Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

Old subthreads
Locked
BannedAid
.
.
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1106

Post by BannedAid »

Jan Steen wrote:
Hey, join the queue. I asked him first.

viewtopic.php?p=53205#p53205[/quote]

Something tells me we're going to be waiting for a while.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1107

Post by Skep tickle »

rocko2466 wrote:As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.

[youtube]fgNH6GT6auo[/youtube]
Well done!

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1108

Post by Skep tickle »

Scented Nectar wrote:Well, after my nice and serious video about misogyny earlier, I've now made a response to being tagged with a Tasteless Joke Tag.

In an attempt to get at least a couple of tag video replies in return, I then tagged 12 youtubers, including a few SlimePitters. Optional to do a tag, but maybe the high number of tagged will bring at least a couple in.

[ TRIGGER WARNING: No feminist, or any other easily offended sorts, should watch this ]
youtube Hzfxqt2MldA /youtube
ingtegralmath replies:

[youtube]BYrZAouxeP8[/youtube]

Not only a tasteless joke, but purports to report on PZ having hots for RW

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1109

Post by Apples »

rocko2466 wrote:As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.
Skep tickle wrote: Well done!
Indeed. Thanks for putting in the time -- well worth it. Dramalicious.


EdgePenguin
.
.
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1110

Post by EdgePenguin »

somedumbguy wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.
As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?
Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.

Mr Danksworth
.
.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1111

Post by Mr Danksworth »

justinvacula wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/QrYE5hp.jpg
"MustacheCast"
http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif

Mr. Kotter?
You should grow out that fro of yours. Blow it out!

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1112

Post by somedumbguy »

EdgePenguin wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.
As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?
Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.
You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1113

Post by Steersman »

Apples wrote:
Steersman wrote:While it is of course great that he isn’t totally buying all of the schlock that Benson is peddling, to allow an “unfair” characterization to stand as the basis for subsequent witch-hunts has to qualify as one of the more egregious attempts at rationalization that I have ever seen. As I subsequently argued, I hoped that Brayton would “do more than just quibble with Ophelia’s [mis]-representation of what Shermer said as it was the rather odious snowball that started the avalanche of vituperation that has landed on Shermer’s head.”
Which, to use some parallel logic, is exactly what PZ just did with Rebecca Watson yesterday. He said the Dawkins Foundation is a good ally, she declared that she "couldn't disagree more," and he hrrm hrrm'd for a minute, put on his white knight shut-up-and-lissen-to-the-wimmenz-helmet, and let her trash-talk Richard Dawkins to her heart's content. It's fucking crazy.
Link? But another interesting case for the annals of “Painting Oneself Into a Corner”. Which Watson seems to have a penchant for, notably her not-a-boycott boycott of Dawkins books; I had expected an imminent refusal from her to be bound by the laws of gravity because Newton was, apparently, a misogynist. But, curiously and amusingly, relative to the situation with White Knights and the Sisterhood of the Oppressed, I’m reminded of a passage in Gendercide on the topic of historical and actual witch-hunts:
Most of the accusations originated in ‘conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.’ Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, … [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.
In light of which it is just a little difficult to lay all of the blame for that type of scenario at the feet of “the patriarchy” or even of “teh men” ….
And when they notice that he has ... um ... slightly ... lied about the people and the content here, whereas 'Pitters can cite every fucking freethoughtblog felony, chapter-and-verse, and give people links to confirm the details for themselves ... how does he think this is going to turn out? Moron.
Exactly. Critical and skeptical thinking is not exactly his forte ….

EdgePenguin
.
.
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1114

Post by EdgePenguin »

somedumbguy wrote:[spoiler]
EdgePenguin wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.
As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?
Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.
You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's[/spoiler]penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.
I'd say its too strong to describe it as 'remaking'. Computer simulations are just tools, and don't alter the basic processes of science i.e. hypothesis testing and publication/argument.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1115

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

dear elementary watson

#1116

Post by Apples »

Steersman wrote:Link?
PZ's post is here:


Watson has the first comment, and a link to her followup post at Skepchick is appended to PZ's post.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1117

Post by Apples »


somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1118

Post by somedumbguy »

EdgePenguin wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:[spoiler]
EdgePenguin wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.
As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?
Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.
You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's[/spoiler]penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.
I'd say its too strong to describe it as 'remaking'. Computer simulations are just tools, and don't alter the basic processes of science i.e. hypothesis testing and publication/argument.
Well you're probably right. You're closer to this than I am, but aren't there complaints that in many fields you now need a math degree and expertise in computer simulation and you didn't use to? That papers are now all about the computer simulation?

Or even worse, that in some fields computer simulation is redefining the scientific method by skipping the step of verifying with the real world leading to "post normal" science?

But all that aside, I was just commenting on how revolutions in academia spread from one department to another based on external, not internal trends.

Another example, male gaze theory escapes film theory infests philosophy, sociology, anthropology, ...

Deconstruction entered literary theory had an outbreak throughout academia resulting in Sokal and apparently is now finally subsiding. But the comments in this thread combined with Sokal, etc. show us Academia makes it easy for bad ideas to spread into another department, but there seems little role for one department to critique another. Sokal was well received in Physics, but I think the soft sciences hated him for it.

I dunno, I am just speculating wildly, depressed on this stuff.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1119

Post by Lurkion »

Skep tickle wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.

[youtube]fgNH6GT6auo[/youtube]
Well done!
I enjoyed doing it! I need more suggestions though, because I want to do more! lol

Sortof on topic, can't a gendered insult not necessarily be a sexist insult?

i.e. in some circumstances, you would have a girl acting a certain way and call her a 'bitch' and a guy acting the same way would be called a 'bastard'.

A lot of people talk about it like it's equivalent to 'nigger' when, really, it's equivalent to 'steward' and 'stewardess'.

If you've got a problem with gendered words, frankly, that's your problem.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1120

Post by nippletwister »

Louis wrote:Lastly (and there was much rejoicing) is number 4) which touches on bits of 2). I think the relevant bit is this:
Arguments over individual issues are not relevant. It's about the right to argue over issues and attempts to poison the well in the atheist community. It's about the tactics being used to do that.
To the best of my knowledge, and please present evidence to the contrary, no one is stopping anyone from arguing over anything within the atheist community. You might find yourself unwelcome at this blog or that blog, just like I might, but I think the actual censorship you are claiming is non-existent. I also think it's non-existent or exceedingly rare that, for example, some group or person is banned from any and all conferences and venues. Who is stopping you from going to CFI conferences or some big atheist conference and arguing your case? Volunteer to host a poster session or a break out talk, ask questions of presenters, try to be a presenter yourself etc. Who's stopping you from going to your local Sceptics in the Pub or something similar and airing your views, or even presenting at such? Again, as far as I am aware, no one.

What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you, and, when stupid shit gets pulled because I think we all know it is getting pulled, not letting you (or me) get away with it. What the fuck is wrong with that? I EXPECT criticism. I LIKE criticism. It's how I learn. That doesn't make every critic worth my time. What IS happening in some places is the people who run those places don't want to deal with specific types of criticism or people. For whatever reason. I agree with you that some of those reasons can/could be nefarious, underhanded etc, but I've not seen evidence of such. Pre-emptively banning Slymepitters is PZ's choice as landlord of the Pharyngula Tentacles isn't in my opinion a bad thing, sorry.

I might not find that fair, I might not care about it, but it's undeniable it's his right to do so. Someone I rather like is John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts, he has a "don't shit on the carpet" type policy, the comments of his blog are pretty civil (in a way that Pharyngula isn't) and pretty thoughtful (in a way Pharyngula is occasionally, noise to signal again). That's a difference of style not one right one wrong. /b/ has pretty much no rules at all and the quality of the conversation there is commensurately fucking atrocious. I'm not an advocate of Structure Uber Alles, but structure sometimes works. The structure of the paper allows the pen to write on it freely, the structure of a brick, less so. I'm not defending PZ to say I don't mind his structure any more than I am criticising him when I say I like Wilkins' structure too. It's horses for courses.

Now there's another side to the coin of "civility" and "structure", they can be used to stifle discussion, as I am sure you note. "Uppity" black people in the pre-Civil Rights Movement southern US had their discussions shut down by just this mechanism. So yes, it IS a double edged sword to be wielded with care. (BTW, I always advocate this, read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" if you haven't, it is truly brilliant and explains what I am getting at here perfectly, better than I ever could)

That is not what's happening here though, again to the best of my knowledge. No one is stopping you speak, no one is asking you to bide your time to be liberated, no one is lynching you. What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you. What IS happening is certain current, long standing social structures are being countered to ever greater degrees. Those structures are in the atheist community etc as well as outside them. We're, sadly we've found, not exempt.

Now IF people are publicly identifying pseudonymous/anonymous posters and giving out their real life addresses, well that's fucking disgusting. IF people are editing people's posts to make them say something different, that's fucking disgusting. IF people are lying about people, that's fucking disgusting. It doesn't matter who does it...well actually, I'll take that back...if someone on my "team" does it (urgh, team, yuck) then to me it is MORE disgusting than if the "other team" do it. I want to associate with the people who don't need to do that. And before you leap and go "well why do you post at FtB then? Hurr hurr" I'm posting here now aren't I? I'm trying to engage you aren't I?

I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:
“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”
Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

How about this:
“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”
Do any of you think that is statement racist?

I've changed one single word. The logic, the sense is identical. I've only changed the target. Note, I am NOT asking "do you think Michael Shermer is an evil sexist slimebag who should be put to death in a Feminazi Retraining Camp" I am asking (effectively) if the guy made a simple mistake, just like anyone can do, and make a sexist utterance? It's no great shakes, there's no "gotcha" at the end. Although I'd be really interested if anyone thinks the first one is not sexist and the second one is racist, that would be worthy of examination.

Cheers.

In answer to your question, no, it is not a sexist remark or a mistake, unless you are psychotically bent to try to twist everything to your political agenda, and your comparison is not valid as you've taken him out of context. Context matters.

1.He was speaking of the perception of what the current numbers seem to show(that it is, currently, more of a guy thing to be visibly involved), not saying that there is any inherent reason for it to be that way. It was in the greater context of not thinking gender quotas were a necessary solution, that it would balance out to the levels that individual people were comfortable with, as it has already been doing.
The point is that he was talking about what the perception of current numbers is, not what should be or what is mandated by nature or society. This is a very simple problem, I'm actually a bit surprised you brought it up. You have been manipulated and didn't even see it...funny that, how echo chambers work.

2.Also, the whole "replacing a word with THIS word" thing is just stupid, as it removes any actual differences between the two things, and ignores the context of the comment. I t was a slightly useful tool the first few times I saw it used (in better context). Now it's just condescending, and usually badly used, as you did.


Now, a question for you....doubtless, you've seen this quote flogged across FTB as evidence of horrible, privilege-blind cluelessness, and every attempt to return it to context has been shouted down as enabling sexism. MULTIPLE blog posts were written by multiple bloggers, all parroting the same out of context bullshit. Every time Shermer has tried to clarify this very simple point, he is lied about again.

Do you think that was a politically motivated and dishonest thing for PZ and Ophelia and others to do? Does it affect your understanding of the honesty issues we're on about?

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1121

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Skep tickle wrote:Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....
UK universities engage in a sort of peer review of each other at several levels. External examiners are brought in from other universities for each course. They look at the course material, talk to the students, basically making sure that the institution is delivering a university-level education to its students. The external examiners report to the vice-chancellor of the assessed institution with feedback on what they have found. It is then up to the vice-chancellor to put in place changes to correct the shortcomings that the examiner identifies. The external QAA body checks to make sure that this actually happens.

Not sure whether there is a similar system where you are.

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1122

Post by TheMan »

VickyCaramel wrote:
another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!
As Stephen Fry once said to Lorraine Kelly while trying to convince her to use swear words, "Go on... have a stab at a cunt". Use it and it will have it's meaning changed, it will lose it's power to shock.

Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1123

Post by welch »

somedumbguy wrote:I was pretty much ignoring Louis Wall of Rationalization, but his attack on Thunderf00t, followed by his complete inability to either acknowledge that his attack was baseless, OR substantially back it up and make his case, pretty much says it all about Louis.

Anyway Louis, thanks for femsplaining.
Everything louis has said:

"I am so much smarter than all of you, I have no need to prove my claims to you. Since people who agree with me are by definition, (that is, they agree with me, and I am, after all, so much smarter than you), smarter than all of you, clearly they do not need to prove their claims to such base morons as yourself. It is only the stupid people, like you who need to prove your claims to my satisfaction...


...which you will never do, since you are not smart enough to do so."

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1124

Post by AbsurdWalls »

somedumbguy wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.
As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?
I think you're overestimating how porous different bits of academia are to being affected by new ideas. Despite the conservative meme, universities are not in-general full of crazy liberal ideas that are taking over all of the respectable areas of study. These are just different ideas, they're fine to have in academia provided they are open to being disagreed with.

Computer simulation is a big deal in my field because it makes a lot of things easier and some previously impossible things possible. It's no intrusion, we didn't lost anything by letting it in.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1125

Post by welch »

another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!

If someone can completely alter your mental and emotional state by the mere utterance of a word, they own you.

Maybe, and this is crazy, but maybe one should be more discriminating in who one gives such control to.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1126

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/

That thread took a turn for the awesome. I think noelplum99's biggest fan turned up after the banning and seriously brought the pain. They really have no idea what to do when somebody gives no fucks.

What delightful commenters they have over there.

We are supposed to be sending rape threats? :shifty:

How come nobody told me? :(

Wait a second... :shock:

Is there a secret forum here? :shhh:

Um no, not at all. Say, could you pick up that bar of soap I seem to have dropped?

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1127

Post by welch »

jimthepleb wrote:
somedumbguy wrote: However, it must be noted that while the pink ghetto seems self-defeating, if you examine the success of the gender studies virus, it actually has been a winning strategy for feminists, in part, because who wants it said of them they did not think women were people, or they were rape apologists, or likely pedophiles.
I suspect that will change now, moving into sceptic/atheist territory will prove to be the undoing of any remaining credibility radical feminism had. The clear disparity between what they say and what the statistics say will be exposed and a new generation of men and women are growing up to challenge these preconceived notions.
What is vital is the charging of the barricades of academia, that is where the rot set in.

However in our corner of the world, these people have a death grip on 'the movement'

Do conferences bring in the $$$ for the organisers?
If run well, yes, they can be profitable. But it's not easy.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1128

Post by Apples »

Rocko2466 wrote:If you've got a problem with gendered words, frankly, that's your problem.
Yup.

I just happened to notice this comment (#232) over at Pharyngula:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/
Jafafa Hots wrote: 21 January 2013 at 4:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What are the goals of this “skeptic’s movement” of which you speak?
I get the impression that for some people the skeptics movement is rapid hand motion accompanied by a bottle of lotion and a lot of self-regard.
Kind of sounds like a "guy thing."

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1129

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg
That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1130

Post by Lsuoma »

Mr Danksworth wrote:
justinvacula wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/QrYE5hp.jpg
"MustacheCast"
[spoiler]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif[/spoiler]

Mr. Kotter?
You should grow out that fro of yours. Blow it out!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0zqd ... o1_500.jpg

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1131

Post by TheMan »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

I would have given you a tip but Integralmath already used it.....

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1132

Post by Lsuoma »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.
Back in 1997 the Paris police called a garage that specialized in British Leyland cars: they wanted to know how to get an engine out of a 1961 Princess.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1133

Post by welch »

Lsuoma wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
PeeZee wrote:Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?
Oh yes, I am capering with glee at taking down another woman... that's why I became an atheist in the first place don't cha know.

PeeZee sure has me pegged!
Ever thought of pegging him?
If a guy pegs a girl, isn't that just plain old fucking?

now *I'M* confused.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1134

Post by Cunning Punt »

welch wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg
That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.
Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1135

Post by welch »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

Oh innocent woman, here, allow me to help:

"What's the difference between jelly and jam?"


"You can't jelly your dick up a six-year-old's ass"


I'll be here all week, tip your waitress, avoid the veal.

Tkmlac
.
.
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:13 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1136

Post by Tkmlac »

Dick Strawkins wrote:This has probably been posted before but if anyone hasn't seen it, it's Steven Pinker on the meaning of swear words.

Strangely enought linguists, those who are acknowledged experts on the origins and meanings of words don't seem to have the same idea about the swear words that annoy the FTB crowd so much:

Part 1
[youtube]1BcdY_wSklo[/youtube]

Part 2
[youtube]yyNmGHpL11Q[/youtube]
Thanks for posting this. I had a long rant about word meanings and things like "cunt" and "bitch" to respond to Louis, but I didn't have the energy to write it and I don't know if he'd care if he really thinks those words are "sexist."

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1137

Post by Skep tickle »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....
UK universities engage in a sort of peer review of each other at several levels. External examiners are brought in from other universities for each course. They look at the course material, talk to the students, basically making sure that the institution is delivering a university-level education to its students. The external examiners report to the vice-chancellor of the assessed institution with feedback on what they have found. It is then up to the vice-chancellor to put in place changes to correct the shortcomings that the examiner identifies. The external QAA body checks to make sure that this actually happens.

Not sure whether there is a similar system where you are.
I haven't heard of this happening in the US (and it definitely doesn't happen at my institution). It sounds like a good idea.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1138

Post by welch »

TheMan wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!
As Stephen Fry once said to Lorraine Kelly while trying to convince her to use swear words, "Go on... have a stab at a cunt". Use it and it will have it's meaning changed, it will lose it's power to shock.

Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.
Shitcock?

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1139

Post by Lurkion »

Cunning Punt wrote:
welch wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg
That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.
Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.
Challenge accepted. Within a few days you will have that.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1140

Post by Apples »

welch wrote:That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.
always worth a reprise (h/t ERV) ... this one's for you, Tony the Queer Shoopaloop ....

[youtube]owzhYNcd4OM[/youtube]

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1141

Post by Altair »

fascination wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:BTW, how have you been feeling, fascination? Morning sickness abating at all?
I have been feeling a little better. Thank you for asking hon! I'll be into my second trimester in a couple of weeks so it should go away soon.
Are you thinking about names yet? If it's a boy, I want him to be named "Slyme Pete". Can you make that happen?

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1142

Post by LMU »

welch wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:[spoiler]
VickyCaramel wrote:
PeeZee wrote:Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?
Oh yes, I am capering with glee at taking down another woman... that's why I became an atheist in the first place don't cha know.

PeeZee sure has me pegged!
Ever thought of pegging him?[/spoiler]
If a guy pegs a girl, isn't that just plain old fucking?

now *I'M* confused.
He was referring to when a girl pegs a guy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%2 ... ractice%29 )

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1143

Post by nippletwister »

Louis wrote:
Tfoot wrote:Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.
No worries, sport.

Your arguments on FtB against their very simple brand of feminism were sexist. I can go back and dig through tonne of drivel if I want to, but why bother? Shark jumping: Dude, you used to be so cool! Okay, okay, forgive me I couldn't resist that one. I was, and still am, a big fan of your science videos. You do stellar work, no fooling, I really think that.

The hard on you have for FtB, not so much. So shark jumping and obsessive. Sexist, well I haven't demonstrated it, but I'm sure it will come up somewhere, be patient. Loonbag: the straw men, the focus on the most twisted interpretations of reasonable things, the videos edited out of context to make an almost Michael Moorian (someone I also quite like, although phew do you have to take his work with a bucket of salt sometimes) video about PZ and people. Dude, it's time to get over it.

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

You know, I tried assuming you were an honest sort.

For the record, I had never watched a single whole Thunderfoot video until he joined FTB. I was vaguely familiar with his name. I think I may have watched a couple of minutes of one of his videos on evolution a couple of years ago. I had, however, been reading most of the FTB blogs since they got together, and most of them longer, separately.

However, I did watch his videos after he joined, and watched the responses from other FTB blogs and Watson and some others.
If you couldn't see the blatant media manipulation going on there, you either only ever listen to one side of things and make thoughtless judgments, or you have some other extreme bias, or you're a shit-eating moron who can't bear being wrong.

Or you could just back up your own bullshit, something I've haven't seen at FTB for a long time, which is why I only read there for lulz anymore.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1144

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Well, I sucked it up and just did my tasteless joke vid:

[youtube]pjnKL0fEUrI[/youtube]

Though, everyone else here is giving better ones :D

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1145

Post by LMU »

Lsuoma wrote:
SenorBeagle wrote:[spoiler]
Lsuoma wrote:Oh, and whoever it was, thanks for the recco for Iron Sky. I've fired up my seedbox and I'm torrenting it now.
Good fillum. A film with moon Nazis can never be bad. Also, Udo Kier.

Also, also, Julia Dietze. Scherwing.[/spoiler]
Moon Nazis? Anyone else here a fan of the Laundry stories of Charles Stross (yes, I know it's not the moon, but non-terrestrial Nazis should all be lumped together until there's a reason not to.
Charles Stross fan here. Anyone curious can read a novella from the Laundry series here: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1146

Post by somedumbguy »

Via FTB'er Mano Singham:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... n-lawsuits

(still no cure for peezus)

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1147

Post by Metalogic42 »

@rocko2466: I just sent you some more. But do the screencap a few posts up first, that shit is hilarious.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1148

Post by Apples »

LMU wrote:He was referring to when a girl pegs a guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%2 ... ractice%29)
Wikipedia comes through in the clutch. And you've gotta love the tasteful diagram with the "four-strap harness."

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1149

Post by another lurker »

TheMan wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!
As Stephen Fry once said to Lorraine Kelly while trying to convince her to use swear words, "Go on... have a stab at a cunt". Use it and it will have it's meaning changed, it will lose it's power to shock.

Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.
I nominate this word: Atheism+

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1150

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Another example of the bubble that the Baboons inhabit.

http://i.imgur.com/EKc1y2a.jpg

Now, you will notice that there is a sort of veiled threat in there. Perhaps there is an "Adam Lanza" type loner amongst the Baboons who will snap and retaliate because we, the Slyme Pit, have the audacity to call their bullshit bullshit.

But you'll also notice the delusion that Ophelia is gaining lots and lots of supporters. Really? Ophelia has done her best to alienate people with her stupid behaviour and callous witch-hunts over the past year. There are no stats suggesting Ophelia's support is growing, but there is plenty of evidence of people flouncing over at FfTB, and joining their comrade-in-arms at the Slyme Pit. As someone pointed out the other day, NOBODY goes the other way. Not even Justicar, who despite getting a small infection of Baboonitis, spends most of his time sticking the boot into them.

They are seriously deluded. Perhaps it will take another hostile reception at TAM to show them how the wider community really views Ophelia and her ilk.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1151

Post by ERV »

deanesmay wrote:OK, so, short summary is, anyone who is skeptical or critical of their position is an ORC, ala Lord of the Ring orcs--not, you know, human or anything.
... Really?

No one has mentioned the new guys BEAUTIFUL ANGELIC HAIR OH MY GOD SO PRETTY YOU LOOK LIKE DAVID GILMOUR WHY DO SO MANY GUYS HERE HAVE LONG PRETTY HAIR?

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1152

Post by Altair »

CommanderTuvok wrote:Another example of the bubble that the Baboons inhabit.

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/EKc1y2a.jpg[/spoiler]

Now, you will notice that there is a sort of veiled threat in there. Perhaps there is an "Adam Lanza" type loner amongst the Baboons who will snap and retaliate because we, the Slyme Pit, have the audacity to call their bullshit bullshit.
That sounds very close to the definition of stochastic terrorism, which apparently is something that the pit does. Or the anti-A+. Or Justin.
I'm not really sure who "these people" refers to.
It's another case of it's bad when they do it, but good if one of us does it.

5
Ophelia Benson

January 19, 2013 at 6:10 pm (UTC -8)

Josh sent me this link, which is very relevant. It’s what these people do – stochastic terrorism.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/1 ... e-shooters

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1153

Post by Skep tickle »

Apples wrote:oops -

this is PZ's post.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/
At least one person commented earlier on the comments RW made at the end of her post and the question(s) jpeoples asked. But here's another thing - it's an example of them disagreeing. PZ backs off from his endorsement of these organizations, but can he really afford to follow RW down the path of "the organizations are all rotten, it's only a few individuals we/I can count on"? Saying that seems like it'd only accelerate the decline in speaking engagements. And RW seems to be putting the bar pretty high - she doesn't want to associate with an organization that keeps those she feels aren't pure enough on staff, or are named after someone she hates (thus, no matter what approach Dawkins' Foundation might take, it'll apparently never be enough for her). Bolding below is all added by me.

I've quoted PZ's post (not 'capped It) here, with what appears to be an addendum. I did not include all the italics & links:
PZ wrote:I am constantly dunned by email and tweets from the haters and sick scumbags, and I read stuff by my colleagues who get far worse, and at times it is just too depressing and dismal — there really are reactionary fanatics within atheism who refuse to recognize the responsibility to work towards equality. And I just want to give up.

But then…perspective. Step away from the smears and assaults and slime and look at the movement as a whole: look at the leading organizations of the godless. You know what you’ll see? None of them support these loons. They’re all progressive and committed to improving the diversity of the atheist community and broadening our engagement with the greater culture.

Really. Look at American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, the Center for Inquiry, Atheist Alliance International and Atheist Alliance America, the Secular Coalition, the Secular Student Alliance, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation. They are not supporting these petty, resentful snipers; they are working towards a future in which those goons are irrelevant.

That’s reassuring. There are loud, obsessive, creepy people who should not be ignored, but it’s always a good idea to step back and look at the bigger picture, and see that their skirmishing is born of desperation — they’re the past, they’re the failures, they’re the ones who have no productive role to play.
_______________________________________________________

Rebecca Watson has a different perspective. She’s less sanguine about organizations (and particularly the RDF), and I’m not going to argue with someone who has been the target of so much hatred, some of it inspired by Richard Dawkins’ remarks. I will agree entirely that any virtue in these organizations rest on the efforts of individuals who have struggled hard to bring inherently conservative institutions towards a more just perspective, and we cannot rest — we all have to keep fighting that fight.
From the linked article on Skepchick from Jan 20th:
Rebecca Watson wrote:...Unfortunately, his links only go to the main websites of those organizations and not to any evidence that those groups are doing anything that would make irrelevant those who harass many of us every day. ...

...For the most part, these organizations work on their causes while pointedly avoiding what they see as a divisive quagmire. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, no. For years, I defended the JREF’s pointed disinterest in atheist topics because while I do think atheism is the natural outcome of skepticism and that the two are ultimately inextricably linked, I understand that there’s a benefit to an organization focusing resources on a particular goal while also appealing to a larger audience. But it would be silly to then congratulate the JREF on working toward some atheist or secular goal, just as it’s silly to congratulate these organizations that are not focused on fighting for women.

And then there’s the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Over on PZ’s post, I commented:
I guess if you’ve never been called a “feminazi” by Paula Kirby or had your inbox explode with rape threats thanks to Richard Dawkins, RDF wouldn’t look out of place on that list.
PZ replied:
I know that Dawkins’ comments have led to some very ugly results, and that Kirby just completely lost the plot, but considering that the RDF confines itself mostly to science education, I don’t think that organization as a whole is the ‘enemy’.
I could not disagree more, obviously. When discussing whether or not an organization supports “petty, resentful snipers,” it’s worth asking whether it keeps any on staff or whether the organization is named after one. Richard Dawkins’ comments have been the very definition of petty and resentful, including those he has continued posting on Twitter. Whether he’s retweeting victim blaming trash or coming up with his very own passive aggressive ways to denigrate a free vaccine program because Skepchick runs it, he has not only failed to stop the torrent of abuse aimed at me and other women in this movement but he has actively participated in it himself. And Paula Kirby of RDFUK has spent months defending her point that those of us asking for atheist conferences to be safer spaces for women are literally like Nazis and the Stasi.

Regardless of what RDF does for science (and I’m not sure what that is, exactly, though I do know that they donate substantial amounts of money to other organizations that actually do things), they are not to be counted among organizations that discourage harassment of women.

So while PZ finds optimism in the work these organizations do, I, for the most part, do not. I see anti-feminists who think those organizations stand for them. (Hell, I’ve seen misogynists cite feminist and Freedom from Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor as an inspiration.) I don’t think these people are stupid (though yes, many are – just look at the people populating my Twitter @ replies) – I think that secular organizations aren’t being loud enough in their support of women. I think often these organizations are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century by a few progressive employees who want to do good at the risk of being seen as radical troublemakers.

And that’s where I find my inspiration: not in the large organizations but in the individuals who are strong enough to stand up for what’s right despite the endless hateful shit thrown their way. People like Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina, and Melody Hensley. People like Surly Amy and all the other Skepchick Network contributors. People like Amanda Marcotte...

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1154

Post by Lsuoma »

LMU wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
SenorBeagle wrote:[spoiler]
Lsuoma wrote:Oh, and whoever it was, thanks for the recco for Iron Sky. I've fired up my seedbox and I'm torrenting it now.
Good fillum. A film with moon Nazis can never be bad. Also, Udo Kier.

Also, also, Julia Dietze. Scherwing.[/spoiler]
Moon Nazis? Anyone else here a fan of the Laundry stories of Charles Stross (yes, I know it's not the moon, but non-terrestrial Nazis should all be lumped together until there's a reason not to.
Charles Stross fan here. Anyone curious can read a novella from the Laundry series here: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html
Down On The Farm and Overtime are also available online for free.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1155

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Lsuoma wrote: Back in 1997 the Paris police called a garage that specialized in British Leyland cars: they wanted to know how to get an engine out of a 1961 Princess.
Shit, yea. I've never heard that one. In fact, I think the worst one I've heard about that incident was your basic "What was the last thing that went through Diana's mind before she died...?".

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1156

Post by Git »

jimthepleb wrote:
Turglemeister wrote:
jimthepleb wrote:
Tkmlac wrote: One thing I haven't perfected in my new venture into tea is biscuits. How do I pick a good biscuit? I'm a US American, is there any hope for me?
McVities Rich Tea
That is all
(well at a push u could go Digestive or Hobnob (oooer missus) but they don't really count)
I would like to add Jaffa Cakes :D
NOT A BISCUIT :naughty:
Plain Chocolate Digestives. Or nothing.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1157

Post by another lurker »

welch wrote:
another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!

If someone can completely alter your mental and emotional state by the mere utterance of a word, they own you.

Maybe, and this is crazy, but maybe one should be more discriminating in who one gives such control to.
Well, I was being a tad hyperbolic with the FTB example. But the truth is, I really really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are 'smarter' and 'more learned' than me, after all. Right? So I stopped using 'bitch' and 'cunt' - mostly.

Most of all though, the BIGGEST effect it had on me was that I policed my behaviour on FTB forums and then said whatever the fuck else I wanted to elsewhere. Which just proves the point that if you are going to police language, you will not actually effect any *real* change - you will just force people to put on an insincere act to please you (which is a point that has been made here before, many times, alerady.)

The thing is, I have spent years talking like a sailor. And I was willing to listen to FTB, and give their ideas a chance. I wanted to learn from them, to re-examine all of my preconceived notions about feminism. They had a willing ally, and they tone-policed me outta there! So now I am here, re-examining everything all over again:P

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: W.C.O.A

#1158

Post by nippletwister »

sKepptiksowat wrote:White Cock Of Asia?

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3897/w ... sehoro.jpg

Hey, I don't wanna sound like a queer or anything, but that's pretty sweet cock you got there!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1159

Post by Steersman »

Apples wrote:oops -

this is PZ's post.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/
Thanks.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1160

Post by Pitchguest »

another lurker wrote:The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!
Don't you mean, just [your] two cunts? :rimshot:

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1161

Post by Lsuoma »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: Back in 1997 the Paris police called a garage that specialized in British Leyland cars: they wanted to know how to get an engine out of a 1961 Princess.
Shit, yea. I've never heard that one. In fact, I think the worst one I've heard about that incident was your basic "What was the last thing that went through Diana's mind before she died...?".
I see that one as a rehashing of "What's the last thing to go through a fly's mind when it hits your windscreen? Its arsehole."

I also heard another Diana one, likely derived from the old chestnut that Justi told:

Q. How do you get a princess pregnant?
A. Wank off on the engine block, and let the driver do the rest.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1162

Post by Michael K Gray »

Turglemeister wrote:...the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."
Trotsky assortment!
To the re-education camp, komrade.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

water water everywhere and not a drop to drink

#1163

Post by Apples »

Skep tickle wrote:And RW seems to be putting the bar pretty high - she doesn't want to associate with an organization that keeps those she feels aren't pure enough on staff, or are named after someone she hates (thus, no matter what approach Dawkins' Foundation might take, it'll apparently never be enough for her).
Yep - if PZ lets Rebecca and co. poison every well in town ... freethought's gonna become thirsty work.

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1164

Post by Notung »

I notice that that StevenCarr fellow is amusingly now in the 'Dungeon'. He's a fairly frequent atheist commenter - I remember a few years ago he was my only atheist ally on a (now-defunct) UK Christian forum.

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1165

Post by somedumbguy »

http://www.attendly.com/how-one-woman-d ... onference/

Woman expends a great deal of time and effort -- begs, cajoles, wheedles, other women, one on one to speak at tech conference. After all of this effort, manages to get 50/50 split.
“The easiest way I saw for getting more women on stage at the actual event was to get as many women to submit speaking proposals as possible.”
It turns out that this is actually really difficult. Women are notably less likely to sing their own praises (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a- ... out-women/) , or to see themselves as worthy applicants for speaking positions at conferences (http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/03/would- ... feren.html). Of course, this backs up the reasoning that not enough women apply–but it doesn’t excuse the resulting gender-biased speaker line-ups.
Courtney begged, pleaded and cajoled women she knew and respected to submit applications. She went out of her way to track them down and speak with them individually about their topics of expertise and why they would be appropriate for her conference. Even with all of this effort, she still received more applications from men than from women, though only marginally (8 women and 10 men applied).
So is it entrenched sexism? Or maybe speaking at conferences is a guy thing?

Or Benson-forfend, maybe a bit of both?

Locked