Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[welch]

So, Ophelia's complaining about being put in moderation again on other people's blogs, most recently on Anton Hill's blog.

Does anyone remember that time when she complained about being put in moderation and then calling the site, or the blog, a sham? I can't remember which one it was specifically.

Anyway, I don't think the 'Pit should change. Satire is satire. If you were to change your behaviour to appeal to every fainting couch in the world, then you wouldn't have anything left. Then you may as well literally be walking on eggshells. No thanks.

AAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH

Ophie is always good for a laugh.

[another lurker]

So, Ophelia's complaining about being put in moderation again on other people's blogs, most recently on Anton Hill's blog.

Does anyone remember that time when she complained about being put in moderation and then calling the site, or the blog, a sham? I can't remember which one it was specifically.

Anyway, I don't think the 'Pit should change. Satire is satire. If you were to change your behaviour to appeal to every fainting couch in the world, then you wouldn't have anything left. Then you may as well literally be walking on eggshells. No thanks.

I believe it was this http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... RFAl_JtyqA

[JackSkeptic]

oh by the way guys...my dog died 5 years ago yesterday can i have some money please? Shoes are an acceptable answer.

Screw shoes. Go big. Go for a laptop.

[Apples]

So, Ophelia's complaining about being put in moderation again on other people's blogs, most recently on Anton Hill's blog.

Does anyone remember that time when she complained about being put in moderation and then calling the site, or the blog, a sham? I can't remember which one it was specifically.

Anyway, I don't think the 'Pit should change. Satire is satire. If you were to change your behaviour to appeal to every fainting couch in the world, then you wouldn't have anything left. Then you may as well literally be walking on eggshells. No thanks.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... RFABPLkrKc

is that what you have in mind?

[LMU]

--snipped--

--also snipped--

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made.

That being said, I don't think we should worry about it too much. There are plenty of people who come here and see past the crudeness, and I think there are people who come here for entertainment or information but don't post. There are other places, many of them mentioned here, where someone who didn't want to be associated with the Slymepit could go. Remember that the original slime pit was just a long blog comment thread, some of the people complaining about tone seem like they'd be in a good position to address the problem themselves.

[ReneeHendricks]

oh by the way guys...my dog died 5 years ago yesterday can i have some money please? Shoes are an acceptable answer.

Here, have some Fluevogs for teh menz:

http://www.fluevog.com/code/images/colo ... posite.jpg

[jimthepleb]

So, Ophelia's complaining about being put in moderation again on other people's blogs, most recently on Anton Hill's blog.

Does anyone remember that time when she complained about being put in moderation and then calling the site, or the blog, a sham? I can't remember which one it was specifically.

Anyway, I don't think the 'Pit should change. Satire is satire. If you were to change your behaviour to appeal to every fainting couch in the world, then you wouldn't have anything left. Then you may as well literally be walking on eggshells. No thanks.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA wait wait BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
anton should block her for her hideous misandry, i heard she wants to throw acid in his face, or maybe I'm confusing her with the Alien. (easy to do)

[sacha]

Re: Post 4772

Fuck my old boots, Sasha, but that was beautiful. Real Elizabeth-I-on-the-eve-of-the-armada quality. Loved it.

Sasha - the Boadicea of the Most Unlovely Bastards, standing firm against the simperings of The Prissy.

Bloody whinging drives me mad, especially when they have the ability to change the situation.

Tigz - read my signature, or I'll tattoo it on your willy

[jimthepleb]

oh by the way guys...my dog died 5 years ago yesterday can i have some money please? Shoes are an acceptable answer.

Here, have some Fluevogs for teh menz:

http://www.fluevog.com/code/images/colo ... posite.jpg

Fuck me those are ugly, I think I'll stick to my wellies, but cheers for the thought ;)

[sacha]

I'm all for keeping the Pit as free in its speech as it always has been. I think what's needed is another forum for those who are uncomfortable with crude and rude talk. We don't have to be the only place where people gather to discuss the politics and scandals in our communities. There can be other forums/blogs/sites addressing the same things in a milder manner. Nothing wrong with that.

I see a need for both types of conversing. Maybe a branching of the Pit. I hope our Pit stays crude and rude, but if it should ever turn into a the polite, milder place, I will open up a new forum to branch off with our old crude and rude ways. I'll have to learn the newest phpbb, but that's ok. My webspace has the capabilities for a forum (database thingy etc), and I have run older versions of phpbb on it before.

this is one of those things that Nectar and I always agree on

[Guest]

I also see another site as just diluting the participators for sure with no obvious benefit. Except for a few commentators is there any evidence a new site would attract anyone who is not attracted to here? At the same time it risks a schism which is the last thing anyone wants.

:think:

Ive read extensively here, researching the whole disagreement between this place and the A+ place. As well as reading affiliates and ideological sympathizers. I've done a lot of reading on the opposite side of the fence too.

My personal stance is that both camps spend way too much time attacking people. I think A+ focuses too much on trying to squelch dissent. I think this place spends too much time fooling around FOR TEH LULZ, which gets in the way of more academically minded criticism of it's opponents. In short, other than keeping myself informed about the goings on in the atheist movement, hoping that someday the focus will swing back to ideas...I see no value in either forum. Call an idea stupid...called it fucked up and full of vile superficiality of thought...yes...do that. That's great. Jolt people out of the complacency that comes with strongly held opinions. I am all for that. But I don't believe that people being wrong makes them crazy or evil or whatever, it just makes them wrong. Both forums currently read like a bunch of fundamentalist nonsense, generally speaking. I wasn't planning to ever actually post here and I am not claiming my position as irrefutable evidence. I just felt like it was worth saying because if one person is thinking it...how many others are out there that are thinking it as well? I think it's a legit question and I would hypothesize that your proposed schism has been there from the beginning, ever since this whole thing started.

:sci-fi-beamup:

[Dick Strawkins]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

[Metalogic42]

--snipped--

--also snipped--

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made.

That being said, I don't think we should worry about it too much. There are plenty of people who come here and see past the crudeness, and I think there are people who come here for entertainment or information but don't post. There are other places, many of them mentioned here, where someone who didn't want to be associated with the Slymepit could go. Remember that the original slime pit was just a long blog comment thread, some of the people complaining about tone seem like they'd be in a good position to address the problem themselves.

Being "higher profile" doesn't necessitate that one wouldn't want any part of our crudeness. For example, Richard Dawkins once said "science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off". And of course, Justin Vacula posts here. While he's not the highest-profile skeptic in the land, he is a public figure.

[d4m10n]

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made. [/quote]

The argument is simple: Making fun of someone for being fat or ugly or even resembling a penis isn't an effective argument. It might well be entertaining, and it definitely helps with in-group identification, but it certainly doesn't create the impression that the person being mocked is wrong about anything.

If you want to persuade people that the SJW-types are wrong about something, you have to make an argument about their beliefs and methods, not their appearance. If you just want to have fun at their expense, it doesn't much matter either way. I suppose it's largely a matter of personal priorities.

[ReneeHendricks]

I like the 'pit exactly the way it is. Some of the stuff posted I don't agree with or like. Big fucking deal. I either put out my disapproval or I move on. That's the appeal of this place. We're not all on the same sheet of music and we don't all like each other. That's how productive communities work.

[incognito]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

What objective? I'm still kind of new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't snark for the sheer hedonistic joy of snarking part of this site's "purpose"? (And I don't mean that as a diss; I love snark!)

[JackSkeptic]

Welch, I did a long reply then the 5 quote limit destroyed it as my copy/paste then failed.

My use of the word 'Schism' was too strong, I should have used the word dilution or similar. I am also unsure of how many more may join. I do feel those that will have done so already. The rest will have gone elsewhere. As you say we do not have the stats and I would love it if I was wrong and we get overloaded with users.

Now if you are saying there could be some central linked hub then that would be a great idea in my opinion. I found this place very indirectly and not before I found FfB and A+. I spotted it in one obscure post somewhere. So when I went looking for activist sites this did not come up on the radar at all for some time.

I'm also aware I am VERY new to this forum and therefore sometimes I will be uninformed. So everything I say is strictly as a noob here.

[Angry_Drunk]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

<facepalm>
Yes, because not palling around with us 'pitter terrorists has immunized Shermer and Dawkins from being accused of being misogynist rape-lovers.

[Tigzy]

Tigz - read my signature, or I'll tattoo it on your willy

You've seen through my cunning plan, then.

[Submariner]

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made.

The argument is simple: Making fun of someone for being fat or ugly or even resembling a penis isn't an effective argument. It might well be entertaining, and it definitely helps with in-group identification, but it certainly doesn't create the impression that the person being mocked is wrong about anything.

If you want to persuade people that the SJW-types are wrong about something, you have to make an argument about their beliefs and methods, not their appearance. If you just want to have fun at their expense, it doesn't much matter either way. I suppose it's largely a matter of personal priorities.[/quote]


What's wrong with having the highbrow, academic style arena right here within the pit? A secondary thread (or group of threads) with edit features that users and guests can hash out ideas free from sophomoric jokes and personal attacks.

[Submariner]

quote fail dammit

[Za-zen]

I also see another site as just diluting the participators for sure with no obvious benefit. Except for a few commentators is there any evidence a new site would attract anyone who is not attracted to here? At the same time it risks a schism which is the last thing anyone wants.

:think:

Ive read extensively here, researching the whole disagreement between this place and the A+ place. As well as reading affiliates and ideological sympathizers. I've done a lot of reading on the opposite side of the fence too.

My personal stance is that both camps spend way too much time attacking people. I think A+ focuses too much on trying to squelch dissent. I think this place spends too much time fooling around FOR TEH LULZ, which gets in the way of more academically minded criticism of it's opponents. In short, other than keeping myself informed about the goings on in the atheist movement, hoping that someday the focus will swing back to ideas...I see no value in either forum. Call an idea stupid...called it fucked up and full of vile superficiality of thought...yes...do that. That's great. Jolt people out of the complacency that comes with strongly held opinions. I am all for that. But I don't believe that people being wrong makes them crazy or evil or whatever, it just makes them wrong. Both forums currently read like a bunch of fundamentalist nonsense, generally speaking. I wasn't planning to ever actually post here and I am not claiming my position as irrefutable evidence. I just felt like it was worth saying because if one person is thinking it...how many others are out there that are thinking it as well? I think it's a legit question and I would hypothesize that your proposed schism has been there from the beginning, ever since this whole thing started.

:sci-fi-beamup:

That's all fine and dandy, but you didn't comment on my ode to Notung.

[Pitchguest]

another lurker, Apples - Brilliant! Here it is.

So here's what the prune wrote on Anton Hill's blog.

I doubt that he has permission to post it. I asked for permission to post it, myself. I asked him on the post if he has permission. The comment got held for moderation, but now it’s posted, so he’s seen it – but he hasn’t bothered to reply.

here's what she wrote on Discover magazine,

Great. My comment is awaiting moderation. I get accused of telling falsehoods, but in stronger langauge than that – and my reply is stuck in moderation.

This blog is such a slum.

Of course, you wouldn't find the same thing happening on her own blog. :liar: :roll:

[Angry_Drunk]

Let's whip out Occam's razor here for a moment. Which proposition seems more likely:

Dawkins, Shermer, Jilette, Harris, etc don't post here/acknowledge this place because:

a) Our horrible jokes make them a'scaird of criticism from the mental midgets at FTB.

or

b) They haven't the foggiest clue what this place is and have better shit to do with their time if they did?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

PZ has discovered Vox Day?

Outstanding!

Dear Peezus,
Run along and play with your new friend. You two are a perfect match. We're all sure you two will be very happy together.

Big Hugs!

The Slymepit

Vox Day. WOW!!! NEW NAME!!! Oh, no, wait:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =14;t=5752

August 01 2008.

I never bothered posting on that particular thread much, but you may recognize a few familiar names.

Vox is a cunt alright.

[JackSkeptic]

--snipped--

--also snipped--

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made.

That being said, I don't think we should worry about it too much. There are plenty of people who come here and see past the crudeness, and I think there are people who come here for entertainment or information but don't post. There are other places, many of them mentioned here, where someone who didn't want to be associated with the Slymepit could go. Remember that the original slime pit was just a long blog comment thread, some of the people complaining about tone seem like they'd be in a good position to address the problem themselves.

He made that argument about feeding their narrative and was called on it, a few times from memory. I agree the point on putting people off, all I am saying is are there any left to worry about of sufficient numbers to justify a new forum? That answer is not clear to me. So the default for me is to play safe and leave it as is. Also as stated this forum has a long and well established ethos, mess with that at you peril, as they say.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

Slymepit+, then? You know, it's called the "General Blogosphere". Please don't get funny on us Dick.

[Za-zen]

Let's whip out Occam's razor here for a moment. Which proposition seems more likely:

Dawkins, Shermer, Jilette, Harris, etc don't post here/acknowledge this place because:

a) Our horrible jokes make them a'scaird of criticism from the mental midgets at FTB.

or

b) They haven't the foggiest clue what this place is and have better shit to do with their time if they did?

That's a fucking hard one. Harris already posts here, we can safely assume that, as we are a hate site. Dawkins we know used to post before he got fed up with Justin constantly pm'in him with blog links. Jilette will post here in the future when we align with the NRA instead of the MRA. And shermer avoids the pyt because he has too many x girlfriends floating about it, and that can get nasty.

[AndrewV69]

I'm off.

Well I hope you do not stick the flounce like Justicar did. I like having a variety of opinions around me for one.

Especially if they disagree with mine.

[jimthepleb]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

What objective? I'm still kind of new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't snark for the sheer hedonistic joy of snarking part of this site's "purpose"? (And I don't mean that as a diss; I love snark!)

Wind gets it.....I know I am here for the snark and the lulz. If i want intellectual debate I'll go elsewhere. I realise there are some very smart folks here and every so often very deep and meaningful conversation breaks out, but i can always scroll over it if i wish (and sometimes i do) however i will always stop at a picture, especially a really badly done 'paint' job. Why? Cos it appeals to the juvenile prick in me, and i aint gunna apologise for it. If all we had was a calm rational conversation we would bore away the lulz merchants. As in all things, YMMV

[Tigzy]

another lurker, Apples - Brilliant! Here it is.

So here's what the prune wrote on Anton Hill's blog.

I doubt that he has permission to post it. I asked for permission to post it, myself. I asked him on the post if he has permission. The comment got held for moderation, but now it’s posted, so he’s seen it – but he hasn’t bothered to reply.

here's what she wrote on Discover magazine,

Great. My comment is awaiting moderation. I get accused of telling falsehoods, but in stronger langauge than that – and my reply is stuck in moderation.

This blog is such a slum.

Of course, you wouldn't find the same thing happening on her own blog. :liar: :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

To be honest, I am gaining some sympathy for the 'no personal attacks' contingent - largely on the basis that sheer amount of laughable slurry that gets pumped out of the spasming mental vacuoles of Ophelia and her ilk provides enough comic material to last til doomsday.

[another lurker]

another lurker, Apples - Brilliant! Here it is.

So here's what the prune wrote on Anton Hill's blog.

I doubt that he has permission to post it. I asked for permission to post it, myself. I asked him on the post if he has permission. The comment got held for moderation, but now it’s posted, so he’s seen it – but he hasn’t bothered to reply.

here's what she wrote on Discover magazine,

Great. My comment is awaiting moderation. I get accused of telling falsehoods, but in stronger langauge than that – and my reply is stuck in moderation.

This blog is such a slum.

Of course, you wouldn't find the same thing happening on her own blog. :liar: :roll:

Ophie has the right to speak, but others do not, b/c she is on the side of all that is good and righteous!

[windy]

The old debate resurfaced due to a combination of factors (SDG fuck-up and some recent comments by moral philosophers who are strongly opposed to the bullies).
I think it is important to hold a mirror to the Pit (and to any club), from time to time, should the circumstances warrant it.

As long as we are discussing tactics: I don't think complaining about "bullies", especially from certain prominent public skeptics, has been a very effective tactic and it's been as much fodder for the opposition as the crude personal attacks. It comes across as whiny and just opens the door to endless arguing about who's the bigger bully.

[sKepptiksowat]

Philosophy: I'm good at it.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8150/captureqt.png

Nobody got 100%?

[JackSkeptic]

Hey, I'm not threatening to flounce!
You are stuck with me!

What I'm suggesting is that having an additional site is not a bad idea.

Have Szan et al 'won'?
Of course they haven't. But you are deluding yourself if you don't realize that their tactic of guilt by association combined with accusations of misogyny, sexism or harrassment, aren't a powerful weapon.
Just look at all the major players in atheism that remain silent. Why is that?
They don't care?
They are too busy?
Or they won't risk the hassle of defending trumped up charges of misogyny that inevitably follows anyone questioning the politburo.
It's almost certainly the latter.

Now I don't even think a new forum will get the major players to join in. What it might do is allow some who are vunerable to the kind of malicious accusations of misogyny, to distance themselves from things like Franc's CK remark and some similar stuff.
Like I said before, the slymepit should stay as is, and not worry about competition.
There is, however, a niche there for another site with the same objective in mind.

It is not a matter of being wrong, it is a matter of an attempt to change the nature of a community. That has potentially serious effects:

1. Control over who speaks at certain conferences by implementing policies they have decisions over in their application.

2. A chilling effect on those who wish to have nothing to do with it and affecting their good work.

3. A substantial waste of valuable time and limited resources.

4. Working to exclude those they wish to push aside so they can fill the gap.

5. The infection of some blogs who have changed their censorship policies to accommodate these people. This again has a chilling effect on free discussion.

6. Putting people off activism who may otherwise happily contribute.

7. Shedding a very bad light on the communities skeptical thinking skills by the non application of critical thought.

8. Mental abuse of those who have genuine needs (A+)

9 Turning the community into those who have a propensity to narcissism and hysterical reactions to mild issues.

10 Encouraging the lack of intellectual rigour.


I can keep going. I do not agree this is just a 'matter of opinion' it is a lot more than that.

[Dick Strawkins]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

[another lurker]

jimthepleb wrote:

Wind gets it.....I know I am here for the snark and the lulz. If i want intellectual debate I'll go elsewhere. I realise there are some very smart folks here and every so often very deep and meaningful conversation breaks out, but i can always scroll over it if i wish (and sometimes i do) , however i will always stop at a picture a really badly done 'paint' job. Why? Cos it appeals to the juvenile prick in me, and i aint gunna apologise for it. If all we had was a calm rational conversation we would bore away the lulz merchants. As in all things, YMMV

Gratuitous kitty pic:

arch-nemesis.jpg

(84.63 KiB) Downloaded 163 times

My kitty, waiting to pounce on my DVR after she vomited on it - almost ruining it.

[Angry_Drunk]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

The in-group/out-group dynamic is strong with many here.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

Then it's a non-issue and has nothing to do with the Pit as it is. Would you agree?

[AndrewV69]

That's like asking where the hobo found that tasty snack under their thumbnail...do you really want to know?

Reminds me of the time when a member of my extended family smuggled a tin of chunky stew on board his flight. He dumped the contents into an air sickness bag and waited.

Mid flight, he flagged down a passing flight attendant, notified her that someone had left behind a tasty snack, scooped some of the contents out of the bag and into his mouth, licked his fingers and asked her for a spoon.

Hilarity ensued.

[JackSkeptic]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

The in-group/out-group dynamic is strong with many here.

Some people don't have the time for contributing to more than one forum.

[incognito]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

What would said additional site have that the JREF, etc don't already cover?

[welch]

He seemed to be under the delusion that if we we're all polite and nice it would make the slightest difference to their narrative. If they manage to pick up Shermer on a tiny point and twist it beyond recognition then us 'being nice' will make no difference at all.

There are also many attacks on FtB's/A+'s position going on, not just here of course. This is one approach, there are others and they ARE being done. No need to fix something that's not broke.

I think the argument isn't that it would change the baboons' behavior at all, I agree with you that it wouldn't, but that our tone is driving potential allies and posters away from us. Imagine a higher profile skeptic or atheist or just one who takes themselves more seriously than we do, they don't really want to be associated with a forum that would post an animation of a dog humping a cow and call it the Svan-Laden sex tape. They would be embarrassed to be associated even if they thought it was funny and agreed with most points made.

The argument is simple: Making fun of someone for being fat or ugly or even resembling a penis isn't an effective argument. It might well be entertaining, and it definitely helps with in-group identification, but it certainly doesn't create the impression that the person being mocked is wrong about anything.

If you want to persuade people that the SJW-types are wrong about something, you have to make an argument about their beliefs and methods, not their appearance. If you just want to have fun at their expense, it doesn't much matter either way. I suppose it's largely a matter of personal priorities.[/quote]

Other than ego points, why does anyone care if a "name" likes your site or not?

[LMU]

jimthepleb wrote:

Wind gets it.....I know I am here for the snark and the lulz. If i want intellectual debate I'll go elsewhere. I realise there are some very smart folks here and every so often very deep and meaningful conversation breaks out, but i can always scroll over it if i wish (and sometimes i do) , however i will always stop at a picture a really badly done 'paint' job. Why? Cos it appeals to the juvenile prick in me, and i aint gunna apologise for it. If all we had was a calm rational conversation we would bore away the lulz merchants. As in all things, YMMV

Gratuitous kitty pic:

The attachment arch-nemesis.jpg is no longer available

My kitty, waiting to pounce on my DVR after she vomited on it - almost ruining it.

In that spirit, here is Sacha in shades:

SachaInShades.jpg

(52.08 KiB) Downloaded 169 times

[Tigzy]

I think it's important to have fun at the baboons' expense. Otherwise, they might get the impression that you actually take them seriously.

[sacha]

Your attempts at shaming me for arguing about tone are hysterically hypocritical. You'd prefer an unrestrained celebration of personal attacks, and I'd prefer focusing on hypocrisy and bad ideas, but let's not pretend that we aren't doing the same thing here by trying to persuade the other posters that one approach is distinctly preferable to the other.

Seriously? That is what you got from my response?

I was not trying to "shame" you, I was holding up a mirror. I don't do the shaming thing, I have plenty of other weapons to play with.

You'd prefer an unrestrained celebration of personal attacks,

Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. I don't attack uncontrollable physical characteristics if that is what you meant by "personal attacks", however, I don't make those decisions for others. I'm not their mother, nor their headmistress, and they are not children, even when you get on your superiority power kick and speak to them as if you were disciplining schoolchildren.

but let's not pretend that we aren't doing the same thing here by trying to persuade the other posters that one approach is distinctly preferable to the other.

I don't join a site and tell them what they are doing wrong, not only did you do that immediately upon joining here, you have been the Token Tone Troll on a regular basis ever since you arrived. You are the one in a place that does not suit you, and instead of finding another place, or beginning you own, or making the decision that you will stay and accept the way this place has been since the beginning, that it is worth the sacrifice. Those are all options for adults.

You stay here, and complain and criticise and attempt to shame behaviour that you do not approve of.
How am I "doing the same thing" by responding to your advert for attention (positive, or negative, it does not matter as long as no one ignores you) perhaps three times since you arrived here.

trying to persuade the other posters

No, Damion, that is what you do, poorly. I do not try and persuade other members to be polite, or not. I even gave examples of when others post things I would not, and my reaction to that, You must have missed that because you can't imagine letting others make their own decisions without the need to tell them how wrong they are. and again, I speak for myself.

You are a drama queen.

You don't like it here? Get the fuck off the site
You like it enough to put up with what you disagree with? Great, then shut the fuck up about how it isn't what you think it should be.

or put forth a calm, rational post regarding your reasons for your decision, and people will either agree or disagree, engage you in a conversation, or ignore you.
This is what being an adult is like.

Whinging, attempting to shame, deliberately antagonizing, demanding adults behave the way you want them to, posting nearly identical whiny accusations about how your style of engagement is superior, actually believing that the Pit will bow to your wishes, and having no regard for the original members including Abbie, and also a majority in being quite content with the way things are, and have always been.

All of your behaviour, which I described above, is a transparent attempt at getting attention. You are not trying to persuade anyone, you are attempting to rally those who already agree with you.
I am encouraging you. Create the fucking site you want. I won't be joining to whine about how I think it should be different, I won't be lecturing adults regarding their behaviour, I won't be posting the same accusations over and over again, and I won't be desperate for attention.

I will either participate in a polite forum opposing the Baboons, politely, or I will not participate.

It's really very simple. If you are not happy here, no one is forcing you to stay.

and I would have a go at your behaviour, even if I agreed with your perspective. Let that sink in a while.

[welch]

Welch, I did a long reply then the 5 quote limit destroyed it as my copy/paste then failed.

My use of the word 'Schism' was too strong, I should have used the word dilution or similar. I am also unsure of how many more may join. I do feel those that will have done so already. The rest will have gone elsewhere. As you say we do not have the stats and I would love it if I was wrong and we get overloaded with users.

Now if you are saying there could be some central linked hub then that would be a great idea in my opinion. I found this place very indirectly and not before I found FfB and A+. I spotted it in one obscure post somewhere. So when I went looking for activist sites this did not come up on the radar at all for some time.

I'm also aware I am VERY new to this forum and therefore sometimes I will be uninformed. So everything I say is strictly as a noob here.

Years ago, and I mean over a decade, sure, a single big site made some sense. But the way the web works has changed. In terms of attracting attention/eyeballs/readers, a single big collective is actually worse than multiple separate blogs. Really. What you seem to be doing is conflating ideological differences/schisms with "physical" (as much as a web site is physical) differences. The fact that a bunch of people have completely different URLs is no more indicative of a schism than the fact Dawkins and Shermer live in different houses in different towns.

[Altair]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

What would said additional site have that the JREF, etc don't already cover?

The only thing I can think of would be a specific focus. The JREF and similar sites are, AFAIK, dedicated to a broad range of subjects and topics related to skepticism and/or atheism.
This "slymepit+" site would be dedicated to subjects related to FTB/A+ only, albeit with a different set of rules and ethos.

I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of such a new site, it would serve as a rallying point to the people who feel they don't fit in the pit, and would also allow people who likes the pit to also participate in the new discussions.

It's a very good situation, a lot better IMO than trying to make the pit something it's not.

[d4m10n]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?

Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

The JREF forum threads about SJW already pretty much fit the bill, don't you think?

[jimthepleb]

jimthepleb wrote:

Wind gets it.....I know I am here for the snark and the lulz. If i want intellectual debate I'll go elsewhere. I realise there are some very smart folks here and every so often very deep and meaningful conversation breaks out, but i can always scroll over it if i wish (and sometimes i do) , however i will always stop at a picture a really badly done 'paint' job. Why? Cos it appeals to the juvenile prick in me, and i aint gunna apologise for it. If all we had was a calm rational conversation we would bore away the lulz merchants. As in all things, YMMV

Gratuitous kitty pic:

arch-nemesis.jpg

My kitty, waiting to pounce on my DVR after she vomited on it - almost ruining it.

KITTEH!
damn I'm easily pleased.

[Angry_Drunk]

The rank fucking delusion of thinking that a "sanitized slymepit" forum wouldn't be immediately tarred with the same brush by the FTB jackholes REGARDLESS OF HOW RIGOROUSLY TONE-POLICED IT WAS boggles the fucking mind.

I mean, shit, it's a free Internet: go forth and do as thou will, but stop trying to con the rest of us who have a fucking clue into coming along.

[welch]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

The in-group/out-group dynamic is strong with many here.

Some people don't have the time for contributing to more than one forum.

and that means anyone else should care...why?

[JAB]

here's what {OB} wrote on Discover magazine,

Great. My comment is awaiting moderation. I get accused of telling falsehoods, but in stronger langauge than that – and my reply is stuck in moderation.

This blog is such a slum.

Of course, you wouldn't find the same thing happening on her own blog. :liar: :roll:

Hahaha. Hey OB, I agree with you. Any blog that criticizes someone and then doesn't let them defend themselves in that very comment thread is a slum. Too funny.

This of course reminds me of the whole conflict with PZ and the Intersection bunch. PZ saying that the creationists didn't have the right not to be offended, and the whole movement didn't have to have the same tactics, that some could be offensive and some accommodating and the accommodating folks shouldn't try to stop the more offensive tactics. Good times. (does anyone else hear an echo?)

But then PZ did learn a big lesson from the colgate twins. He's been launching a misinformation campaign against his opposition that has branded us as evil incarnate. What he won't do, though, is give it its proper name... Framing!

[decius]

The old debate resurfaced due to a combination of factors (SDG fuck-up and some recent comments by moral philosophers who are strongly opposed to the bullies).
I think it is important to hold a mirror to the Pit (and to any club), from time to time, should the circumstances warrant it.

As long as we are discussing tactics: I don't think complaining about "bullies", especially from certain prominent public skeptics, has been a very effective tactic and it's been as much fodder for the opposition as the crude personal attacks. It comes across as whiny and just opens the door to endless arguing about who's the bigger bully.

Bullism is somewhat quantifiable and easily identifiable, though, especially by impartial observers.

Moreover, if we accept that there are more or less ethical ways to conduct business, it would be foolish to dismiss off-hand the input coming from moral philosophers.

[d4m10n]

Sacha – Are you serious? You just wrote a lengthy missive telling me not to engage in a certain behaviour, namely, telling others not to engage in certain behaviour. You don't see how self-refuting that is?

[sacha]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?

Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

The JREF forum threads about SJW already pretty much fit the bill, don't you think?

hahaha!

I don't even have to say a word, you are doing all the work for me.

[d4m10n]

Other than ego points, why does anyone care if a "name" likes your site or not?

No idea. I wasn't arguing that we need big names.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Sacha – Are you serious? You just wrote a lengthy missive telling me not to engage in a certain behaviour, namely, telling others not to engage in certain behaviour. You don't see how self-refuting that is?

Quick question: how do we resolve such a situation?

[another lurker]

jimthepleb wrote:

Wind gets it.....I know I am here for the snark and the lulz. If i want intellectual debate I'll go elsewhere. I realise there are some very smart folks here and every so often very deep and meaningful conversation breaks out, but i can always scroll over it if i wish (and sometimes i do) , however i will always stop at a picture a really badly done 'paint' job. Why? Cos it appeals to the juvenile prick in me, and i aint gunna apologise for it. If all we had was a calm rational conversation we would bore away the lulz merchants. As in all things, YMMV

Gratuitous kitty pic:

snip

My kitty, waiting to pounce on my DVR after she vomited on it - almost ruining it.

In that spirit, here is Sacha in shades:

snip

Crows are awesome!

[Dick Strawkins]

Am I missing something obvious to the rest of you but invisible to me?
Are we only allowed to post on one site?

I regularly post on several different forums. Just because a new forum opens doesn't mean you have to abandon this one.

I am not getting my knickers in a twist over a few crude jokes on here but I think having a tighter and less easily malignable site is worth considering as an addition to here.
Is it slymepit plus?
If ruling out mocking our opponents is part of a new site's ethos then rule me out.
If its something simple like no fat jokes or sexual photoshops then thats OK with me.
I can still come to the slymepit to laugh at the Laden dickhead picture!

Then it's a non-issue and has nothing to do with the Pit as it is. Would you agree?

I am not trying to police peoples jokes here.
The argument, from me at least, is not that the slymepit should change.
It is that the greater struggle against those fuckwits may be served by having an additional site that will allow the continued participation of people who are vunerable to Svans tactic of threatening their careers because they post at a site that might have some MRA overlap or has been involved in doxxing.