Gamergate is gamers spontaneously discovering the Cathedral.
The Cathedral speaks with one voice.
In the last 48 hours, 15 articles about the “death of gaming” have been published
And the Cathedral sounds like Lord Voldemort.
To paraphrase the conversation:
feminist:
you are sexist and bigoted
target:
I am innocent
feminist:
I can and will crush you
target:
I have said nothing offensive
feminist 2:
failure to be PC is offensive
feminist:
your career is being ruined as we speak
feminist:
you must grovel immediately or face destruction of your career
The target must confess that he is part of the great and powerful male conspiracy, that he is punching down and the feminist is punching up, or be crushed like a bug.
This is the same situation the NFL has managed to create for itself with it’s “player conduct policy” (which is as nebulous as the General Artical, 134, of the UCMJ), which has gotten them sucked into the Leftist Singularity.
Of course, the NFL, especially its fool and coward of a commissioner, isn’t smart or brave enough to realize they can simply tell the PC Left to go to hell.
“We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.” — Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, telling the PC Left to go to hell.
Here’s Mike Ditka telling the PC left to go to hell.
http://www.redskinshistorian.com/content/mike-ditka-redskins-nickname-controversy
It’s sad that only mugged progressives can make crack’s on the cathedral narrative. We can only shrug it off and say “told you so”
The Internet Aristocrat has the best take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M&list=UUWB0dvorHvkQlgfGGJR2yxQ
Ugh, those wanna-be commissars, masturbating to their power-fantasies while simultaneously feigning victimhood. When is the Ebola getting here. I’d happily die bleeding from my eyeballs if I knew the West was being purged of its parasites along with me.
[…] systems which have set nodes. They have colonised the gaming news outlets and have been busily attacking gamers. However the gamers comprise of pissed off computer literate individuals who understand how […]
there has to be a better way for us to convert more of them to our side. thousands if not tens of thousands of frustrated angry young males, many of whom are quite bright. they catch a glimpse of the cathedral.
if that’s not an opportunity i dont know what is.
Real men play Paradox games. SJW can’t touch those.
Because they can’t understand the interfaces
If you read the paradox forums there are increasing calls to make Africans and Native Americas just as powerful as Europe in games like EU. The discussion on the topic usually follows these lines: Social Justice Warrior: It’s racist that Native Americans and Africans don’t have the historical tech and weapons that Europe has. Response: that’s how it was historically. Social Justice Warrior: I know, but it’s still racist. Change it.
Goodness knows they’re trying!
http://unvis.it/gamemoir.com/2013/09/23/europa-universalis-iv-is-the-best-genocide-simulator-of-the-year/
“Europa Universalis IV is The Best Genocide Simulator of The Year” bitching about colonization and how trade goods flow from the Americas to Europe in the colonial period and so forth
That guy is wrong, America really was empty. It was emptied out by disease, not just disease brought by colonists, but disease brought by seals. But it had few people even before disease took root: they were still in the stone age, with an equilibrium between small settlements and getting raided by wandering hunter-gatherers.
But the best part is, it doesn’t matter that he’s wrong. He’s a faggot. Scott Alexander has noticed that all the cool kids are rightists now.
Leftism is a phenomenon, not a conspiracy.
That’s pretty awesome: TB from seals:
http://www.history.com/news/ancient-dna-suggests-seals-brought-tuberculosis-to-new-world
You got something against gays?
Homophobic scum.
There are always mods if the center succumbs. We should probably make one.
Meh, once you’ve seen the script a million times, it’s no longer interesting. Let’s talk about something else.
We were discussing whether women were property in the Torah. I brought up the story of Rivka marrying Itzhak and having the final word on the marriage. This morning, I was reading the Torah portion, and noticed that this was not a spur of the moment thing. Previously, when Avraham made his servant Eliezer swear to him that he would not find a wife for Itzhak in Cana’an but would go get a woman from Avraham’s family in Aram, Eliezer asked, what if the woman is not willing to go to Cana’an? In that case, said, Avraham, you’ve done all you can do and are free of your obligation to me:
24 And Abraham was old and well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.
2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, “Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh;
3 and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.
4 But thou shalt go unto my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac.â€
5 And the servant said unto him, “Perhaps the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land. Must I bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?â€
6 And Abraham said unto him, “Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.
7 The Lord G-d of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my kindred, and who spoke unto me and who swore unto me, saying, ‘Unto thy seed will I give this land,’ He shall send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.
8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath; only bring not my son thither again.â€
Can a sheep or dresser refuse to be bought?
The servant proposes to take Isaac to court the woman. Abraham says no. Instead the servant takes a bag of gold.
If marriage based on female consent, would send Isaac, not a servant with a bag of gold.
As for the woman refusing: Her father and her brother did not consult her, until her mother got onto her brother. Yes, she could have refused, but only because her mother’s influence over her brother and her brother’s influence over the family. It was not a social and legal requirement. The family might choose to require consent, and in this case they did choose to require consent, but not normal, not expected, not legally required.
My reading of the conversation between the servant and Abraham is:
Servant:
Abraham
No, he does not propose any courtship. There was no such thing back then. Eliezer is consulting Avraham to find out whether, if she doesn’t want do go to Israel, if Itzhak should go to Aram, since Avraham doesn’t want him to marry a local. Avraham says, no, if she says she doesn’t want to go, deal’s off. The question of what would happen if the family said no, or if the father said no didn’t even arise. The essential thing here was her consent, because without it, nothing would happen.
The gold was necessary, in that a woman is legally acquired with something of value-the formula that is recited normally is “harei at mekudeshet li b’tabaat zu k’dat Moshe v’Yisrael,” meaning, “see, you are sanctified to me with this ring in accordance with the law of Moshe and Israel.” She must accept. But the marriage is also binding if she gets something else of subjective value TO HER. For instance, if he says “harei at mekudeshet li al menat she ani tzaddik,” “see, you are sanctified to me on the condition that I am a holy man,” this counts legally-she values being married to a holy man, or at least one who is seen as such by the community, and values it in the same measurable way that she values money. This is something that was established already when they codified the Talmud, not from a hundred years ago.
If marriage by consent is normal, expected, normative, and morally or legally required, then Isaac needs to meet Rebekah to make the deal.
If Isaac should not meet Rebekah to make the deal, then marriage by consent is abnormal, unexpected, violates norms, and is not morally or legally required.
He did meet her to make the deal. They were married when he took her into his tent, after she agreed to marry him and went to Cana’an.
That’s pretty funny, considering you’re constantly accusing Jews of reading whatever we want into the text. The plain meaning here is obvious. If she doesn’t want to go and marry Itzhak, she doesn’t marry him.
In your version Isaac doesn’t have a choice in who he marries, but his bride has a choice about marrying him. It doesn’t make sense to give women the right of consent, but not the men. Jim’s got the right of it here.
Itzhak of course could have rejected her once she came to Cana’an, had she not found favor in his eyes. Of course, given that he willingly submitted to his father to be sacrificed, I doubt he would have rejected the girl his family arranged for him, especially given her description as a beautiful virgin of great character.
If you point out that Rivka went against her family’s wishes in the marriage, while Itzhak went with his family’s wishes, and that this suggests a somewhat greater autonomy in this case, I’ll tell you that this is not the only case in this period where women had autonomy where men didn’t; for instance, we see G-d telling Avraham, who was unhappy with Sarah’s demand that he send away Hagar and Ishmael, to do whatever his wife told him. We later see Rivka telling Yaakov to fool his father, Itzhak, in order to get the blessing intended for Esav. This is a case-by-case basis, where sometimes the woman has the right to overrule a man, or is right when he is wrong (another example is with Yehuda and Tamar). Sometimes it goes the other way, like where Rahel takes her father’s idols and is punished by death for it.
There is a lot more depth here than a one-sided reading can account for, whatever the agenda-whether neoreaction or feminism. In general, the Torah’s women seldom argue with their men publicly, as befits their subordinate status, but when they do, they are in the right more than half of the time.
After his dad had paid a large amount of gold to Rebekah’s father?
If consent matters, Isaac has to meet with Rebekah before the deal is done and the payments are made. If consent matters, Isaac has to go, has to meet Rebekah, has to propose to her in person.
Which is what the servant is talking about.
Suppose Rebekah’s family supported marriage by consent, and Rebekah refused to marry someone she had never met. Then, as the servant says, obvious solution is to send Isaac to chat up Rebekah. Rebekah likely to me more inclined to follow Isaac than follow Abraham’s servant. Abraham says no – no marriage by consent for him.
>After his dad had paid a large amount of gold to Rebekah’s father?
He did not. Eliezer, his servant, gave precious things to (first of all) Rivka and (only afterwards) to her mother and brother. Anyway, any dowry gets returned if the deal gets called off, so no consideration one way or the other.
>If consent matters, Isaac has to meet with Rebekah before the deal is done and the payments are made. If consent matters, Isaac has to go, has to meet Rebekah, has to propose to her in person.
Actually, the way it is done today is that the families arrange the match first, and then the man and woman have the right to refuse. So consent matters, but the initiative belongs to the families. Everyone has to agree, including the woman, but the initiative belongs to the families-one family proposes the match, the other accepts, the two young people meet and they must accept as well.
>Suppose Rebekah’s family supported marriage by consent, and Rebekah refused to marry someone she had never met.
It does not say that. It says, what if she refuses to go up to Cana’an.
>Then, as the servant says, obvious solution is to send Isaac to chat up Rebekah. Rebekah likely to me more inclined to follow Isaac than follow Abraham’s servant. Abraham says no – no marriage by consent for him.
You are distorting the plain text as a leftist would, to suit your agenda. Eliezer doesn’t say, should Itzhak go and chat her up? He says, if she doesn’t want to come up to Cana’an, should Itzhak go down to Mesopotamia (meaning, to marry her there)? No, says Avraham, this is the land that G-d swore to me and my descendants by way of Itzhak, so he should stay here.
Genesis 24:
In a society where consent is normative, you don’t send the servant to ask Rebekah’s father. You send Isaac to ask Rebekah. And you don’t make payment until Isaac and Rebekah have, face to face, agreed to marry.
Indians operate on this system – but the payments don’t get made until after the bride and groom meet, and generally do not get made until the wedding.
The servant’s proposal that Isaac go if Rebekah will not come makes sense in a consent based system. Abraham’s answer does not make sense in a consent based system.
Going back to Ruth. What happens if the Elimelech’s relative refuses to do that thing with the shoe? What happens if he claims the inheritance of Elimelech?
I say what happens is he is entitled to claim Ruth, Ruth being part of the estate of Elimelech, but then Boaz would find ways to make that claim expensive. What say you?
No one in the book of Ruth acts as if Ruth is entitled to sexual autonomy. Boaz cannot accept Ruth, because Ruth does not own herself to give.
>In a society where consent is normative, you don’t send the servant to ask Rebekah’s father. You send Isaac to ask Rebekah. And you don’t make payment until Isaac and Rebekah have, face to face, agreed to marry.
Avraham assumed Itzhak’s consent. Eliezer secured Rivka’s consent presumably at the well implicitly, and explicitly before she left her parents’ house.
>Indians operate on this system – but the payments don’t get made until after the bride and groom meet, and generally do not get made until the wedding.
We are not Indians. In those times, there was a brideprice to be given to the family of the bride (mohar, as exemplified by the gifts Eliezer gives to Rivka’s mother and brother,) gifts to be given to the bride herself (mattan, as we see Eliezer giving Rivka,) and then the bride’s dowry which she brings to the marriage (we see Rivka bringing her handmaidens.) It’s a multi-part process with various checks and balances built in (for instance, betrothal, called kiddushin, where the bride is sanctified to the groom, and the actual marriage, nisuin, where they come together under one roof, were split back then by a considerable period of time, whereas now they take place the same day.) Today, there is no mohar, but rather a ketubah, which specifies an amount to be paid the bride in the future if the husband divorces her.
>The servant’s proposal that Isaac go if Rebekah will not come makes sense in a consent based system. Abraham’s answer does not make sense in a consent based system.
He does not mean that Itzhak should go and bring her back to Cana’an, but rather that if she says that she does not agree to leave her land of Mesopotamia and go up to Israel to live, since Eliezer is being sworn to find Itzhak a wife not from the Cana’anites but from Avraham’s family, does this mean that he should take Itzhak and bring him back to live in Mesopotamia? Rivka’s consent is crucial, although of course it’s not the kind of consent that takes place in the typical American relationship.
>What happens if the Elimelech’s relative refuses to do that thing with the shoe? What happens if he claims the inheritance of Elimelech?
Then he marries Ruth and redeems his relative’s inheritance. You have to understand that this would have been the ideal from the beginning. Apparently, he didn’t want to do it, which is what put Ruth and Naomi in their sad situation.
>No one in the book of Ruth acts as if Ruth is entitled to sexual autonomy. Boaz cannot accept Ruth, because Ruth does not own herself to give.
Again-Ruth is in a special situation. Because she has no sons from her late husband, his inheritance is in peril. Her prerogative is to be redeemed by his closest surviving male relative (assuming there are no other legal barriers to their marriage.) The whole language of the commandment is that of an obligation she should claim from the relative. There is an obligation on her also to marry him and not to marry someone else. Boaz can’t just jump the line. Ruth’s consent is assumed, as she has the obligation upon her and didn’t leave her mother-in-law but went up to Israel, stating explicitly that she would follow Jewish law.
[…] The cathedral in action. Related: The importance of gamersgate. Related: Leigh Alexander is a bully, a bully. Related: […]
Jim do you have any idea what’s up with ebola epidemic? The obvious solution is large scale quarantine but the NYT is fighting tooth and nail agaist it. Everything western doctors are doing seems designed to spread the the disease. Now we’re sending 3, 000 troops and I can’t figure out what posible good that could do. Is it mass stupidity on the part of the cathedral?
In the previous ebola epidemics, the government ran away, and tribal authorities imposed massive quarantine and old testament hygiene rules – no one could enter an area, no one could leave, ebola victims were placed in a hut, and when they died, hut and victim burned. This brought the epidemic to a screeching halt.
Modern medicine does not yet do much good against ebola, Old Testament medicine works.
I think that now, however, people are just too civilized to do the obvious.
those troops could shoot anyone attempting to break quarantine. They’re probably just going to look cool, though.
I want to see ebola-chan ( http://imgur.com/8xKvNkm.jpg ) visit Lagos, the city of 20 million without a sewer.
Troops are going to hang around uselessly until they catch ebola, then be shipped back to home countries leaving a trail of ebola viruses.
Until we have a treatment or a vaccine, the obvious thing to do, the only thing to do, is go Old Testament. Quarantine and fire.
“Troops are going to hang around uselessly until they catch ebola, then be shipped back to home countries leaving a trail of ebola viruses.”
Why do you use the plural word ‘countries’, Jim? There is only one country on the face of this Earth, only one country in the history of world civilization, that is stupid enough to do this.
>implying that euros aren’t even crazier than americans
I used to find consolation in the notion that whatever leftist craziness the US was involved with, Europe was worse.
I find no such consolation now.
Good luck to Obama in finding a coalition partner for his giant ebola party.
Dark lord Obama sends 3000 vectors aboard USS Nurgle to aid the spread of ebola
I’m wondering if the troops will even obey the order to deploy. I sure as hell wouldn’t. Anyone who’s been watching the news knows that our methods for preventing transmission don’t work.
It was noted by a radio host I heard the other day that deployment to Liberia would be on a voluntary basis.
They will, as anyone who disobeys will be made an example of. Everyone will comply and hope for the best.
Haha you seriously label people with different views from you after a childish cartoon villain designed for children?
Why are you such a worthless echo chamber howling ape