Quick, get the patent lawyers on the phone!



  • A description of Amazon's patent covering the layout of a photography studio: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/amazons-latest-patent-is-sillier-than-the-peanut-butter-sandwich-patent/

    TDTWF-relevant section:

     The patent, granted in March, even describes the use of a table: "A subject can be photographed and/or filmed on the elevated platform to achieve a desired effect [...]



  • TRWTF is that they don't specify this table has to be wooden.



  • I wish I'd thought of it first:  http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html - patent the patent process. 

    And from the comments:

    "Maybe I should file a patent on how to patent a patent process"

    "No, no, the key here is to file a patent on how to fix the patent process first and have outrageous licensing fees so no one can fix the patent process without paying you enormous sums. Then you start making the patents that game the system"



  • @malaka said:

    I wish I'd thought of it first:  http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html - patent the patent process. 

    And from the comments:

    "Maybe I should file a patent on how to patent a patent process"

    "No, no, the key here is to file a patent on how to fix the patent process first and have outrageous licensing fees so no one can fix the patent process without paying you enormous sums. Then you start making the patents that game the system"

     

    I already patented making jokes about the patent system by inferring that one should patent the patent process itself, including abstracting the process out to x levels, whereby each level is a patent on the patent process below it.

    You'd all be sued if some other guy hadn't patented suing people over infringing on joke patents. In fact, just to make this post, I've had to pay royalties to seventeen different patent holding firms.

     



  • The patent, granted in March, even describes the use of a table: "A subject can be photographed and/or filmed on the elevated platform to achieve a desired effect [...]

    I was going to be clever and find a link to that story about the guy (pick any, I'm sure there are several) who was arrested for taking pictures of women walking above him as he hid under a grate in the sidewalk, but my google-fu is weak today and all I can find are stories about people getting arrested for taking pictures of the police.



  • Do the patent application people even attempt  to search for prior art in any case? I know nothing about professional photography but it's clear to me that this setup and process has been done millions of times already.  No wonder the patent system is full of trolls and needs a major overhaul.



  • All these accepted patents just lead me to believe that there si an intentional movement (perhaps a bowel one) to actually invalidate ALL patents. Even if it isn't intentional, patents will get to the point where the general public will call them silly and ignore them regardless, companies can't sue everyone.



  • IIRC the USPTO's only source of income is from patent applications. So it's in their best financial interest to let anyone patent anything all the time.



  • I've just submitted my patent for the excretion of bodily waste through a sphincter orifice.
    I expect the royalties to equate to a butt-ton within days.



  • @mott555 said:

    IIRC the USPTO's only source of income is from patent applications. So it's in their best financial interest to let anyone patent anything all the time.
    Yes, they should charge for applications. But that doesn't mean they should approve them all. Then people who submit crap can pay multiple times until they get their shit together, or realize that their idea cannot be patented and walk away with their tails between their legs.



  • Just a clarification: the patent is not for "a photography studio" in general, it's for a particular photography studio with well-defined proportions and materials

    @US Patent 8,676,045 claims said:

    1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, [...].

    2. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the background; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis; [...]

    1. The studio arrangement of claim 2, wherein the first distance is about 4.5-5.5 times a height of the top surface of the elevated platform.

    2. The studio arrangement of claim 2, wherein the top surface of the elevated platform is positioned about twenty-one inches above a floor level.

    3. The studio arrangement of claim 2, wherein the elevated platform is positioned about nine feet from the background.

    4. The studio arrangement of claim 2, wherein the top surface of the elevated platform further comprises a Poly(methyl methacrylate) surface.

    5. The studio arrangement of claim 2, wherein the cyclorama further comprises a substantially white surface.

    [etc.]

    Not that this makes it any less absurd of course. The objective of patents is supposedly to promote innovation by allowing companies to protect their research. What extensive research did they do for this patent? How many competitor companies would want to sneak into Amazon's photo studios and copy their layout? And most importantly, how many thousands of dollars will be wasted in paying lawyers to file, reading, and investigate this absurd patent?



  • @KattMan said:

    All these accepted patents just lead me to believe that there si an intentional movement (perhaps a bowel one) to actually invalidate ALL patents. Even if it isn't intentional, patents will get to the point where the general public will call them silly and ignore them regardless, companies can't sue everyone.

    Ha, sorry but that's wishful thinking.

    Big companies want this patent system, if they didn't, it would have been changed decades ago. Google "Partnership for American Innovation". And no matter how silly they get, you can't ignore them. You can't ignore lawsuits, no matter how absurd they are. You just need to have one silly but valid patent to extort money from any company you want.



  • @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    Yes, they should charge for applications. But that doesn't mean they should approve them all.

    They also just don't have the money to research every patent claim. And I'd say current patents are far too expensive to obtain, limiting them to larger organizations.

    Here are my thoughts on reforming the patent system:

    1. Return the US to a first-to-invent rather than first-to-file regime. The US switched to first-to-file a few years back. That's a system that favors large companies and patent trolls. And yes, I know the rest of the world uses first-to-file. As usual, the rest of the world is wrong and the US should not be following them.

    2. Tort reform. We need major reforms to how lawsuits are handled. Amazon shouldn't be able to sue people with this patent and then generate a hundred thousand pages of documentation and rack up millions in lawyer's fees until the defendant runs out of money or it becomes so expensive it's easier to comply. Also, a "loser pays" rule would discourage patent trolls from filing frivolous lawsuits.

    3. This one I'm less sure about: require patent trials to be jury trials. I have a feeling juries would be far less tolerant of bullshit like this. The patent defies common sense and the jury probably isn't going to care about all the money trolls spend to flood the court with paperwork. My gut feeling is that in a bench trial the judge is much more likely to tolerate a massive legal undertaking. She'll put up with a lot more than a jury would be willing to, I think. And her ego is at stake--she wants to be seen as an intelligent, good jurist--so she's going to closely follow every bit of legal wrangling, whereas I think you'd be forced to keep it short and sweet for a jury.

    Yes, the jury might just fall for smooth-talking, but at least the suits would be over with quicker and cost everyone less. And if someone's claim really is outrageous (like this Amazon one) then the chances the next jury would be swindled, and so on, are a lot less, so it forces people to keep their claims more rooted in "common sense".



  • @anonymous234 said:

    Big companies want this patent system, if they didn't, it would have been changed decades ago.

    I don't think so. I mean, sure, if we're going to have a patent system then big companies will definitely want a patent system which favors big companies, which is what we have.

    But even more, I think big companies would prefer that we didn't have patents. A lack of patents would mean they could snatch up any idea out there and make it cheaply, since they are the big fish in the pond. The main reason companies like Amazon get patents like this is prophylactic; they're aiming to protect themselves from patent trolls (who are usually small-timers.)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    3) This one I'm less sure about: require patent trials to be jury trials. I have a feeling juries would be far less tolerant of bullshit like this. The patent defies common sense and the jury probably isn't going to care about all the money trolls spend to flood the court with paperwork. My gut feeling is that in a bench trial the judge is much more likely to tolerate a massive legal undertaking. She'll put up with a lot more than a jury would be willing to, I think. And her ego is at stake--she wants to be seen as an intelligent, good jurist--so she's going to closely follow every bit of legal wrangling, whereas I think you'd be forced to keep it short and sweet for a jury.

    Not a good idea. It might work for easy stuff, but as soon as it enters the realm of really complicated technical details, a jury trial will come apart.

    It's the same reason why I don't understand why, when it says: "A jury of your peers" they then try to include the most ignorant and uninformed people in such a jury. When it comes to really complicated stuff, you might as well roll dice - will be fairer, quicker and more consistent than those "who's the better talker"-charades.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    3) This one I'm less sure about: require patent trials to be jury trials. I have a feeling juries would be far less tolerant of bullshit like this. The patent defies common sense and the jury probably isn't going to care about all the money trolls spend to flood the court with paperwork. My gut feeling is that in a bench trial the judge is much more likely to tolerate a massive legal undertaking. She'll put up with a lot more than a jury would be willing to, I think. And her ego is at stake--she wants to be seen as an intelligent, good jurist--so she's going to closely follow every bit of legal wrangling, whereas I think you'd be forced to keep it short and sweet for a jury.

    Yes, the jury might just fall for smooth-talking, but at least the suits would be over with quicker and cost everyone less. And if someone's claim really is outrageous (like this Amazon one) then the chances the next jury would be swindled, and so on, are a lot less, so it forces people to keep their claims more rooted in "common sense".

     

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

    Actually, bench trials tend to move by much faster. Mostly because the judge isn't going to put up with bullshit evidentiary time-wasting. In a jury trial, the lawyer can argue that he needs a few weeks to 'explain' to the uninformed jury exactly why his claim is possibly good if you look at it in the right angle. He may not get it, but he has a better argument than trying to tell a judge to her face that she's too dumb to understand fancy scientific talk. And that doesn't even include Voir Dire or the inevitable recesses so the lawyers can argue forever about what evidence the jury gets to see. You wanna see a trial end fast? Get a bench trial. Want it to be over really, really fast? Get a retired judge as mediator.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    2) Tort reform.
    "Loser Pays" only works if the person who is right always wins. And that simply is not the case. What happens when you are right but SomeBigCorporation wins because they have more money and can throw more lawyers at you? It happens. A lot. @morbiuswilters said:
    3) Require patent trials to be jury trials.
    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because juries are made up almost entirely of stupid people who have no understanding of the subject being tried. The Federal Dstrict Court of East Texas is a favorite court of patent trolls precisely because they know they can get juries of morons who will gladly vote in favor of any business who yells "patent infringement!"



  • @Snooder said:

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

    Actually, bench trials tend to move by much faster. Mostly because the judge isn't going to put up with bullshit evidentiary time-wasting. In a jury trial, the lawyer can argue that he needs a few weeks to 'explain' to the uninformed jury exactly why his claim is possibly good if you look at it in the right angle. He may not get it, but he has a better argument than trying to tell a judge to her face that she's too dumb to understand fancy scientific talk. And that doesn't even include Voir Dire or the inevitable recesses so the lawyers can argue forever about what evidence the jury gets to see. You wanna see a trial end fast? Get a bench trial. Want it to be over really, really fast? Get a retired judge as mediator.

    See, I think you're right up to a point. Sure, if SMB A sues SMB B then a jury trial can drag out far longer than necessary.

    Would juries be as likely to put up with multi-year shenanigans which are little more than legal time-wasting by patent trolls? How many huge, drawn-out, idiotic civil cases involved juries?



  • @Rhywden said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    3) This one I'm less sure about: require patent trials to be jury trials. I have a feeling juries would be far less tolerant of bullshit like this. The patent defies common sense and the jury probably isn't going to care about all the money trolls spend to flood the court with paperwork. My gut feeling is that in a bench trial the judge is much more likely to tolerate a massive legal undertaking. She'll put up with a lot more than a jury would be willing to, I think. And her ego is at stake--she wants to be seen as an intelligent, good jurist--so she's going to closely follow every bit of legal wrangling, whereas I think you'd be forced to keep it short and sweet for a jury.

    Not a good idea. It might work for easy stuff, but as soon as it enters the realm of really complicated technical details, a jury trial will come apart.

    It's the same reason why I don't understand why, when it says: "A jury of your peers" they then try to include the most ignorant and uninformed people in such a jury. When it comes to really complicated stuff, you might as well roll dice - will be fairer, quicker and more consistent than those "who's the better talker"-charades.

    That's exactly the point--if the reasoning of your patent is so convoluted that a couple of expert witnesses can't break it down and explain how it makes sense, then you probably don't deserve the patent. Are juries going to put up with people claiming they patented the mouse in 2010? Fuck no. But judges seem to play along quite nicely, probably because it reinforces their importance to the system and gives them something to do.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    2) Tort reform.
    "Loser Pays" only works if the person who is right always wins. And that simply is not the case. What happens when you are right but SomeBigCorporation wins because they have more money and can throw more lawyers at you? It happens. A lot.

    No, you're wrong, that's what happens now. Will loser pays always work? Obviously not, nothing is perfect. But if the loser pays that means if I have a strong case and I'm sued by MegaUltraCorp who has a weak case, I can get lawyers to take on my case because for them it's likely their fees will get paid by the other side if the case is strong.

    Right now, frivolous lawsuits work because the cost of defending against them is so high that many people cannot afford or it makes more financial sense to just pay out $3m to save $5m in legal fees. Loser pays guarantees that the cost of pursuing frivolous lawsuits is likely to fall back on the person pursuing them. It means UltraMegaCorp can't just attack me until I run out of money and have to give in, because there's a financial incentive for lawyers to take my case if it's a strong case.

    Keep in mind, the US is fucking rampant with insane litigiousness and we also happen to be the only common law country I know of where loser pays does not apply. That's why people like Michael Mann can sue a journalist for calling him a fraud and drag the case out for years sucking up millions in legal resources and getting nowhere. What Mann did was 100% legal, but that doesn't matter because trying to defend himself is fucking expensive. If the people suing him had to cover his legal costs should they lose (and they probably will) then there's no incentive to bother.

    @El_Heffe said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    3) Require patent trials to be jury trials.
    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because juries are made up almost entirely of stupid people who have no understanding of the subject being tried. The Federal Dstrict Court of East Texas is a favorite court of patent trolls precisely because they know they can get juries of morons who will gladly vote in favor of any business who yells "patent infringement!"

    [citation needed] My understanding was many of the patent trials were bench trials. Also, you're somewhat off-base anyway--the plaintiff doesn't get to decide what kind of trial it is, the defendant already has a right to a jury trial. I'm just saying that jury trials should be required.

    That juries are made of "stupid people" is entirely the point--it's lawyers and jurists who are going to let multi-million dollar legal circuses go on.

    Also, I think you're wrong about the East Texas district court--patent trolls do favor it, but it's not entirely because of juries, but more because of the judges themselves and the rules they have set up. And you could solve that by requiring plaintiffs to file in the district court of the defendant instead of letting them venue shop. Stopping venue shopping is another aspect of tort reform that needs to be implemented.

    Finally, I'd say tort reform is still your best way of handling patent trolls. Forcing them into jury trials might help, but mostly it depends on tort reform (and would probably be useless without it.)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Right now, frivolous lawsuits work because the cost of defending against them is so high that many people cannot afford or it makes more financial sense to just pay out $3m to save $5m in legal fees. Loser pays guarantees that the cost of pursuing frivolous lawsuits is likely to fall back on the person pursuing them. It means UltraMegaCorp can't just attack me until I run out of money and have to give in, because there's a financial incentive for lawyers to take my case if it's a strong case.
    In the case of a truly frivilous lawsuit, then you are absolutely right. But there's more to it than that.

    But not all lawsuits are frivilous BigMegaCorp attacking poor, innocent morbiuswilters.. What happens when you try to sue BigMegaCorp because you feel you have been genuinely fucked over by them? They have eleventy gazillion dollars and you don't. No matter how "strong" your case is, you could still lose. It happens. A lot. Congratulations, now you're on the hook for BigMegaCorp's legal bills.

    The cuurent situation sucks, but "Loser Pays" only works in a perfect world.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    They have eleventy gazillion dollars and you don't. No matter how "strong" your case is, you could still lose. It happens. A lot. Congratulations, now you're on the hook for BigMegaCorp's legal bills.

    Any case where BigMegaCorp has sizeable legal fees is going to be a case where I have sizeable legal fees, too. So I'm already out that. And then they'll probably countersue and may get a settlement against me. So ultimately, it doesn't make much difference to toss their legal fees on top of that.

    Besides, if I really get fucked I can just declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, this provides a big benefit for someone filing a lawsuit. Here's the thing: there are tons of lawyers who will take my money and pursue a case they know I will lose. What does it matter to them if I lose? They get paid and I'm fucked. This happens all the time.

    But if they know I have to pay if I lose, then they will be much more cautious in taking my case or not. And they'll be more likely to take the case on contingency if they know it has a good chance of succeeding, which at least spares me from paying my own lawyers because they will be paid by the defendant when I win.

    It will make suing a big company a bit more difficult to get off the ground, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If my case has merit, the impact should be negligible (or it might even help me). I think you underestimate how many cases truly are frivolous, even ones that win.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because

    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer
    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer


  • @flabdablet said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because

    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer
    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer

    I have a lot more faith in twelve average people than in an army of "experts".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @El_Heffe said:
    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because

    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer
    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer

    I have a lot more faith in twelve average people than in an army of "experts".

    What if the issue was something science-y and the 12 "average" people were all tea partiers?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @flabdablet said:
    @El_Heffe said:
    Many (most?) patent cases are settled without going to trial,. The ones that do go to trial are jury trials.  And that's not a good thing, because

    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer
    Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer Your peer

    I have a lot more faith in twelve average people than in an army of "experts".

    What if the issue was something science-y and the 12 "average" people were all tea partiers?

    You really are a moron, aren't you? For one, tea partiers generally do better than moderates or left-wingers on questions of science.

    For two, we're talking about court cases, not academic research. Are you pathologically incapable of thinking rationally or following a conversation? You're like an ADHD monkey who gets through about two sentences and then starts jacking off or posting Dwarf Fortress screenshots.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    What if the issue was something science-y and the 12 "average" people were all tea partiers?

    You really are a moron, aren't you? For one, tea partiers generally do better than moderates or left-wingers on questions of science.

    He didn't say science, he said science-y. So, it's probably something more like feminist biology, and I'd assume the tea party people aren't too far gone to call bullshit on them.



  •  Agreed there is a ton of WTF.... but given "the way things are", patenting that specific arrangement of a studio can offer some protection. There will be various photographs that could only be composed in such a setting (a different setting would result in subtle differences in the photograph). Thus is someone creates photographs that are intended to look like they come from said studio there is legal cause for prosecution under the patent.

     Crazy? YES! but unfortunately not unrealistic.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

     Agreed there is a ton of WTF.... but given "the way things are", patenting that specific arrangement of a studio can offer some protection. There will be various photographs that could only be composed in such a setting (a different setting would result in subtle differences in the photograph). Thus is someone creates photographs that are intended to look like they come from said studio there is legal cause for prosecution under the patent.

     Crazy? YES! but unfortunately not unrealistic.

    There are only a handful of variables that go into making a photograph. Subject, background, angle, distance, lighting, camera, lens, zoom, ISO, aperture, speed, etc. Every professional photographer adjusts these variables for an optimal photograph. Adjusting for an optimal background, angle, distance, and lighting is obvious, and any obvious combination of those variables is unpatentable. Any expert in the field may have found that specific arrangement purely by chance. You can't write an obvious patent.

    You can copyright the photo, but you can't patent the process that captured it unless it was in some way novel - something nobody else had, or would've, thought of.



  • @anotherusername said:

    you can't patent the process that captured it unless it was in some way novel - something nobody else had, or would've, thought of.

    In a perfect world, maybe



  • @anotherusername said:

    There are only a handful of variables that go into making a photograph. Subject, background, angle, distance, lighting, camera, lens, zoom, ISO, aperture, speed, etc. Every professional photographer adjusts these variables for an optimal photograph. Adjusting for an optimal background, angle, distance, and lighting is obvious, and any obvious combination of those variables is unpatentable. Any expert in the field may have found that specific arrangement purely by chance. You can't write an obvious patent.

    You can copyright the photo, but you can't patent the process that captured it unless it was in some way novel - something nobody else had, or would've, thought of.

     

    Well they just did.

    Amazon - 1
    You - 0



  • @boomzilla said:

    feminist biology

    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology

    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.

    What's your objection to feminist biology?



  • THE NAME! It should be called Femiology.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @flabdablet said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology
    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.
    What's your objection to feminist biology?
    Feminists have biology too!

    Jesting aside, either the science is good — in which case it doesn't matter why they chose to do it — or the science is not good — in which case it also doesn't matter why they chose to do it. I hope that they choose to do good science.



  • @dkf said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology
    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.
    What's your objection to feminist biology?
    Feminists have biology too!

    Jesting aside, either the science is good — in which case it doesn't matter why they chose to do it — or the science is not good — in which case it also doesn't matter why they chose to do it. I hope that they choose to do good science.

    According to the linked article, the primary aim of the discipline is to investigate, expose and eliminate a bunch of traditional biases that have long acted to make the science of biology less good. For which more power to them, say I.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology

    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.

    What's your objection to feminist biology?

    Well the fact that it's a part of "women's studies" (that doesn't include baking, sewing or pole-dancing) isn't a good start. But mostly it just sounds stupid. Why aren't you as disgusted as I am?



  • @dkf said:

    I hope that they choose to do good science.

    I take it this is your first exposure to "feminism". It's just PMSing that lasts year-round. There's not even the slightest bit of logic behind it--they think logic is, like, wacist and unfair--so obviously it will be shitty science.



  • @flabdablet said:

    According to the linked article, the primary aim of the discipline is to investigate, expose and eliminate a bunch of traditional biases that have long acted to make the science of biology less good.

    I take it this is your first exposure to feminism.. the entire point of this is to whine, feel sorry for themselves and get attention.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology

    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.

    A bunch of people are studying some bullshit. This is surely the worst thing that has ever happened, or that is happening right now in the western civilization, or in any other civilization.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    feminist biology

    Western civilization does not deserve to continue on.

    What's your objection to feminist biology?

    Well the fact that it's a part of "women's studies" (that doesn't include baking, sewing or pole-dancing) isn't a good start. But mostly it just sounds stupid. Why aren't you as disgusted as I am?

    Because your "I am an utterly irredeemable prick" online schtick has always struck me as shallow, predictable, tedious, pathetic and sad, and I see no upside to emulating it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I have a lot more faith in twelve average people than in an army of "experts".
    Plus they work cheaper. We should totally get our next e-commerce site designed by the Grumpy Cat guy and friends instead of those expensive "security" consultants.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I take it this is your first exposure to "feminism".
    No, but I choose not to play the game by their rules. I choose to say that where they are talking about science, it will be either making valid statements supported by evidence that is open to inspection, or it won't. I don't care why they choose to study a particular thing; it could be because some millennia-old zombie hiding a cloud tells them to, or it could be because they feel that their friends should feel that they've been slighted, but if it is good science, it's good science and worth studying. A good scientist should be open to the possibility that they might be systematically wrong (even if naturally not keen on it); it's why science at least potentially works better than the alternatives.

    In general though, if you always let the opposition choose the rules, you'll always be at a disadvantage. Why do you seem to feel that it is necessary to challenge the rabid feminists on their ground? Think like a great general, not a footsoldier.



  • @dkf said:

    Why do you seem to feel that it is necessary to challenge the rabid feminists on their ground?

    It's more about observing that they're totally crazy and in denial of reality. People like flabdablet seem to think feminism is about equality. Possibly at some point in the past that was true. But today, if you're not a lesbian marxist who thinks the world would be better without men, you're not a feminist. At least, not in the world of the academy, which is what we're talking about here.

    The outside world hasn't totally caught up to they typical Women Studies Department, at least not consciously, and I wouldn't trust anyone affiliated with a WSD farther than I could throw them. It's kinda fun watching them fight the trans* people.



  • @boomzilla said:

    But today, if you're not a lesbian marxist who thinks the world would be better without men, you're not a feminist.
     

    I don't know where you got this, because it cannot be observed in the world.

    What I do see on a near-constant basis, though, is manbabies going "ew stupid women", even though they clad it in pseudo-objective wording like you do.

     



  • Very pseudo indeed, and more objectionable than objective.



  • @dhromed said:

    What I do see on a near-constant basis, though, is manbabies going "ew stupid women", even though they clad it in pseudo-objective wording like you do.

    Whenever I hear someone bitch about those "stupid feminists", I immediately assume that person is sexually frustrated and needs someone to blame.



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    But today, if you're not a lesbian marxist who thinks the world would be better without men, you're not a feminist.

    I don't know where you got this, because it cannot be observed in the world.

    Well, I did say it was academics, and most people rightly shun these nut jobs, but they do get taken seriously far too often.

    @dhromed said:

    What I do see on a near-constant basis, though, is manbabies going "ew stupid women", even though they clad it in pseudo-objective wording like you do.

    I don't know what you think a "manbaby" is here, but I say, "ew stupid men" more than I say, "ew stupid women." It's not like there's a shortage of either, and denying that these lunatics are what they are isn't helping anything.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    A bunch of people are studying some bullshit. This is surely the worst thing that has ever happened, or that is happening right now in the western civilization, or in any other civilization.

    No, but Western civilization is run by these people. The infection could have been stopped 40 years ago, but nothing was done and today it is too late. Western civilization will be unrecognizable soon; a completely degenerate form of fascism where the trains don't even run on time and pointing it out results in you being called "racist" as the target of a Twitter blitzkrieg by the SJ stormtroopers.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Because your "I am an utterly irredeemable prick" online schtick has always struck me as shallow, predictable, tedious, pathetic and sad, and I see no upside to emulating it.

    So I take your resort to ad hominem as an admission you've got nothing and are just going along with this because you are a moronic joiner.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.