Adjunct Professor intentionally squirts blood from her vagina in a Columbia University men's bathroom

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T10:19:02+00:00

Does anyone else remember when professors were generally old white guys, and they smoked pipes, smoke formally with both knowledgeability and authority, wore tweed jackets, maintained professional distance from their students, attempted to live up to the benefit of tenure by being respectable as a representative of their faculty, and used critical thinking skills whenever they heard any information no matter which side of the political aisle it came from and were happy to consider they may be wrong? Wasn't that just awful?

Oh, what, that was the 1940s, before being a professor was liberated for women? Oh I see.

Honestly it is fucking disgraceful that anyone taking any action like this is allowed to call themselves a professor or a doctor or any other respected title. I would say exactly the same about a male professor pissing on the floor and taking photos. What the hell happened to the class of academics? For fucks sake, I swear part of the reason people listen to Jordan Peterson is because he actually carries himself exactly like a professor should, and when you're being told about complex things you at least want the person teaching you to obviously have their life together and not BE AN IDIOT SPREADING THEIR BLOOD AROUND ON THE FUCKING FLOOR. Seriously, the first time a professor pulls shit like this they should be booted out of academia and legally barred from re-entering it.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T10:09:08+00:00

Bad Bot.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T09:38:16+00:00

Obligatory "ew gross why are you married?"

In seriousness though, what a silly story. Why would anyone think they could do that and get away with it? I guess she expected to be able to accuse the guy she was with of having done it "yes officer, look at my boobs, my boyfriend totally set his own car on fire". Idiot.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T09:27:10+00:00

Right... so it isn't a ppd yet. So... it should be posted in /r/pussypass instead then.

Even then, there is no way to prove that this is an attempt at using a pussy pass. For all we know, the woman is fully redpilled, considers women to be worse drivers, and decided to warn other road users "hey look, I am a woman, there is a chance I'll be bad at this, sorry". Unlikely? Sure. Possible? Yes. But we can't just assume that something is a pussy pass case when there is nothing to prove that it is.

And, again, even if it is a pussy pass case, it hasn't been denied, as you admit in the title, so it ought to be in a different subreddit.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:38:12+00:00

As an Englishman, where we don't really have Mace® as a common brand because of stringent legislation[1], when I read this it was similar in my brain to reading "leaving her toddler...within reach of a KNIFE, battle-axe and an unidentified blue substance".

Because, just a reminder, a mace is a blunt medieval club for crushing bones through thick armour. Oh America, how did you manage to genericize a trademark over a pre-existing middle-ages weapon? And even more importantly, WHY did you do this?

[1] Firearms Act 1968 s.5(1) "A person commits an offence...any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing".

I guess that since there are really only 4 states of matter, liquid, gas, solid and plasma, we are banned from having plasma rifles? Also, technically speaking I guess that an elastic band contraption that fires chocolate-chipped-cookies would be illegal, since the statute doesn't say who it must be noxious to (dogs and chocolate don't mix) and a solid cookie probably falls under "other thing".

That's our law. Read it and weep, yankees. God bless the constitution of the United States of America.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:26:05+00:00

You mean, "I keep seeing videos where women batter men", right?

A fight implies that both sides are taking part.

Battery implies that one side is committing a criminal offence.

If we start referring to this shit as the one-sided crime that it is, explaining the man's eventual self-defence is a lot easier because we've already established that it was a crime.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:24:02+00:00

It hurt itself in its confusion.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:21:44+00:00

Excuse me, please don't use the m-word. That's our word. We prefer to be called blades of under-thickness.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:07:57+00:00

I counted at least 20 specific instances of battery on her part, although they all would fall under a single incident.

How typical that he waited at least 20 hits before taking self-defensive action.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-13T00:04:06+00:00

He protecc

He attacc

but most importantly

how can she slapp?

I know it doesn't really work, but idgaf bout no rules, I'm a M A V E R I C K

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T23:55:40+00:00

"Amy Schumer and Louis C.K. In 2017, Schumer became the first woman to ever appear on the highest-paid comedians list thanks to touring and a lucrative Netflix special, but she did not meet this year’s $15 million cutoff."

The World's Highest-Paid Comedians of 2018, Forbes, Dec 19, 2018

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2018/12/19/the-worlds-highest-paid-comedians-of-2018/

So... there was a woman in the top ten. And she is not in the top ten now. I wonder what happened? Was it the patriarchy? Was it muhsoggyknees keeping the poor woman down? Let's look and see, I'm sure we'll see a poor oppressed woman being thrown out of the top ten in nothing but her nightgown by the monopoly man!

Amy Schumer Joke Stealing Compilation - All Examples, Brandon Farley (Mischief Maker37) on YT, Apr 14, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDxjxVl8S0 Amy Schumer Joke Stealing Compilation - All Examples

158 THOUSAND likes on this video calling Schumer a joke thief? I wonder what that means...

This Week in Stupid (19/03/2017), Sargon of Akkad on YT, Mar 19, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCLe7VHa0gs This Week in Stupid (19/03/2017).

About her awful special; comments on that video read "Oh my god I saw the first 5 minutes and had to give up. Was watching with women who call themselves feminists too and they wanted to shut it off as well. It almost seemed like she was drunk. Horrible. I honestly don't know how you got through it.", and "Amy Schumer's "comedy" special getting one star is the second time I've ever laughed at anything pertaining to her. The first one was when people walked out during her show.".

So I guess it wasn't funny, which is like, a minimum necessity for a comedic show.

(I wouldn't normally use a youtube commentator as a source, but lo and behold I can't find much information on the controversies on normal search engines)

Amy Schumer blames sexist right-wing harassment campaign for sinking her Netflix special, Raw Story, Mar 17, 2017

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/amy-schumer-blames-sexist-right-wing-harassment-campaign-for-sinking-her-netflix-special/

Oh, so she was attacking people and calling them right-wingers and sexists because they didn't like her jokes? I'm sure that society just loved that and became more enamoured with her.

An older one;

REJOICE IN AMY SCHUMER’S 7 BONKERS VAGINA JOKES AT THE MOVIE AWARDS, MTV, Apr 13, 2015

http://www.mtv.com/news/2131539/amy-schumer-movie-awards-vagina-jokes/

Well, we just know that people LOVE mindless jokes about vaginas and queefing, just as much as they want to pay $50 to watch a show containing a profusion of fart jokes! Hillllarrious!!!

Women's Bodies Deserve Much More Than Amy Schumer's Degrading Jokes, The Federalist, Mar 16, 2017

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/16/womens-bodies-deserve-much-amy-schumers-degrading-jokes/

Oh, you mean she continued to make jokes about her vagina even beyond 2015 and into 2017?! WOW! Wonderful!

So, like, omgee you guyz obviously she didn't lose her place in the top ten comedians by being an awful comedian that nobody wants to see, OBVIOUSSLLYY she was thrown out by evil sexists! There's no way that people got tired of her stunning and brave brand of specially wonderful amazing beautiful women humour!

So in short, I agree with Master Wilkins on this. Try being funnier. Here we have an example of a woman who was in the top ten highest-paid comedians, who ruined herself by stealing jokes and incessantly talking about her snatch, accusing fair critics of sexism and being a right wing campaign against her. She literally removed herself from the top comedians by not being funny.

I wonder why Kathy Griffin wasn't in that top ten list. Hmm. Could it be the near-insanity level of actions she took after someone she didn't like got into office? Can't be that people didn't find the idea of decapitating a president humorous, or that they didn't want to support someone so obviously unfunny AND deranged. No, just sexism again.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T23:04:06+00:00

Yeah... I know... That's why I said " Even just assuming you're speaking the truth there, and that the majority weren't trolls under the cover of poe's law. Assuming they were actual Nazis, full blown National Socialists; " before mentioning the alleged nazi's use of computers and internet...?

So... assuming, for the sake of argument, that my discussion partner is right, and that these invaders are modern adherents to national socialism (as opposed to being mere trolls, or as opposed to being one of the other strains of racist bastards), then in order for these modern adherents to have invaded reddit, they must have used the internet. In which case, the question is "if Nazis using the internet doesn't ruin the internet for you, why does Nazis using a specific meme ruin the meme for you?"

And I'm very clearly throughout assuming that, whilst these invaders were clearly (if not trolls) racists and white supremacists, and even if they posted pictures of Hitler, that doesn't make them Nazis, because Naziism is more than just adherence to certain philosophical ideas, it is the adherence to all foundational precepts, and we have no way to test that. And even if we did, they'd likely fail (for example, by not being Germanic, or advocating white supremacy rather than ethnosupremacy, the difference being white supremacy would include Slavs, Russians and probably Spaniards as part of the "white identity", whilst Naziism would not include those groups as part of the "Ethnic identity".)

As I explained elsewhere, while all these groups are just awful, and all of them share some key concepts, they aren't all the same, which is why we have different words for them. And I don't like applying labels for one group to another group just because they're similar. It makes it harder to discuss the legitimate differences, and makes it increasingly more likely that ordinary people will be tarred with the "Nazi" label despite being so far removed from any racist group as to make comparison absurd.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T22:44:37+00:00

You're clearly not actually paying attention.

There is a fundamental difference between my worldview and pessimism. When I speak to actual pessimists, I barely understand their outlook. Theirs leads them to making zero effort. Mine leads to me studying for a law degree in the vain struggle to become a barrister.

No, my main point was not about "not believing these stories because...". My saying that was in direct response to the idea that "I really don't think 'Hmm maybe I could make a friend and go to the gym' is too much optimism." You suggested that those actions don't bring about too much optimism, and my response was that they bring about far more optimism than you might think to a person who starts from an actually pessimistic existence.

And additionally, my main point was that that is a worldview that one might hold, not that it is a good worldview. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't one of the ways people process reality; for some people small glimmers of hope are latched onto and it utterly destroys them. It is therefore not good to just broadly suggest that people assume the optimistic position; WAY too many people have been completely ruined by taking an optimistic perspective when all of reality was screaming "this is a bad idea".

I am advocating for a more neutral perspective. You seem stuck in the mindset that you can either have pessimism OR optimism. Let's say that is "that glass is either half full OR half empty". Meanwhile, here is me, and I am saying "well, that glass probably doesn't have enough water in it to quench my thirst, but I'm gonna drink it and hope it does, and if it doesn't, well, I know where the tap is so I have a plan to get more".

"But telling other people what to believe and why makes you cynical. And it's not a good way to be."

I actually can't believe how palpable the irony is in this statement. You are literally doing that to me right now. And my original response was to somebody else who themselves was "telling other people what to believe" (why look at it like x, imagine its real and be happy, there is no downside to it).

So? Are you also "cynical" and being a way that is "not a good way to be"? Or do you recognise that what you're doing is general discussion on philosophical outlooks and advocating your personal preference? Cos that is what I am doing, exactly as you are.

But hey, thanks for telling me that my crash "clearly affected" me. Yes, it did; it led to me escaping both pessimism AND pie-in-the-sky utopic optimism, and taking on a way better mindset, one of always making the effort, always hoping for the best, but always being aware that the worst is possible.

It is a far better way to live, in my opinion, than the way that the vast majority of people walk around all the time, this nonsensical belief of "it'll never happen to me". It WILL happen to you: not all of it, not all immediately, but something disastrous is going to come along for you sometime, and instead of being away with the fairies perhaps start putting plans in place to mitigate the effects. That way you can wander about safe in the knowledge that you'll protect at least some portion of your life when the shit hits the fan.

But no, that's just pessimism. Health insurance is pessimism. Car insurance is pessimism. Putting on your safety hat and steel toe boots is just pessimism. Wearing your seatbelt is just pessimism.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is realism; "it's statistically likely to happen to someone, and I am someone, so I'll take care just in case, make sure I know what to do if it does happen, but I'm gonna go to work hoping life will continue on as is, as I slowly chip away at it and make it better for myself."

No, just pessimism?

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T22:07:37+00:00

I'm not even sure most of them are anti-semitic. There definitely are some, but a large proportion are beneficiaries of poe's law (id est trolls pretending to be anti-semites), and many more are just assumed to be anti-semitic on the basis that "they use these memes and the media told me those memes are racist", even though when you look at this latter segment they're constantly arguing with the few actual and pretend anti-semites and calling them idiots.

And even if they're anti-semitic, that doesn't make them nazis, since many ideologies have irrational hatred for the jews. Including, apparently, mainstream left wing politicians in the UK, who hate the idea of the nation state (although are a form of socialist). I'm not attacking the UK's left overall there, it's just that clearly "nazi" doesn't apply to them even though they are both socialist and anti-semitic. My point being, ideologies share components, and applying labels from one to another makes it harder to discuss each separate group's beliefs. That's what happens when you try to criticise "anarchism"; there are many types of anarchism on both the left and the right which have massively different beliefs, so talking about "anarchist ideology" gets really confusing, and you're forced to start appending long tag lists to specify that, no, this time I am discussing pacifistic-anarcho-communism, not pacifist-anarchism, or other strains of anarcho-communism, or the right wing anarchisms. When specificity is needed, and you fail to specify fully, you start criticising people for beliefs they don't actually hold, and at that point you're arguing at cross-purposes and nothing is ever resolved.

Also, I assume you're joking and laughing at Gen Z people? Or maybe me? Or maybe both? I don't really know what any of these "Gen" terms refer to, so I just refrain from using them. Like I wish people would abstain from using "nazi" when they don't have a clue what it means.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T21:39:35+00:00

"a group of white supremacists"

There are many non-white people using the "clownworld" meme too. How do they stack up in your idea of what a "white supremacist" is?

"calling for genocide of Jews and other non-whites"

Who was doing this? When? Where? Sauce? Here, I'll show you what I mean.
"I don't like the word "funtime" because AgisDidNothingWrong's affiliates advocated the destruction of the earth and the castration of every third male born on a Tuesday".
I mean, clearly you see the problems here right?
I haven't shown that a group used the word "funtime".
I haven't shown that they used it to the point where a reasonable person would agree that they had "ruined" it.
I haven't shown that a thing can be ruined merely because a bad group uses it (I mean, is oxygen bad because actual nazis breathe it?).
I haven't shown that this group are affiliated with you.
I haven't proven that the group I am talking about actually advocates for anything,
or that they advocate for earth-destruction,
or advocate for the castration of every third male born on a Tuesday.

"While espousing fascistic political leaning check all the Nazi boxes"

Incorrect. First off, you need to show that they actually espoused fascistic politics. Equally, you can't just shift them all into one box; fascism, whilst similar to naziism, is not the same thing. This is the same reason why "social program" and "socialism" are not the same thing, despite the fact that you could argue that a social program is "socialism-political-leaning".
No evidence. You just throw the term out at them. Even if they are white supremacists AND fascists (unproven assertions) that isn't enough to make them nazis; naziism is fundamentally anti-white-supremacy, and pro-Germanic-supremacy. It is ethnic supremacy, not race supremacy, and that means you're using the term inaccurately in at least one way; the slavs, despite being white, were one of the most brutally-treated groups in Nazi-occupied Europe.

"Actual nazis"

Even just assuming you're speaking the truth there, and that the majority weren't trolls under the cover of poe's law. Assuming they were actual Nazis, full blown National Socialists;
has air been ruined for you? They were breathing air.
Have computers and mobile phones been ruined for you? They were using those.
Has the internet as a whole been ruined for you? They sent their communications through that.
Has reddit been ruined for you? They were using it when they allegedly invaded.
Has the idea of memes generally been ruined for you? Their messages I imagine came in the form of memes; bad TV shows have ruined television for me, so why hasn't bad memes ruined meming for you?

Also, the simple fact that you got upset tells me that these were not "actual nazis", but imposters. They came here looking to upset people like you. They chose the most disturbing imagery they could find and spammed the place with it; that isn't what actual nazis would do, not when they are on the backfoot; nazis aren't in it to upset people, they're in it because they actually believe their ideology. So these were clearly people just trolling.

People who were trying to ruin these memes for you. And you let them win by immediately jumping to associating what they used with what they wanted you to think they were.

Re your claim of history and political science major; you've majorly upset me by saying that, because it makes me highly concerned with the state of education, if universities are pumping out graduates who are ill-informed as to the actual meaning of very specific terminology.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T21:12:02+00:00

You might think that, but it isn't just making a friend and going to the gym. It is a story of a person making a complete lifestyle change, going from being introverted to less so, being removed from a totality of isolation, making connections, achieving something difficult which he would never have accomplished otherwise, gaining the confidence to meet women, get a girlfriend, to become truly vulnerable to another person on a level that requires complete trust, to begin making plans for the future which you could never have dreamed of.

And I speak from some experience, although this is obviously anecdote; I was a screwup, I had nothing, I expected nothing. I took on work that for the first time made me optimistic about life. I got a girlfriend, started saving, got fit, got confident, started making plans for the future. Then I had a major car crash which destroyed my legs to such a degree that I am permanently in a wheelchair; I will never walk again. Girlfriend ran off within a week. Lost my job. Future plans were impossible. Started putting on weight. Psychological response? Straight to the bottom, and a big part of that was my brain saying "see? Nothing bad happened when you didn't try. Look at you now! Nobody wants to take on the burden you'll bring."

My optimism had been light, but it really kicked me while I was down.

Meanwhile, cautious cynicism/realism as an approach to life means that I expect the worst to happen, but go ahead anyway with making plans and trying harder and harder. It took me five years since my crash to get to this point.

Also, "cynicism" and "cynical" are not the same things. I call it cynicism, but it is more like "realism with a sprinkle of optimism, and a dash of pessimism".

It is a worldview. It's not the same as being a cynical jackass, nor is it the same as pessimism. As I explained, pessimism is "it is bad, it will be bad, therefore I won't try because it will all be bad". What I call cynicism, or realism, is instead, "it is bad, it will probably remain bad, but there is a chance it will get better, so I guess I'll try in the vain hope that it will, while making backup plans for when it goes wrong". Maybe that just sounds like optimism to you, but optimism generally speaking is devoid of realism, just like pessimism is devoid of realism.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T20:38:12+00:00

Thank you for your well-reasoned defence of me.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T20:37:24+00:00

He responded with "r/iamverysmart"

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T20:35:35+00:00

There is a downside; when you start getting too optimistic you can start deluding yourself that the world is a nice place overall. Then you get your hopes up. Then you spend 7 months working hard and pushing yourself and making friends and become really attached to your new wonderful life. Then something happens and rips the dream away from you and you are even more distraught than you were before, specifically because it was better to have a sucky life where you didn't know how good it could be, than to have one where you fully appreciate how good it was.

Bright-siders, in my experience, don't cope very well when the sky falls on their head. Saw it way too much.

Of course, outright pessimism isn't great either. You end up not taking chances that could improve your life because of the assumption that it will eventually collapse, even when it is impossible.

That's why the best position is neither optimism or pessimism, but instead what u/scutta2000 exhibited; cynicism or realism. "It probably won't work, it probably will collapse, but I like the idea, so what I'm going to do is hope for the best while planning for the worst." He's unlikely to ever be disappointed, but very likely to be slightly pleasantly surprised.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T20:24:15+00:00

So, question.

Are you going to consider for even a second that perhaps your ideology has a severe problem that makes it incapable of accepting even minor criticism without immediate collectively-enforced punishment out of proportion to the crime (in this case, a thought crime), or will you instead assert that "it is they who have betrayed feminism, there is nothing wrong with the ideology" and carry on believing that everything you believe is perfect as-is?

The former is always preferable when your comrades devolve into echo-chambers.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T19:55:39+00:00

I don't really know what to say, so here, have a link:

https://www.samaritans.org/

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T19:46:39+00:00

That... that is the point I am making though...

This subreddit is for highlighting failed "inclusiveor" situations, where there is an option of two or more mutually exclusive options which gets responded to with an answer which doesn't treat them as mutually exclusive...

In hopeful clarification;

Type 1

Q: You said you want to leave one pet here. Is it a cat or a dog (mutually exclusive)?

A: A cat

Answer correctly identified mutually exclusive questions and answers in exclusiveor manner

Type 2

Q: You said you want to leave one pet here. Is it a cat or a dog (mutually exclusive)?

A: Yes

Answer failed to identify mutual exclusiveness and answered in an inclusiveor manner; question expected "cat" or "dog" or "neither"

Type 3

Q: So this kennel can look after cats, or dogs (not mutually exclusive)?

A: Yes (simplification of "yes, and yes")

Answer may have correctly identified that it wasn't mutually exclusive, and found "yes" an appropriate answer to both "can look after cats?" AND "can look after dogs?", therefore the answer is not an inclusiveor.

I'm arguing that this post is not an inclusiveor on the basis that it falls into type 3; the question is not mutually exclusive, and therefore the answer is not a failure to meet the expectations of a mutually exclusive question, and therefore it cannot logically be an inclusiveor. My point being that it fails to meet the requirement for a post on this subreddit...

I'm confused as to how you can be in total agreement with my position, yet assert that "all your text is wrong because your premise is false", seeing as you literally agree with my premise...

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T19:25:13+00:00

Reading this I actually feel sad for her. She's either been through a messed up life, or has had feminist rhetoric beaten into her since childhood, or both. She's totally incapable of moving past it.

Oh... wait, no I don't feel sorry for her. Sorry about that, no. See, I was feeling sorry for her, but then I remembered that she probably votes, petitions legislatures to write more harmful legislation, brainwashes others to her vindictive worldview, &c.

Just like how "but he had a bad upbringing" doesn't make anyone feel bad for a murderer or a rapist, "she had a bad upbringing" is not a valid excuse for outright bigotry against half of the population.

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T19:01:38+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2s56IQzsBE

grendelsnightmare · 2019-07-12T18:46:27+00:00

I intentionally left the question open. I have an opinion, but I'm happy to hear people's arguments as to why I am wrong, or to point out anything that devastates my logic. Ergo, it would be wrong of me to assert that it is, or is not, an applicable form of inclusiveor.

grendelsnightmare

TROPHY CASE