really

No, really.

└ Tags:

Discussion (44)¬

  1. hotrats says:

    ‘Everyone is in favour of free speech for people who agree with them.’
    – Noam Chomsky

  2. Sparky_Shark says:

    Author, surely in panel one that should be #metoo?

  3. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Silencing a person
    Does not convert them
    Shouting them down
    Tactics of a clown
    Without know their view, your stance you worsen

  4. Once again I’m amazed by your brilliance, Author. If the religious people would just stop throwing me bait, I’d be happy to stop taking it.

    Nassar, one of your best. You are definitely an acquired taste, but when you get it right you can be sublime.

  5. Michael says:

    Excellent, Author.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Why are they not Wearing veils?

  7. laripu says:

    @hotrats: What Chomsky says is true, but it doesn’t mean that tolerant people must provide a venue for the intolerant. Let them find their own venue.

    Political tolerance doesn’t extend to allowing people to lynch their opposition or operate concentration camps. Religious tolerance doesn’t extend to allowing human sacrifice.

    J&M can’t stop the barmaid from talking in her own establishment, but they don’t have to listen to her: they can leave. Or she can just serve them without conversation, but they can’t compel her to agree with their beliefs. On the other hand they don’t have to provide a venue for her to give a contrary speech either.

  8. hotrats says:

    laripu: I’ll thank you not to @ me, I am not a website, and your comment is patronising and ill-informed. In the context of J&M, the no-platforming issue is not about intolerance, but people like Medhi Hassan, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and Richard Dawkins, who have been no-platformed after being accused of ‘Islamophobia’ by the SPLC.

  9. Someone says:

    Accusations of Islamophobia are becoming increasingly more ridiculous. I don’t think it irrational to criticize a religion based upon its merits, or lack thereof. After all, nobody gives much of a fuck anymore if you criticize Christianity for these reasons. Why should Islam be exempt?
    Even Black Panther was accused of latent Islamophobia because the opening fight scene features a Boko Haram-style group; a far more realistic and grounded threat than something safe and predictable like Afrikaaner assholes with alien lasers (that came later).

  10. laxeyman says:

    This might be a double posting as I don’t think I logged in properly the first time so apols in advance if so; There is a debate on the Guardian this morning about no-platforming. I thought Id post a link to this and as anticipated, got moderated. Just did it for the ironic laughs really.

    Ah, now I see it did appear as anonymous. Not much good at this tech stuff.

  11. M27Holts says:

    Basically telling the truth about Islam = islamaphobia. How many more little girls will have to blown to bits before the religion of peace has even a partial reformation?

  12. Sparky_Shark says:

    Someone – whoa buddy. “Afrikaaner assholes” – I think the word you’re looking for is “arseholes” in South Africa – “Ass” is entirely too donkey related.

  13. Laripu says:

    @hotrats: The ‘@’ is how I’ve seen people on this site commonly address each other. I mimic like the primate I am. So if you take offense at that, please enjoy your outrage at this peccadillo.

    I did indeed know about those people you mentioned, and on the contrary, I think your comments to me are patronising and ill-informed.

    Again, please enjoy your hurt feelings to the extent that you can. We have such a short time in this life, so we ought to take pleasure in anything we can.

  14. Laripu says:

    At the bottom of this comment section, I find the following note:

    NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

    Bravo! I agree!
    I also understand that “no-platforming” is the right of any private entity. No-one’s freedom of speech is infringed by nit allowing them to speak on a particular campus. Especially not when that person can write a book, post on a blog, or stand on a street holding a sign.

    I may largely agree with Richard Dawkins, but he hasn’t been victimized by not being allowed to speak at a particular venue.

    On the other hand J&M are particularly stupid when they say they want to ‘no-platform’ the barmaid, because they want her company. And also, she is not being victimized, which we see from her bland acquiescence.

  15. Sparky_Shark says:

    Laripu – don’t sweat it. You’ve got credit in the bank for “hot monkey sex” from two weeks back… 🙂

  16. M27Holts says:

    Laripu…I think the issue is that innocuous thinkers like Dawkins are not allowed to speak. My god he’s a male, white upper class privileged person. Mind u a Pakistani man with a Penchance for Raping nine year olds would be welcomed on some university campuses! (He would be exonerated due to cultural relitavism and he is a product of white colonial power) Inverse racism is rife in our universities!

  17. Someone says:

    Sparky_Shark, I was born the former USA (is it officially Trumpland yet?) and even though I’m fully aware everyone else in the world says ‘arse’, barring maybe Canada, I still can’t let that other word go. Even if I have been in Australia for 18+ years. But appreciate the comment.
    I now realize my last post had two other mistakes – the extra ‘a’ in Afrikaner and that Klaue didn’t have alien tech but Wakandan tech, so still technically human (probably beside the point).

  18. Laripu, some time ago we seemed to collectively agree that directing comments to somebody as @whoever was unnecessary and pretentious. Thereafter the practice was dropped on these threads. I didn’t know that it has now become an insult to use the old nerdish format, but apparently Hotrats has taken it that way.
    Don’t take that too seriously, but if you want to conform to the C&B thread conventions, we don’t use @ when addressing our mates.

  19. Sparky_Shark says:

    DH – whoops! I use the @symbol all the time (just check my recent postings) – Arse!

    Or should that be @Arse?

  20. FreeFox says:

    @DH: I do. ^_^

  21. M27Holts says:

    I’m used to it do it all day in hipchat to communicate with my scrum team. Try not to in future peeps….

  22. machigai says:

    Don’t they blink any more?

  23. Laripu says:

    Darwin_H, I didn’t know there was any agreement on this, and in fact on the date just previous to this J&M, the @ was used 9 times. As I said, I was going along with what looked like convention.

    But you’ve now informed me, nicely, that the new convention is to not use it. So I’ll go along. It’s one less character to screw up on my cell phone.

    However, if anyone refers to me as @Laripu, I absolve you in advance of that sin:
    In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Motum Perpetuum.
    And may all your dreams come true.

  24. HelenaHandbasket says:

    “@Laripu”: I’m glad we have that whole “use/mention” thing cleared up now. There’s nothing I hate more that a recursive paradox…Or is there? I am genuinely unsure…if you get a handle on it be sure to message me direc…oh, wait…

  25. Laripu says:

    HelenaH, is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

  26. two cents' worth says:

    Laripu, thanks for Spiritus Motum Perpetuum and your solipsistic comment–they gave me my first laughs of the day today 🙂 !

  27. Laripu says:

    Two cents’ worth, it’s amazing how Latin can make any kind of nonsense sound serious. I don’t actually know any Latin, but Google Translate is magic. 🙂

  28. M27Holts says:

    Motum Perpetuum is a fabulous name for a prog rock album……

  29. Laripu says:

    Of course I stole the joke about solipsism. A friend from work left a note on my desk saying that, a few years ago. Here a web site with a bunch of jokes like that, that you’ll probably all like. My favourite is the one about kleptomaniacs not getting jokes because they take things literally.

    But Spiritus Motum Perpetuum is all mine. 😀
    Here’s another one of mine, appropriate to this site:
    God irks in mythterious ways.

  30. M27Holts says:

    Laripu. Surely a solipsist cannot also logically be a kleptomaniac.

  31. Laripu says:

    M27Holts, to the solipsist, that’s correct. They’re just taking imaginary stuff from imaginary people.

    To others, if there are any, the solipsist is incorrect in his solipsism, and is indeed a kleptomaniac.

    To me, if a person isn’t a psychopath, there’s a cure for solipsism: that’s to love a dog.

    In conclusion, woof.

  32. M27Holts says:

    As far as consciousness is concerned I’m with Dennett and his multiple drafts model….consciousness explained is a very thorough thesis…I would advise anybody to read that!

  33. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Bertrand Russell on solipsism:
    “As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.”
    I love the idea that solipsists would write letters to folk expressing consternation that there were not more solipsists about… But then we have a world where post-modernists claim that all claims to truth (apart from this one, natch) are power grabs, or relativists tell us that making moral judgments about people is evil. And no-one points at these folk in the streets and hoots at them, or encourages children to openly mock them and throw stones at them.

  34. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Regarding the use of ‘@’, I think that I was the first to raise an objection here several years ago, my point being that we talk to people rather than at them. It is to the credit of the decent patrons of the C&B that it became more-or-less the convention to abandon the use of the ‘at’ symbol.

    I shan’t start on about the accursed plague of the ‘hashtag arseholes’ because I don’t have a cat to kick.

  35. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    From the previous thread:

    Darwin Harmless says:
    March 20, 2018 at 8:38 am
    M27Holts, amen to that. In my days, at least in elementary school, the boys and girls lined up separately to come in after recess. I have no idea why.

    DH, there are many Edwardian-era schools still in use across Britain today with seperate entrances for boys and girls (no longer adhered to, of course) which opened onto seperate cloakrooms (not changing-rooms or toilets, purely places to hang coats and hats), though the classes themselves were mixed-sex.
    My own junior school was one such building, as is the school my grandsons attend.
    Just to be certain that everybody knew which door was which, the stone lintels above each had ‘BOYS’ or ‘GIRLS’ carved into them.

  36. M27Holts says:

    A.O.S. Aye my secondary school had such carved lintels. But segregation at my school only happened in games. Metalwork and woodwork. That school is now flattened and a wonderful new learning building is equipped with technologies we could only have dreamed of! And all in just 35 years!!! On a separate issue….post modernist bullshit is partly to blame for the perpetuation of bronze age savagery in the current age of technology…..

  37. pink squirrel says:

    Why would J go to a pub anyway – or is it only water to wine and never water to beer?

  38. Laripu says:

    Pink squirrel, my guess (which is total fiction about total fiction) is that J can change water into beer. But only to Bud Light, so it’s down to the pub for some real beer.

    D’ya think he favours Belgian abbey ales?

  39. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Laripu, I’d wager he’s never asked for a Rusty Nail cocktail.

    M27Holts, I hate to think of those gorgeous old buildings being flattened; much better in my opinion to keep the structure and modernise the interior.
    I often pick my grandsons up from school and it always lifts my spirits to walk into a lovely Edwardian building (built in 1912) filled with 21stC. technology. It’s such a wonderful melding of history and modernity, and if nothing else the building is certainly much easier on the eye than the modern, stacked portacabin construction sets.

  40. M27Holts says:

    AOS. I left school in 1981 I think the building was built in the 1920s. It was fairly dilapidated when I left so I reckon the decision to flatten it in 2015 was probably the right one because the new modern building is a school properly befitting with a technological society. I think back to the blackboard rubber throwing teachers and think that the kids of today have it all on a plate…..no excuse for wagging when multi media teaching can expand your learning tenfold compared to the dinosaurs who tried to teach me!

  41. Anonymous says:

    Well solipsism is the philosophy of minimal assumptions. There is only one entity and if you start assuming a world with multiple people you end up with a fantastically large Universe with Galaxies like dust. So I content solipsism is mandated (or womandated) by Occam’s Razor.

    Observing human behavior, I think most of us are solipsists at heart and pretend (even and especially to ourselves) that we are not.

  42. Walter says:

    Well solipsism is the philosophy of minimal assumptions. There is only one entity and if you start assuming a world with multiple people you end up with a fantastically large Universe with Galaxies like dust. So I content solipsism is mandated (or womandated) by Occam’s Razor.

    Observing human behavior, I think most of us are solipsists at the core or our being and pretend (even and especially to ourselves) that we are not.

    On my first try I forgot to fill in name and emailaddy, in other words I tried to post as Nobody. So Polyphemus hates me more than Odysseus.

    Of curse neither of those character exist except in my imagination.

  43. Walter says:

    There was a comment or editorial in the New York Times saying Trump was a thug. Obviously false, because the Honorable President Trump would never stoop to manual labor.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.