I wanted to make this apology in advance, on behalf of the biggest jackasses on my side of the gender divide. But I'm just a tad late.
I wanted to apologize for the sexual slurs that are about to come your way.
I used to think feminism had gone overboard, that some women had taken it too far, that the resultant vector was one of discrimination against men. I was wrong about that. I figured that our over a decade ago.
But I can tell you, young woman, that the jackasses will be out for you. I can't provide much beyond my encouragement and the villification of said jackasses, so I offer that and a piece of advice: spit in the eye of anyone who looks at you sideways.
Shields up. Armour on.
It begins:
"Wonder what she'd say if someone talked about her SEX LIFE.
Matter of fact, who would ever be the male friend of this abomination?"
Yeah. Great.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Officer Bubbles vs. YouTube
Constable Adam Josephs: Officer "Bubbles".
Among all the evil that happened during the G20 protests and the ridiculous police crackdown - among all the illegal arrests, harassment, beatings and everything else - the thing we will most remember will be Constable Adam Josephs threatening to arrest a girl for blowing bubbles.
"If one of those bubbles lands on me, that's assault."
Indeeed.
And so the Internet community at large decided that Bubbles deserved mockery. They created animations featuring Adam Josephs arresting Santa Claus, a doctor, President Obama and others.
And the poor Constable, representative of a police force that let the Black Bloc wander around Toronto trashing the city so it could have an excuse to violently crack down on peaceful demonstrators, is charging defamation.
Up yours, buddy.
You've got the batons. You've got the guns. You've got the Tasers.
Apparently, the bunch of you even have the authority to intimidate, harass, beat and arrest people with complete impunity. You've got judges that set bail conditions like "no political expression" on people like Alex Hundert.
But us?
We've got Youtube.
And if you want to beat and harass people expressing their opinions?
We're going to ruin your lives and every memory anyone ever has of you.
Suck it up, Bubbles. It's a new world.
h/t to Rev. PaperBoy at Galloping Beaver
Among all the evil that happened during the G20 protests and the ridiculous police crackdown - among all the illegal arrests, harassment, beatings and everything else - the thing we will most remember will be Constable Adam Josephs threatening to arrest a girl for blowing bubbles.
"If one of those bubbles lands on me, that's assault."
Indeeed.
And so the Internet community at large decided that Bubbles deserved mockery. They created animations featuring Adam Josephs arresting Santa Claus, a doctor, President Obama and others.
And the poor Constable, representative of a police force that let the Black Bloc wander around Toronto trashing the city so it could have an excuse to violently crack down on peaceful demonstrators, is charging defamation.
Up yours, buddy.
You've got the batons. You've got the guns. You've got the Tasers.
Apparently, the bunch of you even have the authority to intimidate, harass, beat and arrest people with complete impunity. You've got judges that set bail conditions like "no political expression" on people like Alex Hundert.
But us?
We've got Youtube.
And if you want to beat and harass people expressing their opinions?
We're going to ruin your lives and every memory anyone ever has of you.
Suck it up, Bubbles. It's a new world.
h/t to Rev. PaperBoy at Galloping Beaver
Friday, October 08, 2010
Raiders of the Lost Ark = Pointless
Seriously. Think about it.
All Indy had to do was let that Belloq dude take the medallion. He would have found the ark, opened it, and killed himself and all the Nazis.
Then the good guys swoop in with the greatest of ease and make off with the conveniently self-sealed ark and toss it in that warehouse.
Instead, we have to kill a bunch of Nepalese, burn down a bar, kill a whole lot of Egyptians, drag Indy under a car, annoy a bunch of African boat guys, etc. etc.
And then what? Bad guy opens ark and everyone who looks at it dies.
Waste. Of. Time.
Maybe the guys who do the "How it should have ended" videos can do that next.
All Indy had to do was let that Belloq dude take the medallion. He would have found the ark, opened it, and killed himself and all the Nazis.
Then the good guys swoop in with the greatest of ease and make off with the conveniently self-sealed ark and toss it in that warehouse.
Instead, we have to kill a bunch of Nepalese, burn down a bar, kill a whole lot of Egyptians, drag Indy under a car, annoy a bunch of African boat guys, etc. etc.
And then what? Bad guy opens ark and everyone who looks at it dies.
Waste. Of. Time.
Maybe the guys who do the "How it should have ended" videos can do that next.
Cannon fodder
Quite an uproar over the "cannon fodder" video.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Canada will be a "pimp"
Canada will be taking the role of a pimp, according to one MP. That's because the courts have struck down anti-prostitution laws that, while not preventing prostitution, made it very dangerous.
Conservative MP Joy Smith:
Definition: pimp
I don't think the government would be responsible for soliciting customers for prostitutes, although they might do a good job with putting up signs. That seems to be their thing, lately.
The government would be responsible, however, for doing the same things that they are currently (supposed to be) doing for other workers: protecting their rights; keeping them safe from criminals; taxing them.
On the other hand, I can't expect much better than hyperbole from Conservatives. Their chief arguments in court seem to revolve around witnesses who pulled stuff out of their asses and the belief that prostitution was inherently "degrading and unhealthy".
It's a lot like being gay, I guess. I mean look at all those gay kids who get beat up and/or commit suicide. Must be an unhealthy lifestyle.
Well, Conservative super-right-wing christian freaks. You've had 2000 years to try to stamp out prostitution and all you've done is make women miserable. Maybe we'll try something different for a little while and see how it works out.
Conservative MP Joy Smith:
“My goodness we would have the nation as the pimp and that’s wrong and we can’t afford that,”
Definition: pimp
a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.
I don't think the government would be responsible for soliciting customers for prostitutes, although they might do a good job with putting up signs. That seems to be their thing, lately.
The government would be responsible, however, for doing the same things that they are currently (supposed to be) doing for other workers: protecting their rights; keeping them safe from criminals; taxing them.
On the other hand, I can't expect much better than hyperbole from Conservatives. Their chief arguments in court seem to revolve around witnesses who pulled stuff out of their asses and the belief that prostitution was inherently "degrading and unhealthy".
It's a lot like being gay, I guess. I mean look at all those gay kids who get beat up and/or commit suicide. Must be an unhealthy lifestyle.
Well, Conservative super-right-wing christian freaks. You've had 2000 years to try to stamp out prostitution and all you've done is make women miserable. Maybe we'll try something different for a little while and see how it works out.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Transport Canada = Medieval Theologians
Canada has an addiction to rule making. Thus spake Joseph Brean, National Post libertarian dude.
That's right. Our penchant for making rules to prevent future disasters based on statistics about past disasters? That's basically the nanny state.
Aren't we crazy.
I can't imagine what Brean would have to say about Transport Canada. Bunch of stuck up, pretentious nerds pouring over every airline crash to determine the cause and try to prevent future crashes.
Assholes, those guys.
So the right idea is what? Shrug our shoulder and say, "shit happens"? Brilliant.
Right. We're the religious ones for trying to find rational causes for everything.
And you, Mr. Brean, are the rational one for just saying, "shit happens" and hoping it doesn't happen again.
To be perfectly honest, his opinion sounds the most medieval: hey man, sometimes god just does you in. It's not your place to ask why.
That's right. Our penchant for making rules to prevent future disasters based on statistics about past disasters? That's basically the nanny state.
Aren't we crazy.
I can't imagine what Brean would have to say about Transport Canada. Bunch of stuck up, pretentious nerds pouring over every airline crash to determine the cause and try to prevent future crashes.
Assholes, those guys.
"We cannot just accept that this was a death. We've got to give that death meaning, and the way to give it meaning is to pass a law."
So the right idea is what? Shrug our shoulder and say, "shit happens"? Brilliant.
He called it a throwback to medieval times, a belief that nothing happens without somebody causing it, that every natural phenomenon has a moral aspect. Modern safety regulations, like witchcraft or divine retribution, are based on a faulty premise about who is responsible for stuff happening, and what can be done about it. Like religion, they are an effort to bring meaning to a cruel and random universe.
Right. We're the religious ones for trying to find rational causes for everything.
And you, Mr. Brean, are the rational one for just saying, "shit happens" and hoping it doesn't happen again.
To be perfectly honest, his opinion sounds the most medieval: hey man, sometimes god just does you in. It's not your place to ask why.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Catholics Oppose Gay Marriage
Big news there, I suppose.
They have a website though, now.
Their points, in order.
My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.
We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.
Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.
True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.
That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.
Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.
Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.
And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.
Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."
You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.
Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.
Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.
They have a website though, now.
Their points, in order.
Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilised society.
My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.
Same-sex unions, as pseudo-marriages, involve gravely sinful acts that are never defensible, and the very assimilation to marriage damages marriage itself.
We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.
Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.
The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behaviour.
True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.
Government-backed same sex civil unions would encourage and normalise homosexual behaviour, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.
That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.
Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.
Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.
And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.
The law should promote behaviours that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."
You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.
Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.
Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)