The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

[Mark Neil]

[spoiler]

I think the definition would have to be changed to keep in accordance with their current attitudes towards men:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,
and that all men are monsters.

Methinks that that qualifies as stereotyping and therefore sexism. That some feminists might feel that way is probably a tenable position – the website I Blame the Patriarchy probably being a case in point. But all of them?

You might want to take a look at the definition for stereotype and for sexism, and note the emphasis on and implications of the word “oversimplified” in the former:

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

Feminism isn't a sex or gender.

[/spoiler]
Don't quite follow you there. The assertion was that "feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people" which seems tantamount to asserting, if not leveling the accusation, that all feminists subscribe to that view or principle - ergo, stereotyping, ergo, sexism.

As you said, the assertion was of what feminism is. How exactly is it sexist to make stereotypes about feminism if feminism is an ideology and not a sex/gender. Yes, the "women are the only people" part is certainly sexist, but it was not a view expressed by the person you're calling sexist, but rather, an accusation (right or wrong) made against feminism. It would be like, if I said "Christians thought gays were unnatural" (not a belief I hold)... Am I being homophobic? Or am I accusing Christians of being homophobic? Note, the accusation of stereotyping hasn't been challenged, but the "ergo, sexism" doesn't fit in there?

[Karmakin]

Methinks you should really take a close look at the definitions for sexism and stereotyping I provided. Here’s the one for sexism again:

2. sexism: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Note the reference to stereotyping which is an oversimplification, an assertion that the characteristics of some segment of a population – both radfems, presumably, and men, in this case – are true for or applicable to the entire population.

Although I’ll concede that the stereotyping pertains to both the “women are the only people” statement, and to the “all men are monsters” one, while the sexism resides only in the latter. But one might also argue that that latter statement is a charge that the feminists so described by the definition provided are guilty of sexism.

Let me put it this way. The way that a lot of feminists use and view privilege theory, simply cannot exist without a healthy dose of sexism. I don't think that all feminists see things that way (I know I didn't when I considered myself a feminist), but generally speaking, some of the language the movement tends to use is sexist.

It's the assumption that a man has (and is willing to use) more power and a woman has (and is willing to use) less power that drives the privilege theory.

[AnonymousCowherd]

This is from Rick Perlstein's piece on Aaron Swartz, but it makes me think of the devastation a smart student might do in a PZ course.

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

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172187/aaron-swartz

Swartz and the prof may both have been right. 70% of the reason for the US staying in Vietnam was to avoid a humiliating defeat, but that wasn't the reason they went in the first place which, at the risk of over-simplifying complex historical motives, was most likely anti-communist sentiment and the "domino theory". The prof should have known that, mind you.

[codelette]

I dunno. Doesn't mean anything, but it did make me laugh.

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/gkbMk.png[/spoiler]

:lol:

anywho, it seems that they are referring to this: http://www.gender-focus.com/2013/01/13/ ... ositivity/

My take? Laci seems like a lovely young woman with an upbeat attitude, however; her romantic take on menstruation does not ring a bell on this perimenopausal lady.
Her call of her celebration of menarche? They do that in my culture. Not fun. Imagine yourself at 11-12 years old, arriving to your grandma's house only to find out that your dear mother informed all the aunts that you are menstruating for the very first time. Not fun for a teen having adults invading your privacy like that (I gotta say: I called my mom to inform her that my eldest niece got her menarche and later congratulate her. lol....I needed to troll her.)
Regarding the rest of the romantic outake on menstruation: I hate my period. Always hated it, always will. It's messy. It's painful. I throw up. I shiver. It ruins underwear. It ruins bedsheets. It confines me to a bed for 1-2 days a month. It depletes my blood iron.
So, yeah... Laci, cool story. But there will never be an ounce of period positivity running through my veins.

[Gumby Unlogged]

Zvan posted an excerpt from a pointless, atrociously written short story about a goddess who visits bloody retribution on "dickheads" and "douches", beginning with a YouTube commenter.

It's a WTF-worthy piece of crap, but it's really easy to see why Zvan likes it.

Lol. And they're the ones who call men "violent".

[jjbinx007]

Can't believe I hadn't spotted this until now. Just be re-reading some of Carrier's vile bile and saw this:

Richard Carrier
August 29, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Who said being asked for coffee in an elevator was harassment? Not any feminist I know.

Oh, Richard! You are forgetful sometimes. You see, just a year earlier PZ Myers said:

Posted by PZ Myers on July 3, 2011

a man who beats a woman to death has clearly committed an immensely greater crime than a man who harrasses a woman in an elevator

Again, are you ignorant, Richard, or just a fucking liar?

[AnonymousCowherd]

Ad on Pharyngula:

http://i.imgur.com/6ClFW.jpg

I'm waiting for the first burqa ad. Wearing a burqa would be perfectly in line with radical feminism. There has always been a lot of convergent evolution between extremist ideologies.

Actually that ad means you've been shoping for islamic womens' clothing. Anything you want to share with the pit?

Islamic, schmislamic. Kaftans are just 70's kit - like their brand of feminism. Should fit right in at FTB.

[AnonymousCowherd]

[spoiler]You know how FTB and Skepchick are always going on about how they get so much online hatred and trolling from within the atheist and skeptical community? Have a gander at this comment I got while promoting /r/slymepit to a related subreddit (/r/srssucks for anyone curious). Make particular note of the username:

http://i.imgur.com/A8Os4.png

This is the kind of person who is actually trolling RW and co... and he states explicitly that he's not a 'skeptic', and so it's safe I think to assume he's probably not an atheist either. Yet were he to troll/threaten Ms Watson, I'm sure she'd have no qualms saying he was an part of the online skeptic/atheist community.[/spoiler]

I thought Sammy Davis Jnr was dead?

Are there really 943 other people with that nick? Rent-a-Troll must be flooding the market.

[Jan Steen]

Regarding PZ’s post on Oddie/Jimmy Saville, he now claims that the dates don’t matter:

Dates don’t matter here. What caught my interest was that Oddie, apparently before the revelations emerged, could tie Savile’s behavior to his Catholic morality. It amused me that his words had acquired a new meaning with the disclosure of his criminal activity.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-535038

But the dates do matter for the piece that PZ actually wrote. For example, the following only makes sense if you pretend that Oddie already knew about Saville’s crimes when he wrote his article:

I have to ask a simple question: where did all that come from? It’s almost as though Oddie couldn’t bear to accept that the answer was his Catholicism: even that Catholicism itself could ever be the source of actual human evil.

It is really a pity that in his usual eagerness to paint people in the worst possible light, PZ distorts the truth and botches what could have been a fine opportunity to demonstrate that overt religiosity doesn’t tell us anything about a person’s morality.

And there is some real comedy gold in Oddie’s article which PZ missed, for example where Oddie comments on a visit by Saville to Dartmoor’s hospital for the criminally insane:

I love that remark [by Saville] to a Broadmoor patient: “what do you want to go round strangling crumpet for?”; there’s a touch of genius in that — also a reflection of the invulnerability of the truly innocent man, so much and so obviously on the side of everyone he talked to that he could only stay safe in any company.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comment ... his-faith/

Calling Saville ‘the truly innocent man’, now that is weapons grade irony. Wow. I think I need a glass of water.

[UnbelieveSteve]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

[Scented Nectar]

"Authentic Fake Jewellery" - awesome!

Re "Jewellery" as an alternate spelling - I don't think I'd ever seen it spelled that way, so looked it up & have now learned something, thanks. Always a plus! (That is, always "a positive thing" - not "A+" *shudder*)

Thanks. The shorter version, jewelry, always seems like it's missing letters. The OCD section of my brain insists on the longer spelling most of the time.

[Scented Nectar]

When I first fotoflexed it, I did so hoping that others may copy and use it. Thanks for asking first, but you don't need my permission, since I merely took a Ghostbuster's logo, and added the hair on it, and adjusted the eyes, nose and mouth. If you can make money off of it, then go ahead. Just remember, if you get a lot of sales, send me a free copy.

If I were to make this into ceramic jewelry, I would make it so that the whole jewelry would be the logo, rather than have the image drawn onto a ceramic piece. I took ceramics in junior high school, and even back then, I was much better than Surly Amy (LOL). If I had the kiln and molds to make such things, I would.

Thanks for sharing the pic. I doubt I'll sell even one of them, but if enough get sold, you may have your pick of them. :)

This was mostly just to have fun with the whole 'fake jewellery' freak out. I'm not expecting any to actually be sold. I was seeing if I could imitate that ugly speckled glazed background that we all know so well from a certain self proclaimed REAL jewellery maker. Not a perfect match, but that's why it's authentically fake, I suppose. :)

[AnonymousCowherd]

I can actually relate to that a good deal. I STILL hold a personal grudge against Elvis.

You may derive some amusement from my avatar then. It's a cupcake with a peanut butter frosting called a "Dead Elvis". To add insult to injury, it's a vegan cupcake.

[TedDahlberg]

I'm 99% sure that the modern Flat Earth Society is a poe, and quite a funny and valuable poe at that. They illustrate how pseudoscience and conspiracy theories operate by applying those ideas to a claim that is considered ridiculous.

It reminds me of a scientific journal (actually a sub-journal to another journal) called the Worm Runner's Digest, that published articles such as:
Brewster and Wilson, "Learned Helplessness in Pet Rocks (Roccus pettus)" (December 1976)
Olson and Hirsch, "Effects of Social Contact on Behavioral Quotient of Coffeepots" (December 1976)
Griffin, "Taste-Aversion Learning in Dead Rats: A Note on Proper Control Procedures" (December 1975).

Another similarity could be drawn with the avowed skeptics who go around making crop circles and then engaging in crop circle culture (very interesting phenomenon).

It doesn't surprise me that certain people will lack the subtlety of thought to appreciate these sorts of endeavours.

This reminds me of a zoology course I took where we got an assignment to write an essay on one of a list of topics. We got to make up the subject of the essay, but the mechanisms and methods in it as well as the form of the essay had to be authentic. So my group wrote about the migratory patterns of snow dragons (as far as I recall they migrated between the poles, and were nuclear powered, getting their fuel from neglected Soviet nuclear weapons), and another group wrote something about paper swallows. It was great fun, and an excellent way to make us think about biological concepts in a more abstract way.

[Scented Nectar]

I think the Ghostbusters logo is copyrighted by Columbia Pictures, so there could be legal trouble if items with that image are offered for sale.

Surly Amy can probably give you more details about the whole copyright protection thing.

The GhostBeccas one is changed enough that it can be considered parody. There are a ton of similar things on Zazzle, famous logos changed to fit the humour or mood of the store owner. I think this one is changed enough that I only need the permission of masakari2012 to use this variation. But IF the movie company who owns the original logo files a proper notice? Then, I'll just take them down. Doesn't matter. The fun of making and showing them's been had already. :)

Also, I don't actually expect to sell any. That store sells nothing, even among the items that have nothing to do with Slimepit or feminist related stuff. I've had exactly one customer and only a bit over $7 in profit (which I'll never see unless the profit hits $50 some day).

[Scented Nectar]

[spoiler]

It's not the prettiest of colour selections, and there are far too many blues on the store page that shows them all, but here they are...Authentic Fake Jewellery!

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/00010-1.png

[/spoiler]
Is that a bagel?

It wasn't meant to be, but the colour and shading etc, accidently looks like one, including poppy and sesame seeds. Mmmm, bagels. I think I need to go to my favourite bagel shop today and get a few with one of their herbed cream cheeses. Mmmmm

[AnonymousCowherd]

Okay, here it is.

You can debate one or two feminists one specific statements they have made.

But you cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism in general. And here, cannot means "it is impossible" and cannot means "it's a trap". And the reason for that is NAFALT.

[spoiler]Yes, it is basically a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism because for any issue X you wish to raise, they are not those feminists that do X. Those are other feminists, not true feminists, feminism doesn't do that. If feminism ever did X, it was long ago, and those feminists are gone or dying out or were even wrong. But today's feminism, the feminists you are debating don't do X.

This is true for all issues X.

It is a corollary to the Feminist Central Cockup. (FCCK).

The Feminist Central Cockup works like this.

(FCCK): Feminism stands for everything, feminism stands for nothing. This is an empirically determined cockup and it is from induction of the pattern,

For any issue X in the uncountable set of Feminist Issues That Are Important (FI), you can find feminists that believe X is empowering, and feminists that believe X is oppressive, and you can find feminists that believe X one day and ~X the next day.

So for any issue X, once you find feminists that disagree with X on you through statements you can document they have made, you can debate those feminists on issue X. You do run the danger that they have somewhere else stated ~X.

But for all issues X, you cannot in general debate any feminist on X. Because FI is uncountably infinite, the chance the feminist you will debate holds X beliefs for the beliefs you want to debate the ~X position on is vanishingly small.

The feminist will win the debate by throwing down the NAFALT trump.

You want to argue ~X, but they agree with ~X, and furthermore, no true feminist believes in ~X.

You think I am bullshitting you, but here is a canonical example: Heather McNamara, Zinnia Jones' partner, is here to tell you that

TRUE Radical Feminists are not transphobic

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ansphobia/

Now, perhaps you were thinking rad fems are of course transphobic, and perhaps contemporary fems are not transphobic. WELL YOU LOSE. NOT ONLY ARE contemporary feminists not transphobic, but NOT EVEN TRUE RAD FEMS are transphobic.

Those that are, are not true rad fems.

To wind up this extra stupid long argument, I'll reiterate:

Due to the Feminist Central Cockup, in general, you cannot debate a feminist on feminism.

Corollary: you can debate specific feminists on specific statements they have made.
Corollary: you might be able to debate an intellectually honest feminist on feminism, if you have a good documented sense of feminist history. And good luck finding an intellectually honest feminist.[/spoiler]

There is some evidence for this in Ra's wife's talk of a "spotlighting fallacy". Which appears to mean that any statement singled out for criticism isn't actually a statement about feminism, it's (at best) someone's personal opinion only. By this argument, feminists then become Schroedinger's Feminists because they lose the power of Feminist speech as soon as they are observed. Until we get a Pope of Feminism then, there are no infallible statements describing feminism and no-one promoting their own brand of ideological hokum has to give a clear statement of what they supposedly stand for.

This is all just pure politics now. Sizzle, not sausage. Forget science, rationality, debate, reasoned discussion - hell - even facts themselves. None of those will resolve this current dispute and some folks have now said far too much to ever consider even being in the same city as each other, never mind a unified "movement" (whatever that means).

[AnonymousCowherd]

yes, she signed both petitions in regards to Watson:

indecisive.png

Indecisive? Nah, she spelled her name right. That's all that matters.

[jjbinx007]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

Isn't "motherfucker" a gendered slur?

[AnonymousCowherd]

Not sure how productive it is for both sides to keep launching attack petitions against the other. It already looks like its getting out of hand.

Yes! It's time for the attack poodles!

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... JnDfBh4dPw

[surreptitious57]

. . I am a member of Atheism Plus . .
. . but I do not have the right to judge their character

Of course you fucking-well do have right
You may elect not to voice your private judgement, but no-one can take that right to internal judgement from you, especially not yourself. For that is being your own jackbooted Anti Free Thought Police Stasi

A mental state that A+Theism weirdos get their jollies by infecting others with this depressing guilt meme

It has nothing to do with Atheism Plus as it is self imposed and was in place before the site even existed now. Of course I could choose to reverse it at any time should I so wish but that is not going to happen however. I see it as being necessary in my evolution as a moral being. Ideas can be taken to pieces and rightly so too, but human beings get treated with respect - and no matter who they are either. Now you would obviously disagree, but this is only for me. How you treat others is up to you and you only. However, a good skeptic should not engage in ad hom. If the only way to refute someone s arguments is by insulting them, then you are doing it wrong. If you are not being skeptical however, then that is a different matter entirely, but as I said that is not how I roll but if it is how you choose to, then that is fine by me

[Jonathan]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

Isn't "motherfucker" a gendered slur?

Not at all. A pre-op non-male-identifying trans-person could still fuck xir own mother. Check your motherfucking cisbinary privilege!

[AnonymousCowherd]

I dunno. Doesn't mean anything, but it did make me laugh.

http://i.imgur.com/gkbMk.png

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

[jjbinx007]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

TW: funny

[spoiler]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3393 ... ant3ca.jpg[/spoiler]

[jjbinx007]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

[AnonymousCowherd]

[spoiler]

It's not the prettiest of colour selections, and there are far too many blues on the store page that shows them all, but here they are...Authentic Fake Jewellery!

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/00010-1.png

[/spoiler]
Is that a bagel?

It wasn't meant to be, but the colour and shading etc, accidently looks like one, including poppy and sesame seeds. Mmmm, bagels. I think I need to go to my favourite bagel shop today and get a few with one of their herbed cream cheeses. Mmmmm

Had the exact same effect on me. Mmmm, bagel.

[Pitchguest]

Unless your wife or girlfriend is a nymphomaniac you do not have the right to screw her whenever you wish just because you have a hard on - that thinking belongs in the Dark Ages - and I am not suggesting this has never happened to me, because like most men it has, but if the lady says no, then you have to accept that - end of

*smirk*

The way I see it. If you own a dog, unless you are falling down sick, there is no excuse for not taking it out for a walk every day.

Same thing with a man sacha and sex IMO. Any man who owns a dog man sacha has to understand that part of the deal is taking fucking the dog man sacha regularly.

The dog needs the walk, and it is generally better for the both of you that you do.

*smirk*

walk your dog.png

Laughing_dog.gif

If Andrew meant it as a joke, fine. If not, that's a little fucked up.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

That one certainly isn't.

[EdgePenguin]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

You don't get this kind of pure comedy gold on FTB.

[welch]

is this what is called a "not-pology"?

totally different reasons.png

Yeah. if you aren't telling jen she's special every hour, and giving her medals for showing up, you're an asshole.

She's the poster child for the self-esteem movement/gen y

[UnbelieveSteve]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

Isn't "motherfucker" a gendered slur?

Not at all. A pre-op non-male-identifying trans-person could still fuck xir own mother. Check your motherfucking cisbinary privilege!

I don't operate under AtheismPlus moderation rules of gender politics. They're mostly cunts in my book.
At least one,.. no, make that two FTBers are now officially pissed off with this blog. Physioprof and Greta Christina herself. Mission accomplished. :dance:

[welch]

hmmm
Elyse is a Skepchick
http://imageshack.us/a/img717/9546/elyse16small.jpg

"Elyse MoFo Anders is the bad ass behind the Women Thinking, inc and the superhero in charge of the Hug Me! I'm Vaccinated campaign as well as a podcaster, writer, and slacktivist extraordinaire."

@dELYSEious
"Writer. Tweeter. Drinker. Speaker. Ass-kicker. World saver. Mofo. Activist. Cancer killer. Poo discussionista. This lady: http://hugmeimvaccinated.org"

16 hours ago:

signed.png

3 months ago:

Vacula.png

4 months ago:

comment.png

http://www.change.org/en-AU/users/elysemofoanders <--------- hat tip Maria Maltseva

She a busy little slacktavist, ain't she? One can almost feel the smug, self congratulatory back patting.

She's not really a slacktivist, in that she actually does a good job of organizing...vaccination-ins(?) at conferences to help people get flu vaccines, or what have you on the cheap, if not free. Her group also goes to anti-vax events and attempts to counter the bullshit. So in terms of getting shit done, she's focused on the thing she cares about and is doing a solid job of actually doing stuff.

If she's a slacktivist, she's a really bad one.

[welch]

[spoiler]

Yet another, um, 'appropriate' ad from FTB, no doubt designed to appeal to their feminist deomographic:
http://i.imgur.com/rI9ej.png

I'm pretty sure that might be Google Ads monitoring your cookies.

You can tell us about your manga addiction, if you like.

[/spoiler]

The ads are not controlled by FTB but by cookies you have in your system. That's why I get Jeep ads.

I thought it was by key words from the text on the page.... but you could be right

At the risk of doc dropping myself, I work for the internet. One thing to understand about web sites these days is that when you visit a site, you're not really visiting one site, but several. Content is filled in by multiple providers using various technologies to fill in those spaces on the page. So I wouldn't give FTB grief for their ads, they aren't in control. Their ads are one thing I won't blame them for.

I disagree. While they aren't specifically setting up each ad, they are in charge of which ad networks they throw in with, and, they should have some ability to control what kinds of keyword ads you see on the site. If they didn't get that kind of agreement, well, they *are* idiots, so it's possible. but the concept that there's no way to control these things is simply incorrect.

[ERV]

is this what is called a "not-pology"?

totally different reasons.png

"Founder of 'A+' movement supports her friend spending cancer donations on designer shoes; calls critics who have suffered genuine medical catastrophes 'assholes'"

*shrug* Theyre just playing from the theist playbook-- you see, the meek shall inherit the Earth! So you go over there and be meek while the clergy dress in extravagant clothing, live in the most extravagant homes, eat the most extravagant food, etc.

[AnonymousCowherd]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

The comment suggesting Physioprof learn to string a sentence together is right on the money. The schmuck even misspelled "sadde" "ficke" and "motherffuckerre".

[welch]

Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site"...

Link?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-515576

PeeZus's comment shows *exactly* what I figured the case was. No one there had any fucking clue about running an ad-supported website when they started, and bieber was probably the only actual "tech" they had. They didn't plan this, it's a fucking scooby-doo machine. They don't know how ad networks work, or anything else, and their "business" guy isn't one, who is trying to teach himself how this shit actually works so they can make some damned money.

The results they're getting, and the techniques they're using show that in spades.

For people who theoretically know how to plan shit, it's pretty obvious they didn't plan shit. But that's what happens when you dismiss all fields but your own as inconsequential, and assume business majors are for the stupid.

Ed should be so stupid.

[LMU]

is this what is called a "not-pology"?

totally different reasons.png

"Founder of 'A+' movement supports her friend spending cancer donations on designer shoes; calls critics who have suffered genuine medical catastrophes 'assholes'"

*shrug* Theyre just playing from the theist playbook-- you see, the meek shall inherit the Earth! So you go over there and be meek while the clergy dress in extravagant clothing, live in the most extravagant homes, eat the most extravagant food, etc.

Her response made me think: Did someone not get marshmallows in their hot cocoa this morning?

[welch]

Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site"...

Link?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-515576

Even better are the idiots talking like they have a clue as to how ads work. Morons.

[Bhurzum]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

We need to stem the flow of cruddy jokes!

[UnbelieveSteve]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

The comment suggesting Physioprof learn to string a sentence together is right on the money. The schmuck even misspelled "sadde" "ficke" and "motherffuckerre".

.,..and i thank pitchgueste for the lolsse

[AnonymousCowherd]

what do I win for laughing at this?

hahaha!.png

Yeah, but at least he doesn't have to worry about internet rolls threatening him, unlike poor Becca.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2la4z8g.png

[AnonymousCowherd]

A FreefromThoughtsBlogger named physioprof left a comment on my "Greta thanks her followers, maybe." blog to which i responded generously.
http://shoegate3.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... 7410451246

I really must thank Psychoprof for his comment. It's proof of death threats or something something.

The comment suggesting Physioprof learn to string a sentence together is right on the money. The schmuck even misspelled "sadde" "ficke" and "motherffuckerre".

.,..and i thank pitchgueste for the lolsse

SNAP Pitchguest, I didn't see your comment before I posted. I guess that shows that Great Minds, together, can think like Tiny ones.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

We need to stem the flow of cruddy jokes!

Oh, put a sock in it Bhurzum.

[Pitchguest]

Julian "spic" Fransisco is bringing up TF supposedly threatening to out Natalie Reed on Bridgette Gaudette's article. Of course he didn't, just paranoia by Natalie Reed and that's not the only that's happened.

Case in point: http://www.freezepage.com/1358172252LQIPHFIMJO

Absolutely classic you cannot fucking win.

I was shouted at for not saying what the JREF said. I explained why I wasn’t saying. I get shouted at for that.

All you ashholes are why I’m delighted not to be going to TAM.

Yes, Ophelia Benson, claiming you received "threats" (that turned out to not be threats at all) and then accusing JREF of dismissing them with a simple "oh sorry kthxbye" and then NOT revealing the emails said is a classic example of you not winning. Brilliant. Oh, and ashholes? Wait, I see. Because the comment she responds to said this?

Saying it “wouldn’t be in DJ’s interest” is ALREADY fanning the flames. You don’t get credit for withholding a log from the fire while you’re pouring gas on it.

Get it, because he said "fanning the flames" and something about pouring gas on a log? Haaaa! Such wit! (The "it wouldn't be in DJ's interest" was Ophelia's excuse for not revealing what JREF said to her, if you're wondering.)

Hold on, I think we're getting off track. Where was I? Oh yeah, julian was being an insufferable tit. Piss off, julian.

[jjbinx007]

Nice article in the Telegraph rebutting the recent transphobia coming from certain Feminist hacks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/98 ... nhood.html

[Lurkion]

Stephanie Svan let me continue to respond.

I'm done now; it's a bit tiring to get straw-manned so much by her commentariat.

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

I still think you should sign it. M. Mouse is the latest signature. Good on him. We need high profile names like him.

[Sheogorath]

Feminism isn't an ideology. It's more a loose confederation of tribes.

[Sheogorath]

Feminism isn't an ideology. It's more a loose confederation of tribes.

Actually, for some it is no more than a talisman, a "good person badge".

[jjbinx007]

Stephanie Svan let me continue to respond.

I'm done now; it's a bit tiring to get straw-manned so much by her commentariat.

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

To be fair, most of the comments on there were pretty reasonable. In my view anyway. There was at least an attempt at civil debate, which makes a change.

[welch]

Don't bother. She'll only be stating the bleedin' obvious.

Menstruation jokes are simply NOT funny.

Period.

That one certainly isn't.

It didn't flow well, that's for sure. Someone should smack the stupid clot.

[Lurkion]

Stephanie Svan let me continue to respond.

I'm done now; it's a bit tiring to get straw-manned so much by her commentariat.

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

To be fair, most of the comments on there were pretty reasonable. In my view anyway. There was at least an attempt at civil debate, which makes a change.

I agree. They were off the mark in terms of accuracy etc, but were disagreement (not unreasoned anger). It was more enjoyable that way (although it was a bit unfortunate being the only one with my opinion there; I had to tend to a lot of opinions lol).

At least I don't have that problem with my blog! I've had one person comment and I spent a half hour responding lol

[somedumbguy]

Okay, here it is.

You can debate one or two feminists one specific statements they have made.

But you cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism in general. And here, cannot means "it is impossible" and cannot means "it's a trap". And the reason for that is NAFALT.

[spoiler]Yes, it is basically a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism because for any issue X you wish to raise, they are not those feminists that do X. Those are other feminists, not true feminists, feminism doesn't do that. If feminism ever did X, it was long ago, and those feminists are gone or dying out or were even wrong. But today's feminism, the feminists you are debating don't do X.

This is true for all issues X.

It is a corollary to the Feminist Central Cockup. (FCCK).

The Feminist Central Cockup works like this.

(FCCK): Feminism stands for everything, feminism stands for nothing. This is an empirically determined cockup and it is from induction of the pattern,

For any issue X in the uncountable set of Feminist Issues That Are Important (FI), you can find feminists that believe X is empowering, and feminists that believe X is oppressive, and you can find feminists that believe X one day and ~X the next day.

So for any issue X, once you find feminists that disagree with X on you through statements you can document they have made, you can debate those feminists on issue X. You do run the danger that they have somewhere else stated ~X.

But for all issues X, you cannot in general debate any feminist on X. Because FI is uncountably infinite, the chance the feminist you will debate holds X beliefs for the beliefs you want to debate the ~X position on is vanishingly small.

The feminist will win the debate by throwing down the NAFALT trump.

You want to argue ~X, but they agree with ~X, and furthermore, no true feminist believes in ~X.

You think I am bullshitting you, but here is a canonical example: Heather McNamara, Zinnia Jones' partner, is here to tell you that

TRUE Radical Feminists are not transphobic

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ansphobia/

Now, perhaps you were thinking rad fems are of course transphobic, and perhaps contemporary fems are not transphobic. WELL YOU LOSE. NOT ONLY ARE contemporary feminists not transphobic, but NOT EVEN TRUE RAD FEMS are transphobic.

Those that are, are not true rad fems.

To wind up this extra stupid long argument, I'll reiterate:

Due to the Feminist Central Cockup, in general, you cannot debate a feminist on feminism.

Corollary: you can debate specific feminists on specific statements they have made.
Corollary: you might be able to debate an intellectually honest feminist on feminism, if you have a good documented sense of feminist history. And good luck finding an intellectually honest feminist.[/spoiler]

There is some evidence for this in Ra's wife's talk of a "spotlighting fallacy". Which appears to mean that any statement singled out for criticism isn't actually a statement about feminism, it's (at best) someone's personal opinion only. By this argument, feminists then become Schroedinger's Feminists because they lose the power of Feminist speech as soon as they are observed. Until we get a Pope of Feminism then, there are no infallible statements describing feminism and no-one promoting their own brand of ideological hokum has to give a clear statement of what they supposedly stand for.

This is all just pure politics now. Sizzle, not sausage. Forget science, rationality, debate, reasoned discussion - hell - even facts themselves. None of those will resolve this current dispute and some folks have now said far too much to ever consider even being in the same city as each other, never mind a unified "movement" (whatever that means).

So this suggests another way to debate a feminist, which is to ask the feminist not what kind of feminist she is, but which feminist leaders speak for her, and then debate their statements.

By the way, this column in the Telegraph written by Dr. Brooke Magnanti regarding the transphobic remarks made recently in the Guardian, shows NAFALT at work:

http://i.imgur.com/ohjq5.jpg
(big picture removed)
http://i.imgur.com/7TSaO.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/98 ... nhood.html

Why is there a need for scare quotes around feminist in "Two 'feminist' writers".

Is the Magnanti saying feminism isn't a real thing? That feminism is so new that it needs quotes around it? She doesn't scare quote feminist or feminism anywhere else in her article.

Or is she showing her irony and making the claim that Burchill is not a true feminist, which is supported by the caption to the picture that states: "Julie Burchill needs to update her thinking from that of the 1970s and accept that there are new sheriffs in town."

[jjbinx007]

I agree. They were off the mark in terms of accuracy etc, but were disagreement (not unreasoned anger).

I agreed with them on some points, disagreed on others. But at least there was discussion, not the usual yperbole, performance trolling, ad hominems and banning.

I am of the opinion that the hyperbole and abuse is there to drive up traffic to their sites, but if the more reasoned debate continues then the civil war infighting would dramatically diminish and all sides might be able to work together to actually DO something, instead of kvetch and moan about expensive shoes.

But that's not gonna happen any time soon.

[windy]

By the way, this column in the Telegraph written by Dr. Brooke Magnanti regarding the transphobic remarks made recently in the Guardian, shows NAFALT at work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/98 ... nhood.html

Why is there a need for scare quotes around feminist in "Two 'feminist' writers".

Is the Magnanti saying feminism isn't a real thing? That feminism is so new that it needs quotes around it? She doesn't scare quote feminist or feminism anywhere else in her article.

Or is she showing her irony and making the claim that Burchill is not a true feminist, which is supported by the caption to the picture that states: "Julie Burchill needs to update her thinking from that of the 1970s and accept that there are new sheriffs in town."

Way to judge the entire article based on the blurb. Those scare quotes were probably put in by the editor to indicate that it's an opinion.

Magnanti is obviously not saying that Burchill et al aren't true feminists or that feminism isn't a thing, she is talking about factions within feminism:
"transphobia, and its very real presence in feminism"
"Second-wave feminism may be old hat but it still reigns supreme on the opinion pages of Britain's papers. And in its radical form it can be downright ugly: as reductionist and essentialist as the patriarchy it claims to fight, endlessly obsessed with what "real women" are."
"Frequently, bringing up this ugly set of phobias deeply nested in some factions of feminism gets you told to shut up, to go away, to stop calling yourself a feminist - or worse - stop calling yourself a woman."

btw, not that it's all that relevant to the interpretation of that article, but Magnanti does not call herself a feminist.

[Tigzy]

@somedumbguy

Julie Burchill is just a dim-witted bit of fluff with a gob. She once referred to herself as a chav, because chavs are like way working-class cool, innnit bruv. Course, her strained attempts to be be all working-class didn't stop her from taking the Mail on Sunday's dime all those years ago (for the uninitiated, The Mail on Sunday is the weekend sister-paper of the Daily 'Oh noes, immmigrants are out trapping and eating all our property prices!!!' Heil).

There has yet to be a vibrator invented that can satisfy the malodorous Ms Burchill; this is because her appetite for column inches knows no bounds.

[somedumbguy]

By the way, this column in the Telegraph written by Dr. Brooke Magnanti regarding the transphobic remarks made recently in the Guardian, shows NAFALT at work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/98 ... nhood.html

Why is there a need for scare quotes around feminist in "Two 'feminist' writers".

Is the Magnanti saying feminism isn't a real thing? That feminism is so new that it needs quotes around it? She doesn't scare quote feminist or feminism anywhere else in her article.

Or is she showing her irony and making the claim that Burchill is not a true feminist, which is supported by the caption to the picture that states: "Julie Burchill needs to update her thinking from that of the 1970s and accept that there are new sheriffs in town."

Way to judge the entire article based on the blurb. Those scare quotes were probably put in by the editor to indicate that it's an opinion.

Magnanti is obviously not saying that Burchill et al aren't true feminists or that feminism isn't a thing, she is talking about factions within feminism:
"transphobia, and its very real presence in feminism"
"Second-wave feminism may be old hat but it still reigns supreme on the opinion pages of Britain's papers. And in its radical form it can be downright ugly: as reductionist and essentialist as the patriarchy it claims to fight, endlessly obsessed with what "real women" are."
"Frequently, bringing up this ugly set of phobias deeply nested in some factions of feminism gets you told to shut up, to go away, to stop calling yourself a feminist - or worse - stop calling yourself a woman."

btw, not that it's all that relevant to the interpretation of that article, but Magnanti does not call herself a feminist.

What's the opinion, that Burchill is a feminist writer? She is a self-declared militant feminist. She's been writing about feminism since at least 2001. (wiki and http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... l-feminism)

There is no need for scare quotes in that blurb. Whether it was written by Magnanti or an editor is beside the point, someone put scare quotes where they are not needed. Why?

Way to judge the entire article based on the blurb.

I didn't judge the entire article, I said the article contained an example of NAFALT.

Fuck off.

[Tkmlac]

Ad on Pharyngula:

http://i.imgur.com/6ClFW.jpg

I'm waiting for the first burqa ad. Wearing a burqa would be perfectly in line with radical feminism. There has always been a lot of convergent evolution between extremist ideologies.

Actually that ad means you've been shoping for islamic womens' clothing. Anything you want to share with the pit?

I got an ad for a Hover 'Round. 0.o

[somedumbguy]

@somedumbguy

Julie Burchill is just a dim-witted bit of fluff with a gob. She once referred to herself as a chav, because chavs are like way working-class cool, innnit bruv. Course, her strained attempts to be be all working-class didn't stop her from taking the Mail on Sunday's dime all those years ago (for the uninitiated, The Mail on Sunday is the weekend sister-paper of the Daily 'Oh noes, immmigrants are out trapping and eating all our property prices!!!' Heil).

There has yet to be a vibrator invented that can satisfy the malodorous Ms Burchill; this is because her appetite for column inches knows no bounds.

I don't think I have defended Burchill or her statements anywhere, but she calls herself a feminist, writes on feminist issues, and the same column of Magnanti's that says if a person feels like a woman they should be identified as a woman should not be placing scare quotes around feminist when referrring to Burchill.

Want to be a woman? You're in
Here's an idea, not mine, and not a new one. If you want to be a woman, you're in.

And while Magnanti is talking about factions of feminism, the caption "update your thinking from the 70s ... new sheriff in town" along with

Second-wave feminism may be old hat but it still reigns supreme on the opinion pages of Britain's papers. And in its radical form it can be downright ugly: as reductionist and essentialist as the patriarchy it claims to fight, endlessly obsessed with what "real women" are.

All indicate, in alignment with the blurb that Magnanti is playing the NAFALT card.

[Tigzy]

Given the preponderance of FTB ads I get for bibles, biblical prophesy and women's shoes, I'm guessing the ad algorithmn has me down as a serial killer.

I reckon this must be down to the cookies dropped by my perusal of the A+ forums. :lol:

[Chilly P.]

Male bonding over misogyny
In real life, and as mirrored in media images, men bond with each other through observing and perpetrating acts of misogyny, such as working in groups to sexually harass women, watching misogynistic pornography together, and sexually abusing women such as in sharing hired prostituted women and strippers, sharing sexual partners, gang rape, and woman-murder.

Why? Because…

Male bonding over misogyny supports male power. Men increase their individual and collective power through all-male group-bonding, which creates relationships and networks through which they pass along opportunities and knowledge. This power-sharing over misogyny is often literal, such as business deals that take place in strip clubs where oftentimes, the women performing are economically coerced and exploited, and where female associates are either not invited or do not feel comfortable so are unable or unwilling to participate, and are denied opportunities that are in effect only available to men.
...

But apparently, Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people. If you're against Feminism you must be a porn-watching woman murderer who conducts business deals in strip clubs where you'll later rape those underpaid strippers.

Economically Coerced and Exploited? Sounds like the vast majority of the employed population. The difference between having to work your ass off at a Fast Food Restaurant and having to shake your ass off at a strip club is that the later makes considerably more money, enjoys more flexible work hours, and generally better working conditions (most strip club owners have a much hard time keeping and finding staff than most local Fast Food joints). Stripping, even in poor rural areas pays substantially more and is less taxing (both physically and financially, since most tips, where the majority of the cash is earned, is largely undeclared for taxes) than being a garbage collector, home health aide, and other essential but underpaid and overworked careers.

Are home health aides exploited because they sometimes have to pretend to care for somebody they may not like? A stripper only has to shake a booty and flirt a bit; A home health aide has to wipe soiled butts, cook meals, manhandle people sometimes larger than they are around, including into the bathroom? I'd much rather shake my hairy ass than clean somebody elses. The fact that stripping pays more than helping older people who can't fend for themselves seems to me to be more of an injustice than stripping itself.