Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Steersman]

In the comments, Crommie pisses on EllenBeth's shoes and tells her its raining:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... #more-6775
http://www.freezepage.com/1365008256XUNJADOAND

Read yesterday’s post. Your hurt feelings are not proof that an accusation isn’t true.

So what constitues proof, Crom? A belief, on your part, that such accusations are true? :lol:

“God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all.”

But relative to Crommunist’s claim, it is rather amusing that Ophelia Benson was, apparently, relying on her “hurt feelings” as a justification for trying to get Michael Nugent to shut-down his various discussion threads. Something that several of her “white knights” ran madly off in all directions with:

Steersman #117: Time for some Feminism 101, not that a misogynist would care.

If you’re a non-misogynist man and a woman says you’re hurting her you don’t demand she prove her feelings, you stop.

One wonders what Crommunist’s opinion is on Michael’s “Atheist Skeptic Dialog” and how his deprecating of “hurt feelings” squares with Ophelia’s perceptions on the topic.

But that suggestion that a woman’s feelings [apparently more on one side than another] should have some sort of status as trump – the Ace of it too – really has to qualify as some seriously egregious sexism. Something, just in passing, that Eucliwood rather cogently argued ….

[Dick Strawkins]

You have got to witness the wonkyness halffish is coming out with on twitter

Link?

[AndrewV69]

In the comments, Crommie pisses on EllenBeth's shoes and tells her its raining:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... #more-6775
http://www.freezepage.com/1365008256XUNJADOAND

According to EBW's comment, "chill girl" is now a slur.

What is interesting about the EBW business for me is trying to extrapolate how this is going to end. Will the baboons do a turnabout for once and seek some form of accommodation or will they "double down"?

In any event EBW also asked the following in the same thread:

Do you think somebody calling Morris Dees a “racist” knowing nothing about him has just besmirched his character?

And I see some attempts, the latest by Anne C. Hanna attempting to herd EBW back into the fold.

[Apples]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Anyway, it's fun if you want to see a little rad-fem bashing of Adam Lee.

Needless to say, there's only one thing all these people agree on (mentioned at least twice in the Lee thread) -- the Slymepit is definitely full of misogyny-spewing trolls.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

tkmlac makes a slam dunk on Sally Strange over at EBW's. No response yet...

http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/03/31/y ... omment-190

[Za-zen]

You have got to witness the wonkyness halffish is coming out with on twitter

Link?

On mobile, but if you are on twitter take a look at my feed @zaminuszen

[Wonderist]

The moderator for the FTB side is Monette Richards.

Is that the same Monette Richards of the board of Secular Women?

The group that rejected the recent "Open Letter to the Secular Community" that called for something along the lines of Nugent's attempt at defusing tensions?
Here is the entirety of their post rejecting the attempt.

A Response to "An Open Letter to the Secular Community"
Elsa Roberts - April 2, 2013

Today, the leaders of several prominent secular organizations published a document titled “An Open Letter to the Secular Community.” Our name is not attached, and our members may be wondering why Secular Woman declined to endorse this document. As a secular organization, our mission is to amplify the voice, presence and influence of non-religious women. We recognize that part of our mission takes place in online communities. Although promoting better online communication is a worthy goal, we reject the current statement’s conception of civil discourse because we feel that it gives equal voice to the sexist ideas and beliefs that have been perpetuated as differing “interpretations” of feminism.

The Open Letter contains a textbook definition of feminism.

The principle that women and men should have equal rights flows from our core values as a movement . . . We seek not only civil equality for everyone, regardless of sex, but an end to discriminatory social structures and conventions – again often the legacy of our religious heritage—that limit opportunities for both women and men.

It is confusing, therefore, that this same letter suggests that a significant problem with online communication is centered on the “debate” about the “appropriate way to interpret feminism.” At Secular Woman, the principle that “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (Hooks, 2000, p. viii) is taken as a given, and not a topic for debate.

As a secular feminist organization committed to understanding and exposing societal constructs that contribute to the inequality of women and other oppressed groups, we have no desire to listen to, respect, or continuously debunk overtly sexist viewpoints. Just as most scientists are not interested in debating the beliefs of creationists, we are not interested in debating gender-biased, racist, homophobic, or trans*phobic beliefs. Although the document contains reasonable recommendations for increasing effective communication, some of these techniques have been used to silence women (and other oppressed groups). When people express opinions that challenge sexism ingrained in social structures and conventions they receive a significant amount of pushback and harassment. Those of us working to challenge systemic sexism should be under no obligation to listen to or be more charitable to our opponents.

Sincerely,

The Board of Secular Woman

Kim Rippere, President

Elsa Roberts, Vice President

Corinne Zimmerman, Secretary

Brandon Chaddock

Nicole Harris

Charlotte Klasson

Monette Richards

Their approach is not a topic for debate. It is a given.
Those who have a different view are anti-feminist opponents, to whom they have no obligation to listen or be charitable.

What can possibly go wrong? :think:

I thought we covered this already: http://askanatheist.tv/2012/06/10/the-p ... -feminism/

[lurktard]

I know Atheists exist, because i reject solipsism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism therefore when a person tells me they reject theism i know that they are categorically atheist, and since i accept their existence i then know that an atheist other than myself exists. Could that person who self describes as atheist be not wholly honest about their rejection of theism, and therefore undermine my assertion that an atheist other than myself exists, yes of course. Luckily people who reject theism are not uncommon! So in the communication age it doesn't take make work to establish that other atheists exist!

What you may be doing is making a category error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake in how we establish existences. We establish the existence of tangible property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property differently to how we establish the existence of a concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

If you tell me you do not believe in the existence of ET, and if we define that lack of belief as Aetism, and those who concur with that concept as Aetists, the evidence required to substantiate Aetism is not the same as that which is required to establish the existence of either a physical act or property. In fact once the concept of Aetism is articulated, it in fact exists. How many Aetists there actually are is irrelevant to the concepts existence.

Your first paragraph stands and falls with the assumption that the other person's claim that they reject theism is true. You can not know that. You have to take that on faith; don't you?

I fully agree that the concept of atheism exists. No matter what.
Even the concept of the atheist exists, no matter what. But there is also another concept: The concept of the theist falsely claiming to be an atheist.
For any person who claims to be an atheist you need to be somehow able to tell if that person lies or speaks the truth. If you are not able to do that (and then actually doing it!), it's hard to justify the claim that atheists exist, because you have no way of actually knowing.

I know, that's nitpicking. I know that such a view leads to the paradoxon of a skeptical atheist supporting the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of atheists. But such is the relatioship between personal anecdote and objective evidence.

I am not trying to push my view here. I am not really convinced either. I just stumbled about the question and it's nagging, because I haven't found a really satisfying answer yet.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

You have got to witness the wonkyness halffish is coming out with on twitter

Link?

On mobile, but if you are on twitter take a look at my feed @zaminuszen

Interesting first comment by Half-Fish:

Don't think for even a second that it doesn't take balls/ovaries of brass to be a blogger writing about social justice. It does. Every day.

I may not be a linguist, but as far as I know, "brass balls" is a nautical expression, referring to canonballs. Nothing to do with gonades.

Am I wrong in thinking so?

[lurktard]

small improvement (i hope, i have syntax problems)

Your first paragraph stands and falls with the assumption that the other person's claim is true, that they reject theism. You can not know that. You have to take that on faith, don't you?

[Dilurk]

You have got to witness the wonkyness halffish is coming out with on twitter

Link?

On mobile, but if you are on twitter take a look at my feed @zaminuszen

Interesting first comment by Half-Fish:

Don't think for even a second that it doesn't take balls/ovaries of brass to be a blogger writing about social justice. It does. Every day.

I may not be a linguist, but as far as I know, "brass balls" is a nautical expression, referring to canonballs. Nothing to do with gonades.

Am I wrong in thinking so?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

[Steersman]

The moderator for the FTB side is Monette Richards.

Is that the same Monette Richards of the board of Secular Women?
<snip>
What can possibly go wrong? :think:

I thought we covered this already: http://askanatheist.tv/2012/06/10/the-p ... -feminism/

Too much to ask that you don't needlessly quote more than is necessary? ....

[clownshoe]

Trigger Warning: "minor Internet celebrity" @Rocko2466
Full Frontal Zealotry episode 13 is out:
http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/201
#FFZ #Atheist

[Dick Strawkins]

You have got to witness the wonkyness halffish is coming out with on twitter

Link?

On mobile, but if you are on twitter take a look at my feed @zaminuszen

Interesting first comment by Half-Fish:

Don't think for even a second that it doesn't take balls/ovaries of brass to be a blogger writing about social justice. It does. Every day.

I may not be a linguist, but as far as I know, "brass balls" is a nautical expression, referring to canonballs. Nothing to do with gonades.

Am I wrong in thinking so?

'Brass balls' often does refer to gonads in English.
There's a well known expression about the weather being so cold, "it would freeze the balls off a brass monkey" - and its sometimes just shortened to "brass monkeys" alone.

[Steersman]

as Churchill (I think) said, “If a person isn’t a socialist at 20 then they have no heart; if they’re still a socialist at 50 then they have no brain”. Bit of a challenge to balance out and integrate those two perspectives.

You may want to see this here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=374518

In any event, my response has always been to point out that not only was I heartless at 20, but I have been stupid ever since.

Some interesting antecedents to the aphorism.

And your “balancing and integration” of the two perspectives is probably quite a reasonable one. Although I expect that the paradox resides in or follows from some very different perceptions of or definitions of socialism – I sort of doubt that yours is all that congruent with, say, Setar’s ….

Something, in passing, which again illustrates that many contradictions follow “from an uncritical use of the apparently pellucid notion of class” – an observation that apparently led to some serious questions about the limits of various formal systems of logic.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

Oh, ok. Wikipedia seems to say it's an urban legend. I should facepalm some more at myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_monk ... xpression)

But to the point, Half-Fish is being rather racist in this talk with Za-Zen.

or you can just whine about it and not even acknowledge the reasons why you're living there, rather than your own homelands.

[clownshoe]

Trigger Warning: "minor Internet celebrity" @Rocko2466
Full Frontal Zealotry episode 13 is out:
http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/201
#FFZ #Atheist

Or should I have said "the Slymepit's own"?

[Apples]

In any event EBW also asked the following in the same thread:

Do you think somebody calling Morris Dees a “racist” knowing nothing about him has just besmirched his character?

And Crommie's answer is.... "No."

And I see some attempts, the latest by Anne C. Hanna attempting to herd EBW back into the fold.

Yeah - Hanna says,

So I guess the question I find myself always asking here, and I think the question many people are going to be asking as they watch your developing response to this incident is, is this really the incident you want to use to define your relationship to the people here, and is the particular response that you’re making really founding the kind of relationship you want to have? If you decide that the most important thing about this relationship is to win your fight to have everyone acknowledge that your role in that original comments thread was completely without blemish, and that the angry responses of some commenters were completely beyond the pale, then you’re selecting one style of relationship. If you instead decide to think of this as a massive and completely unintentional miscommunication on your part with people whom you would rather maintain as allies, then you’re selecting a different style of relationship, and one which may have a productive future if you work to understand how that misunderstanding came about and communicate with the other parties involved about how to avoid it in the future.

I don’t want to presume to tell you which choice is right for you, or to suggest that these are the only possible alternatives. But I nevertheless personally hope that you will choose something more like the second of the two options I mentioned, because I like to see people I respect working together rather than becoming enemies unnecessarily.

Which is an extremely long way of saying - is this the hill you want to die on, EllenBeth? Because even if you're right, you'd better roll over and play dead or your reputation is fucked forever at FTB.

[Humphrey_Hedgehog]

@ Hedgehog:

It would probably have been more accurate in my initial comment to say "...defining characteristic of an atheist is a matter of belief"

I'd prefer "...a matter of disbelief". Anyway, I suspect we agree on the general point so I shall return to my grass verge and watch the traffic go by.

[Submariner]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Wow, Adam Lee is tiptoeing in broken glass and it's still not good enough. That's fucking hilarious!

[Wonderist]

Quick question: either a stupid one ... or an epically "heretical" one, which may doom the skeptical atheist movement to be purged from reality!!!1

So, brace yourself, here it comes:
The claim "atheists do exist" is supported by what evidence exactly?

I thought about it. But I am kind of stumped, because as far as I see it, there is nothing more than individuals claiming to be atheists. But anybody can claim to be anything; doesn't make it true. I know that atheists do exist, because I know I am an atheist and I exist. But that shouldn't convince anybody else, because it's nothing more than an anecdote.

Googling the issue leads me to religitards' theological crap, only. I haven't found a skeptical approach to the issue. Any help?

Relevantly, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, and his major area of investigation so far has been into the brain mechanisms of belief, specifically theist belief and non-theist belief as a focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29

You can measure (to some extent) belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in the brain, using fMRI. Yes, atheists exist.

[Outwest]

In any event EBW also asked the following in the same thread:

Do you think somebody calling Morris Dees a “racist” knowing nothing about him has just besmirched his character?

And Crommie's answer is.... "No."

And I see some attempts, the latest by Anne C. Hanna attempting to herd EBW back into the fold.

Yeah - Hanna says,

So I guess the question I find myself always asking here, and I think the question many people are going to be asking as they watch your developing response to this incident is, is this really the incident you want to use to define your relationship to the people here, and is the particular response that you’re making really founding the kind of relationship you want to have? If you decide that the most important thing about this relationship is to win your fight to have everyone acknowledge that your role in that original comments thread was completely without blemish, and that the angry responses of some commenters were completely beyond the pale, then you’re selecting one style of relationship. If you instead decide to think of this as a massive and completely unintentional miscommunication on your part with people whom you would rather maintain as allies, then you’re selecting a different style of relationship, and one which may have a productive future if you work to understand how that misunderstanding came about and communicate with the other parties involved about how to avoid it in the future.

I don’t want to presume to tell you which choice is right for you, or to suggest that these are the only possible alternatives. But I nevertheless personally hope that you will choose something more like the second of the two options I mentioned, because I like to see people I respect working together rather than becoming enemies unnecessarily.

Which is an extremely long way of saying - is this the hill you want to die on, EllenBeth? Because even if you're right, you'd better roll over and play dead or your reputation is fucked forever at FTB.

I dont see EBW going back to the "fold". The way I read her post, she was truly shocked at the reception she received to her comments. I don't see her coming here either. She said she realizes she's said some things about people that she regrets and will apologize for (we'll see). I think that now she's had a taste of the vitriol at FTB, she better understands others who have tried to be honest brokers in discussions.

[justinvacula]

As promised, my response to Secular Woman's 'we refuse to debate people' release:

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... community/

Secular Woman – Dogmatic feminism within the secular community

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Wow, Adam Lee is tiptoeing in broken glass and it's still not good enough. That's fucking hilarious!

This is what happens when the pseudo-crazy-feminist-wannabes meet the REAL crazy-feminists ... all sorts of crazy shit happens and both sides look even crazier.

The comments are a delight to behold

A crazy street dance off begins, with who can be the most crazy of the crazies - I have Jason Nevins vs RunDMC down for the soundtrack

[youtube]TLGWQfK-6DY[/youtube]

[EdwardGemmer]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Wow, Adam Lee is tiptoeing in broken glass and it's still not good enough. That's fucking hilarious!

I really hate this bullshit about allies for this and allies for that. I consider myself a strong feminist, but I sure as hell am not someone's ally. This isn't war. We aren't going to battle over who can say dongle. I represent criminals. They are marginalized a hell of a lot more than Melissa McEwan, and I don't go around saying I'm an ally for criminals. It sounds goofy.

[Wonderist]

Reply to Wonderist @ viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=81558#p81582

Do you mean, is it ever worth *cooperating*? Yes, it would take longer to get the message, probably. However, what's worse is that too much noise means any 'message' gets more and more random, the more noise there is. In that case, I'm pretty sure you'd do best by sticking to D, since D always has a better payoff than C, if you can't predict or 'trust' the opponent. That's the same as playing a single round of PD with no iteration.

I mean, if I start with C, it seems like I should always play C (at least against tit for tat). Because once I play D, I have to play several rounds of C to "send a message" and get things back on track (and even more if there's more noise), suffering losses each time. But then again, what if my opponent starts with D? I guess it depends on my opponents first move.

Oh, I see. Well, that's the problem with noise, eh, because even if you play all Cs, random noise (miscommunication) can make it appear to the other player that you at some point play a D. So they will probably retaliate against that, playing a D themselves next turn.

Now, this is the interesting thing about Pavlov. If you try to get high cooperation in a noisy environment by taking a 'leap of faith' and playing All Cs, All the Time, and you're playing against Pavlov, then a noisy C might be interpreted by Pavlov as a D, and Pavlov will the retaliate with a D. But if you naively keep playing Cs, in the hopes that *like Tit For Tat*, Pavlov will 'get the message', well, sadly, in this case, you'll be falling victim to Pavlov's strength, which is to *exploit* suckers who always play C. The other name for Pavlov is Win-Stay, Lose-Switch, which explains better how the strategy works, and why it will exploit suckers.

I'll have to get back to this one a bit later, though, when I have more time to answer in depth. In the mean time, found this article, which nicely is not behind a paywall: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2460568/

[Apples]

A bit of Twitter insanity from Lord Setar....

http://i.imgur.com/yMI1RE2.jpg

... serves as a good excuse to shamelessly repost this vid that Arya Stark offered up recently. If they're looking for black conference speakers....

[youtube]eZT1XatqEHE[/youtube]

[Guest]

Now I get why people are so attached to the word cunt here. Strayans. This board is filled with Strayans.

[AndrewV69]

Crip Dyke lays down the law about "presumption of innocence" and what it really means:

http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/03/31/y ... omment-203

If EllenBeth truly doesn’t understand that presumption of innocence is a bulwark against the government and not a moral principle preventing certain accusations and/or forms of accusation, she hasn’t thought it through. The presumption of innocence isn’t even raised until there is a de facto accusation.

It is not up to a victim of behavior to presume the innocence of those doing the victimizing.

That is for the persons sitting in judgement.

OK Crip Dyke, seeing as you just doubted the word of a EBW who I judge to be a victim, I now get to judge you of being guilty of thoughtcrime.

Oh and EBW has no say in presuming you innocent of that behaviour either.

[Apples]

I really hate this bullshit about allies for this and allies for that. I consider myself a strong feminist, but I sure as hell am not someone's ally.

No shit - Kassiane is always on about this, and the basic message is always the same - "You can't be my ally unless I'm allowed to treat you like shit." And then there's - "you can't demand cookies." Fuck's sake, woman! What makes you think I want a cookie from you?! I can get a box of oreos right down the street for $4.

[Outwest]

Crip Dyke lays down the law about "presumption of innocence" and what it really means:

http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/03/31/y ... omment-203

If EllenBeth truly doesn’t understand that presumption of innocence is a bulwark against the government and not a moral principle preventing certain accusations and/or forms of accusation, she hasn’t thought it through. The presumption of innocence isn’t even raised until there is a de facto accusation.

It is not up to a victim of behavior to presume the innocence of those doing the victimizing.

That is for the persons sitting in judgement.

OK Crip Dyke, seeing as you just doubted the word of a EBW who I judge to be a victim, I now get to judge you of being guilty of thoughtcrime.

Oh and EBW has no say in presuming you innocent of that behaviour either.

I believe EBW stated somewhere in that thread that she's an attorney. So some idiot is telling her what presumption of innocence means?

[clownshoe]

As promised, my response to Secular Woman's 'we refuse to debate people' release:

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... community/

Secular Woman – Dogmatic feminism within the secular community

Well said Justin.

Interesting too that one of the CFI's own promotes Secular Woman's response to "An Open Letter to the Secular Community", but not the letter itself (on which CFI were a signatory). Or am I wrong there?

Fair enough I guess (if you don't believe in something) but on something fundamental like this for me that indicates the person in question does not have the best interest of CFI at heart. Indeed, the perception is they're focusing on their own personal agenda to the exclusion of all else.

[debaser71]

As promised, my response to Secular Woman's 'we refuse to debate people' release:

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... community/

Secular Woman – Dogmatic feminism within the secular community

I thought that letter was incredible! It goes right into why feminism (the gender/dogmatic variety) isn't compatible with skepticism. But then I noticed that the group really isn't about science, skepticism, or rationality...just secularism. Even religious people can be advocates for secularism. So where I might not welcome this group into the skeptic community I welcome them just fine in the secular community.

IMO. And maybe I missed the part where this group claims to be skeptics or based on reason. They did compare themselves to science and their detractors as creationists though...but this can still be part of secularism as in the case anti-evolution school curriculum. Maybe I'm being too generous in this regard...again the letter is a fine example of what's bad about feminism but the secular tent is bigger than the skeptical one, no?

[justinvacula]

Thought experiments are now evidence of 'rape culture' according to Marcotte. Hell, why not? ...but I suppose she also ought to go after violinist societies. Perhaps Judith Jarvis Thomson, too, is a 'chill girl?'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... doesn.html

[Wonderist]

The moderator for the FTB side is Monette Richards.

Is that the same Monette Richards of the board of Secular Women?
<snip>
What can possibly go wrong? :think:

I thought we covered this already: http://askanatheist.tv/2012/06/10/the-p ... -feminism/

Too much to ask that you don't needlessly quote more than is necessary? ....

Define 'needlessly'. I wanted to include the context for those who might not have read it, to see what I was referring to by 'dogmatic feminism'. Did I 'need' to do that? Hard to say.

[Metalogic42]

Reply to Wonderist @ viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=81558#p81582

Do you mean, is it ever worth *cooperating*? Yes, it would take longer to get the message, probably. However, what's worse is that too much noise means any 'message' gets more and more random, the more noise there is. In that case, I'm pretty sure you'd do best by sticking to D, since D always has a better payoff than C, if you can't predict or 'trust' the opponent. That's the same as playing a single round of PD with no iteration.

I mean, if I start with C, it seems like I should always play C (at least against tit for tat). Because once I play D, I have to play several rounds of C to "send a message" and get things back on track (and even more if there's more noise), suffering losses each time. But then again, what if my opponent starts with D? I guess it depends on my opponents first move.

Oh, I see. Well, that's the problem with noise, eh, because even if you play all Cs, random noise (miscommunication) can make it appear to the other player that you at some point play a D. So they will probably retaliate against that, playing a D themselves next turn.

Now, this is the interesting thing about Pavlov. If you try to get high cooperation in a noisy environment by taking a 'leap of faith' and playing All Cs, All the Time, and you're playing against Pavlov, then a noisy C might be interpreted by Pavlov as a D, and Pavlov will the retaliate with a D. But if you naively keep playing Cs, in the hopes that *like Tit For Tat*, Pavlov will 'get the message', well, sadly, in this case, you'll be falling victim to Pavlov's strength, which is to *exploit* suckers who always play C. The other name for Pavlov is Win-Stay, Lose-Switch, which explains better how the strategy works, and why it will exploit suckers.

I'll have to get back to this one a bit later, though, when I have more time to answer in depth. In the mean time, found this article, which nicely is not behind a paywall: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2460568/

Just tried Pavlov against Serendip, starting with D. Got:
Your average number of coins was 2.30 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 1.80 .

Starting with C, Pavlov just results in CCCCCCCCC...

(I may or may not comment on the article later when I have time to read it)

[Wonderist]

I believe EBW stated somewhere in that thread that she's an attorney. So some idiot is telling her what presumption of innocence means?

Former attorney. The asshole sheriff also tried to get her in trouble for using 'Esq.' after her name because she's no longer practicing law. Petty bullshit. Not just in A/S communities.

[Wonderist]

Thought experiments are now evidence of 'rape culture' according to Marcotte. Hell, why not? ...but I suppose she also ought to go after violinist societies. Perhaps Judith Jarvis Thomson, too, is a 'chill girl?'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... doesn.html

Not to mention the rampant saxism in the 80s pop music industry.

[sacha]

Goddammit, this forum moves too fast! I spent the weekend painting kitchen cabinets (hell exist and it is composed of an infinite amount of kitchen cabinets that need painting). Come back and read about Timbledoo hoopla, Ellen Beth wrote something about something, and there's some sort of debate. We need weekly summaries atop the forum...

weekly summaries!!

Yes! Please! and Thank you.

[sacha]

Not interested in taking her off block.

:clap:

I don't have much sympathy for EllenBeth 'Don't be fooled by his game when he rapes your daughter' Wachs either. The biter got bit, that's all, and she's butthurt over getting what she's dished out to others. Too bad.

As Rashul would say, I am a great big black hole of non-sympathy for her

[Wonderist]

Reply to Wonderist @ viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=81558#p81582

Do you mean, is it ever worth *cooperating*? Yes, it would take longer to get the message, probably. However, what's worse is that too much noise means any 'message' gets more and more random, the more noise there is. In that case, I'm pretty sure you'd do best by sticking to D, since D always has a better payoff than C, if you can't predict or 'trust' the opponent. That's the same as playing a single round of PD with no iteration.

I mean, if I start with C, it seems like I should always play C (at least against tit for tat). Because once I play D, I have to play several rounds of C to "send a message" and get things back on track (and even more if there's more noise), suffering losses each time. But then again, what if my opponent starts with D? I guess it depends on my opponents first move.

Oh, I see. Well, that's the problem with noise, eh, because even if you play all Cs, random noise (miscommunication) can make it appear to the other player that you at some point play a D. So they will probably retaliate against that, playing a D themselves next turn.

Now, this is the interesting thing about Pavlov. If you try to get high cooperation in a noisy environment by taking a 'leap of faith' and playing All Cs, All the Time, and you're playing against Pavlov, then a noisy C might be interpreted by Pavlov as a D, and Pavlov will the retaliate with a D. But if you naively keep playing Cs, in the hopes that *like Tit For Tat*, Pavlov will 'get the message', well, sadly, in this case, you'll be falling victim to Pavlov's strength, which is to *exploit* suckers who always play C. The other name for Pavlov is Win-Stay, Lose-Switch, which explains better how the strategy works, and why it will exploit suckers.

I'll have to get back to this one a bit later, though, when I have more time to answer in depth. In the mean time, found this article, which nicely is not behind a paywall: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2460568/

Just tried Pavlov against Serendip, starting with D. Got:
Your average number of coins was 2.30 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 1.80 .

Starting with C, Pavlov just results in CCCCCCCCC...

(I may or may not comment on the article later when I have time to read it)

Again, to notice the difference, you need to have a noisy environment. In the game, there's no noise. You always know what the other player played exactly. There's no misunderstandings. When I get back to it later, I'll see if there's any simulators out there, but I doubt it, honestly. If there's enough interest, I could write one.

BTW: All the most successful strategies (barring colluding strategies) will play All-C in a noiseless game. It's the optimal solution for cooperative strategies. That's why you won't see any big difference without noise.

[Metalogic42]

Thought experiments are now evidence of 'rape culture' according to Marcotte. Hell, why not? ...but I suppose she also ought to go after violinist societies. Perhaps Judith Jarvis Thomson, too, is a 'chill girl?'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... doesn.html

She conveniently failed to mention this part of Landsburg's article:

It is, I think, a red herring to say that there’s something peculiarly sacred about the boundaries of our bodies. Every time someone on my street turns on a porch light, trillions of photons penetrate my body. They cause me no physical harm and therefore the law does nothing to restrain them. Even if those trillions of tiny penetrations caused me deep psychic distress, the law would continue to ignore them, and I think there’s a case for that (it’s the same as the case for ignoring Bob McCrankypants’s porn aversion). So for the issues we’re discussing here, bodily penetration does not seem to be in some sort of special protected category.

This reminds me of last year, when this paper was published: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full and I saw many, many people complaining about how the authors were "baby killers" - even some pro-choice people. Some even called for the paper to be retracted, not because it was flawed, but because it was distasteful or immoral.

[Metalogic42]

Reply to Wonderist @ viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=81558#p81582

Do you mean, is it ever worth *cooperating*? Yes, it would take longer to get the message, probably. However, what's worse is that too much noise means any 'message' gets more and more random, the more noise there is. In that case, I'm pretty sure you'd do best by sticking to D, since D always has a better payoff than C, if you can't predict or 'trust' the opponent. That's the same as playing a single round of PD with no iteration.

I mean, if I start with C, it seems like I should always play C (at least against tit for tat). Because once I play D, I have to play several rounds of C to "send a message" and get things back on track (and even more if there's more noise), suffering losses each time. But then again, what if my opponent starts with D? I guess it depends on my opponents first move.

Oh, I see. Well, that's the problem with noise, eh, because even if you play all Cs, random noise (miscommunication) can make it appear to the other player that you at some point play a D. So they will probably retaliate against that, playing a D themselves next turn.

Now, this is the interesting thing about Pavlov. If you try to get high cooperation in a noisy environment by taking a 'leap of faith' and playing All Cs, All the Time, and you're playing against Pavlov, then a noisy C might be interpreted by Pavlov as a D, and Pavlov will the retaliate with a D. But if you naively keep playing Cs, in the hopes that *like Tit For Tat*, Pavlov will 'get the message', well, sadly, in this case, you'll be falling victim to Pavlov's strength, which is to *exploit* suckers who always play C. The other name for Pavlov is Win-Stay, Lose-Switch, which explains better how the strategy works, and why it will exploit suckers.

I'll have to get back to this one a bit later, though, when I have more time to answer in depth. In the mean time, found this article, which nicely is not behind a paywall: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2460568/

Just tried Pavlov against Serendip, starting with D. Got:
Your average number of coins was 2.30 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 1.80 .

Starting with C, Pavlov just results in CCCCCCCCC...

(I may or may not comment on the article later when I have time to read it)

Again, to notice the difference, you need to have a noisy environment. In the game, there's no noise. You always know what the other player played exactly. There's no misunderstandings. When I get back to it later, I'll see if there's any simulators out there, but I doubt it, honestly. If there's enough interest, I could write one.

BTW: All the most successful strategies (barring colluding strategies) will play All-C in a noiseless game. It's the optimal solution for cooperative strategies. That's why you won't see any big difference without noise.

Could we simulate noise be deliberately misinterpreting Serendip's moves once or twice?

[justinvacula]

New from LeftSidePositive responding to

More to the point, I think you’re ignoring the real question: “How do you reduce sexism in the secular movement?”

http://skepchick.org/2013/04/an-open-le ... ent-167078

Emphasis mine

A very real start would be: get the leaders in our movement to realize that sexism and harassment are not misunderstandings, and they won’t be solved by dialogue. They will be solved by making our environment unquestionably inhospitable to overt sexists, and to those with unexamined privilege . This would include ditching DJ Grothe, for starters, and making sure conferences don’t invite people who have said stupid, evidence-free shit about women, their abilities, and the value of their autonomy. It would include refusing to admit individuals like Justin Vacula, Ryan Grant Long, Reap Paden, and many others to even REGISTER for a conference, let alone speak at it. It would include showing that harassment gets you complete ostracism, and we reserve the right to decide how long it takes before we’ll give you another shot.

Great! Now feminists who have said stupid evidence-free shit about women, their abilities, and the value of their autonomy can be purged (on Julian's reasoning)!!11oneone

...and the hate-fest for DJ continues with a special shoutout to Reap and I + non-pitter Ryan Grant Long (well, everyone who disagrees is a pitter, huh?). #secularshunning

[Whig]

Que Sam Harris being called an Islamophobe, take 456366.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... mentpage=5

[Jan Steen]

Crommunist is at least as dishonest as Peezus, but as his style is more bland, not to say tedious, and less openly inflammatory, this is easily overlooked.

There is a great deal of consternation that gets kicked up over the terms “racist” and “misogynist” (I would also put “homophobic” in this category, but it is a special case). People who engage in racist or misogynistic behaviour, or who espouse racist or misogynistic attitudes, will furiously clutch their pearls and fan themselves feverishly whenever the dreaded “r word” or “m word” are applied to their behaviour. “But I’m not a racist!” they will cry “how dare you call me such a thing!”

This is a typical specimen of the “when did you stop beating your wife?” argumentation that is common among SJ warriors. Crommunist just assumes that anyone who is accused of racist or misogynist behaviour is actually guilty of such behaviour. But how often have we not seen on the Pharyngulag that people are accused of misogyny merely for doubting the accuracy of statements by someone like Rebecca Watson? It is by no means always evident and universally agreed upon when certain behaviour is racist or misogynist and when it is merely an expression of a different opinion.

The next step is to label someone who engages in presumed misogynist (or racist) behaviour a misogynist (racist). Crommunist does this by a transparent semantic trick:

Almost by definition, it is not “an insult” to describe someone’s behaviour. If someone has murdered someone else, it’s not “an insult” to call them a murderer. If someone has stolen or lied, it’s not an insult to call them a thief or a liar. The words “racist” and “misogynist” work in a similar fashion: if you engage in a racist behaviour, or you give voice to a misogynistic belief, then calling you “racist” and “misogynist” are not insults – they’re descriptions of the thing you are doing.

No, they do not work in a similar fashion. When someone engages in childish behaviour that does not necessarily mean that they are a child. A child is a person under a certain age. A misogynist (racist) is someone who thinks women (racial minorities) are inferior and to be despised. It is actually a fairly well defined (and thoroughly unpleasant) kind of person. Crommunist and his ilk are often seen to defame people by arbitrarily labelling their comments as misogynist (racist) and then by a semantic sleigh of hand to turn a misplaced adjective in a still more misplaced noun. It’s pernicious behaviour. And thoroughly dishonest to boot.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... y-labeled/

[Git]

Oh, Christo. He's a jerk who hates puppies. Don't ever give when they do that. When they do that, just firmly repeat your points with the reply, over and over.

Lsuoma, I'm curious about the antique picture you have there. What is that?

Meanwhile I'm curious about the kitteh in your avatar. Tell me more!

lol. What are those stones doing on your kitteh's head? And why are they blue?

No idea, Apparently they look like dildos, but its just a random image I found on the web of a grumpy-looking cat with stones on its head.

[justinvacula]

#BraveHero Ben Radford

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... rt_2_of_2/

I see little benefit (and indeed the potential for considerable damage) when organized skepticism (if there be such a beast) gets into political and social activism. Most skeptics I know tend to be politically liberal, though many are not. Many skeptics I know tend to be humanists and atheists, though many are not (including the great polymath and CSICOP co-founder Martin Gardner). Implicitly or explicitly suggesting that skepticism (or, by extension, good critical thinking) presupposes a given political or social agenda is not only incorrect but unnecessarily divisive.

There already exist well-run, effective organizations for just about any social or political cause. If you want to support wolf conservation, breast cancer research, reproductive rights, animal rights, alternative energy sources, social justice, independent news media, feminism, freedom for Tibet, gay rights, the prevention of overfishing, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, transgender librarians, or any other of countless causes, there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Furthermore, those organizations already have the infrastructure to make things happen; that's why in many cases it's better to support a large, existing organization than to start fresh or duplicate another organization's goals or purpose. There's no need for skeptics to reinvent the wheel, and there's also no need to brand skeptics groups as an umbrella organization for any of those causes just because some individual skeptics within those groups support them.

[sacha]

From what I've read, underreporting of rape by male victims bounces anywhere between 50% to 90%. It's a real problem in the US military as well, where only 1 in 15 male victims will report as opposed to 1 in 5 female victims. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... shame.html for what it's worth on that one.)

That's why I've been telling friends who ask why I keep bringing up male victims of rape/sexual assault "Because it's a HUMAN problem. You can't tell men "it only matters when it happens to a woman" and be seriously surprised that they don't take rape as seriously as you want them to. I GUARANTEE you know a guy who's been raped/molested/sexually assaulted, and yet you've told them, in different ways "yeah, no one cares". Well, if you don't care about them, why should they care about you."

It's a human problem, not a women's problem, not any gender's problem. The sooner we start talking about it as such, the better a chance we'll have to improve things.

QFT

[bovarchist]

Isn't presumption of innocence, by extension, the basic principle of skepticism? We assume a claim (accusation) is false, until given a reason to accept it?

Seems to me they can believe whatever they want about feminism, just please don't call yourselves skeptics.

[justinvacula]

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

What utter bullshit. 'Ambidexter' is free to call me on Skype and call in during Brave Hero Radio (each episode has welcomed callers no matter their viewpoints). Hell, XE can even call my mobile phone which can be found quite easily - it was contained with the PA SCA's press release. No one 'picked up the phone' to call me prior to the 20+ hit pieces from Rebecca Watson and crew.

Additionally, XE can post on my Facebook, GooglePlus, send me a Youtube message, email any one of my 4-5 accounts, tweet me, or even post on the pit.

Give me a break...

[justinvacula]

Isn't presumption of innocence, by extension, the basic principle of skepticism? We assume a claim (accusation) is false, until given a reason to accept it?

Seems to me they can believe whatever they want about feminism, just please don't call yourselves skeptics.

Disbelief/suspension of belief until sufficient reason/argument/evidence is presented :)

[KiwiInOz]

Hello fellow 'pitters (if I may be so bold). I'm trying to keep up where time permits (a certain Blues Fest got in the way over the weekend), but hopefully you'll excuse any ignorance.

Seems that the biggest complaint regarding The Deep Chasm is that it's not closing as quickly as some would like and that things have progressed rather slowly (though apparently people from Europe have a different view on the speed at which chasms should close. At least, that's what I've been told). From what I've seen, this is the case.

Look, us 'outsiders' aren't looking for drama or conflict. We're looking for a progression into rational dialogue. From my perspective, there is very little that comes from the 'other side' and their schtick has more to do with the comments section on a blog rather than the substance within. That's a shame. And that's why I like this place. Comments sections on blogs tend, in my humble opinion, to invite a deference to the author. As opposed to a free flowing forum that invites comment, criticism and free flowing conversation. In that respect I agree. Nothing so far has been any of the above regarding the Atheist/Skeptic Dialogue. There are only so many "Hey, how are you" comments you can let through that actually advance the conversation. Please get on with it.

In other news, I found Pizza Loco at Byron Blues Fest and started ripping off their chilli/mustard sauce. All I have to do now is work cider into the equation and you'll all bow to my awesomeness.

P.S. I fear I may have blurted out a bunch of irrelevant shit. If so, I'm sure I'll either be publicly laughed at (bring it on). or roundly criticised (bring it on). And if I can work out how to post a photo I will.

Damn. We missed the Blues Fest this year.

Next year!!

[Wonderist]

So, we want to open up the group doing the Nugent responses a bit more. Eventually, we want to open it up all the way, more or less open to everyone, once things get moving nicely along, but we need to do it incrementally for now so things don't get too big and chaotic too fast.

Right now we have Jack, Renee, and I, and Skep Tickle is our moderator representative. Tim (Gurdur) has resigned recently. Also, John Greg has generously offered to help us with editing the group-level responses before publishing (thanks again, JG!), though at this time he doesn't want to get involved in group-level decisions for now.

We would like to pick up 1 or 2 more people now, and in the next coming days and weeks we will continue to add people until everyone who wants to participate is participating. So first off, we need to get a feel for the interest out there.

For example, we've seen at least John C. Welch and Skepsheik express interest early on (before the first statement). If either of you are still interested, please leave a comment mentioning so on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=286 or in a PM to any of us. The same goes for anyone who would like to get involved.

The idea here is more like how the SlymePit already works, than like a 'team' with a unified mindset. The way I think of it, we're more like a garden with a variety of vegetables :mrgreen: than like a corn field where all the 'cobs' are the same. ( :roll: sorry, couldn't think of a good pun there...) Anyway <ahem> ... So, this would be for anyone who *wants* to participate: maybe if you feel it's going too glacially slow, you could lend a hand to speed things up; if you think our opening statement coulda used some work, we'd appreciate new ideas and input; if you just want to see this thing actually *get* somewhere eventually, we could use any support towards progress on offer.

The key is not that we all agree (that'll never fucking happen). The key is that we all basically want to reach the same or basically similar goal(s). Even figuring out *just* what those goals *are* is something we could use help in hammering out. (I've got my own ideas, but I don't want to speak for others here, it's something we need to work on together, I think.) The key is that we all be willing to work on a mutually beneficial project *without* requiring everyone agree on everything.

So, instead of a 'team', we're thinking it's more like a 'working group' of individuals who are volunteering to help out on a worthy cause. We're going to try to make group-level decisions by vote and majority consensus if possible, while individuals will still be free to represent only themselves, and only those things that they *actually* agree with. No fucking dogmas, thank you very much. I think that's something we can all agree on without feeling like we're selling out or compromising. And despite MKG's mis-targeted cunty protestations, we don't need no stinking accommodationism either (at least, that's my position; I'm a gnu, how do you do?). And MKG is of course welcome too, I'm just being a dick here, man, but I'm just one guy.

[To put it in terms of the metaphor of 'foundation' I was talking about a while back, we are all seeking to build a solid foundation that will support each of our points of view individually, and, to whatever extent we happen to agree on things, as a loosely associated group of individuals. Another way that's starting to make sense to me, as a techie/programmer :geek: is as an open-source project, with a widely distributed group of collaborators contributing to the overall project; or even like a wikipedia with a bunch of individual editors contributing and working out their differences to come up with a pretty damn good (though not perfect) document at the end of the day. In fact, setting up a wiki in the long-term might be something we could look into. :think: ]

Anyway, we're still working kinks out. Could use any help on offer. If you're interested, again, please leave a comment here viewtopic.php?f=29&t=286 or send a PM to any of: Jack, Renee Hendricks, Skep Tickle, or Wonderist. Thanks folks! :)

[Zenspace]

Surprise, Skepchick hates April Fools Day just as much as PZ: http://skepchick.org/2013/04/ai-fools/

I was also way over April Fools’ after about 3 hours of my two year old daughter trying to get me to believe she lost her ears. Her ears. Because she thinks I’m stupid. Eventually I just told her I was sorry, but I accidentally flushed them down the toilet and I won’t get her a new pair because she’s irresponsible and reckless. She cried for a long time. Whatever. You wanted to prank with the big kids.

I really hope this is some bad attempt at humor. If not, it's just cruel.

She got back at me today by peeing on my foot. Which is kind of bullshit because day-after pranks are out-of-bounds. As are pranks where you pee on someone.

It would be bullshit if it wasn't a two year old. How the fuck is a toddler supposed to know?

A lot of us are incredibly gullible and have adopted skepticism as a survival skill. For those of us in that camp, sometimes April Fools’ can just be endlessly overwhelming and intellectually and emotionally exhausting, an entire day where you have to check and recheck and recheck every fact, knowing you’re a target but not knowing who the shooters are or where they are, just that they’re out to get you. It’s a lot to handle.

This sounds like a roundabout way of saying "April Fools Day is harassment, and skepticism is too hard".

Not to mention some serious therapy in that kid's future.

I hope for the kid's sake that post was a April Fool's joke. Damn.

[Apples]

This thread got locked at A+ because Zeitgeist called Setar on his bullshit. That longish-haired boy wants power. He will never have it.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 9&start=50

[Percentage]

Apropos of nothing in particular, but Crommunist really is an arrogant motherfucker, isn't he? I mean Christ. I'll grant that he is probably one of the better bloggers on FtB. Of course this isn't saying much, because Crommunist, Ophelia when she's not just aggregating, that new college girl Miri, and sometimes Greta, are the only semi-decent writers on that network.

[Steersman]

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

What utter bullshit. 'Ambidexter' is free to call me on Skype and call in during Brave Hero Radio (each episode has welcomed callers no matter their viewpoints). Hell, XE can even call my mobile phone which can be found quite easily - it was contained with the PA SCA's press release. No one 'picked up the phone' to call me prior to the 20+ hit pieces from Rebecca Watson and crew.

Additionally, XE can post on my Facebook, GooglePlus, send me a Youtube message, email any one of my 4-5 accounts, tweet me, or even post on the pit.

Give me a break...

You're not going to give any credence or support to that "xe/xi/xo/xum" shit are you?

[Metalogic42]

This thread got locked at A+ because Zeitgeist called Setar on his bullshit. That longish-haired boy wants power. He will never have it.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 9&start=50

This stops now.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Apples]

You're not going to give any credence or support to that "xe/xi/xo/xum" shit are you?

I noticed that LeftSidePositive used "zem" over at Svan's. Because "them" is....... sexist? :think:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222326