Still not finished this stupid TNA form. I don't know if I'm being overly optimistic about my abilities, or if I really don't need much training this year. I keep going over the stupid thing to try and find statements I don't feel I can agree with, but so far the only ones are things which don't have much relevance to my PhD subject (like, for example, "I can demonstrate that my research has been carried out in a way that would allow commercial exploitation of my research if appropriate. I know what is involved in writing a business plan").
One year in the feedback meeting for our equivalent of that form it was pointed out I'd essentially just written "N/A" in every single box and signed my name. The assessor joked that under the "Activities I have avoided" I should have listed "filling in irrelevant questionnaires". Then we laughed and I went back upstairs.
It's a really big deal in my school, and given some of the issues I had last year my Supervisor wants us to be totally on top of all paperwork and other admin stuff.
It's a pain. Hopefully he'll have some suggestions tomorrow.
Is the D&D hivemind really misogynist? All our regulars are super feminists.
Though, you may envision our regulars as a pocket of resistance fighting off hordes of uneducated masses piling in to say stupid things. Those which survive are forever changed and become regulars themselves.
That sounds a lot like treehousing, though.
First off, I hate the whole notion of the "D&D hivemind" or the "echo chamber." It's a really sloppy way of portraying a lot of different viewpoints, and comes across as intrinsically dismissive.
But, there are a handful of very vocal feminists, and a handful of people who have very vocal but ultimately misogynist viewpoints, and a lot of people in between who also have vaguely misogynist viewpoints.
That shouldn't be surprising because we live in a vaguely (or not so vaguely) misogynist culture, so people who are generally reasonable and mainstream are going to have misogynist viewpoints. That doesn't make them bad people or sexist, which is a super-important thing to remember: it just makes them products of their time and place (as we all are).
And for the record, nobody (as far as I can recall) seriously argued for revoking the presumption of innocence in criminal trials in the rape thread. That's a significant oversimplification.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I saw a black midget when i went to get lunch an hour ago. His race really doesnt matter, but since it seems like white midgets are more commen and its rare to see them as it is, i guess I hit some kind of people watching lottery.
Witchdr on
"Look, all I know is that this cord was plugged into my house and your house was glowing like the freakin' sun. So, I put two and two together there and decided that you're pissing me off." -Carl Brutananadilewski
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
I saw a black midget when i went to get lunch an hour ago. His race really doesnt matter, but since it seems like white midgets are more commen and its rare to see them as it is, i guess I hit some kind of people watching lottery.
Midgets are so difficult not to stare at, they are normal people and such, but god damn its like shaking a dudes hand thats missing fingers, your brain becomes intrigued and your sense of deceny goes out the window.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I saw a black midget when i went to get lunch an hour ago. His race really doesnt matter, but since it seems like white midgets are more commen and its rare to see them as it is, i guess I hit some kind of people watching lottery.
So what was it like, seeing someone significantly shorter than you yet significantly bigger than you at the same time?
five multikills in one multiplayer matchmaking game
also, heroic Winter Contingency with the tilt skull on
god, I did that on legendary
ugh
what does tilt do, anyway?
In ODST it made all human bullets bounce off shields, including sniper rifles.
I'm not sure if they changed it for Reach. In the description it seemed to say something about just making enemies more resilient or something. I haven't tried it in Reach yet, though.
I saw a black midget when i went to get lunch an hour ago. His race really doesnt matter, but since it seems like white midgets are more commen and its rare to see them as it is, i guess I hit some kind of people watching lottery.
Midgets are so difficult not to stare at, they are normal people and such, but god damn its like shaking a dudes hand thats missing fingers, your brain becomes intrigued and your sense of deceny goes out the window.
yeah exactly, i'm sure he's a normal guy on the inside, but his big ass head with a tiny body is just made to be stared at.
Witchdr on
"Look, all I know is that this cord was plugged into my house and your house was glowing like the freakin' sun. So, I put two and two together there and decided that you're pissing me off." -Carl Brutananadilewski
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
I saw a black midget when i went to get lunch an hour ago. His race really doesnt matter, but since it seems like white midgets are more commen and its rare to see them as it is, i guess I hit some kind of people watching lottery.
So what was it like, seeing someone significantly shorter than you yet significantly bigger than you at the same time?
haha stereotypes!
I started texting my friends right away like a 5 year old. I almost took a picture as proof but i did factor in that he is a human being.
Witchdr on
"Look, all I know is that this cord was plugged into my house and your house was glowing like the freakin' sun. So, I put two and two together there and decided that you're pissing me off." -Carl Brutananadilewski
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
five multikills in one multiplayer matchmaking game
also, heroic Winter Contingency with the tilt skull on
god, I did that on legendary
ugh
what does tilt do, anyway?
shields and armor on enemies are much heavier
you need to carry a plasma pistol and use charged shots to take down elite shields; hence playing Winter Contingency because it has the least amount of them.
One of the key notions in feminism, or in power politics in general, is to understand that two statements can both be strictly factually true, but be effectively misogynist in a specific context (even if the speaker doesn't mean it to be).
Consider the following two statements.
1) Black people are more likely to suffer from folliculitis (skin irritation from shaving) than white people.
2) Black people score lower on IQ tests on average than white people.
Both of these are factually true statements. And in a certain context, (2) may be racist, or it may not be. If we were discussing, for instance, socioeconomic factors that reduce availability of education to black people, or social bias in IQ tests, (2) is not necessarily racist. But if we were discussing genetic differences between black people and white people, and somebody mentioned (2) as evidence of genetic inferiority, then (2) is racist.
Most of the time, though, it's something in between. Largely because individuals tend to be very bad at analyzing and understanding the sources of their own opinions. I'm not talking about critical thinking - this is different from critical thinking. This is more like introspection. Not "is this idea true," but "where did I first learn this idea, and why does it stick out in my memory, and why does it feel important?"
If we were talking about affirmative action, for example, then two people could both be stating idea (2) but one be less racist than the other strictly from context and emphasis and implication.
So most schisms between feminists and non-feminists ends up with both sides stating things that are factually empirically true, but one side who believes that once they've established the truth content of a statement their job is done, versus another side who believes that the truth content of a statement is only half of a discussion - the other half comes from the emphasis you put upon the statement in that particular context.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
One of the key notions in feminism, or in power politics in general, is to understand that two statements can both be strictly factually true, but be effectively misogynist in a specific context (even if the speaker doesn't mean it to be).
Consider the following two statements.
1) Black people are more likely to suffer from folliculitis (skin irritation from shaving) than white people.
2) Black people score lower on IQ tests on average than white people.
Both of these are factually true statements. And in a certain context, (2) may be racist, or it may not be. If we were discussing, for instance, socioeconomic factors that reduce availability of education to black people, or social bias in IQ tests, (2) is not necessarily racist. But if we were discussing genetic differences between black people and white people, and somebody mentioned (2) as evidence of genetic inferiority, then (2) is racist.
Most of the time, though, it's something in between. Largely because individuals tend to be very bad at analyzing and understanding the sources of their own opinions. I'm not talking about critical thinking - this is different from critical thinking. This is more like introspection. Not "is this idea true," but "where did I first learn this idea, and why does it stick out in my memory, and why does it feel important?"
So most schisms between feminists and non-feminists ends up with both sides stating things that are factually empirically true, but one side who believes that once they've established the truth content of a statement their job is done, versus another side who believes that the truth content of a statement is only half of a discussion - the other half comes from the emphasis you put upon the statement in that particular context.
Posts
Gamefly has Bioshock 2 for their weekly sale for $15, too. Used.
The parasite buys things on sale...
pleasepaypreacher.net
whatever you do, don't GIS it with safesearch off
just don't
It's a really big deal in my school, and given some of the issues I had last year my Supervisor wants us to be totally on top of all paperwork and other admin stuff.
It's a pain. Hopefully he'll have some suggestions tomorrow.
You know that just has people do it, its like saying "Don't look up the wikipedia on 'a serbian film'" people always do and then complain about it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
guys i may drown this week
First off, I hate the whole notion of the "D&D hivemind" or the "echo chamber." It's a really sloppy way of portraying a lot of different viewpoints, and comes across as intrinsically dismissive.
But, there are a handful of very vocal feminists, and a handful of people who have very vocal but ultimately misogynist viewpoints, and a lot of people in between who also have vaguely misogynist viewpoints.
That shouldn't be surprising because we live in a vaguely (or not so vaguely) misogynist culture, so people who are generally reasonable and mainstream are going to have misogynist viewpoints. That doesn't make them bad people or sexist, which is a super-important thing to remember: it just makes them products of their time and place (as we all are).
And for the record, nobody (as far as I can recall) seriously argued for revoking the presumption of innocence in criminal trials in the rape thread. That's a significant oversimplification.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ugh, I did that
What you need is a couple of sea turtles and a lot of back hair.
pleasepaypreacher.net
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
Handles: LoL-Emerging, BF4/Hardline-Whiskeyjack227, Steam-Fragglerock, HOTS/Blizzard-Whiskeyjack#1333, Life-Jason
Its the one film I wish everyone involved with went to prison forever for. Like it crosses a line that should never be crossed for anything.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You haven't seen a huge sense of entitlement until you've moderated a huge video game forum.
Midgets are so difficult not to stare at, they are normal people and such, but god damn its like shaking a dudes hand thats missing fingers, your brain becomes intrigued and your sense of deceny goes out the window.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh God damnit.
So what was it like, seeing someone significantly shorter than you yet significantly bigger than you at the same time?
I've seen the videos.
also goldfish.
I'm not sure if they changed it for Reach. In the description it seemed to say something about just making enemies more resilient or something. I haven't tried it in Reach yet, though.
yeah exactly, i'm sure he's a normal guy on the inside, but his big ass head with a tiny body is just made to be stared at.
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
Handles: LoL-Emerging, BF4/Hardline-Whiskeyjack227, Steam-Fragglerock, HOTS/Blizzard-Whiskeyjack#1333, Life-Jason
I started texting my friends right away like a 5 year old. I almost took a picture as proof but i did factor in that he is a human being.
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
Handles: LoL-Emerging, BF4/Hardline-Whiskeyjack227, Steam-Fragglerock, HOTS/Blizzard-Whiskeyjack#1333, Life-Jason
shields and armor on enemies are much heavier
you need to carry a plasma pistol and use charged shots to take down elite shields; hence playing Winter Contingency because it has the least amount of them.
Wiki's description is just disgusting text, no actual pictures thank christ.
Now for something to laugh at, read the wiki on that recent movie "Devil".
pleasepaypreacher.net
And yet not 120 Days of Sodom.
OH alright brb
I am so, so sorry.
Chicken and fish can still step right up.
That codex gigas picture is pretty funny. yeah.
Give me the PG-13 version.
To be fair, Pasolini was murdered before it was released. That's sorta karma.
For everyone you don't eat, I'll eat three! (hurr hurr hurr)
Seriously though. :^:
Consider the following two statements.
1) Black people are more likely to suffer from folliculitis (skin irritation from shaving) than white people.
2) Black people score lower on IQ tests on average than white people.
Both of these are factually true statements. And in a certain context, (2) may be racist, or it may not be. If we were discussing, for instance, socioeconomic factors that reduce availability of education to black people, or social bias in IQ tests, (2) is not necessarily racist. But if we were discussing genetic differences between black people and white people, and somebody mentioned (2) as evidence of genetic inferiority, then (2) is racist.
Most of the time, though, it's something in between. Largely because individuals tend to be very bad at analyzing and understanding the sources of their own opinions. I'm not talking about critical thinking - this is different from critical thinking. This is more like introspection. Not "is this idea true," but "where did I first learn this idea, and why does it stick out in my memory, and why does it feel important?"
If we were talking about affirmative action, for example, then two people could both be stating idea (2) but one be less racist than the other strictly from context and emphasis and implication.
So most schisms between feminists and non-feminists ends up with both sides stating things that are factually empirically true, but one side who believes that once they've established the truth content of a statement their job is done, versus another side who believes that the truth content of a statement is only half of a discussion - the other half comes from the emphasis you put upon the statement in that particular context.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
my cube is like a goddamn swamp right now
gonna go cropdust the office so people don't start noticing how foul my cube is getting
Porn star is drugged and is forced to rape/get raped.
very well said