Turkey

Busy Weekend for Turkish Police, Attacking Gay Pride Parade and Radiohead Fans

Multiple demonstrations against fundamentalism cracked down on in Istanbul.

|

@ateyisd/Twitter

Riot police in Turkey, a country once considered a candidate for membership in the European Union and now slipping into autocracy, had multiple targets this weekend.

On Sunday riot police used tear gas against a gay pride parade in Istanbul whose participants did not receive government permission. In fact, the governor of Istanbul had explicitly banned the parade, which was to kick off pride week, and another scheduled for the end of pride week, "for the safety of our citizens and the participants." Organizers of the parade said the government should've dealt with the threats posed to the parade rather than shutting it down. Islamist and ultranationalist groups vowed to counter-protest in an effort to prevent the parade from taking place.

Separately, on Saturday, riot police used tear gas and water cannons against a demonstration of Radiohead fans in Istanbul. The fans were protesting an attack against them the night before at a local record store during a listening party for the English band's latest album, A Moon Shaped Pool. A group of about 20 men began to throw sticks and bottles at the listening party on Friday night, reportedly because they were upset that the Radiohead fans were drinking alcohol—the consumption of which is banned during the month of Ramadan, which Muslims around the world are now observing.

While Radiohead fans showed up to protest, the store that was at the center of the attack stayed closed yesterday. The band released a statement, saying they hoped "that someday we will be able to look back on such acts of violent intolerance as things of the ancient past."

Advertisement

NEXT: High Fashion in the Uncanny Valley

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “against a gay pride parade in Istanbul whose participants did not receive government permission. In fact, the governor of Istanbul had explicitly banned the parade”

    Is the first part even necessary?

    1. Lol, I just saw that WaPo article. It’s still up there unchanged, lol.

  2. That governor sounds like a creep and a loser

    1. What a weirdo. What the hell is he doing here?

  3. Water cannon rainbow.

    Oh, Ed. You shining little nugget of awesome.

  4. Water cannon rainbow.

    Oh, Ed. You shining little nugget of awesome.

  5. Radiohead is English, not American.

    1. What kind of band is Radiohead that a group of their drunk fans can get 20 people throwing sticks and bottles at them and they wind up holding a protest rather than a mass funeral for the 20 hecklers? Maybe they need some Lynyrd fans over there to show them how drunks are supposed to act.

      1. AND ANOTHER THING…

        …what do they call Radiohead-fans? ‘Headheads?

          1. the song from True Stories is good (I think that’s where they took their name from. totally brits appropriating american culture)

            1. They should try to appropriate American culture, they can’t even speak English properly! And sucking on limes all of the time, fucks your teeth up.

  6. Arch-moron Thom Hartmann on the Orlando shooting

    Yes i’m afraid all the Donald Trump, Fox News right wing conspiracy theories about him being an ISIS terrorist, a MOOZLUM here to destroy Amerika, just got kicked in the nuts. Turns out he was an ultra right wing religious self hating homosexual conflicted by his twisted interpretation of the wishes of Allah, a sick man his sanity unraveling as he attended gay bars for sex, a man so immersed in his closeted life he used gay apps like Grindr to pick up men.

    Hey Hartmann: the SOB was a Democrat. Even the shitheels at Snopes couldn’t spin it away. The best they can do is say he may not have been a Democrat at the time of the shooting. Yes, they really wrote that.

    1. “So, a gay Muslim Democrat walks into a bar…”

      /not my line

      1. A Muslim walks into a gay bar.

        Bartender: “What’ll it be?”

        Muslim: “Shots for everyone!”

        1. That’s just mean. I feel sorry for the owners of Pulse. They’ll have to change the name to Flatline.

          1. The other line I like:

            Dilemma for Obama: His JV team is killing his HIV team.

          2. I laughed so hard, it’s probably illegal in many countries and municipalities.

        2. I am a horrible person for laughing

          1. Me too, but I got over it quickly.

        3. yo

    2. He was also an Islamic extremist who said he attacked because of, for the Islamic State. These people now have their heads so far up their own asses, they’re nothing more than walking parodies of themselves. They reek of desperation. I didn’t even think it had been proven that he was gay. I think his ex wife said he is, but he was married to a woman. And that doesn’t even matter, he made multiple assertions throughout his life that he was an Islamist who approved of violence against the West. His father was fucking Taliban, lol. That’s the home he grew up in. His co-workers said that he prayed to Allah daily. The left in this country have jumped the shark.

      1. It’s known that he used gay dating apps, bought drinks for guys in gay bars, etc.

        1. Yes, I know that. But has it occurred to anyone else that maybe he was just a sicko who enjoys toying with people? We already know the sicko part is true. Maybe all along he was just getting off on thinking about killing them?

          I mean, I don’t know, just a thought.

          1. Or, you know, he might have just been gay?

            Occam’s razor.

            1. But did he self-identify as gay?

              We know what he did, he shot 100+ people. But what were his *intentions*? Did he just mean to draw attention to anti-gay anti-Muslim anti-Democrat bigotry?

              1. I wish I cared.

                *sigh*

                But I AM glad he’s dead.

              2. We know what he did, he shot 100+ people. But what were his *intentions*? Did he just mean to draw attention to anti-gay anti-Muslim anti-Democrat bigotry?

                WHO GIVES A FUCK WHY THE COLOSSAL ASSHOLE DID WHAT HE DID?

                THE WHOLE POINT OF HIM DOING IT IS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE. MAYBE WE ALL SHOULDN’T DO WHAT THE COLOSSAL ASSHOLE WANTED???

            2. He just wanted the tip.

              FFS. Afghanis live their boy toys and they don’t see the contradiction. Our western optics don’t always work.

            3. The thing I don’t understand is why the hell people don’t seem to think that somehow or another, radical Muslims can’t be repressed homosexuals.

        2. Why not both? The 9/11 hijackers liked to hang out at titty bars. They still wanted to kill as many people as possible for Allah.

          1. It seems like a lot of religious folks are giant hypocrites. I witnessed this growing up around religious fundies. Back then, they called their hypocritical behavior ‘back sliding’ and blamed ‘the devil’. By the next Sunday they were back in church and saved again, and preaching to you about what they just did. Until Monday.

            1. Meh, it’s not like it is limited to the religious. How many feminists were happy to support a president who treated the intern pool as his own private harem because he was “pro-women”?

              1. No, it’s not, it’s just where I first got a hard lesson on hypocrisy. One that has always stuck with me.

                1. Fuck, most people are. Even many libertarians. Logic 100%, or philosophy 100% is hard

              2. It seems like a lot of folks are giant hypocrites

          2. Maybe if he was gay he just figured he’d go out in a blaze of glory instead of waiting for one of his friends to throw him off a building?

      2. I didn’t even think it had been proven that he was gay.

        they’ve cited the fact that he messaged people on Grindr.

        And the only person he did so with found it very confusing because he simply posted “Hi” over and over again.

        When you read these articles which compile testimony from people who knew the guy, you can find evidence for any theory which anyone might want to run with.

        You want religious-extremist? Shazam = quote his buddy from the mosque and his co-worker Gilroy.

        You want self hating gay? Presto = Quote the few people @ Pulse who saw the guy before, and the one person he texted.

        Friends and co-workers gave conflicting reports about Mateen’s religiosity and personality at the time. Some said he was extremely pious and serious, but others described him chasing girls, going to parties and drinking.

        The “Rosebud”-attempt to create a personality-profile out of all the details of a person’s life are a pointless waste of time. ANYONE can seem like a host of contradictions when you try to summarize ‘everything’.

        What matters is the state of mind the guy had in the time during which he planned and then conducted the attacks.
        . That’s it. I don’t care if he was the fat kid who got picked on in high-school.

        1. Oh, shit. He was the fat kid who got picked on in high school? That explains it. I’m twitting this out.

      3. Cognitive dissonance is the life blood of the left. Everything has to hammered in shape to conform to their narrative.

        There he is right in front of their eyes screaming allah akhbar and mowing people down so obviously he is a right wing conservative.

      4. His father was fucking Taliban? How’d Taliban like that?

        1. Let’s just ignore the adjective, but that was funny.

      5. “His father was fucking Taliban, lol. That’s the home he grew up in. ”

        Then why did he supposedly pledge allegiance to ISIS, a group not known for its connections to Taleban? ISIS is mostly a bunch of Arabs in Syria.

        1. Because ISIS is the new hotness amongst fundy nutjobs? It’s not like membership in these groups is hereditary.

          1. “It’s not like membership in these groups is hereditary.”

            But the Taleban is to some degree. It’s essentially a Pashtun nationalist group. I doubt very much that their leaders’ interpretations of the Koran attracts rank and filers to take up arms. It’s more like Yankee Go Home! This shooter lives in a country where the military attacks hospitals in Afghanistan with impunity. I see a lot of reason why he might identify with an outfit like the Taleban, who have been fighting the US occupation of Afghanistan for over a decade now. ISIS, however fashionable you think it is, has done nothing.

            1. Are the Taliban basically the same group who Reagan referred to as freedom fighters and who were previously fighting the Soviets? I can’t keep up with all of these groups.

              1. Are the Taliban basically the same group who Reagan referred to as freedom fighters and who were previously fighting the Soviets?

                No; the Taliban were of Pakistani origin and came in later, mostly filling in the power vacuum that was created when the Russians left. The Mujahedin were mostly local Afghanis.

                I see a lot of reason why he might identify with an outfit like the Taleban, who have been fighting the US occupation of Afghanistan for over a decade now. ISIS, however fashionable you think it is, has done nothing.

                Not sure where you’re trying to go with this, but ISIS has shown that they’re quite capable of attracting Muslims of all kinds of backgrounds.

                1. Ah, yes, Mujahideen, haven’t heard that in so long.

                  ISIS has shown that they’re quite capable of attracting Muslims of all kinds of backgrounds

                  Yep, even from Europe and the USA.

                2. “Not sure where you’re trying to go with this, but ISIS has shown that they’re quite capable of attracting Muslims of all kinds of backgrounds.”

                  I doubt there are many Afghans in Syria fighting under the ISIS banner. I’ve yet to hear of one.

                  1. The next time you’re there, do an interview and send us a report.

                    1. Aren’t you the one who doesn’t know why Hitler opposed communism? Why don’t you get the 20th century down before you start on the 21st.

                    2. Oh you’re the mtruetard. Waste of energy bothering with you.

                    3. “Oh you’re the mtruetard.”

                      What gave that away?

                    4. Aren’t you the one who doesn’t know why Hitler opposed communism?

                      Aren’t you the one who thinks bigfoot built the pyramids?

                    5. “Aren’t you the one who thinks bigfoot built the pyramids?”

                      “And yes, he hated the communists, but I’m not sure why, I never really thought about it.”

                      What next bit of silliness will you have for us?

                    6. The FBI radicalized the Orlando terrorist. Nuff said.

                    7. What next bit of silliness will you have for us?

                      Oh, I dunno, maybe I’ll assume because I don’t know any Afghans fighting with ISIS in Syria that there must not be any. Because, you know, I hang out there every day and ask them about that.

                    8. I assume that an Afghan willing to fight and die would prefer to ally himself with other Afghans who are doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Perhaps you assume he’d prefer to ignore his Afghan roots and ally himself with US supported Arabs fighting in Syria. Because you assure us it’s the fashionable thing to do. Or maybe he just really hates Assad?

                    9. assume that an Afghan willing to fight and die would prefer to ally himself with other Afghans who are doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Perhaps you assume

                      Nope, I’m not the one assuming here.

                    10. “Nope, I’m not the one assuming here.”

                      You’re also the one who doesn’t know why Hitler opposed communism.

                  2. Dude come on…the Taliban is dead and ISIS is in the driver’s seat. He just picked a popular team.

                    1. “Dude come on…the Taliban is dead”

                      It’s gaining strength and its fight is in Afghanistan. ISIS is weakening. They’ve just been kicked out of central Fallujah, for example, and they’ve no history of taking part in Afghanistan.

                    2. You’re a fucking idiot.

                    3. Consider the source.

    3. The use of “right-wing” here reminds me of the people who referred to the coup plotters against Yeltsin as “conservative.”

      1. From the NY Times obituary:

        The Yeltsin era effectively began in August 1991, when Mr. Yeltsin, as president of the Soviet republic of Russia, clambered atop a tank to rally Muscovites to put down a right-wing coup against Mr. Gorbachev, a heroic moment etched in the minds of the Russian people and television viewers around the world; it ended with his electrifying resignation speech on New Year’s Eve 1999.

        1. Technically, they were conservatives by USSR standards in that they wanted conserve Communism. I’m willing to give the NYT shit when they deserve it, but that was and still is standard usage of the word. It’s not like Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich were leading the coup.

          1. ^ When ‘well akshually’ goes terribly wrong.

          2. What do you call all the social justice warriors who want to return to segregation?

            1. Reactionary activists: reactivists.

              Kevin R

              1. So a conservative is a reactionary who hasn’t had to react yet because he hasn’t lost yet.

                And a reactionary is a conservative who’s lost and wants to return to the not-lost-yet stage.

          3. Yeah, don’t blame those lying, cheating journalists for using the word correctly when the “conservatives” (like Limbaugh) prefer one or more corrupted meanings of the word. Lots of people put the quotes around “liberal”, but I seem to be nearly alone when I do it for “conservative” when it’s used in the particular meaning that seems to untie it in most aspects from defense of the status quo. If they define conservatism by opposition to liberalism, then it’s only fair that when “liberalism” gets a different meaning, so does “conservatism”.

      2. It’s like the left always claim that Hitler was right wing. National Socialists? That doesn’t sound right wing to me. It sounds closer to Bernie Sanders than to right wing.

        1. No National Socialism is very different than what Bernie Sanders and Hillary are running on.

          Under National Socialism the government is backed by racial grievances, heavily regulates production, restricts political speech, as well as self defense. That’s totally different from the Democratic party platform.

          1. There are serious and real differences between the three kinds of Socialism.
            We refer to them as the 3 camps — internment camp, prison camp, and labor camp.

            1. +1 I lol’d

        2. “It’s like the left always claim that Hitler was right wing.”

          Franco was right wing. Hitler was a Fascist. Hitler supported Franco, and not his left wing opponents who were Marxists and Anarchists. It’s like you’re not aware of this.

          Had Hitler been a leftist, like Stalin for example, we’d have seen massive purges of the army and the party. We saw none of this.

          1. But I didn’t actually claim he’s left wing. It’s the left who claims he was a right wing extremist.

            1. “It’s the left who claims he was a right wing extremist.”

              It probably comes from his opposition to communism, a tendency usually associated with the right. Let’s not stray too far from Hitler’s Nationalism. That’s what animated Hitler more than leftism or rightism, of which he was quite happy to pick and choose according to his convenience.

              1. Yes, I’m full aware of his nationalism and all of his crazy shit of a master race. And yes, he hated the communists, but I’m not sure why, I never really thought about it.

                1. “And yes, he hated the communists, but I’m not sure why”

                  Bolshevism = International Jewry

                  It’s not like Hitler made any secret of his reasons.

                  1. So the Jews are the Bolsheviks. Ok, got it.

                    1. Just read Mein Kampf, Hitler’s own best seller, if you don’t believe me. Hitler never made any secret of his association of Bolshevism with Jewry. You admitted to not knowing why Hitler hated Bolsheviks. Now you know.

            2. The right wing in Germany were monarchists. They had a Kaiser in exile at the time.

              The Nazis positioned themselves in the middle.

              1. “The right wing in Germany were monarchists.”

                True enough. But to say the right wing of German politics at the time consisted only of monarchists, is dubious. I wonder if there was even one monarchist party running in Germany’s 1933 election. What would they have garnered in support? Maybe one per cent of the vote. Whatever, the monarchists fell into line and didn’t suffer any more than cashiered army officers, unlike in other certain leftist regimes.

            1. You could probably flip that chart upside down and put Newt at the bottom and it would be just as accurate.

              1. Yeah, that one doesn’t fit, does it? But it’s an old chart.

            2. That chart has always seemed like the biggest waste of time. Okay, left and right are different than authoritarian and libertarian. Then what does left and right mean? Many people think it means exactly that, and almost every political argument runs along those lines here. What’s the difference between a left libertarian and a right? Or authoritarian?

          2. “Had Hitler been a leftist, like Stalin for example, we’d have seen massive purges of the army and the party. We saw none of this.”

            Please tell me that this is sarcasm. If not, then a) Hitler, like Mussolini, were both radical leftists in their early careers. B) As far as purges and Hitler goes look up Ernst Rohm and the SA Purges. There are some prominent historians who suggest that Stalian got the very idea of political/military purges from Hitler, whom he actually admired. C) Hence the later Ribbentrop Pact where the Nazis and Soviet Russia became allies. The Nazi attack on Russia was initially successful because Stalin thought Hitler was his homie and would never attack him and left his borders basically defenseless even after intelligence about the attck started to come in.

            Again, if it was /sarc, then a thousand apologies. If not, you may want to consider revising your comment “It’s like you’re not aware of this”

            1. I don’t think mtrueman does sarcasm, or if he does, he does it all the time. He actually seems to believe what he says.

            2. How many were killed during the SA purges? Maybe a few dozen? And Hitler’s purge of the the German military? How many officers suffered more than early retirement on a government pension? You think this measures up to Stalin’s purges? It doesn’t. They were breath-taking in scale.

              Hitler signing a pact with Soviet Russia didn’t make him left wing. Hitler also had close relationships with a variety of other powers, from Finland to Spain, most of them right wing.

              1. Interesting tactic. Trying to defend the left wing from association with Hitler by arguing he wasn’t quite mass-murdery enough to fit on the left.

                1. Yeah, color me astounded. I actually lolled when I read that.

                2. Stalin was just about right in the mass murdery department. In the same ballpark as other leaders of other nearby nations. WW1 casualties can be attributed to just about every regime except the Bolsheviks. It was a fight amongst capitalists, after all.

                  Make no mistake Hitler was more of a mass murderer than anyone. He just spared many targets, monarchists, officers and party members, for example, of campaigns of elimination. Whereas the Bolsheviks specially focussed on these groups.

          3. Hitler had friends & allies among fascists, shared tenets w fascism (as characterized by John Flynn), but he was no fascist. Phalangism was a type of fascism, but Nazism was not.

          4. There were massive purges of the army and the party, you dipshit.

            1. “There were massive purges of the army and the party, you dipshit.”

              In the Soviet Union, sure. That’s par for the course. My point was these purges were absent in Nazi Germany.

        3. National Socialist is a helluva lot more right wing than international communist.

      3. Against Yeltsin? Or against Gorbachev? Anyway, like thrakkorzog says, they were conservative in Soviet terms. Whether they were to the “right” or the “left” of the government they were plotting against is something that can be argued forever, without reaching an answer. The best answer is probably “neither”.

        1. Yeah the right-wing/left-wing divide doesn’t really work on an international basis, unless we’re arguing about the restoration of the French monarchy. Otherwise everybody has their own definition of what is left or right depending on where they are standing.

    4. I mean, you’d think they’d actually prefer the “ISIS mole” interpretation to the “Muslim zealot” angle. The latter gives Islam some pretty bad press in a country where, speaking frankly, we’ve not had a lot of positive experience with it.

      1. I think they’re trying to go for the lone weirdo story, with Islam being only tangentially related. And well, you can’t really politicize random lone weirdos, excerpt for all those other times that they’ve been politicized.

    5. Christ man. Apps can’t be gay. Grindr is both not gay and not just for the closeted. Grindr is an app *gay people looking for hookups* use – closeted and openly.

      Its like saying Tindr is straight.

      Plus, if his religion leaves him with a conflict between his desires and his obligations before God how is that any different than when Christianity does it? How is Christianity ‘right wing’ and Islam not when they command a lot of the same things?

      1. “How is Christianity ‘right wing'”

        It is not right wing, any more than Grindr is a gay app. There are right wing Christians and left wing Christians.

      2. Christianity commands nothing. Everything is a decision each individual is invited to make for him/herself.

        1. That’s not what the Pope said to Martin Luther.

          1. I speaking in the present tense. But even then, Christianity was all based on voluntarily entering a pact with God. If you chose not to, you lived outside the church.

            Either way, I was strictly speaking in the present.

          2. Out of context, that sounds like the punchline to the dirtiest joke ever.

          3. That’s because he had OCD.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity

            He musta been seen a like a total spazz.

        2. Christianity commands obedience to God (and that covers a yooge amount of stuff), ‘honoring’ your parents, not lying, etc.

          Each individual is invited to make those decisions for himself – with heaven or hellfire waiting depending on your decision.

          1. The difference is that there is not a single country in the modern world with a Christian majority in which by law gay people have to be murdered by being throne off rooftops.

            Stop with the moral equivalency bullshit and take a look around you.

            1. by being throne off rooftops.

              I daresay, the Islamists consider it their crowning achievement.

              1. When you play the game of throwns you win or you die.

                1. +1 20sided Dice

                  1. (or 1D20?)

            2. I’m not trying to make a moral equivalency argument and that should have been plain from my post.

              I was saying, how ca these other people say that Christianity’s attitude towards homosexuality is so much worse than Islams that it can bend a muslim to do what he did? Why would they not just give a pass to Islam but actively downplay the role that it plays in making the lives of homosexuals miserable and try to lay the blame on a religion that the shooter didn’t even share?

              Even if modern Christianity created the same sort of internal conflict between it and someone’s internal desires as Islam can, it can’t really be a factor for the actions of someone who didn’t pay attention to Christian teachings in the first place.

              1. Sorry for the snark, been a bit touchy about people blaming white cis-gendered Christian shitlords for the Pulse shooting. Not your fault.

                But I do think that a position on the “fringe” of Islam (i.e. Not knowing that much about it but claiming it nonetheless) are more conducive to promoting violence than the tenets of Christianity. Modern asshole-weirdo interpretations aside, hardcore Christianity should generally be aligned more with pacifism than anything else. Not an expert in Islamic theory but superficially at least, that would not seem to be the manner in which the Sunni world interpets their faith.

                1. “A position on the fringe of Islam IS”

                  Sorry for the subject/verb agreement issue.
                  Maybe I can sign on as a Reason intern?

          2. Christianity doesn’t command obedience to anything. It invites people to accept Jesus as their savior. The rest is completely up to the observant or unobservant to live as they see fit.

            Part of the acceptance is obedience. And the penalty for disobedience is penance and forgiveness. That’s a far cry from Islam commanding people to convert or be killed.

            I’m sorry, but you’re just incorrect here.

            1. I’m sorry but but you’re wrong there and we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Christianity *today* doesn’t go the ‘convert or die route (though in the not so distant past that *was* how it was done – for your own) but it does go the ‘convert, obey, or rot in hell’ route.

              Its like saying taxes are voluntary. Sure, you can refuse to pay them. And then the full power of the state will come down on you.

              1. And,what does,that “punishment” have to do with one’s life on earth?

          3. Faith in God is the key to Christianity. There is always a place in Heaven for the faithful, regardless of their behaviour.

            1. “Regardless of their behavio(u)r” does not comport with the beliefs of the largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, nor with Orthodoxy That does smack of “justified by faith” Protestantism.

              There’s a verbal tic many Protestants who share a “works don’t matter” attitude have, where they exclude whole swaths of Christendom when they refer to “Christians.” It is a puzzlement. For example, LDS/Mormons believe stuff the other sects don’t, so aren’t considered Christians by many competing churches. To those of us who have quit Christianity, or never joined it, the similarities with Presbyterians or Baptists are more telling than the differences. There’s theology, and there’s sociology. The latter is of more interest to those outside these faiths.

          4. The Ten Commandments are Old Testament and apply to Judaism not Christianity. All Christianity requires is accepting Jesus as your savior.

            1. If that were the case, then why are the 10 commandments so important to modern Christians? Important enough that judges/politicians love to keep putting them up in government buildings.

              From what I’ve seen, the NT far from repudiates the old and there’s a ton of stuff from the OT that is taught as acceptable, even desirable, behavior today.

              Maybe those particular churches aren’t really Christian though?

              1. They’re Christian. You,won’t hear someone,preaching that if you break the commandments then you’re going to hell?

                Christians have myriad beliefs as to what sin is and how one can be forgiven for the sins they commit. But the one solitary core tenet of Christianity is voluntarily choosing Jesus as one’s savior. And that is the entry into Christendom and the sole way one “earns” the right into heaven.

                Also, I’d more likely consider heaven more of a reward than hell a punishment. But that’s just me.

      3. Grindr is both not gay and not just for the closeted. Grindr is an app *gay people looking for hookups* use – closeted and openly.

        Someone should let the creator of Grindr know before he does another interview where he says inaccurate stuff like :

        “Grindr is all about one interest, and that’s being gay,” Simkhai said.

    6. Oh. My. God. that article. I can’t even. oh wait, yes I can:
      “This mass murder of course aided and abetted by lax US gun laws , forced on the public by right wing Republicans, the NRA , right wing media , financed in part by the US merchants of death , the US gun lobby and of course looney Americans wrapping themselves in their own Amerikan religion of the second amendment.

      The fact still remains without America as a society allowing this man to legally buy military grade firepower and transport it in public, he’d be for the most part just another confused angry man incapable of acting out his lethal homicidal desires.”

      um, Im pretty sure it’s possible to kill people without any kind of gun. In fact, wars killed much larger percentages of people before guns of any kind existed. and my issue with guns is that theyre losing their effectiveness as the last line of defense against tyranny. Despite the propaganda, sorry, media, there’s nothing you can buy as a private citizen that would make you any kind of threat to the government.

      1. These people are suffering from serous delusion.

        This experiment has already been done:

        Gun bans will make us safe?

        According to UN statistics cited by the BBC of Brazil, Brazilians own 15 million firearms compared to 270 million held by Americans. Yet American deaths by guns in 2010 numbered 9,960, while Brazil listed close to 36,000 such deaths in 2009. It is also interesting to note that the population of Brazil is nearly 200 million while the United States has over 310 million.

        Put more simply, America has an 18 to one advantage over Brazil in the number of guns, yet proportionally, Brazil suffers six times more deaths by guns than America.

        I have tried to tell several progtards this, but all they do is stick their fingers in their ears and screech like tantrum throwing toddlers.

        In Brazil, it is very difficult for a private citizen to legally own a firearm, and there is no such thing as carry. Yet, what do we see here? And please, progtard idiots, stop talking about Australia or any Scandinavian couintries as an example of how gun control works so well. The USA is much, much closer demographically to Brazil than it is to Autralia or Sweden. So, SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.

        What you would see in the USA if all guns were banned and confiscated is an explosion in crime rates. Car jackings and home invasions would be common.

        1. Not to mention looking at the UK. Gun bans still aren’t enough, they’re going down the same road with knives now.

          1. Well, at least it prevented the killing of a political party leader recently… uhh, never mind.

  7. OT, but amazing: a judge in 1969, objecting to affirmative action, predicts how today’s SJW culture will rise from it.

    The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students. Such a pairing in the same school of the brightest white students in the country with black students of mediocre academic qualifications is social experiment with loaded dice and a stacked deck. The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites.

  8. No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands?the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.

    1. Hence, Obama.

  9. Clearly, right-wing rhetoric from NRA conservatives inspired the Turks to act.

  10. This guy needs to stay off of Facebook

    http://www.wesh.com/news/assis…..g/40109216

    1. This guy says what I think. Luckily, though, I’m not a public figure and I’m not on FB.

    2. What the fuck is a “Facebook”?

      1. A millenial torture device.

        1. Gen x torture device. Millennials are all on snap chat and instagram.

          1. Ha, good point.

      2. A cesspool of human stupidity.

    3. That’s good advice for everyone.

  11. . . . once considered a candidate for membership in the European Union and now slipping into autocracy . . .

    This is the EU we’re talking about here. Not only is this not a problem, autocracy *enhances* their attractiveness to Brussels.

  12. It’s a good thing we have such great allies in that area of the world, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. What would we do without them?

    1. Yeah, it’s almost like we should avoid foreign entanglements.

  13. Homosexuality was decriminalized in the Ottoman Empire in 1858. I mean, if there was one thing the Ottomans were known for, it was ass-fucking. One would think these so-called “ultranationalists” would seek to preserve traditional Turkish cultural values.

    1. They would say that the Ottoman Empire was not really following the Koran and the Hadith, and they would be correct.

      1. But I don’t see why Turkish ultranationalists should care too much about what some Arab book says. If the Koran were so important to them, they’d be Islamists.

    2. if there was one thing the Ottomans were known for, it was ass-fucking.

      Tell me HM, are you circassian?

  14. Mateen was radicalized by the FBI. Turkey is doing the same thing. Why? Because sadly they have nothing better to do.

    1. “By Max Blumenthal,”

      For fuck’s sake! As I’ve asked before, when is Blumenthal going to convert already? I swear, the guy is more of a monomanic Islamophile than al-Baghdadi.

      1. Both of you are half right. “They want more disaster to happen because that’s where their money making is.” G4S is trying to export its services from Israel to the US. Mateen was their patsy.

        1. Where do the Lizard People fit in to all of this? Was this all just to protect the entrance to Agartha that sits under the Epcot dome?

          1. If there just trying to export their services here, wouldn’t it just be easier to lobby whoever is in charge of the procurement process, maybe give their spouse a six figure, do nothing job like every other company on the planet Earth does? Or can the reverse vampires not handle that kind of straight forward thinking?

          2. They’re still controlling us with lizard laser beams from inside the hollow moon.

            1. Bolshevik mental illness bullying was cool about a century ago.

              1. The lizards caused that too.

                1. Sorry Hype – writing’s on the wall, as they say.

                  1. The Mayans had wireless technology.

                    1. The FBI also used mental illness bullying and ostracism against their FBI ‘informants’ to ensure compliance. This is how they got the ‘confession’ that exposed an international sex trafficking ring among Somali immigrants in North Dakota. Will this same tactic neutralize the mighty Dajjal? Or will they revert to grammer-and-spelling nazism in the hopes of discrediting their source? We shall see:

                    2. You’re confused. “Dajjal” is the “anti-Christ”, not “Christ”.

                      Get the fuck down from that cross, you one-eyed asshole.

                    3. Wow, Hero you are losing your shit. It’s almost like someone suggested that Flemming Rose is a patsy for the Western Secular Caliphate or something.

                    4. I wasn’t present for that hobby-horse of yours. You’ll have to try again.

                    5. Sure – Mateen was radicalized by the FBI in its terrorism ‘sting’ operations, in conjunction with G4S, which is a huge Israeli private security industry. They are trying to import their services here but they need to find a patsy who understands that you need to create a crisis to exploit. Israel has been doing this for decades – this is old hat for them. Let me know if you need any more details.

                    6. Speaking for myself, I have zero interest in your conspiracy bullshit.

                      I mean, do you really think that people never heard the idea that a shadowy cabal of powerful Jews is beyond every bad thing that happens in the world? You’re breaking new ground and can enlighten us all, bro!!!

                      *rolls eyes*

          3. Sorry Hero, the ‘jig is up’ as they say.

            1. If there is more than faux-Zen obscurantism behind your point, then speak plainly.

              1. Where do the Lizard People fit in to all of this? Was this all just to protect the entrance to Agartha that sits under the Epcot dome?

                1. Well, did I stutter? Answer my damn question.

                  1. OH GOD I HOPE THEY BRING BACK THE HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE TO ROOT OUT THE INFIDELS WITHIN OUR MIDSTS.

                    1. So, nothing of merit behind your postings.

                      As I figured.

                      And you wonder why you’re treated with all the gravitas of a fart.

                    2. So, nothing of merit behind your postings.

                      As I figured.

                      And you wonder why I treat you with all the gravitas of a fart.

                  2. HM, pretty sure dajjal is just posting the latest conspiracy theories. He’s just busting your balls for thinking he agrees with it.

                    1. No, the troll behind “it” is a Troother-type. And it really can’t stand when it isn’t treated “seriously”. That’s why it’s shit-posting.

                    2. Ah, sorry my sarc meter is broke today.

                    3. I am reading over your exchange with dajjal and cant make heads or tails of it. Why do you bother?

                      I mean… the guy posts links from Alternet.

    2. The FBI is so sly and powerful, inserting that anti-gay material into the Koran and the Hadith so that they could entrap poor Omar!

      1. The FBI used to try to infiltrate “ACT UP” in the 80’s with violent trolls. They were easily identified and roundly mocked. Agitating is right out of their playbook. This is well know. This is not a game you can win, Pappy.

        1. Your argument would carry some weight if it wasn’t obvious that 99.999% of radical Muslim activity throughout the world and throughout history has absolutely nothing to do with the FBI.

          1. Yes – Muslim extremism is very bad. Even worse is the Western Secular Caliphate: “We must bomb them (reluctantly and following industry ‘best practices’) or they will kill each other and sell each other into international sex trafficking rings to be exposed by the FBI!”

            1. You mistake the effect for the cause, or at least equate the two in a silly way. Western military activity did not create Islamic radicalism, Muhammad did.

      2. You know what other book contained anti-gay material?

        1. Stranger in a Strange Land?

        2. Hey Franky’s here. Let’s get this party started! And thanks for not reluctantly droning me today, Frank. You da man!

        3. Every book ever written by Che Guevara?

    3. It’s crazy how they started radicalizing him in elementary school. Did they also radicalize his Taliban supporting father?

  15. Turkey just can’t quite straddle the fence of third world shithole and modern western civilized nation. Every time they drift a little too close to the latter, those in power ensure a fall back to the former.

    1. I can’t believe that they are being seriously considered for EU admission. How the pissants in Brussels can overlook the savagery of Turkey’s current human rights abuses but bitch and moan about US gun laws at the same time is fucking astounding.

      1. Enh, even is Germany is against it. Well, the German people are.

      2. because it’s the pissants in Brussels. You’ve seen their righteous indignation about the various activities of immigrants and how that needs to be stopped, right? Neither have I.

      3. “I can’t believe that they are being seriously considered for EU admission.”

        A bigger market is a better market.

      4. Because the *Project* is more important (and the increase in stature and power). After all, the EU has prevented another war in Europe, all by its lonesome.

    2. I remember when Turkey was a shining beacon of hope and democracy in the Middle East. Majority Muslim country with a secular and fairly liberal government.

      Now this shit.

      Fuck it. build a wall. Not between us and Mexico but around the ME. *I’ll* pay for it.

      Do construction companies take credit cards?

      1. “I remember when Turkey was a shining beacon of hope and democracy in the Middle East.”

        Was this before or after that Armenian thing?

  16. Did this happen in Constantinople or Istanbul?

    1. *du dum tiss!

      Thanks folks, we will be here all week!

  17. Life Hacks” are just pretentious “Hints from Heloise”.

    Discuss.

    1. Are you telling me that you don’t put the clip on a bowl when you’re knitting?

    2. 1. The guy has absolutely no knowledge of how to use a knife. You never extend your fingers and thumb of your off hand. It’s a sure fire way to get cut.

      2. Bluetooth headphones, dumbass.

      3. Don’t most people roll yarn into balls before knitting? And you could, you know, put the ball of yarn in a bowl. (Also, notice that he has the yarn rolled around the middle of the “ball” after he puts it in the bowl which is not the way it is in the before part)

      4. That’s just gay as fuck.

      5. Take your glove off, you fucking pansy.

      6.i guess that’s somewhat clever. Now I can wear that pooka sheloves bracelet again.

      1. I noticed that horrible knife-work too.

        1. I want to see him cut chicken breasts with his fingertips and thumb out like that. He’d make himself look like the black knight after a battle with King Arthur.

            1. Wait, have the asshats hijacked “craftsman” now too? (1:46 in)

              God damn those motherfuckers.

              1. Someone didn’t get the Craftsperson tools he wanted from Sears for Father’s Day.

                1. Father’s Day? Don’t you mean Male, or self-identifying as male Parent’s Day, shitlord?

    3. It missed the best hack- turning a paper clip into a rake and torsion wrench.

      1. I just used the hair pick onion trick.

        1. The hair pick is cute. I would use it to stab the onion and throw it in the trash. Onions are evil, as is most of genus allium. Some garlic is OK, but not too much.

          Why would I, a single guy of Irish heritage, with thinning hair, even have a hair pick? My closest friend who could sport the kind of hair that would create a need for one shaves his head. Mandolins aren’t that expensive. You could get one with a plastic housing for $30.

          1. Onions are evil, as is most of genus allium. Some garlic is OK, but not too much.

            *faints*

    4. If by’pretentious ‘ you mean retarded, we agree.

      1. if you drew a venn diagram they would be concentric (“retarded” being the bigger one)

    5. Seems to me it would be easier all around if you just used a knife *and* didn’t cut things like you were in an infomercial for ‘Slap Chop’.

      1. THERE’S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY!!11 *flails bloody stumps in frustration*

  18. Doug Stanhope has a pretty good perspective on how much to let politics into your life.

    1. He basically suggests “nihilism” in so many words

      *(tho i thought the bit about stuffing nachos up your nose and asshole was an interesting thought)

  19. With apologies to Mr. Orwell, “The real division is not between [social] conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians”

    Rock and roll (and blue jeans) brought down the Berlin Wall, too.

    Corruption of the youth seems to be primary fear of social conservatives regardless of religion or culture–maybe rightly so. That and the fear that women might start making choices for themselves.

    I don’t know how the governments of the West are supposed to leverage that. Maybe start pirate radio stations a la Voice of America, but with less of a political message. Who cares about the news?

    Broadcast a black metal station. Another one with rap and EDM.

    I understand Bollywood is really popular throughout that part of the world.

    http://www.thenational.ae/uae/…..iddle-east

    Dancing, singing, hot Indian chicks with their hips or belly exposed. Once white girls started shaking their tail-feathers to black music, it meant the end of segregation was at hand. Muslim chicks dancing to Bollywood music might do the same to the social conservatives. Once they’ve seen it for themselves, nobody likes fundamentalists who want to stop girls from shaking their tail-feathers.

    Girls shaking their tail-feathers are the most powerful force in the universe.

    1. “The real division is not between [social] conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians”

      Exactly this.

      1. yes, “conservative” and “revolutionary” only mean anything in relation to your current situation. thinking about this is confusing me cuz of how blurry language gets in politics, but preferences for known vs. unknown and freedom vs. being told what to do (or, to put it another way, actual freedom vs. freedom from the horrible burden of having to make your own choices, which is how some people see it) both seem pretty innate. I think the truth is that only one axis is oversimplifying by a lot.

        1. I think that a source of a lot of confusion is the media’s use of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, which are very poor choices for describing the ideological divides in the USA, today.

        2. For what it’s worth, Orwell was watching the pro-Stalin Communists put down their Anarchist cohorts and kill any resistance to Stalinist-Communist control. The Anarchists and the Communists were supposed to be fighting together against the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War at the time.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days

          Orwell was effectively saying that the real fight wasn’t between the Fascist government and the revolutionary Communists but between both the Fascists and the Communists (on the one hand) against the Anarchists (on the other).

          If only we had honest liberals like Orwell today!

    2. Malaya has been a staple of weddings in the Gulf and North Africa for centuries.

      All it’s done has just increased the demand for slaves.

      1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown prefers the term “sex workers”.

        Anyway, I doubt Bollywood encourages slavery in Turkey.

        I think it’ll just serve as a counterpoint to Islamists.

        The only way you can make something like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seem cool is if it’s seen as the alternative to a vicious dictator–and there aren’t any hot chicks around.

        If the alternatives are between fundamentalists or hot chicks, the fundamentalists don’t stand a chance.

        And they know it.

        1. Your grasp of this whole ‘falsification’ thing isn’t too strong, is it?

          1. I haven’t seen anything falsified.

            1. No, you refuse to accept the counter-evidence. (And you goal-post shifted like a mofo)

              There’s a difference.

              1. You posting a video showing a woman shaking her rump despite a conservative culture doesn’t falsify the suggestion that the key to undermining fundamentalists might be liberated women and sexual freedom.

                We’re talking about youth and the biological imperative here. You think posting a video of a Muslims woman shaking her tail-feather falsifies that?

                If I’m not compelled by your video, maybe the fault isn’t with me. Maybe your video isn’t compelling.

                1. You posting a video showing a woman shaking her rump despite a conservative culture doesn’t falsify the suggestion that the key to undermining fundamentalists might be liberated women and sexual freedom.

                  You are correct. However, posting such a video while mentioning the fact that such a practice has existed in such a conservative culture (by the way, Ken, Turkey isn’t in North Africa or the Arabian Gulf) for more than a millennia, yet that culture’s values are still aligned with a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam does. Period. There is no further discussion.

                  Now, if you want to adjust your claim from a universal to a particular, then be my guest. But don’t throw a hissy-fit when your universal is falsified by counter-evidence. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have to explain this to someone who is presumably a mature adult.

                  1. if you want to adjust your claim from a universal to a particular, then be my guest. But don’t throw a hissy-fit when your universal is falsified by counter-evidence.

                    This is sort of what i was talking about.

                    Why is any general claim treated as a “universal” one? (e.g. something can be said to be “mostly” the case without it being “always” the case)

                    Something can be broadly true while there being unlimited numbers of isolated counter-examples. In the case of these complex social-issues, nothing is ‘universal’. These aren’t scientific hypotheses. The merits of a proposition aren’t based on an absence of ANY counter-examples; its based on the overall weight of supporting evidence vs. contradicting evidence, and the significance of each in the broadest context.

                    just my .02 shekels.

                    1. Why is any general claim treated as a “universal” one? (e.g. something can be said to be “mostly” the case without it being “always” the case)

                      Something can be broadly true while there being unlimited numbers of isolated counter-examples. In the case of these complex social-issues, nothing is ‘universal’. These aren’t scientific hypotheses. The merits of a proposition aren’t based on an absence of ANY counter-examples; its based on the overall weight of supporting evidence vs. contradicting evidence, and the significance of each in the broadest context.

                      And I agree with you. The irony being, that Ken’s OP, before his claim was challenged, was hedged correctly. However, when I had the audacity to provide a counter-example, Ken doubled-down and attempted to state such a universal hypothesis @2:17. (e.g., “The only way you…”. ) So if Ken is going to go there, I’ll respond in kind.

                      As an aside, I think that there’s a bit more to this, but that point should be addressed to Ken directly, if appropriate.

                    2. Ken doubled-down and attempted to state such a universal hypothesis @2:17. (e.g., “The only way you…”. ) So if Ken is going to go there, I’ll respond in kind.

                      ok, fair enough.

                      my own point was based on flashbacks to many pointless, niggling tete-a-tetes with SF.

                    3. “Ken doubled-down and attempted to state such a universal hypothesis @2:17. (e.g., “The only way you…”. ) So if Ken is going to go there, I’ll respond in kind.”

                      You actually understand what he’s talking about?

                  2. “by the way, Ken, Turkey isn’t in North Africa or the Arabian Gulf”

                    Huh?!

                  3. “You are correct. However, posting such a video while mentioning the fact that such a practice has existed in such a conservative culture (by the way, Ken, Turkey isn’t in North Africa or the Arabian Gulf) for more than a millennia, yet that culture’s values are still aligned with a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam does”

                    You mean they’ve had sexually provocative culture in Muslim culture all these years!

                    Wow, I had no idea.

                    See, we didn’t have any sexually provocative women before rock and roll was invented in the U.S. Before rock and roll was invented, they all lived somewhere else.

                    Is that really what I think I”m saying?!

                    “Corruption of the youth seems to be primary fear of social conservatives regardless of religion or culture–maybe rightly so.”

                    Aren’t you supposed to be some kind of linguist or something? You seem to have problems with meaning. I’ll give you a hint. What other people are saying isn’t necessarily the opposite of whatever you want to talk about.

                    P.S. I didn’t really mean the Berlin Wall was knocked down by the sonic power of rock and roll or by people bludgeoning the wall with blue jeans, either. But you knew that, right? Or were you about to find a video to prove that not everyone in East Germany liked rock and roll or wanted to wear blue jeans?

                    1. “Is that really what [you] think I”m saying?!”

                      Fixed!

              2. Im not taking sides (I DONT AGREE WITH EITHER OF YOU – even though i’m not sure what either is claiming)…

                …but a general claim isn’t really refuted by a single citation of a possible counter-example. it treats a broad argument as a specific proposition, and pretends it is “refuted” by a single piece of data.

                I used to see Nikki, SF (maybe you) sometimes do this. I don’t know why its supposed to be considered such a coup de grace.

                I don’t actually agree that religious fundies are somehow undermined by exposure to more-liberal sexual-culture, or whatever it is being argued. if anything they can co-exist with it and have it amplify their own sense of self-important moralism. Qtub never got so righteous until he came to the West. The islamic revolution in the 1970s took place after decades of increasing “westernization” in the arab world. As far as i can tell, these things live on often separate levels. Iran has maintained its theocratic identity while the general public remains fairly liberal compared to other islamic states.

                1. but a general claim isn’t really refuted by a single citation of a possible counter-example.

                  You solved the problem of induction? I can direct you to a few journals that will publish your paper.

                  1. See above.

                2. I don’t actually agree that religious fundies are somehow undermined by exposure to more-liberal sexual-culture, or whatever it is being argued. if anything they can co-exist with it and have it amplify their own sense of self-important moralism. Qtub never got so righteous until he came to the West. The islamic revolution in the 1970s took place after decades of increasing “westernization” in the arab world. As far as i can tell, these things live on often separate levels. Iran has maintained its theocratic identity while the general public remains fairly liberal compared to other islamic states.

                  You state you don’t agree with either of us, yet you just agreed with me. Not to mention the very important point that conservative/fundamentalist Islamic views of sexuality are radically different than Christian conservative views. One is a religion with a celibate messiah and a large portion of it has a celibate priesthood which guide followers in rejecting the flesh; the other had a prophet with a harem of 13 wives, many of whom were war booty, and offers a vision of the afterlife that reads like a Penthouse letter. As noted before, overt displays of sexuality by “lesser” beings (i.e., not the middle to upper-class Arab that often made up the historical and cultural elite of Islamic civilization) has always had a place in fundamentalist Islam, especially when “what your right hand acquires” is used as a recruitment tool to this day.

                  1. You state you don’t agree with either of us, yet you just agreed with me.

                    for the sake of making that point about your weeny-ism in claiming “refutation”, i was trying to say i had no skin in that debate.

                    after the fact, i decided i agreed with you regardless of your M.O., but wasn’t even sure that was exactly what you were saying.

                    1. As a complete side note…

                      I think this idea of some dichotomy between a society’s liberalism and its religiosity is… well, oversimplified.

                      Many people outside the US entirely misunderstand the United States when they see statistics regarding its religiosity. We’re one of the most religious countries on earth; possible “the most”, depending on how you choose to define it.

                      What’s even more bizarre is that we manage to do it while ALSO being pluralistic. Which, as far as i know, has few historical comparisons (someone might suggest 11th century islam or something, but i’m skeptical).

                      i think there’s something missing from the debate – which is the level to which religion is actually “political”. In the US we can be very religious and very pluralistic mainly because westerners long ago decided that Church/State should operate in different realms. This isn’t the case elsewhere, and in the specific case of Turkey, has been something of an issue in the last 20 years (in that Islam has returned as a major political force)

                      anyway, I think we too often confuse political-islam as a ‘mere religion’ when in fact its something more culturally broad and unlike our western conception of religions, which remain mostly outside the state.

                      (and i think things like SSM or Hobby Lobby cases etc. are really very minor exceptions)

                3. but a general claim isn’t really refuted by a single citation of a possible counter-example. it treats a broad argument as a specific proposition, and pretends it is “refuted” by a single piece of data.

                  This phenomenon is for some odd reason almost exclusive to the left. I’m not trying to impune lefties in general. It’s not very common outside of intellectual wankery, but it almost only ever surfaces on the port side.

                  1. This phenomenon is for some odd reason almost exclusive to the left. I’m not trying to impune lefties in general. It’s not very common outside of intellectual wankery, but it almost only ever surfaces on the port side.

                    can you think of any examples?

                    lately the thing that comes to mind is the freakout so many people are having pretending that Christianity is so incredibly “hostile” to homosexuality and how the only thing stopping a Christian anti-homosexual jihad is Federal Law Enforcement, or something.

                    When the reality is that most Christian denominations seem to have come to terms with gays a long time ago; even those that aren’t welcoming are often awkwardly tolerant.

                    while there are certainly more than a few still screaming that Hellfire and Brimstone awaits the sodomites, they really don’t seem to be as wildly popular as many on the left pretend

                    1. can you think of any examples?

                      Lee Jussim’s work on stereotype accuracy. TL; DR The entirety of social psychology (one of the first disciplines to go fully commie) accepted that stereotypes were inaccurate because every stereotype has a counter-example. That was the entire reason. There was a whole body of literature on the awfulness of stereotypes before anybody even thought to empirically test accuracy.

                      lately the thing that comes to mind is the freakout so many people are having pretending that Christianity is so incredibly “hostile” to homosexuality

                      Everything in the NYT about terrorism or homo-hatin’ probably fits.

                    2. This kind of logic usually gets immediately rejected outside a political context.

                      “Tom Glavine was a soft tossing lefty with 6 ERA.”
                      “So were 10,000 other guys you can’t name.”
                      “I know. Just trying to be optimistic.”

                      “I know a strong woman.”
                      “And many weak women.”
                      “Sexist!”

                4. Im not taking sides (I DONT AGREE WITH EITHER OF YOU – even though i’m not sure what either is claiming)…

                  I’m right there with you…

                  1. I’d like to point out, just for my own sanity, the Mulatto appears to be rebutting claims that came from voices in his head–and somehow projecting them onto me.

                    He may be a linguist but apparently he’s such a linguist that he can’t understand plain English.

                    The idea that sexual revolution might undermine the attraction of fundamentalism in the eyes of the youth really shouldn’t be controversial.

                    And presuming to have disproved that hypothesis with a YouTube video of a woman shaking her rump should be indisputably hilarious.

                    When they say that they don’t agree with either one of us 1) How can you tell what Heroic Mulatto is arguing? ans 2) May I ask why you don’t think sexual liberation might undermine fundamentalism?

                    1. The idea that sexual revolution might undermine the attraction of fundamentalism in the eyes of the youth really shouldn’t be controversial.

                      Yeah, but he makes a good point in noting that what you consider sexual revolution (e.g. women dancing in skimpy clothing) isn’t actually anything new to Arab culture, and has coexisted with fundamentalist islamism for centuries….

                      because Islam – contrasted to christianity – is fairly comfortable with the idea of females being essentially “sex slaves”.

                      I added a few points of my own, nothing that modern “revival” Islam was basically born out of an Arab world that had spent most of the prior 200 years “westernizing”. Western cultural liberalism isn’t some overpowering force that Islamists are unable to cope with. Materialism and decadence doesn’t always win = in fact it was exactly what inspired people like Qtub to reject Western Ideas.

                      as per above – i did note that his M.O. with you was sort of weeny, and not a particularly fair way to treat a broad claim; but i actually agree with his basic point.

                    2. “because Islam – contrasted to christianity – is fairly comfortable with the idea of females being essentially “sex slaves”.

                      See my comment below about the flappers, the past, and mass media.

                      There is nothing new under the sun. I’m sure belly dancing and the rest of it has been around since before Islam. Talking to some baby boomers, you’d think the BJ was invented in the ’60s. Of course that isn’t so.

                      And I’m talking about youth culture.

                      I’m sure I’d made out with five different girls by the time I wad 14. When kids go to high school, hardly anyone is looking to give those opportunities up to give fundamentalism a go. Same thing in college.

                      Enslave women? Why would they want to that when liberated women offer so many more . . . opportunities?

                      It isn’t just about seeing liberated women in pr0n either. It’s about average youth having a legitimate shot at their piece of nookie. You have to keep all that away from (most of) them to get them to think that fundamentalism is cool.

                    3. When kids go to high school, hardly anyone is looking to give those opportunities up to give fundamentalism a go. Same thing in college

                      Google ‘SJW’

                    4. SJW may be a kind of religious fundamentalism. If it ever really gets in the way of liberated females in college wanting to hook up with guys, I suspect we’ll see it go by the wayside.

                    5. It’s totally composed of a combination of envy, misery, hatefulness, and vindictiveness. That’s all there is to it, there’s nothing more.

                    6. When kids go to high school, hardly anyone is looking to give those opportunities up to give fundamentalism a go. Same thing in college.

                      Yet many of the 9/11 hijackers grew up in fairly liberal households and went to western universities. And hundreds of young people (*your claimed, “youth culture“) seem to have joined ISIS despite living the very-liberated and decadent Western Europe.

                      You keep reciting these “hardly anyone” claims when there’s plenty of examples of the opposite regularly being the case.

                      I looked for what you meant by “flappers” and i don’t see anything. I don’t want to repeat my same point above… but your “pussy always wins”-theory isn’t correct, sadly.

                    7. No doubt, the people who flee the wealthy west to join ISIS and the kids who join in Libya, just because they go the same place doesn’t mean they go for the samr reasons.

                      The rich kid who grew up in Silicon Valley and the Mayan kid in Guatemala may both consider themselves communists–but I think their motivations are different.

                      I’m not saying that there won’t be any fundamentalists once women are sexually liberated either. But I think there will be a big turn in the amount of local support among the youth we see for fundamentalists.

                    8. I suspect the reason for Western men joining a radical group like that is because of the feminizing of the West. Not necessarily the feminizing alone, but because of the anti-male message that it brings along with it. Boys are not even supposed to be boys anymore, all types of masculinity is under attack in Western cultures. Patriarchy, privilege, all men are rapists, etc, etc. It’s insanity and is going to lead to the demise of the West if it is not stopped. ISIS doesn’t need to defeat Western culture, Western culture is committing suicide.

                    9. I’m not saying that there won’t be any fundamentalists once women are sexually liberated either. But I think there will be a big turn in the amount of local support among the youth we see for fundamentalists.

                      If you’re never read the “The End of History & The Last Man” by Frankie Fukyama, you might want to check it out.

                      You’re not the first person to posit that ‘secular, liberal values’, social-decadence, are the inevitable end to all traditional cultures.

                5. “The only way you can make something like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seem cool is if it’s seen as the alternative to a vicious dictator–and there aren’t any hot chicks around.”

                  “The only you can make something seem cool . . . ”

                  Not only is Heroic Mulatto taking that as some kind of universal absolutist statement that can be disproved by counter examples–he thinks he’s actually disproved it?!

                  LOL ^ 2

                  1. The only way you can make something like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seem cool is if it’s seen as the alternative to a vicious dictator–and there aren’t any hot chicks around.

                    I dunno, the first part yeah, Shah of Iran rings a bell. But you cannot tell me there are not any hot Persian women, my eyes do not lie, bro.

                    1. I know there are hot Persian women, and it takes torture and martial law to keep them covered, too.

                6. “I DONT AGREE WITH EITHER OF YOU!”

                  The libertarian response to this election (and Us politics in general) in a perfect freaking nutshell.

                  *applauds

        2. I think you are expecting them to respond in the way that we do, or would. They aren’t like us. They aren’t civilized. Different culture, different mentality, different reaction.

          1. Like I said, we’re talking about the biological imperative, here, and specifically in regards to the youth.

            Also, note how controlled female sexuality is in that culture of fundamentalism. Females dating, dancing, even being in mixed company seems to be what they fear most–probably with good reason.

            The fundamentalists know they can’t compete with sexually liberated females.

            No one can. Especially when the girls are shaking their tail-feathers. They’re irresistible.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MqD9XJ7cM

            Faster than the speed of light. Bigger than the universe.

            All cultures are subject to the biological imperative. Isn’t running against the biological imperative essentially what we’re talking about when we talk about a social adaptation (like religion) being maladaptive? It means they run into the biological imperative and lose.

            P.S. Heroic Mulatto is looking for a YouTube video right now to prove that nothing is faster than the speed of light.

            1. If your idea about an “imperative” had any actual merit, then you’re basically arguing for an “end of history” where Western Liberal-Democratic Secular ideas always triumph.

              i.e. – Sex conquers all!

              Yet we know that’s not true in general; and its most specifically completely not true re: most of Islam.

              Decadence/changes to cultural mores don’t only go in one direction, fwiw. Sometimes cultures get more conservative over time, sometimes they get more liberal. its a pendulum. and as noted in many different places in this thread – there’s no simple dichotomy between religiosity and cultural liberalism. One doesn’t necessarily decrease as the other increases, and vice versa.

              Females dating, dancing, even being in mixed company seems to be what they fear most

              it was exactly this that HM was pointing out was wrong via his example.

              1. Among the youth, especially?

                Yeah, religion either capitulates to the biological imperative or it end up on Darwin’s ash heap.

                There were cultures in the ancient world where incest was the norm–because of religion. It was maladaptive, so it had to go. That religion still exists today–but they had to throw that aspect of their religion away.

                The Shakers took the other road. No sex means no more Shakers. They failed the biological imperative test but didn’t adapt to conform with the imperative’s rules–so all we have left of the Shakers are their magnificent chairs.

                ” If your idea about an “imperative” had any actual merit, then you’re basically arguing for an “end of history” where Western Liberal-Democratic Secular ideas always triumph.”

                I’m not sure that politics necessarily interferes with the biological imperative that way. The Chinese used politics to trump sexual reproduction, but I think that’s falling by the wayside. In other words, it looks like biological imperative is winning that fight, too.

                And again, my point is about how sexual liberation among the youth, specifically, undermines the appeal of fundamentalism.

                1. And again, my point is about how sexual liberation among the youth, specifically, undermines the appeal of fundamentalism.

                  Yes, you keep repeating this without any acknowledgement that its an idea riddled with holes.

                  Did you bother reading the link about the Islamic Revival in the 1970s? You’re aware that the people who lead the Islamic Revolution in Iran were in fact your “youth culture”? and that the people who flocked to Afghanistan from Arab countries in the 1980s were mostly “young people”… and so on and so on and so on.

                  1. Yeah, looks like the youth of the Iranian revolution got a lot more than they bargained for.

                    1. Yeah, they thought it was a great idea to back a radical religious cult over the Shah. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

            2. Heroic Mulatto is looking for a YouTube video right now to prove that nothing is faster than the speed of light

              He won’t have to look for very long. Quantum entanglement. That is all.

              1. “He won’t have to look for very long. Quantum entanglement. That is all.”

                Well that just makes it funnier, then, doesn’t it.

            3. Also, note how controlled female sexuality is in that culture of fundamentalism. Females dating, dancing, even being in mixed company seems to be what they fear most–probably with good reason.

              The fundamentalists know they can’t compete with sexually liberated females.

              Cultures with stay-at-home moms can’t compete with grad school, birth control, and abortions. Completely insane.

      2. Hmm, with all due respect, wake me up when they’re a little more uncovered.

        1. Yeah, I’m a little disappointed with that too, what’s up with that HM? I think you owe us a link and please, no more skinny white girls twerking, that’s something I never want to see again. (:

        2. I thought that was totally hot. Not everything has to be a money shot.

          1. I liked it to, I cannot lie.

          2. I didn’t say I didn’t like it, but a little bare midriff would tie the room together.

            1. Or at least a little undergarment display.

      1. Yeah, white girls dancing to that, on the one hand, or religious fundamentalists on the other?

        White girls dancing to black music?!

        Segregation never had a chance.

        If the Swedish Bikini Team doesn’t ruin the Islamists’ shit, the Bollywood Twerk Team will.

        1. You seriously think the Islamic world doesn’t have access to modern pornography?

          Yes, it’s technically illegal in most of these countries, but those laws are about as effective as Prohibition and the War on Drugs here in the U.S.

          1. Have you ever watched that TV series, Locked Up Abroad?

            There was a British dude in … it was maybe Dubai, or it might have eve been Saudi Arabia. Anyway, wherever it was, alcohol was strictly forbidden. But some member of the royal class approached the guy and asked him if he could get them liquor into the country. He did, this went on for a while and he was invited to all these lavish parties at high levels up in the royals, sheikhs and all that stuff. This continued for some time and one day, the authorities showed up at his house, found alcohol, accused him of having weapons, and he wound up in prison, having been sentenced to 1000 lashes or something crazy like that.

            1. I guess the moral of the story is, yeah, these guys drink and party, but if you get on their bad side for some unperceived slight, this is what happens. It’s probably best to not party with those who are supposed to be obeying the Shariah.

        2. *facepalm*

          I wish you were correct, but sadly you are not Ken.

          Overwhelmingly the attitude displayed by ME men that have invaded Europe is very contemptuous. It doesnt make a dent in their barbarity, in fact, it seems to magnify it.

          1. Yeah, they didn’t realize what they were missing back home, and now they see all the liberated women that they can’t possibly achieve, because they’re destitute refugees, and it drives them crazy.

            What’s the old saying about the difference between a bitch and a slut?

            A slut is a girl that will sleep with anyone, and a bitch is a girl who will sleep with anyone but me.

            Or as the great sage put it:

            “Women seem wicked
            when you’re unwanted”

      2. This version has dancing and Ray Charles.

    3. You should write a cosmo version of A People’s History.

    4. “Muslim chicks dancing to Bollywood music might do the same to the social conservatives.”

      If I had to put my money on any group to advance Libertarian values in the Middle Eastern countries, it would be on the women. It wouldn’t be on Western governments financing pirate rap radio stations.

      “Girls shaking their tail-feathers are the most powerful force in the universe.”

      Not unless they are organized. Random incidences of tail-feather shaking threaten no one.

      1. The west may have no choice but to accept the possibility that the Muslim world is inherently Enlightenment-resistant and unreformable. It has been almost 1400 years after all.

        And contrary to what Ken seems to think, they already have sex, drugs, and rock and roll over there, and they have for years, even with the threat of amputation or worse hanging over them.

        1. “Enlightenment-resistant and unreformable”

          The Enlightenment is irrelevant. It did not feature dancing girls. It was about the authority of science vs. scripture, and as far as I know, Islam doesn’t have any of the problems Christians had with gravity and the earth’s orbit. I don’t believe the immans and ayatollahs have any objection to this. In fact the Islamic Republic of Iran arguably has the most enlightened position on organ transplant sales in the world today – it’s the only country where these sales are legal.

          1. Plus, they like to murder Jews. What’s not to love about them, right, comrade?

            1. You think an Enlightenment in the middle east will be good for Jews? Just like it was in Germany, right? No, it won’t, and the quicker you abandon this half-baked notion the better. I agree with Ken here and put my hopes in women taking the lead.

              1. You are even dumber than I thought. Congratulations, you communist idiot.

                1. “You are even dumber than I thought.”

                  Very likely. But what has that got to do with Jews?

        2. “And contrary to what Ken seems to think, they already have sex, drugs, and rock and roll over there, and they have for years, even with the threat of amputation or worse hanging over them”

          We had sex, drugs, and jazz here in the U.S. before rock and roll, too. I’m not saying it’s going to solve all their problems overnight. I’m saying that when the youth can choose between fundamentalism and something more fun and exciting, they’ll want the latter–like eastern European kids wanted rock and roll and blue jeans.

          Oh, and speaking of sex, drugs, jazz, and liberated women, the process I’m talking about probably started with the flappers, and it rode through the culture on the back of mass media. The reformation was a series of wars that lasted for more than a hundred years–and I think the Muslim world is already going through that. What they really need is the flappers.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper

    5. All divisions are equally real. They may not be of equal importance to you, but they’re equally real.

  20. One of my good friends lives in Istanbul and says the situation is getting worse and worse. He’s Jewish too so that certainly makes things a lot worse for him.

    1. Is he going to stay? I’m not sure that I would. Tell him to stay safe over there!

  21. P.S.: GO CAVS!!!

    1. I started this series rooting for the Warriors. But goddamn there’s a bunch of bitches on that team. And Lebron is not being a whiny bitch for minutes at a time. Incredible.

    2. They’re going to let you down one last time…

      1. The only question is what will be added to the list- The Dunk? The Foul? The Steal? the mind boggles at the possibilities of disappointment.

      2. I fully expect it. Maybe LeBron can be one of my pallbearers.

  22. This is like the worst gay Muslim twerk chat room ever.

    1. Isn’t that the truth.

  23. Look, that’s nobody’s business but the Turks

    1. Don’t let’s start.

      1. People just like it better that way

  24. I just returned from our local food co-op. They had a blackboard with Orlando in rainbow colors and message stickers Out of ~12 messages, three were related to gun control. The provided pen was from Progresssive (cheeky bastards).

    1. You should have just played gay and wrote ‘The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed. Arm yourself.’.

      1. I didn’t get the sense the board was only for gays to post to, and what’s the right level of gay to play for that task? Mince over, or a little more, “Oh, I want to show my support but I’ve got to be brief so I can get home for some interior decorating and buttsecks.”

        1. Well I sort of got that’s what he was saying, because:

          They had a blackboard with Orlando in rainbow colors and message stickers

          1. Sounds FABULOOOuUUSSS!!!!!

            1. ^For those of you at home on closed captioning, that was my voice + a shit ton of obnoxious vocal-fry

    2. What I would have written:

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      or

      Another massacre in a gun-free zone. I wonder why that keeps happening.

      or

      It impossible to wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

    1. I somehow knew that was going to happen. But I still love them both. I just don’t want to kiss either of them.

      1. I know, his beard is scratchy.

  25. Radiohead still exists?

    1. Sure. There’s this guy in my town named Scott Tenorman, and they’re his favorite band.

  26. NPR: Investigators Say Orlando Shooter Showed Few Warning Signs Of Radicalization

    …aside from making several trips to Saudi Arabia and talking about how much he liked watching videos of jihadis beheading people.

    Inspector Clouseau wasn’t this clueless.

    1. NPR. Heh.

      They are trying to help push the narrative that this had nothing to do with Islam. I see that fucking shitweasel in the white house is trying to ramp up the importation of ‘refugees’.

      1. “I consider part of my responsibility as President of the United States fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

        -Barack Obama

        1. It seems they are appearing mostly in the muslim community, so once again, shitweasel lies.

        2. I wonder if that means fighting Muslims.

    2. Oh for the sake of … what the fuck is wrong with these people? The guy has been showing signs continuously from a very young age. Back when he was in elementary school he was laughing and celebrating on the school bus the day after 9/11. He threatened to kill his classmates, and constantly bragged about supporting radical Jihadists. This behavior continued right up until the day he finally did what he had threatened to do for years and years.

      Fuck these people, PC non-sense is going to get us all killed. I don’t even want to live on the same planet with these deranged progtards, they’re more dangerous than ISIS by far.

    3. Intelligence officials are convinced that intelligence officials shouldn’t criticized for being so horribly wrong about risk posed by the shooter.

    4. The argument seems to hinge on this idea that “Motives” are an Either/Or situation.

      Either they’re [Islamist]
      OR
      They’re Not [because there are signs of other things]

      Its just a rhetorical m.o. to pretend that “Both” isn’t an equally valid reading.

      iow, its entirely possible for the guy to have been =

      Mentally ill
      AND
      Quasi-gay
      AND
      not a very good muslim in terms of his behavior
      AND
      yet still a rabid, fire-breathing supporter of terrorism

      I noted that the guy didn’t seem very religious in terms of his beard or dress. Why must the guy have to meet every single one of the “Cliche Terrorist” checkboxes to qualify as a “Valid” ISIS supporter?

      I’d think shooting up a room full of gays then calling the news and pledging your support for ISIS would be proof enough by itself, sans the armchair psychoanalysis bullshit the media is doing.

      1. Oh come on, you know he was just a radical GOP teabagger who wanted to get the Muslims blamed for this.

        1. If Hillary Clinton went on a shooting ranoage the story line would be that she was finally worn down by republican hatemongering.

          1. Rampage

          2. It would be fowl.

            1. No haram, no fowl.

      2. You’re presuming some kind of bizarro logic where people start with facts, apply logical thinking, and reach conclusions. This is dangerous thinking. And probably racist.

        The right way to do things is start with the conclusion that fits all your biases and preconditions on what theories are acceptable to pose, then cherry pick facts which support it.

    5. It’s incredible how much PC bullshit is in the FBI, military, and IC now. Fundamental transformation.

      1. You’d think that those would be bastions of, if not small-c conservative ideology, at least conservative temperment and resistance to change.

        Nope. And its fucking terrifying.


  27. HnR fav Amanda Marcotte shares her deep thoughts on the Orlando shooting

    After all, it’s not just fundamentalist Islam that is anti-gay. Fundamentalist Christianity is, too, and if anti-gay religious teachings can cause a Muslim to reach for his gun, they can surely do the same to a Christian. Indeed, hate crimes against LGBT people are common in this country, and most of them are not being committed by Muslims.

    ….

    If the issue here is religiously motivated homophobia, then that’s a problem that is far from unique to Islam. It suggests the problem is not whether you read the Koran or the Bible, but whether or not you use religion as an excuse to wallow in bigotry. Which, in turn, implicates the Republican party that has spent decades stoking and exploiting Christian homophobia. You can pretend that Islam is a unique problem if the issue is violence done in the name of ISIS and their apocalyptic fantasies. Islam simply isn’t the only religion that teaches anti-gay views. There’s not a lot of wiggle room here.

    1. “hate crimes against LGBT people are common in this country”

      No. No they are not.

      1. It’s Marcotte, she’s an uncommon form of stupid.

    2. How many muslims lined up to donate blood after the shooting? How many christians?

      Marcotte should go fuck herself with a roll of barbed wire.

      1. Amanda Marcotte, proving once again, that peak derp will never be achieved.

    3. implicates the Republican party

      I didn’t see that coming.

      1. No one did, the progtards are full of surprises. They’re so unpredictable.

      2. I didn’t see that coming.

        Neither did I.

        Of course, this only serves as a reminder to me that I have, for far too long, neglected stretches in various exercises.

        (Not that I find her statement “Islam simply isn’t the only religion that teaches anti-gay views.” to be incorrect)

  28. You can never make some people happy. We must pray for the one who is to come, the great giver of free ponies and rainbow unicorns, and everything else I ever dreamed up in my safe space. Yes, we will pray for ‘The One’. The next one that is, the last one didn’t cut it. /derpity derp.

    No Happy in Progtopia

    I mean, sure, you can’t make me happy, but I’m a grumpy old glibertarian. Now get the fuck off my lawn!

    1. John Garyson has my vote!

      1. Wha… who?

        1. I like his stance on the titanium tax!

          1. You know, I think it goes to far.

        2. Hyperion,

          Unless I am incorrect in this matter, _’W_ is not referencing this.

          (This is a reference to an earlier comment with regards to a certain cartoonist – or not should Warren clarify)

          1. I’m even more confused now.

        3. Hyperion,

          Unless I am incorrect in this matter, _’W_ is not referencing this.

          (This is a reference to an earlier comment with regards to a certain cartoonist – or not should Warren clarify)

          1. Now, I’m twice as confused.

  29. Im sure the radiohead fans were asking for it

    1. You mispelled Imam, (: Is that you, Mohammed?

  30. There being quite niggardly with the articles this weekend. That doesn’t portend well for the upcoming holiday weekend.

    1. It’s KMW. She doesn’t love the online consumer as much as Welch did.

      1. I was told yesterday by someone, she doesn’t have anything to do with online, only the rag. Is that correct?

        1. My double-posts above explain all.

          (This is a complete and utter falsehood which has nothing to do with cartoons or their authors)

      2. Seems an odd strategy.

      3. Were you at the Pens parade?

        1. Yes, yes I was. I was standing no farther – further – farther from the Cup than I am from you right now. (Although I actually touched it once.)

          Let’s go ???!

  31. And for news from an alternative universe:

    It’s Green, it’s… I dunno

    1. Seems unlikely she will make a dent but everything about this election cycle has been pretty weird so I’m making no predictions.

      1. Would you be at all encouraged if Stein garners more “mainstream” media attention* as the presidential campaign continues this year, JB?

        *Even if such attention is approximately as dismissive as that demonstrated in Politico?

        1. I think it will be informative if Jill Stein wins more votes than Johnson.

        2. Encouraged would not be the right word. I certainly don’t think the msm is going to help prop anyone up who is a threat to Hillary. If she is going to make it on the ballot in 47 states one would think she’ll get some attention particularly if she could get Sanders endorsement. But sounds like Hillary may be getting that at some point

  32. Spot the Not: Kathleen Wynne

    1. My plan is to govern as long as I can.

    2. I’ve been driving since I was 19 years old.

    3. We need to kick-start the economy, but we also need to kick-start the environment.

    4. Social justice is what drives me; it’s why I’m here.

    5. There is a temptation in politics to look for simplistic slogans and to play the game in a way that looks like you’re a savvy politician.

    6. Women don’t seek power for its own sake, but to make a difference and overcome each challenge.

    1. I know nothing about her. I’ll guess 2 anyways.

      1. Spendthrift Ontario liberal zealot.

        All you need to know.

        1. I’ll go with 1.

          3,4,6 sound very much in line with what she would say.

    2. 6 sounds like something the wookiee might say.

    3. i don’t know who this is or why i should care.

      I will pick #3 because i assume its where you hide the not the most often.

      1. “What we know is homophobia can not be fought with Islamophobia.”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Hpyhg984k

        I really like the clown horn in the background.

        1. When you’re entire country is white and gay it makes tolerance pretty easy.

          1. Do you know who else was white and gay?

            1. Everyone here?

      1. Do they use kickstart in its slang form in Canada?

      2. Ms. Wynne and Herr Hayek need to be introduced.

      3. Eureka! My system works!

    4. I don’t know who that is, but it’s really sickening that five of those statements are legit.

      1. Premier of Ontario.

  33. Turkey, a country once considered a candidate for membership in the European Union and now slipping into autocracy,

    They’re turning increasingly autocratic because their increasingly theocratic population wants it that way, and they’ll be continuing down that path for a generation or two.

    1. Germany will push to have them become part of the Union.

      1. Part of the Union.

        Completely unrelated but Rufus’ phrasing instantly brought it to mind.

        1. That was actually pretty cool despite, well you know.

          1. The clothes? The hair? The lyrics?

            I remember first hearing that when I was a v. young leftist and thought it was cool. However, on closer study, it’s probably a satirical anti-union song.

            1. The song itself.

              1. Hah! Well played.

    2. “They’re turning increasingly autocratic because their increasingly theocratic population wants it that way, and they’ll be continuing down that path for a generation or two.”

      The more autocratic they become. the more responsive to the population’s desires? Anyway, thanks for the headsup on Turkey, valid for a generation or two.

  34. OT:

    But Wayne LaPiere, NRA’s CEO, said Sunday that pistol-packing revelers are not a realistic solution. “I don’t think you should have firearms where people are drinking,” LaPiere told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

    What about bartenders? Maybe a guard or two inside big clubs?

    1. In Ohio you can carry in bars but not while drinking

      1. I have seen off duty cops carrying in a bar when drinking though

        1. LOL of course

        2. The shit I saw in Berkeley was ridiculous. All of the BPD cops drank off duty at the “underage” student bar in a futile attempt to get sloppy seconds. I think there were about a dozen lost guns at that bar my senior year, and a lot of other alarming shit.

      2. Oregon’s concealed carry law doesn’t prohibit carry in bars, restaurants, schools, or while drinking. Yet somehow there hasn’t been a rash of permit holders shooting bystanders in any of those situations in the almost 30 years under the current carry law.

    2. “I don’t think you should have firearms where people are drinking,” LaPiere told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

      I’m trying to imagine how this works in Vegas.

      You’re telling me poker players, people who bet on sports, not to mention card game dealers and other employees, can’t carry a gun either inside the casino or on the way into or out of the casino–because people are drinking there?

      Why not just make them tape a target to their chests?

      P.S. Strippers walk out with tons of cash. I bet half the locals who regularly frequent casinos and aren’t just there to play the slots are packing.

      1. Why not just make them tape a target to their chests?

        Like schools and other gun-free zones, dance clubs are now another obvious target I guess.

        1. Well, the girls are walking out with tons of cash–just like people who gamble on sports and people who play poker. Those people generally don’t walk through the parking lot carrying tons of cash and no gun.

      2. You’re telling me poker players, people who bet on sports, not to mention card game dealers and other employees, can’t carry a gun either inside the casino or on the way into or out of the casino–because people are drinking there?

        You can’t carry a gun because there’s millions of dollars and thousands of strangers in there.

        Why not just make them tape a target to their chests?

        If you’re a poor that didn’t use the valet they’ll give you an armed escort.

        1. “You can’t carry a gun because there’s millions of dollars and thousands of strangers in there.”

          I know people who carry in casinos in Vegas.

          Poker players would not walk around with no gun. Especially when you’re in there playing every day–and people know who you are and what you do for a living.

          People get pissed off when they lose and wait for you out in the parking lot, too.

          Playing poker on a regular basis and not carrying a gun to the casino is stupid.

          1. I know people who carry in casinos in Vegas.

            You know security guards or people at janky casinos.

            People get pissed off when they lose and wait for you out in the parking lot, too.

            Nobody who carries real money parks their car. You’re being silly.

            1. No. I’m being dead serious. Robbing people as they come out of a casino is pretty common, and robbing people after you’ve watched them win money on the casino floor or in a poker room makes a ton of sense.

              Taking your money with you when you leave makes a ton of sense, too. That’s the difference between winning and losing: winners take their money home; losers leave their money at the casino.

              Local professional poker players don’t use limousines. Those are for tourists.

              And professional poker players who walk out of the same casino on a regular basis and no gun are idiots.

              Maybe if they play in tournaments, or something, but regular poker players playing each other and tourists don’t generally play in tournaments. The pro tournament players are playing a different game–and playing both just fucks your head up.

              Besides, playing in a tournament is more like gambling. Playing tourists, especially when they’re getting free drinks, is a lot less like gambling.

              1. Dude, a valet cost whatever you tip the guy.

                The pro tournament players are playing a different game–and playing both just fucks your head up.

                More silliness.

                1. Is that you, Tulpa?

    3. The NRA is now on board with screening against the terrorist watch list according to this story:

      http://tinyurl.com/gtyr8e4

      Explain to me how and why people are put on the list, or the NRA can kiss my libertarian ass.

      Does having been to a gun show and subscribing to certain YouTube channels get you on the list?

      1. If they support this and it becomes law, it will make both it and the watch list itself open to constitutional challenge.

        The watch list by itself avoids it by having no immediate repercussions; it doesn’t involve any de facto stripping of rights, but provides security agencies a resource to call upon in the event of an investigation. Ultimately, “how its used” becomes discretionary and you can’t blame the mere existence of the list for any subsequent actions.

        once its tied to some change in legal status, its depriving people of due process; courts would also force its contents to be disclosed, and in the process it would be clear how arbitrary it is, and how much of it is based on “automatic” data-collection triggers which have no ability to be verified.

        I think what they’re doing is 50% PR to show that “even the NRA is willing to compromise”, and 50% Bluff-Calling, where they know if the proposal moves forward, it actually opens up some major cracks in the federal “list making” process which could spell their longer term demise.

        1. Does anyone have the text of the bill?

          1. I think there is more than one. Feinstein proposed one which is here

            if i recall, something similar was proposed and shot down in December.

            1. From the date on that, it seems this was the same one voted down


              mcclatchy says
              it could be inserted in a new funding bill coming up

        2. I don’t think it’s a slippery slope argument to suggest that the watch list might be begging for abuse.

          They might justify it with the AUMF–just like they did with the NSA.

          Warantless wiretapping was originally about them being too lazy to go get a judge to rubber stamp a warrant.

          I hope you’re right, but I don’t trust them on this.

          1. The bizarre thing to me is that there are resident aliens on the terror watch list. Excuse me, but if there’s any doubt about them, just deport them. Sheesh.

            1. The bizarre thing to me is that there are resident aliens on the terror watch list. Excuse me, but if there’s any doubt about them, just deport them. Sheesh.

              Whether to deport them would I think depend on some assessment of how much of a threat to the public they are deemed to be versus the risk of revealing/compromising the intelligence sources/methods used to put them on the list.

              Which is not to say that none should be deported, but rather that the choice of who to deport should be somewhat judicious. I imagine a good many could be deported without much hand-wringing, e.g. because they posted jihadist shit on Twitter, but if the list has any merit whatsoever, then many of the names on it would come from other, less obvious sources.

    4. LaPierre is suffering from common symptoms of what isn’t banned must be mandatory.

  35. The big dog came to play tonight. Looking good early.

    1. You mean the blatant cheating?

  36. Nice little write up on the AR15

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..opularity/

  37. Ike, Mike and Mustard were on a weekend outing staying at The Olde Log Inn resort. Mustard decided to go on a hike and ended up missing for two days. When he turned up in the hospital beaten to a pulp Ike and Mike rushed to see what had happened. According to Mustard, he had gotten lost. After wandering around for what seemed like hours he finally spotted a parked car with what appeared to be people in the back seat. Unfortunately, the last thing he remembers was sticking his head through the window and asking “How far is The Olde Log Inn?”

    1. Are you gonna be here all week?

      1. A car hits a Jewish man. The paramedic says, “are you comfortable?” The man says, “Eh, I make good living.”

  38. someday, we’ll all be able to look back on this and laugh

  39. Before you exit your vehicles make sure they are in park, people.

    1. “Mr Chekov, set engines to full reverse”

      1. Congratulations for going there already.

        1. I never knew the guy existed until 20 minutes ago. then I mourned him, and now i’m dealing with the loss the only way i know how.

          1. Eh, Walter Koenig is still going full speed at age 79.

  40. Cleveland rocks bitches!!! LeBron joins Jim Brown as a legacy man for all time!!!

    1. I beat you because I love you

      /Lebron

    2. Safe to say Lebron owns Cleveland now?

      1. He’s getting a statue. A big one.

    3. Is Ayesha tweeting about the Illuminati conspiracy against Steph yet?

      1. I’d love to get naked and talk with her about it.

        1. More skinny chicks for the rest of us.

    4. And in the morning, Cleveland will.. still be Cleveland.

      1. Oakland going to be something different?

        1. If it was lucky, smoldering.

          1. Many folks may not realize this, but over 70% of Oakland is beautlful expensive homes in wooded hills overlooking panoramic views of San Francisco Bay. The average house sells for way over $800,000, and there are many houses in the multi-millions mansions level. It gets its unfortunate reputation from a slender strip of bad neighborhoods in the flatlands, all along ‘International Boulevard”, where, yes, there are lots of gangs, shootings, drug war violence and poverty.

  41. Wow Cleveland.

  42. Lue has weird suits.

    Not sure that’s the right collar for him.

  43. Even though the officiating was horrible and biased towards the Cavs it’s not the refs that make players (Steph) throw the ball away on ill advised passes or chuck up (everybody) horrible long-range shots or cause players (everyone, again) miss easy open shots.

    Cleveland, you don’t deserve shit. The Warriors beat themselves with help from the refs. You were just along for the ride.

    1. Aren’t you in Sac town?

      Sad face

      1. I’m near The Sac of Shit, but not so close that I get any of it on me.

        1. That was harsh, there are parts of Sac I like.

    2. Dunno.
      Curry needed to play his A game and played like it was a mid-season, throw-away game. James played like he wanted to win.
      Steph’s good, but it’s beginning to look like he thinks “Steph’s good” is enough to carry “other team desperate”.
      Kerr’s got some work to do now.

      1. Yeh, that certainly looked that way. Didn’t see urgency in their game. They just couldn’t find a way to take it up a notch and match C’s intensity.

        Also, boy did Love do a number on Curry on one play late in the game. I don’t think Curry was ready for that either.

        1. ‘it certainly looked that way.’ Bleh.

      2. “Hey I’m Steph, this pass will work!” Great player but he needs to fix that leak in his game.

        1. They like, literally have no post-up game.

          1. Rufus The Monocled|6.19.16 @ 11:18PM|#
            “They like, literally have no post-up game.”

            It sort of reminds me of Kaepernick, where the hope was the league couldn’t respond to a new offense. But the league isn’t made of up dummies and you’d better have a running game along with the ‘look at the QB run!’ gee-whizz.
            Green hit threes and Curry didn’t; you can’t build a team on the hopes he always does.

          2. They only have one good post player and he’s a backup guard. The weirder thing is that they have one of the best iso players in the game and never run it.

            1. They prefer artillery to close combat.

              1. They’re really good about attacking ‘the mark’ on the other teams. It’s really fucking weird how they don’t do that with isos, for practice if nothing else.

    3. I thought that was the best officiated game of the series.

      1. The stats guys will be out with their analysis in a few days and we’ll see how the officiating actually was but it looked to be Cav+ to me over the series.

        1. The Warriors don’t drive enough for the numbers to be comparable. League officiating is still kinda ass, but it’s miles better than the LAL-SAC days.

  44. What did the average student from Cleveland get on his SATs?

    Drool.

    1. This shit doesn’t make sense.

      I was away for the weekend, just got home, and I hear my neighbors cheering. For the assholes.

  45. Finally, our nation’s true enemy has shown its face. Prepare yourselves for a week long marathon runner hate extravaganza.

    1. our nation’s true enemy has shown its face

      Italian Carpenters?

  46. Breaking news: FBI to release partial transcript of Orlando shooter’s 911 calls with references to ISIS removed:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..t_out.html

    1. I suspect that there were some mentions of Obama that also needed to be removed.

      This is a slow pitch to Trump, right over the center of the plate. He should just demand the complete transcripts be released, and force Hillary and Obama to justify themselves.

    2. god they’re pathetic.

      they want to milk this “It wasn’t really terrorism – it was gay-hate, just like the people who opposed gay marriage!” for at least another week before they do their shocked-face =BUT WE SAID ALL ALONG IT WAS TERROR??

      they could only delay the san berdoo story as “extremist hate” until the FBI acknowledged 3 days later “Yes, they had connections to ISIS”. This one, even though its apparent on Day 1, they’re going to pretend its “not worth dwelling on”. IT HURTS PEOPLE TOO MUCH TO THINK ABOUT.

      1. It is not worth dwelling on. ISIS doesn’t materially help or coordinate actions like this. It’s just an idea: Kill the infidel! What’s the dif whether there’s a “cx to ISIS”? If this is what ISIS consists of outside its militarily occupied areas, what can be done about it? I can think of only 1 possibility: take hostages. If these people value their loved ones more than they value killing the infidel, then hold their families, friends, & acquaintances hostage. But if they value killing the infidel more, then there’s nothing.

        1. To hell with what you or anyone else thinks is “Worth dwelling on” or not.

          If you’re going to publicize what the killer said, then document everything he said. Anything less is a craven use of this event to make it “politically useful”.

          And you might be personally blase about the role of ISIS in mass killings, but i think the families of people who were murdered en masse will wonder “Why” it happened, and trying to spin things doesn’t do anyone justice.

          I dont give a shit if libertarians personally want to turn the other cheek and say, “what are you going to do? Bomb mecca? There’s nothing that can be done”. But trying to play down the actual facts and pretend there is no actual enemy out there because of your own personal political desires is slimy and pathetic.

          1. “Bomb Mecca” should always be an option on the table.

            1. Because pissing off the 85% or so of muslims who aren’t insane sociopaths is a great idea…

              1. Because pissing off the 85% or so of muslims who aren’t insane sociopaths is a great idea…

                It’s not. But how “great” of an idea was it to bomb the WTC and the Pentagon?

                That’s the problem with war. As long as the enemy has the will to fight, you have to be willing to fight back. And that means, at the least, that you can’t exclude from consideration any option your enemy would take.

                We already know that the terrorists bomb soft and symbolic targets, whether they be symbols of Western “decadence” or the holy places of the opposite sect of Islam. Mecca is off limits to them because it is holy to all of Islam. Not to mention that the Saudis would crack down on their “fellow” Muslims in ways that would make the word “brutal” insufficient. But it cannot be off limits to us just because it is holy to them.

                Who is in a better position to reign in the 15%, non-Muslims in the West or Muslims in the Islamic world? The 85% have to realize that while they may not be the problem, they have to be part of the solution.

                1. The 85% isn’t going to do, nor is it going to be able to do, anything while the 15%-controlled Saudi Arabia continues to get US support and weapons.

                  The Houthis tried to stand up to the 15%, and now the US is helping to bomb them out of existence.

                  The primary peddler of radical Islam is allied with the US. And the Muslims who DO try to fight against it are targeted by the American military in retaliation. The 85% is not able to do anything as long as America keeps sponsoring its terrorist state “allies”.

  47. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  48. “Radiohead fans were drinking alcohol?the consumption of which is banned during the month of Ramadan, which Muslims around the world are now observing.”

    Well, yeah, I suppose consumption of alcohol is haram during Ramadan in Islam. But it’s also haram every other time too…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.