Page 579 of 739

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:44 am
by real horrorshow
John Brown wrote:New proposed rules for Atheism Plus: Dissent anywhere else will get you banned!

"If you post on this forum and an external forum, crossover must be open and respectful on both sides. Don't post on one forum while covertly reporting your progress on the other. Don't use one forum to evade the rules of the other."

http://www.freezepage.com/1355484766NSDFCWQZJI
They really do want to be the cop in everyone's head don't they?

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:45 am
by Tigzy
TedDahlberg wrote:
Trophy wrote:@Phil_Giordana_FCD :

LOL! When the fuck did that happen? I totally missed it! I did a little search and I couldn't find it.
Funniest thing I've seen all week :D
HoneyWagon wrote:Too funny not to share. This just happened:
Laden being more doltish than usual.
:lol: - Ah Greg. I could almost come to like you for this.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:47 am
by Lsuoma
John Brown wrote:New proposed rules for Atheism Plus: Dissent anywhere else will get you banned!

"If you post on this forum and an external forum, crossover must be open and respectful on both sides. Don't post on one forum while covertly reporting your progress on the other. Don't use one forum to evade the rules of the other."

http://www.freezepage.com/1355484766NSDFCWQZJI
That's oolon fucked!

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:48 am
by Lsuoma
Dick Strawkins wrote:
PZ Myers

13 December 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -6)

The person in the audience was a volunteer. If she’d shown any reluctance or embarrassment I would have let her step down, no problem.
Can you imagine what response Shermer would have got if he offered a lousy excuse like that! :shock:
What a fucking idiot he is: does PeeNus really think that "let[ting] her stand down" wouldn't have been shaming her?

Stupid cunt.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:52 am
by windy
chillyp wrote:Is there a Program Guide for the the Conference RW gave her EP speech at? I hunted around the skepticon.org website but could not find a PDF. I would hope the Conference Guide would contain the title of her talk. If it was titled simply "A Skeptics (sic) Guide to Ev. Psych." that would sink the claim that her talk was merely about Media Distortions of Ev. Psych.

I watched Watson's entire talk, and it seemed to me to be a polemic against Evolutionary Psychology in general.
Some of Watson's defenders have much the same impression of the talk, like Jean Kazez, who calls it "Feminist Science Criticism" (and Ed Clint's critique an "excoriation of Watson"). I thought she might have learned something from the Mooney debacle, but no such luck.
Kazez wrote:If Watson is a denier, so is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, author of The Woman that Never Evolved--she also critiques existing science for being biased by prevailing gender norms.
Nice try, but Hrdy is a distinguished primatologist and sociobiologist who has criticised aspects of existing science while making significant contributions to the field herself, so it's much less likely that she'd be denialist about it than some random twit attempting to criticise the field. But it's great that Kazez managed to google up a couple of examples of actual feminist science criticism, that's more in-depth research than Watson did.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:55 am
by KarlVonMox
More evidence of the dangerous cult-like nature of FTB - infallible leaders that escape rational scrutiny even when blatant hypocrisy is exposed.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:58 am
by Tigzy
cunt wrote:Bit of early morning Pharyngula. Page 2 in the comment section seems to have gotten a bit interesting. As it generally tends to when noelplum99 posts.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

Particularly funny Nerd Of Redhead meltdown. Little guy just keeps squawking "citation needed", "OPINION IS NOT EVIDENCE". *sob* "fuckwitted loser" *sob*

http://i.imgur.com/vo62h.jpg

Oh yeah and that idiotic Tony guy turns up at the end to try and guilt-by-association Jim.
Nerd of Redhead, Dancing om the Trolls...

...and dancing like an embarrasing uncle at a wedding.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:00 am
by papillon
Yeh Zac, you tell 'em..


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 130305.jpg

Stop criticising me so I can continue criticising the people who are being defended from criticism.
Haha, his mind is truly addled.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:03 am
by welch
John Brown wrote:New proposed rules for Atheism Plus: Dissent anywhere else will get you banned!

"If you post on this forum and an external forum, crossover must be open and respectful on both sides. Don't post on one forum while covertly reporting your progress on the other. Don't use one forum to evade the rules of the other."

http://www.freezepage.com/1355484766NSDFCWQZJI

wonder how'd they feel about a prospective or current employer reading their output on A+ and not hiring/firing them over it. Same principle, right?

Besides, they're just copying FTB again. That's Greta's Rule #9:

9: Do not behave atrociously in other blogs. If you are barely walking the line of acceptable behavior in this blog — but you have a pattern of foul, demeaning, sexist/ racist/ etc., insulting, violently threatening, or otherwise reprehensible behavior in other blogs — you will be banned from this one, with no second chance, and no warning.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:05 am
by Miss O Gynist
PZ Myers

13 December 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -6)

The person in the audience was a volunteer. If she’d shown any reluctance or embarrassment I would have let her step down, no problem.
Maybe if he had worded it in a different way. "If I win, you run free" and if "you win, you will be my mate" if it was so necessary for the talk he was giving. No, he jokes of belly dancing, taking off his pants, his hotel key, and repeats the "we'll have sex" joke at least 3 times. He came off a creepy old guy. As a female, was I offended by his weak attempt at humor? Not in the least, but I was dumbfounded, and more so today at his excuses, by his hypocrisy.

Now, when he made the hotel key crack, I would have loved if the volunteer had replied "Not on your life Pops" :naughty:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:06 am
by welch
papillon wrote:Yeh Zac, you tell 'em..


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 130305.jpg

Stop criticising me so I can continue criticising the people who are being defended from criticism.
Haha, his mind is truly addled.
ONLY THE COMMISSARS CAN CRITICIZE THE PARTY!

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:08 am
by Mykeru
sacha wrote:
HoneyWagon wrote:Too funny not to share. This just happened
http://i.imgur.com/kdcAB.png
brilliant
Well, isn't Greg Laden's psychology just ever-fucking-fascinating?

The guy is so eager to smack someone down, to demonstrate how they don't come up to his non-existent standards, to just lash out that whatever is at issue is largely irrelevant. What's important to him is just being a condescending little prick lording it over perceived inferiors that he can't even pay attention to being on another person's wall where he has no power to do any of the above.

When you see one of those fuckwits doing this, and ending up spiraling down the drain, the comparison with theism is especially apt. One of the most irritating thing about theists isn't just that they use language so differently that "truth" is a code word for their dogma, and their God's love would be considered shit-kicking in another context, but even when you compensate for that, their grasp on ethics is still abyssal, just the brainless application of carved-in-stone rules that they try to apply long after they stop making any sense because, well, God. Or in this case Internet Social Justice that means Jack in the real world, but gives them a stick to beat people with.

Greg Laden is one miserable human being and every time he posts it just shows there's something seriously wrong with the guy. The harassment of Abbie has nothing to do with real slights and everything to do with a stalkerish guy who lacks the balls to take to alleys with a ball-peen hammer and fill his heart's desire.

Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

http://goo.gl/nx9JF
Altair wrote:
Do members of the pit get front row seats?
Well, the ball's in Sacha's court. Hypergamy and sexual selection and all that, but apparently she has a really nice smackable ass that would be a shame not to play a command performance of butt-bongo on.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:09 am
by Reap
cunt wrote:
Busted doing what? Making a bunch of shit jokes? Having zero comic timing? Sorry but that video was lame.
Lame? Because it shows that PZ can't apply the rules fairly across the board? The guy has a set of rules for his behavior and another set for everyone else. Are you even trying to pay attention? What do you think my point was? Do you have any problem with PZ? If so I would love to hear what exactly they are

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:12 am
by ERV
papillon wrote:Yeh Zac, you tell 'em..


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 130305.jpg

Stop criticising me so I can continue criticising the people who are being defended from criticism.
Haha, his mind is truly addled.
Shorter PZ:
I didnt type in all caps I just used a larger font and totally not a sign I am insane!!!!

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:19 am
by Tigzy
Lsuoma wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
PZ Myers

13 December 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -6)

The person in the audience was a volunteer. If she’d shown any reluctance or embarrassment I would have let her step down, no problem.
Can you imagine what response Shermer would have got if he offered a lousy excuse like that! :shock:
What a fucking idiot he is: does PeeNus really think that "let[ting] her stand down" wouldn't have been shaming her?

Stupid cunt.
This is the problem I have here - during elevatorgate, Peezus made it quite clear that EGuy's approach was reprehensible, even though EGuy was happy enough to accept Becky's demurral and pursue the matter no further. He left her alone.

And yet Peezee brings a woman up to the stage and proceeds to make lewd remarks at her. But he says it's okay, because if she had said that she disliked such attention, he would have stopped.

Just as EGuy stopped when Becky made it clear that such attention was not welcome.

See the double standard here? Two men, who could be perceived as being in a position of power/privilege over a woman, subjecting the woman to sexual attention, even though they did not know whether or not the woman would welcome it (unless Peezee talked it over with the woman he picked from the audience beforehand - so far, he's made no indication that he did). In the case of EGuy, Becky made her discomfort clear*, and EGuy accepted it. And yet somehow, according to Peezee et al, EGuy should not have put a woman in such a situation in the first place. On the other hand, Peezee can bring a woman up to his stage and subject her to lewd remarks - sure, he'd have stopped if she said so; thereby he absolves himself of any impostion of power/privilege on his his part. So that's okay then.

Yet somehow, when EGuy complied with Becky's request, it wasn't enough. EGuy - and any male who does similar - is damt to hell.

Except, of course, when the sexual attention occurs of a stage in front of an audience.

Course, it could be argued that the intrinsic nature of the attention matters: EGuy may well have be trying to get laid; Peezee wasn't (presumably - I don't think he'd have been too displeased should the exceedingly unlikely have occurred, and the woman later went up to him and told him that his dirty talk had got her quite wet). But then one would have to concede that intent truly is magic.

*I'm working on the basis that what Becky said largely accords with reality than a thoroughly sloshed haze.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:20 am
by Reap
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
cunt wrote:Busted doing what? Making a bunch of shit jokes? Having zero comic timing? Sorry but that video was lame.
Busted doing the very thing he preaches against.
I almpst feel sorry for Peezus with this one.
That video was shot in late 2010. It wasn't until 8 months later at Elevatorgate that he became a lifelong feminist.

Was it sexist behavior?
That question is rather subjective.
In terms of adult, sex positive humor, it's more a case of a lack of comedic ability that outright sexism.
On the other hand feminism has two major strands, the sex positives (for example Greta Christina) and the sex negavitives (Ophelia, Taslima, skeptifem, etc)
In terms of sex negative feminism what Peezus did was a huge error.
They will look on this video and see it in a completely different light than the sex positives.
Sex negatives, as the name implies, will view any assumption of sex (and in particular heterosexual sex) as being potentially violating towards the wishes and feelings of the woman (the 'victim' in this case) - even if it is done in jest. They do not have a sense of humor about this subject.
For example they will ask: "What if this woman was a survivor of sexual assault? Wouldn't joking about having sex with her (and without asking permission) be triggering of her memories of her prior assault?"
They will also ask: "Would Peezus have made the same joke if it was a man who volunteered rather than a woman?"
I would suggest that these are reasonable objections - it is potentially distressing for someone to be joked about in a sexual manner, and, despite his supposed liberal views, it's hard to imagine that Peezus would make the same jokes with a man on stage - even a man he knew, like Laden - because these types of jokes he was aiming for are pretty much the tropes of college sex-positive, fratty humor.
In fact one of the major objections of the sex negatives towards skeptical meetings has been the 'fratboy' atmosphere of the meetings - and whatever you thought of the sexist or not sexist aspect of Peezus 'jokes', there is a clear 'fratboy' element to them that will have disgusted the sex negatives.
In fact you can tell that Ophelia is annoyed by it because she is doing exactly what she always does whenever someone on her side is exposed as a hypocrite.
She is absolutely ignoring the entire matter.
She has time for Justin Vaculas stupid comments (sorry Justin, but you made an arse of yourself with that needlework comment) but no time for explaining why Peezus wasn't sexist.
Her habit of doing this (picking up on any minor borderline transgression and writing a series of posts about it, but sticking her fingers in her ears, closing her eyes and going la-la-la, whenever one of her own side fucks up) is such a feature of her writing these days that you can use it as a reliable test of whether any particular action is seen as sexist to the sex negatives. A prime example is in the Mark Zuckerberg "I'm CEO, Bitch." post. Someone in the comments posted a link to the Peezus "It works, bitches" post and asked it Ophelia would like to criticize the sexism there too.
What do you think happened?
Ophelia: "Yes, that's sexist too but thankfully PZ has changed since then.
or
Straight down the memory hole.

By the way, back to the question of whether the action of Peezuz was sexist, does anyone have any question what the pharyngula horde - who now see no problem whatsoever of that behavior- would be saying if it wasn't Peezus up there making sex jokes, but was, in fact, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris?

Exactly my point. As far as PZ changing, yea he has changed into an extremist. I'm wondering if something didn't happen to cause him to flip on the feminism thing. For such a lame video the responses show us a few things about PZ and his followers. None of them good so far.FYI- PZ's bad comedic skills and timing aren't what I'm talking about

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:29 am
by Tony Parsehole
Mykeru wrote:
Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

http://goo.gl/nx9JF

Fap, fap fap *cries in shame* fap, fap, fap.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:29 am
by JackRayner
John Brown wrote: My original point was to clarify that Sommers wasn't talking about "chivalry." She was talking about being "civilized," which implies the overall construct of civilization.

As for the definition of civilization, you're right...it's completely subjective in narrow terms. In broad terms, it just means people getting together to take advantage of a manual division of labor. With that comes any number of regulations, laws, and morals so said labor can be carried out.

In my view, nature must first be conquered before civilization flourishes, but it is the construct of civilization which generally keeps us in check from being brutish. This is why the whole "rape is about power and not sex" trope is complicated (at best) and flatly untrue (at worst). Occurrences of rape do tend to happen when civilization breaks down (as people like Stephen Pinker have pointed out). But, so do other atrocities.
I will be repeating myself again on this, essentially, but maybe putting it differently will help get the message across better [not that "you've got some thoughts based on premises that you should think through a bit more" was very direct to begin with]. I think there is enough reason to believe that the organizing of "society" (I'm substituting it in for "civilization", since I feel like your definition includes parts that are unnecessary in a discussion about human interaction) *IS* part of human "nature".

This "nature" term might be problematic as well, as far as semantics go, so I will give you my brief definition and you can tell me if you disagree or not. Nature, concerning behavior, is how something is innately inclined to behave.

Now, seeing as how morality is most likely innate for us (as it has also been observed and recorded in other group-living animals, and it is plain to see why it would be naturally selected for in group-living animals), I don't see any reason to believe that society/civilization is an outcome of "conquering nature". Society/civilization is an outcome of our nature. The only way that society/civilization could be seen as a "conquering [of our own] nature", would be if one believed we were no different from every other animal...
Believe me, I understand we can go down a rabbit hole of semantics very, very quickly in this discussion. We are "civilized" but we engage in wars which have killed tens of thousands of people in the past ten years, for example.

I also agree with your point about Euro-centrism. We have an very nasty habit of viewing most everything through that lens. You wanna talk about atrocities? Just a cursory glance at Chinese (or Asian) history makes everything any European power ever did look like peanuts.
If you lump all of the "Asians" into one homogeneous group, then yeah. That might seem like so. But "Asians" are not some homogeneous group. And I'm not just talking about differences between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, ect. Tribalism, I'm sure you know, happens on a level much more "micro" than that. When you accept that morality is relative (do you disagree?), and that this morality does not apply to "out-groups", then you might not come to see all of the fighting done between and within these nations as atrocities.

This last point probably seems to contradict a point that I brought up earlier, but my "And as if 'civilized' people have never committed atrocities." quip was kind of a throwaway that I didn't put much thought into.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:33 am
by real horrorshow
papillon wrote:Yeh Zac, you tell 'em..


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 130305.jpg

Stop criticising me so I can continue criticising the people who are being defended from criticism.
Haha, his mind is truly addled.
Hmm, at least the phrasing makes it clear that the FC(n) and 'skeptical and atheist big shots' are two distinct and separate groups. And that burns doesn't it precious? It burnssss.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:38 am
by Tony Parsehole
@Tigzy. Even if PZ came out and said the woman in tehe audience was a plant and it was all rehearsed beforehand he's still encouraging and using sexist language. Normally I wouldn't give a frig abut such a tame exchange ( I take more offense at how shit and embarrasing his jokes are rather than the content) but the double standards he's displaying are mind boggling. Any normal person would say "yeah, I was wrong, I was being sexist then and I've changed" but no.... PZ is a baboon and an admission of being wrong is:
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploa ... ivable.jpg

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:39 am
by Tigzy
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

http://goo.gl/nx9JF

Fap, fap fap *cries in shame* fap, fap, fap.
Well, at least they're proved the cowpat cure for baldness works.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:42 am
by JackRayner
John Brown wrote: In my view, nature must first be conquered before civilization flourishes, but it is the construct of civilization which generally keeps us in check from being brutish. This is why the whole "rape is about power and not sex" trope is complicated (at best) and flatly untrue (at worst). Occurrences of rape do tend to happen when civilization breaks down (as people like Stephen Pinker have pointed out). But, so do other atrocities.
I want to come back to this, because I left out my thoughts on your comment on rape (concerning society/civilization and morality).

The place I stand on at the moment, informed by what I currently know about sexuality (across species [not between them, freaks]), is that rape is about sex (and sex is about...). The reasons why an individual might not stick to their society's social norms, and why another might under similar circumstance will vary, but that's a whole nother coversation. What I will say, though, is that I wouldn't look at the rape of the "out-group's" people as a violation of the "in-group's" (and therefore that individual's) morality. As I said before, morality is subjective, and [in bad-to-worst case scenarios] we do not apply this morality to out-groups. Even less when we are in conflict with them.

Your "when civilization breaks down" is pretty vague, so you're free to elaborate on that if you don't feel like my thoughts above addressed it well enough...

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:45 am
by Tigzy
Tony Parsehole wrote:@Tigzy. Even if PZ came out and said the woman in tehe audience was a plant and it was all rehearsed beforehand he's still encouraging and using sexist language. Normally I wouldn't give a frig abut such a tame exchange ( I take more offense at how shit and embarrasing his jokes are rather than the content) but the double standards he's displaying are mind boggling. Any normal person would say "yeah, I was wrong, I was being sexist then and I've changed" but no.... PZ is a baboon and an admission of being wrong is:
What gets me are lame-ass excuses he came out with - because, of course, no-one who's ever been caught out on a sexual harrassment charge as ever said, 'Oh, I was only joking. Just a bit of banter. Everyone could see that. If she didn't like it, she should have said something.'

Seriously, the shit Peezee pulled on that stage could land you with a reprimand - and a dismissal, if you continued with it - if you tried it at work.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:47 am
by Mykeru
Tigzy wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

http://goo.gl/nx9JF

Fap, fap fap *cries in shame* fap, fap, fap.
Well, at least they're proved the cowpat cure for baldness works.
Well, tweeting that pissed off some people who informed me YOU AREN'T HELPING WITH THAT SHIT!

Yeah, changing the world on Twitter. Great idea. I've noticed recently as the baboolies continue to flame out, there are people on our side who are now jockeying to be the conscience. I've had a couple DMs from fucking idiots who think the have standards that need to be followed.

One, the Y U NO guy is just a tired clown, the other I'm pretty convinced is either a concern troll or the "girl-on-the-net" sockpuppet of another idiot.

The danger is becoming the very thing we are opposing and I'm already seeing some people make desperate pleas for winning-through-groupthink.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:47 am
by Parge
sacha wrote:PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.
This is the most emasculating thing I've read today! I mean, it's only a quarter to nine, but given the context of this assessment, all I can say is bravo!

Which reminds me, this is the most emasculating thing I've seen all year:

[youtube]mUXzAYLmvPQ[/youtube]

Which should make it pretty clear why I'm all on board for emasculation.

Carry on.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:50 am
by d4m10n
Dick Strawkins wrote: Can you imagine what response Shermer would have got if he offered a lousy excuse like that! :shock:
Yeah, that is pretty weak. Still don't think the poker segment was anything worth kerfuffling over, except maybe to note that sex jokes should shouldn't be considered verboten at skeptical events directed at adults.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:01 am
by Tony Parsehole
Mykeru wrote:
Well, tweeting that pissed off some people who informed me YOU AREN'T HELPING WITH THAT SHIT!
My response to the "You aren't helping!" challenge:
"And...?"

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:05 am
by JackRayner
Trophy wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Trophy wrote:Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment. So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman.
Novice internet user, meet Internet Troll.
Of course, it is possible her "sexist detector" is kind of biased and is giving her a lot of false positives.
Ya think? Have you seen a single one of her videos, or a single one of the countless videos criticizing her nonsense?
The existence of internet trolls makes the kind of responses that she get predictable. It doesn't make them okay. For example, if I go to Ophelia's blog and criticise her, I'm expected to get banned but it doens't make it right.
It doesn't make them Ok, but it also doesn't make them "sexism/misogyny", or a cause for serious concern. Anyone approaching the internet with an overly sensitive attitude should refrain from doing anything that will leave them open to public criticism, whether it is legitimate or just trolling. Bottom line! Anyone with an overly sensitive attitude, but who also spews nonsense that offends the most internet frequenting/internet savvy people? Ha. Hahaha!

[No necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]To anyone that would reply to this with "Oh, but person X committed suicide because of internet trolling!", I have this much to say: People are stupid. People have committed suicide over things as stupid as hearing their favorite T.V. show is being cancelled. "But it was a kid/teenager!", you say? Kids and teenagers are stupider. [/Not necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]
And, no, I've not really dug deep into her videos or her responses. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of sexism in video games but 1) it's not all directed at women. In Dragon Age I all guys have fucking six packs. Literally, any half naked young male has a six pack even if he is a rich royalty who doesn't move his ass. And 2) the worst kind of sexism usually happen in shitty games that I don't play or care about and normally they don't sell very well either.
Have you ever of this term?: Fantasy.

Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?! What you are carelessly and irresponsibly labeling "sexism" is nothing more than idealized physiques. Now please tell me all about how fashion models are destroying the fabric of time and space one pose at a time...

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:06 am
by Reap
Tigzy wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:@Tigzy. Even if PZ came out and said the woman in tehe audience was a plant and it was all rehearsed beforehand he's still encouraging and using sexist language. Normally I wouldn't give a frig abut such a tame exchange ( I take more offense at how shit and embarrasing his jokes are rather than the content) but the double standards he's displaying are mind boggling. Any normal person would say "yeah, I was wrong, I was being sexist then and I've changed" but no.... PZ is a baboon and an admission of being wrong is:
What gets me are lame-ass excuses he came out with - because, of course, no-one who's ever been caught out on a sexual harrassment charge as ever said, 'Oh, I was only joking. Just a bit of banter. Everyone could see that. If she didn't like it, she should have said something.'

Seriously, the shit Peezee pulled on that stage could land you with a reprimand - and a dismissal, if you continued with it - if you tried it at work.
PZ seems to have made sexual banter a normal part of his interaction at least with younger women. Let's not forget how long PZ says he has been a feminist ( age 15 or so I think) As a speaker at such an event doing such a demonstration you should not be saying anything you wouldn't say to the opposite gender. Would PZ have used the same routine if it was a male standing in front of him?
I am not offended by the material really but it was the wrong place for it. If it was my daughter who was called up and then PZ talked to her like that I wouldn't be real happy or very impressed. It's not amateur night at the club, it's a skeptical conference, he is a professor of biology. The rest of his talk went pretty well cause he does the biology thing better than he does social interaction.
Now at least we know what is acceptable since PZ has not said his behavior was wrong. I think it is a safe bet PZ does play poker on stage again for a while, just like he hasn't done the A+/atheism with a soul talk again or just like Rebecca hasn't done the EP talk again to the best of my knowledge anyway. I'd love to hear what she has/would change about it if anything.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:09 am
by real horrorshow
Mykeru wrote:
Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

http://goo.gl/nx9JF
I'll give him this much: He's a dogged little fucker... I'll get me coat.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:10 am
by Tony Parsehole
It's a bit restricting when you're trying to moralise using all caps, 140 characters and beginning every tweet with "Y U NO".
What a weird limitation to impose on oneself.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:15 am
by Barael
I didn't get the impression from Reap's video that he's pointing to actual out sexism/misogyny behaviour by PZ but rather PZ making sexist/misogynist jokes and since according to the FTB playbook they basically amount to the same thing, well...

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:19 am
by Outwest
Mykeru and Y_U_NO_SKEPTIC in a twitter war. Hilarious! Mykeru with his patented snark. LOL!

Regarding sexy talk and P.Z. Meyer's hypocrisy:

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:26 am
by Mykeru
If your ordinary run-of-the-mill friend came up to you and said "I'm tired, I was up all night fucking this chick's brains out" you would think little of it. He's lying, or over-sharing but, basically, you think "good for you dude".

All things being equal (like allowing for the tendency for holders of the position to be elderly) if the Pope came up to you and said "I'm tired, I gave a speech on the evils of using contraception and premarital sex and affirmed the sanctity of monastic vows and then I was up all night fucking this chicks brains out so hard I broke the condom" you you might look at it differently and in a way that has fucking nothing to do with your views of premarital sex, contraception or celibacy.

Any questions? D4m10n?

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:26 am
by Cunning Punt
Pinker wrote:I'd already screencapped a few of Tony's brilliant moments. I'm glad i checked that far into the comments:

The Slymepit is Lex Luthor to FreeThoughtBlogs Superman! 8-)
You treat people inhumanly, you dirtbag piece of shit!

http://i.imgur.com/EhjM0.jpg
Wasn't he the fellow who was until recently the 2012 recipient of the coronal mass erections? What happened? Did he stop receiving them?

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:27 am
by Outwest
Barael wrote:I didn't get the impression from Reap's video that he's pointing to actual out sexism/misogyny behaviour by PZ but rather PZ making sexist/misogynist jokes and since according to the FTB playbook they basically amount to the same thing, well...
That's the way I saw it. When you start tossing fecal matter at others, don't be surprised to get a little on yourself. PZ and the ilk over at FTB are always pointing out others "inappropriate" behavior, but fail to see their own when it is pointed out to them.

DOC DROP ME, PLEASE!

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:28 am
by Walter Ego
My latest video wherein I bitch about doc dropping among other things.

Reap's podcast. He mentions moi at about the 1:21 mark.

http://www.reapsowradio.com/?p=31283

[youtube]_pBeR-570HA[/youtube]

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:31 am
by d4m10n
Mykeru wrote:Any questions? D4m10n?
I'll bite. When did PZ say it's not ok to joke about sex in public?

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:38 am
by welch
Of course, were we to apply PeeZus' own standards to things, i.e. if someone has ever had a personal issue with anyone, their criticism of that person is invalid, then all criticism Benson makes of Shermer is invalid, for she has a personal problem with him: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -to-avoid/

If she didn't think he was guility of the accusations made in her post, SURELY she would have said so. She's quite willing to defend people on her blog. Therefore, we can see, she has a personal issue with him, and so, all her criticism of him is invalidated by this.

Oh, and a nice sidenote:

A discussion by the FTB'ers (including Al at the time), on things like...speaker/audience power imbalance: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ript-pt-2/

Becky's closing statement, in light of how she's treated audience members, is most interesting. But it's funny how PeeZus, who has repeatedly denied any EXISTENCE of a speaker/audience imbalance when it suits him, suddenly isn't so definitive now.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:40 am
by Skep tickle
chillyp wrote:Is there a Program Guide for the the Conference RW gave her EP speech at? I hunted around the skepticon.org website but could not find a PDF. I would hope the Conference Guide would contain the title of her talk. If it was titled simply "A Skeptics (sic) Guide to Ev. Psych." that would sink the claim that her talk was merely about Media Distortions of Ev. Psych.

I watched Watson's entire talk, and it seemed to me to be a polemic against Evolutionary Psychology in general.
She addresses your question about the program at the very start of the talk, 1:07-1:15, saying that the title of her talk wasn't in the program because she hadn't told anyone what it was.

The title is on the first slide, 1:17-1:23 ("How Girls Evolved to Shop and other ways to insult women with 'science') while she is saying "I'm going to talk about the scientific 'fact' that girls evolved to shop" (vocal tones indicating sarcasm about that last phrase).

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:15 am
by ThreeFlangedJavis
Trophy:
Exactly. By just presenting the harrassments, it's possible to evade legitimate criticism. That's also one reason I think it's good to condemn shitty harrassments when criticising. Of course probably that won't make much of a difference anyways.
Abuse is the background noise of the internet. Standard practice is to ignore it and get on with doing whatever you are trying to achieve. All the big players know that and respond with ridicule, when they could be bothered, otherwise they'd get nothing done. Why must anyone expend energy responding to what any adult understands to be irrelevant noise? The FTB/Skepchick focus on the nutters is not a convenient distraction, it's a central plank of their strategy. If they had any real arguments they'd be too busy making them to bother about the peanut gallery.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:42 am
by Dick Strawkins
Skep tickle wrote:
chillyp wrote:Is there a Program Guide for the the Conference RW gave her EP speech at? I hunted around the skepticon.org website but could not find a PDF. I would hope the Conference Guide would contain the title of her talk. If it was titled simply "A Skeptics (sic) Guide to Ev. Psych." that would sink the claim that her talk was merely about Media Distortions of Ev. Psych.

I watched Watson's entire talk, and it seemed to me to be a polemic against Evolutionary Psychology in general.
She addresses your question about the program at the very start of the talk, 1:07-1:15, saying that the title of her talk wasn't in the program because she hadn't told anyone what it was.

The title is on the first slide, 1:17-1:23 ("How Girls Evolved to Shop and other ways to insult women with 'science') while she is saying "I'm going to talk about the scientific 'fact' that girls evolved to shop" (vocal tones indicating sarcasm about that last phrase).
The talk seems to be the same as the one she gave in the International Congress of Skeptics in Berlin.
She gave an interview about it to some Swedish skepchick and Svan transcribed it, deperate to spin in to mean something other than Rebeccas words say.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... #more-4094

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:00 am
by John Greg
This latest fuck up of Laden, threatening to ban someone, then noticing he's not in one of his own controlled environments, is fucking hilarious. I swear, Laden has some real brain power issues; bag-o-hammers time.

And he apologises for it! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:01 am
by Dick Strawkins
d4m10n wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Any questions? D4m10n?
I'll bite. When did PZ say it's not ok to joke about sex in public?
Nobody here mentioned sex jokes being off limits.
The question is how PZ reconciles his own actions at Skepticon3, with his recent words about zero tolerence of behavior that people might feel is akin to harrassment.
What’s wanted is a recognition of the fact that no one has the right to harass others at a public meeting, and that the meeting organizers have a zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment, to discourage harassment before it happens.
Why is this so hard to understand?


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... aming-101/

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:01 am
by box brain
JackRayner wrote:
It doesn't make them Ok, but it also doesn't make them "sexism/misogyny", or a cause for serious concern. Anyone approaching the internet with an overly sensitive attitude should refrain from doing anything that will leave them open to public criticism, whether it is legitimate or just trolling. Bottom line! Anyone with an overly sensitive attitude, but who also spews nonsense that offends the most internet frequenting/internet savvy people? Ha. Hahaha!

[No necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]To anyone that would reply to this with "Oh, but person X committed suicide because of internet trolling!", I have this much to say: People are stupid. People have committed suicide over things as stupid as hearing their favorite T.V. show is being cancelled. "But it was a kid/teenager!", you say? Kids and teenagers are stupider. [/Not necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]
You are seriously bringing up victim blaming? That uncivilized backlash and hate mail isn't a cause for concern? You sound like a child.

The rise of the 4chan generation is pretty pathetic. Basically a place for immature boys to amplify each others idiocy. While acknowledging this type of culture exists and taking steps to prevent being the focus of its idiocy is important, I wouldn't say that such culture isn't a cause for concern. Internet bullying is a serious problem.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:09 am
by John Greg
You are seriously bringing up victim blaming?
Where, specifically, is the victim blaming? I see dismissiveness, and rationalisation, but I missed the victim blaming. Where is it?

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am
by John Brown
Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:21 am
by Outwest
John Brown wrote:Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...
They havent already done that? I'm surprised. We're the "haters", in the atheist/skeptic community. I'm sure #Ophie will find a way to spin it our way.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:22 am
by Outwest
Two slymepitters, an organization run by Cult Leader Abbie Smith,... that'll be the start of #Ophies post

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:24 am
by box brain
John Greg wrote:
You are seriously bringing up victim blaming?
Where, specifically, is the victim blaming? I see dismissiveness, and rationalisation, but I missed the victim blaming. Where is it?

Did he not say that those who commit suicide due to internet trolling are stupid? His entire argument is that internet trolling is "of no concern." I think those who have been the target of FTB/Atheism+ attacks would argue otherwise.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:28 am
by DataNotDogma
John Brown wrote:Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...

I am new here and all, but I'm pretty sure the posts at FTB will be about those wingnut fundies that hate abortion or something. I mean to say they very well make a point or two but will go off on whatever target or political group they are after atm. Or not. I hope not.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:33 am
by katamari Damassi
John Greg wrote:
You are seriously bringing up victim blaming?
Where, specifically, is the victim blaming? I see dismissiveness, and rationalisation, but I missed the victim blaming. Where is it?
Suicide is a tricky subject for me because I'm an absolutist when it comes to personal autonomy. If someone wants to kill themselves for whatever reason then I think they should be allowed to, whether that reason is a crippling injury, or depression, or whatever.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:35 am
by Al Stefanelli
real horrorshow wrote:
John Brown wrote:New proposed rules for Atheism Plus: Dissent anywhere else will get you banned!

"If you post on this forum and an external forum, crossover must be open and respectful on both sides. Don't post on one forum while covertly reporting your progress on the other. Don't use one forum to evade the rules of the other."

http://www.freezepage.com/1355484766NSDFCWQZJI
They really do want to be the cop in everyone's head don't they?
Atheism+ - The gift that keeps on giving

http://www.wcoa.info/toxic.jpg

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:41 am
by welch
box brain wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
It doesn't make them Ok, but it also doesn't make them "sexism/misogyny", or a cause for serious concern. Anyone approaching the internet with an overly sensitive attitude should refrain from doing anything that will leave them open to public criticism, whether it is legitimate or just trolling. Bottom line! Anyone with an overly sensitive attitude, but who also spews nonsense that offends the most internet frequenting/internet savvy people? Ha. Hahaha!

[No necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]To anyone that would reply to this with "Oh, but person X committed suicide because of internet trolling!", I have this much to say: People are stupid. People have committed suicide over things as stupid as hearing their favorite T.V. show is being cancelled. "But it was a kid/teenager!", you say? Kids and teenagers are stupider. [/Not necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]
You are seriously bringing up victim blaming? That uncivilized backlash and hate mail isn't a cause for concern? You sound like a child.
Given how you are amplifying this to a ridiculous degree, I'd say if anyone is behaving as a child would, it is you. This kind of thing has existed, literally, as long as humans. The internet amplifies the reach, but it doesn't create shit. Instead of writing "mary is a slut" or "billy is a fag" on bathroom stall walls, they write it on facebook walls. It is not new, and nothing is served by pretending it is. As well, no, hate mail in and of itself is not a cause for concern. It's often a source of comedy mind you, but if you're going to get seriously upset because people you've NEVER MET are saying mean things about you, then I wonder how you survived the third grade. People saying mean shit is a cause for concern? My ass it is. What do I care if people say mean things about me? can it hurt me? No. Can it break my leg or pick my pocket? No. People want to talk shit about me, let them. I give shit, I take shit, seems to work out.

*threats* are a different matter, and i have had those, and I have dealt with them, swiftly and decisively, (i.e. not by whining on the internet), and the problem went away. Funny how solving your problems does more than complaining about them.
box brain wrote:The rise of the 4chan generation is pretty pathetic. Basically a place for immature boys to amplify each others idiocy. While acknowledging this type of culture exists and taking steps to prevent being the focus of its idiocy is important, I wouldn't say that such culture isn't a cause for concern. Internet bullying is a serious problem.
Sexist much? Nice assumption of gender there, sparky. If you think boys are meaner than girls, you clearly were raised in a box. I divide internet bullying into two parts: when kids are the targets, I think we should handle that differently than adults. Emotional maturity levels, self-esteem issues and that are much more of a concern for minors, and I do think that bullying should be taken seriously in those cases.

But, if you're a grown-assed adult and your biggest fucking problem is hate mail? Can I fucking have YOUR life? Mine sucks in comparison.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:58 am
by Jonathan
John Brown wrote:Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...
No, even they wouldn't do that. Or at least I hope not. After something like this for anyone to use it to forward their own agenda is contemptible, especially within hours of the incident taking place!

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:04 pm
by box brain
welch wrote:
Given how you are amplifying this to a ridiculous degree, I'd say if anyone is behaving as a child would, it is you. This kind of thing has existed, literally, as long as humans. The internet amplifies the reach, but it doesn't create shit. Instead of writing "mary is a slut" or "billy is a fag" on bathroom stall walls, they write it on facebook walls. It is not new, and nothing is served by pretending it is. As well, no, hate mail in and of itself is not a cause for concern. It's often a source of comedy mind you, but if you're going to get seriously upset because people you've NEVER MET are saying mean things about you, then I wonder how you survived the third grade. People saying mean shit is a cause for concern? My ass it is. What do I care if people say mean things about me? can it hurt me? No. Can it break my leg or pick my pocket? No. People want to talk shit about me, let them. I give shit, I take shit, seems to work out.

*threats* are a different matter, and i have had those, and I have dealt with them, swiftly and decisively, (i.e. not by whining on the internet), and the problem went away. Funny how solving your problems does more than complaining about them.
box brain wrote:The rise of the 4chan generation is pretty pathetic. Basically a place for immature boys to amplify each others idiocy. While acknowledging this type of culture exists and taking steps to prevent being the focus of its idiocy is important, I wouldn't say that such culture isn't a cause for concern. Internet bullying is a serious problem.
Sexist much? Nice assumption of gender there, sparky. If you think boys are meaner than girls, you clearly were raised in a box. I divide internet bullying into two parts: when kids are the targets, I think we should handle that differently than adults. Emotional maturity levels, self-esteem issues and that are much more of a concern for minors, and I do think that bullying should be taken seriously in those cases.

But, if you're a grown-assed adult and your biggest fucking problem is hate mail? Can I fucking have YOUR life? Mine sucks in comparison.
Because something has existed in one form or another for time eternal doesn't mean that it isn't of concern or that we shouldn't take steps to discourage such behavior. I know you can think of many such behaviors off the top of your head. Just as school bullying should be discouraged so should internet bullying/trolling. With every passing year our internet personas are becoming more important for our social and professional lives, again, as the witch-hunts towards certain individuals in the skeptic community has shown. Taking a stand against hateful behavior, be it internet "trolling" or threats, is important. To do otherwise is basically to encourage an atmosphere of juvenile bullying and popularity contests *cough* PZ Myers and Watson *cough* which is damaging to rational/skeptical discourse.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:05 pm
by John Greg
In rebut to: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 750#p36689
Did he not say that those who commit suicide due to internet trolling are stupid?
No, not precisely that. He said that people commit suicide for a lot of stupid reasons. And they do. Sure, we can sympathise, and in each individual instance try to determine if the preceding supposed causal was in fact blameworthy, or if the suicide was a ridiculous over-reaction. Each instance must stand on its own merits.
His entire argument is that internet trolling is "of no concern."
That is something of a simplification and misrepresentation of the argument. I think.
I think those who have been the target of FTB/Atheism+ attacks would argue otherwise.
Sure, but that is not trolling.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:10 pm
by John Brown
Jonathan wrote:
John Brown wrote:Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...
No, even they wouldn't do that. Or at least I hope not. After something like this for anyone to use it to forward their own agenda is contemptible, especially within hours of the incident taking place!
LOL. You must be avoiding Twitter. *EVERYONE* is using this to forward their agenda right now.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:14 pm
by Jonathan
John Brown wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
John Brown wrote:Que FTB post blaming us for the school shooting in Connecticut in 3,2,1...
No, even they wouldn't do that. Or at least I hope not. After something like this for anyone to use it to forward their own agenda is contemptible, especially within hours of the incident taking place!
LOL. You must be avoiding Twitter. *EVERYONE* is using this to forward their agenda right now.
One of the many reasons I don't use Twitter!

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:20 pm
by box brain
John Greg wrote:In rebut to: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 750#p36689
Did he not say that those who commit suicide due to internet trolling are stupid?
No, not precisely that. He said that people commit suicide for a lot of stupid reasons. And they do. Sure, we can sympathise, and in each individual instance try to determine if the preceding supposed causal was in fact blameworthy, or if the suicide was a ridiculous over-reaction. Each instance must stand on its own merits.
His entire argument is that internet trolling is "of no concern."
That is something of a simplification and misrepresentation of the argument. I think.
I think those who have been the target of FTB/Atheism+ attacks would argue otherwise.
Sure, but that is not trolling.
I think you are splitting hairs here a little. He didn't say that some suicides were stupid, he said that those trolled into suicide were stupid (i.e. that all those who commit suicide due to trolling are stupid).

His argument was contradictory. First he said that the behavior was not "OK" but in the same sentence says that it is of "no concern," and then ends with those who commit suicide due to trolling are "stupid." At all levels I'd say his argument is pretty immature and not well thought out. Children are much more sensitive to bullying, in real life or otherwise, than adults. Those who are targeted for being different, internet bullying can be the straw to break the camel's back. Hateful behavior on the internet should never be tolerated when targeting youth.

I agree that adults on the other hand should be able to withstand attacks better, but I still don't see such attacks as par for the course. Simply put I think anyone who feels the need to send hateful emails to someone over a topic of a little importance as video games is displaying symptoms of a psychological problem. Of course when I say hateful I am not talking about strongly worded emails rejecting ones argument, but emails full of vindictive and threats. I think most would feel such behavior is of concern, unless they are an anti-social nitwit.