Most recent activity
-
Yeah, I think it should probably stay on the forum though. putting effort into hassling someone elsewhere is crossing a line for me. That's just my opinion.
-
Hang on. Do we really think that pursuing someone onto eBay just to make stupid offers on their bike is actually worth the lolz? Seems like we might be straying into dick-move territory here (although, admittedly I didn't see all the comments on this thread before they were deleted).
-
There was an anonymous fella
Who tried to sell us a Quella
But its advertised red colour
Was actually much duller
Than his flouncing, which was positively stellar -
That saddle should be in the Noah's Ark thread.
-
Positively Shatnerian
-
DfT subsidising e-cargobike purchases for companies:
https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/transport/ecargo-bike-grant-fund
Nice little example here too:
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/e-bike-cuts-co2-emissions-london-business
-
If by "immense fortitude" he means tactical boneheadedess and by "determination" he means the perseverance to flog a horse corpse into paté, then yes.
-
It is bollocks insasmuch as it's not up to men to control women and the idea of a physical undertone to all male conversations is tosh. As with much of his stuff there is a grain of truth in there somewhere. I think that there are constraints of expression put on men that are sometimes not applied to women, which can (in extreme cases) lead to strange situations. To give a trivial example I heard of a heated discussion (between a man and a woman) in a workplace about a professional decision that had to be made. The endpoint of the argument was the woman crying. The result was that the observers to the discussion sided with her, not just in terms of sympathy, but in terms of the underlying decision. The man was left asking, "what would you think of me if I did that?"
Although, as with most of these things these apparent transgressions result from women not being included in these sorts of situations in the first place, so the "rules" are inconsistently applied. The rules (explicit or implicit) of reasonable discourse were probably developed to improve on men just sorting out who was "right" by just fighting about it. So they've not been developed with the view that they'd be applied to women.
-
I've had some interesting discussions with people who see Jordan Peterson as pretty-much a prophet and hang on his every word. I think he is generally solid within his specific field of trait psychology and I think his application of it is generally within the mould of the classical liberal. I think he's considerably less solid when he steps outside that realm.
I think the events of the last few years (Trump, Brexit etc.) have seen a really substantial polarisation of the debate that he has become involved in (partly by association/adulation), to the point where merely the defence of free speech can mark you out as a reactionary or closet racist. When we've got to the point of Peter Tatchell being berated by LGBTQ groups something has gone seriously wrong. I think that this
speech by Christopher Hitchens is well worth a watch in that vein and it also deals with the Islamophobia issue from about 12:20 onwards.
2nds