By David Futrelle
It’s a rarity in this year of terrible, but tonight has been a night of actual good news! Dems are winning elections, and Reddit has banned the toxic cesspool known as the Incels subreddit! Celebrate while you can in this open thread!
No trolls. Fuck trolls.
This is the first time a wall of news notifications hasn't been a nightmare in god knows how long pic.twitter.com/NpTaW5QK6e
— Ashley Feinberg (ashleyfeinberg.bsky.social) (@ashleyfeinberg) November 8, 2017
Dems have won all three of the marquee off-year races — NJGov, VAGov, NYC Mayor — for the first time since 1989.
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) November 8, 2017
Democrats decimated Republicans across the country tonight, at every level and in every branch of state government.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) November 8, 2017
Thanks, Trump!
And this is the icing on the cake:
Trans woman Danica Roem (D) just defeated anti-LGBTQ candidate Bob Marshall (R) in Virginia, becoming the first trans state legislator in America.
— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) November 8, 2017
The man who wrote the anti-trans bathroom bill just lost the election to a trans woman. Let that sink in. https://t.co/KFEZXSYvMy
— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) November 8, 2017
Oh, and there’s this:
Jeff Sessions' DOJ Drops Prosecution Of Woman Who Laughed At Jeff Sessions https://t.co/slOPOhmLYN pic.twitter.com/ekRsU1RJAq
— Curt and Frank 🏳️🌈 (@curtandfrank) November 7, 2017
Let’s all celebrate by laughing at Jeff Sessions!
Meanwhile, on Reddit:
Reddit has banned the Incels subreddit. About fucking time; it was a cesspool of misogyny and violent hate. pic.twitter.com/8RieXtxZLN
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) November 8, 2017
HEALTH NOTE: Though cheered by tonight’s news, I’m still dealing with a shitstorm of health issues. I will return to regular posting as soon as I can, but I’m not sure when that will be. Thanks again for your patience and your support!
@Weird Eddie
Rock it – and good luck. 🙂
@Weird Eddie
“The “lifestyle” change that Ohlmann spoke of is necessary, I can’t put out the fire on my ass until I (1) accept that my ass IS on fire, and (2) crawl out of the burning trash can I’ve been living in. The rest of the process is an ongoing mental, physical, spiritual and emotional treatment procedure to keep myself wanting to avoid crawling back in.”
Really well said! And (EDIT) I forgot to offer fist bumps for crawling out of that burning trash can! FIST BUMPS!
@Ohlmann
“That’s because in a lot of cases, the addicted people get into its addiction to solve / escape a particular problem, and don’t get into it just because the drug is a magical willpower-stealing powder.”
Right, the drug or behavior is not a magical willpower-stealing substance. However it can be the catalyst for brain changes and a willpower-stealing mental illness called addiction. (And what mental illness can really be willpowered away?). Not everyone who abuses drugs or behaviors is addicted to them. And the definition of what is “abuse”, and of how much is “too” much, is really subjective anyway.
I do think that sometimes the definitions of addiction are a little too broad and they catch people who aren’t really addicted, but that are rather abusing the drug for whatever reason, or that are only dependent* but not really addicted. Which only muddies the waters.
(In my unprofessional opinion).
*Dependent here meaning physically addicted. Which is an entirely different beast than psychological addiction, and people can be physically dependent on drugs without being really psychologically addicted to them and all.
Re addiction: thinking about it is still a bit like rubbing sandpaper on my eyeballs, even though years have passed. But the ongoing discussion in this thread has been fascinating.
Just read this piece in The Atlantic about Seattle possibly opening a safe injecting facility. It’s actually quite good – well-researched, and the author seems to be doing her level best not to judge, which is frankly refreshing. Every time the issue comes up here, the moral panic explodes and sensible discussion goes out the window.
The article gives some sense of the mind-boggling complexity of addiction (wrt heroin, at least); the psychological, legal, economic, social & cultural dimensions, etc. etc. which for me underscores the difficulty of successful treatment.
Bah ha ha ha ha!
BakedAlaska has been kicked off Twitter, and Jason Kessler, Laura Loomer, and Richard Spencer have been de-verified and their little blue checkmark taken away.
I also found out while confirming the Kessler de-verification that he blocked me. ❄❄❄
Womp womp.
@mrex
A fair distinction, I guess – it’s a cleaner way of saying “not totally hooked” 😛
Though I’d use physiological rather than physical – it’s easy enough for non addicts to handwave away addiction (the addicts equivalent of saying “have you tried cheering up” to a person suffering from depression) anyway – without making it easier to ignore that the impact of
“Hey, this shit has reworked my body enough that it will no longer function without it.” is usually neglected.
@Everyone
I’m staying out of the AA discussion – it benefited me but doesn’t benefit everyone.
The one thing I will say about it is don’t dismiss it out of hand, especially without personal knowledge. There is jack all accessable addiction help in the USA unless you have cash – removing one that can be accessed by anyone from someone’s often reluctant consideration because you personally don’t like aspects of it is, to my eyes, a bit of a shitty thing to do.
Oh, boy. Roosh weighs in on Weinstein.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a0c911de4b0b17ffce21306/amp?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
Over here everyone’s going on about what a great guy that abuser.politician was and how we need to treat abusers more ‘sensitively’.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/15/carl-sargeant-son-knowing-how-much-he-was-loved-helps-us-cope
what no one mention yet and also what I think scijld said is:
for people not famous they dont go to rehab when they accused of sexual assalt. they go in JAIL. only reason Weinstein and Spacey can say they go in rehab and come back 2 weeks after and say they cured is because they rich and famous.
they are not sex addicts. they not need rehab or sullort. they are criminals and most to go in jail.
To go to rehab after crime is something what only rich and famous people can do. any one who is not like this, any ordinary person goes directly to trial and jail for what crimes they commit.
this not about addicton! this not about therapy and rehab. simply, they too rich to be punished and that is the big problem.
@ Valya
And as we were chatting about on Discord, getting into ‘therapy’ before a story breaks allows perpetrators to shut down the reporting because ‘medical treatment’ is deemed to be private. Over here anyway.
@Alan
but it is not important about therapy. if he before received therapy, he still commits the crime by sexual abuse. it not important what therapy he gets, before or after. he must to be punished. and because he rich and famous he will not be punished.
because if it is me for example, I am not famous or rich and if I must to go to phsycolog for support and therapy but then also I commit the crime, I will be arrested. and then they must to decide if I am insane or sane and then punish or put into mental institution until I ready to go on trial.
but this guy’s not even arrested – they just say some things and go and hide in therapy.
we argue again and again about if sex addiction real or not real – but it not importantly! imagine they have somehting that definately real, imagine they been in therapy before for painkiller addiction. we all know this addictive. but if they rape someone, this is different. they go to therapy for something but also they comited the crime and must to be punished
but both using something that is separate for excuse because they know they have money and fame for protection.
@Valentin
You’re right. Plus, they could even get therapy in prison. Probably not as comfy as the rehab clinic, though…
@Alan
Which reporting do you mean? In the press? Not the victims reporting the abuse surely…?
@ little lurker
Yup. You may remember the Naomi Campbell case. It was somewhat controversial. Public interest vs privacy and all that. But the upshot was that it was held stuff like therapy and rehab fell into the category of unreportable ‘health’ matters.
So you can see how PR people can exploit that.
I’m now hearing that the LA shooter murdered his wife the night before the rampage.
I think that removes any remaining doubts about the link to domestic violence.
Meanwhile, I know this next bit is off topic but there’re a few tech savvy people here, including ones with reason to be extra careful about computer security.
Do any of you know how to work around the new Firefox version blocking older extensions? One in particular, at least: NoScript. It was supposed to be updated before Firefox itself was, but for some odd reason that hasn’t happened. I can’t find the beta version anywhere (that the release notes mentioned multiple times in recent months) either. So as near as I can tell, I have to make the existing version work with the new Firefox or else greatly limit my web browsing to only the most trusted sites until God knows when. (They now claim by November 19, but they lied about the update date before, and I have no reason whatsoever to think they won’t do it again. For all I know it will not go out of beta until February. Or the 2020 general election. Or ever.)
Their own page claims that finding a setting called “extensions.legacy.enabled” and changing it to “true” is such a workaround, but I tried that and it didn’t work. The setting exists, and can be toggled. But the NoScript extension still won’t work after. And still won’t work after a browser restart. The setting isn’t getting flipped back to “false” (if it was I’d then try tricks with read-only settings or users and groups permissions to stop Firefox changing it) but it doesn’t seem to have the advertised effect either.
Please help soon, with either a) a workaround or b) a link to where I can download an xpi of the Firefox 57 compatible beta of NoScript.
@ Surplus to Requirements
Can’t help with NoScript – however, ublock origin will cover the same sort of stuff if you set it to medium block mode (don’t use hard block mode unless you really enjoy writing rules 😛 )
Buys you safe browsing time until NoScript updates, at least.
@Surplus
I had too many problems with NoScript on the mobile version of firefox so I started using Bluehell and just a on/off toggle for javascript.
@Valentine
The reason why Weinstein and Spacey haven’t been arrested yet is because they are still under investigation. The police have to reach a burden of proof for a crime before they arrest anyone in the US. Does that burden of proof seem strangly high for rich white men? Yes, yes it does, but it would be that high whether or not they went to rehab. The rehab’s more of a PR thing, more of a “don’t fire me from my shows” thing.
Spacey I know is under investigation by the Nantucket (Massachusetts) police for sexually assaulting the son of a Boston Globe reporter I believe. Can I make a joke about how the Nantucket police do nothing against rich white men other than sit on buckets, and say fuck its? Well I just did. Sorry not sorry.
Some prime mocking material in PeeVee’s link.
Says the guy who thinks that the laws and culture should change because the only way he’s ever going to get a wife who is totally submissive to him, supermodel gorgeous, 18 years old and a virgin is if he’s allowed to enslave one. That’s not a dead giveaway that his masculinity is extremely fragile or anything.
Oh, and look. Non-misogynistic moderate MRA Warren Farrell has provided his two cents and proved he’s totally just about helping men and not hating women.
Some of the people accused are good looking actors though. Like Ed Westwick of Gossip Girl. Or Ben Affleck. And I find it hilarious still that the MRAs are so obsessed with Brad Pitt. He’s 53 years old. While he’s still very looking, his peak hotness days were back in the 1990s. Can’t they find a new theoretical hot guy who is apparently allowed to harass women?
Isn’t he kind of undercutting his theory that men are the oppressed gender here? If women have to choose between accepting sexual harassment or not being hired and men can just keep women out of the workplace if they’re forced to treat us like human beings, it really doesn’t look like men are the marginalized ones here.
@mrex
then why we talking so much about rehab, about if sex addiction real or not real?
it is very clear why they to rehab – to get public opinion on their flavour, look like they are sorry for what they done. when really if they truly sorry they must to cooperate with police, make apology statement and stay in public eye to show they know they did wrong. when they run and hide they show they want to be the victim. all scarey press and media is making them stress!
also if they building case, this is fine. but! normal person would be arrested, would be questioned by police then release on bail. and they must remain and police will investigate and build evidence. but they not treated like that at all! they are not questioned and allow to run away and hide in rehab.
edit @ wwth
yes, very difficult now to say all women are to blame when male victims too. so they ignore them ((
Also, nice job MRAs are doing ignoring that some of the victims in this wave of stories are male. None of them even brought up Kevin Spacey or offered any kind of compassion or support for his victims.
mrex:
I would hate to be a journo reporting on that story. To be handed a story which could literally begin “there was a young man from Nantucket”, and be totally unable to use that line, would just be torture.
@ WWTH
You may find it amusing (or nauseating, either probably fits) that Roosh is feeling his age now.
Ironically that was in response to an article about rejection. I still find it amazing that this PUA thing is basically “do what we say and 99999/100000 women will run away from you, but maybe one will give you the time of day”
@WWTH
No surprise. MRAs, PUAs and their like-minded ilk rather have most sex crimes be legal. They don’t actually care for sex crimes or the victims – male or female. If you’re male, you’re perceived as weak, “beta”, or ‘lucky’ to have had the experience. If you’re female, you obviously did something to provoke it. And if you weren’t flailing or screaming, then you’re not quiet a victim to them either.
Those guys benefit from that power over others as part of their masculine identity. So, it isn’t surprising that they haven’t said anything positive or supportive – being that way is weak and feminine to them, probably. They won’t see Terry Crews’ story without running to feminists and hollering that male victims exist. Using him only to push their agenda against women. They just don’t give a fuck.
@WWTH
” None of them even brought up Kevin Spacey or offered any kind of compassion or support for his victims.”
That’s because they haven’t found a way to blame a women for Spacey yet. Give them time, give them time.
@Valentine
“then why we talking so much about rehab, about if sex addiction real or not real?”
Because someone brought up the rehab that Spacey and Weinstein are going to, a rehab that treats hundreds of people who are not Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein, and criticized their practices for treating all sex addicts.
Which is why we are discussing sex rehab and sex addiction. 🙂
“but! normal person would be arrested, would be questioned by police then release on bail.”
Bail only comes into play if you get charged. And how do you know that Spacey, at least, has not been questioned by the Nantucket police? There is no medical building on the planet that can hold off the reach of Uncle Sam. Not that I’m holding my breath for charges. The US does NOT have a good record in this regard.
However, IMO I’m guessing that if anyone gets charged in this reckoning, it’s going to be the men that assaulted boys. Even in blue-blooded, ultra liberal Massachussets, the “EWWW GAY SEX” factor comes into play.
Edit; how the fuck did I manage to misspell “Massachusetts”?
It is amusing. Because these guys, while they’re young insist that men age like fine wine while women age like milk and they’ll have just as good, if not better chances with hot young women when they’re middle aged as they do when they’re twenty something. Because young women totally don’t avoid that creepy middle aged guy who goes to clubs by himself and hits on women young enough to be his daughter.
There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to be monogamous and married but to think you’re not going to age out of the club scene is just so ridiculous and naive. It’s like they think that choosing to settle down is what makes you age rather than the passage of time and doing “game” is going to keep them young forever.
*sigh* And just when the Star earns some kudos for its reporting, it goes and disappoints me by publishing more Jordan Peterson malarky: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2017/11/15/suppressing-tvo-video-stifling-free-speech-is-making-wilfrid-laurier-unsafe.html
Yeah, this one had me writing a letter to the editor. Seriously, what the hell is the Star doing publishing garbage like this? There’s always a tell with dipshits like Peterson and this Haskell guy, and it’s that the nature of the “ideas” that they think are so important to “debate” are quickly mentioned in passing and then never get brought up again. Because they know these “ideas” are indefensible in decent society. Being an asshole to a trans person makes you an asshole, not a free speech martyr. What galls me about this particular column is that Haskell thinks he’s doing trans students a favour by introducing them to deadnaming and misgendering as if they’ve never had somebody mock them that way before.
Seems obvious to me that this Haskell prick is just trying to get some of that sweet Peterson Patreon money. What is it with these Canadian institutions fostering dickbags everywhere? If it’s not Peterson and Haskell, it’s Philippe Rushton and Janice Fiamengo. I’m tired this shit.