Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

Old subthreads
Locked
decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2666

Post by decius »

Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2667

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

AbsurdWalls wrote:Can I suggest my preferred debate topic again?

Q. Are women and minorities under-represented in the atheism/skepticism movement? If so, is this a problem? If so, what should be done about it?
A. Dunno, but yes. Yes. Overthrow patriarchy. Next?

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2668

Post by Submariner »

For the high crime of saying “guys, don’t do that” in reference to some predatory behaviour she experienced, Rebecca Watson was subjected to insane and disproportionate volumes of harassment, trolling, attacks, and vitriol.
Correct me if I'm wrong but no one but Steph McGraw, (and maybe a few other women) said anything about the Elevator incident until after calling out of McGraw by Watson in front of a crowd from the podium. Reading the Phawrongula timeline seems to suggest that had Watson not called out McGraw, the entire incident would have been a total snooze fest.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2669

Post by JackSkeptic »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
I really and truly want to see skepticism applied to everything that idiots like Adam Lee and the FTB crowd accept as gospel. I would pay money to see an honest, well-prepped debate on the testable claims made by feminist theorists. I would love to see empirical research on feminist theories of gendered violence and gender issues. I would love to see large, well-designed, nationwide polls on what most women REALLY think about gender equality and discrimination. I would love to see a thorough examination of the sexism problem in the macrocosm of secular societies, and the microcosm of skeptic conferences.

Unfortunately, I know that not one of these dishonest douchebags has any desire to see these things happen. Because if you're not a professional victim looking for offense everywhere, or drumming up drama by making dubious accusations, the personal day-to-day experience of most people puts the lie to all this horseshit pretty quickly. You have to literally deny the evidence of your own life to buy into it.
That's the thing. You could take those conditions of Adam Lee's and, with small changes to the wording (or, in some places, no changes at all) and accept them. The FTBs would be horrified at the result. Applying the demands to "people" instead of just "women" and taking the demand for "talks that apply skepticism to entrenched powr differences in society that disproportionally harm [people]", they'd be aghast to see their claims exposed to it as well. But, of course, that's not possible, because their claims are always right and the kinds of arguents you can use are restricted to the ones they allow and even attempting to use one of those makes you a Bad Person and therefore wrong.

Why do FtBers not see people as people?
When they object you could simply point out ' the radical idea that all women are people' and you're surprised at their rejection of that.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2670

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Submariner wrote:What about a theistic moderator. Someone with no dog in the hunt. I don't mean VenomfangX or shackofghawd, but one of the semi-intelligent ones.


No one's coming to mind just now, but I'm sure I can find one.....
Just being a theist doesn't necessarily mean they don't "have a dog in the hunt". If they have any interest in seeing discontent amongst the enemy, it might not make them exactly an honest broker. If the boot was on the other foot and I was asked to adjudicate a theist schism debate, I'd make sure I had some fun at their expense if possible. But then, I'm an arsehole.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2671

Post by Karmakin »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
I really and truly want to see skepticism applied to everything that idiots like Adam Lee and the FTB crowd accept as gospel. I would pay money to see an honest, well-prepped debate on the testable claims made by feminist theorists. I would love to see empirical research on feminist theories of gendered violence and gender issues. I would love to see large, well-designed, nationwide polls on what most women REALLY think about gender equality and discrimination. I would love to see a thorough examination of the sexism problem in the macrocosm of secular societies, and the microcosm of skeptic conferences.

Unfortunately, I know that not one of these dishonest douchebags has any desire to see these things happen. Because if you're not a professional victim looking for offense everywhere, or drumming up drama by making dubious accusations, the personal day-to-day experience of most people puts the lie to all this horseshit pretty quickly. You have to literally deny the evidence of your own life to buy into it.
That's the thing. You could take those conditions of Adam Lee's and, with small changes to the wording (or, in some places, no changes at all) and accept them. The FTBs would be horrified at the result. Applying the demands to "people" instead of just "women" and taking the demand for "talks that apply skepticism to entrenched powr differences in society that disproportionally harm [people]", they'd be aghast to see their claims exposed to it as well. But, of course, that's not possible, because their claims are always right and the kinds of arguents you can use are restricted to the ones they allow and even attempting to use one of those makes you a Bad Person and therefore wrong.

Why do FtBers not see people as people?
Myself, I've come up with a term for that (I tend to do that in order to keep concepts straight in my head). Political Objectification. This is when you don't see people as people, but you see them as all the little sub-group boxes that Mean Something. So for example, someone's political status/power as a woman, and what her actions mean in terms of women everywhere is more important than her own personal desires/wants/needs/situation. Everybody is representative of all the boxes that they are grouped in, for good or for ill.

Needless to say, this is why SJW's tend to constantly make remarks that are blatantly sexist/racist/etc. without realizing it.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2672

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

BannedAid wrote:

The "heal the rift" talk is nonsense, but a debate would be productive, imo. We'd crush them, and everyone could finally move on. Not sure how much ground Barbara Drescher really shares with the slymepit, but if she would agree to debate any of the propositions, she would be my first choice. Realistically, though, the best we can hope for is convincing a few pharyngulites/a+ers to leave the herd for a bit for some commenter-on-commenter action. I don't think anything formal needs to be set up. Don't know if this could be done, but open up a moderated thread, find some poor schmuck willing to sit around a few hours a day and delete personal attacks from both sides, and listen to the serene music of the crickets while we wait for one of them to be willing to debate.
Healing the rift is nonsense. Taking out the rubbish is closer to the task required. But if you go into a debate on their topics, and try to play by the Good Skeptics rule book, you will be taking a nail file to a gun fight. I appreciate Damion's attempt to set up the right conditions which, in theory, might shed more light than heat, but the reality won't be like that. The two "sides" (ugh, and that's giving them more dignity than they deserve) speak mutually incomprehensible languages, and you have to hope that enough of the "uncommitted" audience speaks the right dialect to make the exerise worth while.

But the debate won't be the end of it. After it comes all the spinning - even if "we" (and what's this "we" white man?) did "crush" them, they'd simultaneously claim victory, claim they wuz robbed, claim the fix was in because patriarchy but they really won anyway, etc etc. Watch them do a "Nedra Pickler" and come up with a thousand things "we" failed to mention, or failed to deny, even though they were never talked about at all. Thrill as they describe the oppression they were put under as they were denied their right to talk about the really important things and had to stick to some stupid male rules about debating. And so on.

Maybe we can rely on the judgement of the uncommitted skeptical audience, though the signs aren't all good about that. But we can certainly rely on the tsunami of lying, propaganda bullshit that will spew from the FTB/A+/Skepshit Axis of Weavils.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2673

Post by Cunning Punt »

Submariner wrote:
justinvacula wrote:The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.

Justin , I'm sure I speak for many here who just want to say to you....

either grow that thing out or shave it the fuck off. Seriously, my 17 yr old daughter has a better moustache.

Oh and congrats and all that. Fuck off.
THIS! SQUAWK! 1,000 TIMES THIS!

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2674

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

robr wrote:
sacha wrote:
Git wrote:
Incidentally, whilst one can stop being a religious Jew, one is still a ethnic Jew. Hence Jewish atheists, for example.

not always. I know "Jewish" people who are atheists and their parents were atheists, and they have no ties to Jewish culture/ethnicity. They see that "ethnic Jew" thing as offensive. Like PoC.

Git is correct. Mark Chu-Carroll wrote about this on his blog Good Math, Bad Math a couple of years back. There's even a wikipedia entry for it, here.

*shrug* Thought it was common knowledge.


First Post!

'Sup pit... Fuck Off.
There's Jewish "Atheists" (and Jewish Buddhists - JuBu's - and Jews forJesus too). But Chu-Carroll's argument didn't rely on them being "ethnic" Jews, just good practising Jews who happened to not have faith in a god. So even a convert could be a Jewish Atheist without any "ethnic" ties to the Jewish population at all. (Cue much batshittery about the Khazars).

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2675

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

TheMudbrooker wrote:
:hankey:
Well at least the trip wasn't a total waste, thanks :)
Thats the Pit for ya. We do give a shit.

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2676

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Assuming the translation is true. Yeah i know, ASS-ume.
"Egyptian President Morsi Joins Preacher in Prayer for Destruction of the Jews"
Did anyone slap the preacher upside the head? Morsi? Anyone? Oh right. Infidels.
[youtube]KQVyJlL4pAE[/youtube]

Philip of Tealand
.
.
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:11 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2677

Post by Philip of Tealand »

Richard Dworkins wrote:Ah I see you've confused me with the tameless Dick Strawkins.

Wrong stick entirely I'm afraid. No forgiveness necessary.
I would like to hand in my membership to the Slyme Pit effective immediately

I am obviously too thick to continue, I have obviously been reading about the Baboons for too long and it has taken it's toll

:confusion-helpsos:

acathode
.
.
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:46 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2678

Post by acathode »

Karmakin wrote:Myself, I've come up with a term for that (I tend to do that in order to keep concepts straight in my head). Political Objectification. This is when you don't see people as people, but you see them as all the little sub-group boxes that Mean Something. So for example, someone's political status/power as a woman, and what her actions mean in terms of women everywhere is more important than her own personal desires/wants/needs/situation. Everybody is representative of all the boxes that they are grouped in, for good or for ill.

Needless to say, this is why SJW's tend to constantly make remarks that are blatantly sexist/racist/etc. without realizing it.
I remember seeing a commenter sum this up pretty neatly on a video about Jen McCreight and her racism (when she suggested that we start talking more about drug laws and incarceration rates to appeal to the minorities):
BladedPen wrote:In other words: She approaches this in a manner as if they've got to convert "these minorities" with incentives, treating them as cattle rather than equals who are fully capable of coming to their own conclusions and deciding for themselves and this definitely upsets me.
Frankly, being completely honest and serious, and not even slightly hyperbolic, when it comes to racism and sexism in the atheism/skeptic community or movement, the clear winners are the FTB/A+/SC/SJW* crowd.

Even if you hypothetically would grant them that certain words are sexists, what's worse? Someone using sexist language while he or she still firmly believe and acts as if everyone are equals, or using completely PC language while having the firm belief that women aren't full adults and therefore cannot take responsibility for their own actions the same way adult men can, and that they aren't strong enough to deal with the real world, instead they need extra protection and pampering.

*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2679

Post by TheMan »

decius wrote:Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.
I don't recall what software Mykeru said he was using...if it's modern enough he's using a non-destructive type of non-linear editor. (Corel Video studio, Premier Pro, Magix Video editor etc).

During work the project file is saved and these files are small...these are not video files but Edit Decision List (EDL) files. Usually text files the program understands. They tend to say something like .....

Video~ C:/ user/mykeru/videofiles/xfxgs.mp4, cut 00.01.23.12 to 00.01.30.18 Timeline at 00.00.00.00.

Every cut decision is listed so the more complex the project the bigger the file. The cuts refer to the original video which is basically un-touched (non destructive).

Once a linked video file in a project is moved, or worse an entire folder is moved containing video used in a project it renders the EDL useless. BUT! most good programs alert you that the video file location doesn't exist and gives you an opportunity to re`link. If this opportunity doesn't happen you can kiss that project goodbye and you'll have to start again.

That's how it normally works.

My description could also be totally unrelated to Mykeru's problem but educational anyways....

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2680

Post by Oneiros666 »

BarnOwl wrote:
Septic = American, in rhyming slang. Septic tank = Yank = USAian.

IIRC you're Norwegian? Don't think there's rhyming slang for Norwegians ... those of your nationality have to earn the ire, disdain, and/or prejudice of the English, to achieve rhyming slang "status."

<--- Septic
Aha. How clever of the limey bastards ;-)

Yes, I am a proud Norwegian. Viking power and death to the Swedes and all that :mrgreen:

A 1000 years ago the main pasttime of Norwegian vikings was to rape and pillage the English and the Scots. Where were the Rebecca Twatsons then, eh?

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2681

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Dick Strawkins wrote: The elevator story, as told by Rebecca, is part of a narrative that involved her:

1. Telling the audience of the conference that she didn't like and didn't want to be propositioned.
and,
2. Repeating the same point about not wanting to be propositioned to the group she was speaking to in the hotel bar.

The problem I have with this is really one of basic skepticism.
First, there is a video available that shows that point number 1 is simply untrue.
She didn't tell the audience that she doesn't want to be propositioned.
So, she is either deliberately lying about this point - or she doesn't have an accurate memory.
In either case this gives me reason to be skeptical about aspects of the remainder of her story.

I don't have any physical evidence that she did complain about getting propositioned to the people in the bar - but what the hell, I'll assume it is a distinct possibility - however I don't see why I should also assume that the guy in question heard her say this. Remember, she claims he was on the edge of the group.
He might not have heard that particular statement, or, alternatively, he might not have thought what he was doing was propositioning her.

In any case, some degree of skepticism (about the sequence of events or the intent of the guy) is deserved.

For the record, if someone did approach her in this way, it does sound creepy, in my opinion.
But it would also sound creepy for a strange woman to approach a man in this way. Or for a strange woman to approach a woman. Or a strange man to approach a man.
It is the action of the individual that is the problem, not the genders of the participants.
I have seen more specific complaints of women making unwanted approaches at conferences towards other attendees (both male and female) than I have of specific incidences of men making unwanted approaches.

To twist the situation into purely one of misogyny - (by which I guess they mean men in general acting in sexist ways towards women in general) denies any element of agency on the part of women themselves and is actually a sexist way of looking at the situation.
I couldn't figure out how she knew for certain that ElevatorGuy knew, understood, listened or was even present when she complained about being creeped out about being propositioned.
She's yet to come forward to say that EGuy WAS present when she spoke of it.
Did she recognize him from the bar? Prosopagnosia anyone?
Maybe he wasn't famous enough for her like DPRJones. Fuck knows. Fucked if i care. It's a stupid story which she will be remembered for rather than her work in the Bowel Movement of Pseudo-Feminism-Atheism-Victimism-Fuck-I'm-Famousism.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2682

Post by BarnOwl »

Privileged sister-punisher that I am, I'm having a covered patio added to the back of my house. Before construction can begin, I must have approval from the homeowners' association (HOA). HOA management is a form of intrusive fuckwittery that is unfortunately quite prevalent within the city limits here, whereby responsible homeowners are punished with restrictions and requirements such as:
1. A drawing/picture of what the finished project is going to look like.

2. The dimensions of the patio extension.

3. The dimensions of the patio cover.

4. Color samples the patio cover will be painted.

5. Sample picture of the flag stone that will be used (color).
For the moment I'll ignore the fact that, for the last few months, a backyard across the boulevard from mine has maintained a readily visible, rickety framework of crappy wooden boards and blue plastic tarps, uncannily similar to those used by a serial sex offender to hide Jaycee Dugard and her children from neighbors and parole officers. I'll just answer the questions thusly:

1. http://www.geekologie.com/2008/07/11/redneck-1.jpg

2. As big as your fat arse.

3. As big as the boxer shorts required to cover your fat arse.

4. Fuckyouverymuch blaze orange.

5. Pinche-pendejo fluorescent green.

P.S. Where do I apply for a permit to speed up and down the boulevard in a shitty lift kit noisy-arse Dodge Ram wankmobile? Several of my neighbors seem to have acquired such a permit, and I'd like to try too.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now surreptitioused by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2683

Post by jimthepleb »

surreptitious57 wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
The thing about their aggression is that you are expected to know what the site is all about before you start posting. You have the pack and are expected to read it so if you do not they get angry because it makes them tired having to explain it all now
Oh the precious little flowers. ( Spit )
Have you noticed us doing that here ?
Why don not we get all aggro when newbies make legitimate enquiries ?
Why do you give these insane creepy frighteningly aggressive anonymous
retards so much as the time of day let alone make continuous excuses for their truly shabby behaviour ?
I have severe restrictions on what I can and can not say. You might find that hard to believe but it is the truth now. There is nothing I can do about it either and I am not allowed to discuss it on this site but I can tell you that I have a life time ban however. Beyond that I cannot say. So anyone reading this had better not ask me anything about it because you shall get nothing from me so best to just let it go
In which case it would behove you to shut the fuck up.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2684

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

acathode wrote:

*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.
I think it is about time we updated the FCetc notation to cover the exact people we are talking about. Maybe even compile a list, though that gets a bit tedious. Maybe it's time to resurrect the "Chyme Pit"? But I'm sure we could do better for a collective term.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2685

Post by Karmakin »

acathode wrote:*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.
There's a reason I use SJW to describe these things. It's not even that not all FTB bloggers are involved in the controversy, it's exactly the opposite, it's that this controversy is one battlefield in a much larger conflict. You can see the same conflicts going on in some of the big community-based social media sites such as Reddit or Tumblr.

It's the same ideology. Not exactly the same flavor of said ideology...there are some memes that haven't made its way into the SJW/Skeptic community yet (give it time)...but it's close enough, and you can see all the commonalities.

I really do think the best way to combat this toxicity (and I do think it's toxic, even when they have a decent point or two), is through promoting the point that it's not a conflict between anti-sexism/racism and pro-sexism/racism people, it's a conflict between two competing belief structures on what sexism/racism/etc. entails and how best to combat it in our society. It's why, as I and other people have mentioned, I think there's less sexism/racism (even of the misogynistic kind) in this thread than there generally is in SJW places. Now, maybe I'm wrong on that. But that's something we can have a discussion over, we just need to start with the point that pretty much everybody is interested in equality in some form or fashion (at the very least, I think we're all in favor of equality of opportunity), and we just have different paths to the same goal, and sometimes, we do think that some paths are better than others.

But the SJW/Egalitarian conflict, in the short term, is just going to ramp up. I do see, among all venues, that quite frankly, the SJW's are losing, and that's a big part of it. 2013 is going to be a SJW freakout as they continue to lose power.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2686

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

BarnOwl wrote:Privileged sister-punisher that I am, I'm having a covered patio added to the back of my house. Before construction can begin, I must have approval from the homeowners' association (HOA). HOA management is a form of intrusive fuckwittery that is unfortunately quite prevalent within the city limits here, whereby responsible homeowners are punished with restrictions and requirements such as:
1. A drawing/picture of what the finished project is going to look like.

2. The dimensions of the patio extension.

3. The dimensions of the patio cover.

4. Color samples the patio cover will be painted.

5. Sample picture of the flag stone that will be used (color).
For the moment I'll ignore the fact that, for the last few months, a backyard across the boulevard from mine has maintained a readily visible, rickety framework of crappy wooden boards and blue plastic tarps, uncannily similar to those used by a serial sex offender to hide Jaycee Dugard and her children from neighbors and parole officers. I'll just answer the questions thusly:

1. http://www.geekologie.com/2008/07/11/redneck-1.jpg

2. As big as your fat arse.

3. As big as the boxer shorts required to cover your fat arse.

4. Fuckyouverymuch blaze orange.

5. Pinche-pendejo fluorescent green.

P.S. Where do I apply for a permit to speed up and down the boulevard in a shitty lift kit noisy-arse Dodge Ram wankmobile? Several of my neighbors seem to have acquired such a permit, and I'd like to try too.
If you just build it, what's the sanction?

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2687

Post by decius »

BarnOwl wrote:Privileged sister-punisher that I am, I'm having a covered patio added to the back of my house. Before construction can begin, I must have approval from the homeowners' association (HOA). HOA management is a form of intrusive fuckwittery that is unfortunately quite prevalent within the city limits here, whereby responsible homeowners are punished with restrictions and requirements such as:
1. A drawing/picture of what the finished project is going to look like.

2. The dimensions of the patio extension.

3. The dimensions of the patio cover.

4. Color samples the patio cover will be painted.

5. Sample picture of the flag stone that will be used (color).
.
Consider a 3d rendering superimposed on a picture or photoshopping.

RichardReed84
.
.
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:28 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2688

Post by RichardReed84 »

Does anyone else rue the invention of the term "blogger"? Especially now it's used an excuse for someone to speak at a conference? http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... e-to-fame/

SkepticalCat
.
.
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2689

Post by SkepticalCat »

TheMan wrote:did I miss something?

Where is Rystefn? I miss his ugly nog.
Maybe he found a butterfly painted on his driveway and is choosing to lay low. :lol:

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2690

Post by jimthepleb »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
TheMan wrote:did I miss something?

Where is Rystefn? I miss his ugly nog.
He's having health issues at the moment.
send him my best, and a 'get well soon y'old cunt'

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2691

Post by d4m10n »

sacha wrote:
ERV wrote:
Lisa: We can make a deal!

Marge: You dont have anything I want *shrug*

Damion-- I wanted to talk about this bullshit face-to-face last year. You know how that went. They can fuck off, now, for all I care.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/honeybadger1.jpg
For those of you who missed the backstory here, our original forum foundress had the temerity to post a YouTube excerpt from a Tarantino movie along with her desire to talk to a certain erotica writer face to face. Upon arising from the fainting couch, a select group of bloggers made it clear that they had interpreted this clip not as a metaphor for serious discussion about contentious issues, but rather as an actual threat of violence backed by Japanese steel. Condemnations and hysterically outlandish demands quickly followed.

That reminds me, JV should carefully watch what he posts for the next few months. There are countless people looking for even the most tenuous excuse to declare him a threat or a harasser. All attempts at reasoned discussion of certain issues must be preemptively scuttled, by any means, for obvious reasons.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2692

Post by Scented Nectar »

surreptitious57 wrote:
Notung wrote:

1 ) The elevator story is an ordinary event
2 ) If an ordinary event is recounted by a man, you would not question it
3 ) ( 1 2 ) You would not question the elevator story if a man recounted it

4 ) The elevator story was recounted by a woman
5 ) If you question a story recounted by a woman that you would not have questioned
if it was recounted by a man, you are guilty of sexist behaviour
6 ) ( 3 4 5 ) If you question the elevator story, you are guilty of sexist behaviour

7 ) If you legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that
then you question the elevator story
8 ) If you are on the other side but do not make rape threats or use slurs then you
legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that

C ) ( 6 7 8 ) Those on the other side who do not make rape threats or use slurs
are guilty of sexist behaviour


I think it is unsound - I see no reason to believe premises 2 7 or 8 are true
I think it is unsound - I see no no reason to believe premises 2 3 6 7 8

Prermise 8 is unbelievably flawed because it assumes compartmentalisation

Which is a bit of a problem for Rebecca because I am not as neat as that now
Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2693

Post by Scented Nectar »

acathode wrote:Frankly, being completely honest and serious, and not even slightly hyperbolic, when it comes to racism and sexism in the atheism/skeptic community or movement, the clear winners are the FTB/A+/SC/SJW* crowd.

Even if you hypothetically would grant them that certain words are sexists, what's worse? Someone using sexist language while he or she still firmly believe and acts as if everyone are equals, or using completely PC language while having the firm belief that women aren't full adults and therefore cannot take responsibility for their own actions the same way adult men can, and that they aren't strong enough to deal with the real world, instead they need extra protection and pampering.

*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.
The main cause that they all share is feminism, so I've taken to just calling them feminist bloggers. They have other causes too, like atheism and racism etc, but their main one is feminism these days.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2694

Post by Scented Nectar »

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2695

Post by 16bitheretic »

Karmakin wrote: But the SJW/Egalitarian conflict, in the short term, is just going to ramp up. I do see, among all venues, that quite frankly, the SJW's are losing, and that's a big part of it. 2013 is going to be a SJW freakout as they continue to lose power.
I would hope that's the case. What man wants to be painted as or told he needs to act as though he's just a rapist in waiting? What woman wants to be infantilized and told that she's incapable of acting on her own behalf and that she's not smart enough to realize the consequences of her own decisions? The more I'm exposed to the mindset of the SJW crowd, the more I realize they view themselves as being on some higher plane, that they view everyone who doesn't buy into their rhetoric as inferior.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2696

Post by Lsuoma »

jimthepleb wrote: Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).
Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2697

Post by Submariner »

Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2698

Post by Lurkion »

Mykeru wrote:
justinvacula wrote:The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.
Now, remember my prediction here.

Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.

Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to

1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.

2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.

Place your bets.
Shave off the 'stache. Then they won't recognise you.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2699

Post by TheMudbrooker »

Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
Personally I don't much care for that reversal of the sexes thing, the Mrs. never uses enough lube. :shock:

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2700

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Scented Nectar wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Notung wrote:

1 ) The elevator story is an ordinary event
2 ) If an ordinary event is recounted by a man, you would not question it
3 ) ( 1 2 ) You would not question the elevator story if a man recounted it

4 ) The elevator story was recounted by a woman
5 ) If you question a story recounted by a woman that you would not have questioned
if it was recounted by a man, you are guilty of sexist behaviour
6 ) ( 3 4 5 ) If you question the elevator story, you are guilty of sexist behaviour

7 ) If you legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that
then you question the elevator story
8 ) If you are on the other side but do not make rape threats or use slurs then you
legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that

C ) ( 6 7 8 ) Those on the other side who do not make rape threats or use slurs
are guilty of sexist behaviour


I think it is unsound - I see no reason to believe premises 2 7 or 8 are true
I think it is unsound - I see no no reason to believe premises 2 3 6 7 8

Prermise 8 is unbelievably flawed because it assumes compartmentalisation

Which is a bit of a problem for Rebecca because I am not as neat as that now
Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.
Brilliant! :D

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2701

Post by jimthepleb »

acathode wrote: *What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.
I refer you to my sig, that phrase just jumped out at me as wholly apposite and devastatingly evocative of their true nature.

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2702

Post by d4m10n »

rocko2466 wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Place your bets.
Shave off the 'stache. Then they won't recognise you.
And borrow Al’s racist hat.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2703

Post by jimthepleb »

Oneiros666 wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:
Septic = American, in rhyming slang. Septic tank = Yank = USAian.

IIRC you're Norwegian? Don't think there's rhyming slang for Norwegians ... those of your nationality have to earn the ire, disdain, and/or prejudice of the English, to achieve rhyming slang "status."

<--- Septic
Aha. How clever of the limey bastards ;-)

Yes, I am a proud Norwegian. Viking power and death to the Swedes and all that :mrgreen:

A 1000 years ago the main pasttime of Norwegian vikings was to rape and pillage the English and the Scots. Where were the Rebecca Twatsons then, eh?
She was busy being on the wrong side of history.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2704

Post by Apples »

Dick Strawkins wrote:For the record, if someone did approach her in this way, it does sound creepy, in my opinion.
But it would also sound creepy for a strange woman to approach a man in this way. Or for a strange woman to approach a woman. Or a strange man to approach a man.
It is the action of the individual that is the problem, not the genders of the participants.
I have seen more specific complaints of women making unwanted approaches at conferences towards other attendees (both male and female) than I have of specific incidences of men making unwanted approaches.
Karmakin wrote:Myself, I've come up with a term for that (I tend to do that in order to keep concepts straight in my head). Political Objectification. This is when you don't see people as people, but you see them as all the little sub-group boxes that Mean Something. So for example, someone's political status/power as a woman, and what her actions mean in terms of women everywhere is more important than her own personal desires/wants/needs/situation. Everybody is representative of all the boxes that they are grouped in, for good or for ill.

Needless to say, this is why SJW's tend to constantly make remarks that are blatantly sexist/racist/etc. without realizing it.
Identity politics (groups more important than individuals). Crommie's attempt to "drive a stake in the heart of color-blindness." Calls for "proportional representation" in every sphere, regardless of individual preference and the myriad non-oppression factors that affect these things. The SJWs know that the cleanest, truest approach to individual people and political debates is without reference to their supposed 'axes of privilege/disprivilege' (since egalitarianism and civil rights are all about nondiscrimination based on group-membership). The paradoxes are blatant and the logical conflicts irresolvable.

One reason feminism is so irritating today is that feminism won all of its toughest and most important battles decades ago -- the right to vote, the right to work, laws against sexual harassment, etc. Time to drop the "fem" from the sex politics discussion and, as Strawkins implies above, focus on people treating one another decently. This would be the single most effective way for 'feminists' to defang the MRAs. Same with Crommie's precious race-consciousness. It's not that you can't study and talk about race, it's that, as Karmakin points out, you can't treat it as the most important fact about people unless you really approve of racism (because the victim cred is an irresistible trump card in political arguments).

The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2705

Post by jimthepleb »

Scented Nectar wrote: Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.
Funny you should mention that, i was somewhat put out(read amused) to read a trans* friend of ben svan's threatening to come at CiS guys with a pickaxe handle, and suggest to metalogic that he place his balls in a vice.
So i tweeted by way of return 'trans* don't do that'
I think it has killed my account, 24hrs and still 'suspended.' At a guess for 'transphobia'.
The iota this bothers me was caught up in a draught and is now floating around the room with the other dust mites, the account was created simply to engage. It is indicative of the remarkable double standard of the Indolent Hand-wringers behaviour though.
Bonus points for actually giving me time to catch up on my tax returns and start my blog though.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2706

Post by Karmakin »

Apples wrote:The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).
Well, I think that kyriarchy/intersectionalism is a bit more than that, personally. It's not just the understanding of all the various power axis in society. It's also understanding that those power axis are often dimorphic, with power going in all directions depending on the given situation. Somethings, you can or may want to fix, and some things you can't or may not want to fix because the price is too high.

If you're trying to have an intersectionalism based worldview, then the extreme-left starting point, quite frankly, is just fail IMO.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2707

Post by Za-zen »

I am going to condense my thoughts as to why this schism cannot and will not be healed.

The Atheist movement has to serve the interest of all atheists. That interest being, the prevention of religious incursion into legislature. The atheist movement should not be campaigning on issues which are held dear to people who happen to be atheists! And unfortunately that is what the politicos are attempting to do. They are conflating atheism with feminism, atheism with liberalism, atheism with [insert pet political ideology]

Why is this a problem? Because an MRA who is an atheist has as much right to be represented and valued by the atheist movement as a feminist, untill such time that they insist that the atheist movement should be fighting for mens rights, adopting MRA dogma, removing people who they deem anti-mra's from leadership positions, at which stage they should also recieve a heartfelt "wise to fuck up, or go to the tent that does that shit"

Look at the vicious campaign to oust edwina rodgers, before she'd even sat her ass in the chair. And why? Because she's a republican! Oh noes the politicos can't have that, can't have a republicsn in their liberal movement. But wait, that's exactly the problem, this isn't a fucking liberal movement, and if you can't leave your politics at the door to fight the common enemy of religion, then you are in the wrong fucking tent.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2708

Post by Mykeru »

decius wrote:Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.
Normally Magix Movie Edit Pro saves as an .MPV file, which is a container that links to external files. Often when it can't find the external file it will prompt to locate it. This is something different, perhaps related to having more than one editing widow open.

I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.
TheMan wrote: Once a linked video file in a project is moved, or worse an entire folder is moved containing video used in a project it renders the EDL useless. BUT! most good programs alert you that the video file location doesn't exist and gives you an opportunity to re`link. If this opportunity doesn't happen you can kiss that project goodbye and you'll have to start again.

That's how it normally works.

My description could also be totally unrelated to Mykeru's problem but educational anyways....
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... emlin2.jpg

Gremlins. With these new blockbuster bombs you have to hit them juuuuust right.
Cunning Punt wrote:
Submariner wrote:
justinvacula wrote:The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.

Justin , I'm sure I speak for many here who just want to say to you....

either grow that thing out or shave it the fuck off. Seriously, my 17 yr old daughter has a better moustache.

Oh and congrats and all that. Fuck off.
THIS! SQUAWK! 1,000 TIMES THIS!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hpT8rrYbCdA/U ... pillar.jpg

Most things that squawk think Justin's 'stache looks tasty.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2709

Post by jimthepleb »

Lsuoma wrote:
jimthepleb wrote: Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).
Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)
Good point on Mabus, however wasn't the other user allowed to return on another account once it was made clear s/h/it's behaviour was unacceptable? My memory could be faulty on that, it is on most things.
On a more board-tech related note lsuoma, i seem to recall that after posting a response to another user, the UI would ping you back to the post you were responding to, rather than the last comment on the board? (again false memory disclaimer) If so could that be re-instated? If not, is it possible?

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2710

Post by ERV »

The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

I dont give a shit. I dont give a shit about a few billion people. That I dont give a shit about PZ Myers is a fairly unremarkable statistic, so I dont feel particularly interested in pursuing 'healing' that rift when I have actual shit to deal with in real life with real people/stuff that I actually care about.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2711

Post by jimthepleb »

Za-zen wrote:I am going to condense my thoughts as to why this schism cannot and will not be healed.

The Atheist Secular movement has to serve the interest of all atheists secularists. That interest being, the prevention of religious incursion into legislature. The atheist secular movement should not be campaigning on issues which are held dear to people who happen to be atheists! And unfortunately that is what the politicos are attempting to do. They are conflating atheism with feminism, atheism with liberalism, atheism with [insert pet political ideology]

Why is this a problem? Because an MRA who is an atheist secularist has as much right to be represented and valued by the atheist secularist movement as a feminist, untill such time that they insist that the atheist secular movement should be fighting for mens rights, adopting MRA dogma, removing people who they deem anti-mra's from leadership positions, at which stage they should also recieve a heartfelt "wise to fuck up, or go to the tent that does that shit"

Look at the vicious campaign to oust edwina rodgers, before she'd even sat her ass in the chair. And why? Because she's a republican! Oh noes the politicos can't have that, can't have a republicsn in their liberal movement. But wait, that's exactly the problem, this isn't a fucking liberal movement, and if you can't leave your politics at the door to fight the common enemy of religion, then you are in the wrong fucking tent.
I do this all the time too. :whistle:

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2712

Post by ERV »

d4m10n wrote:For those of you who missed the backstory here, our original forum foundress had the temerity to post a YouTube excerpt from a Tarantino movie along with her desire to talk to a certain erotica writer face to face. Upon arising from the fainting couch, a select group of bloggers made it clear that they had interpreted this clip not as a metaphor for serious discussion about contentious issues, but rather as an actual threat of violence backed by Japanese steel. Condemnations and hysterically outlandish demands quickly followed.

That reminds me, JV should carefully watch what he posts for the next few months. There are countless people looking for even the most tenuous excuse to declare him a threat or a harasser. All attempts at reasoned discussion of certain issues must be preemptively scuttled, by any means, for obvious reasons.
You missed the part where I clearly referenced the Chris Stedman PZ Myers debate, meaning that in order for you to take the 'Kill Bill' theme literally, you would have to believe that Chris Stedman literally beheaded PZ Myers on stage in Australia.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2713

Post by decius »

Mykeru wrote: I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.
Sounds like a nesting issue, which may or may not be a bug or a feature. Perhaps you need to do parallel editing in a separate instance of the programme, rather than a separate window.

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2714

Post by Dilurk »

Martin Pribble got himself into some hot water with this post http://martinspribble.com/archives/3667
I recognise some of the usual crowd commenting.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2715

Post by Lurkion »

Scented Nectar wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Notung wrote:

1 ) The elevator story is an ordinary event
2 ) If an ordinary event is recounted by a man, you would not question it
3 ) ( 1 2 ) You would not question the elevator story if a man recounted it

4 ) The elevator story was recounted by a woman
5 ) If you question a story recounted by a woman that you would not have questioned
if it was recounted by a man, you are guilty of sexist behaviour
6 ) ( 3 4 5 ) If you question the elevator story, you are guilty of sexist behaviour

7 ) If you legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that
then you question the elevator story
8 ) If you are on the other side but do not make rape threats or use slurs then you
legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that

C ) ( 6 7 8 ) Those on the other side who do not make rape threats or use slurs
are guilty of sexist behaviour


I think it is unsound - I see no reason to believe premises 2 7 or 8 are true
I think it is unsound - I see no no reason to believe premises 2 3 6 7 8

Prermise 8 is unbelievably flawed because it assumes compartmentalisation

Which is a bit of a problem for Rebecca because I am not as neat as that now
Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.
OHMYGOD

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2716

Post by Lurkion »

d4m10n wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Place your bets.
Shave off the 'stache. Then they won't recognise you.
And borrow Al’s racist hat.
No. Al's racist hat draws attention by yelling racist names at everyone.

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

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#2717

Post by LMU »

Mr Danksworth wrote:
Steersman wrote:My recent post on Zvan’s site which is, not suprisingly, “awaiting moderation” [and waiting and waiting …]:
Methinks you’re engaging in some egregious “four legs good; two legs bad” in making it a precondition that anyone to be involved in healing those “deep rifts” has to “leave the slime pit behind”. In addition, the implication that there is no one there “who acts as though any of us have a point” is simply poisoning the well as I at least, among others, have frequently conceded the contrary – for which I have received no small amount of flak, although no banning.

But that is not to mention that that precondition is decidedly unrealistic – what do you expect? An oath of allegiance to FTB and Gender Feminism plus some ritual spitting on Evolutionary Psychology? Seems to me that those issues are substantially or significantly the bones of contention generating those “rifts”, not some peripheral questions about the seating arrangements.

One might suggest, as a starting point, a drawing up of a list on each side followed by a determination of which items are in common. Non-negotiable ultimatums hardly seem to qualify.

Agreed. Putting ultimatums before laying out real terms is putting the cart before the horse. Have these people never actually been in a negotiation/mediation. Ultimatums are the final draw. They are used only when a point has to be forced.
They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2718

Post by Angry_Drunk »

ERV wrote:The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

I dont give a shit. I dont give a shit about a few billion people. That I dont give a shit about PZ Myers is a fairly unremarkable statistic, so I dont feel particularly interested in pursuing 'healing' that rift when I have actual shit to deal with in real life with real people/stuff that I actually care about.
All of this with the addition that there is a core group (Meyers, Benson, Laden, Watson et al) who don't even care about defending their "friends". To them it's whatever it takes to keep control of the conference circuit and the associated dosh.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2719

Post by Mykeru »

ERV wrote: You missed the part where I clearly referenced the Chris Stedman PZ Myers debate, meaning that in order for you to take the 'Kill Bill' theme literally, you would have to believe that Chris Stedman literally beheaded PZ Myers on stage in Australia.
I fully admit to Stephanie Svan's charge of threatening Laden and company with nuclear weapons:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8047/8392 ... 41a8a5.jpg

Also...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8493/8277 ... 485727.jpg

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

Eucliwood banning discussion - coming soon

#2720

Post by Lsuoma »

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2721

Post by jimthepleb »

@rocko is it you that does the excellent 'fairytales' on youtube?

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2722

Post by decius »

Thanks, LSuoma. Like I said, I trust your judgement completely. It's only possible repercussions on others elsewhere that bother me.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2723

Post by LMU »

acathode wrote: *What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.
I've been thinking of it as a series of concentric circles. SJWs are the biggest group and they contain the baboons, who are the SJWs specific to this kerfuffle in atheism/skepticism. Within the baboons are the FC(n) who are the leaders, and include PZ, Benson, etc (Is RW part of the FC(n) or is it FTB bloggers only?).

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2724

Post by katamari Damassi »

comslave wrote:If Mickey Mouse cornered Minnie Mouse in an elevator and asked out for coffee, would that be mouseginy?

:rimshot:
Mickey and Minnie are in a marriage counselor's office.

Minnie says, "I don't know why Mickey insisted we come here."

The counselor says, "Mickey told me that he was concerned about your behavior. He said you've been acting strangely lately."

"No." Mickey replies. "I said she was fucking Goofy."

Barael
.
.
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2725

Post by Barael »

Dilurk wrote:Martin Pribble got himself into some hot water with this post http://martinspribble.com/archives/3667
I recognise some of the usual crowd commenting.
And a running start for the comments:
I can see you don't understand much about women or feminism. For feminism, look up feminism 101. I can't cover it all here and it's not my job to spoon feed it to you.
I give it 7/10. The form is impeccable but an overall lack of creativity.

Locked