Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

[Lsuoma]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

I'll get my coat.... :arrow:

If I were you, I'd head down to the Old Pizzle in Dover.

[Skep tickle]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

[nippletwister]

Has this been posting yet?

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 8970_n.jpg

Those are the funniest shit I have read in a while now. I know that according to some I shouldn't laugh, but....it was my privilege.....

[AndrewV69]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

Yes, but Louis is basically saying the same thing.
Both of them claim that calling someone a 'cunt' is the exact equivalent to calling a black person a 'nigger'.

Well I think the position Louis took was a bit more "nuanced" than that but essentially it could lead to a similar conclusion.

The difference between the two is in my opinion, that one has the tools but will not deploy them. The other has no tools and furthermore is incapable of recognizing them, much less utilizing them even when gifted to him.

We are looking at someone who has not only outsourced their thinking, but can not manage to properly assimilate them. Lewis to my mind has no such excuse.

YMMV

[Turglemeister]

BIG SALLY?
Thanks for being so understanding, I'm sure if that happened over at ftb, I'd be dead by now.

[bhoytony]

/Reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle clip on the young ones.

"You've got your Garibaldi, you've got your Bourbon and you've got the Peak Freans Sotski assortment."

Sotski assortment? What kind of revolutionary biscuit is that? TROTSKY assortment FFS!

Sorry-I always make a mess of biscuit talk when drunk.

The first rule of Biscuit Club is we don't talk about Biscuit Club when we're drunk.

I'll get my coat.... :arrow:

You can have Biscuit Club

Or Robot Club

[youtube]VjxtXau0924[/youtube]

[AbsurdWalls]

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

Oh, I see what you mean now. In a marketised university system there are two aspects that determine this. The first is how much students are willing pay in tuition to study a course. If nobody wants to be taught Phrenology then the university won't take in any money from having staff there that teach it. The second is research. If nobody is willing to fund research into Phrenology then it won't make sense to employ people to research it.

Of course, universities aren't fully marketised. In the UK for example the flow of money for the teaching side was... blurrier... than I have simplified it to, because some of the teaching money came in through a HEFCE grant rather than through student fees. The system is moving away from that though and towards marketisation. As a result, some areas of study that aren't popular from a teaching or research perspective (e.g. some ancient languages) might die out altogether, whereas previously they might be supported by people in university management favouring them.

That's the best account I can give you from my lowly position in academia.

[VickyCaramel]

Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?

Oh yes, I am capering with glee at taking down another woman... that's why I became an atheist in the first place don't cha know.

PeeZee sure has me pegged!

Ever thought of pegging him?

I hadn't no. That thought had never crossed my mind.... it has now. Thanks a fucking bunch!

[jimthepleb]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[youtube]E0-NalmRSl8[/youtube]
3 million...but nice wooden floors! My father trained there in the 1960's (in the real hospital not the homeopathic bollocks) it was a laughing stock then.
But the aristocracy will fund it, they love this shit, the students will come, it's a piece of piss to learn BS 101 and the rest of the school gets a shedload of income. Dilute water is plentiful.
Bunch o Wank

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Quick observation. Another observation. Some people HAVE cunts. Some people ARE black. You can't have 'teh nigger'.

[somedumbguy]

[spoiler]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[/spoiler]
Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

I think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Quick observation. Another observation. Some people HAVE cunts. Some people ARE black. You can't have 'teh nigger'.

Pretend one of the opening sentences isn't there, please.

[Jan Steen]

So I see this advert on Pharyngula:

http://i.imgur.com/61U1ooZ.jpg

I click on it and get this:

http://i.imgur.com/GjZ9Dr7.jpg

The P.I.T. and A+ ...

I tell you, we're living inside the Matrix. This is all a simulation and someone is fucking with us.

[Steersman]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

I disagree. I am under the impression that Oolon is sincerely muddled and incapable of helping himself out of the logjams his stunted thought processes lead him into.

Remember when he wanted to know how come, seeing as we used "sexist" words no one had called Crom a nigger?

I could be wrong, but my sense was that it was a genuine question and that he really was flummoxed.

Yes, but Louis is basically saying the same thing.
Both of them claim that calling someone a 'cunt' is the exact equivalent to calling a black person a 'nigger'.

I think the problem turns on the question of whether it is applied to an individual or an entire group – as with the attempts of the FfTBs to crucify Shermer for his supposed sexist “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”. Hating, or even judging, an entire group for the “sins” of some individuals within it qualifies as stereotyping and therefore racism or sexism – as the case maybe. Directing umbrage and exasperation, or even hate, at an individual for some perceived moral failing of one sort or another by utilizing some salient attribute – i.e., synecdoche – seems, at times anyway, entirely justified. For example:

nig•ger (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1.
a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).

Which raises the question: what is it that “the white world calls a nigger”?If it is applied to all blacks then that could probably and reasonably be termed racist. But if it is someone who opposes the status quo then that would depend on the status quo being opposed. And if it is qualified and applied to individuals – as in “house nigger” – then that might reasonably be termed “non-racist” even if rather rude – much like “cunt” in many ways. Context does have some bearing on the question – even if some are apparently rather challenged by the concept.

[AbsurdWalls]

[spoiler]

This leads to a question I have about Academia. When and how does Academia take responsibility for policing its own?

Within a department, faculty will be hired and fired and in extreme cases, even tenure won't protect the truly horrendous. But what is the process in Academia that keeps a metaphysics department from forming, or a school of alchemy, or that eventually decides that it's time to defund the college of phrenology? There seems to be little reward and no ethical obligation for professors or deans to police the school outside their departments, ...

The same process that stops a worker at the biscuit factory opening up a production line to make cakes? :think: I'm confused by your question.

I think it makes as much sense for a University to teach Phrenology Theory as it does for them to teach Patriarchy Theory. Is there a QA function in Academia? How does it work? Why isn't it working?

[/spoiler]
Starting at or just above the faculty, it's bureaucrats all the way up.

Department chair, Division or College or whatever Chair, University Vice Presidents and Deans, University President, and Board of Trustees. If it's a state university, add the Legislature and Governor as icing on the cake.

They have to consider (a) funding, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations (with the public public as well as alums, all of which feeds back at least at some extent to funding). Accreditation and, to a large extent, funding are also bureaucratic.

So if it can get (ideally relatively robust) funding, and it is felt by accreditation agencies to add to and not detract from the educational check-boxes, and doesn't piss off the alums, and students will sign up for it, the class or area of study can be added, or stay.

I think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

[Skep tickle]

This has probably been posted before but if anyone hasn't seen it, it's Steven Pinker on the meaning of swear words.

Strangely enought linguists, those who are acknowledged experts on the origins and meanings of words don't seem to have the same idea about the swear words that annoy the FTB crowd so much:

Part 1
youtube 1BcdY_wSklo /youtube

Part 2
youtube yyNmGHpL11Q /youtube

Those were fucking brilliant! Thanks for posting them. Also, I learned a new word ("dysphemism"), always appreciated.

Should be required viewing for those concerned about bad werdz. A scholar's view of swear words, where they're processed in the brain, what purposes they serve. (He also suggests reviving a specific 16th century phrase which presumably would be seen as Not Funny by the never-say-cunt crowd.)

For those with limited time, the first 2:06 of the first video is pretty funny (US government getting involved in the regulation of bad wrdz but having a grammar fail).

(These videos total ~20 minutes. Apparently the whole talk was 1 hr and seems to be here, but I'm having trouble loading it. Since it's titled "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature", he might branch out into areas other than swearing).

[Apples]

While it is of course great that he isn’t totally buying all of the schlock that Benson is peddling, to allow an “unfair” characterization to stand as the basis for subsequent witch-hunts has to qualify as one of the more egregious attempts at rationalization that I have ever seen. As I subsequently argued, I hoped that Brayton would “do more than just quibble with Ophelia’s [mis]-representation of what Shermer said as it was the rather odious snowball that started the avalanche of vituperation that has landed on Shermer’s head.”

Which, to use some parallel logic, is exactly what PZ just did with Rebecca Watson yesterday. He said the Dawkins Foundation is a good ally, she declared that she "couldn't disagree more," and he hrrm hrrm'd for a minute, put on his white knight shut-up-and-lissen-to-the-wimmenz-helmet, and let her trash-talk Richard Dawkins to her heart's content. It's fucking crazy.

As aware as I am of PZ's cavernous deficits (several porcupines could fit with room left over for a WCoA or two), I'm still amazed at his strategic blunders. He's all about engaging the "trolls" -- which works if you can ban them. Then, even if they're smarter than you, you can ban them quick and let your fuckwit-bots continue to fap and shadow-box for a few dozen or hundred more comments. With the 'Pit, however, he mentions it on a fucking daily basis -- but he has no ability to influence or suppress anything about this place, and he never offers a shred of evidence for his claims about what goes on here. Why the fuck does he think this weird little single-thread forum with no moderation (thank you Lsuoma, and ERV) has 500 registered members and includes at least two former fucking FTB bloggers??!! Every time he talks about the incredible vileness (uh ... citation needed) of this place, he inspires a few more fence-sitters to check it out. And when they notice that he has ... um ... slightly ... lied about the people and the content here, whereas 'Pitters can cite every fucking freethoughtblog felony, chapter-and-verse, and give people links to confirm the details for themselves ... how does he think this is going to turn out? Moron.

[somedumbguy]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

[Mykeru]

I have a really bad bias against academia.

I've been pounding out VO shit all day, drinking frar too much coffee trying to ignore the steady stream of bullshit regarding Ophelia Benson trying desperately to construct one of her threat narratives against Justin Vacula and his rape-bombing the Women in Secularism conference.

I must be tired. Because I read that as

I have a really bad case of chlamydia

I think I'll watch a movie.

[BannedAid]

I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”



Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

How about this:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”



Do any of you think that is statement racist?

Both statements are either true or they're not true. How are we supposed to make gender norms more fair to both sexes if we aren't allowed to make any meaningful observations about gender?

My question for you: do you think Ophelia Benson accurately represented the meaning of his comments as, basically, "women are stupider than men?"

When I first saw Shermer's quote in context, I thought it was terribly, awkwardly worded. He didn't actually say anything sexist -- he just made an observation on our culture -- but "intellectually active" is too easily misunderstood by the inattentive or the disingenuous. Which it then was. Funny thing is, Benson didn't have to come up with a strawman to make a valid criticism of Shermer. But instead of maybe getting in touch with him privately and asking him to clarify what he meant, she went public with a claim of misogyny. She created a situation where Shermer can't back down or apologize because she trumped up the charges so high. None of this is healthy for atheism.

[Skep tickle]

i think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

I'm not sure what the question is (may have simply missed it), can you explain/expand?

Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....

[Jan Steen]

[spoiler]

I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”



Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

How about this:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”



Do any of you think that is statement racist?

Both statements are either true or they're not true. How are we supposed to make gender norms more fair to both sexes if we aren't allowed to make any meaningful observations about gender?[/spoiler]
My question for you: do you think Ophelia Benson accurately represented the meaning of his comments as, basically, "women are stupider than men?"

[spoiler]When I first saw Shermer's quote in context, I thought it was terribly, awkwardly worded. He didn't actually say anything sexist -- he just made an observation on our culture -- but "intellectually active" is too easily misunderstood by the inattentive or the disingenuous. Which it then was. Funny thing is, Benson didn't have to come up with a strawman to make a valid criticism of Shermer. But instead of maybe getting in touch with him privately and asking him to clarify what he meant, she went public with a claim of misogyny. She created a situation where Shermer can't back down or apologize because she trumped up the charges so high. None of this is healthy for atheism.[/spoiler]

Hey, join the queue. I asked him first.
viewtopic.php?p=53205#p53205

[Skep tickle]

[spoiler]

While it is of course great that he isn’t totally buying all of the schlock that Benson is peddling, to allow an “unfair” characterization to stand as the basis for subsequent witch-hunts has to qualify as one of the more egregious attempts at rationalization that I have ever seen. As I subsequently argued, I hoped that Brayton would “do more than just quibble with Ophelia’s [mis]-representation of what Shermer said as it was the rather odious snowball that started the avalanche of vituperation that has landed on Shermer’s head.”

[/spoiler]

Which, to use some parallel logic, is exactly what PZ just did with Rebecca Watson yesterday. He said the Dawkins Foundation is a good ally, she declared that she "couldn't disagree more," and he hrrm hrrm'd for a minute, put on his white knight shut-up-and-lissen-to-the-wimmenz-helmet, and let her trash-talk Richard Dawkins to her heart's content. It's fucking crazy.

[spoiler]As aware as I am of PZ's cavernous deficits (several porcupines could fit with room left over for a WCoA or two), I'm still amazed at his strategic blunders. He's all about engaging the "trolls" -- which works if you can ban them. Then, even if they're smarter than you, you can ban them quick and let your fuckwit-bots continue to fap and shadow-box for a few dozen or hundred more comments. With the 'Pit, however, he mentions it on a fucking daily basis -- but he has no ability to influence or suppress anything about this place, and he never offers a shred of evidence for his claims about what goes on here. Why the fuck does he think this weird little single-thread forum with no moderation (thank you Lsuoma, and ERV) has 500 registered members and includes at least two former fucking FTB bloggers??!! Every time he talks about the incredible vileness (uh ... citation needed) of this place, he inspires a few more fence-sitters to check it out. And when they notice that he has ... um ... slightly ... lied about the people and the content here, whereas 'Pitters can cite every fucking freethoughtblog felony, chapter-and-verse, and give people links to confirm the details for themselves ... how does he think this is going to turn out? Moron.[/spoiler]

Give the poor guy a break, he's got a lot going on, what with Rebecca Watson having him by the balls and VickyCaramel pegging him...

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/

That thread took a turn for the awesome. I think noelplum99's biggest fan turned up after the banning and seriously brought the pain. They really have no idea what to do when somebody gives no fucks.

Of course they do. Pretend the miscreant said "I hates women" and ask PZ to lug his hammer on over.

[somedumbguy]

i think this is accurate, which is to say, there any QA/feedback loop in Academia is too weak to enable Academia to police its own.

So if there is a role for Skepticism to play, it might be to help make it safe to question the Theories of Feminism.

Which of course is one reason to rationally, skeptically approach and oppose A+ and one reason why Feminism took after Atheism in the first place.

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

I'm not sure what the question is (may have simply missed it), can you explain/expand?

Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....

All of this describes a process by which an infectious deadly meme takes over academia and it's no one's job to fight it off.

[BannedAid]

Hey, join the queue. I asked him first.

viewtopic.php?p=53205#p53205[/quote]

Something tells me we're going to be waiting for a while.

[Skep tickle]

As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.

[youtube]fgNH6GT6auo[/youtube]

Well done!

[Skep tickle]

Well, after my nice and serious video about misogyny earlier, I've now made a response to being tagged with a Tasteless Joke Tag.

In an attempt to get at least a couple of tag video replies in return, I then tagged 12 youtubers, including a few SlimePitters. Optional to do a tag, but maybe the high number of tagged will bring at least a couple in.

[ TRIGGER WARNING: No feminist, or any other easily offended sorts, should watch this ]
youtube Hzfxqt2MldA /youtube

ingtegralmath replies:

[youtube]BYrZAouxeP8[/youtube]

Not only a tasteless joke, but purports to report on PZ having hots for RW

[Apples]

As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.

Well done!

Indeed. Thanks for putting in the time -- well worth it. Dramalicious.

[EdgePenguin]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.

[Mr Danksworth]

http://i.imgur.com/QrYE5hp.jpg
"MustacheCast"

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif

Mr. Kotter?
You should grow out that fro of yours. Blow it out!

[somedumbguy]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.

You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.

[Steersman]

While it is of course great that he isn’t totally buying all of the schlock that Benson is peddling, to allow an “unfair” characterization to stand as the basis for subsequent witch-hunts has to qualify as one of the more egregious attempts at rationalization that I have ever seen. As I subsequently argued, I hoped that Brayton would “do more than just quibble with Ophelia’s [mis]-representation of what Shermer said as it was the rather odious snowball that started the avalanche of vituperation that has landed on Shermer’s head.”

Which, to use some parallel logic, is exactly what PZ just did with Rebecca Watson yesterday. He said the Dawkins Foundation is a good ally, she declared that she "couldn't disagree more," and he hrrm hrrm'd for a minute, put on his white knight shut-up-and-lissen-to-the-wimmenz-helmet, and let her trash-talk Richard Dawkins to her heart's content. It's fucking crazy.

Link? But another interesting case for the annals of “Painting Oneself Into a Corner”. Which Watson seems to have a penchant for, notably her not-a-boycott boycott of Dawkins books; I had expected an imminent refusal from her to be bound by the laws of gravity because Newton was, apparently, a misogynist. But, curiously and amusingly, relative to the situation with White Knights and the Sisterhood of the Oppressed, I’m reminded of a passage in Gendercide on the topic of historical and actual witch-hunts:

Most of the accusations originated in ‘conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.’ Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, … [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.

In light of which it is just a little difficult to lay all of the blame for that type of scenario at the feet of “the patriarchy” or even of “teh men” ….

And when they notice that he has ... um ... slightly ... lied about the people and the content here, whereas 'Pitters can cite every fucking freethoughtblog felony, chapter-and-verse, and give people links to confirm the details for themselves ... how does he think this is going to turn out? Moron.

Exactly. Critical and skeptical thinking is not exactly his forte ….

[EdgePenguin]

[spoiler]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.

You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's[/spoiler]penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.

I'd say its too strong to describe it as 'remaking'. Computer simulations are just tools, and don't alter the basic processes of science i.e. hypothesis testing and publication/argument.

[ReneeHendricks]

Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

[Apples]

Link?

PZ's post is here:


Watson has the first comment, and a link to her followup post at Skepchick is appended to PZ's post.

[Apples]

oops -

this is PZ's post.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/

[somedumbguy]

[spoiler]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

Speaking purely as a member of a physics department, all besides the last of those aren't even on my radar - and computer simulation in physics is perfectly valid. It is entirely inaccurate to describe it as an 'intrusion' or a 'remake' of physics.

You miss my point.

I didn't say that computer simulation was invalid in any way. Quite the contrary. And it's[/spoiler]penetration in most cases is fantastic.

However, due to that, I believe it has remade many fields.

I'd say its too strong to describe it as 'remaking'. Computer simulations are just tools, and don't alter the basic processes of science i.e. hypothesis testing and publication/argument.

Well you're probably right. You're closer to this than I am, but aren't there complaints that in many fields you now need a math degree and expertise in computer simulation and you didn't use to? That papers are now all about the computer simulation?

Or even worse, that in some fields computer simulation is redefining the scientific method by skipping the step of verifying with the real world leading to "post normal" science?

But all that aside, I was just commenting on how revolutions in academia spread from one department to another based on external, not internal trends.

Another example, male gaze theory escapes film theory infests philosophy, sociology, anthropology, ...

Deconstruction entered literary theory had an outbreak throughout academia resulting in Sokal and apparently is now finally subsiding. But the comments in this thread combined with Sokal, etc. show us Academia makes it easy for bad ideas to spread into another department, but there seems little role for one department to critique another. Sokal was well received in Physics, but I think the soft sciences hated him for it.

I dunno, I am just speculating wildly, depressed on this stuff.

[Lurkion]

As requested by MetaLogic. Another dramatic reading.
This time of a comment on A+ by Flewellyn.

Feedback and requests appreciated. This took a fuckload more time than I anticipated.

[youtube]fgNH6GT6auo[/youtube]

Well done!

I enjoyed doing it! I need more suggestions though, because I want to do more! lol

Sortof on topic, can't a gendered insult not necessarily be a sexist insult?

i.e. in some circumstances, you would have a girl acting a certain way and call her a 'bitch' and a guy acting the same way would be called a 'bastard'.

A lot of people talk about it like it's equivalent to 'nigger' when, really, it's equivalent to 'steward' and 'stewardess'.

If you've got a problem with gendered words, frankly, that's your problem.

[nippletwister]

Lastly (and there was much rejoicing) is number 4) which touches on bits of 2). I think the relevant bit is this:

Arguments over individual issues are not relevant. It's about the right to argue over issues and attempts to poison the well in the atheist community. It's about the tactics being used to do that.

To the best of my knowledge, and please present evidence to the contrary, no one is stopping anyone from arguing over anything within the atheist community. You might find yourself unwelcome at this blog or that blog, just like I might, but I think the actual censorship you are claiming is non-existent. I also think it's non-existent or exceedingly rare that, for example, some group or person is banned from any and all conferences and venues. Who is stopping you from going to CFI conferences or some big atheist conference and arguing your case? Volunteer to host a poster session or a break out talk, ask questions of presenters, try to be a presenter yourself etc. Who's stopping you from going to your local Sceptics in the Pub or something similar and airing your views, or even presenting at such? Again, as far as I am aware, no one.

What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you, and, when stupid shit gets pulled because I think we all know it is getting pulled, not letting you (or me) get away with it. What the fuck is wrong with that? I EXPECT criticism. I LIKE criticism. It's how I learn. That doesn't make every critic worth my time. What IS happening in some places is the people who run those places don't want to deal with specific types of criticism or people. For whatever reason. I agree with you that some of those reasons can/could be nefarious, underhanded etc, but I've not seen evidence of such. Pre-emptively banning Slymepitters is PZ's choice as landlord of the Pharyngula Tentacles isn't in my opinion a bad thing, sorry.

I might not find that fair, I might not care about it, but it's undeniable it's his right to do so. Someone I rather like is John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts, he has a "don't shit on the carpet" type policy, the comments of his blog are pretty civil (in a way that Pharyngula isn't) and pretty thoughtful (in a way Pharyngula is occasionally, noise to signal again). That's a difference of style not one right one wrong. /b/ has pretty much no rules at all and the quality of the conversation there is commensurately fucking atrocious. I'm not an advocate of Structure Uber Alles, but structure sometimes works. The structure of the paper allows the pen to write on it freely, the structure of a brick, less so. I'm not defending PZ to say I don't mind his structure any more than I am criticising him when I say I like Wilkins' structure too. It's horses for courses.

Now there's another side to the coin of "civility" and "structure", they can be used to stifle discussion, as I am sure you note. "Uppity" black people in the pre-Civil Rights Movement southern US had their discussions shut down by just this mechanism. So yes, it IS a double edged sword to be wielded with care. (BTW, I always advocate this, read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" if you haven't, it is truly brilliant and explains what I am getting at here perfectly, better than I ever could)

That is not what's happening here though, again to the best of my knowledge. No one is stopping you speak, no one is asking you to bide your time to be liberated, no one is lynching you. What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you. What IS happening is certain current, long standing social structures are being countered to ever greater degrees. Those structures are in the atheist community etc as well as outside them. We're, sadly we've found, not exempt.

Now IF people are publicly identifying pseudonymous/anonymous posters and giving out their real life addresses, well that's fucking disgusting. IF people are editing people's posts to make them say something different, that's fucking disgusting. IF people are lying about people, that's fucking disgusting. It doesn't matter who does it...well actually, I'll take that back...if someone on my "team" does it (urgh, team, yuck) then to me it is MORE disgusting than if the "other team" do it. I want to associate with the people who don't need to do that. And before you leap and go "well why do you post at FtB then? Hurr hurr" I'm posting here now aren't I? I'm trying to engage you aren't I?

I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”

Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

How about this:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”

Do any of you think that is statement racist?

I've changed one single word. The logic, the sense is identical. I've only changed the target. Note, I am NOT asking "do you think Michael Shermer is an evil sexist slimebag who should be put to death in a Feminazi Retraining Camp" I am asking (effectively) if the guy made a simple mistake, just like anyone can do, and make a sexist utterance? It's no great shakes, there's no "gotcha" at the end. Although I'd be really interested if anyone thinks the first one is not sexist and the second one is racist, that would be worthy of examination.

Cheers.

In answer to your question, no, it is not a sexist remark or a mistake, unless you are psychotically bent to try to twist everything to your political agenda, and your comparison is not valid as you've taken him out of context. Context matters.

1.He was speaking of the perception of what the current numbers seem to show(that it is, currently, more of a guy thing to be visibly involved), not saying that there is any inherent reason for it to be that way. It was in the greater context of not thinking gender quotas were a necessary solution, that it would balance out to the levels that individual people were comfortable with, as it has already been doing.
The point is that he was talking about what the perception of current numbers is, not what should be or what is mandated by nature or society. This is a very simple problem, I'm actually a bit surprised you brought it up. You have been manipulated and didn't even see it...funny that, how echo chambers work.

2.Also, the whole "replacing a word with THIS word" thing is just stupid, as it removes any actual differences between the two things, and ignores the context of the comment. I t was a slightly useful tool the first few times I saw it used (in better context). Now it's just condescending, and usually badly used, as you did.


Now, a question for you....doubtless, you've seen this quote flogged across FTB as evidence of horrible, privilege-blind cluelessness, and every attempt to return it to context has been shouted down as enabling sexism. MULTIPLE blog posts were written by multiple bloggers, all parroting the same out of context bullshit. Every time Shermer has tried to clarify this very simple point, he is lied about again.

Do you think that was a politically motivated and dishonest thing for PZ and Ophelia and others to do? Does it affect your understanding of the honesty issues we're on about?

[AbsurdWalls]

Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....

UK universities engage in a sort of peer review of each other at several levels. External examiners are brought in from other universities for each course. They look at the course material, talk to the students, basically making sure that the institution is delivering a university-level education to its students. The external examiners report to the vice-chancellor of the assessed institution with feedback on what they have found. It is then up to the vice-chancellor to put in place changes to correct the shortcomings that the examiner identifies. The external QAA body checks to make sure that this actually happens.

Not sure whether there is a similar system where you are.

[TheMan]

The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!

As Stephen Fry once said to Lorraine Kelly while trying to convince her to use swear words, "Go on... have a stab at a cunt". Use it and it will have it's meaning changed, it will lose it's power to shock.

Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.

[welch]

I was pretty much ignoring Louis Wall of Rationalization, but his attack on Thunderf00t, followed by his complete inability to either acknowledge that his attack was baseless, OR substantially back it up and make his case, pretty much says it all about Louis.

Anyway Louis, thanks for femsplaining.

Everything louis has said:

"I am so much smarter than all of you, I have no need to prove my claims to you. Since people who agree with me are by definition, (that is, they agree with me, and I am, after all, so much smarter than you), smarter than all of you, clearly they do not need to prove their claims to such base morons as yourself. It is only the stupid people, like you who need to prove your claims to my satisfaction...


...which you will never do, since you are not smart enough to do so."

[AbsurdWalls]

This still doesn't make much sense. The only people who can do this policing are those who are familiar with the subject area. Courses are monitored for quality externally, which should effect whether students choose to study there. Research work is at risk of not being published or cited, in which case future work won't get research funding.

As I said, I don't know how Academia works. But I think academics do pay attention to criticism and new thoughts from outside their fields. Isn't this how deconstruction, feminist theory, critical race theory, and even computer science and computer simulation have taken over, intruded on, changed, remade many fields?

I think you're overestimating how porous different bits of academia are to being affected by new ideas. Despite the conservative meme, universities are not in-general full of crazy liberal ideas that are taking over all of the respectable areas of study. These are just different ideas, they're fine to have in academia provided they are open to being disagreed with.

Computer simulation is a big deal in my field because it makes a lot of things easier and some previously impossible things possible. It's no intrusion, we didn't lost anything by letting it in.

[welch]

The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!

If someone can completely alter your mental and emotional state by the mere utterance of a word, they own you.

Maybe, and this is crazy, but maybe one should be more discriminating in who one gives such control to.

[welch]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/

That thread took a turn for the awesome. I think noelplum99's biggest fan turned up after the banning and seriously brought the pain. They really have no idea what to do when somebody gives no fucks.

What delightful commenters they have over there.

We are supposed to be sending rape threats? :shifty:

How come nobody told me? :(

Wait a second... :shock:

Is there a secret forum here? :shhh:

Um no, not at all. Say, could you pick up that bar of soap I seem to have dropped?

[welch]

However, it must be noted that while the pink ghetto seems self-defeating, if you examine the success of the gender studies virus, it actually has been a winning strategy for feminists, in part, because who wants it said of them they did not think women were people, or they were rape apologists, or likely pedophiles.

I suspect that will change now, moving into sceptic/atheist territory will prove to be the undoing of any remaining credibility radical feminism had. The clear disparity between what they say and what the statistics say will be exposed and a new generation of men and women are growing up to challenge these preconceived notions.
What is vital is the charging of the barricades of academia, that is where the rot set in.

However in our corner of the world, these people have a death grip on 'the movement'

Do conferences bring in the $$$ for the organisers?

If run well, yes, they can be profitable. But it's not easy.

[Apples]

If you've got a problem with gendered words, frankly, that's your problem.

Yup.

I just happened to notice this comment (#232) over at Pharyngula:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/

21 January 2013 at 4:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

What are the goals of this “skeptic’s movement” of which you speak?

I get the impression that for some people the skeptics movement is rapid hand motion accompanied by a bottle of lotion and a lot of self-regard.

Kind of sounds like a "guy thing."

[welch]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.

[Lsuoma]

http://i.imgur.com/QrYE5hp.jpg
"MustacheCast"

[spoiler]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96672.gif[/spoiler]

Mr. Kotter?
You should grow out that fro of yours. Blow it out!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0zqd ... o1_500.jpg

[TheMan]

Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

I would have given you a tip but Integralmath already used it.....

[Lsuoma]

Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

Back in 1997 the Paris police called a garage that specialized in British Leyland cars: they wanted to know how to get an engine out of a 1961 Princess.

[welch]

Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?

Oh yes, I am capering with glee at taking down another woman... that's why I became an atheist in the first place don't cha know.

PeeZee sure has me pegged!

Ever thought of pegging him?

If a guy pegs a girl, isn't that just plain old fucking?

now *I'M* confused.

[Cunning Punt]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.

Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.

[welch]

Argh! I've been YT tagged for that tasteless joke thing. Nothing in my artillery!!! Damn it. I'll have to improvise.

Oh innocent woman, here, allow me to help:

"What's the difference between jelly and jam?"


"You can't jelly your dick up a six-year-old's ass"


I'll be here all week, tip your waitress, avoid the veal.

[Tkmlac]

This has probably been posted before but if anyone hasn't seen it, it's Steven Pinker on the meaning of swear words.

Strangely enought linguists, those who are acknowledged experts on the origins and meanings of words don't seem to have the same idea about the swear words that annoy the FTB crowd so much:

Part 1
[youtube]1BcdY_wSklo[/youtube]

Part 2
[youtube]yyNmGHpL11Q[/youtube]

Thanks for posting this. I had a long rant about word meanings and things like "cunt" and "bitch" to respond to Louis, but I didn't have the energy to write it and I don't know if he'd care if he really thinks those words are "sexist."

[Skep tickle]

Courses are approved by a chain of bureaucrats & committees but one they're approved I'm not aware of them being monitored for quality after approval. (Disclosure and apologies, I'm on one of those committees - for the medical school at which I work; I've never been involved in reviewing/approving a course on Feminist Theory, thank dog.) There are any number of courses offered by faculty for whom the topic is their hobby horse (area of scholarly work). If no students take the course it dies, but it enough sign up it can keep going. If it's required for a degree or certificate, attendance is ensured. The university takes in tuition but probably only a small proportion of that goes to faculty salary (some are paid by research, to varying degrees). A course does not contribute to the faculty member's research (but may provide for a source of funding of his/her graduate students, as teaching assistants). That's a mishmash of comments that might or might not help....

UK universities engage in a sort of peer review of each other at several levels. External examiners are brought in from other universities for each course. They look at the course material, talk to the students, basically making sure that the institution is delivering a university-level education to its students. The external examiners report to the vice-chancellor of the assessed institution with feedback on what they have found. It is then up to the vice-chancellor to put in place changes to correct the shortcomings that the examiner identifies. The external QAA body checks to make sure that this actually happens.

Not sure whether there is a similar system where you are.

I haven't heard of this happening in the US (and it definitely doesn't happen at my institution). It sounds like a good idea.

[welch]

The word 'cunt' used to scare me. Quite a bit in fact. The sheer power of it, the contempt. I first heard of the word when I was 15, and it filled me with dread. That was one insult I could never use.

Years later, I wound up on IRC and was sharing a chat channel with a feminist Croatian girl. This girl would not take shit from anyone. She also used 'cunt' all the time. Sometimes she would just type 'cunt', for no apparent reason. She robbed the word of its power. And I thank her for that. "Cunt" was no longer a word that could shut me up, and make me feel 'bad'.

And now, many years later, I visit FTB and suddenly 'cunt' has all the power it once had when I was 15. Power that the word does not deserve. Rather than forcing people to alter their language - especially if they still, inwardly, hold misogynist beliefs - doesn't it make more sense for women to take back the word, and rob if of any dreadful, 'sexist' meaning?

I guess what I am trying to say is, if people are using 'so-called' woman-hating words around me, or just plain vulgarity, would it not be wise to say 'hey, you cannot offend me, you do not have that power over me' than to attempt to get them to *insincerely* 'clean up' their language when around me?

Just my two cents, that's all!

As Stephen Fry once said to Lorraine Kelly while trying to convince her to use swear words, "Go on... have a stab at a cunt". Use it and it will have it's meaning changed, it will lose it's power to shock.

Yes..and once that happens we'll need to find another word that has shock value as a replacement.

Shitcock?

[Lurkion]

Oops forgot the screencap:

http://i.imgur.com/apJv81o.jpg

That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

Yeesh.

Rocko, there's a dramatic reading for you.

Challenge accepted. Within a few days you will have that.

[Apples]

That kind of shit makes me want to bounce basketballs off his forehead. Come on crybaby, cry. Squirt a few for me, come on, cry for me.

always worth a reprise (h/t ERV) ... this one's for you, Tony the Queer Shoopaloop ....

[youtube]owzhYNcd4OM[/youtube]