The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Lithose: "lol, Thanks Tan; all I wanted to see from you. You literally correlated harassment to discussing public figures. You should watch the Get Shwifty episode of Rick and Morty. It wasn't my favorite, but I think the message it sends is perfect for you. Done with you now. Have a good day buddy!"

Well Jeez, I'm not saying it's a given. I'm saying it's more than possible that in some cases there IS a correlation, and in such cases there is likely evidence available to support that. I mean, "discussing public figures" is a pretty vague statement, almost conspicuously so, especially after you stressed how important context is. Is there SOME context in which "discussing" a public figure WILL directly contribute to harassment of said figure? Umm... Yeah.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Abefroman: "Tanoomba's definition of harrasment is one of the dumbest things he has written. You can't have a functioning society where anything you say or do can be considerd harrasment because one person is offended."

It's not "my" definition, dude. This old "Tanoomba redefines words" meme is getting tiring, especially since it's being regularly used when I am in no way redefining anything.

The definition I posted:
"Harassment is a form of discrimination. It involves any unwanted physical or verbal behaviour that offends or humiliates you. Generally, harassment is a behaviour that persists over time."
Is from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

If you don't like that one, let's look at Wikipedia:
"Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive."
Well, that ABSOLUTELY fits what Sarkeesian was talking about, doesn't it?

How about dictionary.com?
"the act or an instance of harassing, or disturbing, pestering, or troubling repeatedly; persecution"
Well that doesn't help, let's check "harass":
"to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute."
Again, this also fits what Sark was saying.

So if anybody else wants to accuse me of redefining words after I have provided you with 3 definitions that are NOT my own but which support my point, how about YOU find a definition YOU think makes a different point?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
When you redefine everything to be offensive, then declare being offended is equal to harassment, you are in fact redefining words.

Dumb fuck.

We can take it one step further with your dumbass, where you attempted to define what is and is not legitimate criticism, and then attempt to declare criticism you deem illegitimate as offensive, then attempt to declare being offended to be harassment.

Suffice it to say we do not agree with the premise that being offended = being harassed.

Because that's fucking retarded.

Your logical fallacy is etymylogical.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
That isn't even taking into account the attempts by people of tanoomba's persuasion to redefine these words ala "racism is prejudice + power".
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,041
Guys, he quite literally had to admit that in certain circumstances, through no fault of his own, John Stewart could be blamed for harassment when he lampoons other personalities. Just let that sink in. To be frank, his argument yesterday was actually worse, for me, than the moon landing. It was really a perfect representation of how how religions or cults must have formed through our progenitors.

It was like watching someone claim Ambulances kill people..(You know, because they always show up, and then people DIE...Coincidence? I think NOT.)
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Quaid: "To get that result, you have to be located in Canada and Google just the term 'harassment'. If you do what anybody with more than 6 months internet experience would do Google 'define harassment' you get the result posted by Brikker (even Canadians)."

To be fair, Lithose made it clear he was done with me so I no longer had publicly-approved clearance to speak my mind amongst the normals, so I don't blame you for missing the fact that I addressed this in my own thread with the inclusion of 2 more mainstream definitions I found while googling "harassment". FFS, even Brikker's definition fits what Sarkeesian was describing, so what are you arguing here?




Lithose: "Guys, he quite literally had to admit that in certain circumstances, through no fault of his own, John Stewart could be blamed for harassment when he lampoons other personalities. Just let that sink in. To be frank, his argument yesterday was actually worse, for me, than the moon landing. It was really a perfect representation of how how religions or cults must have formed through our progenitors.

It was like watching someone claim Ambulances kill people..(You know, because they always show up, and then people DIE...Coincidence? I think NOT.)"

So, let me get this straight: Context doesn't matter after all? That's what you're telling me now? The actual reality of the situation (that Stewart's work doesn't lead to harassment spikes while Thunderf00t's does, that Thunderf00t is neither a comedian nor a satirist but merely a provocateaur opportunist who knows how to rile the masses) doesn't mean shit, apparently, as long as you could draw some arbitrary parallel between two vastly different people "discussing a public figure" (for what that's worth). Somehow, SOMEHOW, I'm still the troll. Go figure.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Thunderfoot, research scientist and well known atheist activist on youtube going back half a decade and more, who has over 40 videos dedicated to tearing apart Creation "science" piece by bloody piece on youtube, is a provocateaur opportunist, but Anita and Company are legitimate art and media critics.

Heard it here first folks.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
idiot_sl said:
The actual reality of the situation (that Stewart's work doesn't lead to harassment spikes while Thunderf00t's does, that Thunderf00t is neither a comedian nor a satirist but merely a provocateaur opportunist who knows how to rile the masses) doesn't mean shit, apparently, as long as you could draw some arbitrary parallel between two vastly different people "discussing a public figure" (for what that's worth).
Click to expand...
Please cite evidence that Thunderfoot's video caused harassment. Also, even if you did that, that doesn't mean Thunderfoot should be at fault and should censor his speech just because some wacko is set off by it.

Also, lol at you only giving free speech to people that YOU CONSIDER a satirist or doing comedy. This also flies against your stance on Charlie Hebdo, which is obviously a satirist paper which you still felt was partly to blame for the attacks on them.


So, shockingly, we find yet again that you are only in favor of free speech for people that you agree with.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason

Philip E. Mason is a British scientist and skeptical atheist blogger best known for his YouTube channel, Thunderf00t. He has attained a PhD in chemistry, and studied multiple areas of biochemistry. He has produced numerous science communication and social issue videos focused on his views about politics, religion, and feminism.

Research[edit]
Mason worked at Cornell University's department of food science until 2011, where he studied the molecular interactions between water and sugar molecules,[6] as well as molecular modeling with regard to proteins and guanidinium solutions. As of winter 2013, he was working at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, where he was working with a research group headed by Pavel Jungwirth.[3] Mason was the lead author in a paper, published in Nature Chemistry, that argued that alkali metal reactions with water can cause a coulomb explosion.[7][8] Mason has co-authored 34 scientific papers, of which he is the lead author of 20. As of December 2014 he is still actively publishing research.[9]

Dude has a legit PhD in one of the hardest subjects to attain a PhD in in the hard physical sciences, with a career that included work at one of the most prestigious universities in the nation, as well as in the United Kingdom, but he's a professional provocateaur, while Ms Masters degree in Gender Studies is a legitimate social commentary critic.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
hodj_sl said:
Thunderfoot, research scientist and well known atheist activist on youtube going back half a decade and more, who has over 40 videos dedicated to tearing apart Creation "science" piece by bloody piece
Heard it here first folks.
Click to expand...
I would really love to know Thunderfoot's honest opinion on creation science. Him being a liberal, I would like to think that at least he doesn't agree with that shit. Then again, he did side with Rescorla and Dumar, so...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Through his YouTube account Thunderf00t, he has made a series of videos entitled "Why do people laugh at creationists?" It mainly focuses on the arguments made in public seminars by Kent Hovind. Sociologist Richard Cimino has described the tone of these videos as "that of the professional, well-educated, and articulate British academic expert exposing--in voiceover--the irrational behavior and attitudes of the believer."[10]

But when he does the exact same thing for the Moon Bat's of the world as well, this is what happens

Ian Steadman of the New Statesman criticized his videos about popular YouTube feminists, including Anita Sarkeesian.[12] Mason's Twitter account was temporarily suspended on 19 September 2014 for violating Twitter's "abusive behaviour" policy. Mason stated that his criticism of Sarkeesian caused the suspension due to a flagging campaign.[13][14] The account was later reinstated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.