) you might have seen. One gentleman is standing at the leftmost of a line of urinals; the others are empty. Entering stage right is another fellow. He eschews all empty slots except for the one next to our hero. The new fellow arrives, pauses for a blank panel, then says, “I’m an atheist.”

(I’ve also seen “I’m a vegan” and “Bernie Sanders supporter.”)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10