Bunkspubble!

#1321

sillysighbean wrote:Hello, my name is Jim and I live at the Jersey Shore, USA; and I am interested in the truth. I have been lurking here for about 6 weeks, and have read everything that has been posted. I have been following the Pharnygula site since 2006. (not so much this past month) I feel at this point I can now make a comparison, which I shall pose in a college SAT format: Pharyngula is to the 700 club as the Slymepit is to A. The Howard Stern Show B. Saturday Nite Live 1975. C. Monty Python D. All of the Above. At the end of a long hard day of truth searching, I could use a few laughs and this site fits the bill. Keep up the good work. I most enjoy the embedded videos and photoshopped pictures, and it is a tip o' the cap to those folks. Did I mention that I am also an idiot? Thank you in advance.

Welcome. Being an idiot is a requirement of joining here. Or not. I can't remember.

#1322

Corylus wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Can someone explain to me how I just received a pizza delivery lifelet with the Halal logo and some offerings with ham and other pork products?
It might well be turkey ham you do see it a bit in fast food places run by Muslims in the UK. The Muslim's know it is poultry, the non-Muslims think it is ham. Everyone is happy. Yes, fans of actual ham might find it tasteless, but let's face it, if you are ordering takeaway pizza then you don't have a palate anyway.

I don't eat any meat so I don't have to worry and, at the present time, I am rather glad to be in this position. :shock:

We think it's Ham???? Everyone is happy????? Two wrongs certainly don't make a right in this case.

All it really means it that they avoid an irrational and imaginary religious abomination by substituting a real abomination....that's just religion in action, I suppose.

#1323

welch wrote:
UnbelieveSteve wrote:Anyone know much about @siymepit and @slymepit?

No

No but I got royal greetings and even a hat when I asked for one.

#1324

rocko2466 wrote:
karlaporter wrote:Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla
We meet again.

And it's all my pleasure =)

#1325

Casual Nemesis wrote:
UnbelieveSteve wrote:Ophelia Benson
anagram
A Noble Penis Ho

Thanks. I burst out laughing in the middle of a coffee shop, and couldn't stop.

Another is "no-hope lesbian". :)

#1326

Gefan wrote:Against my better judgement...

Can we agree that, just as disagreeing with statements and behavior of radical feminists does not make one a misogynist / gender traitor, disagreeing with elements of Israeli state policy does not make one an anti-semite / self-hating Jew.
While we're at it, suggesting that certain behaviors in the African-American community might be counter-productive in terms of advancing said community's interests does not make one a racist / Uncle Tom and observing that Jihadism is a mortal threat to civilization does not make one an Islamophobe.

Feel free to add other examples.

Having a cock does not mean I'm against hens. Am I doing it right?

#1327

cunt wrote:
I do not think there is too much objection to the list, and while it does come up now and then, to the best of my knowledge only one guy tried to formally debate Elan about it (technical default, did not respond within the time alloted for responses).
So, how much time did he give the guy to respond? Presumably the guy had some kind of opening argument. What was Elam's response? Did he even post one?

As for making AVfM look "bad" I do not see that on the radar at all. You have made it clear the connotations this has for you in the UK. Paul is American so he is completely "tone deaf", as I am to that sort of linkage. You can make the argument, it just fails to register.
Don't give me that shit. If you don't think it is what I say it is you should be posting an argument to that rather than, "oh, well, merkins won't recognise it anyway". Americans/Canadians aren't stupid.

I also seriously doubt, although time will tell that the MRA side has people like Meir Weinstein and Irv Rubin on board (not yet anyway).
If some nutjob actually takes it upon himself to beat the crap out of people, firebomb their mailbox, or send them pipe bombs like David Barbarash I expect it would happen to Paul Elam, not anyone on his list.
Right, so if he's a target of nutjob radical feminists that makes everything he does cool?

I personally have a considerable amount of ambivalence about the "register her" business however. While I do agree with many on the names currently on the list, some of them fall into the category of "why even bother?".
Unfortunately, we are apparently in a war with a set of unprincipled, immoral, vicious, and cowardly manipulators who will stop at nothing to achieve their aims, and which in the case of some individuals, apparently includes the extermination of 90% of males.
How likely do you really think it is that those people are going to achieve their aims. The extermination of 90% of males? I'd say... not fucking likely.

I am certain you will agree with me though, that just having the list itself, is problematic from quite a few perspectives including the slippery slope angle and the question of who decides what, not to mention becoming what you fight.
However, as far as I am concerned, this makes me no better that Twatson, Laden, and PeeZuss Christ and OB on this point.
Fortunately, I never claimed to be a saint, or indeed ever fooled myself about that. Just because I have not actually done anything, or intend to, does not automatically place me on a higher moral plane that those people. The desire is there, but fortunately, so is my self-restraint.
Why not just voice your concern to Elam and try to get that shit taken down? Or abandon the site. If you really don't want to be better than the FC(n), then fuck you too.

On the other hand, I firmly disagree with the jury nullification business that Elam advocates (if I understand him correctly). It is my conceit that despite the best efforts of the sexual grievance industry and people like Amanda "if a man is accused he is guilty" Marcott, that for the most part the jury will free the falsely accused (and I really hope this version of reality is true).
Irrelevant, and if I didn't know any better i'd swear you were attempting to throw me a red-herring.

Our laws came about for principled and justifiable reasons. If the laws are being manipulated, we need to go after the actors doing so, not render the laws null and void (simplistic yes, add your own nuance as needed).
Right, and in this case, laws are being manipulated? ... What?

He was referring to the opinions and activism of Marcotte, and others, that advocate removing the presumption of innocence in rape cases, on the assumption that false accusations never happen. Also, in regards to manipulation of laws and jury nullification, many at AVFM think that "shield laws" are ill-advised and often abused, where a defendant cannot fairly face his accuser, and credibility is automatically conferred to the the accusations instead of having an open airing in court.

So, yes, laws are being changed and manipulated according to a questionable feminist paradigm of domestic violence and rape, and the concepts of one's rights as a defendant are being manipulated, juries are being manipulated, and some say the answer to this is widespread jury nullification (which will likely never happen).

The rude part of me, that I try to keep quiet, wants to ask: Are you taking the piss, or just dense as fuck?

#1328

Like I said to him nippletwister. It's irrelevant to the conversation.

#1329

karlaporter wrote:Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla

Moderators? You're in the wrong place, love!

#1330

John Greg wrote:Us pedants always get squelchy when phrases are analyzed using the wrong phrase.

That should be:
Us We pedants always get squelchy when phrases are analyzed using the ~~wrong~~ incorrect phrase.[/quote]

Courtesy of Pedants Inc.

#1331

Git wrote:
ERV wrote:
Git wrote:Welcome Karla.

Please tell us about your kittehs, if you have any. Or carrion-birds, which will please Sacha.
Shes got at least one puppah and one kitteh! They were careening around when me and Karla and Katie were chatting on G+!
Hurrah! Pics please.

for some reason we have some freaks on here who don't like kittehs. :icon-redface:

Here's the fam https://plus.google.com/photos/11480044 ... 4719881249 - some of them are departed from old age and now live on my bookcase in little wooden boxes, of course I love them all!

There are people here who are not kitteh and puppah friendly? :o

#1332

Hey I advocate a change in the law, drug classification. I basically think weed should be legal. I'm manipulating the law, with my mind.

#1333

Tony Parsehole wrote: Oh shit, yeah! I remembered ol' Bertrand much crustier and wrinklier.

Bertie, Bertie, Bertie...

Get out the cab!

#1334

Lsuoma wrote:
karlaporter wrote:Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla
Moderators? You're in the wrong place, love!

What a treat :P

#1335

Git wrote:
Got any kittehs, Jim?

I've got a couple:

http://i.imgur.com/CMJ5G1y.jpg

#1336

Dick Strawkins wrote:I'm a bit worried about Karla's choice in spectacles!
They look a little bit...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bqODYVyOPIo/T ... a_wnsd.jpg

Ever see the parody on Robot Chicken, when Velma leaves the gang and is replaced with Lisbeth Salander?

#1337

sillysighbean wrote:Hello, my name is Jim and I live at the Jersey Shore, USA; and I am interested in the truth. I have been lurking here for about 6 weeks, and have read everything that has been posted. I have been following the Pharnygula site since 2006. (not so much this past month) I feel at this point I can now make a comparison, which I shall pose in a college SAT format: Pharyngula is to the 700 club as the Slymepit is to A. The Howard Stern Show B. Saturday Nite Live 1975. C. Monty Python D. All of the Above. At the end of a long hard day of truth searching, I could use a few laughs and this site fits the bill. Keep up the good work. I most enjoy the embedded videos and photoshopped pictures, and it is a tip o' the cap to those folks. Did I mention that I am also an idiot? Thank you in advance.

welcome, and go fuck yourself!

Funny though, whenever I hear what a hate site this is, all I can think is that there is nothing more offensive here than you might find in a Carlin routine, or, barring the few bad words, on an SNL episode.

To some, this is intolerable harassment and cannot stand unopposed. Must suck to be them!

#1338

karlaporter wrote:
Git wrote:
ERV wrote:
Git wrote:Welcome Karla.

Please tell us about your kittehs, if you have any. Or carrion-birds, which will please Sacha.
Shes got at least one puppah and one kitteh! They were careening around when me and Karla and Katie were chatting on G+!
Hurrah! Pics please.

for some reason we have some freaks on here who don't like kittehs. :icon-redface:
Here's the fam https://plus.google.com/photos/11480044 ... 4719881249 - some of them are departed from old age and now live on my bookcase in little wooden boxes, of course I love them all!

There are people here who are not kitteh and puppah friendly? :o

Only if the kitties and puppies aren't too friendly

[youtube]3Wx43EcQqUc[/youtube]

#1339

katamari Damassi wrote:
karlaporter wrote:Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla
Welcome Karla! Glad to see you here. After all, someone has to class this place up a bit.

That's extremely kind :dance:

#1340

cunt wrote:
Please stop it, or at least consider the evidence that you are wrong. Or not, whatever. You're totally wrong on all counts, you have neither principle nor evidence to stand on, and your underhanded accusations of violent intentions on the part of AVFM are odious and comically ridiculous, and a bit revealing of your own biases concerning gender. I mean, what could those MEN possibly want to know about people actively working against their interests, if not to HARASS AND HARM THEM?????? DUN-DUN DUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNN........
Go fuck yourself. I know intimidation when I see it.

Please, tell me all about how intimidated these people are to have their already public pictures and names on a website most of them probably don't even know about, that has no real power at all. Maybe you could even acknowledge that a good portion of them are officials, some being probed for extreme bias that has ruined lives in order to further their political agenda. Maybe you could acknowledge the fact that many of them are known, proven false accusers who have also ruined lives (or tried to) for their own gain or to satisfy their own psychological issues.
So, when things like these happen to men, and legal recourse is denied (as it usually is, even though the crimes are not denied), men are just supposed to "suck it up" and pretend it never happened?

Men are just supposed to pretend these people don't exist? To name names is automatically intimidation?

You're a fucking loony is what you are, and a dishonest one at that.

#1341

ConcentratedH2O, OM,.... AH! MY EYES! I'M BLIND!

#1342

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Git wrote:
Got any kittehs, Jim?
I've got a couple:

http://i.imgur.com/CMJ5G1y.jpg

Awww such cuties!

#1343

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Anyone know much about @siymepit and @slymepit?

I set up @slymepit months ago. Basically I just reserved it for future use for us if we wanted an official Slymepit twitter presence. I totally forgot about it until now.

#1344

Batshit Benson wrote:Well that last update turned out to be a mistake. Anton Hill asked me to update to say there was a truce, so I obliged, but he was bullshitting me. Thereâ€™s no truce. Heâ€™s still talking shit about me on Twitter (compared to my saying nothing about him at all) and heâ€™s still blogging about me, and tagging me in the hopes that his blog posts will infect internet searches about me.

Blah blah blah, etc.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001403 ... large.jpeg

#1345

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Git wrote:
Got any kittehs, Jim?
I've got a couple:

http://i.imgur.com/CMJ5G1y.jpg

With blue hair, it's easier to tell the talking end from the shitting end. Otherwise, you have to guess which one is which by the bullshit output.

#1346

nippletwister wrote: Please, tell me all about how intimidated these people are to have their already public pictures and names on a website most of them probably don't even know about, that has no real power at all. Maybe you could even acknowledge that a good portion of them are officials, some being probed for extreme bias that has ruined lives in order to further their political agenda. Maybe you could acknowledge the fact that many of them are known, proven false accusers who have also ruined lives (or tried to) for their own gain or to satisfy their own psychological issues.
So, when things like these happen to men, and legal recourse is denied (as it usually is, even though the crimes are not denied), men are just supposed to "suck it up" and pretend it never happened?

Men are just supposed to pretend these people don't exist? To name names is automatically intimidation?

You're a fucking loony is what you are, and a dishonest one at that.

It has no real power, as in it can't actually order somebody to go track these people down? Well its just sunshine and lollipops then, obviously. Intimidation doesn't work that way, and its not just focused on the people who are already on the site. Its existence says, that if you protest us, we put your name and face up here. So you don't fucking say anything.

proven false accusers who have also ruined lives (or tried to) for their own gain or to satisfy their own psychological issues.

Proven by what? It was on a website? A wiki at that? But I suppose you independently verified all those records, right? Anyway, even if you did, go fuck yourself. The state gets to punish them and rehabilitate them and after that they get to live normally.

You're a fucking retard if you think otherwise.

#1347

welch wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Git wrote:
Got any kittehs, Jim?
I've got a couple:

http://i.imgur.com/CMJ5G1y.jpg
With blue hair, it's easier to tell the talking end from the shitting end. Otherwise, you have to guess which one is which by the bullshit output.

Some scientific experimentation would be required for certainty. Only equipement required would be one of these:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zENuDflPejY/T ... -+pink.jpg

#1348

welch wrote:
Pitch, you forgot the first rule of Git:

If you disagree with Git about Israel, you are always wrong, and probably a closeted Nazi.

Actually, the first rule of disagreeing with Git is having a fucking good reason for doing so, and have some evidence instead of whiny liberal platitudes and assumptions. I will pick apart fashionable "accepted wisdom" about any subject mercilessly, because I fucking detest trendy constructed narratives.

#1349

Just for something different, here's a very cool self-portrait of the Mars Science Laboratory:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... a1acae.jpg

According to NASA:

This rectangular version of a self-portrait of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity combines dozens of exposures taken by the rover's Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) during the 177th Martian day, or sol, of Curiosity's work on Mars (Feb. 3, 2013).

The rover is positioned at a patch of flat outcrop called "John Klein," which was selected as the site for the first rock-drilling activities by Curiosity. The self-portrait was acquired to document the drilling site.

The rover's robotic arm is not visible in the mosaic. MAHLI, which took the component images for this mosaic, is mounted on a turret at the end of the arm. Wrist motions and turret rotations on the arm allowed MAHLI to acquire the mosaic's component images. The arm was positioned out of the shot in the images or portions of images used in the mosaic.

Larger image:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/7255 ... 46-710.jpg

And now, back to your regularly scheduled mayhem.

#1350

Having said that...I wouldn't say No if she accosted me in an elevator. :shhh:

#1351

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Git wrote:
Got any kittehs, Jim?
I've got a couple:

http://i.imgur.com/CMJ5G1y.jpg

What a marvellous pussy or two.

Oh and there's Rebecca Watson too, I see. :D

#1352

Oh and yeah i'll acknowledge a public official. Harriet Harman. I don't know if she's personally ruined lives but she's not in power anymore so.. might want to update that.

#1353

TheMan wrote:Having said that...I wouldn't say No if she accosted me in an elevator. :shhh:

I assume we're talking about the kitteh's here?

#1354

cunt wrote:Oh and yeah i'll acknowledge a public official. Harriet Harman. I don't know if she's personally ruined lives but she's not in power anymore so.. might want to update that.

Harriet Harperson, nasty piece of work.

#1355

welch wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
cunt wrote:
Jack wrote:Reep, I enjoyed your podcast with Paul Elam of AVfM. I did not agree with everything he said but he came over as a lot more honest, open and thoughtful than someone like PZ who has simply shut his mind down to anything he has pre dismissed.
I'll at least give PZ this, he doesn't have an enemies list. According to Paul Elam, the toronto student union is wrong about AVFM targeting students because, hey, none of them have ended up in hospital yet. He's a real ethical guy, I can tell.

You seem to have a real problem with free, open information being open and free. IIRC, this is not the first time you have made up your own reality on this issue.

I would think that the absolute lack of violence and harassment would be enough evidence to quiet your strange fears, but I guess not.
I think this relates to the problems some people have with "doxxing" people online, but there are big differences. Usually when someone complains of "doxxing" it has to do with outing an anonymous person, or with revealing private information of a known person. Usually, there is at least a possibility that the info being public will somehow harm or silence the person. If the person and the information are both public and common knowledge (i.e., Bruce Willis lives in Hollywood, Obama is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, PZ Myers teaches at UMM), then there is no "doxxing" at all. Then the only concern is that the already-public info is being distributed in order to encourage the less stable members of a group to harass, intimidate, or harm the person in question, when they never would have done so on their own.

Absolutely none of these apply to AVFM. The only one that could possibly apply at all is the last, vaguely hoping that some lone loose cannon will attack, but there is no evidence at all that this is the case, and plenty that it is not.

1. All of the people listed are very out, open, public figures. Some of them are activists, media personalities, or state officials. Some of them are young college student acitvists, but they have been purposefully public and very vocal. They have made no attempt to keep their identities private, and have in fact participated in loud public protests in front of news cameras and police. One has been arrested for breaking the line between protest and public nuisance. None of these people have ANY reasonable expectation of keeping their identities and areas of activism private. No matter how young, people who chain themselves to trees, or picket abortion clinics, or nuclear power plants, or lectures on the problems facing men and boys (or women and girls, or feminists)are public figures by their own choice in a free society.

2. AVFM does not publish any kind of truly private info, like addresses or phone numbers or family members or favorite restaurants. Places of employment are only mentioned if they are relevant and public, such as professors, judges, news media, or district attorneys. People have every right to know who the state employs in positions of power or influence and what title they hold. This is basic to any free society.
Anyone looking to harass or intimidate or worse would still have to do all the footwork and dirty work all by themselves.

3. While some MRA's have faced protests that cross the line to near-riot, and vandalism, and public yelling and shaming, none of the people on this list have faced the same. There have been no incidences of violence. Harm, harassment and intimidation are not tolerated at AVFM, and comments encouraging such are shouted down immediately, and the poster usually banned immediately. Not that it happens very often in the first place, the comment threads are actually pretty damn calm and reasonable. The most questionable things I've seen are far-right-wing guys and christians who believe that feminism is part of a socialist plot to outlaw the nuclear family, destroy the concept of fatherhood, and give the state complete control over breeding, families, and society. (Truth be told, their version of reality is at least as close to real as any of the conspiracy theories most feminists concoct. At least, just like there really are some sexist christians who want women to be non-persons legally, there really are feminists who, by their own published words, more or less fit the "socialist plot" narrative).

4. The reason that these people are named is to raise people's awareness of what is being said, done, and fought for in society, and to insure that people who want to support laws or policies that hurt men or boys, or to suppress the rights of free speech and assembly, cannot do so without accepting responsibility for their words and deeds. Why should a totally public figure get to shout what amount to accusations of rape, rape enabling, or violence against women, and have their identities kept secret by their own victims? These people make no attempt to hide their identities, and seek to harm others, but their victims must pretend it isn't happening? That is how rumors, lies, and wild accusations become "fact" in society. What AVFM is doing is simply trying to promote honesty, accountability, and fair dealing in the social debates that already happen. If a radfem spends ten years openly campaigning for male genocide, then tries to get a job teaching at a public pre-school, the public has a right to know. If a judge has a permanent bias against men, and wants to be on the supreme court, the public has a right to know. If a college student wants to publicly call all men rapists, and illegally block the doors to a lecture in the name of feminism, the public has a right to know. If she didn't want people to know, she could have written an anonymous blog about it.

I've supported legalizing pot since high school. I do it publicly. It could possibly hurt my future prospects or even bring violence or police attention my way. That is my choice and my responsibility, and if someone takes a pic of me in public waving a pro-marijuana flag, it is their right to let people know about it if they wish. Period.

Also, you claim that people who keep a "dungeon" of known offenders, who ban random people based on one association, who regularly make wild and unevidenced public accusations of sexism, misogyny, rape-enabling, harassment, and violence against women, are somehow better than a website that simply chronicles what willing public figures (not just blog commenters) are really doing in the real world. Your comparison is asinine, as AVFM actually has real-world reasons for doing what they do, and a great record of internally condemning harassment.

Please stop it, or at least consider the evidence that you are wrong. Or not, whatever. You're totally wrong on all counts, you have neither principle nor evidence to stand on, and your underhanded accusations of violent intentions on the part of AVFM are odious and comically ridiculous, and a bit revealing of your own biases concerning gender. I mean, what could those MEN possibly want to know about people actively working against their interests, if not to HARASS AND HARM THEM?????? DUN-DUN DUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNN........

Yes, yes, tell me, how often is th list reviewed to remove people no longer actively doing things AVfM dislikes? Or is it once you're on, you're on forever?

A fair question at least(despite your "Yes, yes tell me" bullshit smugness).

Honest answer: I don't know. And I would be interested in finding out if there is any such mechanism. In my opinion, there should be, even if it never has a chance to be used. Although to be fair, it would take a pretty full reversal for most of these people. Feminist family court judges and activists and false accusers don't change their tune very regularly, even when presented with evidence that they're wrong. And I have seen AVFM writers be charitable when their perspectives are acknowledged. But it is a valid question and not just a shitty assumption like what Cunt keeps doing. Maybe I'll email Paul Elam and ask.

I should also note that I think writing articles about such people would be sufficient, and I would not mind if such articles included names and pictures, much like what happens with every other public figure or newsworthy person in the world.

Here's what I think the problem is. Both of you seem to be complaining about the format, not the content. It seems like a wild-west wanted poster and seems too militant or something, or designed to maximize the damage and outrage. If you are complaining about the content, then you're saying that it's wrong for men to use the same tactics against a woman as everybody else in the world gets to use against everyone else. I mean, just publishing the articles they write on AVFM fills the same purpose and gives the same info, but not all in one dedicated place.

You can find equivalent media tactics everywhere, and always accepted as normal. When a republican cretin says something sexist or stupid, it gets quoted and catalogued ten ways to sunday. There are even collections like "Republican Rape Scale", combining all the worst quotes for rhetorical effect. Environmental activists put out lists of the biggest polluters and push for boycotts and protests, actually trying to damage businesses until they comply. Religious groups put out various public "approved" or "disapproved" lists of businesses, entertainers, speakers, etc, with a similar goal as environmentalists. Feminists name names and drop details of cases against any man accused in a high-profile case, even if the case looks shady and he's guilty of nothing, quite happily encouraging public backlash. Jews do it to muslim individuals and groups, and muslims do it right back. It often descends into ugly and unnecessary sliming of opponents, but you can't expect a group to ignore people who victimize and threaten them, or even seek to control or belittle their cause, even just individual cases, but especially when it is a public official, media head, or activist looking to change policy. You're asking the insane, something that would never be expected of any other group.

One other consideration that I take seriously. The problems that AVFM deals with are largely invisible to the mainstream. Another function of their list and the critical articles they write about individuals is to show simply that the problem is real, it exists, and it is systematically ignored by the courts, law enforcement, and society. Hell, the fact that I, a non-MRA, has to point out the fact that you guys are demanding a double-standard for men (or are at least more willing to ascribe malice to men) only on this issue says a lot to me. Again, if you think that calling out individual people for egregious actions is a bad thing no matter what, at least you're consistent. But I find it funny that it was the harmless shaming of college kids, kids that are acting hilariously stupid and proud of it, that brought it to the forefront. If it was a list of stupid stoners who got caught, published on fark, you wouldn't be batting an eyelash, even if careers and lives were ruined.

Again, if all you want to argue is that AVFM is no better than any of these other groups because of their tactics, fine. I agree with you, as far as I agree that it could be used more conscientiously. But the vibe I'm getting is that some seem to think it's more analogous to say, a far-right fundie church putting out lists of "known baby murderers" and hoping for bloodshed and bombings. And despite what it "looks" like to you, there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case. If there was any such evidence, I'm sure one of you skeptics would have provided some, other than "fuck you, I know what intimidation looks like". I'm quite sure that there is a motivation to "intimidate" in the sense of "now everybody can see what you said and did"....but again, the rest of us adults live with that all the time...male criminals and politicians live with that all the time...even innocent male defendants put up with it all the time...why the double standard here?

There is a fucking difference between silencing someone through fear of VIOLENCE or HARASSMENT, and silencing someone by threatening to make sure people can hear what they say and see what they do. If you can't see the distinction, you are a bloody fucking moron.

#1356

giving up smoking drinking and eating fatty food may save my life...but right now i wish i was dead
hi karla and jim
fuck off
especially jim...another fucking jim
fucketyfuck with a side order of arseholes
misery loves company, but I don't cos i'm feeling belligerent as a buggered kitteh
just wanted to share... pls carry on

#1357

nippletwister wrote:
welch wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
cunt wrote:
Jack wrote:Reep, I enjoyed your podcast with Paul Elam of AVfM. I did not agree with everything he said but he came over as a lot more honest, open and thoughtful than someone like PZ who has simply shut his mind down to anything he has pre dismissed.
I'll at least give PZ this, he doesn't have an enemies list. According to Paul Elam, the toronto student union is wrong about AVFM targeting students because, hey, none of them have ended up in hospital yet. He's a real ethical guy, I can tell.

You seem to have a real problem with free, open information being open and free. IIRC, this is not the first time you have made up your own reality on this issue.

I would think that the absolute lack of violence and harassment would be enough evidence to quiet your strange fears, but I guess not.
I think this relates to the problems some people have with "doxxing" people online, but there are big differences. Usually when someone complains of "doxxing" it has to do with outing an anonymous person, or with revealing private information of a known person. Usually, there is at least a possibility that the info being public will somehow harm or silence the person. If the person and the information are both public and common knowledge (i.e., Bruce Willis lives in Hollywood, Obama is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, PZ Myers teaches at UMM), then there is no "doxxing" at all. Then the only concern is that the already-public info is being distributed in order to encourage the less stable members of a group to harass, intimidate, or harm the person in question, when they never would have done so on their own.

Absolutely none of these apply to AVFM. The only one that could possibly apply at all is the last, vaguely hoping that some lone loose cannon will attack, but there is no evidence at all that this is the case, and plenty that it is not.

1. All of the people listed are very out, open, public figures. Some of them are activists, media personalities, or state officials. Some of them are young college student acitvists, but they have been purposefully public and very vocal. They have made no attempt to keep their identities private, and have in fact participated in loud public protests in front of news cameras and police. One has been arrested for breaking the line between protest and public nuisance. None of these people have ANY reasonable expectation of keeping their identities and areas of activism private. No matter how young, people who chain themselves to trees, or picket abortion clinics, or nuclear power plants, or lectures on the problems facing men and boys (or women and girls, or feminists)are public figures by their own choice in a free society.

2. AVFM does not publish any kind of truly private info, like addresses or phone numbers or family members or favorite restaurants. Places of employment are only mentioned if they are relevant and public, such as professors, judges, news media, or district attorneys. People have every right to know who the state employs in positions of power or influence and what title they hold. This is basic to any free society.
Anyone looking to harass or intimidate or worse would still have to do all the footwork and dirty work all by themselves.

3. While some MRA's have faced protests that cross the line to near-riot, and vandalism, and public yelling and shaming, none of the people on this list have faced the same. There have been no incidences of violence. Harm, harassment and intimidation are not tolerated at AVFM, and comments encouraging such are shouted down immediately, and the poster usually banned immediately. Not that it happens very often in the first place, the comment threads are actually pretty damn calm and reasonable. The most questionable things I've seen are far-right-wing guys and christians who believe that feminism is part of a socialist plot to outlaw the nuclear family, destroy the concept of fatherhood, and give the state complete control over breeding, families, and society. (Truth be told, their version of reality is at least as close to real as any of the conspiracy theories most feminists concoct. At least, just like there really are some sexist christians who want women to be non-persons legally, there really are feminists who, by their own published words, more or less fit the "socialist plot" narrative).

4. The reason that these people are named is to raise people's awareness of what is being said, done, and fought for in society, and to insure that people who want to support laws or policies that hurt men or boys, or to suppress the rights of free speech and assembly, cannot do so without accepting responsibility for their words and deeds. Why should a totally public figure get to shout what amount to accusations of rape, rape enabling, or violence against women, and have their identities kept secret by their own victims? These people make no attempt to hide their identities, and seek to harm others, but their victims must pretend it isn't happening? That is how rumors, lies, and wild accusations become "fact" in society. What AVFM is doing is simply trying to promote honesty, accountability, and fair dealing in the social debates that already happen. If a radfem spends ten years openly campaigning for male genocide, then tries to get a job teaching at a public pre-school, the public has a right to know. If a judge has a permanent bias against men, and wants to be on the supreme court, the public has a right to know. If a college student wants to publicly call all men rapists, and illegally block the doors to a lecture in the name of feminism, the public has a right to know. If she didn't want people to know, she could have written an anonymous blog about it.

I've supported legalizing pot since high school. I do it publicly. It could possibly hurt my future prospects or even bring violence or police attention my way. That is my choice and my responsibility, and if someone takes a pic of me in public waving a pro-marijuana flag, it is their right to let people know about it if they wish. Period.

Also, you claim that people who keep a "dungeon" of known offenders, who ban random people based on one association, who regularly make wild and unevidenced public accusations of sexism, misogyny, rape-enabling, harassment, and violence against women, are somehow better than a website that simply chronicles what willing public figures (not just blog commenters) are really doing in the real world. Your comparison is asinine, as AVFM actually has real-world reasons for doing what they do, and a great record of internally condemning harassment.

Please stop it, or at least consider the evidence that you are wrong. Or not, whatever. You're totally wrong on all counts, you have neither principle nor evidence to stand on, and your underhanded accusations of violent intentions on the part of AVFM are odious and comically ridiculous, and a bit revealing of your own biases concerning gender. I mean, what could those MEN possibly want to know about people actively working against their interests, if not to HARASS AND HARM THEM?????? DUN-DUN DUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNN........

Yes, yes, tell me, how often is th list reviewed to remove people no longer actively doing things AVfM dislikes? Or is it once you're on, you're on forever?

A fair question at least(despite your "Yes, yes tell me" bullshit smugness).

Honest answer: I don't know. And I would be interested in finding out if there is any such mechanism. In my opinion, there should be, even if it never has a chance to be used. Although to be fair, it would take a pretty full reversal for most of these people. Feminist family court judges and activists and false accusers don't change their tune very regularly, even when presented with evidence that they're wrong. And I have seen AVFM writers be charitable when their perspectives are acknowledged. But it is a valid question and not just a shitty assumption like what Cunt keeps doing. Maybe I'll email Paul Elam and ask.

I should also note that I think writing articles about such people would be sufficient, and I would not mind if such articles included names and pictures, much like what happens with every other public figure or newsworthy person in the world.

Here's what I think the problem is. Both of you seem to be complaining about the format, not the content. It seems like a wild-west wanted poster and seems too militant or something, or designed to maximize the damage and outrage. If you are complaining about the content, then you're saying that it's wrong for men to use the same tactics against a woman as everybody else in the world gets to use against everyone else. I mean, just publishing the articles they write on AVFM fills the same purpose and gives the same info, but not all in one dedicated place.

You can find equivalent media tactics everywhere, and always accepted as normal. When a republican cretin says something sexist or stupid, it gets quoted and catalogued ten ways to sunday. There are even collections like "Republican Rape Scale", combining all the worst quotes for rhetorical effect. Environmental activists put out lists of the biggest polluters and push for boycotts and protests, actually trying to damage businesses until they comply. Religious groups put out various public "approved" or "disapproved" lists of businesses, entertainers, speakers, etc, with a similar goal as environmentalists. Feminists name names and drop details of cases against any man accused in a high-profile case, even if the case looks shady and he's guilty of nothing, quite happily encouraging public backlash. Jews do it to muslim individuals and groups, and muslims do it right back. It often descends into ugly and unnecessary sliming of opponents, but you can't expect a group to ignore people who victimize and threaten them, or even seek to control or belittle their cause, even just individual cases, but especially when it is a public official, media head, or activist looking to change policy. You're asking the insane, something that would never be expected of any other group.

One other consideration that I take seriously. The problems that AVFM deals with are largely invisible to the mainstream. Another function of their list and the critical articles they write about individuals is to show simply that the problem is real, it exists, and it is systematically ignored by the courts, law enforcement, and society. Hell, the fact that I, a non-MRA, has to point out the fact that you guys are demanding a double-standard for men (or are at least more willing to ascribe malice to men) only on this issue says a lot to me. Again, if you think that calling out individual people for egregious actions is a bad thing no matter what, at least you're consistent. But I find it funny that it was the harmless shaming of college kids, kids that are acting hilariously stupid and proud of it, that brought it to the forefront. If it was a list of stupid stoners who got caught, published on fark, you wouldn't be batting an eyelash, even if careers and lives were ruined.

Again, if all you want to argue is that AVFM is no better than any of these other groups because of their tactics, fine. I agree with you, as far as I agree that it could be used more conscientiously. But the vibe I'm getting is that some seem to think it's more analogous to say, a far-right fundie church putting out lists of "known baby murderers" and hoping for bloodshed and bombings. And despite what it "looks" like to you, there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case. If there was any such evidence, I'm sure one of you skeptics would have provided some, other than "fuck you, I know what intimidation looks like". I'm quite sure that there is a motivation to "intimidate" in the sense of "now everybody can see what you said and did"....but again, the rest of us adults live with that all the time...male criminals and politicians live with that all the time...even innocent male defendants put up with it all the time...why the double standard here?

There is a fucking difference between silencing someone through fear of VIOLENCE or HARASSMENT, and silencing someone by threatening to make sure people can hear what they say and see what they do. If you can't see the distinction, you are a bloody fucking moron.

tl;dr

#1358

Jack wrote:
cunt wrote:Oh and yeah i'll acknowledge a public official. Harriet Harman. I don't know if she's personally ruined lives but she's not in power anymore so.. might want to update that.
Harriet Harperson, nasty piece of work.

Hmmm...

Veteran Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody once described her as one of those 'women who were of the opinion that they had a Godgiven right to be amongst the chosen'...

Miss Harman comes from a privileged background.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2Kpz9nMsL

#1359

TheMan wrote:Having said that...I wouldn't say No if she accosted me in an elevator. :shhh:

Holy shit dude that's sick!
I hope you're talking about the cats.

#1360

Walter Ego wrote:
Jack wrote:
cunt wrote:Oh and yeah i'll acknowledge a public official. Harriet Harman. I don't know if she's personally ruined lives but she's not in power anymore so.. might want to update that.
Harriet Harperson, nasty piece of work.
Hmmm...

Veteran Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody once described her as one of those 'women who were of the opinion that they had a Godgiven right to be amongst the chosen'...

Miss Harman comes from a privileged background.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2Kpz9nMsL

I read you were having a hard time recently Walter. Hope that's going better for you. Hope is about all i can send you atm;)

#1361

And despite what it "looks" like to you, there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case. If there was any such evidence, I'm sure one of you skeptics would have provided some, other than "fuck you, I know what intimidation looks like". I'm quite sure that there is a motivation to "intimidate" in the sense of "now everybody can see what you said and did"....but again, the rest of us adults live with that all the time...male criminals and politicians live with that all the time...even innocent male defendants put up with it all the time...why the double standard here?

No, you're right. Whats evidence though in this case. Somebody gets a beating? Are they not intimidated until they get a punch?

There's no double standard, unless you're okay with someone taking photos of you at a mens rights event, finding out your name and occupation and posting it all on a radfemhub wiki. Right under the banner - Misogynist. That'd also be fair, right?

#1362

Metalogic42 wrote:
Batshit Benson wrote:Well that last update turned out to be a mistake. Anton Hill asked me to update to say there was a truce, so I obliged, but he was bullshitting me. Thereâ€™s no truce. Heâ€™s still talking shit about me on Twitter (compared to my saying nothing about him at all) and heâ€™s still blogging about me, and tagging me in the hopes that his blog posts will infect internet searches about me.
Blah blah blah, etc.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001403 ... large.jpeg

She knows about my video! Hurrah!

#1363

cunt wrote:
And despite what it "looks" like to you, there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case. If there was any such evidence, I'm sure one of you skeptics would have provided some, other than "fuck you, I know what intimidation looks like". I'm quite sure that there is a motivation to "intimidate" in the sense of "now everybody can see what you said and did"....but again, the rest of us adults live with that all the time...male criminals and politicians live with that all the time...even innocent male defendants put up with it all the time...why the double standard here?
No, you're right. Whats evidence though in this case. Somebody gets a beating? Are they not intimidated until they get a punch?

There's no double standard, unless you're okay with someone taking photos of you at a mens rights event, finding out your name and occupation and posting it all on a radfemhub wiki. Right under the banner - Misogynist. That'd also be fair, right?

I didn't realize they were put on the AVfM website merely for attending a feminist event.

#1364

fucks sake can we get a thread for MRA pro/agin arguments purlease...
In the meantime here is some south korean propoganda:
[youtube]l8rLdbtkN4A[/youtube]
C'mon western atheists we are letting the side down here!

#1365

jimthepleb wrote:
TheMan wrote:Having said that...I wouldn't say No if she accosted me in an elevator. :shhh:
Holy shit dude that's sick!
I hope you're talking about the cats.

I would let the kittens watch...it might get ugly but never "sick" :)

#1366

Anyone need cheering up? Watch this:

[youtube]PpccpglnNf0[/youtube]

#1367

TheMan wrote:
jimthepleb wrote:
TheMan wrote:Having said that...I wouldn't say No if she accosted me in an elevator. :shhh:
Holy shit dude that's sick!
I hope you're talking about the cats.
I would let the kittens watch...it might get ugly but never "sick" :)

Dude, your avatar is really disturbing....

I like it.

#1368

Gefan wrote:Against my better judgement...

Can we agree that, just as disagreeing with statements and behavior of radical feminists does not make one a misogynist / gender traitor, disagreeing with elements of Israeli state policy does not make one an anti-semite / self-hating Jew.
While we're at it, suggesting that certain behaviors in the African-American community might be counter-productive in terms of advancing said community's interests does not make one a racist / Uncle Tom and observing that Jihadism is a mortal threat to civilization does not make one an Islamophobe.

Feel free to add other examples.

Suggesting that the vikings were a little over the top does not mean that one hates Norwegians.

#1369

rocko2466 wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Batshit Benson wrote:Well that last update turned out to be a mistake. Anton Hill asked me to update to say there was a truce, so I obliged, but he was bullshitting me. Thereâ€™s no truce. Heâ€™s still talking shit about me on Twitter (compared to my saying nothing about him at all) and heâ€™s still blogging about me, and tagging me in the hopes that his blog posts will infect internet searches about me.
Blah blah blah, etc.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001403 ... large.jpeg
She knows about my video! Hurrah!

You know she didn't actually watch it :P

#1370

jimthepleb wrote: I read you were having a hard time recently Walter. Hope that's going better for you. Hope is about all i can send you atm;)

Thanks. I think if I can make it through to this Spring (warmer weather) I'll be alright. I have an affluent relative I can hit up for a loan. He's helped me out before.

#1371

Submariner wrote: I didn't realize they were put on the AVfM website merely for attending a feminist event.

Put on there for protesting a mens rights event. If you didn't know.

#1372

Cunning Punt wrote:
Gefan wrote:Against my better judgement...

Can we agree that, just as disagreeing with statements and behavior of radical feminists does not make one a misogynist / gender traitor, disagreeing with elements of Israeli state policy does not make one an anti-semite / self-hating Jew.
While we're at it, suggesting that certain behaviors in the African-American community might be counter-productive in terms of advancing said community's interests does not make one a racist / Uncle Tom and observing that Jihadism is a mortal threat to civilization does not make one an Islamophobe.

Feel free to add other examples.
Suggesting that the vikings were a little over the top does not mean that one hates Norwegians.

Norwegians are ok, but the Swedes??? they're cunts. :popcorn:

#1373

karlaporter wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
karlaporter wrote:Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla
We meet again.
And it's all my pleasure =)

I think we all need to know more about this.

And... is it Wilks Bar or Wilks Barry? I always thought the latter but I heard Dan Barker the other day say "Bar" when he interviewed Justin.

#1374

Hmmm. The Twitter account Slymepit started following me so I attempted to follow back. It seems it's been suspended. Why do I smell the stench of Oolon and his shitty little bot behind all this?

#1375

incognito wrote:Anyone need cheering up? Watch this:

[youtube]PpccpglnNf0[/youtube]

Alan! Alan!

Anyone have that link?

#1376

Cunning Punt wrote:
karlaporter wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
karlaporter wrote:Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla
We meet again.
And it's all my pleasure =)
I think we all need to know more about this.

And... is it Wilks Bar or Wilks Barry? I always thought the latter but I heard Dan Barker the other day say "Bar" when he interviewed Justin.

Pronounced like Wilksbury.

#1377

Woops. Nevermind. It was the "I" account, not the actual Slymepit account. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I fucking hate accounts like that (parody and other crappy types).

#1378

Metalogic42 wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Batshit Benson wrote:Well that last update turned out to be a mistake. Anton Hill asked me to update to say there was a truce, so I obliged, but he was bullshitting me. Thereâ€™s no truce. Heâ€™s still talking shit about me on Twitter (compared to my saying nothing about him at all) and heâ€™s still blogging about me, and tagging me in the hopes that his blog posts will infect internet searches about me.
Blah blah blah, etc.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001403 ... large.jpeg
She knows about my video! Hurrah!
You know she didn't actually watch it :P

Aye, she has people to do that for her. I wonder if the same people write her blogposts. I think i might start a blog a la Ophelia...200 words of Hitchens or Dawkins followed by my 'I agree' or 'Well said'...i can see mileage in this....i still wanna know where her income comes from, is it still a mystery?

#1379

Lsuoma wrote:
incognito wrote:Anyone need cheering up? Watch this:

[youtube]PpccpglnNf0[/youtube]
Alan! Alan!

Anyone have that link?

Here ya go

[youtube]SNfQda8ceGs[/youtube]

#1380

LMFAO. Thx.