Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

KomradeBishop · 26-08-2015 3:23pm

robindch wrote: »

It's at least arguable whether or not that's the case.

What is not arguable is that your claim that there was "no evidence that he would have suspended democracy" is false, for the simple reason that Morsi did suspend democracy (and he triggered several more rounds of national instability on account of having done so).

The decree you cited, explicitly put in place conditions that would allow the ousting of Morsi, in a parliamentary election:

3- If the Constituent Assembly [tasked with drafting a new constitution] is prevented from doing its duties, the president can draw up a new assembly representing the full spectrum of Egyptian society mandated with drafting a new national charter within three months of the assembly's formation. The new draft constitution is to be put before a nationwide referendum within 30 days after it is written. Parliamentary elections are to be held within two months of the public’s approval of the draft constitution.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/50248.aspx

How exactly, is a temporary decree - one which actually explicitly has a condition for elections being set, which could oust Morsi under democratic elections - a dictatorship?

Democracy isn't a binary thing, there are different degrees of democratic control, at different levels of government - a government that can be ousted by democratic elections, even if it grants significant legislate/executive control to the eventual leader, is certainly less democratic than e.g. a western democracy, but it is not a dictatorship.

From more reading, that decree looks to have been an attempt to work around people who were trying to obstruct Morsi trying to transition the country to a democracy - citing Morsi as a dictator, is really just perpetuating a myth:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/06/revisiting-egypt-2013-military-takeover-150630090417776.html

So, your reading of that is very simplistic, and ignores all of what was going on in the country around the time.

Ultimately, unless you can show that Morsi suspended elections and would have prevented them, you can't really show that he created a dictatorship.

jackofalltrades · 04-09-2015 9:00pm

I'd have answered this sooner, but Boards wasn't working properly for me.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily, surely?

What do you mean by this?

Or are you saying that you consider it impossible to have an irrational fear/hatred/dislke of a belief system/religion/ideology?

Do you know of any cases where someone has been diagnosed with a phobia of an ideology?
I can't imagine a situation where someone has a phobia level dislike/hatred/fear of an ideology.

jank · 26-09-2015 4:51am

Crackpot Guardian Journalist wants to put ALL men into camps and hopes for the end of heterosexuality

Full Interview published here.
http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel

Quotes as follows:

Political lesbians... said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy."

"will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back."

"I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s ****."

"I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

"Because lets face it, we know we are right – we are learning all the time, and we change our minds on all kinds of strategic issue, but radical feminism is common sense."

Shamelessly stolen from another forum.

As an aside, it is remarkable alright that a prominent newspaper should continue to employ someone with such views. Then again, it is the Guardian.

The Black Oil · 26-09-2015 10:07am

jank wrote: »

As an aside, it is remarkable alright that a prominent newspaper should continue to employ someone with such views. Then again, it is the Guardian.

https://twitter.com/SoMuchGuardian/status/645209027585159168

UK Independent

A prominent secularist and activist has been barred from speaking at a student union event due to fears her speech would “incite hatred” against Muslim students. Maryam Namazie had been booked by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) group to speak about secularism to Warwick University’s Student Union on 28 October.

However, the group was notified last month that Ms Namazie’s speech had been cancelled. The decision has led campaigners to raise concerns about student bodies across the UK thwarting freedom of speech on their campuses. The union said that “after researching both [Ms Namazie] and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised. We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus”.

~

Isaac Leigh, president of Warwick Student Union said: “The initial decision was made for the right of Muslim students not to feel intimidated or discriminated against on their university campus… rather than in the interest of suppressing free speech.”

“A final decision on this issue will be reached by the most senior members of the Student Union in coming days,” he said.

Anyone familiar with her work? I'm not.

https://twitter.com/BHAhumanists/status/647442486441418752

KomradeBishop · 26-09-2015 10:24am

I thought "there must be something more behind this", and a quick Google didn't really turn up anything, so just tried to email a short question to her (not familiar with her writing, just curious as it's so batshít) - Guardian authors are always FirstName.LastName@guardian.co.uk, and can verify that by Googling her email.

Got a 'that account does not exist' reply, so looks like she may have been fired for that - unless she had to change account due to past abusive email (probable).

jank · 26-09-2015 10:30am

Well its a logical continuation of these stupid University rules to protect would be adult snow flakes from having their world view challenged. Anyone who espouses a pro-life argument is usually not allowed incase it offends women, many examples of this already in this thread. So, it stands to reason that an atheist/secularist speaker would offend the religious, this time Muslims. God forbid they actually had a debate, you know like mature liberal adults.

Nodin · 26-09-2015 10:41am

The Black Oil wrote: »

Anyone familiar with her work? I'm not.

https://twitter.com/BHAhumanists/status/647442486441418752

Doesn't seem to be that out there, tbh. No idea what their malfunction is.

silverharp · 26-09-2015 12:41pm

jank wrote: »

Well its a logical continuation of these stupid University rules to protect would be adult snow flakes from having their world view challenged. Anyone who espouses a pro-life argument is usually not allowed incase it offends women, many examples of this already in this thread. So, it stands to reason that an atheist/secularist speaker would offend the religious, this time Muslims. God forbid they actually had a debate, you know like mature liberal adults.

First they came for the anti abortion speakers and we said nothing....... :pac:

jank · 26-09-2015 2:56pm

silverharp wrote: »

First they came for the anti abortion speakers and we said nothing....... :pac:

LOL, yea its funny until of course this 'mission creep' extends so much no one can say anything at all. Perhaps just a blanket ban on debating will just solve it.

pH · 26-09-2015 2:58pm

Since when did student unions decide who can and can't be on a university campus?

One eyed Jack · 26-09-2015 3:14pm

pH wrote: »

Since when did student unions decide who can and can't be on a university campus?

Since Students Unions advocated for the welfare of the students attending the university I suppose. This latest incident really isn't all that different from that other SU oddball that wanted to hold an event with only certain minority groups present that meant she would have had to exclude herself from her own event (can't think of her name now, but it was facepalm inducing at the time).

On another note, I couldn't help but notice that one letter replacement in that particular advocacy group could mean a whole different audience turning up for the event -

A prominent secularist and activist has been barred from speaking at a student union event due to fears her speech would “incite hatred” against Muslim students. Maryam Namazie had been booked by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) group to speak about secularism to Warwick University’s Student Union on 28 October.

Mind your P's and H's people, students are known to be particularly fond of that sort of obvious mischief, defacing posters and what not...

silverharp · 26-09-2015 3:51pm

bye bye free speech assuming the UN has any power , criticise a SJW on line and its the 'Joy for you

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-09/25/un-cyberviolence

Nearly three quarters of women and girls have experienced some form of cyber violence according to a report from the United Nations Broadband Commission.

Women are 27 times more likely to be abused online than men, the report said. It added that 73 percent of women had reported experiencing online abuse, with 18 percent -- around 9 million women -- experiencing serious internet violence.

The report, commissioned as part of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's pledge to promote gender equality, urged governments to work harder to protect the growing number of women and girls affected by online violence.

Cyber violence, as defined by the report, includes hate speech, hacking, identity theft, online stalking, threats and induced suicides. The internet also facilitates other forms of violence against women, including sex trafficking.

The legal system has struggled to keep up with fast-moving cases of trolling, with the recent jailing of two Twitter users for abusing feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez hailed as landmark case. The rise of mobile browsing has also led to an increase in cyber violence, with perpetrators able to access the internet at any time and 'follow' targets wherever they go online.

Professor Nicole Westerland, Director of the Durham Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse, encouraged women to speak about their experiences.

"If women leave online spaces or are reluctant to speak up, we would have to accept that there are large spaces in the world where women should quite simply be quiet and not speak" she told WIRED. "Online abuse is an extension of violence that happens offline, so it's vital that it's linked to wider struggles".

The commission's findings also suggest that women are unwilling to report cyber violence, fearing social repercussions -- figures from India, also in the report, suggest that only 35 percent of women report online victimisation. The report also found that only 26 percent of law enforcement agencies surveyed were taking appropriate action, urging police forces to take online violence more seriously.

PopePalpatine · 26-09-2015 4:25pm

I just googled Caroline Criado-Perez, and it looks like those trolls who were jailed sent her rape and death threats:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/07/jane-austen-banknote-abusive-tweets-criado-perez
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29034943

Surely it's not too much of a logical leap to suggest that these trolls were harassing her, rather than merely criticising her?

silverharp · 26-09-2015 5:04pm

good old Anita was speaking at the UN event and it basically seems like they want people to stop criticising them online. For instance on Youtube the ability to do a reponse video is absolutely vital as part of the checks and balances.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

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.”

Links234 · 26-09-2015 5:09pm

silverharp wrote: »

bye bye free speech

Hmm...

Cyber violence, as defined by the report, includes hate speech, hacking, identity theft, online stalking, threats and induced suicides.

One might think that if a person's ability to communicate is hampered by not allowing them to send people threats, they might need to find a better way to communicate.

silverharp · 26-09-2015 6:44pm

Links234 wrote: »

Hmm...

One might think that if a person's ability to communicate is hampered by not allowing them to send people threats, they might need to find a better way to communicate.

take it to the Police , Im sure its illegal to send death threats. Anita and the gang want a legal framework where they are immune from criticism. They wouldnt complain about it otherwise?

PopePalpatine · 26-09-2015 6:46pm

Oh boy, Breitbart, a.k.a. the 20-something conservative's Fox News.

silverharp · 26-09-2015 6:54pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh boy, Breitbart, a.k.a. the 20-something conservative's Fox News.

Ill take the news wherever I can get it, I can hardly go to a feminist news site to find critical commentary on Anita Sarky? If I want to read articles on sending men to concentration camps Ill read the Guardian

The Black Oil · 26-09-2015 6:56pm

Well, Warrick SU posted a statement and the WASH group have responded.

PopePalpatine · 26-09-2015 7:28pm

silverharp wrote: »

Ill take the news wherever I can get it, I can hardly go to a feminist news site to find critical commentary on Anita Sarky?

I was under the impression that this discussion created by your posting of that Wired.com article had little to do with Sarkeesian, beyond the fact she's an SJW. You presented a pair of Twitter trolls as having been martyred for free speech, when it was quite clear that they engaged in a campaign of vile abuse towards two women. This is hardly a case of "First they came for the anti-SJWs..."

Links234 · 26-09-2015 8:36pm

silverharp wrote: »

Ill take the news wherever I can get it

Implying Breitbart is news.

Some people must have seriously short memories if they think just about anything reported on Breitbart is factual. Hey, remember the whole ACORN scandal?

California Attorney General: Breitbart's ACORN tapes were "severely edited"
One of the ACORN Employees Caught in Those 2009 Video Stings Has Won $100,000 in Damage

Despite it being a fabricated controversy, it still sunk ACORN, and all the misinformation is still up on their site. They're also spreading all that bull**** about Planned Parenthood too, they're pretty big into spreading lies. Remember Breitbart's maliciously edited videos that smeared Shirley Sherrod? Thankfully she's getting a big settlement now, but the damage was done. Or when they invented the whole "friends of hamas" group to slander Chuck Hagel. They're a "News" source that's involved in controversy after controversy, and constantly publish right-wing propaganda, slander and falsehoods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ICQD6P74Q

The idea that they're delivering anything close to news is laughable. Atheist Groups Are Not Distributing “X-Rated” Pamphlets to Students, No Matter What Breitbart Tells You.

B-y3PxJVEAA-I2u.jpg:large

Even if Breitbart said water was wet, I'd demand another source.

pH · 26-09-2015 11:24pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was under the impression that this discussion created by your posting of that Wired.com article had little to do with Sarkeesian, beyond the fact she's an SJW. You presented a pair of Twitter trolls as having been martyred for free speech, when it was quite clear that they engaged in a campaign of vile abuse towards two women. This is hardly a case of "First they came for the anti-SJWs..."

The two twitter trolls (one male one female) clearly were involved in abuse, however does it matter that the abuse is "towards women", surely abuse is abuse, and a death threat or threat of violence is just as serious against a man as it is against a woman.

The problem I have with all this is that there seems to be a certain segment of tumblr/twitter who want the freedom to abuse and harass, but want any opposition silenced, and they have come up with mind blowingly tedious expressions such as "punching up", "no such thing as reverse racism" and "xxxism is privilege + power" to justify them continuing their abuse, harassment and discrimination while simultaneously censoring those who oppose them.

I think also that there's something incredibly patronising and privileged about people on twitter judging other people's behaviour by their standards, when these are exactly the same people who won't tolerate any criticism of say Islam. Many cultural sub-groups would tend to communicate in a more robust and abusive manner than a middle aged white university educated person would "like" or be accustomed to, so now their modes of interaction need to be banned and censored (at least online) if they have the temerity to communicate with one of their betters?

BlaasForRafa · 27-09-2015 12:25am

pH wrote: »

expressions such as "punching up"

Oh yeah, this punching up thing is just an excuse to be a complete asshole and get a free pass for it.

In the sci-fi/fantasy book community there was a blogger who went by the name "Requires hate" who "punched up" against white male authors and was supported by SJW's. Until it was revealed that under other aliases she stalked and abused minority women via twitter and other platforms. So it was fine when she encouraged people to throw acid in the faces of white male authors but it wasn't when it was revealed that she did the same to minority female authors.

http://laurajmixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-Report-on-Damage-Done-by-One-Individual-Under-Several-Names.pdf

Nodin · 27-09-2015 5:01am

silverharp wrote: »

Ill take the news wherever I can get it, I can hardly go to a feminist news site to find critical commentary on Anita Sarky? If I want to read articles on sending men to concentration camps Ill read the Guardian

I thought the 'militant lesbian feminist' thing had died out. Saw an interview with one of them back in the late 80's, talking about how she ended her relationship with her male OH and became a lesbian based on politics. "That's one bizarre closet" sez I. Some of that Bindell piece reads like sexual fantasy rather than anything that could be taken seriously.

silverharp · 27-09-2015 8:14am

Nodin wrote: »

I thought the 'militant lesbian feminist' thing had died out. Saw an interview with one of them back in the late 80's, talking about how she ended her relationship with her male OH and became a lesbian based on politics. "That's one bizarre closet" sez I. Some of that Bindell piece reads like sexual fantasy rather than anything that could be taken seriously.

I gather she is somewhat marginalised within feminist circles but only because she is critical of Trans people, not her overt man hating. She is a parody for sure but the fact that she can write articles with such titles like "why I hate men" and have it published in the Guardian says something

silverharp · 27-09-2015 8:23am

Links234 wrote: »

Implying Breitbart is news.

Some people must have seriously short memories if they think just about anything reported on Breitbart is factual. Hey, remember the whole ACORN scandal?

Even if Breitbart said water was wet, I'd demand another source.

In fairness I do like to triangulate my news, in this case I searched for Anita's quote and the Breitbart article was first on the list. The only writer I know for them is "his excellency" Milo Yiannopoulos which is more or less the only reason I have heard of Breitbart, I think everyone knows that the quality of on line news sources are not robust and tend to focus on click bait articles.

jank · 29-09-2015 2:14am

A nice bit of re-writing history here by NEIU, O'Brien would be proud.
[Shamlessly stolen from another thread]

BYUnGHIIgAED67G.jpg-large1.jpeg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/11/06/abe-lincoln-democrat-plaque_n_4228689.html?ir=Australia

Pretty lame excuse tbh as an aside from the University who should know better, the US is not a democracy its a Republic.

orubiru · 29-09-2015 2:18pm

pH wrote: »

The two twitter trolls (one male one female) clearly were involved in abuse, however does it matter that the abuse is "towards women", surely abuse is abuse, and a death threat or threat of violence is just as serious against a man as it is against a woman.

The problem I have with all this is that there seems to be a certain segment of tumblr/twitter who want the freedom to abuse and harass, but want any opposition silenced, and they have come up with mind blowingly tedious expressions such as "punching up", "no such thing as reverse racism" and "xxxism is privilege + power" to justify them continuing their abuse, harassment and discrimination while simultaneously censoring those who oppose them.

I think also that there's something incredibly patronising and privileged about people on twitter judging other people's behaviour by their standards, when these are exactly the same people who won't tolerate any criticism of say Islam. Many cultural sub-groups would tend to communicate in a more robust and abusive manner than a middle aged white university educated person would "like" or be accustomed to, so now their modes of interaction need to be banned and censored (at least online) if they have the temerity to communicate with one of their betters?

Something I have noticed over the past couple of years is that a lot of Youtubers and bloggers who started out doing videos that debunk or rebut Creationist and Christian views have now moved on to criticizing Feminism or having what I guess would be called "anti-SJW" views.

This seems to have also coincided with these so-called "SJWs" getting wise to the fact that creationism and Christianity lost massive amounts of credibility as soon as they were open to response on the internet. It's almost impossible to post anything related to Christianity and Creationism and leave comments open as your viewpoints will be pretty convincingly challenged within the first few comments.

It's the same on Boards really. You'll see the odd thread with some kind of questionable opinion in the OP and that will have been completely dissected and taken apart by the time you reach the bottom of the first page.

I'm not sure if this is right or wrong. At times it can seem a bit unfair when someone like Josh Feuerstein posts his nonsense views online and gets dogpiled by 100s of Internet Atheists. Sure, his views are abhorrent and stupid but it's kind of sad seeing him being set upon and his opinions destroyed in minutes.

The "certain segments" of Tumblr and Twitter you talk about will be well aware of this and so they are taking steps to protect themselves. If you want to make a post attempting to equate actual violence with being told that "you suck" online then you can't retain credibility if the first 1,000 response comments explain how utterly dumb that suggestion is. So you need to have a way to silence those responders and the only way to do that is to generate public sympathy in the hope that this will lead to people being afraid to openly question your views.

Guys like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort etc receive terrible abuse on a daily basis but they were never able to generate public sympathy over this. If they had been able to "play the victim" (though they are admittedly victims of abuse) successfully then I suspect they would have stood a better chance of stopping the harassment and would have in turn used that power as a means of silencing their critics.

As far as I can tell these "SJW" types have just figured out where creationists and Christians failed to preserve the credibility of their beliefs as soon as they hit the internet and have made moves to ensure that the same doesn't happen to them. They are of course still free to abuse, harass and troll others because the others that they are going after do not have the same level of public sympathy and so the fear of being shamed or called out just isn't there.

Seriously though, how come so many outspoken Atheists end up becoming people who speak out against Feminism or other "SJW" type stuff? Is it just that Religious arguments become tedious and repetitive after a while and the "Social Justice Community" is pretty much constantly providing new questionable material?

29-09-2015 2:19pm

Are sombreros racist?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/uea-student-union-bans-racist-sombreros

orubiru · 29-09-2015 2:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are sombreros racist?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/uea-student-union-bans-racist-sombreros

It's a strange one! My thought is that you'd really need to have someone who is from Mexico comment on whether or not this is offensive or racist or whatever.

How can we say for sure though? Doesn't the stance of the university here kind of open up the possibility that a "Mexican-Themed Restaurant" (especially if the owners are not Mexican) could also be considered racist or "problematic"?

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Comments