Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Wow, some people on here take themselves reeeaaalllyy seriously.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
The question is, I think, what are the odds of that happening? If the probability of any of us getting shot by random crazies is, say, one in 10 million and the odds increase for those so “doxed†to, say, 1 in 9.99 million then one might argue that the benefits to society – in this case, limiting the depredations of those attempting to act anonymously – outweigh the costs.cunt wrote:Jesus fucking christ Altair there are scales of responsibility and it can belong to more than one person or group at a time. Just because the person wielding the weapon bears ultimate responsibility doesn't mean that AVFM wouldn't be culpable.
In case you hadn't noticed the actual truth of how much responsibility something like AVFM would bear isn't easily quantifiable. Something happens to those students and people would blame AVFM, and tough shit.
And pretty much the same argument as that associated with restricting the wearing of the niqab discussed earlier. Entirely reasonable to question the consequences of various social policies. But if we don’t introduce some reasonable probabilistic assessment of cost-benefit ratios the results get rather ridiculous – anyone want to go back to horse-and-buggy because of the carnage on the highways?
In addition, to maybe throw a fox in amongst the chickens, I wonder how you and Altair – and others – viewed the “doxing†of “Creepy Bitter Girl†and Mykeru which, one might argue, show a great many similarities with the AVfM case.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I told Mykeru how exactly how I viewed it at the time.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
This is fun to play around with:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 08m&cmpt=q
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 08m&cmpt=q
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Pitchguest wrote:
TOY ROBOT????? aAAAAAUGGH!!!! (jumps through window to escape)[/quote]
Show me you're nuts.[/quote]
best movie ever, IMO.
So do you think the SJW kids today would hate, hate, hate the fuck out of it, or would they laugh little guilty laughs at what they would HAVE to define, by their professed standards, as racism, misogyny, sexism, and hate?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Can't argue with that....many possible scenarios. It has managed to change the subject to RW though.Altair wrote:The email seems to be a disposable address from "10 minute mail", which makes me think that they're not one of Rebecca's readers or supporters trying to alert her. It sounds like they wanted to make sure she saw the drawing, which she might not since it was posted in some site she might not look at.TheMan wrote:justinvacula wrote:Someone seems to be implying that Rebecca Watson is lying in some way about the recent photoshop she's talking about on her blog?
http://i.imgur.com/dIYbJrY.jpg
The sender might also be alerting rebecca of what's there. Nothing to suggest the sender actually made the drawing (I haven't looked at it yet)
Whether John Smith is the creator or the drawing or not, there's not enough info to say.
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Two months in, you finally said something I agree with! Cheers!decius wrote:The fuck, Welch, stop advising them wisely. They read here.
(tho I must admit, I pay attention to those posts too, as I know jack-shit-all about it.)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I'm not familiar with the Creepy Bitter Girl thing. I'll look for some info about it and come back to you.Steersman wrote: In addition, to maybe throw a fox in amongst the chickens, I wonder how you and Altair – and others – viewed the “doxing†of “Creepy Bitter Girl†and Mykeru which, one might argue, show a great many similarities with the AVfM case.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
A recent tweet by Sara Mayhew:
Gee, I wonder what she's talking about ;)Sara E. Mayhew â€@saramayhew
Why are you assuming prominent white male atheists don't get sexually explicit hate mail? http://j.mp/11lJAFL @richarddawkins does.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Was not me I SWEAR!ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Fatty Brayton:
Hey, those of you gave money for Ed's heart problems? Fuck you, he's gonna get sewn up by the docs, then straight back to the Waffle House, bitches.So many of you showed your generosity and kindness after my health scare a few weeks ago... I’ve even been sent a box of great BBQ from Texas.
Just one wafer-thin slice of beef brisket Monsieur?
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Re Slyme Pit vs. Atheism+ visitor numbers.
Let's face it, at the moment The Slyme Pit is squatting over A+'s supine body and splattering last night's curry into its quivering mouth.
:hankey:
Let's face it, at the moment The Slyme Pit is squatting over A+'s supine body and splattering last night's curry into its quivering mouth.
:hankey:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
When I load the slymepit index page, the newest member's name ("Jangling Jack") is *pink* (corresponding to "restricted"). Anyone know what this is about?
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
No doubt the Baboons will accuse the Pit of conforming to gender stereotypes, pink = women, blue = men!!!LMU wrote:When I load the slymepit index page, the newest member's name ("Jangling Jack") is *pink* (corresponding to "restricted"). Anyone know what this is about?
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Except that she said it had already been edited, and she had to piece it together from comments that quoted it. I swear I read that, please tell me if I'm wrong. And if she had to piece it together from quotes, she had to have read further. The condemnation started immediately, within a minute or so, within one or two posts. Other than skipping every post and magically picking the first one to quote it fully, even though she didn't really know what to look for, how could that happen? She had to have read further posts, just to get what she was looking for.AndrewV69 wrote:However,nippletwister wrote:
Basic fucking honesty? There's no "spin" required, just basic honesty.
What SDG said was clearly emotionally hyperbolic rhetoric. You would have to be pretty stupid to think it a real threat, anymore than christians leaving threats of hellfire on liberal blogs is a real threat. Anymore than "Die in a fire. No, really, I mean it, please die in a fire" (pharyngula comment) is a threat. Any more than the constant wishes of bestial sodomy on pharyngula are real threats. I've been reading pharyngula for 8 years, I can't count the times I've seen death wishes in the comments there, at Skepchick, at any of the angrier blogs. Of course, none of that will be mentioned in any FTB narrative.
Leaving out the facts that they were obviously hollow words, that EVERYONE on the board at the time of both supposed "threats" engaged in universal condemnation, and that it was immediately followed by a serious discussion about how to deal with such things when they happen, is just about the most dishonest thing a person could do. And that's what she did.
The condemnation was immediate and unanimous, and started within a minute or so of the original post, and this was late on a Saturday night with only 5 or 6 people online shooting the shit. I was present and saw it.
I don't even recognize this Jen person, never heard of her before this weekend, but it's amazing how fast the dishonesty spreads in that crowd.
We have no way of really knowing as far as I am aware, if she did in fact read everything, and hence my use of weasel words. If I had absolute proof I could get behind what you said about her being dishonest.
If I remember correctly, she gave no indication she had read anything other than what she said she did. I gave her and myself some wiggle room for that reason.
If I knew for certain she hung around and kept refreshing the page, and thus read more than she let on I would have no problem otherwise with what you said.
My default position generally is the golden rule.
- Luke 6:31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
– Surat Al-Muţaffifīn 83Woe to those… who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
Yet she failed to mention any of it. I'm trying to be charitable, but it fits the usual pattern so well. Out of all the things one can find here, she finds the biggest "oopsie", and nothing else, even though she had to have seen some of it? I'll agree, I can't be 100%, completely and totally sure about what she read or didn't...but it sure smells a bit. At the very least, she was looking for ammo and found it, and pursued only that ammo, not doing any kind of real investigation.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
http://www.assetstorage.co.uk/AssetStor ... adelic.jpgd4m10n wrote:What is better in life than to free minds?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Yeah, sorry. Lets go over the Steph Svan thing again.bhoytony wrote:Wow, some people on here take themselves reeeaaalllyy seriously.
[youtube]Rp1a5oBb9sQ[youtube]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
lol
[youtube]Rp1a5oBb9sQ[/youtube]
[youtube]Rp1a5oBb9sQ[/youtube]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I found Rebecca's Rule 34 site:
(So no one can say they weren't warned: PORN SITE - NEKKID PEE-PEES AND COOCHIES AHOY!)
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/pz_myers/1
She didn't mention the pic of PZ doing her. Not outrageous enough?
(So no one can say they weren't warned: PORN SITE - NEKKID PEE-PEES AND COOCHIES AHOY!)
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/pz_myers/1
She didn't mention the pic of PZ doing her. Not outrageous enough?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
lmao! You Cunt!cunt wrote:Yeah, you not Rayshul.
I thought as much. That right there, is why the Mens Rights people won't be listened to no matter how good their arguments are.
lol.
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Fuck me. Who knew the Commander could come up with imagery this fucking twisted? Good on you, Tuvok, for surprising the hell out of me:
Does this make each of our posts another little "pffasshggle", as we contract our asses and manage to push another few milliliters of shitty curry out?Let's face it, at the moment The Slyme Pit is squatting over A+'s supine body and splattering last night's curry into its quivering mouth.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
While I think it might be nice if people here "aimed higher" I pretty strongly feel that if we're going to have free speech then we need to allow speech that we might think is ugly. If you are worried about where to send new people, there are other places besides FTB and the 'pit. There's the SIN blogs (yay!) there's JREF (A+ thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=242361&page=86 ), there's Secular Social Justice, etc.d4m10n wrote:Touché!welch wrote:Oh, and on the rest...d4m10n wrote:You see what you just did there, telling him how to behave? It's especially funny because he just said that all he wants to do is try to be persuasive, and you responded by giving orders.welch wrote: 1) Stop telling grown adults how to behave. At best it's mildly condescending. Do your thing your way, and if people dig it, great.
Your argument seems to be something like “I don't like your tone, so shut up.†Expect a call from Brayton soon, they need more bloggers over there.
I'd blog there in a fucking heartbeat. Can you IMAGINE the chaos?
I read your previous post, and I don't think we actually disagree as much as I'd thought, but it seems to me that you are underestimating the number of freethinkers and skeptics who've never dabbled in the online drama at all. Whenever I hang out with atheists in real life (2-3 times a week) I find that only 10% of them are even vaguely aware of the Deep Rifts, and that gives me some hope that well-constructed arguments and critiques will carry the day. The ratio of cogent arguments to personal attacks here in the Pit is certainly high enough to warrant sticking around, but it seems obvious that we'll persuade far more of the brand-new skeptics and even some of the new freethinkers if we were to cease the pointless personal attacks altogether. They might be good for a laugh, but they aren't good for the cause.
And maybe that's the real problem. I don't see the SlymePit as merely a pub and a hangout, I see it as a rare bastion of genuine freethought. Other than possibly the JREF forums, this is the only place I know about where skeptics can apply the tools of skepticism to the various debatable propositions that have been discussed earlier. I believe profoundly in the value skepticism, and I believe it must be applied even to the well-intentioned keyboard warriors for social justice.
Bottom line: Online n00b wanders in to the SlymePit and finds mostly personal attacks and vitriol, they are going to wander right back to the SJW, with their biases confirmed. If instead they find mostly cogent arguments (however couched in humor and parody) against the cult of affirmative victimhood, they might well be liberated from several harmful presuppositions. What is better in life than to free minds?
That being said I do find some of the lowbrow stuff funny. Part of the reason people come here is because it is entertaining. It's like reading the Onion or Cracked. Some of what they say is clever, and some of it is just dick jokes. And that's okay.
As far as rules go: If Lsuoma is okay with "unsteady as she goes," then so am I. My only concern would be wearing out Lsuoma so that he gives up in frustration or starts banning wildly. If that seems like it might happen, then an intermediate step might be guidelines like "The management frowns on [list of bad behaviors such as doxxing, threats, etc.] and will deal with instances as they see fit." Not something specific enough to say that someone *must* be banned or whatever, but makes clear what not to do. I guess something vague like that runs the risk of favoritism similar to what we've seen at A+, but pretty much any rule system would too. After all A+'s problem wasn't that it didn't have enough rules...
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Oops. That's the link that originally came up on Google search. A site search turned up this page, which is the one she was sent:Ape+lust wrote:I found Rebecca's Rule 34 site:
(So no one can say they weren't warned: PORN SITE - NEKKID PEE-PEES AND COOCHIES AHOY!)
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/pz_myers/1
She didn't mention the pic of PZ doing her. Not outrageous enough?
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/rebecca_watson/1
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I spend a fair amount of time at SIN, and the posts about SJW drama are definitely the minority, now and since the beginning(although they sometimes get more comments and argument going). Sometimes there will be a flurry of posts about SJW drama, but generally only when one of them once again says something outright anti-skeptical, anti-scientific, or once again attempts to defame someone else. When paid speakers and even slightly prominent "skeptics" such as popular bloggers do these things, it won't just be completely ignored out of some hyper-dignified "high road" mentality. That said, the bloggers at SIN do have a much more reasonable outlook, and don't feed drama for drama's sake, and none of them are ever the staring point of what drama they do partake in.justinvacula wrote:New propaganda from Zvan:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... mentalism/
I'll take a line from Greta here and say
I must say, though, this part is especially funny:There is so much wrong packed into this one post, I could write an entire novel-length systematically dismantling everything that’s wrong with it.
It's interesting she would claim that Miranda, Russell, Damion and I have blogs "specifically dedicated to hating Rebecca and friends." First, I don't "hate" them. I don't hate anyone. Just speaking for myself, when I transferred to Skeptic Ink Network, I have largely left posts dealing with the drama OFF the blog and even went to Youtube because I didn't want to have so many posts about the drama. SIN started with a call for contributers to talk about science, skepticism, philosophy, secularism, etc. When I joined, I was quite happy there were so many with a background in philosophy...and there was little talk of the 'drama.' SIN isn't an 'anti-FTB/skepchick' network...although I must say we are a refreshing alternative :)So…Franc Hoggle/Victor Ivanoff has a blog or three. Justin Vacula has a blog. Damion has a blog. Russell Blackford and Miranda Celeste Hale, who posted at the old pit, have blogs. There are blogs dedicated specifically to hating Rebecca and friends. Ed Clint built a fake blog network to “disagree†and “dissentâ€. Then he helped create (at our suggestion) a whole new blog network that seems to exist largely as a forum to talk about how much the bloggers dissent from FtB and Skepchick. A bunch of the other people who posted at the pit have blogs and Twitter handles and podcasts and pseudonyms to make themselves look like multitudes. They don’t need the pit for that. I pointed that out two days ago.
Once again, the charge that Ed Clint created a fake network is laughable. Stephanie has no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. Additionally, to speculate that one person did this is ridiculous. (didn't a person post here, anyway, about how it was a team of people who made the network?)
I post here because I enjoy the lack of moderation and love the open discussion. People call either other on their shit and there's a great deal of skepticism because of this. Anyone can come here and post (besides maybe Ewood and Oolon, for good reasons). We keep each other honest, generally have a great time while doing so. As you all know, I don't engage in ridicule like some others here do, but I am not one to say what people should do or what is effective. I have my own approach as do others.
Anyway...
Welcome to the Witch of the Week club Damion! :popcorn:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Tut,tut. That is hurtful, crude and offensive. Get ready for your spanking, here come the strategists.Ape+lust wrote:I found Rebecca's Rule 34 site:
(So no one can say they weren't warned: PORN SITE - NEKKID PEE-PEES AND COOCHIES AHOY!)
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/pz_myers/1
She didn't mention the pic of PZ doing her. Not outrageous enough?
-
- .
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:14 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
He's not fat enough.Ape+lust wrote:I found Rebecca's Rule 34 site:
(So no one can say they weren't warned: PORN SITE - NEKKID PEE-PEES AND COOCHIES AHOY!)
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/pz_myers/1
She didn't mention the pic of PZ doing her. Not outrageous enough?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
[youtube]6PQ6335puOc[/youtube]d4m10n wrote:. Bottom line: Online n00b wanders in to the SlymePit and finds mostly personal attacks and vitriol, they are going to wander right back to the SJW, with their biases confirmed. If instead they find mostly cogent arguments (however couched in humor and parody) against the cult of affirmative victimhood, they might well be liberated from several harmful presuppositions. What is better in life than to free minds?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Shorter Laden: Word salad, illogicality, illogicality. Flight of ideas! Word salad, word salad, illogicality.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
"I am trivially controlled by random people. Here, allow me to explain exactly how to do this"AbsurdWalls wrote:Problems!I don't know, but what pushes my buttons the most is when some asshole says nasty things about my girlfriend. Not just any idiot, but people that actually knew her, mostly the fools at my school. They shit all over someone that was beautiful just because her parents didn't have millions of dollars like they do. Her mother was a science teacher at my school so her tuition was free, and her family lived in a nice suburb, just not a mansion in California or some ritzy high rise condo in New York or London. Most of her friends go to public school. I wish I went to public school. I know for some people it's their mother or their father that triggers the emotions, to me it's her. I can understand why people fight over "your mom" jokes, I just can't understand why people get emotional over insults hurled by total strangers. When I was new to America, it didn't take me long to realize that the word "cunt" brought out emotion and I used it liberally, then I said it to someone I shouldn't have and it changed me, if only for the two years I knew her. She was the polar opposite of me, I'm obnoxious and trollish while she was sweet and kind. She brought out a side of me that wasn't there before. I guess that's why the word doesn't bother me that much. 62.75.235.153 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
True though isn't it. Humanitarian movements with a hit-list, you can count them on one single digit.AndrewV69 wrote:lmao! You Cunt!cunt wrote:Yeah, you not Rayshul.
I thought as much. That right there, is why the Mens Rights people won't be listened to no matter how good their arguments are.
lol.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I'm tall and long-legged and the one thing I know for sure about wearing high heels is that they make me walk like a giraffe with cerebellar ataxia.Altair wrote:I think it also has to do with the way the leg looks longer when a woman is wearing high heels. I would guess the muscles of the calf, thigh and buttock also look more toned or something.rayshul wrote:I'm going to sound like an idiot here... but...
I was pretty sure the reason people wore high heels was because it made them look taller.
People are more impressed by taller people and tall people are more likely to get top jobs (as far as I remember from shitty pop recruitment facts).
Therefore if a woman wears heels she gives the appearance of tallness, much like a puffer fish bloating itself to appear bigger and more threatening.
Some guys at Portsmouth did an experiment that suggests the stride length and hip rotation are also changed when wearing high heels.
-
- .
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
New propaganda from Jessica Valenti who apparently wants to set the standards of humor for everyone:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172647/my ... who-sexism
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172647/my ... who-sexism
Sorry, Jessica, if I or others have a different sense of humor than you do. I'm not a bad person for laughing at something you might not find funny. Funny people can make anything funny and we shouldn't feel ashamed for laughing at jokes. 'Rape jokes' don't support the idea that women are "less than" (and aren't always even involving women) nor does laughing suggest someone is like a rapist. Additionally, 'rape jokes' don't lead people to "take rape seriously."Even laughing at a joke about rape supports the idea that women are less than and makes rapists think that you are like them. And the more you laugh at this stuff, the easier it becomes to take the ideas you’re laughing at more and more seriously.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Pretty much. Welcome to vhostsdecius wrote:I did. Practically it tells you that it's a mail server and a number of other sites. No useful information can be retrieved.justinvacula wrote:
Someone tweeted me this with what seems to be more information on that IP:
http://ip.robtex.com/62.75.235.153.html
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2010/ ... 372749.jpgd4m10n wrote:. Bottom line: Online n00b wanders in to the SlymePit and finds mostly personal attacks and vitriol, they are going to wander right back to the SJW, with their biases confirmed. If instead they find mostly cogent arguments (however couched in humor and parody) against the cult of affirmative victimhood, they might well be liberated from several harmful presuppositions. What is better in life than to free minds?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Stephanie Zvan responds to Damion's post about "ceasefire terms"
http://www.freezepage.com/1360026884YWRMIETKJD
http://www.freezepage.com/1360026884YWRMIETKJD
Damion frequents the pit. He gets benefits from it in terms of people to spread his message without him doing it personally and of participants in his drive to “test†the Center for Inquiry by sending Justin Vacula to the Women in Secularism 2 conference. He’s being asked to give that up. He also benefits the pit by lending it what reputation he has as a “reasonable†party in these matters. When his comments appear next to the ugliness, he legitimizes that ugliness, particularly when he turns a blind eye to the behavior. He is also being asked to stop doing that.
Damion and friends don’t seem to like it when I point out that the strategy of posting crap about us when we get mentioned or the practice of demanding that I listen and respond to people is harassment, but he’s apparently okay labeling an email from Greg to Abbie’s supervisor–regarding this commentary that suggests they talk to Abbie before she faces the career consequences he talks about just a couple of comments later–as harassment. As far as I know any “campaign†to have the pit threads removed from ScienceBlogs consisted of Greg pointing out to his bosses(and I use the term loosely) there that the threads violate their terms of service and me writing one letter to the same effect after pointing out that these threads were being used to defame and stalk me, including the posting of the name of my employer, information only available through election contribution records. (For the record, no one at the pit has objected to the dropping of that piece of information.)
Damion’s whole post is an exercise in slapping on emotionally evocative labels that don’t fit the situation. I tend to think that if I’d done anything for which renunciation were inappropriate, it wouldn’t be difficult to state the case plainly and simply–and accurately. After all, that’s what I did. I let the pit the pit speak for itself.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If he's not a legacy, Harvard has no excuse for arming that man with a degree. The first time he turned in a written assignment should've doomed him.BarnOwl wrote:Shorter Laden: Word salad, illogicality, illogicality. Flight of ideas! Word salad, word salad, illogicality.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
In my "real" world, we view information about How Things Work as something to be shared. I've written and spoken at length about network monitoring for free because when I was starting out, someone took patience with the n00b and helped me. It's how sysadmins do things. The fact it may benefit someone I dislike or disagree with doesn't change how I approach that. Now, if you want my EXCLUSIVE help, that I'm going to be more likely to charge for. But in terms of helping folks out in public forums, I'm not going to stop just because Ed might read it.nippletwister wrote:Two months in, you finally said something I agree with! Cheers!decius wrote:The fuck, Welch, stop advising them wisely. They read here.
(tho I must admit, I pay attention to those posts too, as I know jack-shit-all about it.)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
He got in under a special-education grant, for his "testosterone poisoned mind". Probably didn't have to do too much writing due to that.Ape+lust wrote:If he's not a legacy, Harvard has no excuse for arming that man with a degree. The first time he turned in a written assignment should've doomed him.BarnOwl wrote:Shorter Laden: Word salad, illogicality, illogicality. Flight of ideas! Word salad, word salad, illogicality.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
To be clear, I'm never going to argue that 'ugly' speech (short of illegality or liability risk) should be disallowed. It should be allowed, of course, but I'm arguing in favor of voluntarily elevating our signal-to-noise ratio. Take the Zvandenburg as an example. It was certainly worth a laugh, at least for some people, but was it worth it? It makes us into petty haters. Contrast it with this video, which is vastly more funny, but also makes a number of cogent points against an irrational insurgent movement. We should be allowed to do both satirical takedowns and senseless shit-flinging, but we shouldn't pretend that the latter is an achievement comparable with the former.LMU wrote:While I think it might be nice if people here "aimed higher" I pretty strongly feel that if we're going to have free speech then we need to allow speech that we might think is ugly. If you are worried about where to send new people, there are other places besides FTB and the 'pit. There's the SIN blogs (yay!) there's JREF (A+ thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=242361&page=86 ), there's Secular Social Justice, etc.
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
This is why, in my opinion, American style free speech is the only answer that is workable and gives everyone a chance in the marketplace of ideas while holding people responsible for their actions.Altair wrote:I'm not asking for you or someone else to say "well, the gunman is 80% responsible, AVFM is 20% responsible". My question is why should they be considered responsible.cunt wrote:Jesus fucking christ Altair there are scales of responsibility and it can belong to more than one person or group at a time. Just because the person wielding the weapon bears ultimate responsibility doesn't mean that AVFM wouldn't be culpable.
In case you hadn't noticed the actual truth of how much responsibility something like AVFM would bear isn't easily quantifiable. Something happens to those students and people would blame AVFM, and tough shit.
Why would someone who posted what another person said and did, with no intention of concealing their identity, be responsible for someone else's actions.
To my eyes, what they did is not different from someone screencapping a tweet or posting a quote. I don't see any difference between what AVFM did and what FTB is doing by posting quotes made by Shermer and calling them sexists, or what the pit does by posting tweets by someone. The potential of someone harming the other person exists in all 3 situations, but I don't think it would be anyone's fault but the weapon wielder's.
Nobody at AVFM called for violence or stalking, period. They used their right of free speech to document real occurrences and already public information. They are 100% totally and completely NOT responsible for anything any lone nut may or may not do.
If anybody wants to hold them responsible, they would need EVIDENCE that a specific outcome was planned or known in advance. Private emails planning violence, or encouraging specific actions of harassment. "Oh, you just HAD to have known SOMETHING could happen" is not a reasonable case for prosecution, and never will be.
Yes, FREEZE FUCKING PEACH. Anything less is an invitation to tyranny with a rose and a condom taped to it.
It may be a reasonable case for public censure, but it would take a lot of history to decide that. I don't think AVFM has shown there is any real risk of violence. What conclusion a few idiots want to jump to, is not necessarily of concern to a larger movement. If that hurts their movement because ninnies like to lay blame and jump to conclusions, that is an entirely different issue than any legal or moral blame or responsibility.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
New members are now plonked in a category where they can't do as much damage until they've been around the block a couple of times.LMU wrote:When I load the slymepit index page, the newest member's name ("Jangling Jack") is *pink* (corresponding to "restricted"). Anyone know what this is about?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
There is a distinct and separate group of trolls who relish in this and in the attention that it receives.Metalogic42 wrote:So, Twatson is complaining about MS Paint drawings again: http://skepchick.org/2013/02/objectified/
In her honor, I made this:
http://i.imgur.com/IhCfalK.jpg
Others are encouraged to make similar crude drawings about me. Because I'm not made of glass.
Hey, RW - don't feed the trolls and move on.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Huh there's another new member who's pink. Is Lsuoma busy? Maybe everyone who registers while he's away is restricted until he get's back? (Anyone know?)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Ah thanks!Lsuoma wrote:New members are now plonked in a category where they can't do as much damage until they've been around the block a couple of times.LMU wrote:When I load the slymepit index page, the newest member's name ("Jangling Jack") is *pink* (corresponding to "restricted"). Anyone know what this is about?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Is she taking lessons from Laden? Or does she go to Rebecca when she wants "clarity"? Unless you missed a word, what the hell is "women are less than" - less than what? And if we laugh at something, the easier it becomes to take rape seriously? Isn't that what is wanted - that we all take rape as a serious issue? Or is she twisted enough to think that because we laugh at things, we'll be encouraged to try it ourselves?justinvacula wrote:New propaganda from Jessica Valenti who apparently wants to set the standards of humor for everyone:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172647/my ... who-sexism
Sorry, Jessica, if I or others have a different sense of humor than you do. I'm not a bad person for laughing at something you might not find funny. Funny people can make anything funny and we shouldn't feel ashamed for laughing at jokes. 'Rape jokes' don't support the idea that women are "less than" (and aren't always even involving women) nor does laughing suggest someone is like a rapist. Additionally, 'rape jokes' don't lead people to "take rape seriously."Even laughing at a joke about rape supports the idea that women are less than and makes rapists think that you are like them. And the more you laugh at this stuff, the easier it becomes to take the ideas you’re laughing at more and more seriously.
I guess that's why I drop anvils on people, and poke them in the eye after asking them to pick two fingers. Maybe I need to return that illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
justinvacula wrote:New propaganda from Jessica Valenti who apparently wants to set the standards of humor for everyone:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172647/my ... who-sexism
Sorry, Jessica, if I or others have a different sense of humor than you do. I'm not a bad person for laughing at something you might not find funny. Funny people can make anything funny and we shouldn't feel ashamed for laughing at jokes. 'Rape jokes' don't support the idea that women are "less than" (and aren't always even involving women) nor does laughing suggest someone is like a rapist. Additionally, 'rape jokes' don't lead people to "take rape seriously."Even laughing at a joke about rape supports the idea that women are less than and makes rapists think that you are like them. And the more you laugh at this stuff, the easier it becomes to take the ideas you’re laughing at more and more seriously.
"T-t-take it you l-l-little wh-whore"
"Owwww...oh powky, please stop ass-waping me. No means no!"
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I had to review grant proposals and manuscripts for a number of years, before I realized that a not-insignificant number of people with degrees and/or tenure from Ivy League universities churn out incoherent crap on a regular basis.Ape+lust wrote:If he's not a legacy, Harvard has no excuse for arming that man with a degree. The first time he turned in a written assignment should've doomed him.BarnOwl wrote:Shorter Laden: Word salad, illogicality, illogicality. Flight of ideas! Word salad, word salad, illogicality.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Christ, she's almost as verbose as Reed.Altair wrote:Stephanie Zvan responds to Damion's post about "ceasefire terms"
http://www.freezepage.com/1360026884YWRMIETKJD
Damion frequents the pit. He gets benefits from it in terms of people to spread his message without him doing it personally and of participants in his drive to “test†the Center for Inquiry by sending Justin Vacula to the Women in Secularism 2 conference. He’s being asked to give that up. He also benefits the pit by lending it what reputation he has as a “reasonable†party in these matters. When his comments appear next to the ugliness, he legitimizes that ugliness, particularly when he turns a blind eye to the behavior. He is also being asked to stop doing that.Damion and friends don’t seem to like it when I point out that the strategy of posting crap about us when we get mentioned or the practice of demanding that I listen and respond to people is harassment, but he’s apparently okay labeling an email from Greg to Abbie’s supervisor–regarding this commentary that suggests they talk to Abbie before she faces the career consequences he talks about just a couple of comments later–as harassment. As far as I know any “campaign†to have the pit threads removed from ScienceBlogs consisted of Greg pointing out to his bosses(and I use the term loosely) there that the threads violate their terms of service and me writing one letter to the same effect after pointing out that these threads were being used to defame and stalk me, including the posting of the name of my employer, information only available through election contribution records. (For the record, no one at the pit has objected to the dropping of that piece of information.)Damion’s whole post is an exercise in slapping on emotionally evocative labels that don’t fit the situation. I tend to think that if I’d done anything for which renunciation were inappropriate, it wouldn’t be difficult to state the case plainly and simply–and accurately. After all, that’s what I did. I let the pit the pit speak for itself.
I bet she needs two pages to suck a dick.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... 02/target/
http://www.freezepage.com/1360027659YBXXEGAMNE
Batshit Benson:
"Anton Hill hadn’t talked about me enough yet, so he did another post about me today…pretending he’s now in full truce mode."
Ok. Let's see what Anton has to say:
http://atheistasshole.wordpress.com/201 ... -on-hills/
"Regardless of how or if she chooses to respond, I consider myself in a truce with her. Now on to more worthwhile pursuits, like more debates with apologists!"
Ok. Why is he merely "pretending"? Here's why. Back to Benson:
"But he helped himself to a picture of mine to publish (for no apparent reason, unless it’s in hope of inspiring new photoshops) on his post."
Instead of addressing the content of Anton's post, she goes on a long (for her, anyway) spiel about how shady it is to use a picture of her. In fairness to her, she does mention that she asked for permission to post it herself; I assume this means the photo belongs to whatever conference it was taken at. But everything else is an obvious attempt at creating more drama. She even says that the mere posting of a picture has a "bullying note", and attributes all kinds of insane motivations to Anton's decision to include the picture. "Batshit Benson" is so damn apt right now :lol:
http://www.freezepage.com/1360027659YBXXEGAMNE
Batshit Benson:
"Anton Hill hadn’t talked about me enough yet, so he did another post about me today…pretending he’s now in full truce mode."
Ok. Let's see what Anton has to say:
http://atheistasshole.wordpress.com/201 ... -on-hills/
"Regardless of how or if she chooses to respond, I consider myself in a truce with her. Now on to more worthwhile pursuits, like more debates with apologists!"
Ok. Why is he merely "pretending"? Here's why. Back to Benson:
"But he helped himself to a picture of mine to publish (for no apparent reason, unless it’s in hope of inspiring new photoshops) on his post."
Instead of addressing the content of Anton's post, she goes on a long (for her, anyway) spiel about how shady it is to use a picture of her. In fairness to her, she does mention that she asked for permission to post it herself; I assume this means the photo belongs to whatever conference it was taken at. But everything else is an obvious attempt at creating more drama. She even says that the mere posting of a picture has a "bullying note", and attributes all kinds of insane motivations to Anton's decision to include the picture. "Batshit Benson" is so damn apt right now :lol:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I think you're mistaken - it's Watson who relishes this type of thing so she can play the victim card yet again. If she ignored the trolls, people would find that out that's she's a one trick pony on her 18th trick. And it ain't a good one.rocko2466 wrote:There is a distinct and separate group of trolls who relish in this and in the attention that it receives.Metalogic42 wrote:So, Twatson is complaining about MS Paint drawings again: http://skepchick.org/2013/02/objectified/
In her honor, I made this:
http://i.imgur.com/IhCfalK.jpg
Others are encouraged to make similar crude drawings about me. Because I'm not made of glass.
Hey, RW - don't feed the trolls and move on.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Fascist titLsuoma wrote:New members are now plonked in a category where they can't do as much damage until they've been around the block a couple of times.LMU wrote:When I load the slymepit index page, the newest member's name ("Jangling Jack") is *pink* (corresponding to "restricted"). Anyone know what this is about?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
It was worth a laugh. I remember it made me laugh at the time, even though I knew it wasn't intended as biting satire. Worth it? Well, I don't give a shit what Steph Svans readers think.d4m10n wrote:Take the Zvandenburg as an example. It was certainly worth a laugh, at least for some people, but was it worth it? It makes us into petty haters. Contrast it with this video, which is vastly more funny, but also makes a number of cogent points against an irrational insurgent movement. We should be allowed to do both satirical takedowns and senseless shit-flinging, but we shouldn't pretend that the latter is an achievement comparable with the former.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
My responses in bold:
Metalogic42 wrote:patheticness from the comments section:
"So to the Shermers and the like (I hate to pick on one individual but it is so convenient given his recent writings), please RECOGNIZE that the problems we face are from people being horrible and please work WITH US, not AGAINST us, to make it better."
Well, I'm sure Shermer would agree that that picture was inappropriate. But that's not what you've been complaining about the whole time, you equivocating son-of-a-gun!
"I can’t tell you how much I admire you. I had a long conversation last night with my boyfriend about how I wish I was braver, less sensitive, so I could do more for women’s rights. I’m just so damn scared of speaking out and being treated the way that you get treated by so many ugly souls."
Maybe it's not her speaking out on rights issues that is causing the backlash... maybe it's her spouting nonsense masquerading as rights issues and ignoring actual rights issues.
"Sitting beside my friend Mia, I nearly found myself in tears reading this post. Maybe I’m an abnormal adult white male or, perhaps, that I am blind causes me to always identify with the oppressed in a situation but, today, I feel embarrassed to be male and in this community. Sending such things to Rebecca or anyone else for that matter, is disgusting and it makes me physically nauseas."
What makes you so sure it was a male? And yes, you are abnormal. And feeling embarrassed to be male is what they are after from you to join the club.
"Like kelisabeth mentioned in her comment, I wish I could do more, but I am honestly afraid of the harassment and if my mind could take it at this point in my life."
Sigh.
Drama queens, the lot of them.
Agreed.
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Apparently mules, a kind of heel without a back, make a woman walk even sexier - b/c they are so damn hard to walk in!BarnOwl wrote:I'm tall and long-legged and the one thing I know for sure about wearing high heels is that they make me walk like a giraffe with cerebellar ataxia.Altair wrote:I think it also has to do with the way the leg looks longer when a woman is wearing high heels. I would guess the muscles of the calf, thigh and buttock also look more toned or something.rayshul wrote:I'm going to sound like an idiot here... but...
I was pretty sure the reason people wore high heels was because it made them look taller.
People are more impressed by taller people and tall people are more likely to get top jobs (as far as I remember from shitty pop recruitment facts).
Therefore if a woman wears heels she gives the appearance of tallness, much like a puffer fish bloating itself to appear bigger and more threatening.
Some guys at Portsmouth did an experiment that suggests the stride length and hip rotation are also changed when wearing high heels.
http://i.tfcdn.com/img2/jRTglkUAY2pP52R ... */fyVMtP8A
I am also tall, 6ft in fact, and I hate heels. Flats, or 2 inch heels, are functional, yet pretty!
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Where the fuck did these people grow up to be SO utterly unable to handle anything? Shit, even in candy land you sometimes lose.rocko2466 wrote:My responses in bold:
Metalogic42 wrote:patheticness from the comments section:
"So to the Shermers and the like (I hate to pick on one individual but it is so convenient given his recent writings), please RECOGNIZE that the problems we face are from people being horrible and please work WITH US, not AGAINST us, to make it better."
Well, I'm sure Shermer would agree that that picture was inappropriate. But that's not what you've been complaining about the whole time, you equivocating son-of-a-gun!
"I can’t tell you how much I admire you. I had a long conversation last night with my boyfriend about how I wish I was braver, less sensitive, so I could do more for women’s rights. I’m just so damn scared of speaking out and being treated the way that you get treated by so many ugly souls."
Maybe it's not her speaking out on rights issues that is causing the backlash... maybe it's her spouting nonsense masquerading as rights issues and ignoring actual rights issues.
"Sitting beside my friend Mia, I nearly found myself in tears reading this post. Maybe I’m an abnormal adult white male or, perhaps, that I am blind causes me to always identify with the oppressed in a situation but, today, I feel embarrassed to be male and in this community. Sending such things to Rebecca or anyone else for that matter, is disgusting and it makes me physically nauseas."
What makes you so sure it was a male? And yes, you are abnormal. And feeling embarrassed to be male is what they are after from you to join the club.
"Like kelisabeth mentioned in her comment, I wish I could do more, but I am honestly afraid of the harassment and if my mind could take it at this point in my life."
Sigh.
Drama queens, the lot of them.
Agreed.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I laughed rather heartily at that. First time I'd ever seen a blimp dressed like my great-grandmother.cunt wrote:It was worth a laugh. I remember it made me laugh at the time, even though I knew it wasn't intended as biting satire. Worth it? Well, I don't give a shit what Steph Svans readers think.d4m10n wrote:Take the Zvandenburg as an example. It was certainly worth a laugh, at least for some people, but was it worth it? It makes us into petty haters. Contrast it with this video, which is vastly more funny, but also makes a number of cogent points against an irrational insurgent movement. We should be allowed to do both satirical takedowns and senseless shit-flinging, but we shouldn't pretend that the latter is an achievement comparable with the former.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Slymepit: In total there are 62 users online :: 22 registered, 5 hidden and 35 guests
Atheism+: In total there are 16 users online :: 4 registered, 4 hidden and 8 guests (one being GoogleBot)
Also, the ad price is up to 70 cents now!
Atheism+: In total there are 16 users online :: 4 registered, 4 hidden and 8 guests (one being GoogleBot)
Also, the ad price is up to 70 cents now!
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
In other news, RW is doing an amateur art show. For anyone who thinks they've got mad MS Paint skillz, send her a picture and she'll post it on her site along with your name and address if she can get hold of it.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I'm 6'2" and NOTHING makes me feel pretty like my manolo pumpsanother lurker wrote:Apparently mules, a kind of heel without a back, make a woman walk even sexier - b/c they are so damn hard to walk in!BarnOwl wrote:I'm tall and long-legged and the one thing I know for sure about wearing high heels is that they make me walk like a giraffe with cerebellar ataxia.Altair wrote:I think it also has to do with the way the leg looks longer when a woman is wearing high heels. I would guess the muscles of the calf, thigh and buttock also look more toned or something.rayshul wrote:I'm going to sound like an idiot here... but...
I was pretty sure the reason people wore high heels was because it made them look taller.
People are more impressed by taller people and tall people are more likely to get top jobs (as far as I remember from shitty pop recruitment facts).
Therefore if a woman wears heels she gives the appearance of tallness, much like a puffer fish bloating itself to appear bigger and more threatening.
Some guys at Portsmouth did an experiment that suggests the stride length and hip rotation are also changed when wearing high heels.
http://i.tfcdn.com/img2/jRTglkUAY2pP52R ... */fyVMtP8A
I am also tall, 6ft in fact, and I hate heels. Flats, or 2 inch heels, are functional, yet pretty!
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Vids or it didn't happen.BarnOwl wrote:I'm tall and long-legged and the one thing I know for sure about wearing high heels is that they make me walk like a giraffe with cerebellar ataxia.Altair wrote:I think it also has to do with the way the leg looks longer when a woman is wearing high heels. I would guess the muscles of the calf, thigh and buttock also look more toned or something.rayshul wrote:I'm going to sound like an idiot here... but...
I was pretty sure the reason people wore high heels was because it made them look taller.
People are more impressed by taller people and tall people are more likely to get top jobs (as far as I remember from shitty pop recruitment facts).
Therefore if a woman wears heels she gives the appearance of tallness, much like a puffer fish bloating itself to appear bigger and more threatening.
Some guys at Portsmouth did an experiment that suggests the stride length and hip rotation are also changed when wearing high heels.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
A reasonable harassment policy will now mean that all computers will have MS Paint deleted from them before their owners are allowed into the venue.