Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Really?]

Generally agree. I can well see that his self-righteousness and hypocrisy has pissed off a lot of people - his AtheismPlus post for example. Although, for instance, I think that some people - Shermertron for example - have their thumbs on the scales when analyzing that post. While I certainly think that Carrier is egregiously dogmatic in drawing the lines between them and us, and seems not to have any appreciation or understanding of any shades between white and black, I also think he has some justification for criticizing those who nominally qualify as atheists. Seems more appropriate to acknowledge that than to suggest that all those who are not prepared to fly the AtheismPlus flag are beyond reproach.

However, while I can sympathize with indulging in a bit of schadenfreude over his supposed "death" by the sword he fashioned - karma in action - I think it unwise to conflate his dogmatism and moralizing with the principles he advances that might have some credibility. Kind of a case of not judging the book by the cover, even if there's some limited value inside it.

Who on the Pit DOESN'T agree with the "principles he advances" when not taken to Carrier's insane extremes?

McCreight said:

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

How many "active" atheists oppose the normal definition of gender equality? How many are in favor of racism? How many were really anti gay or anti trans? Randi was/is the long-time hero of the movement and he's gay. No one cared when he came out other than sending him messages of support.

Carrier is considered a clown because he took these to insane and dogmatic extremes.

I'd be really interested in seeing some examples of Slymepit-type Carrier critics taking the piss out of Carrier for his "anti-racism" or his "pro-gay" stances. All I've seen are some Christian apologists alleging that his "polyamory" is a sin, etc. Most Pitters seem pro-poly...so long as everyone involved is on the same page. We were ALREADY anti-racism. We were already in favor of gender equality. Carrier did the A+ crap because he (like others) wanted to rebrand atheism in a way that makes him the center (and brings him money).

[Shatterface as Guest]

Carrier is considered a clown because he took these to insane and dogmatic extremes.

Except for the last principle - about critical thinking and skepticism - which he abandoned at the first opportunity.

Shatterface

[John Greg]

Shatter said:

Except for the last principle - about critical thinking and skepticism - which he abandoned at the first opportunity.

That is one of the things that I have always found truly fascinating about SJWs in general and FTB clowns in particular. FTBers have for years claimed to consistently practice critical thinking and skeptcism as a fundamental process of their daily intellectual functioning, yet it is beyond clear that they truly have no concept of what those things actually even are. And certainly rarely, if ever, practice them even unconsciously.

[JackSkeptic]

Generally agree. I can well see that his self-righteousness and hypocrisy has pissed off a lot of people - his AtheismPlus post for example. Although, for instance, I think that some people - Shermertron for example - have their thumbs on the scales when analyzing that post. While I certainly think that Carrier is egregiously dogmatic in drawing the lines between them and us, and seems not to have any appreciation or understanding of any shades between white and black, I also think he has some justification for criticizing those who nominally qualify as atheists. Seems more appropriate to acknowledge that than to suggest that all those who are not prepared to fly the AtheismPlus flag are beyond reproach.

However, while I can sympathize with indulging in a bit of schadenfreude over his supposed "death" by the sword he fashioned - karma in action - I think it unwise to conflate his dogmatism and moralizing with the principles he advances that might have some credibility. Kind of a case of not judging the book by the cover, even if there's some limited value inside it.

Who on the Pit DOESN'T agree with the "principles he advances" when not taken to Carrier's insane extremes?

McCreight said:

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

How many "active" atheists oppose the normal definition of gender equality? How many are in favor of racism? How many were really anti gay or anti trans? Randi was/is the long-time hero of the movement and he's gay. No one cared when he came out other than sending him messages of support.

Carrier is considered a clown because he took these to insane and dogmatic extremes.

I'd be really interested in seeing some examples of Slymepit-type Carrier critics taking the piss out of Carrier for his "anti-racism" or his "pro-gay" stances. All I've seen are some Christian apologists alleging that his "polyamory" is a sin, etc. Most Pitters seem pro-poly...so long as everyone involved is on the same page. We were ALREADY anti-racism. We were already in favor of gender equality. Carrier did the A+ crap because he (like others) wanted to rebrand atheism in a way that makes him the center (and brings him money).

I find the whole concept of Atheism Plus as pompous, arrogant and childish. The idea that if someone does not support them it means they are against their stated aims is so stupid it is not even wrong. Most people are quite happy without silly labels or we already use ones already well established, such as humanism. It is also very USCentric and they spout so called political truisms which have no conceptual basis in other countries at all. They are about 60 years behind the times. They are like bunch of country hicks.

Of course the bonus is that they take no notice of the aims they claim to represent. They are sexist, racist, patronizing totalitarians with no interest in critical thinking or skeptisism. Anyone with half a brain knew that from the start. Only control freaks such as Carrier or Zvan, gullible idiots such as Myers or the emotionally brittle and easily led, such as most of their followers, could possibly want anything to do with it. They have no interest in Social Justice Activism at all, only their brand of childish smears and posturing designed to earn them status.

Many of us fought all our lives against organized religion telling us what to do and how to think. Damned if I'm going to let a bunch of fools try and pull the same trick. Not going to happen. So they can stick their silly Atheism Plus where the sun don't shine.

[deLurch]

[youtube]1FbtPY0GfSk[/youtube]

That was actually a fun B movie.

[deLurch]

I know of one guy who is collecting about $5000 a month and at least half the time he sits on ass all month and makes no new videos (or maybe 2 videos that took at most 3 hours to film and an hour to "edit.")

Wait, that guy who "makes $5000 a month working from home" really exists? The spam was right all along!

Well if you create really good content, then fine. I friend of mine loves to produce humor. He spends all of the time he walks about delivering the mail thinking of new creative funny things, be they speeching, poems, songs, pranks.

So while Caruthers says he spends 3 hours on filming. He very well may spend a lot more time than that thinking about what goes into those three hours.

Or he could produce pure horse shit.

[tina]

Sam Harris and Graeme Wood discussing the Islamic state.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-true-believers

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Dr. Carrier is going to be in my neck of the woods in a few weeks.
Should I be worried?

Post a photo of your titties and I'll let you know.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

For Southern, and also everyone else:

[youtube]HrN-GPYlcbQ[/youtube]

[Steersman]

On a related point, seems Benson at least is on the warpath over Bey’s post, with maybe some justification.

She's denying conservatives can be humanised:

The thing is, there are ways atheists can be humanized, to conservatives and to anyone, that are not open to conservatives.

Dehumanisation: bad when Harris does it to people who lop off heads and throw gays from rooftops; fine if someone disagrees on economic policy.

Shatterface

Seems she kind of lost the thread, or I find it a little hard to parse her comments (archive link) which are a bit of a mish-mash. James Croft starts off talking about humanizing atheists in conservative eyes, then Benson agrees with that and makes a comment about humanizing conservatives and states she'll leave the details to others then seques into the jeans comment, presumably as a method of humanizing conservatives:

Croft: . I’m all for humanizing atheists in the eyes of conservatives, but lying about conservatism to do so is dishonest.

Benson: That. The thing is, there are ways atheists can be humanized, to conservatives and to anyone, that are not open to conservatives. (No doubt the reverse is also true, but I’ll leave the specifics of that to conservatives who want to underline the inhumanity of atheists.) It’s fine to say conservatives put their jeans on one leg at a time; it’s not fine to say that conservatives believe in the equality of all people – not in the USofA it’s not.

While, as I mentioned earlier, there does seem to be no shortage of odious policies that the Republicans are championing, Benson seems to insist in tarring all with that brush. Which, arguably, qualifies as narrow-minded stereotyping if not actually dehumanization.

[Steersman]

Generally agree. I can well see that his self-righteousness and hypocrisy has pissed off a lot of people - his AtheismPlus post for example. ....

However, while I can sympathize with indulging in a bit of schadenfreude over his supposed "death" by the sword he fashioned - karma in action - I think it unwise to conflate his dogmatism and moralizing with the principles he advances that might have some credibility. Kind of a case of not judging the book by the cover, even if there's some limited value inside it.

Who on the Pit DOESN'T agree with the "principles he advances" when not taken to Carrier's insane extremes?
...
Carrier did the A+ crap because he (like others) wanted to rebrand atheism in a way that makes him the center (and brings him money).

Yes, I quite agree that he has taken things to "insane extremes". But I rather doubt your inference as to his motives holds all that much water. No doubt there's some self-aggrandizement involved - I rather doubt anyone is entirely altruistic and it might be moot whether that's a desireable state in any case. But I think that that post of his gives some justification for thinking that he was motivated, in part, by some degree of exasperation, to say the least, at the rather large amount of gratuitous nastiness that seems a rather large part of the atheist/skeptic community - and on virtually all sides. You may wish to take a close look at that post for the details which certainly seem to justify at least some of that exasperation.

So while I think "we" are justified in throwing stones at him for his narrow-mindedness and dogmatism, and argue that he's gone overboard, I think it might help to consider some of the things that might have led him to that. But somewhat apropos of which, you might take a look at this post by a Christian pastor some years ago wherein he suggests the same nastiness is, frequently, a substantial part of church, and secular politics, and suggests some reasons for that. Which seem credible even if couched in religious terms:

.... And, of course, it's not just a problem in local politics. Church politics are often unspeakably vicious. Workplace turf battles can be sneaky and underhanded. And crumbling marriages and divorces are often hotbeds of manipulation, meanness and vengeance.

Even though Christians talk about love for neighbor, too often when we disagree, the bare-fisted mêlée that results makes our neighbors weep. ....

This lust for domination doesn't just characterize politics in the City of Man, it characterizes each of us. The libido dominandi is that within each of us that plots and strives to have our own way and force others do as we say. As such, it is the controlling passion of our fallen nature and, thus, of our fallen world. ....

Second, we need to become sensitive to the lust for domination that is part of our fallen nature. It comes out in disguised and insidious ways. We are adept at using acts of service to manipulate others and get our way. Sometimes when making a strong point in a discussion with my wife, I feel an odd thrill. It's not the thrill of pursuing the good, true, and beautiful in partnership with someone I love. Instead it's the thrill of winning or, to put it more accurately, it's the thrill of her losing. I'm dominating. It feels good at home, on the job, in the Church, and in the Public Square. It's giving in to libido dominandi and is cause for repentance. Loving truth is good; loving being right and lording it over others is sin, plain and simple.

Easier said than done of course. But seems a worthwhile touchstone to keep in sight.

[jet_lagg]

I think it’s kind of presumptuous to be judging without knowing a lot more about the motivations and actions and perceptions of all those involved.

I know you have a Morales-like talent to muddying the issue when you want to defend and indefensible point (though what motivates you to defend vs condemn in any specific circumstance remains a mystery to me), but this is pretty clear cut. It's shitty to cheat on your wife. It's an immoral thing to do. That's not tribalism or religious puritanism or any of the other bullshit accusations you're throwing out. It's violating the trust of someone you claim to love. It's failing to live up to your written and verbal promises. It's playing games with someone's emotional wellbeing for a bit of temporary pleasure. If Carrier had an excuse for doing all that I'm sure he could have provided it. It's not as if he's disinclined to talk. So, he has no excuse, just as he apparently has no remorse.

But, somewhat in passing, weren’t you at one time tagged with the accusation here that you were Carrier’s sock-puppet? Hence the avatar. Putting paid to that are you?

Yeah. I linked to Proving History using Carrier's Amazon page, where he receives an extra few dollars if it's purchased from, and someone (Lsuoma I think), said I was a sockpuppet for Carrier. That amused me quite a bit, so I made the avatar. I still think his book is the best text available for getting up to speed on bayesian epistemology, and will continue to recommend it, though Carrier's continued descent into lunacy demonstrates it's not the key to human enlightenment so many at the LessWrong community hoped it would be.

[Lsuoma]

Yeah. I linked to Proving History using Carrier's Amazon page, where he receives an extra few dollars if it's purchased from, and someone (Lsuoma I think), said I was a sockpuppet for Carrier.

Actually, you linked using Carrier's associates tag, which made me wonder if you were a Carrier sock, since things like that don't happen by accident. But I suppose you might have copied the link from Carrier's site somewhere, and Prof. Dr. Dr. Herr Richard Carrier, Ph.D, BS would certainly have added his tag.

[Tigzy]

From the galley copy of Poe's Law, What It Is and How To Identify Examples, first colour plate:

http://i.imgur.com/GgKlxpW.png

[KiwiInOz]

From the galley copy of Poe's Law, What It Is and How To Identify Examples, first colour plate:

http://i.imgur.com/GgKlxpW.png

Pixie Dream Queen has it right though. Have you seen the state of some of those toilets?

[Tigzy]

I like how they can't even enjoy their own ludicrous fantasy without impacting it with even more ludicrous misery.

If only trans people were allowed to use public restrooms. *sigh* Wouldn't that be great?

No, cuz it means cis people will know where we are and they'll firebomb us. *gloom*

[Steersman]

I think it’s kind of presumptuous to be judging without knowing a lot more about the motivations and actions and perceptions of all those involved.

I know you have a Morales-like talent [for] muddying the issue when you want to defend [an] indefensible point (though what motivates you to defend vs. condemn in any specific circumstance remains a mystery to me), but this is pretty clear cut. It's shitty to cheat on your wife. It's an immoral thing to do.

It’s my tendency – “to a fault” – for contrarianism …. ;-) But actually, as mentioned before, I have a strong aversion to categorical statements – for any number of what I think are quite sound reasons. Which leads me to suggest if not defend cases that suggest if not prove that there are a few holes in them.

And, as a case in point and as I’ve argued before, I would say that your “it’s shitty to cheat on your wife” (or husband) qualifies as one of those. Whether it was shitty or not in Carrier’s case is probably moot, although I’d concede that there might well be justification for saying that it was, in fact, quite shitty. However, in all cases? Because that’s what you are, or appear to be, saying. And while that might well be a reasonable principle in most circumstances, there may be others in which that principle has to play second fiddle – maybe, for example, in cases of personal integrity and autonomy: I don’t think a promise to “love, honour, and obey”, or its equivalent, qualifies as any type of absolute. And to argue that it does suggests an overly romantic and not terribly “reasonable” view on love and marriage. Apropos of which, a poem from William Blake:

The Clod and the Pebble:

"Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair."

So sung a little Clod of Clay
Trodden with the cattle's feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:

"Love seeketh only self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another's loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite."

[twocunts]

Seems she kind of lost the thread, or I find it a little hard to parse her comments (archive link) which are a bit of a mish-mash.

Quoted for its kitchenware-ethnicity-observing awesomeness.

Fucking hell, Steers. Lose the word salads, pleeeeease?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

*snip*

Fucking hell, Steers. Lose the word salads, pleeeeease?

Dear Sun,

Please do not rise tomorrow.

Thanks.

[Shatterface as Guest]

From the galley copy of Poe's Law, What It Is and How To Identify Examples, first colour plate:

http://i.imgur.com/GgKlxpW.png

I'm not sure on the correct toilet etiquette. Is a trans-man going to be more triggered by my micro-aggressively leaving the seat up or down?

Of all the SJW groups trans*activists seam most like they have been invented just to test everybody else's patience and/or sanity.

Shatterface

[Southern]

Yeah. I linked to Proving History using Carrier's Amazon page, where he receives an extra few dollars if it's purchased from, and someone (Lsuoma I think), said I was a sockpuppet for Carrier.

Actually, you linked using Carrier's associates tag, which made me wonder if you were a Carrier sock, since things like that don't happen by accident. But I suppose you might have copied the link from Carrier's site somewhere, and Prof. Dr. Dr. Herr Richard Carrier, Ph.D, BS would certainly have added his tag.

Or, he may still be a Carrier sock, infiltrating the Pit searching for some booty calls from the enemy side. "The fact that is forbiden is what makes it better, baby. If PZ dreams we're doing this... wow... he'll rip my blog from the side AND my big, hairy balls from my sack."

[Billie from Ockham]

[youtube]1FbtPY0GfSk[/youtube]

That was actually a fun B movie.

I know what the label "B movie" really means, but my first reaction to your comment was that the only way for that movie to get a grade of B would be for it to accuse me - right there in my lab (or maybe my office ... I can't remember) - of sexual assault. Of course, given that I have feet and she doesn't, I'd make it to my dept head's office long before she did, after getting a grad to talk with her (or was that sit with her?) for a bit.

[AsTheCrowFlies]

Generally agree. I can well see that his self-righteousness and hypocrisy has pissed off a lot of people - his AtheismPlus post for example. ....

However, while I can sympathize with indulging in a bit of schadenfreude over his supposed "death" by the sword he fashioned - karma in action - I think it unwise to conflate his dogmatism and moralizing with the principles he advances that might have some credibility. Kind of a case of not judging the book by the cover, even if there's some limited value inside it.

Who on the Pit DOESN'T agree with the "principles he advances" when not taken to Carrier's insane extremes?
...
Carrier did the A+ crap because he (like others) wanted to rebrand atheism in a way that makes him the center (and brings him money).

Yes, I quite agree that he has taken things to "insane extremes". But I rather doubt your inference as to his motives holds all that much water. No doubt there's some self-aggrandizement involved - I rather doubt anyone is entirely altruistic and it might be moot whether that's a desireable state in any case. But I think that that post of his gives some justification for thinking that he was motivated, in part, by some degree of exasperation, to say the least, at the rather large amount of gratuitous nastiness that seems a rather large part of the atheist/skeptic community - and on virtually all sides. You may wish to take a close look at that post for the details which certainly seem to justify at least some of that exasperation.

So while I think "we" are justified in throwing stones at him for his narrow-mindedness and dogmatism, and argue that he's gone overboard, I think it might help to consider some of the things that might have led him to that. But somewhat apropos of which, you might take a look at this post by a Christian pastor some years ago wherein he suggests the same nastiness is, frequently, a substantial part of church, and secular politics, and suggests some reasons for that. Which seem credible even if couched in religious terms:

.... And, of course, it's not just a problem in local politics. Church politics are often unspeakably vicious. Workplace turf battles can be sneaky and underhanded. And crumbling marriages and divorces are often hotbeds of manipulation, meanness and vengeance.

Even though Christians talk about love for neighbor, too often when we disagree, the bare-fisted mêlée that results makes our neighbors weep. ....

This lust for domination doesn't just characterize politics in the City of Man, it characterizes each of us. The libido dominandi is that within each of us that plots and strives to have our own way and force others do as we say. As such, it is the controlling passion of our fallen nature and, thus, of our fallen world. ....

Second, we need to become sensitive to the lust for domination that is part of our fallen nature. It comes out in disguised and insidious ways. We are adept at using acts of service to manipulate others and get our way. Sometimes when making a strong point in a discussion with my wife, I feel an odd thrill. It's not the thrill of pursuing the good, true, and beautiful in partnership with someone I love. Instead it's the thrill of winning or, to put it more accurately, it's the thrill of her losing. I'm dominating. It feels good at home, on the job, in the Church, and in the Public Square. It's giving in to libido dominandi and is cause for repentance. Loving truth is good; loving being right and lording it over others is sin, plain and simple.

Easier said than done of course. But seems a worthwhile touchstone to keep in sight.

I've only recently become acquainted with the online atheist/sceptic community, and I have to say, the vitriol and invective I've come across and experienced has been quite shocking. I read a lot, but recently decided to become more active in online discussion; one of the first places I posted was Pharyngula on Freethoughtblogs, during the Matt Taylor shirt incident. Well, that was a mistake. I was quickly ripped into for politely suggesting, among other things, that it was perhaps premature to pass judgement on the man over that one incident. I'd been in heated debates online before over emotive topics such as abortion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the abuse I got was nothing compared to what I received over there. Over the past few months I've frequented, primarily as a lurker, atheist/sceptic/feminist sites and the invective has been pretty intense. I'd been blissfully unaware of this before but man, it's not an environment that's welcoming to those looking for debate. And your point on Carrier, about him becoming overly dogmatic through the abundance of nastiness he's received, that's something I've definitely reflected on before. I mean when you're attacked relentlessly it doesn't make it easy to concede points in a debate, let alone switch dispositions, if you've come to some profound realization. Rather I think it leads to defensiveness and ideological entrenchment

I've actually seen your posts in quite a few forums Steersman, often as the lone voice espousing a particular perspective. Not an easy place to be, and when your opponents are pretty hostile, all the more difficult.

Anyway, first time posting, and I suppose I arrived at the Slymepit out of SJW/feminist exasperation, because even though my own positions on social justice matters would be fairly much in alignment, the snark, bigotry, abuse, vitriol, bias etc... I've encountered has drained/irritated me.

I was talking to my mother the other day and made some lighthearted throwaway quip about women being able to multitask, and I actually felt some pang of guilt afterwards; that was perhaps the epiphanous moment for me, building on my earlier thoughts about what life would be like if language/expression/art/entertainment etc...were gutted out so as to bend and genuflect at the alter of social justice.

[JackSkeptic]

@AsTheCrowFlies

It is not as bad as you may think. At one time it was a lot worse with few people resisting it, the Slympit being most notable as an exception, which is why I am here. JREF was all about navel gazing and trying to outskeptic each other which I found both boring and useless. So I passed them by. There was nothing else except a few lone voices.

At one time SJW's threatened to throw out anyone they did not like, smear anyone with serious accusations, control all the conferences and speaker positions, shut down discussion and debate and generally turn AS issues into far left totalitarianism. Exactly the same as in gaming, the BDSM community and any other culture they have decided to attack and abuse. This crap has been going on for thousands of years, nothing new.

But the fact someone like Nugent at Atheist Ireland feels he can now stand up and say something was unthinkable a few years back. A few years back he believed all the hate and vitriol they were spewing and to be honest I put him down as yet another useful idiot. Well meaning but naive just the same. He even invited them to an Irish conference. What the hell was he thinking? Guaranteed trouble. So all we had was the Slympit, some lone voices and a long running post at JREF.

It has always been about trying to reduce the damage and allowing people to say what they think without fear. But over time their impact has been diminishing. However unlike the gaming community, which is highly diverse and has prominent people with the guts to fight back, the AS community is still weak and ineffective. So we can't afford to be complacent. They will still doxx, still harm people and still spread hate wherever they can.

[fuzzy]

http://i.imgur.com/ipdGwjO.png

[BoxNDox]

Okay, people started to think I was Franc. Had to change the avatar again.

OK Franc.

We're all Franc. He was just more Franc than the rest of us Francs.

I am Palmer Eldritch.

[Brive1987]

Why hello old friend.

[BoxNDox]

For what it's worth, I enjoyed KC Johnson's talk so much that I just picked up a copy of the book he co-authored (Until Proven Innocent) and promoted it to the top of my reading list.

Good choice. I found his analysis of the underlying motivations of the various players, and how they turned the situation into a kind of perfect storm, to be quite astute.

[free thoughtpolice]

Why hello old friend.

I gather when Chrissy talks about sick obsessives he is either talking about the D grade bloggers and internet hacks that have made a cottage industry out of trashing and slandering prominent atheist authors like Dawkins, or possibly about the rabid baboon pack that drove him away from Pharyngula with tears in his eyes and his tail between his legs. :violin:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I was just exploring Meyers's place, and was reminded how ridiculous this is:

http://i.imgur.com/rN9bQWw.png

"Say what you want, how you want."

"Status: UNMODERATED."

[Guestus Aurelius]

Why hello old friend.

The conversation continued:

:clap:

[Skep tickle]

Howdy, AsTheCrowFlies. I'll leave the traditional welcome to others.

...I've actually seen your posts in quite a few forums Steersman, often as the lone voice espousing a particular perspective. Not an easy place to be, and when your opponents are pretty hostile, all the more difficult.

FWIW, in some of those places Steers seems to be the only 'Pitter allowed to comment w/o being banned. But I may be making too broad a generalization ;)

Anyway, first time posting, and I suppose I arrived at the Slymepit out of SJW/feminist exasperation, because even though my own positions on social justice matters would be fairly much in alignment, the snark, bigotry, abuse, vitriol, bias etc... I've encountered has drained/irritated me.

A-yup. Also the hypocrisy including only certain pre-approved types of "free"thought are allowed. Er, make that only "free"thought from people approved as part of the group.

I was talking to my mother the other day and made some lighthearted throwaway quip about women being able to multitask, and I actually felt some pang of guilt afterwards; that was perhaps the epiphanous moment for me, building on my earlier thoughts about what life would be like if language/expression/art/entertainment etc...were gutted out so as to bend and genuflect at the alter of social justice.

Atheism+ Forum is where you might see the removal, or at least flagging with trigger warnings, of anything that any of them can think of any way to interpret as too much of an affront for someone to see/read/hear.

FTB manages to pretend that various among them (in-group, not out-group of course) aren't violating the rules that others among them claim are of highest importance.

Here's a little game. Spot the part of each image or text below that would be leapt on as "problematic" if posted by an anonymous or suppressive person, or at A+ forum, but so far have garnered *crickets* at FTB:

"Back in the news" by Benson from today: https://archive.today/Wc0eL
http://i.imgur.com/Znw1FnB.png?1

"The important question of our time has been answered! What is the average size of a human penis?" by Myers from 1-2 days ago: https://archive.today/DSiUg
http://i.imgur.com/xY0UzN6.png?1
(the comment thread is largely cis/het-oriented, but some commenters do identify & discuss that, calmly)

“'Very Hot!': Amazon Customer Review of 'Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More'” by Christina, posted about 6 weeks ago: https://archive.today/ZSUtm
http://i.imgur.com/grQpsfj.png?2

There's been relatively little pushback at FTB about Carrier's coming out as polyamorous (all I saw was in the comments of that post).

It's interesting to compare how much flak Jamila Bey has gotten for attending & speaking at CPAC. It seems she wasn't solidly enough in the FTB in-group before she went to CPAC, at least not from the Horde's point of view. That, or fraternizing with conservatives turns out to be one of the worst crimes there is.

[HunnyBunny]

Why hello old friend.

The conversation continued:

:clap:

And someone was watching, and liking the conversation

http://i.imgur.com/zsSdpiQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/hlz7Fjr.png

[Shatterface as Guest]

:clap:

So Nugent = ISIL now.

Who is this Clarke cunt?

Shatterface

[Skep tickle]

:clap:

So Nugent = ISIL now.

Who is this Clarke cunt?

Shatterface

He was Myers' co-blogger at Pharyngula for a while, till leaving due to toxicity of the horde:
http://coyot.es/crossing/2013/08/29/a-r ... gula-wiki/

[Old_ones]

What is it with SJWs comparing people they don't agree with to ISIS? Its like they think they'll become less powerless and laughable if they turn the hyperbole knob up to 11.

Pathetic.

[Skep tickle]

http://atheistallianceamerica.org/artic ... ins-award/

Atheist Alliance of America is pleased to announce that Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D., is the 2015 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award, presented annually at AAofAmerica’s national conference. Dr. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and the author of the New York Times bestseller, Why Evolution is True as well as the soon-to-be-released Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible.

Dr. Coyne received a B.S. in biology from the College of William and Mary, a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin, and a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California at Davis. He published a scholarly book about his research area, Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr, and he is a contributor to The New York Times, The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, The Nation and USA Today. Along with more than 130 popular articles, book reviews and columns, he has written 115 refereed scientific papers.

“Dr. Coyne is a respected member of the scientific community and an articulate and dogged proponent of science in the public sphere,” observes Amy Monsky, executive director of Atheist Alliance of America. “We’re thrilled to recognize him and his work with our highest honor at our annual convention, being held October 15-18 in Atlanta, Georgia.”

The Richard Dawkins Award is given each year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who, through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage, advocates increased scientific knowledge; who, through work or by example, teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public postures mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins. Previous recipients are James Randi, Ann Druyan, Penn and Teller, Julia Sweeney, Daniel Dennett, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bill Maher, Susan Jacoby, Christopher Hitchens, Eugenie Scott, Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein.

[HunnyBunny]

So Nugent = ISIL now.

Who is this Clarke cunt?

Shatterface

He was Myers' co-blogger at Pharyngula for a while, till leaving due to toxicity of the horde:
http://coyot.es/crossing/2013/08/29/a-r ... gula-wiki/

Looks like he has decided the Horde were alright after all, seeing as he is taking to their 'make snide remarks with no basis in reality' style.

[Ape+lust]

So Nugent = ISIL now.

Who is this Clarke cunt?

Shatterface

He was Myers' co-blogger at Pharyngula for a while, till leaving due to toxicity of the horde:
http://coyot.es/crossing/2013/08/29/a-r ... gula-wiki/

He also quit before he quit, in 2007. So apparently, for a second time he's forgotten why and is sidling up again to the dipshits who ran him off.

You got it right 8 years ago, Clarke. Quit being stupid.

http://imgur.com/65I7O6Y.png

(Actually, he was as nasty as anyone at Pharyngula. His flounce because the "atmosphere" didn't suit him was as ridiculous as Caine's)

http://coyot.es/crossing/2007/06/07/res ... ogosphere/

[Brive1987]

ISIS is the Godwin you have when you're not having a Goodwin.

Clarke's final flounce from FtB was better than sex. :popcorn:

[Badger3k]

Why hello old friend.

Shouldn't he be out scoring more illegal drugs?

[Jan Steen]

[Brive1987]

This week is "reality week".

So.

"George Hrab cannot sing two consecutive notes in tune".

I feel better now.

[Jan Steen]

SJW coyotes like Chris Clarke calling Michael Nugent "obsessed" reminds me of politicians in the former Soviet Union declaring dissidents mentally ill. It's just another smear tactic by this totalitarian scum.

[Brive1987]

To truly understand obsession, one must first observe Benson on a roll.

[James Caruthers]

Well if you create really good content, then fine. I friend of mine loves to produce humor. He spends all of the time he walks about delivering the mail thinking of new creative funny things, be they speeching, poems, songs, pranks.

So while Caruthers says he spends 3 hours on filming. He very well may spend a lot more time than that thinking about what goes into those three hours.

Or he could produce pure horse shit.

He used to do the former. Now he does the latter when he bothers to produce anything at all.

Like I said, I seriously think substance abuse is the answer for Spoony's decline in quality, wasting physical appearance and increase in laziness.

[Brive1987]

I see Watson:

http://i.imgur.com/wRCOL8n.jpg


Has new stationary:


http://i.imgur.com/9l1V9xw.jpg

[Steersman]

...

Who on the Pit DOESN'T agree with the "principles he advances" when not taken to Carrier's insane extremes?
...
Carrier did the A+ crap because he (like others) wanted to rebrand atheism in a way that makes him the center (and brings him money).

Yes, I quite agree that he has taken things to "insane extremes". But I rather doubt your inference as to his motives holds all that much water. No doubt there's some self-aggrandizement involved - I rather doubt anyone is entirely altruistic and it might be moot whether that's a desireable state in any case. But I think that that post of his gives some justification for thinking that he was motivated, in part, by some degree of exasperation, to say the least, at the rather large amount of gratuitous nastiness that seems a rather large part of the atheist/skeptic community - and on virtually all sides. You may wish to take a close look at that post for the details which certainly seem to justify at least some of that exasperation. ...

I've only recently become acquainted with the online atheist/sceptic community, and I have to say, the vitriol and invective I've come across and experienced has been quite shocking. I read a lot, but recently decided to become more active in online discussion; one of the first places I posted was Pharyngula on Freethoughtblogs, during the Matt Taylor shirt incident. Well, that was a mistake.

I can imagine – frequently a rather nasty place. For a bit of amusement you may wish to take a look at this thread here highlighting Jan Steen’s rather pointed and satirical cartoons characterizing many of the Pharyngula commentariat as a pack of piranhas.

And your point on Carrier, about him becoming overly dogmatic through the abundance of nastiness he's received, that's something I've definitely reflected on before. I mean when you're attacked relentlessly it doesn't make it easy to concede points in a debate, let alone switch dispositions, if you've come to some profound realization. Rather I think it leads to defensiveness and ideological entrenchment.

A rather problematic state of affairs, not least because it tends to escalate and then nobody can get a reasonable word in edgewise. I don’t think people like Carrier have the vaguest idea that the nastiness spewed at Pharyngula is, I think, a substantial contributing factor. Daniel Fincke over at Camels and Hammers attempted to promote his “Civility Pledge” some years ago but, maybe not surprisingly, many of the Pharyngula crowd weren’t much enthused. While I sort of sympathized with their view – and Carrier’s – that a judicious insult here and there has its place and value, many of the FTB sites and several related ones insisted on a decidedly unlevel playing field – allowing some insults but banning others on the flimsiest pretexts.

I've actually seen your posts in quite a few forums Steersman, often as the lone voice espousing a particular perspective. Not an easy place to be, and when your opponents are pretty hostile, all the more difficult.

A lost prophet in the wilderness preaching to the heathens. :-) Though there seem to be many of us weighing in at various venues.

Anyway, first time posting, and I suppose I arrived at the Slymepit out of SJW/feminist exasperation, because even though my own positions on social justice matters would be fairly much in alignment, the snark, bigotry, abuse, vitriol, bias etc... I've encountered has drained/irritated me.

Definitely can be exasperating. But welcome to the fun house. :-)

[James Caruthers]

Hey Steers, does your "nigger" argument hold true for the word "faggot" as well? If not, why not? If so, why so?

I'm curious if the argument applies to all offensive words or if you hold out any exceptions.

[Steersman]

Hey Steers, does your "nigger" argument hold true for the word "faggot" as well? If not, why not? If so, why so?

I'm curious if the argument applies to all offensive words or if you hold out any exceptions.

Nope - can't think of any exceptions offhand. I figure if it applies to gendered epithets like "cunt" - and many here seem to be jake with its use as such - then I figure it should apply - mutatis mutandis - to similar ones: "nigger", "kike", "faggot", etc., etc., etc.

However, I might point to the emphasized word "if" there. My argument has always been, more or less, that applying any of those epithets to entire classes rightly qualifies as sexism or racism. But applying them to individuals doesn't necessarily do so. More formally, using the language of logic to define analogies: "cunt" is to sexism as "nigger" (or "faggot") is to racism (or sexism?). That is, if one accepts the relation between "cunt" and sexism - however you want to define that relationship (sexism or not) - then one is obliged to accept the same relationship (racism/sexism or not) in the other case.

Which is, maybe to belabor the point, the nature of analogies. Starting with the premise that two triangles are analogous - say a 3-4-5 one and a 30-40-50 one - then one knows that the relationship between any two sides - say the 3 & the 4 - is the same as the relationship between the corresponding sides on the other one, the 30 & the 40. That is, 3 is to 4 (3:4) as 30 is to 40 (30:40). Q.E.D. :-)

[James Caruthers]

Which is, maybe to belabor the point, the nature of analogies. Starting with the premise that two triangles are analogous - say a 3-4-5 one and a 30-40-50 one - then one knows that the relationship between any two sides - say the 3 & the 4 - is the same as the relationship between the corresponding sides on the other one, the 30 & the 40. That is, 3 is to 4 (3:4) as 30 is to 40 (30:40). Q.E.D.

Holy shit, we've hit 100% Steers exposure.

[youtube]hR69EKvcW-4[/youtube]

"Caruthers, what do you see?"

"Caruthers, what do you see?"

"Sauce for the goo-"

[Brive1987]

Alas, Steers will remain a beautiful enigma.

[youtube]AXS8P0HksQo[/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Ok. So here's Prussian Blue's latest Patreon faire.

Her audience engagement strategy post SGU. The glue to bind her fans (from Poland to Japan) to her brand. That personal touch, that reach out.

Let's just think for a moment.

$1. Access to existing feed. No change.
$3. Access to iPhone shot selfie vids. No new "effort" there, an actual reduction in service
$5. Access to the mythical hangouts. Prev. "open" to all. Both times. Reduction of service here.
$10. She will follow you on twitter. Zero effort there.
$20. You get 2sec name mention in a vid. Again let's call that zero effort.
$100. You get to transfigure a Benjamin into .... 1x beer. If you make it to SF. Bwhahahah.

With the exception of the hangouts, I think we can safely say that Watson can never again be accused of non delivery.

http://i.imgur.com/OqZ6CrH.jpg

[Brive1987]

And what quality has been injected into the selfie-vids to justify the price hike from $1 to $3?

You decide. http://youtu.be/2Z_WXtx70WY

I would note though: didn't Watson blackball any panel that didn't have, what? 50% women?

Well right now she is quota hunting for quiz-a-thing Chicago because the panel is currently 100% male.

You couldn't make it up. :lol:

[Shatterface as Guest]

I don't smoke but this looks like an excellent way to get yourself shivved in the prison showers:

High Court rules smoking ban applies to prisons

A prisoner has won a landmark High Court ruling that the statutory smoking ban applies to state prisons and all Crown premises.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-03- ... o-prisons/

[Tapir]

http://i.imgur.com/mdR9AOZ.jpg

When Rebecca's bloated, bound and mutilated corpse washes up on the beach woe betide any victim-blaming, misogynist shitlords who dare suggest this might not have been a good idea.

[windy]

My Bayesian analysis leads me to believe there is a high probability Carrier only realized his orientation once his wife became fat.

You spelled "buxom brunette" incorrectly.

She described herself as fat. Who am I to disagree?
Full disclosure: I'm fat, my wife is fat, and we fuck. I know you were all wondering.

OK, now I'm sure you're not franc. He would have posted a picture.

[Ape+lust]

And what quality has been injected into the selfie-vids to justify the price hike from $1 to $3?

You decide. http://youtu.be/2Z_WXtx70WY

I would note though: didn't Watson blackball any panel that didn't have, what? 50% women?

Well right now she is quota hunting for quiz-a-thing Chicago because the panel is currently 100% male.

You couldn't make it up. :lol:

Hung over on a Wednesday morning. 34 years old and still won't shut up about her drinking, how hammered she got last night.

One day she's going to have a rum punch breakfast, get on her surfboard, and never be heard from again.

[Brive1987]

And what quality has been injected into the selfie-vids to justify the price hike from $1 to $3?

You decide. http://youtu.be/2Z_WXtx70WY

I would note though: didn't Watson blackball any panel that didn't have, what? 50% women?

Well right now she is quota hunting for quiz-a-thing Chicago because the panel is currently 100% male.

You couldn't make it up. :lol:

Hung over on a Wednesday morning. 34 years old and still won't shut up about her drinking, how hammered she got last night.

One day she's going to have a rum punch breakfast, get on her surfboard, and never be heard from again.

We had a President Prime Minister who pretty much did exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Holt#Disappearance

[Barael]

And what quality has been injected into the selfie-vids to justify the price hike from $1 to $3?

You decide. http://youtu.be/2Z_WXtx70WY

I would note though: didn't Watson blackball any panel that didn't have, what? 50% women?

Well right now she is quota hunting for quiz-a-thing Chicago because the panel is currently 100% male.

You couldn't make it up. :lol:

Hung over on a Wednesday morning. 34 years old and still won't shut up about her drinking, how hammered she got last night.

One day she's going to have a rum punch breakfast, get on her surfboard, and never be heard from again.

Damn, I'm 34 too and instead of enjoying a hangover on Wednesday I'm wasting all day in a software project meeting at the Finnish Transport Agency instead. Don't suppose there'd be any Patreon moolah to be had for developing geographic information systems and making shitty WoW videos?