If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Scented Nectar wrote:

Submariner wrote:I noticed some commenters pointing to the fact that "no MRA types" were commenting on the PZed post was somehow indicative of concession.

Yep, it wouldn't have aaaannnyyything to do with the fact that PZ blocks everyone he thinks is an MRA or Pitter. He even wrote once that he goes through the Pit for names and put us all into a blocking filter. :lol:

Apples wrote::think: Over at Thunderdome there is a conversation about whether Turd of Redhead needs to find a word other than POOF when he presses his "poof fuckwittery opinion dismissed" button. He seems rather disgruntled, as it's apparently the only toy in his pram.

Actually started because "cm's changeable moniker" suggested *as a joke* that it shouldn't be used due to its being "harsh Brit slang for gay men." Of course Caine promptly affirms that she will no longer use it in her writing.

ChasCPeterson weighs in: "y’know, one alternative might be to not post the same words (whatever words) over and over and over and over and over and over. But that’s an opinion." :D

Nerd considers that he might begin using SGBM's suggestion, which is "Foof."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... derdome-15

Mykeru wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Over on the A+ Moderator thread of Ceaseless Amusement, we learn that ignoring rude people is tone policing and silences them.

You can't even opt to ignore people over there without getting told off. Ridiculous.

Using that logic any mod who bans a person for whatever reason is tone policing.
And another thing, aren't these the same people who, when we complain of being silenced use the argument that "ONLY DE GOVERNMINT CAN SILENCE YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! U CAN STILL POST ON THE INTERNET SO U IS NOT SILENCED!!!111!!! FREEZE PEACH HAHAHAHAH!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!"?

Fail.

Well, that makes sense.

Fun fact: Growing up I never heard my parents argue. Maybe now and then one raised their voice in exasperation for about 10 seconds, but my mother is a relentlessly pleasant person and my father is just freaking stoic.

So, when I could hear the neighbors going at it, this was completely outside my experience. To this day I can't quite accept that people will actually stand there and yell at each other.

I've been in relationships with women who actually thought there was something "healthy" and "cathartic" about screaming shit that no one actually means. I refuse to do it.

Just my last relationship the past summer, I knew exactly the point she was done. She was ticked off about something or other and I could see she was gearing up. So I just walked away. Not avoidance. I just hold that if something is important enough to argue about, it can wait until a person can talk to me like an adult.

After that she brought it up a couple times. It was bad. It was wrong. I was denying her something or other. Fuck that.

Funny that the people who are so big on "safe spaces" and "being comfortable" demand that people do the internet version of Private Snow Flake while the forum hard-asses do their impersonation of R. Lee Ermy screaming in their faces.

That some feminists actually argue that a man walking away from some ranting, histrionic tantrum-induced harpy constitutes abuse by him on her, still boggles my fucking mind.

Just jumping in to say that that article doesnt say how they know its specifically a woman's skirt. Unless it was found in a specificall female context (as judged by the ancient culture, not ours) then its simply a skirt. Also men wearing skirts or skirt equivalents is quite common. Look at the romans' togas. Or look up the death of the kilt as every day wear. You'll find it was hard to get those guys to give up their skirts.

Also, if you want to oppress women, I think you're horrible, but if you really want to DO IT RIGHT! Making them wear skirts is pretty lame.

debaser71 wrote:"Have you ever felt unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement?"

But that's not what they asked.

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

25 January 2013 at 10:00 am (UTC -6)

I like “foof” per Strange Gods #570.

Metalogic42 wrote:How do they manage to find the time to even brush their teeth in the morning?

542
Caine, Infuriated Invisible Pixel

24 January 2013 at 7:11 pm (UTC -6)

LykeX:

I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language?

Yeah, I think there are concerns. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the use of crazy, however, there is no denying that no matter the context, crazy in love, crazy about cars, etc., that it implies a feeling and mental state which is seriously out of bounds.

As for some people who advocate the reclaiming of certain words, I sympathise. I really do. I use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of friends, who use those words in a reclaiming way. However, the larger problem is when you get an atmosphere like this blog, which gets millions of hits and readers per day. Someone out there is going to incur damage from the casual slinging of thoughtless slurs. The price is simply too high. We have worked long and hard, for years, to make Pharyngula a safe place for all people.

Submariner wrote:

fascination wrote:

Submariner wrote:

I know I'm pretty new around here, but this fear of doxing all seems rather McCarthyist and "witch-hunty".
Despite what Greta writes. Is there precedent I'm unaware of for this ultra-secrecy?

Personally, I am not that worried about it. If I can't set up an alternate PayPal account (legally) then I'm still donating. I don't think Reed will dox. However, other FTB people have doxxed people. People have had their employment threatened, letters have been written to people's grad programs and universities, at least one person lost their job over this crap, etc, etc. So I don't blame other people for being wary.

Wow, that seems like a really shitty thing to do. I don't know if that kind of thing is illegal or not, but even if legal, it's just , well, nasty.

And this site is called the Slymepit??? I think I know how Kafka felt, now.

Tigzy wrote:

Apples wrote::think: Over at Thunderdome there is a conversation about whether Turd of Redhead needs to find a word other than POOF when he presses his "poof fuckwittery opinion dismissed" button. He seems rather disgruntled, as it's apparently the only toy in his pram.

Actually started because "cm's changeable moniker" suggested *as a joke* that it shouldn't be used due to its being "harsh Brit slang for gay men." Of course Caine promptly affirms that she will no longer use it in her writing.

ChasCPeterson weighs in: "y’know, one alternative might be to not post the same words (whatever words) over and over and over and over and over and over. But that’s an opinion." :D

Nerd considers that he might begin using SGBM's suggestion, which is "Foof."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... derdome-15

:lol: Poor old Nerd does seem disgruntled at the prospect of not being allowed to use his *POOF* anymore.

Unfortunately for SGBM, his ignorance has betrayed him on this one, as 'foof' is also a slang term for dem ladyparts in my neck of the woods. Short for 'foofoo'. Sure, it's not a widely used term, but given that SGBM is known to frot his puddings at any word which could even be remotely synonymous with 'cunt', I should expect him - if he is lurking - to remove his recommendation for 'foof', or that he be advised to do so should any free-range Pharyngulite be lurking here.

If more evidence were needed: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foof

cunt wrote:Yes. Please do use foof you ridiculous, cartoon of a man.

Michael K Gray wrote:

fascination wrote:Like I said though, I feel for trans people.

Turn on the light.
Then you can just see them, rather than feel for them.

PZ Myers wrote:They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists.

Tim Minchin wrote:Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?

Metalogic42 wrote:

PZ Myers wrote:They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists.

Tim Minchin wrote:Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?

Tigzy wrote:From Peez's 'Data about Secularism' thread http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-545198

[spoiler]

kbonn

25 January 2013 at 9:39 am (UTC -6)

This whole post PZ seems a bit premature. Once they hit 10,000 responses they are going to post the full numbers. There is a lot we cannot tell from percentages alone.

Particularly this part:

What are your reasons for not being involved in the secular movement? Check as many as apply.
(women/men)
70%/30% – Bad experience with group, person, or event
100%/0% – Can’t get over my conditioning that religion is good and secularism is bad
67%/33% – Health issues
65%/35% – Lack of childcare

The imbalance is important, but what are the totals? For example, why are women staying out due to health issues more? Is that total significantly higher than the other 3? What were the total responses? How systemic is this problem? Clearly women have had more bad experiences then men, but it could be statisticly irrelevant compared to one(or more) of the other options, or it could be the most significant issue by far. We just have no idea yet.

Same point to the “feeling unwelcome”, without the raw numbers we don’t really have any idea how bad the issue is. I am glad they are doing the survey, but this post seems premature. If only (random small number, say 200 people) said they don’t feel welcome, yes it sucks that woman have a higher percentage of people who feel unwelcome, but we’d be looking at 124 women out of 4,170. Or it could be much, much higher. Simply put, why rush this out?

I'm definitely intrigued by those numbers - still, from the looks of things, the likes of Sally Syringe have already got it sussed.

70%/30% – Bad experience with group, person, or event

That totes because of all the sexism you get at Atheist/secular cons, y'know.[/spoiler]

100%/0% – Can’t get over my conditioning that religion is good and secularism is bad

Yeah, cos that's totes because there's no sexism in...um, religion.

another lurker wrote:Tigzy, I checked out that thunderdome link

Irony meter overload!

542
Caine, Infuriated Invisible Pixel

24 January 2013 at 7:11 pm (UTC -6)

LykeX:

I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language?

Yeah, I think there are concerns. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the use of crazy, however, there is no denying that no matter the context, crazy in love, crazy about cars, etc., that it implies a feeling and mental state which is seriously out of bounds.

As for some people who advocate the reclaiming of certain words, I sympathise. I really do. I use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of friends, who use those words in a reclaiming way. However, the larger problem is when you get an atmosphere like this blog, which gets millions of hits and readers per day. Someone out there is going to incur damage from the casual slinging of thoughtless slurs. The price is simply too high. We have worked long and hard, for years, to make Pharyngula a safe place for all people.

Yeah, it's a safe place for all people, required they let the horde think for them!

And MILLIONS of hits per day, really?

LMU wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:

PZ Myers wrote:They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists.

Tim Minchin wrote:Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?

To be fair, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_feminism makes it appear that Sommers was the first to make that specific distinction, so PZ might just be disagreeing with her. It would actually be useful (as opposed to pointlessly divisive) if he could explain why though.

They did surprise me, though. They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists. But no! I guess there is a lower level you can reach.
Their distinction was between cute feminists and ugly feminists.
I’d like to say we were done there, but they also go on to blame gays and feminists for the decline of western civilization. They’d get along just fine with a few atheists I know.

Pitchguest wrote:

another lurker wrote:Tigzy, I checked out that thunderdome link

Irony meter overload!

542
Caine, Infuriated Invisible Pixel

24 January 2013 at 7:11 pm (UTC -6)

LykeX:

I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language?

Yeah, I think there are concerns. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the use of crazy, however, there is no denying that no matter the context, crazy in love, crazy about cars, etc., that it implies a feeling and mental state which is seriously out of bounds.

As for some people who advocate the reclaiming of certain words, I sympathise. I really do. I use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of friends, who use those words in a reclaiming way. However, the larger problem is when you get an atmosphere like this blog, which gets millions of hits and readers per day. Someone out there is going to incur damage from the casual slinging of thoughtless slurs. The price is simply too high. We have worked long and hard, for years, to make Pharyngula a safe place for all people.

Yeah, it's a safe place for all people, required they let the horde think for them!

And MILLIONS of hits per day, really?

"I do use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of firends, who use those words in a reclaiming way."

Wow. Also, in a "reclaiming way"? Pffthahahaha. :lol:

Metalogic42 wrote:

PZ Myers wrote:They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists.

Tim Minchin wrote:Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?

LMU wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:

PZ Myers wrote:They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists.

Tim Minchin wrote:Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?

To be fair, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_feminism makes it appear that Sommers was the first to make that specific distinction, so PZ might just be disagreeing with her. It would actually be useful (as opposed to pointlessly divisive) if he could explain why though.

Metalogic42 wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:

another lurker wrote:Tigzy, I checked out that thunderdome link

Irony meter overload!

542
Caine, Infuriated Invisible Pixel

24 January 2013 at 7:11 pm (UTC -6)

LykeX:

I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language?

Yeah, I think there are concerns. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the use of crazy, however, there is no denying that no matter the context, crazy in love, crazy about cars, etc., that it implies a feeling and mental state which is seriously out of bounds.

As for some people who advocate the reclaiming of certain words, I sympathise. I really do. I use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of friends, who use those words in a reclaiming way. However, the larger problem is when you get an atmosphere like this blog, which gets millions of hits and readers per day. Someone out there is going to incur damage from the casual slinging of thoughtless slurs. The price is simply too high. We have worked long and hard, for years, to make Pharyngula a safe place for all people.

Yeah, it's a safe place for all people, required they let the horde think for them!

And MILLIONS of hits per day, really?

"I do use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of firends, who use those words in a reclaiming way."

Wow. Also, in a "reclaiming way"? Pffthahahaha. :lol:

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk32 ... ndal-1.jpg

decius wrote:Who asked for a crank site?

Check this one out.

http://gagutofappit.org/

Btw, while I'm very appreciative that many of the Slymepitters have been supportive, could you pass along that I'm rather uncomfortable with them using me as a device to shame Greta and Avicenna's requests for donations? Both of them had very legitimate needs too -Greta's cancer-related expenses (she doesn't have the benefit of Canadian healthcare, after all, and is freelancing now so, like most writers and artists, doesn't have insurance through employment), and Avi's laptop to help with work (its much-needed medical charity work, too!).

Also, at this point, the generosity I've received from my readers has already pretty much met all my immediate needs-

[redacted details]

I also tend to feel really really weird, just on an ethical level, when donations exceed my needs, so I took the tip jar down for now, just so I don't end up crossing that point. I've also turned down offers from co-bloggers to promote it, and when PZ put up a request on Pharyngula I asked him to take it down, again because I didn't want it to become more of a "big deal" than it needed to be, and I didn't want to receive more than I actually needed.

So... yeah, if you could just pass on the word that a) the generosity from my readers has already been really really great, and I've already got much more than I expected and just about as much as I need for the things I mentioned, and b) I'm uncomfortable with being involved in any conflicts, or attempts to paint Greta or Avicenna's financial needs as illegitimate or dishonest.

And pass on my thanks as well! I appreciate that despite overall animosity or differences, y'all have been kind about this, and I appreciate how the atheist/skeptic community is one that does a really great job of supporting its own when in need. It's a great counter-argument to the Christian claim that religion is necessary for community and charity. Unbelievers tend to do a pretty great job at charity, actually! :)

Metalogic42 wrote:Ha, I just noticed this in Ophelia's cloud tag:

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/bw0trqC.jpg[/spoiler]

Deuteronomy 22:5 states "a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth (relates) to a man, neither shall a man wear a woman's garment, for all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God." Abomination means "extreme disgust, hatred or loathing." God feels this strongly about the way we dress because he cares about the way we dress. hate is a very strong word. Nobody wants to do anything that God would hate. Pants definitely relate to men. You go to the bathroom, you look at the figures on the sign to see which one to go into. If you're a woman, you go to the one with a dress. If you're a man, you go to the one with the pants.
Isaiah says that if you show your thigh, you show your nakedness. Your thigh begins in the middle of your knee, so obviously, we should be wearing skirts to cover our knees. Of course, when we sit down, it can't show our knee then either.
1 Corinthians says that a woman is not to cut her hair, therefore, we do not put any sharp object to our hair, it is our glory. That means not even a trim.
1 Corinthians also states that if a man has long hair, it is a shame. Therefore, the men keep their hair short.

bhoytony wrote: One of my favourites is Brotherhood Of The Wolf (Le Pacte des Loups), completely ridiculous and fantastic. Set in pre-revolutionary France it has a mysterious werewolf type creature, kung fu fighting red indians (I used that description in case half-fish is reading this), secret cults, Vatican spies, royal conspiracies and a naked Monica Bellucci. It's all done with a straight face and without a hint of irony, it's great. Highly recommended, but make sure you see the original French language version with subtitles (sorry Septics, I know you don't like those). I once came across the English dubbed copy and it was fucking awful.

Wonderist wrote:Here's a direct link to the American Secular Census. If we'd like to ensure that the data is as representative as possible wrt the diversity of secular Americans, everyone should share this link all over the web. Facebook, Twitter, websites, blogs, etc. The more people respond from different places and contexts, the more representative the survey will be, and the less likely that any particular bias will become entrenched in the stats. Do it for this cute kid who will have to grow up in whatever world we leave behind us! :-)
http://www.secularcensus.us/sites/defau ... hild_0.png

cunt wrote:
I think i'd rather share old youtube songs.

[youtube]gAYL5H46QnQ[/youtube]

VickyCaramel wrote:

khyber.jpg

"so damn inhibiting"

AndrewV69 wrote:
I have seen this also. Completely agree. Two thumbs up.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:Personal anecdotal observed opinion:

Most of the Athiesm+ movement is American

Most of the anti-A+ sentiment is expressed outside the USA

The US is a very special place, often special as belonging on a very short bus ....

Discuss....