Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

[KiwiInOz]

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?

Biscuits have been discussed in some detail on these threads. I suggest you search them for the phrase "Tunnock's Caramel Wafers"

again NOT A BISCUIT...jesus this is the last place i thought i'd have to get all 'language police' on your arses!

I'm rooting for you on this point Jim.

[somedumbguy]

[spoiler]

My case of Greta has paid off.

One point i will pile on is the accusation that tfoot is a sexist. Making that claim unarmed Louis demonstrates you have bought into and are perpetuating the narrative. That really is a case of put up or shut up. Actually put up or fucking withdraw it.

Who else is a sexist by horde common wisdom? Shermer? Dawkins? Harris? Shit isn't it funny, those are the same names who think FFtb are full of shit. Just coincidence.

All of the "big names" are not with them (with the exception of Myers). Jillete isn't , the horsemen aren't (Dawkins, Harris, no one knows about Dennet) , none of the popular You Tube Atheists are (DPR Jones, Thunderf00t, etc),Shermer isn't (Mr Deity stood in support of Shermer), Ayaan Hirsi Ali isnt, Randi isnt , etc. The list of people that FTB hasn't attacked and pissed off in the Atheist and Skeptic community is very small now. What would concern me if I were FTB is the amount of minorities and women who were on the other side of the rift. That is who they are supposed to be reaching out to, yes? For example, Why do I know of more black women on our side of the rift? Heck, not even mentioning commentators there are several well known POC that are women that don't agree with the FTB party line. I can think of these women off the top of my head: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bridgitt Gaudett, Heather Henderson. I noticed that none of these women are speaking at WIS 2.

[/spoiler]
Socially engineering a ghetto.
Much like A+ with abuse victims.
Let's assume for a moment that they succeed in bringing a large quotient of PoC, women and the differently-abled (shit this pc bollocks is exhausting.) Their new demographic will find themselves in a community that is largely derided by the larger AS community and once more marginalised.
How will this be a 'success'?

That's a classic problem of the pink ghetto.

They demand safe spaces, they ban everyone that disagrees with them, they smear and slander, and then they complain no one pays attention to them and that they are in a pink ghetto.

See Slate's XX Factor which was once a part of slate, then separate from slate, now part of slate.
Or Salon's Broadsheet.

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.

Rationally, there should be no connection between skepticism and contemporary feminism. That there is is because - RAPE APOLOGIST!

[Gumby]

Ophie lies and smears again:

This is the post that was formerly the doxxing of Jerry Conlon, or at least someone named Jerry Conlon. Ophie tries to spin it that we were setting her up.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 4634d7.jpg
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-426863

I'm told people at the mildew pit are ranting about calling the police on me for "threatening" Jerry Conlon because of this comment

Really? Where's your evidence for that? Oh, right, you have none, you made it all up in order to smear us.

Conlon threatens me with an acid attack, I do not call the police, so the mildew people try to work up a pretext to call the police on me.

Really? Where's your evidence of that? Oh, right, you have none, you made it all up in order to smear us.

There is no depth too low for Ophelia Benson to plumb. If she went to the bottom of Marianas Trench, she'd bring a shovel. Lie and smear, lie and smear. That's all she has.

[somedumbguy]

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.

[Apples]

Sexist, well I haven't demonstrated it, but I'm sure it will come up somewhere, be patient.

:whistle:
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dash/ ... -money.jpg

[another lurker]

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!

[CommanderTuvok]

Well, Ophelia's response to my comment over at SIN really does reveal her double standards and hypocrisy.

Apparently, that post about Jerry Conlon was a "post by a new user". Now, this means Ophelia can't be held responsible, right? Well, wrong actually! For a start, that excuse doesn't seem to be good enough for them if a post from a new user, or troll, appears on a site critical of them. Then, and this is the crucial bit (I also mentioned it in the comment), Ophelia APPROVED the message because she had pre-moderation on at the time, and it then appeared on her blog. She must have seen the comment and accepted it. I don't believe her later comments suggesting she had "part-moderation" on, or summat. Yeah right!

But what about the issue of doxxing. Well, my comment about that Jerry Conlon dox being harassment and a threat is simply me satirising the usual Baboon response to such incidents. If someone "doxxes" one of them, it is a major crime, and that is why I suggested Ophelia could get a knock at the door from the police! I am using their own bullshit to mock them. The fact that they don't recognise this is illustrative of the denial they are in.

[Apples]

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?

Word. :clap:

[VickyCaramel]

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.

[Dick Strawkins]

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:

[Tigzy]

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.

Was that that Stevencarr dude? Funny as fuck. As is the insistence of the Pharygulites that Natalie Reed has been 'silenced', despite her saying that she still plans to write on 'WeHappyTrans'. It's kind of like when they say the haterz forced Jen McCreight out of blogging - despite the inconvenient fact that she last posted on FTB two days ago.

[Dick Strawkins]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

[Turglemeister]

There were quite a few concerns presented to you, and explanations of why people actually care about honesty, and you responded to pretty much fuck all.

Agreed.

[jimthepleb]

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?

[Gumby]

Well, Ophelia's response to my comment over at SIN really does reveal her double standards and hypocrisy.

Apparently, that post about Jerry Conlon was a "post by a new user". Now, this means Ophelia can't be held responsible, right? Well, wrong actually! For a start, that excuse doesn't seem to be good enough for them if a post from a new user, or troll, appears on a site critical of them. Then, and this is the crucial bit (I also mentioned it in the comment), Ophelia APPROVED the message because she had pre-moderation on at the time, and it then appeared on her blog. She must have seen the comment and accepted it. I don't believe her later comments suggesting she had "part-moderation" on, or summat. Yeah right!

But what about the issue of doxxing. Well, my comment about that Jerry Conlon dox being harassment and a threat is simply me satirising the usual Baboon response to such incidents. If someone "doxxes" one of them, it is a major crime, and that is why I suggested Ophelia could get a knock at the door from the police! I am using their own bullshit to mock them. The fact that they don't recognise this is illustrative of the denial they are in.

Or, it's illustrative of how far they will go to twist the words of those who would disagree with them in order to smear them.

[justinvacula]

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... tachecast/

I was invited to appear as a special guest host for episode 29 of the A-News podcast to discuss updates concerning the vandalized (and restored) Freedom From Religion Foundation’s holiday freethought banner which was placed on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre, the fundraiser launched to help send me to Women in Secularism 2 [and help provide for surgeries to help children with cleft lips and cleft palettes], and more.

http://i.imgur.com/QrYE5hp.jpg
"MustacheCast"

[Lsuoma]

I'm here for my own benefit, to sate my curiosity. I saw some post about acid throwing on the side bar at FtB, clicked out of curiosity, read, posted something sarcastic, read PZ's post, thought to myself "I wonder if the pit people are really gloating away?" so I came for a look.

And were we? Gloating?

[youtube]kjJ1bsnxxhs[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

Tony The Queer Shop - or whatever the fuck it is - is to breastbeating, slobbering, overwrought hyperbole what Mr Creasote is to vomit.

[VickyCaramel]

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!

[deanesmay]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

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.

[fascination]

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.

[Gumby]

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.

Was that that Stevencarr dude? Funny as fuck. As is the insistence of the Pharygulites that Natalie Reed has been 'silenced', despite her saying that she still plans to write on 'WeHappyTrans'. It's kind of like when they say the haterz forced Jen McCreight out of blogging - despite the inconvenient fact that she last posted on FTB two days ago.

They always mock their opponents with their ridiculous "FREEZE PEACH" meme when they censor people they don't like, but when someone they like leaves the fold it's "OMG SHE'S BEEN SILENCED!!!!11!~!!"

Fuck every one of those hypocrites.

[Lsuoma]

The word "douchebag" doesn't seem, to me, to meet your criteria for harsh, sharp words, but it is an effective insult.

Nobody cares if somebody calls them a douchebag.

Unless they're a real douchebag...

[AndrewV69]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

[cunt]

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.

Was that that Stevencarr dude? Funny as fuck. As is the insistence of the Pharygulites that Natalie Reed has been 'silenced', despite her saying that she still plans to write on 'WeHappyTrans'. It's kind of like when they say the haterz forced Jen McCreight out of blogging - despite the inconvenient fact that she last posted on FTB two days ago.

She's been silenced by the hate! Update your bookmarks.

[somedumbguy]

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?

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

[Dick Strawkins]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

Yes, but Louis is basically saying the same thing.
Both of them claim that calling someone a 'cunt' is the exact equivalent to calling a black person a 'nigger'.

[bhoytony]

We had a similar situation when JV put Melody's details on the 'pit.

Just a small correction: Amy's details, not Melody's.

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

[Steersman]

[spoiler]I see Phil is lying low after inviting his friend to look down upon us from on high and deliver his wisdom on tablets of stone that we may gaze on them in awe.[/spoiler]Is Phil on another two-glasses-of-Baileys bender or is he just embarassed?

:lol: :rimshot:

[AbsurdWalls]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

[cunt]

The word "douchebag" doesn't seem, to me, to meet your criteria for harsh, sharp words, but it is an effective insult.

Nobody cares if somebody calls them a douchebag.

Unless they're a real douchebag...

You'll get over it eventually.

[Turglemeister]

We had a similar situation when JV put Melody's details on the 'pit.

Just a small correction: Amy's details, not Melody's.

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

[somedumbguy]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[Steersman]

[spoiler]

...
I think Louis might get on well with Steerzo...

You might well have a point there, Limphoma, other than the one at the top of your head.

But I sort of doubt it considering my repeated defense of the argument that Shermer's statement - "it's more of a guy thing" - is not at all sexist in response to Brayton's post pontificating from the pulpit on the question of "Shermer and the myth of feminist persecution". When credible pollsters like the Pew Forum note that the ratio of men to women who identify as atheists is 64% to 36% one might reasonably argue that "it's more of a guy thing" is more a statement of fact than anything approaching sexism.

[/spoiler]
That's how it read to me, that Shermer was making an observation of current reality. he never said nor implied that women aren't capable on any level of speaking at conferences, or that they'd be bad at it.

Exactly. Although I think that raises the question about the problem of induction and the related issue of circumstantial evidence. Different courts – as with the O.J. Simpson criminal and civil trials – and different individuals have different criteria and preconceptions that make some conclusions more probable than others. For instance, while Brayton did try to make a stab in that thread at being equitable by questioning Benson’s egregious if not actually libelous accusations against Shermer, he still seems prepared to let the ends – ending sexism – dictate the means – engaging in witch-hunts:

Here’s where I would quibble with Ophelia’s representation of what Shermer said. I think the focus should have been kept on his claim that men are just more “intellectually active” rather than equating that to “women don’t do thinky.” A distinction can be made between women having the ability to think and women being interested in taking a public stand on atheism or secularism. But here’s the thing: What he said is still incredibly sexist and dumb even without that paraphrase, whether fair or not.

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.”

[Lsuoma]

We had a similar situation when JV put Melody's details on the 'pit.

Just a small correction: Amy's details, not Melody's.

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Trotsky. You missed the political aspect of the joke.

[Turglemeister]

uh-oh :oops:

[bhoytony]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

[Lsuoma]

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?

[Turglemeister]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

I'll get my coat.... :arrow:

[Karmakin]

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?

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

I have a really bad bias against academia. And to be honest, it really has nothing at all to do with Feminism or any sort of Gender politics. In fact, I have had that bias well in place for years.

It actually has to do with Economics.

Quite frankly, Economics 101 is horrible. I'd say, and I'm being honest...no hyperbole here...that it's one of the worst things on the face of the planet. It results in more pain and suffering than pretty much anything else I can think of. (Economics 102..that is Macroeconomics, isn't nearly as bad except for when it's based on 101)

I see Feminism 101 along the same lines. Overly simplistic models that often have no basis in reality especially in a quickly changing world.

So no, I really don't expect academia to police their own here.

[Lsuoma]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

I'll get my coat.... :arrow:

If I were you, I'd head down to the Old Pizzle in Dover.

[Skep tickle]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

[nippletwister]

Has this been posting yet?

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 8970_n.jpg

Those are the funniest shit I have read in a while now. I know that according to some I shouldn't laugh, but....it was my privilege.....

[AndrewV69]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

Yes, but Louis is basically saying the same thing.
Both of them claim that calling someone a 'cunt' is the exact equivalent to calling a black person a 'nigger'.

Well I think the position Louis took was a bit more "nuanced" than that but essentially it could lead to a similar conclusion.

The difference between the two is in my opinion, that one has the tools but will not deploy them. The other has no tools and furthermore is incapable of recognizing them, much less utilizing them even when gifted to him.

We are looking at someone who has not only outsourced their thinking, but can not manage to properly assimilate them. Lewis to my mind has no such excuse.

YMMV

[Turglemeister]

BIG SALLY?
Thanks for being so understanding, I'm sure if that happened over at ftb, I'd be dead by now.

[bhoytony]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

I'll get my coat.... :arrow:

You can have Biscuit Club

Or Robot Club

[youtube]VjxtXau0924[/youtube]

[AbsurdWalls]

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

Oh, I see what you mean now. In a marketised university system there are two aspects that determine this. The first is how much students are willing pay in tuition to study a course. If nobody wants to be taught Phrenology then the university won't take in any money from having staff there that teach it. The second is research. If nobody is willing to fund research into Phrenology then it won't make sense to employ people to research it.

Of course, universities aren't fully marketised. In the UK for example the flow of money for the teaching side was... blurrier... than I have simplified it to, because some of the teaching money came in through a HEFCE grant rather than through student fees. The system is moving away from that though and towards marketisation. As a result, some areas of study that aren't popular from a teaching or research perspective (e.g. some ancient languages) might die out altogether, whereas previously they might be supported by people in university management favouring them.

That's the best account I can give you from my lowly position in academia.

[VickyCaramel]

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?

I hadn't no. That thought had never crossed my mind.... it has now. Thanks a fucking bunch!

[jimthepleb]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[youtube]E0-NalmRSl8[/youtube]
3 million...but nice wooden floors! My father trained there in the 1960's (in the real hospital not the homeopathic bollocks) it was a laughing stock then.
But the aristocracy will fund it, they love this shit, the students will come, it's a piece of piss to learn BS 101 and the rest of the school gets a shedload of income. Dilute water is plentiful.
Bunch o Wank

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Quick observation. Another observation. Some people HAVE cunts. Some people ARE black. You can't have 'teh nigger'.

[somedumbguy]

[spoiler]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[/spoiler]
Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

I think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Quick observation. Another observation. Some people HAVE cunts. Some people ARE black. You can't have 'teh nigger'.

Pretend one of the opening sentences isn't there, please.

[Jan Steen]

So I see this advert on Pharyngula:

http://i.imgur.com/61U1ooZ.jpg

I click on it and get this:

http://i.imgur.com/GjZ9Dr7.jpg

The P.I.T. and A+ ...

I tell you, we're living inside the Matrix. This is all a simulation and someone is fucking with us.

[Steersman]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

Yes, but Louis is basically saying the same thing.
Both of them claim that calling someone a 'cunt' is the exact equivalent to calling a black person a 'nigger'.

I think the problem turns on the question of whether it is applied to an individual or an entire group – as with the attempts of the FfTBs to crucify Shermer for his supposed sexist “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”. Hating, or even judging, an entire group for the “sins” of some individuals within it qualifies as stereotyping and therefore racism or sexism – as the case maybe. Directing umbrage and exasperation, or even hate, at an individual for some perceived moral failing of one sort or another by utilizing some salient attribute – i.e., synecdoche – seems, at times anyway, entirely justified. For example:

nig•ger (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1.
a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).

Which raises the question: what is it that “the white world calls a nigger”?If it is applied to all blacks then that could probably and reasonably be termed racist. But if it is someone who opposes the status quo then that would depend on the status quo being opposed. And if it is qualified and applied to individuals – as in “house nigger” – then that might reasonably be termed “non-racist” even if rather rude – much like “cunt” in many ways. Context does have some bearing on the question – even if some are apparently rather challenged by the concept.

[AbsurdWalls]

[spoiler]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[/spoiler]
Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

I think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

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.

[Skep tickle]

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

Those were fucking brilliant! Thanks for posting them. Also, I learned a new word ("dysphemism"), always appreciated.

Should be required viewing for those concerned about bad werdz. A scholar's view of swear words, where they're processed in the brain, what purposes they serve. (He also suggests reviving a specific 16th century phrase which presumably would be seen as Not Funny by the never-say-cunt crowd.)

For those with limited time, the first 2:06 of the first video is pretty funny (US government getting involved in the regulation of bad wrdz but having a grammar fail).

(These videos total ~20 minutes. Apparently the whole talk was 1 hr and seems to be here, but I'm having trouble loading it. Since it's titled "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature", he might branch out into areas other than swearing).

[Apples]

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.

As aware as I am of PZ's cavernous deficits (several porcupines could fit with room left over for a WCoA or two), I'm still amazed at his strategic blunders. He's all about engaging the "trolls" -- which works if you can ban them. Then, even if they're smarter than you, you can ban them quick and let your fuckwit-bots continue to fap and shadow-box for a few dozen or hundred more comments. With the 'Pit, however, he mentions it on a fucking daily basis -- but he has no ability to influence or suppress anything about this place, and he never offers a shred of evidence for his claims about what goes on here. Why the fuck does he think this weird little single-thread forum with no moderation (thank you Lsuoma, and ERV) has 500 registered members and includes at least two former fucking FTB bloggers??!! Every time he talks about the incredible vileness (uh ... citation needed) of this place, he inspires a few more fence-sitters to check it out. 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.

[somedumbguy]

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?

[Mykeru]

I have a really bad bias against academia.

I've been pounding out VO shit all day, drinking frar too much coffee trying to ignore the steady stream of bullshit regarding Ophelia Benson trying desperately to construct one of her threat narratives against Justin Vacula and his rape-bombing the Women in Secularism conference.

I must be tired. Because I read that as

I have a really bad case of chlamydia

I think I'll watch a movie.

[BannedAid]

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?

Both statements are either true or they're not true. How are we supposed to make gender norms more fair to both sexes if we aren't allowed to make any meaningful observations about gender?

My question for you: do you think Ophelia Benson accurately represented the meaning of his comments as, basically, "women are stupider than men?"

When I first saw Shermer's quote in context, I thought it was terribly, awkwardly worded. He didn't actually say anything sexist -- he just made an observation on our culture -- but "intellectually active" is too easily misunderstood by the inattentive or the disingenuous. Which it then was. Funny thing is, Benson didn't have to come up with a strawman to make a valid criticism of Shermer. But instead of maybe getting in touch with him privately and asking him to clarify what he meant, she went public with a claim of misogyny. She created a situation where Shermer can't back down or apologize because she trumped up the charges so high. None of this is healthy for atheism.