Let's Jam this Bog with Roasts

[Slime]

i dunno. its becoming more known how messed up it is cause a lot of big youtubers have been making videos about it lately. but some companies that used to strike everyyyyything in the early youtube days have stopped doing that (like disney). and more seem to lean toward claiming now, rather than striking, which is nice.

i'm wondering if these claims are because they're ignorant, or if im missing something. like for my content, this is a net negative for them - i will never create any free viral ads for them again. many people in my comments said they only checked out the show because of my remixes. and companies pay me thousands for videos like this. and now people watching these remixes have to watch ads for some random product that has nothing to do with the show. so, they're taking all these negatives to get... like $8 a month in ad revenue? makes me wonder if there's some aspect im missing, but i think its just a dumb policy they have.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Lohr

politifact makes a lot of strange decisions with how they choose the truth meter rating. often their explanations are ok, but the truth meter choice is bullshit. that's why its ridiculous when people compare overall scores on politifact. its a pretty biased site. they will sometimes lower the truth meter just because they disagree with what the person said, even though it was true. for example, with the last picture in that gallery their reason for "half-true" is "its hard to blame the law!"

thats just a collection someone made of some silly examples, except i've seen MUCH harder-hitting examples so i'm pretty disappointed at this person's collection... but i still linked it. it was just a random comment on reddit. a harder hitting collection maybe could get popular on reddit, but you'd probably have to make it appear hillary-leaning. shaun!!!! get the front page with this idea!!

Haha,
well I looked up that "hard to blame the law" story. To me it checks out. That quote's referring to Obamacare and how in 2008 Obama promised to lower insurance premiums, yet the cost of health care keeps steadily rising. It gets a half-true rating because while it's not wrong, it's misleading to implicate Obamacare, because prices were going to rise anyway.

You could've found that out for yourself if you weren't looking at an Imgur gallery of cherry-picked headlines!

I think Politifact's a good resource and I don't have any interest in trashing it. even if they're not perfectly unbiased or free from influence (nothing is, as we learned from The Onion), it's good enough for me. Even if Politifact's wrong 10% of the time, which would be a lot if you're taking the site as gospel or something, that's still good enough to decide which politicians are the bigger liars and to give you a general sense of how the political system works

Originally Posted by Lohr

the ted cruz one, politifact says "transgender girls aren't boys >... FALSE!"

OK you are probably right about some ratings being bad, but not this one.


Ted Cruz said, "The federal government is going after school districts, trying to force them to let boys shower with little girls." It gets a 'false' rating because it's so utterly misleading and there's no way anyone could glean from that quote he's talking about transpeople. Cruz makes it sound like the government is a bunch of insane perverts (and no doubt he's fine with his supporters thinking that). That's what's false here. The government acknowledges a certain segment of society has gender identity issues, and Cruz doesn't. OK maybe in Cruz's mind he's telling the truth. So should he get a better rating? I don't think so because whatever he thinks about transpeople has little to do with the federal government's intentions. I mean he's an asshole for saying that.

this post's rating: half-ture that's just shaun's opinion lawlawlalwalwllol

thanks for having faith in my ability to get to the front page of Reddit.

[Slime]

a

[Slime]

-

[Izak MD]

Originally Posted by Bown

The basic thing is that people think Tyler Durden is meant to be right when he clearly isn't. He's a dangerous psychopath and his group commit horrifically violent acts and basically become terrorists and the movie doesn't try and glorify it at all. There's also a gigantic current of homoeroticism to a lot of the fighting stuff which goes against the masculinity interpretation a lot. I can't speak for the book but the movie most def does not endorse Durden's actions

how does any of that mean the film isn't about masculinity being suppressed by modern society?

you're starting from the assumption that a dangerous psychopath isn't more manly than a nice morally good person. as far as the gay stuff... i dont know waht to tell you, dude, that's your whole deal to worry about

i never read that guy's review of the movie, but based on your description, i'm inclined to agree with him more than you.

[French Fry]

hahaha lohr's sig

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Lohr

i disagree with how you're looking at them. they aren't applying the "context" rule evenly at all. cruz' quote is fully a context one. its common for conservatives to reject the idea that a transgender girl is a girl. in the context of this conservative speaking to fellow conservatives, it is a true statement, because you understand what he is saying. yes, his way of wording it makes it more extreme, and that is how some view transgender issues. politifact is applying the liberal-accepted definition to cruz, removing context, and then giving him a pure False rating. thats biased BS. we all know what cruz was saying and you need to be consistent in how you apply context if you are a fact checking site with ratings.

But it doesn't matter what's decidedly true according to a single ideological framework if you remain inside that framework. OK, if a racist says to another racist, "Black people are three-fifths human", should he be given a rating of 'true' on Politifact because he was speaking to his fellow racists and within context there's no dispute over what's being said? Afterall lots of racists reject the idea that black people are fully human! We'd be using a biased definition of human to declare this racist as making false statements...

Trans people are validated by the scientific community as real. Cruz doesn't wanna acknowledge it. He gets a false rating for being an asshole.

[Izak MD]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Trans people are validated by the scientific community as real. Cruz doesn't wanna acknowledge it. He gets a false rating for being an asshole.

the scientific community has done nothing to agree with the idea that a transgendered person is the actual sex with whom he or she identifies

[Shaun]

whatever it's a liberal conspiracy then to get kids to shower together i don't care

[Izak MD]

sorry, i just didn't realize that You Fucking Love Science so much

[Slime]

a

[Izak MD]

the research is also extremely spotty, and some of the psychologists take it upon themselves to play the role of activist to destroy other competing research

you might wanna read this: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12...l-science.html

Dreger also recounts her earlier investigation into the controversy surrounding J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist and researcher of human sexuality and former chair of that university’s psychology department. In 2003, Bailey released The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, a book in which he relates the stories of several transgender women and promotes the theories of Ray Blanchard, a Canadian sex researcher with a long history of working with patients who were born anatomically male but hoped to undergo gender reassignment.

In his book, Bailey explains that Blanchard believed his patients who had transitioned, or who were hoping to, fit into two rather different categories. Some were “transkids” (a non-clinical term Dreger, not Bailey, uses): folks who were born as boys but had been very effeminate by societal standards since childhood, and who were attracted to men once they hit puberty. In these cases, Blanchard posited, access to sex and intimate companionship might have been one component of what eventually pushed them to start presenting as female. As Dreger explains, the fact that transkids come across so effeminate “means that their sexual opportunities are often limited while they are presenting themselves as men. Straight men aren’t interested in having sex with them because they’re male, and gay men often aren’t sexually attracted to them because most gay men are sexually attracted to masculinity, not femininity, and these guys are really femme.” Transitioning, then, gives transkids an opportunity to have the relationships with men they’d like to — because they’re effeminate, they can pass as women whom straight men find themselves attracted to.

The second, more controversial type of male-to-female transitioner posited by Blanchard consisted of folks with so-called autogynephilia. These individuals have usually presented as male for most of their lives and are attracted to women, but they discover along the way that they are sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman. They tend to transition later in life, often after having married women and started families.

There’s also a really important cultural component to Blanchard’s theory, as Dreger writes:

Blanchard’s taxonomy of male-to-female transexuals recognized the importance of sexual orientation in the gendered self-identities of both those who begin as homosexual males and those who experience amour de soi en femme [the French phrase for “love of oneself as a woman”]. However, he didn’t see sexual orientation as the only thing a male factors in when deciding whether to transition. He recognized that in one environment — say, an urban gay neighborhood like Chicago’s Boystown — an ultrafemme gay man might find reasonable physical safety, employment, and sexual satisfaction simply by living as an ultrafemme gay man. But in a very different environment — say, a homophobic ethnic enclave in Chicago — he might find life survivable only via complete transition to womanhood. Whether a transkid grows up to become a gay man or a transgender woman would depend on the individual’s interaction with the surrounding cultural environment. Similarly, an autogynephilic man might not elect transition if his cultural milieu would make his post-transition life much harder.

There is, to say the least, a huge amount going on here. But what’s key to keep in mind is that some transgender people and activists hold very dear the idea that they have simply been born in the wrong type of body, that transitioning allows them to effectively fix a mistake that nature made. The notion that there might be a cultural component to the decision to transition, or that sexuality, rather than a hardwired gender identity, could be a factor, complicates this gender-identity-only narrative. It also brings sexuality back into a conversation that some trans activists have been trying to make solely about gender identity — roughly parallel to the way some gay-rights activists sweep conversations about actual gay sexuality under the rug, preferring to focus on idealized, unthreatening-to-heterosexuals portrayals of committed gay relationships between clean-cut, taxpaying adults.

But as Dreger explains, Bailey, being someone with a penchant for poking mischievously at political correctness, wasn’t too concerned about the political dimension of what he was arguing in his book. From a scientific perspective, he explicitly viewed the idea that “everybody is truly and easily assignable to one of two gender identities” as an oversimplification; part of his motivation for writing The Man Who Would Be Queen was to try to blow it up, to argue that transsexuality is more complicated than that. So it shouldn’t be surprising that some trans activists and allies didn’t appreciate the book’s argument — and they obviously have every right to disagree with Bailey and Blanchard’s views. What is surprising is just how big an explosion The Man Who Would Be Queen sparked, and how underhanded the campaign against Bailey subsequently got.

A small group of activists led by Lynn Conway, a transgender University of Michigan electrical engineer and computer scientist, and Andrea James, a trans activist, started going after Bailey shortly after the book’s publication. In allegations laid out on a large UM-hosted web page built by Conway, they charged that Bailey — as summed up by Dreger — “had failed to get ethics board approval for studies of transgender research subjects as required by federal regulation; that he had violated confidentiality; that he had been practicing psychology without a license; and that he had slept with a trans woman while she was his research subject.” Central to their argument was the idea that Bailey had dragged his trans subjects out into the spotlight without their consent, that he had callously manipulated them and used them for his own purposes — a particularly potent charge given that outing someone as transgender can, in the most extreme instances, put their life at risk given the scary levels of violence this population faces at the hands of bigots. (Conway’s website originally included Dreger’s own name on a list of trans activists and allies who were furious with Bailey over his book, even though, at that time, Dreger was only faintly familiar with the controversy and had never even expressed a public opinion on the issue. Dreger asked Conway to remove her name.)

James, in Dreger’s telling, went after Bailey with at-times-scary ferocity, engaging in a host of intimidation tactics: She posted photos of Bailey’s young daughter online with nasty text underneath (in one case calling her a “cock-starved exhibitionist”), sent angry emails to his colleagues, and quickly turned on anyone who didn’t join in her crusade — including some who said that they felt that their own life stories had been accurately and sympathetically captured in Bailey’s book. (James herself, Dreger reveals, acknowledged her own autogynephilia — using that exact word — in a 1998 letter.)

The allegations were so serious, and came in such a heaping quantity, that Bailey’s reputation was permanently tarnished in the eyes of many casual observers. What those observers can’t have known was his long-standing history of support for transgender people — he had used his perch as a researcher to advocate passionately for better treatment of this population and for improved access to gender-reassignment resources, and had even, at the request of one of the subjects in his book, written letters to physicians on behalf of a group of young trans women who were seeking reassignment surgery. Before the full weight of the controversy descended, The Man Who Would Be Queen had been nominated for the Lambda Literary Award’s 2004 prize in the transgender/genderqueer category for its textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects. As a result of immense pressure — Deirdre McCloskey, a respected scholar of economics and history who wrote a memoir about her male-to-female transition, and who helped Conway and James go after Bailey, said nominating the book for the award “would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies” — the organization voted to yank the nomination.

Just as she would later dive deep into the controversy that ensnared Napoleon Chagnon, Dreger devoted a huge amount of time to untangling what had really happened. It would take pages to even concisely summarize what she found — she eventually published her almost-50,000-word investigation in Archives of Sexual Behavior, in an article which starts, “This is not a simple story. If it were, it would be considerably shorter.”

But to get a flavor of the quality of the evidence amassed against Bailey by his critics, consider one charge: that Bailey had practiced psychology without a license. Conway, James, and McCloskey filed a formal complaint with the state of Illinois claiming that, since Bailey lacked a license as a clinical psychologist, he had violated state regulations by writing those letters in support of the young trans women seeking to transition. Not only was there no legal basis to the claim — if you don’t receive compensation for your services, which Bailey didn’t, you don’t even need a license to provide counseling in Illinois — but Bailey was completely forthright in his letters supporting the women, both about the fact that he had only had brief conversations with them (as opposed to having provided them with extensive counseling) and about his own qualifications and expertise — he even attached copies of his CV. “Presumably all this was why [Illinois] never bothered to pursue the charge,” writes Dreger, “although you’d never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.”

[Slime]

ok i will read that when i get back

[Slime]

good article! very scary.

[Phil Williamson]

as far as Politifact sometimes giving people the benefit of the doubt or considering outside context and sometimes not goes, I think they usually only do so when the experts interviewed for the article unanimously or near-unanimously agree that the statement is misleading without the further context. like the Rand Paul thing about Democratic mayors...yes it's true, but it's totally meaningless as a causative statement and everyone knows it, so it would be weird to just call it true. so I think part of this is just jumping to conclusions based on the one-sentence blurbs rather than actually reading the articles. and part of it is also that the experts they interview probably tend to be liberal since almost everyone in economics, political science, history, and international relations is.

[Slime]

yeah. they need to just decide though. how much context, as a site-wide rule. if they're relying on "how misleading is this particular thing outside of context vs in context" and all, its getting wonky and will lead to more bias. like that shitty Cruz one. its a site with a rating meter. the meter implies there is some sort of a set system for determining the rating, not decided per story how the rating will work.

[Happyjuice]

The Tampa Bay Times owns politifact btw. They lean to the left, it's not like they're MSNBC liberal but they aren't some unbiased research group or something.



Bown, how the hell did you get the idea the fighting in fight club has homosexual undertones/themes/whatever????? I've never heard anybody say that and I really don't see where you're getting that from.





Trans people are the gender that they were born. Until "SCIENCE GOES TO FAR" and somebody that was born a male can carry a pregnancy full term and give birth then they're still a male, even after cutting off their dick and taking hormones. It's like Michael Jackson making his skin white didn't turn him caucasin. I understand the argument of wanting to be called whatever gender you identify with because that's what feels comfortable to you. But it just isn't true, the human body isn't designed to switch genders. Lets be real, you're born with certain reproductive organs. That's how humans work, we don't change back and forth like a fucking star fish.

[Slime]

a

[Tony Clay]

They are lohrs

[Bown]

Originally Posted by Izak MD

how does any of that mean the film isn't about masculinity being suppressed by modern society?

you're starting from the assumption that a dangerous psychopath isn't more manly than a nice morally good person. as far as the gay stuff... i dont know waht to tell you, dude, that's your whole deal to worry about

i never read that guy's review of the movie, but based on your description, i'm inclined to agree with him more than you.

because in the movie the men who feel their masculinity is being suppressed end up starting a group to beat each other up like a bunch of idiots and then it turns into a violent, messed-up terrorist group. the movie isn't suggesting this is a natural byproduct of society, it's suggesting they're totally retarded and dangerous

[Damage Jackal]

Haha apparently Queen wanted to make a a biopic about themselves where Freddie Mercury dies halfway through and the rest of it is about them stoically carrying on.

Sacha Baron Cohen has revealed he walked away from a high-profile role as Freddie Mercury because the surviving members of Queen wanted a substantial part of the film to focus on them.

Speaking to the US radio host Howard Stern, Baron Cohen said he hoped to present a “warts ‘n’ all” view of the legendary singer’s hedonistic lifestyle, but Mercury’s former bandmates were more concerned with protecting their legacy.

The comedian and actor said: “A member of the band – I won’t say who – said: ‘You know, this is such a great movie because it’s got such an amazing thing that happens in the middle.’”

“And I go: ‘What happens in the middle of the movie?’ He goes: ‘You know, Freddie dies.’ ... I go: ‘What happens in the second half of the movie?’ He goes: ‘We see how the band carries on from strength to strength.’

“I said: ‘Listen, not one person is going to see a movie where the lead character dies from Aids and then you see how the band carries on.’

Fucking idiots

[Scatterbrain]

hahaha jesus christ, that's pretty deluded.

[Tuna Hematoma]

...Queen continued after he died?

[Izak MD]

Originally Posted by Bown

because in the movie the men who feel their masculinity is being suppressed end up starting a group to beat each other up like a bunch of idiots and then it turns into a violent, messed-up terrorist group. the movie isn't suggesting this is a natural byproduct of society, it's suggesting they're totally retarded and dangerous

nah sorry i don't really think you 'get' the film

they do turn dangerous, but it's clear that they're coming from a sympathetic place. good satire typically recognizes the flaws of everyone. i don't personally think Fight Club is good satire, but it definitely achieves that, at least

if the whole point of the film was that they're a bunch of idiots for beating each other up, then it wouldn't go so far out of its way to glamorize the violence and make it look cool. or is that the 'homoerotic' stuff you're claiming to see

fact is, men fight. it feels good to fight. it feels good to do traditional manly things. you should try it sometime. chuck pahlaniuk, the original author, knows it too.

[Bown]

sympathetic if you're an MRA, maybe

reminder that you haven't seen the entire movie