Hey, join the queue. I asked him first.Jan Steen wrote:
viewtopic.php?p=53205#p53205[/quote]
Something tells me we're going to be waiting for a while.
Hey, join the queue. I asked him first.Jan Steen wrote:
Well done!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]
ingtegralmath replies: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
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.
Indeed. Thanks for putting in the time -- well worth it. Dramalicious.Skep tickle wrote: Well done!
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.somedumbguy wrote: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?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.
http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif
You miss my point.EdgePenguin wrote: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.somedumbguy wrote: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?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.
Link? But another interesting case for the annals of “Painting Oneself Into a Cornerâ€. 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:Apples wrote: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.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.â€
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†….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.
Exactly. Critical and skeptical thinking is not exactly his forte ….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.
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.somedumbguy wrote:[spoiler]You miss my point.EdgePenguin wrote: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.somedumbguy wrote: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?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.
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.
PZ's post is here:Steersman wrote:Link?
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?EdgePenguin wrote: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.somedumbguy wrote:[spoiler]You miss my point.EdgePenguin wrote: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.somedumbguy wrote: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?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.
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 enjoyed doing it! I need more suggestions though, because I want to do more! lolSkep tickle wrote:Well done!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]
Louis wrote:Lastly (and there was much rejoicing) is number 4) which touches on bits of 2). I think the relevant bit is this:
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.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.
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:
Do any of you think that statement is sexist?“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 thingâ€
How about this:
Do any of you think that is statement racist?“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 thingâ€
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.
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.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....
VickyCaramel wrote: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.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!
Everything louis has said: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.
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.somedumbguy wrote: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?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.
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!
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:
If run well, yes, they can be profitable. But it's not easy.jimthepleb wrote: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.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.
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?
Yup.Rocko2466 wrote:If you've got a problem with gendered words, frankly, that's your problem.
Kind of sounds like a "guy thing."Jafafa Hots wrote: 21 January 2013 at 4:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.What are the goals of this “skeptic’s movement†of which you speak?
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.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0zqd ... o1_500.jpgMr Danksworth wrote:[spoiler]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif[/spoiler]
Mr. Kotter?
You should grow out that fro of yours. Blow it out!
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.ReneeHendricks wrote:Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.
If a guy pegs a girl, isn't that just plain old fucking?Lsuoma wrote:Ever thought of pegging him?VickyCaramel wrote: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 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?
PeeZee sure has me pegged!
Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.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.
Yeesh.
ReneeHendricks wrote:Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.
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."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]
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.AbsurdWalls wrote: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.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....
Not sure whether there is a similar system where you are.
Shitcock?TheMan wrote:VickyCaramel wrote: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.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!
Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.
Challenge accepted. Within a few days you will have that.Cunning Punt wrote:Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.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.
Yeesh.
always worth a reprise (h/t ERV) ... this one's for you, Tony the Queer Shoopaloop ....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.
Are you thinking about names yet? If it's a boy, I want him to be named "Slyme Pete". Can you make that happen?fascination wrote: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.Skep tickle wrote:BTW, how have you been feeling, fascination? Morning sickness abating at all?
He was referring to when a girl pegs a guy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%2 ... ractice%29 )welch wrote:If a guy pegs a girl, isn't that just plain old fucking?Lsuoma wrote:[spoiler]Ever thought of pegging him?[/spoiler]VickyCaramel wrote: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 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?
PeeZee sure has me pegged!
now *I'M* confused.
Louis wrote:No worries, sport.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'.
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.
Charles Stross fan here. Anyone curious can read a novella from the Laundry series here: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.htmlLsuoma wrote: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.SenorBeagle wrote:[spoiler]Good fillum. A film with moon Nazis can never be bad. Also, Udo Kier.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.
Also, also, Julia Dietze. Scherwing.[/spoiler]
Wikipedia comes through in the clutch. And you've gotta love the tasteful diagram with the "four-strap harness."LMU wrote:He was referring to when a girl pegs a guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%2 ... ractice%29)
I nominate this word: Atheism+TheMan wrote:VickyCaramel wrote: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.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!
Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.
... Really?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.
That sounds very close to the definition of stochastic terrorism, which apparently is something that the pit does. Or the anti-A+. Or Justin.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.
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
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.
From the linked article on Skepchick from Jan 20th: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.
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:PZ replied: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.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.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’.
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...
Down On The Farm and Overtime are also available online for free.LMU wrote:Charles Stross fan here. Anyone curious can read a novella from the Laundry series here: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.htmlLsuoma wrote: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.SenorBeagle wrote:[spoiler]Good fillum. A film with moon Nazis can never be bad. Also, Udo Kier.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.
Also, also, Julia Dietze. Scherwing.[/spoiler]
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...?".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.
Plain Chocolate Digestives. Or nothing.jimthepleb wrote:NOT A BISCUIT :naughty:Turglemeister wrote:I would like to add Jaffa Cakes :Djimthepleb wrote:McVities Rich TeaTkmlac 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?
That is all
(well at a push u could go Digestive or Hobnob (oooer missus) but they don't really count)
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.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.
Don't you mean, just [your] two cunts? :rimshot: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!
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."ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: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...?".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.
Trotsky assortment!Turglemeister wrote:...the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."
Yep - if PZ lets Rebecca and co. poison every well in town ... freethought's gonna become thirsty work.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).
“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.â€
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.
So is it entrenched sexism? Or maybe speaking at conferences is a guy thing?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).