Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

Continuation of the post at Abbie Smith's ERV blog (http://scienceblogs.com/erv/)

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

Postby Gumby » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:07 pm  •  [Post 1171]

another lurker wrote:When I was reading FTblogs quite heavily this fall I noticed that B&W was one of the quieter blogs. Comments never really went over 10 (and were often even less than that) - whereas on Pharyngula most blog posts would have 30+ comments.


Back before PZ went totally insane, his post on SciBlogs would routinely (not always) generate hundreds of comments. A few in the low thousands (not counting his "lounge" threads). Their numbers (and ad revenue) are dropping like rocks.
Just because you shot Jesse James, don’t make you Jesse James.
User avatar
Gumby
.
.
 
Posts: 4250
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:40 am

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

Postby Gumby » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:08 pm  •  [Post 1172]

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Good thinking there, Nerd.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-541932

Nerd wrote:"I always thought the Slymepitters used Alfred E. Neuman as their mascot…".


How about it? A grinning Alf leaning up against a giant WCoA.


The copyright issue kills that idea, but I like it.
Just because you shot Jesse James, don’t make you Jesse James.
User avatar
Gumby
.
.
 
Posts: 4250
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:40 am

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:09 pm  •  [Post 1173]

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

Image

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

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

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


I like the barely-veiled threat. "Nice thing you got going on there. Be a shame if you pissed the wrong person off and they busted a cap in yo' ass."
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Git » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:11 pm  •  [Post 1174]

Lsuoma wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Back in 1997 the Paris police called a garage that specialized in British Leyland cars: they wanted to know how to get an engine out of a 1961 Princess.


Shit, yea. I've never heard that one. In fact, I think the worst one I've heard about that incident was your basic "What was the last thing that went through Diana's mind before she died...?".


I see that one as a rehashing of "What's the last thing to go through a fly's mind when it hits your windscreen? Its arsehole."

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

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


Q. What's the difference between Princess Diana and a Coffee Filter?
A. A Coffee Filter gets tucked in a funnel.

:dance:
"the Pit might accurately pictured as fanged Teletubbies with giant breasts, huge cocks and bottles of liquor." - Gumby
User avatar
Git
.
.
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Engerland

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

Postby Steersman » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:11 pm  •  [Post 1175]

BannedAid wrote:
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?

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.


The thing is that what Shermer said was 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 guy thing


And from the context it is clear that Shermer’s “it” is atheism. Specifically, this is the question that was asked (from the YouTube video that he references):

Atheist groups always consist of a bunch of (mostly old) men. You are very nice middle-aged men, but you are mostly men. In atheism we don’t have a rule that makes a woman worth only 50% as much as a man and we don’t make women stay silent and only ask their husband’s questions. We in atheism supposedly treat women as equals. So why isn’t the gender split closer to 50/50 as it should be?


Decidedly disingenuous, if not actually libelous, for Benson to suggest that Shermer was arguing that “intellectually active” referred to all “thinky work”. And that is where Louis’ question is equally disingenuous if not actually fraudulent. He has conveniently ignored the fact that the question in play is based on the supposed disparity between men and women in atheism – for which there is some quite credible statistical evidence to justify interpreting Shermer’s statement as one of fact – and not a disparity between whites and blacks in atheism.

And even if the topic had been so modified – “why isn’t the race split closer to 72-13?” – the appropriateness or accuracy of the hypothetical answer – “atheism, it’s more of a white thing” – would hinge on how much evidence there was for variations “substantially” different from that ratio. And, interestingly, the Pew Forum states that “fully eight-in-ten atheists and agnostics (82%) are white, 3% are black, 6% are Hispanic …” so that one might argue that the disparity between the actual and the expected isn’t as great as with gender: comparing “outlier” populations is likely to be more problematic because of extraneous variations.
User avatar
Steersman
.
.
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:58 pm

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

Postby Gumby » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:12 pm  •  [Post 1176]

Man, they can do nothing but bitch and moan about us lately. They're positively fucking obsessed with us. Josh has even taken to hysterically sobbing that we've "ruined the last two years". If we weren't scoring huge hits off them on a regular basis, they wouldn't even mention the Pit.

Party on, Slymepit!

Image
Just because you shot Jesse James, don’t make you Jesse James.
User avatar
Gumby
.
.
 
Posts: 4250
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:40 am

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

Postby Mykeru » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:22 pm  •  [Post 1177]

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

... Really?

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


Used to:

Image
"...and the age of sophists, calculators and economists was upon us." --The Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxpkcQUCeo
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

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

Postby Altair » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:22 pm  •  [Post 1178]

Sara Mayhew's tweet, courtesy of Za-zen

Dibujo.PNG


I wonder who she's referring to in that tweet :angelic-green:

Here's a clickable link in case you want to bid for Harriet Hall's beautiful knit afghan: http://t.co/T9fkdbGo
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Altair
.
.
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:44 am

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

Postby CommanderTuvok » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:30 pm  •  [Post 1179]

Image

As we all know Rebecca is sooooo much of an arbitrator of werdz one can use, is she aware that S.E. SMITH at DISBALEDFEMENISTS.COM declares "moron" to be an ableist slur! http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/01/01/ableist-word-profile-moron/

Image

Rebecca Watson - CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!
User avatar
CommanderTuvok
.
.
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:18 pm

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:32 pm  •  [Post 1180]

Altair wrote:Sara Mayhew's tweet, courtesy of Za-zen

Dibujo.PNG


I wonder who she's referring to in that tweet :angelic-green:

Here's a clickable link in case you want to bid for Harriet Hall's beautiful knit afghan: http://t.co/T9fkdbGo

Okay, now that is lovely*

(*I meant the afghan, but you could also read it as referring to Mayhew's tweet) :D
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby Altair » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:34 pm  •  [Post 1181]

CommanderTuvok wrote:Image

As we all know Rebecca is sooooo much of an arbitrator of werdz one can use, is she aware that S.E. SMITH at DISBALEDFEMENISTS.COM declares "moron" to be an ableist slur! http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/01/01/ableist-word-profile-moron/

Image

Rebecca Watson - CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!


Stupid is ableist too, according to http://broadenme.tumblr.com/post/6427188363/why-the-word-stupid-is-considered-ableist

Rebecca, Y U SO ABLEIST?
User avatar
Altair
.
.
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:44 am

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

Postby ConcentratedH2O, OM » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:36 pm  •  [Post 1182]

There's a new cliche appearing in Meyers's safe space, "The Lounge". A commentor will declare that (s)he is going to "pouncehug" somebody.

As a fictitious example:
Carpetmuncher, Overlord of darkness and lesbotics says
*Pouncehugs Lithiumaddict, Harlot of elven madness and uberdyke queen of feminism*


Now, a "pouncehug" means to jump upon an unsuspecting person and hug them. How the fuck does this gang of freaks rationalize that this is okay, alongside their well known, and well laughed-at, hatred of unwanted physical contact? Perhaps we can expect to see pouncehugs incorporated into conference rules: "2) Please respect that we all have our own definitions of 'personal space', and that some people find intra-species contact to be a triggering event. Exception: pouncehugs, because LOL'.

Truly, a bunch of cunts they is.
"Tone trolling? Really? You find the particular arrangement of four letters in a word more detrimental to discourse than sneering assholes showing up to argue with women about their right to autonomy?"
--PZ Meyers, internet cunt.
User avatar
ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
 
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 pm

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

Postby Lsuoma » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:41 pm  •  [Post 1183]

Q: What do you call an Indian lesbian?
A: Minjeeta.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating.
User avatar
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
 
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:58 pm
Location: Pacific NW

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:42 pm  •  [Post 1184]

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents, that's all!



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

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


Well, I was being a tad hyperbolic with the FTB example. But the truth is, I really really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are 'smarter' and 'more learned' than me, after all. Right? So I stopped using 'bitch' and 'cunt' - mostly.

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

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


Carlin had a great saying about this, the point of which people like PeeZus and the rest miss:

"There is nothing wrong with the word "nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole using it you should worry about"

When the video of Watson's dick move against Stef McGraw came out, PeeZus literally said that Watson had been perfectly respectful because she had not used bad language, nor raised her voice, so there was no harm. (shit like that is why I think Louis is a fundamentally dishonest little fuckstick, with being the fastest sperm his only genuine achievement to date)

Let me show you a small bit of legalese:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.


Very polite in tone, and language. That is the paragraph used to convict Alan Turing, forcing him to be chemically castrated, worsening his depression, and likely causing his suicide.

Yet, if we apply the standards PeeZus uses to defend Watson, because the language is neither profane, nor "yelling", it, and the people who wrote that law were harmless.

Another one:

Under suitable direction, the Jews should be brought to the East in the course of the Final Solution, for use as labour. In large labour gangs, with the sexes separated, the Jews capable of work will be transported to those areas and set to road-building, in the course of which, without doubt, a large part of them ("ein Großteil") will fall away through natural losses. The surviving remnant, surely those with the greatest powers of resistance, will be given special treatment, since, if freed, they would constitute the germinal cell for the re-creation of Jewry.


That's an excerpt from Reinhard Heydrich's speech at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. The holocaust started there, with those words. If there's a more obscene bit of writing, I'd be almost afraid to read it, yet, by the standards PeeZus used to defend Watson, it, and the people behind it were harmless.

That is the real danger of obsessing about words. They are so paranoid about "cunt" and "bitch" and all the rest that they are terribly opened to being manipulated by people who are really quite obscene, but use the proper language and bow at the right times.

Which is honestly more misogynistic, me calling watson a cunt for her dick move, or Laden trying to convince everyone that women, as a gender, are fundamentally helpless, and cannot, can. not. function without all teh menz protecting their poor helpless selves at all times? I said something rude about one person, Laden is not implying, he is directly saying that women are completely unable to fend for themselves unless men are there to protect and defend them.

HOW THE FUCK IS MY STATMENT MISOGYNISTIC AND HIS SOME FUCKING BASTION OF FEMINISM AND EMPOWERMENT? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN A WAY THAT ISN'T COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

Over and over, PeeZus, Laden, thimbledick and all the rest tell women "no, no, it's not your fault. You're not capable of handling this. You just stay there, and let us men handle the evil world, and well tell you when it's safe", and the worst part, the fucking really vile worst part about it is that Ophelia and Jen and Watson and all the rest line up to fucking thank them for being so fucking enlightened.

Yet, it's people like me, who have spent no small amount of time teaching women that they are *not* helpless, not emotionally, mentally, or physically, that they not only can handle the world, but they *should* handle the world as equals, that they don't need me or anyone else to defend them, because they are all competent fucking adults, able to defend themselves...we are the bad people.





because we said "cunt".







There are a lot of misogynists in the atheist/skeptic movement. The problem is, just like all the right-wingers who get busted sucking strange cock after railing against "teh gai", the true misogynists are the ones painting themselves as the white knights.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:45 pm  •  [Post 1185]

CommanderTuvok wrote:Image

As we all know Rebecca is sooooo much of an arbitrator of werdz one can use, is she aware that S.E. SMITH at DISBALEDFEMENISTS.COM declares "moron" to be an ableist slur! http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/01/01/ableist-word-profile-moron/

Image

Rebecca Watson - CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/20/relief-for-the-heartsick/
Hahahahaha. Several other people follow cult-leader RW & call gingerbaker a moron, then cult-leader PZ follows suit (sorry if someone else already posted this, better twice than never hey):

Image

By comment #68 I don't see anyone reminding them that "moron" is an ableist word and shaming them for using it...will keep reading.

:popcorn:
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:46 pm  •  [Post 1186]

Guest wrote:Apparently not all threats are equal.

http://twitter.com/Nikephorius/status/2 ... 6047857665

Surprise, surprise, no rebuke from Ophelia.


Well duh, of course it's okay if the threat is from the "proper" people.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Pitchguest » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:47 pm  •  [Post 1187]

So I just looked over Rebecca's comments on PZ's blog from this:

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

Don't click it if you don't have AdBlock installed. I'll quote the relevant comments here anyway.

Rebecca starts out with this inane comment:

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.


Which gives us the impression that Richard Dawkins himself is responsible for her inbox exploding (there's a joke in there somewhere) with rape threats. Which spurs this comment from gingerbaker, rightfully mocking the shit out it:

OMG – Richard Dawkins is responsible for the rape threats in your inbox?

This is how he responds to demands for a boycott of his books, speaking engagements, a call for the end of his career in atheism? What a self-righteous hypocritical nasty piece of work he is!


Cue the regular Pharyngula commenters piling on and assuming just how terrible this person must be and where their allegiances lie. ("Allegiances" here is used loosely - we are, after all, not a clique or a cult or a "team" [that one's for you, Louis])

They make unsavoury comment upon unsavoury comment, but don't take a single moment to examine the person's sentiment - which is sound. Dawkins should take the blame for the threats that end up in her inbox? I think the lady doth protest too much. Then again, the regular Pharyngula commenters have shown they're not much for reasonable discussion. But then again, that's the name of the game, isn't it, Louis? :dance:

Rebecca responds with this

#18: Apparently you’re too stupid to understand, so I’ll type slowly: his comments, which spurred the torrent of abuse I’ve received, came before I wrote a blog post on why I won’t be buying his books anymore. In fact, one could say that one was the cause of the other! If one weren’t a moron.


And this is where Watson makes a grave mistake. For years now, lobbyists have attempted to connect games, movies, and music to violence but in each and every attempt, they've failed to find a common denominator. That is because studies show that none of them are responsible. None of them are the "cause." Was Doom the cause for the Columbine massacre because the perpetrators liked playing Doom and said it would be like playing Doom? Was WoW the cause for the Utoya massacre because the perpetrator played it?

You can use all kinds of excuses, but in the end, the ones responsible are the perpetrators themselves.

I mean, it's ridiculous. They even tried to get Catcher in the Rye banned from the bookshelves after Lennon was shot, because the killer thought he was Holden Caulfield. Seriously. How many years had the Catcher in the Rye been available in the bookstores before Lennon was murdered? If it really were so dangerous, wouldn't it have caused a mass outbreak of murders similar to the ones of Lennon, or at least a plethora of murderers who said they were inspired by it?

However, even then -- even if such a scenario would occur -- it wouldn't support the assertion that the book was responsible, that the book was the cause, because in the end, who pulled the trigger? He did. (Or in my imaginary scenario, they did.) Which means he (or they) was (or were), ultimately, responsible. Anyway, I'm getting off track.

Watson is using a logical fallacy. There is no connection to the rape threats she's allegedly gotten and Dawkins. None. Nil. To even imply it is dishonest and the way it looks, she's once again using her status as a professional victim to rag on Dawkins and the RDF. Why? Presumably because she's bored. Presumably because the money is waning. Because because she thinks she can coax another response from Dawkins, soliciting another year and a half of talks at conferences about how oppressed she is, giggling while she does it, as usual; laughing all the way to the bank.
"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

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

Postby 16bitheretic » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:49 pm  •  [Post 1188]

Skep tickle wrote:[
Hahahahaha. Several other people follow cult-leader RW & call gingerbaker a moron, then cult-leader PZ follows suit


Image
User avatar
16bitheretic
.
.
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:00 pm

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

Postby BannedAid » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:50 pm  •  [Post 1189]

Steersman wrote:
...

And even if the topic had been so modified – “why isn’t the race split closer to 72-13?” – the appropriateness or accuracy of the hypothetical answer – “atheism, it’s more of a white thing” – would hinge on how much evidence there was for variations “substantially” different from that ratio. And, interestingly, the Pew Forum states that “fully eight-in-ten atheists and agnostics (82%) are white, 3% are black, 6% are Hispanic …” so that one might argue that the disparity between the actual and the expected isn’t as great as with gender: comparing “outlier” populations is likely to be more problematic because of extraneous variations.


Now that you mention it, I think if I heard "it's more of a white thing" in that context I'd assume he was insulting atheists, not black people. Like, "look at these atheists, what a bunch of uptight white guys."
"I would like to be known as a person who is concerned about freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people." -Rosa Parks
BannedAid
.
.
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:03 pm

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

Postby Mykeru » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:51 pm  •  [Post 1190]

Skep tickle wrote:[spoiler]
CommanderTuvok wrote:Image

As we all know Rebecca is sooooo much of an arbitrator of werdz one can use, is she aware that S.E. SMITH at DISBALEDFEMENISTS.COM declares "moron" to be an ableist slur! http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/01/01/ableist-word-profile-moron/

Image

Rebecca Watson - CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/20/relief-for-the-heartsick/
Hahahahaha. Several other people follow cult-leader RW & call gingerbaker a moron, then cult-leader PZ follows suit (sorry if someone else already posted this, better twice than never hey):[/spoiler]
Image

By comment #68 I don't see anyone reminding them that "moron" is an ableist word and shaming them for using it...will keep reading.

:popcorn:


In Peezus' defense, this situation is like black and gay people owning slurs. He can use the term "moron" by virtue of being one himself.

Perhaps even their king.
"...and the age of sophists, calculators and economists was upon us." --The Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxpkcQUCeo
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:53 pm  •  [Post 1191]

Pitchguest wrote:Watson is using a logical fallacy. There is no connection to the rape threats she's allegedly gotten and Dawkins. None. Nil. To even imply it is dishonest and the way it looks, she's once again using her status as a professional victim to rag on Dawkins and the RDF. Why? Presumably because she's bored. Presumably because the money is waning. Because because she thinks she can coax another response from Dawkins, soliciting another year and a half of talks at conferences about how oppressed she is, giggling while she does it, as usual; laughing all the way to the bank.


you assume she might care the least for logic. This is yet another example of her New Media Douchebaggery. It's emotional manipulation backed by the confidence that no one on "her" side will actually examine her claims, because should they, she simply tags them as victim blamers/slut shamers/slymepitters/hyperskeptics, and they are wrong for any form of doubt of anything she says.

Fuck, PeeZus justified her Galileo mistake.

This is nothing more than twisting people up for hitcounts and speaker fees.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:55 pm  •  [Post 1192]

From same comment thread at PZ's:

lanclotgobbo in #78 wrote:The day we start criticising Dawkins, or any other exemplar, is the day we must decide whether we support The Peoples’ Front of Judea or The Judean Peoples’ Front. Surely we ought to remember who our opponents really are (hint: they wear funny clothes, strange hats, and not only talk to their gods but claim to hear answers) rather than splitting hairs about doctrine. Too many useful movements have ended in such schisms: please, lets not have atheism be just one more in that sorry list.

You can imagine how well that went over.

erikthebassist in #104 wrote:I think I can win the JREF’s million dollar challenge. All I have to do is put a slymepitter on stage and get them talking about feminism. I should be able to accurately predict the drivel they will spew 99% of the time.

Really GingerBaker? Do you have to be so damned predictable? I mean, you attack Rebecca, then when she responds, your next comment is to PZ, about her, talking as if she’s not part of the thread.

Why does this happen every time? Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.

Bolding by me. Laughing by me, too. I have no idea WTF erikthebassist means by this but he's talking out his ass. :lol:
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby 16bitheretic » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:56 pm  •  [Post 1193]

Reading backwards to catch up, LOL @ Orwellia Benson's hive worker ants threatening to kneecap people. Really, just LOL.
User avatar
16bitheretic
.
.
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:00 pm

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

Postby Tristan » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:01 pm  •  [Post 1194]

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents, that's all!



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

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


Well, I was being a tad hyperbolic with the FTB example. But the truth is, I really really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are 'smarter' and 'more learned' than me, after all. Right? So I stopped using 'bitch' and 'cunt' - mostly.

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

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


Carlin had a great saying about this, the point of which people like PeeZus and the rest miss:

"There is nothing wrong with the word "nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole using it you should worry about"

When the video of Watson's dick move against Stef McGraw came out, PeeZus literally said that Watson had been perfectly respectful because she had not used bad language, nor raised her voice, so there was no harm. (shit like that is why I think Louis is a fundamentally dishonest little fuckstick, with being the fastest sperm his only genuine achievement to date)

Let me show you a small bit of legalese:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.


Very polite in tone, and language. That is the paragraph used to convict Alan Turing, forcing him to be chemically castrated, worsening his depression, and likely causing his suicide.

Yet, if we apply the standards PeeZus uses to defend Watson, because the language is neither profane, nor "yelling", it, and the people who wrote that law were harmless.

Another one:

Under suitable direction, the Jews should be brought to the East in the course of the Final Solution, for use as labour. In large labour gangs, with the sexes separated, the Jews capable of work will be transported to those areas and set to road-building, in the course of which, without doubt, a large part of them ("ein Großteil") will fall away through natural losses. The surviving remnant, surely those with the greatest powers of resistance, will be given special treatment, since, if freed, they would constitute the germinal cell for the re-creation of Jewry.


That's an excerpt from Reinhard Heydrich's speech at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. The holocaust started there, with those words. If there's a more obscene bit of writing, I'd be almost afraid to read it, yet, by the standards PeeZus used to defend Watson, it, and the people behind it were harmless.

That is the real danger of obsessing about words. They are so paranoid about "cunt" and "bitch" and all the rest that they are terribly opened to being manipulated by people who are really quite obscene, but use the proper language and bow at the right times.

Which is honestly more misogynistic, me calling watson a cunt for her dick move, or Laden trying to convince everyone that women, as a gender, are fundamentally helpless, and cannot, can. not. function without all teh menz protecting their poor helpless selves at all times? I said something rude about one person, Laden is not implying, he is directly saying that women are completely unable to fend for themselves unless men are there to protect and defend them.

HOW THE FUCK IS MY STATMENT MISOGYNISTIC AND HIS SOME FUCKING BASTION OF FEMINISM AND EMPOWERMENT? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN A WAY THAT ISN'T COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

Over and over, PeeZus, Laden, thimbledick and all the rest tell women "no, no, it's not your fault. You're not capable of handling this. You just stay there, and let us men handle the evil world, and well tell you when it's safe", and the worst part, the fucking really vile worst part about it is that Ophelia and Jen and Watson and all the rest line up to fucking thank them for being so fucking enlightened.

Yet, it's people like me, who have spent no small amount of time teaching women that they are *not* helpless, not emotionally, mentally, or physically, that they not only can handle the world, but they *should* handle the world as equals, that they don't need me or anyone else to defend them, because they are all competent fucking adults, able to defend themselves...we are the bad people.





because we said "cunt".







There are a lot of misogynists in the atheist/skeptic movement. The problem is, just like all the right-wingers who get busted sucking strange cock after railing against "teh gai", the true misogynists are the ones painting themselves as the white knights.


No, I'm not going to apologise for not using the spoiler tag in quoting you. That was too fucking magnificent to be hidden.
Tristan
.
.
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:29 pm

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:02 pm  •  [Post 1195]

Skep tickle wrote:From same comment thread at PZ's:

lanclotgobbo in #78 wrote:The day we start criticising Dawkins, or any other exemplar, is the day we must decide whether we support The Peoples’ Front of Judea or The Judean Peoples’ Front. Surely we ought to remember who our opponents really are (hint: they wear funny clothes, strange hats, and not only talk to their gods but claim to hear answers) rather than splitting hairs about doctrine. Too many useful movements have ended in such schisms: please, lets not have atheism be just one more in that sorry list.

You can imagine how well that went over.

erikthebassist in #104 wrote:I think I can win the JREF’s million dollar challenge. All I have to do is put a slymepitter on stage and get them talking about feminism. I should be able to accurately predict the drivel they will spew 99% of the time.

Really GingerBaker? Do you have to be so damned predictable? I mean, you attack Rebecca, then when she responds, your next comment is to PZ, about her, talking as if she’s not part of the thread.

Why does this happen every time? Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.

Bolding by me. Laughing by me, too. I have no idea WTF erikthebassist means by this but he's talking out his ass. :lol:



Man. I guess when I was volunteering time with the roller derby team to help them clean their new sport floor on saturday, I sat there in the sun talking to...no one?

I seriously wonder if they even read what they write themselves.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:07 pm  •  [Post 1196]

welch wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Watson is using a logical fallacy. There is no connection to the rape threats she's allegedly gotten and Dawkins. None. Nil. To even imply it is dishonest and the way it looks, she's once again using her status as a professional victim to rag on Dawkins and the RDF. Why? Presumably because she's bored. Presumably because the money is waning. Because because she thinks she can coax another response from Dawkins, soliciting another year and a half of talks at conferences about how oppressed she is, giggling while she does it, as usual; laughing all the way to the bank.


you assume she might care the least for logic. This is yet another example of her New Media Douchebaggery. It's emotional manipulation backed by the confidence that no one on "her" side will actually examine her claims, because should they, she simply tags them as victim blamers/slut shamers/slymepitters/hyperskeptics, and they are wrong for any form of doubt of anything she says.

Fuck, PeeZus justified her Galileo mistake.

This is nothing more than twisting people up for hitcounts and speaker fees.

I'd think generating a disagreement between them would be better theatre for the paying audience than having PZ capitulate his position so readily.

(But then it's clear I wouldn't be good at putting NMD effectively into play.)
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby another lurker » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:07 pm  •  [Post 1197]

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents, that's all!



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

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


Well, I was being a tad hyperbolic with the FTB example. But the truth is, I really really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are 'smarter' and 'more learned' than me, after all. Right? So I stopped using 'bitch' and 'cunt' - mostly.

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

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


Carlin had a great saying about this, the point of which people like PeeZus and the rest miss:

"There is nothing wrong with the word "nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole using it you should worry about"

When the video of Watson's dick move against Stef McGraw came out, PeeZus literally said that Watson had been perfectly respectful because she had not used bad language, nor raised her voice, so there was no harm. (shit like that is why I think Louis is a fundamentally dishonest little fuckstick, with being the fastest sperm his only genuine achievement to date)

Let me show you a small bit of legalese:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.


Very polite in tone, and language. That is the paragraph used to convict Alan Turing, forcing him to be chemically castrated, worsening his depression, and likely causing his suicide.

Yet, if we apply the standards PeeZus uses to defend Watson, because the language is neither profane, nor "yelling", it, and the people who wrote that law were harmless.

Another one:

Under suitable direction, the Jews should be brought to the East in the course of the Final Solution, for use as labour. In large labour gangs, with the sexes separated, the Jews capable of work will be transported to those areas and set to road-building, in the course of which, without doubt, a large part of them ("ein Großteil") will fall away through natural losses. The surviving remnant, surely those with the greatest powers of resistance, will be given special treatment, since, if freed, they would constitute the germinal cell for the re-creation of Jewry.


That's an excerpt from Reinhard Heydrich's speech at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. The holocaust started there, with those words. If there's a more obscene bit of writing, I'd be almost afraid to read it, yet, by the standards PeeZus used to defend Watson, it, and the people behind it were harmless.

That is the real danger of obsessing about words. They are so paranoid about "cunt" and "bitch" and all the rest that they are terribly opened to being manipulated by people who are really quite obscene, but use the proper language and bow at the right times.

Which is honestly more misogynistic, me calling watson a cunt for her dick move, or Laden trying to convince everyone that women, as a gender, are fundamentally helpless, and cannot, can. not. function without all teh menz protecting their poor helpless selves at all times? I said something rude about one person, Laden is not implying, he is directly saying that women are completely unable to fend for themselves unless men are there to protect and defend them.

HOW THE FUCK IS MY STATMENT MISOGYNISTIC AND HIS SOME FUCKING BASTION OF FEMINISM AND EMPOWERMENT? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN A WAY THAT ISN'T COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

Over and over, PeeZus, Laden, thimbledick and all the rest tell women "no, no, it's not your fault. You're not capable of handling this. You just stay there, and let us men handle the evil world, and well tell you when it's safe", and the worst part, the fucking really vile worst part about it is that Ophelia and Jen and Watson and all the rest line up to fucking thank them for being so fucking enlightened.

Yet, it's people like me, who have spent no small amount of time teaching women that they are *not* helpless, not emotionally, mentally, or physically, that they not only can handle the world, but they *should* handle the world as equals, that they don't need me or anyone else to defend them, because they are all competent fucking adults, able to defend themselves...we are the bad people.[/spoiler]




because we said "cunt".







There are a lot of misogynists in the atheist/skeptic movement. The problem is, just like all the right-wingers who get busted sucking strange cock after railing against "teh gai", the true misogynists are the ones painting themselves as the white knights.



Spot on. I ran into a similar situation years ago when I was playing Everquest. I met this guy in game who was a total sociopath. I mean this quite literally. He had no regard for anyone but himself and everyone existed to please him. He would feel 'victimized' if fellow players did not hand everything over to him and obey his every word. Yet he abused everyone in his life pretty much non-stop. He stole his ex-wife's inheritance (he lied about it, said that SHE stole HIS money). He portrayed her as a slut and sent nudie pix of her to like, everyone he could. He diddled his 15 year old step daughter...

He abused the Everquest game servers so badly that when he was banned the GM's announced it server-wide. He has gone from game to game hacking and cheating and he sees this as a wonderful sign of what a badass he is. He has stolen thousands of dollars from people stupid enough to join his guilds. The list goes on and on...any woman that is stupid enough to send him nudie pics gets those pics shared with the entire internet, and he laughs about it.

When I finally ditched him b/c I was tired of all the abuse, he went around to all my friends and said that *I* was a psychopath who stole from him etc etc.

Anyways, to make a long story short, HE ADMONISHED ME B/C I HAD A POTTY MOUTH. Yep, I was the bad guy b/c I said fuck fuck fuck when I was irritated. However, purposely griefing, abusing and outright STEALING is ok, as long as you don't swear :P


P.S. This discussion reminds me of a quote by Bertrand Russell:

The consequence has been to make sexual morality even more difficult than it was made by St. Paul. Not only is sexual intercourse only legitimate within marriage, but even between husband and wife it becomes a sin unless it is hoped that it will lead to pregnancy. The desire for legitimate offspring is, in fact, according to the Catholic Church, the only motive which can justify sexual intercourse. But this motive always justifies it, no matter what cruelty may accompany it. If the wife hates sexual intercourse, if she is likely to die of another pregnancy, if the child is likely to be diseased or insane, if there is not enough money to prevent the utmost extreme of misery, that does not prevent the man from being justified in insisting on his conjugal rights, provided only that he hopes to beget a child. (M.M.p52/3)

http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Oracle/ ... _sex-m.htm

Sex for fun = a sin
Sex for procreation when that pregnancy will kill your wife = acceptable
I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it.
User avatar
another lurker
.
.
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:39 pm

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

Postby Notung » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:10 pm  •  [Post 1198]

I know how much you lot like 'Freeze Peach', so here's the first part of my defence of 'freeze peach':

http://skepticink.com/notung/2013/01/22 ... m-part-12/
User avatar
Notung
.
.
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:49 am

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

Postby Sulaco » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:10 pm  •  [Post 1199]

Gumby wrote:Man, they can do nothing but bitch and moan about us lately. They're positively fucking obsessed with us. Josh has even taken to hysterically sobbing that we've "ruined the last two years". If we weren't scoring huge hits off them on a regular basis, they wouldn't even mention the Pit.

Party on, Slymepit!


Sulaco
.
.
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:54 am

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

Postby BannedAid » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:14 pm  •  [Post 1200]

PZ Myers wrote: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.


Interesting that PZ stops short of saying any of those organizations support him. I wonder how many of those organizations would go on record as supporting, in the interest of "improving the diversity of the atheist community and broadening our engagement with the greater culture," some of PZ's favorite tactics:

-censoring/editing dissenting opinions
-encouraging pile-ons of personal attacks against newcomers
-dismissing non-scientific contributions to atheism
-responding to sincere apologies with "fuck 'em to the ground." (rape threat, btw, using his rules. presumably gelato guy didn't want to be fucked into the ground).
etc...

But, yeah, PZ, they're on your side. Your critics are all just going to shut up. Any day now.
"I would like to be known as a person who is concerned about freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people." -Rosa Parks
BannedAid
.
.
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:03 pm

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:19 pm  •  [Post 1201]

Tristan wrote:
welch wrote:...Which is honestly more misogynistic, me calling watson a cunt for her dick move, or Laden trying to convince everyone that women, as a gender, are fundamentally helpless, and cannot, can. not. function without all teh menz protecting their poor helpless selves at all times? I said something rude about one person, Laden is not implying, he is directly saying that women are completely unable to fend for themselves unless men are there to protect and defend them.

HOW THE FUCK IS MY STATMENT MISOGYNISTIC AND HIS SOME FUCKING BASTION OF FEMINISM AND EMPOWERMENT? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN A WAY THAT ISN'T COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

Over and over, PeeZus, Laden, thimbledick and all the rest tell women "no, no, it's not your fault. You're not capable of handling this. You just stay there, and let us men handle the evil world, and well tell you when it's safe", and the worst part, the fucking really vile worst part about it is that Ophelia and Jen and Watson and all the rest line up to fucking thank them for being so fucking enlightened.

Yet, it's people like me, who have spent no small amount of time teaching women that they are *not* helpless, not emotionally, mentally, or physically, that they not only can handle the world, but they *should* handle the world as equals, that they don't need me or anyone else to defend them, because they are all competent fucking adults, able to defend themselves...we are the bad people.

because we said "cunt".

There are a lot of misogynists in the atheist/skeptic movement. The problem is, just like all the right-wingers who get busted sucking strange cock after railing against "teh gai", the true misogynists are the ones painting themselves as the white knights.


No, I'm not going to apologise for not using the spoiler tag in quoting you. That was too fucking magnificent to be hidden.

Hopefully I didn't mess up the quote attributions in cutting this down a bit.

Observation on patronizing comments by Lousy Canuck, posted at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=52751#p52751 (see esp the last couple of lines):

Skep tickle wrote:
d4m10n wrote:The folks at FtB might not be too strong on original thinking, but they know a good idea when they see one:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ecularism/


From Jason's post:
I know that every one of the women speaking at Women In Secularism are great thinkers, great speakers, and deserve to be on stage at any convention. The necessity for them to speak is obvious, so giving them a stage is the best way to encourage this.

"Every one of the women speak[ers]....deserve to be on stage at any convention"... I'm sure he meant that well, but it can't literally be true & thus comes across as patronizing, IMO.

"Giving them a stage"... hmm. Presumably inadvertent but still it comes across as reinforcing Teh Patriarchy. ...
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:20 pm  •  [Post 1202]

BAAHAHAHAHAAH...PeeZus tries to burn me, and fails:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-32266

welch wrote:
PeeZus wrote:And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

You bozos can’t say the same.


Last I checked, the set of “company you keep” would include the set of “personal friend(s)”.

It helps, it really, really helps, if when trying to prove me wrong, you don’t prove my points for me. Perhaps you should wander over to the English Department at UMinn, and see if there’s a student available to intern for you, so that you might be taught some of these basic concepts.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Lsuoma » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:20 pm  •  [Post 1203]

erikthebasshole wrote:Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.


Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?
Call me old-fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating.
User avatar
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
 
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:58 pm
Location: Pacific NW

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

Postby Cunning Punt » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:24 pm  •  [Post 1204]

Metalogic42 wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/01/why-so-fussed/

TLDR: blah blah blah look someone else is being harassed too! Michael Shermer! blah blah blah.

However, she conveniently omits the last section of the article she's talking about:

Mary Beard wrote:I'm outing this because I have a thick skin and, in the end, speculation on the size of my vagina doesn't move me half as much as worrying about the next chapter of my book I'm supposed to write. But then I'm lucky.

That's the last blog I shall write on this, dont worry. But I wanted to have my say.


Michael Shermer please note. Get this kind of shit every day for going on two years and it becomes very tempting to stop appearing in public and contributing to political debate – which is the goal.


What has Michael Shermer got to do with this? How would an awareness of this kind of thing (which I'm sure he already knows goes on) moderate the position he took in his last article?
PZ Myers wrote:
"You are the patriarchy personified, noelplum99"
noelplum99 wrote:
"And to think my mother said i would never amount to anything."
User avatar
Cunning Punt
.
.
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:50 pm

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:25 pm  •  [Post 1205]

Lsuoma wrote:
erikthebasshole wrote:Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.


Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?


Here's some shit invisible pixels love: [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Metalogic42 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:30 pm  •  [Post 1206]

@welch:

You post at 1184 is fucking spectacular. Bravo. And perfectly timed too, because this is also awesome:

[spoiler][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJKsLSWoFWg[/youtube][/spoiler]

cunning punt wrote:What has Michael Shermer got to do with this? How would an awareness of this kind of thing (which I'm sure he already knows goes on) moderate the position he took in his last article?


Cause he's Michael Shermer. Just like the slymepit is responsible for every instance of harassment or threat, everything is relevant to Michael Shermer now.
Skepticism is more important than Atheism. Atheism protects you from false gods, but skepticism inoculates you against all forms of bullshit. http://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/
User avatar
Metalogic42
.
.
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:56 pm

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:35 pm  •  [Post 1207]

welch wrote:BAAHAHAHAHAAH...PeeZus tries to burn me, and fails:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-32266

welch wrote:
PeeZus wrote:And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

You bozos can’t say the same.


Last I checked, the set of “company you keep” would include the set of “personal friend(s)”.

It helps, it really, really helps, if when trying to prove me wrong, you don’t prove my points for me. Perhaps you should wander over to the English Department at UMinn, and see if there’s a student available to intern for you, so that you might be taught some of these basic concepts.

Good posts there. But aren't you violating your own advice not to engage them on their turf? (Presumably to correct what they attributed to you, but still.)

I'm getting a little confused about the invisible pixels thing. I thought that referred to

[spoiler]your dick
:rimshot:[/spoiler]
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby Pitchguest » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:35 pm  •  [Post 1208]

Holy shit.

julian wrote:
All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?


I think that’s two different problems.

You have how dismissive Watson and others have been to concerns about some feminist positions, you have how uncharitable many of us have been and you have the frequent insistence that everyone should regard themselves as feminist. (which goes back to ignoring the many legitimate some people may have)

That as been very alienating towards people. It’s pushed them away from skepchick, away from some of the blogs at FtB and away from the frontline fights.


Did julian take the red pill?
"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

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

Postby justinvacula » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:37 pm  •  [Post 1209]

New from 'Lousy Canuck'

Update 3: Wow. In less than 24 hours, you folks made my goal. In the intervening hours while I was indisposed with my day job, you’ve donated a grand total of $1002. Which means I am, absolutely, positively, without a doubt…
going to Women In Secualarism 2!
Thank you. All of you. This is incredible.
I have to go talk to Amy now and ask her how best to handle the overflow. I’ll hang onto the money til I get my own flights and tickets sorted out, but then I’ll plow every cent of the overflow into making sure someone else gets to go too.


Cool. Hopefully we can meet there and have a recorded discussion.
Blog
Facebook
Twitter

“Oh yes please tell me your BIG IMPORTANT WHITE ABLE NEUROTYPICAL CISMAN OPINIONS about these things.” - Kassiane
User avatar
justinvacula
.
.
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:48 pm
Location: Northeastern Pennsylvania

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

Postby ReneeHendricks » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:47 pm  •  [Post 1210]

Lsuoma wrote:
erikthebasshole wrote:Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.


Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?


LOL! Where was this said??
Renee Kelly
----
Wine - when you're over 40 and tequila shots have kicked your ass.
User avatar
ReneeHendricks
.
.
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:48 am
Location: Kent, WA

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:48 pm  •  [Post 1211]

Skep tickle wrote:
welch wrote:BAAHAHAHAHAAH...PeeZus tries to burn me, and fails:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-32266

welch wrote:
PeeZus wrote:And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

You bozos can’t say the same.


Last I checked, the set of “company you keep” would include the set of “personal friend(s)”.

It helps, it really, really helps, if when trying to prove me wrong, you don’t prove my points for me. Perhaps you should wander over to the English Department at UMinn, and see if there’s a student available to intern for you, so that you might be taught some of these basic concepts.

Good posts there. But aren't you violating your own advice not to engage them on their turf? (Presumably to correct what they attributed to you, but still.)

I'm getting a little confused about the invisible pixels thing. I thought that referred to

[spoiler]your dick
:rimshot:[/spoiler]



aviwhateverthe fuck seems to not be engaging in mass banning. So for now, in specific instances, I'll comment if I think there's a point. it's also a test of a sort. Do they live up to their own standards. Thus far, few have. If that specific site continues to play by its own rules, good for him, he's an exception to the FTB rule, and should be commended for it.

Also, like most things, it's more of a guideline than a law.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby welch » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:49 pm  •  [Post 1212]

justinvacula wrote:New from 'Lousy Canuck'

Update 3: Wow. In less than 24 hours, you folks made my goal. In the intervening hours while I was indisposed with my day job, you’ve donated a grand total of $1002. Which means I am, absolutely, positively, without a doubt…
going to Women In Secualarism 2!
Thank you. All of you. This is incredible.
I have to go talk to Amy now and ask her how best to handle the overflow. I’ll hang onto the money til I get my own flights and tickets sorted out, but then I’ll plow every cent of the overflow into making sure someone else gets to go too.


Cool. Hopefully we can meet there and have a recorded discussion.



Don't hold your breath.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right. Also, if the worst thing that happens in my day is you not talking to me anymore? Fuck yeah!
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8340
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

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

Postby Cunning Punt » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:54 pm  •  [Post 1213]

Image

Who's next, Eric Clapton?
PZ Myers wrote:
"You are the patriarchy personified, noelplum99"
noelplum99 wrote:
"And to think my mother said i would never amount to anything."
User avatar
Cunning Punt
.
.
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:50 pm

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

Postby Lsuoma » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:03 pm  •  [Post 1214]

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
erikthebasshole wrote:Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.


Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?


LOL! Where was this said??

I picked it up from welch's post here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=237&start=1125#p53528

Don't have the original URL, so I assume that welch is not making a dishonest post.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating.
User avatar
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
 
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:58 pm
Location: Pacific NW

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

Postby Zenspace » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:07 pm  •  [Post 1215]

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

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


Well done!


Really well done. Wow, worlds better than the previous. No critiques at all. Well acted out - caught the drama perfectly in fact, excellent sound effects and soundtrack. Not even a nit picky nit on this one!
“Girls have got balls. They're just a little higher up, that's all.” ― Joan Jett
User avatar
Zenspace
.
.
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:13 pm

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

Postby Pitchguest » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm  •  [Post 1216]

I wrote on this avicenna's blog, probably the only blog left where I'm not banned,

[spoiler]
Pitchguest wrote:
All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?


For people who are “enraged” by misrepresentations and elisions, it’s curious that you should ignore the entire context of the furore regarding Elevatorgate and just sum it up with four innocuous words. You and I both know (or actually I’m not sure you do now) that it wasn’t just about those four words, and I believe I told you this back on YouTube. It was a couple of weeks more until the shit hit the fan and most of the shit-stirring came from the community you endorse, what’s now called Freethought Blogs. PZ Myers, Stephanie Zvan, Ophelia Benson and so on at the forefront to make it more than an innocuous event, with four innocuous words, that was harmless and not a big deal at all — even according to Watson herself.

However, because some people took offense to Watson’s use of “sexualising” in her video and yes, the offer for coffee, Watson also decided to stir the pot. Because drama and blog hits go well together, don’tcha know. This is well documented and the documentation can be found exactly where I told you to look the last time. That is, unless you still reject evidence given to you and think it’s some kind of propaganda – or perhaps you’re afraid that you’re so weakwilled, you’ll suddenly transform yourself into a misogynist upon viewing its vile contents, and that to get rid of it you’ll have to subject yourself to some hideous form of therapy. Like that scene in Clockwork Orange.

Anyway, it’s amusing that the commenters here eagerly make empty assertions about members of the Slymepit allegedly making a wide berth around women (despite the fact that many on the ‘pit are married to women, women they care for and many of the members on the ‘pit are women [Or pardon, should that be 'chillgirls' or 'sister punishers'? 'Gender traitors'? I'm not privy to the preferred nomenclature].)

The Slymepit is, of course, not the misogynist, sexist, racist, callously murderous and acid-slinging haven many members here are keen to assume. It’s nothing like it at all.

There is the occasional swearword bandied about (although I’m told that swearwords are not exactly foreign here, either – especially not the word ‘fuck’) and maybe a bit of gender-neutral slurs (since they’re not used to slander anyone because of their gender) but other than that, our views of social justice, women’s rights are similar to yours. Not exactly the same, obviously. We kind of want women to be treated as adults and equals and not the professional, helpless victims that many of you infer they should be.

Indeed, I thought I knew the depths of censorship and political correctness by the news networks, but I was wrong. The regulars at FTB have taught me that the depths of censorship and political correctness knows no bounds.
[/spoiler]

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-32317

(blockquote fail, so remember everything past "don't you think?" is me.)
"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

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

Postby acathode » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:18 pm  •  [Post 1217]

Apples wrote: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.
Maybe because he have very little interest in the fence-sitters, and instead primarily is focusing on the "true believers"?

After this 1+ year of demagoguing and burning burning bridges, it's doubtful there are even that many fence-sitters left for him to convince, what he have left primarily is the small clique of loyal acolytes and true believers who won't ever bother checking any facts for themselves. That it makes him look like a moron to anyone who bothers to check facts isn't an issue any longer, it becomes more important to rile his flock up against the vile and dangerous Enemy.

It really do remind a bit of a small cult. That the cult leader looks like a lunatic to the outside world isn't that much of an issue for him, as long as the actual cult members keep their critical faculties turned off and gobble up everything he says and does. For the cult leader, keeping that power and blind trust over the already convinced is more important than to get any new members, and few things makes groups unite under a "great leader" than a threat from the outside.
Concoct a vile and powerful Satan looking to destroy your group, and the members will not only unite under you, but become even more ready to eat your bullshit, and even more hostile towards any outside influence. It's the perfect tool for any demagogue to solidify their power and influence.

So expect Myers and the rest to keep ramping it up, their lies will only get more and more outrageous and their narrative will only get more and more shameless. 2013 will be a great year for lulz and drama...

Also, another thing you'll have to consider is that Myers most likely considers anyone who's still sitting on the fence as a misogynistic slimepitter anyway, after all, his side is the good guys, it's the side that considers women to be human beings, and the other side is the evil guys, the side that considers women to be fuck toys. Obviously, anyone who have problem choosing between the good guys and the evil guys, must themselves be evil.

ps. Love the dramatic reading of the A+ drama! Very well made, both the actual reading and the music/effects!
User avatar
acathode
.
.
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:46 am

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

Postby Pitchguest » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:18 pm  •  [Post 1218]

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.



Hahahahahahahahaha

Be honest, rocko, in how many takes did you bust up laughing? :lol:
"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

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

Postby ConcentratedH2O, OM » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:34 pm  •  [Post 1219]

Lsuoma wrote:Q: What do you call an Indian lesbian?
A: Minjeeta.


I literally HAHAOL'ed.

Minjeeta.
"Tone trolling? Really? You find the particular arrangement of four letters in a word more detrimental to discourse than sneering assholes showing up to argue with women about their right to autonomy?"
--PZ Meyers, internet cunt.
User avatar
ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
 
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 pm

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

Postby BarnOwl » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:35 pm  •  [Post 1220]

Cunning Punt wrote:Who's next, Eric Clapton?


On Freethought Blogs
At PZ's place
Dread banhammer.
Disagreement?
No more comments!
You've been dungeoned.
User avatar
BarnOwl
.
.
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:37 pm  •  [Post 1221]

Lsuoma wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
erikthebasshole wrote:Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.


Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?


LOL! Where was this said??

I picked it up from welch's post here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=237&start=1125#p53528

Don't have the original URL, so I assume that welch is not making a dishonest post.


It's from the comments here (TW link is to Pharyngula):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/20/relief-for-the-heartsick/
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby Reap » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:47 pm  •  [Post 1222]

Louis wrote:Sorry for the delay, work was required to assuage my guilt. So now to 2).

(Does it show that the lab is shut for the day because of the snow {pa-fucking-thetic} and so I am stuck at home doing paperwork and trying like a motherfucker to procrastinate the day away and not do it? Don't worry, I'll do my work, I just thought a little fun with coffee might amuse me. Is that really such a sin?)

a) Poor presentation of pitter posters:

I can understand that if the Pitter Posters on Pharyngula (try saying that 3 times fast after 20 pints) are a self selecting bunch of arseholes, or if PZ and his Wicked Ways are making them look like arseholes when they are really paragons of virtue and wonder, then sure, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). I'm not sure that I know if either is the case, or if something else is the case. I'm here aren't I? Believe it or not I'm willing to be convinced of a wide variety of things. I will confess that the majority of my...."welcome"....has been disappointingly dull, mostly pointless, and exactly what I would have expected if PZ's characterisation was correct. You might not like that, but hey, it's MY lived experience! ;-) (I did like that joke by the way! Who made it? I hope it was you, I laughed.)

Sorry, sorry, I'll be serious.

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. I then went back to Pharyngula and posted some rambling comment, which I think I'll stand by for now, and deliberated about creating an account here under my real ID (can't be bothered with sock puppets) and see if my initial impressions were correct. So far....hmmm....they seem to be somewhat correct in some cases, not so much in others. Pretty much what any sensible person would have guessed, right?

As for which 'pitters I have a low opinion of, which a higher opinion of, and the same question as applied to Pharynguloids, I won't say. Not because I'm afraid to, or above that, but because I think it is irrelevant and childish. I can do irrelevant and childish if I want to, but I don't want to. Is that really such a crime? Oh and I have fuck all clue about Renee or probably most of the gripes. Not because I'm some hideous blinkered fool, but simply because I don't have unlimited time/effort to expend on following every tiny thing in what I see (perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly) as tiresome interblog drama. So I skip 90% of it. I am, however, exceedingly keen and willing to look at evidence. As opposed to being exceedingly NOT keen and willing to be vilified for not immediately sharing your party line upon entry...wait, isn't that another criticism you chaps and chappesses have of FtB? Oooops! Physicians heal thyselves it seems!

I'd rather find out if this claim that 'pitters are horrendously caricatured by PZ et al is true for myself, best way to do that? Jump in and see. It might amaze you to know that, yes, whilst I am an Evil Horde Member Pharynguloid Wicked Person and All Round Bad Egg, and yes, whilst I like plenty of the posters that most upset many of you, I'm okay with deciding things for myself thanks. I haven't posted on Pharyngula about my Sooper Sekrit Mission To Convert Teh Heathens because that's not what this is, I'm satisfying my curiosity whether anyone wants to believe that or not. When that's done, we'll see. I might post again, I might not. It's not that big a deal to me. Sorry if that offends you for some reason. It's not that big a deal to me that some benighted fools like soccer not rugby or that they go to church. I really don't care. I do care if they tell me I should like soccer or die, or I should obey the strictures of their church in my private life. They're free to criticise me for being ignorant of the beautiful game (I am) or that I am, by their standards, a terrible wicked heathen (I am), that's the joy of free speech, they get to disagree with me and I with them.

Should I bold that last bit? I'm pretty sure, based on a number of posts from a variety of people that that point escapes a lot of folk here. Hell it escapes a lot of folk everywhere! It used to escape me until I had it beaten into me with a clue by four.

b) ZOMG evil slymepitter and misrepresentations on FtB/wherever as being THE issue/muzzling of dissenting opinion/critique:

Since this seems closely tied to what ThreeFlangedJavis is talking about, I'll skip it for now and deal with it in that post.

c) PZ banning folks quickly/pre-emptively:

I don't have a blog and probably never will have one. I've helped moderate the odd message board in the dim and distant past, but work etc. Yadda yadda yadda. So my views on how to manage a million+ hits a whenever blog are probably not very insightful. Would I manage Pharyngula the same as PZ? Well *I* am not PZ, so trivially and obviously probably not. Do I like his particular policies? I think he's reasonably lenient in places, strict in others, to be frank it doesn't bother me. It doesn't affect me much because I'm unlikely to go on a racist/sexist/homophobic/trolling/creationist/whatever rant, i.e. I am unlikely to do the things he typically bans people for. But that's hardly the controversial bit now is it?

Do I support his blanket 'pitter ban? Yes, in the sense that it is his blog and he can do what the fuck he likes. No, in the sense that it probably wouldn't be how I would handle it, but then I don't know how I'd handle it, I've never been there. I don't look at a blog like someone's living room, or a wide open field where anyone can do whatever, I look at a blog rather like a pub. PZ is the landlord of the Pharyngula Tentacles (can't be Arms can it?). He gets to run his pub his way. If the majority of his punters were Manchester United fans (and remember I know nothing about soccer, so I am picking two teams with a local derby at random) and the majority of the Manchester City fans who came in were bothersome, or excited the more....intemperate....Manchester United fans who were regulars in the pub, I might ban openly obvious Man City fans. Just for some peace and fucking quiet and not having my pub bust up every two minutes. I sympathise with PZ a bit because he doesn't have a team of helpers to clean the shite of the ceiling in his blog, he's got a job, a family, a side-effort as a prominent public speaker etc, managing the blog is an added (voluntary) burden. I'm not worried about him managing it his way, posting what interests him (some of which intersects with what interests me) and going about his day.

Now PZ is not stopping anyone drinking in other pubs, he's not banning people from alcohol, he's not saying that other landlords and landladies cannot have Manchester City only pubs, or pubs where the fans mix or pubs dedicated to advanced lesbian basket weaving. He makes the rules for his pub.

"But aaaaaaahhhhhh!" I hear you cry, "The Pharyngula Tentacles is a BIG pub, and PZ an influential landlord in the town, and I don't like Manchester United or their brand of football. I want to have my brand of football represented, and when PZ throws his weight around other pubs start putting in No Man City policies.", fair enough. What's stopping you set up your own pub? Or one of the deliberate fan clash pubs? PZ didn't parachute into the Pope of Atheism chair or something. He's not the fucking pope of atheism for starters, there isn't one. He can't stop you doing anything. He has precisely zero power outside of Pharyngula to stop you saying exactly what you want.

Anyone in any prominent position is going to get critics. Are you really saying that every critic is worth engaging with the same degree of intellectual effort? REALLY? I think we all know that's just not true. I don't need homoeopaths at chemistry conferences with me. It might make them feel all warm and cuddly and included and isn't that special, but what they do is effectively raise the noise to signal ratio in the bad way. So applications from homoeopaths to speak at chemistry conferences will get (politely) refused. Homoeopathy is well refuted dreck. Utter bullshit. Why treat it any differently? So if I was to set up a blog (unlikely) about chemistry and homoeopath commenters came along and started berating me for not dealing with their criticisms, I'd say "Damn right. Homoeopathy is well refuted dreck, if you don't know that by now it's not my problem.". If I was feeling kind I might engage a few and provide them with the basic tenets of a chemistry lesson or explain a dose response curve to them. Not ALL critics are worthy of attention.

Now SOME critics ARE worthy of attention, and you all obviously feel you fall into this latter category. Fine and dandy, I'm genuinely pleased you do feel that way, I genuinely hope it's the case. That way I get to deal with a GENUINE controversy and not the endless playground politicking that I think I've made clear bores me fucking stiff. So, to pick an antique chemistry controversy, if we were talking, 60 or 70 years ago, about non-classical carbocations and someone came up with some data, and somebody else had some other data, that would be an interesting and genuine controversy, until the data fell one way or 'tother and the matter was settled.

Pick another example, to do with evolutionary biology, the relative importances of selection and drift in the fixing of a specific phenotype within a population, this would not be an issue settled by getting some creationists in. Evolutionary biologists need only apply.

Be aware that creationists think their criticisms are valuable and worth listening to. I'm not saying yours aren't, but that even as sceptics we have to be aware of our own biases. I'm here challenging mine to some small degree, even though in days gone by I might have had much more sympathy with you than with the Pharynguloids. I changed my mind though. Why? It might be because I am {insert some wickedness here} or because they introduced me to writers etc that made a compelling case or because of something else. But change my mind I did.

Annnd this is getting close to ThreeFlangedJavis' point and b) so I'll halt THIS teal deer in its tracks and start on that one.


You know it was interesting to read and learn about how you don't really care about what anyone else is concerned about. To you it's all crying and petty complaining. I would assume this is a result of your conceit which you seem to consider your best trait, that's what makes you so humble right?

Your rationalization of PZ and his banning is interesting also. You are correct he can ban whomever he wants, it is his blog. When someone who claims to be a skeptic and champion of a new, better world where people are treated equally marks a forum of over 500 as unworthy of any consideration, there is a problem. You seem to think you are a smart fella, why can't you get that? Not only that but he attacks individuals based on hearsay and gossip. His attacks are character assassinations. He is childish, unreasonable, and unfair. Who is he to judge people and publicly declare them socially unacceptable types? You mentioned how many readers PZ has. How many of those people are going to take PZ at his word? How is it okay that I have to defend myself from accusations and claims PZ has made about my character when he doesn't even know me and has never once shown any interest in dialogue with any of the people he has attacked? After attacking these people he then bans them if they try to defend themselves, followed by more shit talking and libel.

Now people who don't know any better will read PZ's blog and learn what a terrible person I am. Then when/if they hear my name in the future they will think "Oh yea that guy I heard about him, he is a racist."
This isn't just one instance it has happened over and over. At this point I know good and well PZ is a liar from the shit he has said about me. What are the odds this is the first time? I wouldn't be surprised if PZ has been guilty of bullshit for years. Some people would absolutely agree based on their own personal interactions. But nevermind that shit Louis that is just your good buddy PZ being his jovial self. You defend him by acting as if no one gives any weight to his words. Sure I can say whatever I want on my own blog or in public area not controlled by PZ. Why should I have to defend myself against his accusations? What if the shit he says starts to cause me trouble in real life? What if a couple people in my local atheist group read PZ's shit blog and take what he says as fact? You ever had your character tarnished unfairly Louis? No? Well learn how to have empathy or shut up. Or is the answer yes? Didn't have a problem with it then huh? Made you feel okay did it? Well I don't like it and I won't sit and allow it to go on. If PZ wasn't being such a lazy, lying, one-sided dick he would have less trouble with his comment section. Too bad he couldn't find anyone to help him moderate it (control freak?) I could go on but I have wasted just enough time to make my points I think

This crap you have posted above has just enough truth to give an impression of validity until you scratch the surface then all the puss comes running out. I'm going to assume for a minute you really are as smart as you think Louis. That would mean you are nothing more than a deceptive prick. I don't know which should shame you more, the way you present your side with no indication that you have one bit of and idea as to what the fuck you are talking about (see disconnect) or the level of self righteousness you wrap all your rhetoric in. You used to be like us but you are now learned and wiser than we. Give me a break. Whether it is a game or just plain stupidity I would suggest you stop for the sake of your dignity. Why trash it over a bunch of people you don't give a fuck about? Or you could just go on about your way ignoring me. I really don't give a shit, I have little use for deceptive individuals anyway.
You aren't a complete idiot..some pieces are missing

If you were offended.. I take full responsibility, especially if it makes you cry
User avatar
Reap
.
.
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:27 am
Location: Fremont CA

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

Postby ReneeHendricks » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:52 pm  •  [Post 1223]

This whole "women turn in to 'invisible pixels'" thing is actually cracking me up. Time and again, as soon as *I* say something, I'm banned/blocked/ignored simply because I'm a Slymepit participant.
Renee Kelly
----
Wine - when you're over 40 and tequila shots have kicked your ass.
User avatar
ReneeHendricks
.
.
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:48 am
Location: Kent, WA

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

Postby Mykeru » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:55 pm  •  [Post 1224]

Reap wrote:Now people who don't know any better will read PZ's blog and learn what a terrible person I am.


No, what's really an outrage is how those goons keep giving you credit for half the shit I pull.
"...and the age of sophists, calculators and economists was upon us." --The Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxpkcQUCeo
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

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

Postby Mykeru » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:56 pm  •  [Post 1225]

ReneeHendricks wrote:This whole "women turn in to 'invisible pixels'" thing is actually cracking me up. Time and again, as soon as *I* say something, I'm banned/blocked/ignored simply because I'm a Slymepit participant.


It's for your own good Renee. Those totally non-sexist patriarchy fighters are just saving you from yourself.
"...and the age of sophists, calculators and economists was upon us." --The Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxpkcQUCeo
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

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

Postby ReneeHendricks » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:59 pm  •  [Post 1226]

Mykeru wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:This whole "women turn in to 'invisible pixels'" thing is actually cracking me up. Time and again, as soon as *I* say something, I'm banned/blocked/ignored simply because I'm a Slymepit participant.


It's for your own good Renee. Those totally non-sexist patriarchy fighters are just saving you from yourself.


Ahh. And here I thought it was because they simply like to hear themselves talk and pat each other on the back. Silly me.
Renee Kelly
----
Wine - when you're over 40 and tequila shots have kicked your ass.
User avatar
ReneeHendricks
.
.
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:48 am
Location: Kent, WA

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

Postby Michael J » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:01 pm  •  [Post 1227]

Metalogic42 wrote:
Louis wrote:When used as insults terms like "bitch" and "twat" and "cunt" are inseparable from sexism. They are unambiguous negative referents to feminine/female as negative. Incidentally, "prick" and "cock" are inseparable from sexism too for the identical reasons. In all cases that is an act of sexism. There's a contextual difference which I'll get to later, but there's no difference inherent in the actual words in terms of sexism. They are reductive, they reduce a person to some perceived negative quality to do with their sex. That's sexism. Like the words "nigger" or "paki" used as insults are an unambiguous negative referent to race, and perceived negative qualities to do with race, are racist. Same mechanism.


This wasn't a response to me, but I have something quick to say about it anyway. If "cunt" is sexist because it reduces a person to some perceived negative quality to do with their sex, what about "asshole"? That reduces a person to some perceived negative quality to do with their GI tract, doesn't it?

------
@rocko: That dramatic reading was great!


What is hard for me is that in Australia cunt can be a term of affection as in "How 'r' ya goin' you old cunt"
User avatar
Michael J
.
.
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:42 pm

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

Postby d4m10n » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:03 pm  •  [Post 1228]

Louis,

I've got a question for you, or rather sort of a challenge.

1) Go back to Pharyngula and pick out a handful of substantive characterisations of what SlimePitters are and/or what they do.

2) Come back here and post them, with links.

3) Prove at least half of them to be reasonably accurate, using evidence from within the forum itself.

Good luck! If you win, I'll buy you lunch.
"Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius." - Bonaventure

Blog, Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus
User avatar
d4m10n
.
.
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:17 am
Location: OKC

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:13 pm  •  [Post 1229]

Michael J wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Louis wrote:When used as insults terms like "bitch" and "twat" and "cunt" are inseparable from sexism. ...


What is hard for me is that in Australia cunt can be a term of affection as in "How 'r' ya goin' you old cunt"

No, you are wrong. It is a horribly sexist term. Therefore it could never, ever be a term of affection.
[/FtB-Skepchick-A+ word police]
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby Skep tickle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:14 pm  •  [Post 1230]

(sorry, minor quote fail)
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

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

Postby rocko2466 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:27 pm  •  [Post 1231]

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

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



Hahahahahahahahaha

Be honest, rocko, in how many takes did you bust up laughing? :lol:


None at all. This is serious business.
User avatar
rocko2466
.
.
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:56 pm

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

Postby pandora » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:28 pm  •  [Post 1232]

Skep tickle wrote:
Michael J wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Louis wrote:When used as insults terms like "bitch" and "twat" and "cunt" are inseparable from sexism. ...


What is hard for me is that in Australia cunt can be a term of affection as in "How 'r' ya goin' you old cunt"

No, you are wrong. It is a horribly sexist term. Therefore it could never, ever be a term of affection.
[/FtB-Skepchick-A+ word police]



Haha. I have to agree with Metalogic though. It's EXTREME USA PRIVILEGE to think cunt is a gendered insult of the worst kind. Well A+/FTB needs to check their privilege, because in the colonies cunt is a regular, multi-purpose word. No-one thinks of it in gendered terms. You can use it as an affectionate term, you can use it as an ironic insult, as a regular insult... never is anyone thinking about women at the time and that includes when women use it. "Shit cunt" is a good insult too.
User avatar
pandora
.
.
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:45 am

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

Postby rayshul » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:33 pm  •  [Post 1233]

I've always liked fuck cunt. Although that's often within content, as said in the phrase, "What the fucking shit fuck cunt."
"My hyper-important vagina is offended, appease it at once!" - Philip of Tealand
User avatar
rayshul
.
.
 
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:00 am

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

Postby rayshul » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:40 pm  •  [Post 1234]

I'm always think the people who try to control language or force the idea that it means something specific are ... this kinda guy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10860708
"My hyper-important vagina is offended, appease it at once!" - Philip of Tealand
User avatar
rayshul
.
.
 
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:00 am

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

Postby rayshul » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:54 pm  •  [Post 1235]

I love it when people shit on Setar.

recursive prophet wrote: I do feel for Sun Princess

Setar wrote: um. can we please refer to people by the names they post as, not names they haven't given themselves? it's kind of disrespectful to assign someone a nickname all on your own.

not to mention, 'princess' is infantilizing as fuck, it's generally used to dismiss women's concerns. and that's getting a massive side-eye from me =/

recursive prophet wrote: My sincere apology to Sun Countess. I may even have made that same mistake before, but assure you it is owing to an aging mind and definitely not intended as an insult. It won't happen again.

Setar, do you realize you often have the least charitable view possible wrt the intentions of others? I think your assertion here about my attempting to infantilize Sun is the very kind of absurd, unwarranted supposition that causes this site to be mocked at so many other atheist and skeptic forums. You really should think about that and stop nitpicking the words of others.
"My hyper-important vagina is offended, appease it at once!" - Philip of Tealand
User avatar
rayshul
.
.
 
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Periodic Table of Swearing - The Undead Thread

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Apples, didymos, Google [Bot], JacquesCuze, Pagancat, Presto [PANIC] and 5 guests