Bunkspubble!

[debaser71]

Just regarding that protest that people called violent.

MRA's talk about "proxy violence" a lot. I think that's the term. It's about how to get others to do your dirty work. To me, it sounds like incitement. So there's that but there's also "fighting words" where, and although they don't absolve you for (for example) assault and battery, then can be lawsuits involved. Anyway, I try and avoid calling things violent unless they really are violent, directly violent.

Anyway yelling at people,. calling them rape enabling scum and such could be incitement.

That's my take, but I really don't care that much about AVFM's list. I do care about sex offenders on a a list though because, really, no joke, they shack up within walking distance to my house. AVFM has zero power. The government, well, a lot of power there.

[welch]

As well, the "authority" of the list doesn't make it okay. You state over and over that you think the list is a bad idea, yet when anyone but you or some other "approved person" criticizes the list, you work overtime to dismiss said criticism.

I've objected to a single criticism, that the list was created with the intention to provoke violence. I've repeatedly stated that is the accusation I am opposed to, not any others. And yet you're accusing me of working overtime to dismiss ANY criticism? You fuck, and grow up.

Okay, then let's settle this: I don't think it was created to provoke someone into committing violence against anyone on that list. Period. If anything I said elsewhere gave that impression, then I apologize for lack of clarity. What I DO think, and thus far, *no one* has provided better proof to counter this, is that the list *was* created as an intimidation tool. I've listed, on multiple occasions, the reasons I feel support that claim, including:

1) No one is removed from the list. Not even after they are dead. Why?
2) Even after someone has served their sentence, the list is updated to reflect their location. Why?
3) The narratives on the list are so biased as to be, at least in some cases, able to be called outright lies. Why?
4) There is no stated procedure to remove someone from the list other than "email us and convince us". Why?
5) It is an extreme stretch to call every single person on that list "dangerous". Stupid, sure, but that's a crime?
6) Why is there a need for any sort of location information?

If someone can provide reasons that override those, and show proof of some better, and more even-handed management of that list, I'd be happy to change my opinion of that list.

I think such a list can POTENTIALLY be used for a crime, especially given how it's written, but that's true of any "enemies" list, including the SPLC's. Which was used as a guide for some nutjob with a gun. AVfM is hardly unique here.

In and of itself, it isn't instigating crime more than a list of cookies instigates obesity. In fact, I pointed out that getting penalized, criminally or civilly, for instigating a crime is rather difficult and uncommon. But this list doesn't exist in a vacuum. The intent of the list is not simply informative, nor academic. Look at the tone of the narratives for the entries. This is a highly vindictive list, one I think is in fact designed to intimidate people. I don't think it succeeds, because fuck, JTO and Paul Elam aren't even more popular than an old cat meme, but success doesn't remove what seems to be the obvious goal.

then argue that point instead of the appeals to emotion, false equivalencies and assumptions you and cunt have been throwing around. If you feel they have the "intent" to instigate people into violence, PROVE IT.

you are demanding I prove something I don't think is true. Again, I. do not. think the list. is meant. to instigate others. into harming anyone on the list. If that's not clear enough, I'll use smaller words, perhaps sign language or a rebus of some form. Demanding I prove something I keep saying don't think is the case isn't going to happen. But, and i have *repeatedly* shown examples that I feel support the following statement, I DO think the list is intended to intimidate, not just inform. There's too many features of the list that make no sense if it is SOLELY an informational resource. Unless you can prove me wrong, I absolutely stand by my statement that it is an intimidation tool. I absolutely stand by my statement that I think it is not any kind of informative or academic resource, but rather JTO and Elam taking a little petty revenge on teh evil wimmens.

I've stated I'm open to being convinced (and have stated I'm not a fan of the list, so I don't have a stake in defending it to stay up), but none of you have bothered to attempt to do so. All I've seen are assertions that intimidation and provocation is their intent, and appeals to emotion to accept that assertion. And I'm not buying it. The baboons and other feminists use the exact same tactics to claim their own victimhood. The assumption of motives and the expectation for others to accept those assumptions and condemn the accused has caused a great deal of damage in many walks of life. If you want to make an assertion on AVfM's motives for making the list, then arguing the list is a bad idea is the wrong way to support that assertion, as whether the list is a bad idea or not says absolutely nothing about the motives for creating it.

I have listed, over and over, the characteristics of the list that make me think it is an intimidation tool, and a bit of petty revenge by AFvM. Thus far, you have answered none of them, and insisted I prove something I don't think.

If you want to actually look at the six items I specifically listed above, fine. If you're going to keep demanding I prove something I don't think is true, then "off" is the direction in which you can fuck, and "traffic" is the place you should most often play.

[Tigzy]

From Clarkie's 'Incivility Pledge' post:

Improbable Joe, ... I got nothin'

14 February 2013 at 7:28 pm (UTC -6)

Yeah. YEAH! That asshole Fincke can get bent. What a fucking shithead that guy is.

I sure as shit refuse to respect people who have ethics that “disagree” with mine to any real extent, and I refuse to pretend that bigotry is up for debate and the victims of said bigotry need to treat their oppressors with civility or be disqualified from discussing THEIR OWN FUCKING EXPERIENCES.

Fincke can piss up a goddamned rope.

Mattir, Another One With Boltcutters

14 February 2013 at 7:37 pm (UTC -6)

The civility pledge basically creates a magic formula for telling some people that they are not allowed to speak. Because no matter how polite, reasoned, carefully phrased, nuanced, and disclaimer-laden I make my statements about sexual violence, the chilly climate, economic justice, or reproductive rights, there are some people whose response is always to tell me that I am not discussing the issues in a civil manner.

The incivility charge has enough weight already – I refuse to sign a pledge agreeing that I will obey the magic words.

Margaret

14 February 2013 at 7:33 pm (UTC -6)

I pledge not to fetishize civility over justice.

Yes! I’ve recently been accused of intolerance since “intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance”. But I can no longer keep quiet and “civil” in the face of being told that I and other women do not have the right to control what happens to our bodies, that Christian prayers posted in a public school is not discrimination against non-Christians, that rape threats against a teenage girl are unimportant compared to the horrible “discrimination” of forcing Christians to follow the Bill of Rights.

I pledge to remember that a fetishized civility is a field mark of insulation from suffering.

Yes! I’ve recently been told I’m emotional and “projecting” (?!) when I said that some of the strength of my response to the forced-birthers was putting myself in the position of Savita and being horrified and angry about it. I will not be quiet, unemotional, uninvolved, and “civil” in the face of such a horror.

In other words - but...but what about our FREEZE PEACHES!!! :lol:

[CommanderTuvok]

Good to see some pictures of dogs. Leave the stoopid cats to the Creepy Clowns. Posting pics of cats here is an insult to Arnie.

[CommanderTuvok]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

[AndrewV69]

You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it.

The IF clauses you listed fall under my "why even bother" category. As in why even bother putting those people on the list in the first place.

But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.

I think you would be on firmer ground if you could point to some ethical position as a reference. point. Such as "keeping enemy lists are bad for X, Y, and Z" or focus more on the intimidation aspect which you appear to believe is the key point.

How you can intimidate someone who is dead is beyond me though. Unless it is some sort of message to the living.

[comslave]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

[masakari2012]

Good to see some pictures of dogs. Leave the stoopid cats to the Creepy Clowns. Posting pics of cats here is an insult to Arnie.

CommanderTuvok, your logic is flawed. You are ordered to take a shuttle and plot a course to Vidiian space. There you will steal a Vidiian surgical tool and use it to remove your cock and fuck yourself :D

[Lsuoma]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

That story will run and run: it's got legs as the journos say.

Of course, Pistorious himself doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Lsuoma]

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

[AndrewV69]

I think you would be on firmer ground if you could point to some ethical position as a reference. point. Such as "keeping enemy lists are bad for X, Y, and Z" or focus more on the intimidation aspect which you appear to believe is the key point.

Oh scrap the above. I just read further. So to you the basic purpose is it is all about intimidation.

[BarnOwl]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

That story will run and run: it's got legs as the journos say.

Of course, Pistorious himself doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And who will foot the bill for his legal defense?

::I hate myself now::

[TheMudbrooker]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Nah...he'll walk.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

It's The Sun, people buy it for the tits.

The "news" is mostly there to fill the gaps

[comslave]

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

[free thoughtpolice]

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

No wonder why the bid for ad space hasn't gone past $.05. The tasteless jokes here *huff*

[Steersman]

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

No wonder why the bid for ad space hasn't gone past $.05. The tasteless jokes here *huff*

Rather pedestrian from start to finish … :rimshot:

[Lurkion]

This is Bunkspubble, Tony. You don't get to subject-police. If you want a thread about how cool you are, make one.

The name is bhoytony, not Tony, and how is your telling me this not subject-policing? Anyway this thread is already all about how cool I am.

SUCK A DICK, hoyto.

[Submariner]

SUCK A DICK, hoyto.

Hug a root.

[nippletwister]

The street addresses are not published (unlike sex offender registries in the US), just the names and a city. If they published actual street addresses, I would be more inclined to agree that it's intimidation and a call for vigilantism. Not totally inclined, just more likely inclined. After all, the government in the US posts lists of people with their street address, for any sex offense.

Have you heard of the Internet? I mean, is this all new to you? Give me a name and a city, and in most countries, within 24 hours, maybe 48, I can have an AMAZING amount of personal information on you. You don't even have to be good at google, there are companies who will do this for you, and the fees are quite reasonable.

The idea that "oh, well, they aren't publishing addresses, just names and cities, so there's no way to track them down" is not only wrong, but you have to be completely fucking stupid to believe it.

Yet...the identities and vague locations given on the list, are all already public record. If that's all that's needed to enable a murderous vigilante, well....it's already done. They've already appeared in court records and in some cases, the mainstream news or online news.
So again, the whole problem with the list is what it looks like to some people, not the info contained. Are people just supposed to not talk about it, either?

You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it. But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.

So where is the line? How is AVFM or the SPLC responsible for what a whacko does with info that was already available and publically discussed? If somebody had gone after Lorena Bobbit, would NBC be responsible? If somebody believes right-wing propaganda and kills Obama, is Alex Jones responsible?

Honestly, I think minorly, unless the list is like the abortion doc lists, which pretty clearly call for harm to come to the docs. I'm really sure the SPLC didn't think anyone would use their list as a targeting mechanism, and they seemed really upset that it was. But when you have a list of "hate" sites, and groups that are "bad", it is reasonable to assume that at some point, someone is going to misuse that list, because even with good intentions, such a thing can be misused. Hell if the AVfM list only had NAMES, I'd not have any real problem with it. PeeZus's dungeon only has names, and most of those are fucking 'nyms. Now, if he started adding any sort of location info, then that list would go from "stupid" to "bad" in my view, for the same reason as I find the AVfM list "bad".

Given the bias in how the AVfM list is maintained, I find it difficult to be sanguine about the location information.

again, it seems it's form and not content making the issue here, along with uncharitable assumptions about intent, for no other reason than it involves a controversial and politically active group. I wonder.....if a muslim group keeps or publishes lists of known anti-muslim agitators and legislators, how convoluted and riddled with double-standards will THAT discussion be? What if an anti-KKK group in the 1920's had found out the identities of criminal KKK members? Would black people be morally required to keep it a secret from each other? Even if the courts refused to prosecute? Even if social shame was the only weapon used?

is it just names, or names and locations? How much personal information does it provide? How are the names presented? How is the list maintained. If the list is essentially PeeZus' dipshit Dungeon, meh. It's stupid, and not a scintillating example of scientific debate, but i find it hard to view the Dungeon as much more than PeeZus pretending he has a large cock. Add in location information, overly biased narratives, and things change.

Seems to me the only real standard is the one already enforced by law. Freedom of speech, civil penalties for slander or fraud, and individual responsibility for actions. Anything else muzzles victims, enables victimizers, and creates double standards all over the place.

We've established, via SCOTUS, that freedom of speech is not absolute. Deliberately yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of non-political restrictions on speech. If you have a list of people along with a lot of personal data and are specifically demanding that harm be brought to them, that is outside freedom of speech. Clear threats to harm people are not protected. You can't threaten the President, their family, Members of congress, etc. Even in the US, "Freedom of speech" is not the absolute thing we like to pretend it is.

Again, I don't think that the AVfM list is intended to cause someone to go a-killin'. But that does not mean it isn't an intimidation tool.

Alright...again, you make a few good points, and you have been consistent. I still think the issue is a lot more grey than Cunt and Decius have liked to pretend, they're just being disingenuous shits who like to fling poo and pretend that anything they don't like is a direct call to vigilantism while ignoring their own obvious biases (and fuck all for anything like reasoning or evidence).

Like arguing anti-semitism with Git, I was never even defending having such a list. It's fucking obviously a blunder, PR-wise, since many people are hysterical twats like Cunt. I was arguing that the interpretations of it were wildly off base, given the lack of violent rhetoric on the site, and the lack of violence in the "movement" as a whole. Sorry, but reality and evidence matters to me. I see a non-violent movement that does, in fact, focus much more closely on the judicial system and powerful public figures than random non-public women. But then, I read some of the site and comments, and tried to assess the site as a whole before making any written-in-stone judgments. I also give the SPLC, Muslims, and even anti-abortionists, the same respect. I don't assume a nutbag murderer serial harasser following, even in real cults, until I see the fucking evidence.

If the info on the list were presented in a more restrained way, with an appreciation of history and nuance, I bet nobody would care. Nobody, including you, has said ANYTHING to convince me that the exact same info, but spread out across the whole website in sourced articles, would get the same kind of response and interpretation. I've pointed out (and been thoroughly ignored) that all of the info contained regarding living people(potential vigilante victims) is of the same type that is regularly published in news articles and blogs as a matter of course, just not compiled into a single source.

If there was a list of historical feminists, and the harmful policies they supported and what justifications they used and what the results were and what the legacy is, I doubt you would be asking why death or loss of job doesn't get you off the list.

When news or blog articles are written about a real-life case of abuse or false accusation(or any other crime), nobody freaks out that a name or town are mentioned unless there is a real and present danger of violence.

When celebrities or public figures (including young public activists!) are called out in blog posts or TV news shows or newspapers for bigoted statements, or supporting bad or silly or bigoted policies, nobody even says boo. It's standard.

But apparently, if you put them all on one list, even if you specify each case as separate and give separate details, it becomes a freak-out machine, a terror list to inspire murderers. I get that appearances matter, but for christ's sake, maybe we could have some perspective here. Yes, anti-abortionists have circulated literal "death lists"...but other christians have also circulated lists of people.....to boycott, shun, or argue against. A "hit list" with no "hits" may be silly and even ugly propaganda, but it's not marching orders.

It seems to me like they could get all the exact same info out, name and shame individual people if they like(which everybody else in our culture gets to do without accusations of harassment and intimidation) and effectively show the double-standards that our culture embraces when it comes to female offenders and ideologues, without the off-putting approach. It would still have the same end-result for those in the movement, but without the "appearance" of intimidation. Every news source, every activist hub, every pundit, every political publication, do all these same things all the time, but apparently if it's diffuse enough, and case-by-case enough, it doesn't count as intimidation and is given legitimacy.

That bolded paragraphs are all I've essentially been arguing regarding "lists" or "doxxing"(that isn't really doxxing, but sorta), and nobody has disagreed with any of that, that I've seen. Am I wrong? I still say: It's the form, not the content, that is the problem. Otherwise, almost all media or activism or debate would be a "hit list" or "intimidation".

[Lost Moose]

LOL! MAH FUR WILL NOT BE CONTAIND IN UR LIL BED

Linus-rdx.JPG

(135.38 KiB) Downloaded 280 times

[TheMudbrooker]

I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes, so it took me a couple of days to finally put my finger on something that had been bothering me about PZ's "There's no rational basis to be anti feminist" post. I had heard this sort of rhetoric before but I just couldn't remember where. Then it hit me...this is right out of the religious right playbook. First, state your affiliation in the broadest, least descriptive terms possible. PZ declares himself a feminist, which is about as useless as describing someone as European, it gives only the vaguest idea of what sort of background is informing that person's actions. The religious right has been pulling this stunt for years, nobody in their right mind would vote for a Christian Dominionist Pentacostal who has stood in front of congregation and camera to have prayers said over them to exorcise the witches and demons who might interfere with their candidacy. But call Sarah Palin a good "Christian" instead of a religious fanatic lunatic and she gets millions of votes. Next, throw in a couple of dog-whistle phrases like "we live deeply patriarichal society" so the true believers know you're talking to them, but nothing so obvious as to put off the uninitiated. All you need to do is change PZ's radfem terminology into politico-religious terms and his blog post becomes indistinguishable from a press release put out by Bryan Ficsher or Karl Rove.

[JackSkeptic]

I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes, so it took me a couple of days to finally put my finger on something that had been bothering me about PZ's "There's no rational basis to be anti feminist" post. I had heard this sort of rhetoric before but I just couldn't remember where. Then it hit me...this is right out of the religious right playbook. First, state your affiliation in the broadest, least descriptive terms possible. PZ declares himself a feminist, which is about as useless as describing someone as European, it gives only the vaguest idea of what sort of background is informing that person's actions. The religious right has been pulling this stunt for years, nobody in their right mind would vote for a Christian Dominionist Pentacostal who has stood in front of congregation and camera to have prayers said over them to exorcise the witches and demons who might interfere with their candidacy. But call Sarah Palin a good "Christian" instead of a religious fanatic lunatic and she gets millions of votes. Next, throw in a couple of dog-whistle phrases like "we live deeply patriarichal society" so the true believers know you're talking to them, but nothing so obvious as to put off the uninitiated. All you need to do is change PZ's radfem terminology into politico-religious terms and his blog post becomes indistinguishable from a press release put out by Bryan Ficsher or Karl Rove.

Yep, his whole act is very simplistic too, nothing sophisticated. They are all so predictable. They use emotional arguments with little care for rational thought.

Once you can handle a discussion with an evangelical you can handle a discussion with them, they use the same tactics and meme styles. It's why I wonder what they we're thinking if they thought they would not be called on it. We are all attuned to smelling bullshit and they are smothered in it.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I believe Pistorius will claim he was legless at the time of his girlfriend's death.

Anyway, from Meyers's Chymepit:

The short answer is that ‘Pikey’ is an ethnic slur aimed at traveling people

*cocks head sideways and squints a bit*

It’s a little broader than than; it’s (here in SE UK) used more generally about … well … people who just don’t belong here. You know, yes, they might be Romani.

[free thoughtpolice]

Mudbrooker I think the PZ FC(n) position on rationality goes as follows:
I (PZ, Ophelia, Rebecca) assert that feminism is the "radical" premise that women are people too.
I am a feminist, if you disagree with me it is obvious you are not a feminist.
Therefore; You do not believe women are people.
Come on you misogynist! Stop hating on the womyn!!

[JackSkeptic]

Mudbrooker I think the PZ FC(n) position on rationality goes as follows:
I (PZ, Ophelia, Rebecca) assert that feminism is the "radical" premise that women are people too.
I am a feminist, if you disagree with me it is obvious you are not a feminist.
Therefore; You do not believe women are people.
Come on you misogynist! Stop hating on the womyn!!

Further, he says that as HE has concluded by rational thought that his form of feminism is the only way to think he is not willing to discuss it only to proselytise on it. That is why he compares his detractors to Creationists. It is supremely arrogant.

If he has a scientific basis supported by peer reviewed papers along with a means of independent verification which can only conclude his version of radical feminism he may have a point. He can then get his Nobel prize. Until then he is spouting unevidenced assertion based on a limited social model and as a scientist he should be ashamed of himself calling it fact.

[Submariner]

I think my pet should win "most privileged". He's a cis-male. you won't find many whiter, and he's middle aged.

[masakari2012]

TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

[JackSkeptic]

TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

And god. Which explains their superiority complexes.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

And god. Which explains their superiority complexes.

Repent and you will be cleansed of the sins you were born with!

[BarnOwl]

I'll just leave this here ....

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 9a115f.png

[TheMudbrooker]

TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

"Hi, I'm TheMudbrooker and I'm a white cis-gendered man."
"Hi, Mudbrooker"
"It's been six days since I last oppressed a woman...." :)

[masakari2012]

I have less original sins that some of you. I'm male, but not white. If we are ever in disagreement, you must yield your right of way privilege to me, and let the wookiee me win. :lol:

[Pitchguest]

Let me get this straight. A call for a ceasefire by Lee Moore gets called stupid and insincere (even though his detractors have never made similar steps on that front) and a call for a discussion on civility by Dan Fincke gets called tone-trolling.

Meanwhile, people like Ophelia Benson thinks everyone is so mean to her, harassing her on Twitter using mean words, however words like "asshole" and "douchebag" should never be rescinded even if it's to foster more a civil discussion. *facepalm*

[Pitchguest]

that should be "A more civil discussion", not "more a civil discussion" ...

[Michael K Gray]

Except for one or two exceptions that didn't last long FtB/A+ won't accept open invites to join here (no banning) or podcats to discuss their issues and present their arguments.

Oh dear. That is going to set the cat amongst the pig-eons.

[ERV]

I'll just leave this here ....

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 9a115f.png

Chas Stewart, one of the assistant organizers of OKC Atheists. A group that 52% female, 49% male, mostly 25-36 years of age (according to our recent demographics poll), 30 meet-ups this month alone, for things like board games and craft nights to political action (not talk, action) and volunteer opportunities. Meet-ups that have people disappointed because they filled up too fast. A group that is so big it expanded (did not 'splinter'. EXPANDED) into OKC Atheists military/family/singles/etc.

Chas.

What an ASSHOLE.

:?

If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

[ERV]

If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

[Michael K Gray]

Just out of curiosity and as a point of reference, I wonder what you and decius and others thought and said about Mykeru outing “Creepy Bitter Girl” over the Great Poster Tear-down Extravaganza.

Remind me, because if she mentioned her by screen name, I wouldn't call it outing.

For what it is worth, I thought it a pretty low move, as I did of his appalling "ice-pick" threat.

[decius]

Oh yeah? Why don't you make the same list about another group and see how well it flies? Try with foreigners, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Mexicans - whatever picks you. List their worst and minor crimes, then shame them by publishing their names and city.
Tell everyone how said group gets a pass under the current law, and what a great benefactor for humanity you are.

Fucking disingenuous clowns.

Bhoytony, my favourite are Filth and Acid House. I've yet to read Skagboys. I was there a long time ago. Welsh taught me to read the language, but I can't tell a Sheepshagger from a Jambo.

[KiwiInOz]

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

Alas. PZ's flock inflated his ego far too high. Now that zeppelin is crashing and burning.

[decius]

Just out of curiosity and as a point of reference, I wonder what you and decius and others thought and said about Mykeru outing “Creepy Bitter Girl” over the Great Poster Tear-down Extravaganza.

Remind me, because if she mentioned her by screen name, I wouldn't call it outing.

For what it is worth, I thought it a pretty low move, as I did of his appalling "ice-pick" threat.

I didn't like that one either, not a bit.

[Pitchguest]

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

Alas. PZ's flock inflated his ego far too high. Now that zeppelin is crashing and burning.

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert,

"'Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.' First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. FTB is not sinking. FTB is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!"

[Pitchguest]

If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

I would say waving the cure for AIDS in front of his face would be a worthy goal, but that probably shouldn't be your top priority.

Still ... :think:

[aweraw]

Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:

http://www.gibblertron.com/post/4306444 ... em-of-2013

Given that the song is all about the writters perception of the impossibly high standards of women in L.A, my favorite quote from the articls is this:

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

[decius]

IMAG0872small.jpg

(178.27 KiB) Downloaded 200 times

[Steersman]

If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

Then I guess PZ won’t win any prizes with Daniel Fincke for falling afoul of his eleventh commandment: ;-)

11. I commit that I will not make accusations of guilt by association.

But then again rationality was never a strong suit with PZ ….

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:

http://www.gibblertron.com/post/4306444 ... em-of-2013

Given that the song is all about the writters perception of the impossibly high standards of women in L.A, my favorite quote from the articls is this:

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

Funny as fuck, and I'm not even from LA :)

[comslave]

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

No wonder why the bid for ad space hasn't gone past $.05. The tasteless jokes here *huff*

Rather pedestrian from start to finish … :rimshot:

I guess I put my foot in my mouth....oops, insensitive... :shock:

[comslave]

I'll just leave this here ....

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 9a115f.png

PZ, got an idea for you. Include into the FTP registration page an auto-ban feature so that anyone who signs up is automatically banned. It should save you some time.

:lol:

[Richard Dworkins]

There are some amusing things in that article. I find it amusing that the content provider who typed it thinks that criticising the attitudes and behaviours of women who say and think things like this "Pussy’s not a right - it’s a privilege" with a straight face means he is denigrating all women. I'm sure the "of L.A." bit went unnoticed but it is pertinent and since gender is supposedly culturally derived, one could make the argument that perhaps he is correct in his assumption, from his personal experience.

Considering one of the most famous shows over the last 20 years "Sex in the City" is about a bunch of spoiled simpletons whining about how bad NY men are week after week, I think it is fair play. Besides if they are really so upset, I'm sure they can go and listen to "California Girls" by the Beach Boys.

You would think someone who labels themselves a comedian would understand comedy, if they knew about comedy rather than just gave themselves a label to make themselves sound less vapid.

[Pitchguest]

There are some amusing things in that article. I find it amusing that the content provider who typed it thinks that criticising the attitudes and behaviours of women who say and think things like this "Pussy’s not a right - it’s a privilege" with a straight face means he is denigrating all women. I'm sure the "of L.A." bit went unnoticed but it is pertinent and since gender is supposedly culturally derived, one could make the argument that perhaps he is correct in his assumption, from his personal experience.

Considering one of the most famous shows over the last 20 years "Sex in the City" is about a bunch of spoiled simpletons whining about how bad NY men are week after week, I think it is fair play. Besides if they are really so upset, I'm sure they can go and listen to "California Girls" by the Beach Boys.

You would think someone who labels themselves a comedian would understand comedy, if they knew about comedy rather than just gave themselves a label to make themselves sound less vapid.

Relevant.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... hens200701

[UnbelieveSteve]

Ophelia bitchin' about the parody accounts.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -accounts/
Cha-ching indeed. $$$ earned. Thanks to the sheep.

[KiwiInOz]

Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:

http://www.gibblertron.com/post/4306444 ... em-of-2013

Given that the song is all about the writters perception of the impossibly high standards of women in L.A, my favorite quote from the articls is this:

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

It's a parody of a range of stereotypes, not a thesis or philosophical discourse on the sexual economy or the place of women in society.

Fuck me.

[Richard Dworkins]

Hitchens is unfair. The amount of women in comedy (especially stand up) is smaller than the amount of men in comedy, therefore there are more terrible male comedians than female ones since the majority of all comedians are dreadful, just like the majority of any art form.

Some women it seems need to get a sense of humour about themselves.

[Trophy]

Lsuoma, please kill the site now. Either that or start a new thread and banish all these boring arseholes going on and on and on and on about the fucking LIST. None of them are going to change their opinion, but that isn't going to stop them from posting another dozen pages of shite. I think everybody has got the general idea of where they all stand on the matter.

So....why not just start a new topic instead of whining?

Lsuoma, can you also respond to this stupid comment?

[Michael K Gray]

A quote from Ulysees:
"The pledge is a noble gesture on your part, Daniel. But that’s all it is, a gesture. Consider the denizens of the Slymepit. A woman or a “mangina” (their term) attempting to argue with them in a civil manner is an exercise in futility. I’ve seen Justin Vacula and Franc Hoggle in action. They see people being civil to them as weaklings, ready for the kill. I’ve seen Ophelia Benson ask to be left alone by the Slymepitters. That doesn’t happen."

And the hyperbole thickens...

Side-effect of a liberal arts education: I thought you were about to quote Ulysses.

I was like "I dont remember a 'Daniel' in Ulysses..."

Not even in this club?
Or am I thinking of the Odyssey (Greek) = Ulysses (Woman)?
Let us all re-Joyce.

[Michael K Gray]

cunt, decius, MKG and myself all agreed that doxing and maintaining a list of anyone, male or female = bad. I have not seen anyone here, in fact, come out and say that a double standard is in any way acceptable.

Santa Claus is fucked then, with you lot on his case.

He only come once a year.
And even then, it is down a chimney.

[Michael K Gray]

Here is my pet fungus:
http://frogsaregreen.com/wp-content/upl ... aphic..jpg
Gotta love me?

[Percentage]

Holy christ!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ty-pledge/

I can't get over this. Upon first glance, there is no way anyone would notice that's not PZ. It reads exactly like him, from the goofy science-humor title to the pretentious defense of assholery.

Chris Clarke was grown in a cryo-tube. There's simply no other explanation.