Periodic Table of Swearing

[Guest]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

ZOMG! You grabbed a heine?!?!?!?!? That is like, totally, rape.

Perhaps owner of heine gave consent.

Given that Abbie was a speaker at FreeOK and is a prominent blogger, it cannot be considered consent because of the power imbalance.

You're right! As soon as Jen knows, I'm sure Abbie will be on the "secret list" (with Shermer).

[franc]

Out of the mouths of babes -

Karl Johanson Says:
August 4, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Reply
“…describing one incident where a girl at a bar had some guy reach between her legs from behind and grab her crotch, but when she turned around he was gone.” This is a serious and criminal incident. However, why is the perpetrator described as “he”? It’s rather like saying, something like, “The black mugger put a bag over my head from behind, so I have no idea what they look like.”

[Guest]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

[franc]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

[tachikoma]

Hmm - I wonder, will Ophelia see this as a threat, since it comes from you (so it has to be), but it involves someone doing something to themselves, so by baboon logic it might not be a threat....hmm. I'm sure she'll figure some way. She's smart like that.

http://i.imgur.com/8YEQP.png

[John Greg]

Franc at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 4700#p6007 said Sagan was a Pantheist.

But:

While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist, many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term. This claim, while widely accepted among pantheists of all varieties, remains somewhat controversial outside the pantheist community. A similar debate surrounds the attribution of pantheism to other notable figures, including Albert Einstein.

From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pantheism

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

[franc]

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

It's a question for the ages. Yes Einstein was a pantheist. There is an argument Dawkins is too. How is it inconsistent with atheism?

[Guest]

Franc at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 4700#p6007 said Sagan was a Pantheist.

But:

While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist, many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term. This claim, while widely accepted among pantheists of all varieties, remains somewhat controversial outside the pantheist community. A similar debate surrounds the attribution of pantheism to other notable figures, including Albert Einstein.

From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pantheism

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[47] Sagan's views on religion have been interpreted as a form of pantheism comparable to Einstein's belief in Spinoza's God.[48] Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[49] According to his last wife, Ann Druyan, he was not a believer:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

He was a naturalist-- he didn't believe in souls.

I've heard Dawkins describe himself as an agnostic atheist-- since gnosticism has to do with knowing and theism has to do with belief. Agnostic implies fence-sitter to the untrained ear... but it's really a way of saying we can't "know" that there are no gods. (I haven't even heard of a very good definition of one myself.) It's another word I've heard atheists use when they don't want to be saddled with the judgement that comes from the word atheist.

[AndrewV69]

I am so out of the loop. The MRAs held a national offend a feminist day and did not tell me.

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/7/decoration.jpg

[bhoytony]

Maybe she can do a Bon Scott/Jon Bonham and choke on her own vomit. Let the hagiography ensue. Good business model, except, like, you know, she'd be sorta, like, dead. And stuff.

Perhaps she will have the same tragic end as Eric "Stumpy Joe" Childs the legendary Spinal Tap drummer who choked on someone else's vomit.

[Scented Nectar]

Who here is good at figuring out whether email is legitimately coming from where it claims to be? I can email you the entire message source.

[Scented Nectar]

...or just forward it. Whatever's best.

[Michael K Gray]

http://www.michaelgray.com.au/TheistAgn ... nSmall.png

And, SN — if you email the full text headers to me, I'll see what I can privately sleuth-up.

[Scented Nectar]

Oh, here's the boring story anyways.

I got an email saying that one of my videos was flagged for privacy violations and that I have 48 hrs to fix or delete it. A youtube insane feminist claims I've got her voice in my vid, which was from her own public vid, ...but anyways, youtube doesn't much care. If I don't yank the vid within the time allotted, then my whole channel could close.

However, the insane youtuber may have just sent me a fake take-down notice from youtube. She certainly knows what those look like. So, I need to know if the notice is truly from youtube or not. If not, she's trying to trick me into taking it down.

[Scented Nectar]

Ok, I'll send it to you in a couple minutes. Thanks.

[Dilurk]

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

*ahem* Still, he was Carl Sagan, someone who had actually you know, done stuff.

Everyone slips up sometimes. As you said, he more than made up for it with the good he's done. Rebecca Choprason, not so much.

Oh please. Sagan was a pantheist - that is nowhere near total fucknut Chopraism. I do not see pantheism as spookiness. I may not agree with it, but I do not find it incompatible with reality.

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

I have no problem with Carl Sagan saying this to express pantheism. However. Pantheism can be conflated with the rather newer neologism of Panentheism which the theists have grasped at. God is in everything. For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

[Michael K Gray]

...For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Penrose is bordering on the fence between odd creativeness in one yard, and crankhood next door.
His penta-tiling, and black-hole musings with Hawking, is squarely in the genius yard, and his 'consciousness is generated in microtubules' is so fucking far into kook-crazy-ville next-door in the trailer-park that it is almost insane.
No: utterly bonkers fucked-up crazy.

[Dilurk]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!" And they can go away thinking Pantheist is another church of some sort. I am honestly not so sure I would use the term now, as I now see pantheism as a way of inventing god but feeling smug about it. One of Clarke's laws comes to mind "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or to paraphrase Roger Penrose "Any sufficiently advanced technology is God." Which has endeared Roger with the theist nutters. Certainly if I hear someone else use the term Pantheist I consider them either an atheist or an unknowing atheist who has not admitted it to themselves. For an example read some Greta Vosper and she's not the only one. Dennett is right, religion does try to evolve to survive eh?

[Dilurk]

...For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Penrose is bordering on the fence between odd creativeness in one yard, and crankhood next door.

That pretty much sums it up. And in the process endeared himself nicely with the conservative theists. "We have a physicist a physicist on our side!" http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815

His penta-tiling, and black-hole musings with Hawking, is squarely in the genius yard, and his 'consciousness is generated in microtubules' is so fucking far into kook-crazy-ville next-door in the trailer-park that it is almost insane.
No: utterly bonkers fucked-up crazy.

It squarely puts him in the Dualism camp with QM being misused as a term for soul.

[franc]

Who here is good at figuring out whether email is legitimately coming from where it claims to be? I can email you the entire message source.

Dump the header here.

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/19.html

Or you know where to email me.

[franc]

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!"

Q. Do you believe in God?
A. Go away or I'll kick you in the cunt

This I believe distils personality cults and religions from Freethinkers.

[Dilurk]

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!"

Q. Do you believe in God?
A. Go away or I'll kick you in the cunt

This I believe distils personality cults and religions from Freethinkers.

I only reserved the pantheist dodge for family, nowadays if they ever bother to ask, they aren't going to like the reply.

[Dilurk]

John Loftus and [url=http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... -edis.html]quote of the day[/quote]

Sometimes it makes sense to speak of an "atheist movement" or the likes in the US, particularly in the context of efforts to increase social visibility and acceptance. But by and large, beyond such narrowly focused concerns, "atheists" are not a politically coherent group...I don't fully accept recent arguments like that by Greta Christina that "atheism demands social justice." Like it or not, people like Ayn Rand and her fandom are significant parts of the landscape of American atheism...To the extent that there is a "we" at all in the sense of "we atheists," we are a remarkably useless bunch in political terms.

[Gumby]

I think this is what they consider "threats of rape and murder": http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ask-surly- ... with-hate/

Made-up and completely exaggerated "threats" are a drug spread by the Watsonista Cartel. When women become addicted to this drug and start behaving irrationally by howling about how oppressed and threatened they are, the Skepchicks conveniently offer the "antidote" - the completely irrational, victimization-based, weepy radfeminism that doesn't cure the addiction, but rather exacerbates it and keeps the addicts clamoring for more "cure". Which, of course, keeps the money-and-ego-trip machine going for the Skepchicks.

No one is saying that harassment of women, sexism, misogyny, etc. do not exist. But people like Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson and Surly Amy Davis Roth trivialize it for personal profit and self-aggrandizement. Apparently, there's lots of money to be made in the field of female victimization and infantilization.

[franc]

Thwap

[youtube]Fzk1eh9UDE[/youtube]

[franc]

Thwap

Try again

[youtube]eFzk1eh9UDE[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

A bit of irony for a balanced diet:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/4a/Pzmacheesemo.jpg

[GenerallyFading]

NONONO you must get angry about how your concerns were mansplained and dismissed by Privileged White Males! It's proof that everyone else is free of spamming but you, and therefore they must be in on the Spammeriarchy!

What is this cheerful acceptance nonsense. What are you, some kind of gender traitor?! :naughty:

(I love how "mansplained" gets the incorrect spelling red squiggle underneath it. Also, I started wondering what a "gender traitor" smilie would look like)

Well, they didn't use smilies, so it's possible I mis-understood them....

:twisted:

[Dilurk]

A bit of irony for a balanced diet:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/4a/Pzmacheesemo.jpg

Damn good thing I have already had breakfast.

[JAB]

Re the complement of mansplaining...

I would like to propose a different term than the one I've occasionally seen; femsplaining.

My new term: XXplaining. I have two reasons... the main one is that I like how it sounds. And my other reason is that I believe I've been XXplained at by my trans son. So I believe it's chromasomally linked. I only have a small sample size, though.

[Scented Nectar]

Thanks, Franc, but Michael already checked it for me.

[Za-zen]

My jewish gayfish joke: distateful, xenophobic, funny as fuck, offensive, funny as fuck because its offensive, or serious threat of harm to named individuals? Discuss......

[Badger3k]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical." - from the wikipedia page.

We have a word for the universe. It's universe. Why add in the completely unnecessary extra hypotheses of "there is something called god", "this god is the exact same thing as the universe" and usually from what I hear "this god/universe is conscious in some way". Why bother? It's like any other attempt to redefine god to hold onto the notion in the increasing lack of evidence. "God is love", well, ok...you do know love dies? If anyone wants their idea of pantheism to be taken seriously, let's see the evidence. Saying "this coffee cup is god" is a cop out - redefining the word in an attempt to make it immune to criticism. It's an attempt to hold onto superstitious rubbish. Years ago I studied Taoism, which is basically similar, until I had to admit that the only reason I believed was because I wanted to, so I had to jettison that belief.

If you want to make a poetic statement like the original one, fine. But to go beyond that and try to redefine reality...not my cup of tea.

There is naturalistic pantheism, which is a little better, but for some unknown reason wants to keep all the trappings of religion. Again, why? They might take a phrase "god provides" and change it into "nature provides" in their understanding of the phrase, but why even take that extra step? It's another attempt to try to hold on to religion when it's completely not needed - at least it should be, and maybe will be if we can break people out of the idea that they need religion, or need something to replace it with when they become atheists. Not sure if that's possible, but I think it's a worthy goal.

[CommanderTuvok]

More nonsense from Surly "Don't Call Me Shirley" Roth:

http://elevatorgate.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=590

Yes, the Baboons have all this evidence of death threats, rape threats, the elixir of life, etc. but the "always name names" brigade seem a little shy when it comes to actually showing us this evidence.

The little fibbers.

[Optimus Primate]

Gah, you guys go so fast that by the time I catch up, the point I wanted to make has already been made! I wanted to add to the support of Sagain, though. His statement, "We are a way for the universe to know itself," is probably the essential seed of my atheism. It's not quite that simple, but if I had to point to one idea, one statement that made me reflect on my theistic upbringing and shed it for good, it would be this one. There's nothing spooky in that statement. To me, it simply illuminated the fact that we're not constructed from some magical substance. The substances that make up our bodies are the substances of the universe. We're made of cold, hard reality.

It's not fundamentally different from this train of thought from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, just stated a little more succinctly:

[youtube]rDRXn96HrtY[/youtube]

[Optimus Primate]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

They didn't have any real beer? The horror.

[fenton fomite]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

[youtube]snhiofL2Rh4[/youtube]

[Optimus Primate]

Stoopid fingers. I have no idea why "Sagan" came out as "Sagain."

<shame>

[Tigzy]

More nonsense from Surly "Don't Call Me Shirley" Roth:

http://elevatorgate.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=590

Yes, the Baboons have all this evidence of death threats, rape threats, the elixir of life, etc. but the "always name names" brigade seem a little shy when it comes to actually showing us this evidence.

The little fibbers.

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

I bet he now shits himself when he has to go shopping for a new t-shirt.

[AndrewV69]

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

I bet he now shits himself when he has to go shopping for a new t-shirt.

I keep telling you guys that many MRAs are just ONE blowjob away from abandoning the cause.
Just how many boyfriends is Surly going to go through before you start to believe me?

[franc]

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

Beat me to it. Devoid of self-respect, "I'll be your doormat". This is how male "victims" live. Listen up pal, if you're reading. Learn how to jerk off. You don't need that thing. Grow a spine.

[franc]

Notice how he disappears when you treat him as human? Repeated observation from other sites. Reach out and touch. I'm not charitable usually.

[justinvacula]

From a Hemant Mehta blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -atheists/

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

Will the #ftbullies gang up on him now for comments concerning Bill and Penn? :o

[EveryMan]

If you want a slightly dilluted contemporary version os Solanas, try Amanda Marcotte, friend of Skepchick and Myers. She has interesting things to say about Lacross players...

What's sad is that sexual assault is a particularly odious crime because its both over and under-reported. And it's false accusations like this that make it more difficult to report and prosecute the real thing.

It's an abysmal lapse of ethics on the femmies part to engage in with-hunts like this as its hurts real victims of sexual assault more than anyone.

[EveryMan]

We have a word for the universe. It's universe. Why add in the completely unnecessary extra hypotheses of "there is something called god", "this god is the exact same thing as the universe" and usually from what I hear "this god/universe is conscious in some way". Why bother? It's like any other attempt to redefine god to hold onto the notion in the increasing lack of evidence. "God is love", well, ok...you do know love dies? If anyone wants their idea of pantheism to be taken seriously, let's see the evidence.

Ok.

[youtube]q1LCVknKUJ4[/youtube]

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_debris

So yeah, looks like God blew him/her/its/self up to make the Universe. I'm assuming due primarily to being bored/lonely.

What I like about this theory is that it implies that theists and atheists are both wrong.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

[CommanderTuvok]

From a Hemant Mehta blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -atheists/

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

Will the #ftbullies gang up on him now for comments concerning Bill and Penn? :o

I've got a feeling they will cut him more slack than they did with Justin Griffith. Griffith was an easy target. I don't think Laden will be sharpening his knives...

[justinvacula]

"If a god of love and life ever did exist he is long since dead..."

Prince Prospero
The Masque of the Red Death

http://i.imgur.com/4q5bb.jpg

[Za-zen]

Justin V

Hemant's observations are spot on, the fftb cult are a very small minority of atheists, but the problem they present is that they misrepresent atheism..... We've seen for wuite a while their pronouncements on what a "decent human being is" and they've also made quite clear that if you don't concur with their dogma in this regard you are, as dilahunty phrased it, "beneath contempt" and they will actively attempt to silence your voice within the atheist community, as they try to hijack it for their own agenda.

The above is why they are a church, and are a negative movement within secularism, they are exclusionary, rather than inclusive, they by their very nature hamper atheists from becoming activists.

They have absolutely no right to claim ownership of atheism, it is not their movement, but because they live in a reinforcing bubble they fail to see that atheists on the whole see them as whack jobs.

[justinvacula]

New from Dan Fincke: (emphasis mine is bold)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithh ... -epithets/

I just want you to passionately convey your ideas and your experiences through stories, ideas, and arguments, rather than through venting at other people here, or even at whole groups of people you disagree with that others reading may belong to. You may morally condemn harmful or otherwise bad words, behaviors, attitudes, institutions, systemic effects, political groups, etc. with specific moral, intellectual, or otherwise critical kinds of charges that are open to substantiation.

You can explain that a social group or a public person has created or perpetuates ideas, attitudes, behaviors, institutions, systemic effects, etc., that are reprehensible, cowardly, cruel, dishonest, callous, malicious, vindictive, unfair, authoritarian, careless, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, inegalitarian, sexist, privileged, merciless, disgusting, irresponsible, hateful, damaging, counter-productive, irrational, poorly reasoned, false, insensitive, illogical, prejudicial, etc.

There are plenty of harsh words which carry significant emotional weight that you may use. I am only against personal attacks against your discussion partners here when they have not yet behaved uncivilly to you and I am against epithets in nearly all cases on the blog. When you encounter what you take to be sexist ideas, you can charge them with being sexist. When someone’s ideas, attitudes, and reported behaviors prove persistently sexist, you may complain that they are coming off as a sexist. So you do not need to call them “douchebags”. You do not need to call someone an “asshole” when calling them a “bigot” is more accurate, defensible, capable of substantiation, and even carries greater emotional charge and social consequences.

So, epithets are, to my judgment superfluous. And since they are also intrinsically abusive and consequentially harmful to the atmosphere of collegiality, there is already prima facie reason to discourage such unproductive, counter-productive and hateful words altogether. This is entirely consistent with a wholehearted appreciation of the value of emotions in good reasoning.

Also interesting:

If you are not up for difficult debates where what you have at stake will be interrogated in a vigorous way by others, then that’s fine. Not every blog is for everybody. But some blogs and some other forums need to have these debates if we are going to have values that are grounded in reason, subjected to rational scrutiny, and defended to others rationally and fairly.

[tachikoma]

@ElevatorGATE I'll bet @SurlyAmy did take pictures! How else is she to bully people if she doesn't show info that can identify the mockers?!

I'm confused, trying to parse through the layers of sarcasm here...is the intended message "Amy does not have pictures because only bullies will take pictures"? "Only bullies identify mockers"? My gut feeling is that Eristae was too intent on mocking ElevatorGATE and didn't really think her sarcasm through.

So sad he doesn't have access to the photos.

So she DOES have photos and just refuses to show them, because...?

[sacha]

@ElevatorGATE I'll bet @SurlyAmy did take pictures! How else is she to bully people if she doesn't show info that can identify the mockers?!

I'm confused, trying to parse through the layers of sarcasm here...is the intended message "Amy does not have pictures because only bullies will take pictures"? "Only bullies identify mockers"? My gut feeling is that Eristae was too intent on mocking ElevatorGATE and didn't really think her sarcasm through.

So sad he doesn't have access to the photos.

So she DOES have photos and just refuses to show them, because...?

I can't think of a single reason why she would refrain from posting the "jewelry that mocks". There aren't any photographs.

[tachikoma]

From a Hemant Mehta blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -atheists/

The same Murphy article has also been discussed at Jerry's

Someone (not a regular commenter at WEIT) left the following comment:

It seems to me that the atheist movement has become so large that factions have begun forming. The most obvious group which has delineated itself is the FreeThought/PZ fans. This article is tailor made for that audience, and if you go visit Pharyngula, you’ll see a lot of them are eating it up.

According to about anybody on FTblogs, Sam Harris is a racist who promotes torture and wants to drop a nuclear bomb on Muslims. Also, his book The Moral Landscape is automatically deemed terrible because ‘any intellectual should know’ Hume proved you can’t get an Ought from an Is…mind you, you can tell most haven’t bothered reading it.

Just about anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their brand of feminism is deemed a sexist mysoginist pig…I believe that’s what Penn Jilette has apparently been accused of. I’d be curious to know why exactly.

And Ayaan Hirsi Ali, hilariously, is accused of being an islamophobe.

I think the whole elevatorgate fiasco and subsequent Thunderf00t ban has exposed a large rift in our community and it’s not a type of diversity I approve of, because its the opposite of diversity. PZ and other FTbloggers don’t allow for differing opinions on complex issues where intelligent people will often reach different conclusions, which simply puts an end to debate, understanding and overall progress.

Am I the only one who notices there are sheep among us claiming to be cats?

Not too surprisingly, a few people started defending FTB, though not for too long before Jerry stepped in to stop the bickering.

[Guest]

Not too surprisingly, a few people started defending FTB, though not for too long before Jerry stepped in to stop the bickering.

I took the "Your concern is noted" comments to be lampooning (the second was by way of reference to the Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers skit). It seems to me that formulae like "YCIN" and (at least some) other baboolie set phrases are tainted to the extent that only the most stupid Pharyngulites dare use them. When the was the last time the dead porcupine was used? (Actually, this is not an entirely rhetorical question as, although I have not seen the phrase used lately, I read FfTB rarely now.)

Speaking of lampoons, although the answer to the question "[Surly Amy] refuses to show [the photos], because...?" may simply be "STFU that's why" or "you are beneath contempt", etc., I did wonder whether it is because she still has the mocking SurlyRamics in her own kiln and photos will be forthcoming as soon as they have cooled down and whatever it is that is done to ceramics before they are ready is done.

I did wonder, though, if this this little drama was inspired by Ms Nestra's revelation on FTBlahgs:
If you have bought this book you might be interested to know that Bitchy Amiee has a new pendant to her Bitchyramics range. It’s in the form of a ceramic winged maxi-pad (used, of course) with the slogan, in subtle reference to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice: “I don’t need a prick to bleed”. No, I don’t get it either, but they look amazing. Blood stains also available in blue.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Dagnabbit, Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:36 pm was me (reply to tachikoma). I seemed to have been logged out at some point during the posting process.

[Tigzy]

Not too surprisingly, a few people started defending FTB, though not for too long before Jerry stepped in to stop the bickering.

I took the "Your concern is noted" comments to be lampooning (the second was by way of reference to the Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers skit). It seems to me that formulae like "YCIN" and (at least some) other baboolie set phrases are tainted to the extent that only the most stupid Pharyngulites dare use them. When the was the last time the dead porcupine was used? (Actually, this is not an entirely rhetorical question as, although I have not seen the phrase used lately, I read FfTB rarely now.)

The 'shove a dead porcupine up your ass' thing is fading out from Pharygula owing to the fact that a number of baboons actually are coming to realise that it's inappropriate in a place which they vaunt as being a 'safe place' for rape victims. I did call them on it one time, and asked if anyone would be comfortable saying that phrase to someone who they knew who had been anally raped. Inevitably, I got the usual 'it's not rape of you're telling someone to do it to themselves, fuckwit' cliche, but a few commentators did express their dislike of the phrase. It now seems to be transmuting into various uses of porcupines which do not involve any bodily penetration - crowns of porcupines, beds of porcupines etc. Yeah, I know - pure comedy gold, eh.

In any case, it's always amusing to see baboons deploying aphorisms - such as 'your concern is noted' and 'deep rifts' - that are only really relevant on Pharyngula. A good illustration, in think, of their complete unawareness of their own unimportance.

[EveryMan]

It seems to me that the atheist movement has become so large that factions have begun forming. The most obvious group which has delineated itself is the FreeThought/PZ fans. This article is tailor made for that audience, and if you go visit Pharyngula, you’ll see a lot of them are eating it up.

This isn't quite right.

What's been going for many years is that various political movements have been trying to associate themselves with the secular movement in order to gain credibility. And this is why I stopped going to 'cons years ago.

Some of the worst offenders (to me, anyway).

Libertarians.
Anti-Theists (aka. NoGod Cultists).
Climate change "skeptics".
Swingers.
Troofers.
RadFems.

Inevitably these groups will have conflicting motives and start fighting amongst themselves. So, this really isn't a case so much of factions "forming" but of radically incompatible lifestyles/politics colliding with each other. Like swingers+radfem producing "CardGate".

I guess secular humanism and scientific skepticism just isn't cool enough for the kids these days.

[tachikoma]

Searched for some info on the parody ceramics, came across this JREF thread

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... stcount=98

I can verify the fake Surly-ramics necklaces were real, as I saw more than one of them. Strange, but true.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=174

The fake Surlys I saw looked like a man and woman standing on either side of an elevator with a big red slash through the whole picture.

Some sane responses:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=177

In that case I can see we're never going to have common ground here, 'cos I think that's quite witty and not at all offensive. It's a little, tongue-in-cheek poke fun at the 'Guys don't do it' nonsense and the fuss that ensued. I could see myself doing that even if I had sympathy with RW's position but thought it had gone a bit over the top.

As for the 'offensive' song, I'm almost speechless. Are you really saying a comedian singing a song about a notorious event that most people think was blown out of proportion and effectively telling both sides ('cos it comments on both sides) to pull themselves together, is offensive?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=179

At TAM 5, I had my camera stolen.
It was virtually new, with a spanking new 2GB XD card.
Was I upset? Yes.
Did I make a major internet issue of my belief that sceptics are thieves?
Not so much.
Did I blog that your stuff is not safe at TAM? Asking thieves not to steal?
Well, no.

I did report it to hotel security, because that seemed an appropriate step to take.
And I warned the people I met at the time, not to leave valuables sitting, even for a moment.
Bad things happen. Some are deliberately done by other people, some of whom are "sceptics".
The important issue surely is to decide which things need to be stopped, deciding how best they can be stopped , deciding what needs to be openly discussed, what does not, - and what is the most appropriate way to go about it.

Had I blogged about it, (if we had blogs then) someone would assuredly have told me I should have been more careful with my stuff in the first place. Which would have teed me off, because it's true and I didn't need to be told that. My mum told me when I was five.
And, as usual on the 'net, a little flame war would have been kindled.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=181

I can't find the original "Elevatorgatebusters" post, but if that was what Amy was complaining about, I'm sorry, but that's pretty funny. I'm sure my opinion would earn the requisite "**** you!", "mysoginist" and "hate women" comments on Skepchick and FtB, but so be it.

If this really is the parody ceramic in question, it is still unclear whether they were deliberately targeting Amy or not, and you have to stretch it pretty far to call it "hurtful."


Some other interesting things from the same thread:
This definition of 'safe space' does not jive with the sentence following it

Saying that TAM is not a "Safe Space" is not the same as saying it is dangerous. Once again, Safe Space is an actual term, and it means a place where you CAN act like nothing will happen. Where you CAN leave your purse lying around unguarded. Where you CAN behave as though there is zero chance of being assaulted.

I would love for you to point out anywhere at all any Skepchick has said that TAM is dangerous. Go on. I'll wait.

The ensuing discussion about what "safe space" means was just as confused. Finally, some common sense

It's in quotes for a reason - and the reason is that it means "Safe Space", which is what we're talking about in this conversation, what Rebecca was talking about in the quote that was used in USA Today, and what Harriet's shirt referred to.

There was an incident of theft at this last TAM. I'm not making this stuff up, for goshsakes.

Dr. Hall's shirt did not state "TAM is a safe space" but "I feel safe and welcome at TAM". Which is, as you're saying yourself, something different. Nonetheless, you insist that she didn't mean what she had written. It seems you're suggesting that she's (apart from doing "juvenile" and "annoying" things) a bit silly and doesn't know how to express herself, while it's just you trying to read something into that bit that wasn't there, ie. a statement about "safe space".

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=230

Freethinking events can not be Safe Spaces -- they are fundamentally incompatible concepts.

A Safe Space is an arena where certain ideas or opinions are taboo. This isn't a bad thing -- you don't voice your opinion that someone is a gold-digger at their wedding reception and you don't use someone's funeral service to accuse them of having been a coward and fraud.

At a freethinking event (and in academic and scientific arenas), ideas should be neither sacrosanct nor taboo. Here, arguments must be evaluated on their strength, opinions on their validity, claims on their evidence, world views on their foundations -- not on their appropriateness or palatability. This is true not only for the fields of cryptozology, religion, magic and conspiracies, but just as much for feminism, gender studies and queer theory.

So, 7 people were "assaulted"...

Now, before I hear a whole bunch of crap about elevators - I am not in any way referring to the elevator crap. I am referring to the seven people we know were assaulted, and being one of them, I gotta say - Harriet, I don't understand you.

Presumably she means the Dr. A forced french kiss incident.
And sigh, she doesn't elaborate here because it's already been documented in the Harassment thread, which is like 80 pages long. I remember trawling through it and not finding anything super detailed, but it was 80 pages long and I could have overlooked it.

Since I posted my own experience in the Sexual Harassment thread, I've gotten a taste of everyone's crap as well. I have been told that:

- I am lying.
- It was my fault.
- I was giving off the wrong signals.
- After it happened, I didn't handle it properly.

Now tell me - who is going to want to say ANYTHING if that's how it goes? We've gone over my incident with a fine toothed comb in that thread, with me having to recount every possible detail I could remember so everyone could scrutinize it and see if it really counted as assault. That's sucky, y'all. It's a sucky way to be.

Amy's tears were due to something "personal" and secret

Yes, there was something else that had her in tears which was unrelated to Dr. Hall's shirt. I have a pretty good idea what it was, too (since I was privy to it). But unless Amy wants to mention it, I'm staying mum, as it was a bit personal.

Finally,I laughed at this

It's only a matter of time until TLC turns TAM into a reality show.

[sacha]

Some of the worst offenders (to me, anyway).

...
Anti-Theists (aka. NoGod Cultists).

...

Anti-theists are not "NoGod cultists" They (we) are anti-religion, which is more than just a dictionary definition of atheist. It's the position that religion itself is harmful. (Religion Poisions everything). I truly cannot comprehend how Hitch was a "NoGod cultist" to you. Elaborate?

[tachikoma]

The 'shove a dead porcupine up your ass' thing is fading out from Pharygula owing to the fact that a number of baboons actually are coming to realise that it's inappropriate in a place which they vaunt as being a 'safe place' for rape victims. I did call them on it one time, and asked if anyone would be comfortable saying that phrase to someone who they knew who had been anally raped. Inevitably, I got the usual 'it's not rape of you're telling someone to do it to themselves, fuckwit' cliche, but a few commentators did express their dislike of the phrase. It now seems to be transmuting into various uses of porcupines which do not involve any bodily penetration - crowns of porcupines, beds of porcupines etc. Yeah, I know - pure comedy gold, eh.

Eh, I'll be optimistic and consider it an improvement. So commentators can now express their dislike of the phrase without being labeled a concern troll, eh?

In any case, it's always amusing to see baboons deploying aphorisms - such as 'your concern is noted' and 'deep rifts' - that are only really relevant on Pharyngula. A good illustration, in think, of their complete unawareness of their own unimportance.

I've seen "your concern is noted" elsewhere on the internet, try Googling it. "Deep rifts" was usually deployed with humor and originally aimed at theistic journalists who were fabricating a fracture among atheists because they actually *gasp* disagree with each other on issues. Sadly, it looks like there's actually one now.

[Tigzy]

Eh, I'll be optimistic and consider it an improvement. So commentators can now express their dislike of the phrase without being labeled a concern troll, eh?

Nah, I've still seen the 'concern troll' thing deployed by Pharygulites. As for the 'it's not a threat if it involves doing something to yourself' - one day, if I'm really bored, I think I might troll various baboons on Twitter with statements along the lines of 'I think you ought to go and [insert violent action here] to yourself'. It would no doubt be vaguely interesting to see what they make of it.

I've seen "your concern is noted" elsewhere on the internet, try Googling it. "Deep rifts" was usually deployed with humor and originally aimed at theistic journalists who were fabricating a fracture among atheists because they actually *gasp* disagree with each other on issues. Sadly, it looks like there's actually one now.

Ah well, colour me late to the party. I guess I was giving the baboons far too much credit in at least being original.