Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[JackSkeptic]

Well, I had a reply just get lost. Weird. Anyway, I was responding to the whole "let 'em be guests if they want" BS. My philosophy is if you're going through the trouble of putting out a point and expecting honest replies, own your shit. Even if it's a fictitious name. Logging in as "guest" and putting out posts and replies stinks of someone trying to hide who they are. And all I can think of is shitbags like "Chester" and others pulling this kind of crap.

I auto skip guest posts. I've also broken that rule but only if its a one off comment. Any lengthy discussion is out as I do not know one 'guest' from another.

[cunt]

Maybe an acceptable policy in a game of cards; not so much elsewhere.

But I’ll agree that poker may not be the best analogy – at least for most versions of the game – as the hand in poker can end without anyone else knowing what cards were really held. Seemingly not applicable in EBW's case.

What makes you say that? Probably your definition of "acceptable". It's perfectly acceptable to me for EBW not to reveal until she's pushed. What's really not acceptable to me is for people to claim that because EBW made a claim that it must be true. The best we can say is that she made a claim which (tellingly) nobody argued against.

[JackSkeptic]

Well, I had a reply just get lost. Weird. Anyway, I was responding to the whole "let 'em be guests if they want" BS. My philosophy is if you're going through the trouble of putting out a point and expecting honest replies, own your shit. Even if it's a fictitious name. Logging in as "guest" and putting out posts and replies stinks of someone trying to hide who they are. And all I can think of is shitbags like "Chester" and others pulling this kind of crap.

to be fair i am most certainly a shitbag

You do not count as you do not use 'guest' but a consistent name. The issue is not the lack of registration but the lack of identification with previous posts. Also, it causes more work for our beloved admin as he has to check for socks.

[Steersman]

Maybe an acceptable policy in a game of cards; not so much elsewhere.

But I’ll agree that poker may not be the best analogy – at least for most versions of the game – as the hand in poker can end without anyone else knowing what cards were really held. Seemingly not applicable in EBW's case.

What makes you say that? Probably your definition of "acceptable". It's perfectly acceptable to me for EBW not to reveal until she's pushed. What's really not acceptable to me is for people to claim that because EBW made a claim that it must be true. The best we can say is that she made a claim which (tellingly) nobody argued against.

And if she's made a claim that isn't true then that looks like lying. Hard to see how anyone could think that that is acceptable. And even making such a statement without providing proof hardly seems acceptable - like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Considering the ramifications of the claim it seems important to know which.

[time to call it a day ...]

[cunt]

No it looks to you like it might possibly be a bluff. Which isn't the same as looking like lying to everyone else. Which you admitted yourself.

There's a very good chance that it's true, seeing as if it was a lie then Stephanie Svan would already have already dedicated numerous blog posts to it.

[cunt]

It's a fucking petty issue anyway. Some idiots want Ron Lindsay gone so that Melody "don't tell me about accessibility" Hensley can get into the role. Yeah. So they're dumb as shit. You're also dumb.

[Michael K Gray]

No it looks to you like it might possibly be a bluff. Which isn't the same as looking like lying to everyone else. Which you admitted yourself.

There's a very good chance that it's true, seeing as if it was a lie then Stephanie Svan would already have already dedicated numerous blog posts to it.

Quite.
Very often, "absence of of evidence", (where such is to be reliably expected), *IS* evidence of absence.

Biblical apologetic is replete with such gaping holes. Even Dick Carrier pushes this barrow, it is so obvious.

[JackSkeptic]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference. It sounds like something Scientology would dream up. It oozes moral superiority and fake empathy. These people really are deluded if they think they are 'nice people'. They are some of the nastiest and vindictive posters on the internet.

I would never be part of anything with that name no matter what it was about. They really have their heads up their fundaments if they do not realise how foolish and out of touch with reality it makes them look with a name like that.

[Hunt]

Subsection 23, para 45, item VII of the Texas "Holdem-all" rules clearly states that anyone with a phony nym starting with "Stears",..

Good thing it's Steersman then, Ha ha!

(Runs away quickly.)

[Michael K Gray]

Subsection 23, para 45, item VII of the Texas "Holdem-all" rules clearly states that anyone with a phony nym starting with "Stears",..

Good thing it's Steersman then, Ha ha!

(Runs away quickly.)

Oh, and *unt.
And K*ckers.
And K*ckers.
And K*ckers...

[Hunt]

Oh, I never forget...NEVER!...

viewtopic.php?p=85095#p85095

[JackSkeptic]

No it looks to you like it might possibly be a bluff. Which isn't the same as looking like lying to everyone else. Which you admitted yourself.

There's a very good chance that it's true, seeing as if it was a lie then Stephanie Svan would already have already dedicated numerous blog posts to it.

Quite.
Very often, "absence of of evidence", (where such is to be reliably expected), *IS* evidence of absence.

Biblical apologetic is replete with such gaping holes. Even Dick Carrier pushes this barrow, it is so obvious.

The truth of a claim is independent of belief. So while I can't claim what EBW said is true I can have a provisional belief and it is based on several factors, including the one you stated. The idea someone must reject a claim outright is not correct unless that claim is unreasonable and entirely unsupported, which most religious claims are.

[Michael K Gray]

I would never be part of anything with that name no matter what it was about.

FTB-style Hypocrisy, much?
Proud Slymepit poster you are being.
Echoes of unawareness, Sensing am I.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... a_SWSB.jpg

[JackSkeptic]

Walter recently requested we break up all the breeder talk with something "more gay".

.....

Walter sometimes reminds me of (sorry Walter):

[youtube]KrlzaBNgz-M[/youtube]

[Michael K Gray]

Oh, I never forget...NEVER!...

viewtopic.php?p=85095#p85095

Admit it.
You can still hear that rap beat to this very day.

In yo honor
in da korner
Like yo Homos
In the promos
Of da Slyyymepit
Or their Miiindest
Yo.
Get Down.

Yo.
Oolon Collective, Yo.
Its Ineffective, Youch.

Get down.
(Get back up again, or you won't be able to do the next bit)

Now, where are my glasses? I cannÓ• read the script while you are jiggling about wi' such a vigorous pounding so much Greg.
Lay orf for 30 minutes an' I'll ha'e this skript for the next 9 'Femonist' konferences right sorted.

(FTB's Cuntlefish aint got nuttin on me)

[AnonymousCowherd]

Steersman, your "shameless link" above led me to catch up at Katie's post at Canadian Atheist, where EBW has posted this tidbit:
http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... ment-27432

EllenBeth Wachs on June 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm said:

You don’t have to just believe me about them wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley. I have proof. I haven’t wanted to pull it out yet until they deny it.

So now "they" can neither confirm nor deny it. Win! Even if EBW has no such proof, surely Hensley's position is untenable. There is no way Lindsay can rely on her loyalty and, while that often happens in organisations, someone has to be doing the numbers and looking for the means to offer the other "the opportunity to explore other challenges" or whatever the current corpse speak is.

[Michael K Gray]

The truth of a claim is independent of belief. So while I can't claim what EBW said is true I can have a provisional belief and it is based on several factors, including the one you stated. The idea someone must reject a claim outright is not correct unless that claim is unreasonable and entirely unsupported, which most religious claims are.

Bayes pokes his nose in again.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Bayes.gif
Oh, and whilst we are 'at it', why are you unable to be significantly less prolix?
You seem to wear, as a badge of honour, unnecessary "circumlocution" to an alarming extent.

[Mykeru]

OKay everyone: Lighten up:

25 Funniest Five-Second Films Ever

[TheMudbrooker]

The truth of a claim is independent of belief. So while I can't claim what EBW said is true I can have a provisional belief and it is based on several factors, including the one you stated. The idea someone must reject a claim outright is not correct unless that claim is unreasonable and entirely unsupported, which most religious claims are.

Bayes pokes his nose in again.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Bayes.gif
Oh, and whilst we are 'at it', why are you unable to be significantly less prolix?
You seem to wear, as a badge of honour, unnecessary "circumlocution" to an alarming extent.

So says the Slypmepit's very own cutte rayte Physioproffe clonne.

[JAB]

In other news, WTF is it with bad poetry at FTB? First they let cuttlefish have a blog to post his drivel, then Yemini and her ecosexual garbage, now PZ-clone Chris Clarke has done it. The whole thing :

In Boring fields the suburbs grow
In Council houses row on row,
A cozy place; and in the sky
The plastic bags still bravely fly
Used once by urbanites below.
We paved the Dead. Short days ago
It lived, sank roots, let seedpods blow,
Ten thousand years, but bid goodbye
to Boring fields.
Dig up the squirrel with backhoe:
On us, the moneyed hands bestow
A coin, a handshake and school tie.
You’ll do no good to wonder why.
We shall not sleep till leaseholds grow
In Boring fields.

It has to do with some English minister made a comment about having to build on environmentally boring fields - from what I read, it seems like his comments are concerned with an increasing population and no room for housing, and having to decide where to build. Not sure of the backstory on it, but the fact is that something has to give if people need room for housing, even if we want to build something like Mega-City One's blocs (or Warhammer's Hives).

Still, the main point is...wtf is up with poetry? Are we going to see ads for Hemp shoes next?

And fuck he's desecrating a Canadian memorial poem to ww1 war dead.

In Flander's Fields by John McCrae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

[Michael K Gray]

So says the Slypmepit's very own cutte rayte Physioproffe clonne.

Oh dear.
The frightened utterly and complexly anonymous blowhards/cowards return to lamely fling their anti-intellectual baboon fÓ•ces toward those those public characters of whom they are envious.
You would fit in very well in Pharyngula.
And that INCLUDES YOU.
Who the fuck are you?
I mean: really?
I post by my real name, my real addrress, and yet you you have the fucking temerity to berate me behind your anonymous girly bhurka?

Fuck off.
Don' pretend to to lecture to me until you you have the gonads required to 'front me' in public.
OK, Guido?

[bovarchist]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.

So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

[Gumby]

Steersman, your "shameless link" above led me to catch up at Katie's post at Canadian Atheist, where EBW has posted this tidbit:
http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... ment-27432

EllenBeth Wachs on June 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm said:

You don’t have to just believe me about them wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley. I have proof. I haven’t wanted to pull it out yet until they deny it.

I am definitely looking forward to the day when EBW publishes that proof. The frantic scrambling and doubling down that it will surely produce will be gloriously entertaining.

[TheMudbrooker]

So says the Slypmepit's very own cutte rayte Physioproffe clonne.

Oh dear.
The frightened utterly and complexly anonymous blowhards/cowards return to lamely fling their anti-intellectual baboon fÓ•ces toward those those public characters of whom they are envious.
You would fit in very well in Pharyngula.
And that INCLUDES YOU.
Who the fuck are you?
I mean: really?
I post by my real name, my real addrress, and yet you you have the fucking temerity to berate me behind your anonymous girly bhurka?

Fuck off.
Don' pretend to to lecture to me until you you have the gonads required to 'front me' in public.
OK, Guido?

Please allow me to offer my deepest, most humble apologies for comparing you to Physioproffe. By declaring your vast superiority to those of us who operate under a 'nym you've shown that I am indeed incorrect in my assessment of you.

Turns out you're actually a cheap Ophelia Benson knockoff.

[Gumby]

OKay everyone: Lighten up:

25 Funniest Five-Second Films Ever

Some of those were actually quite funny. "Gettin' Laid" was a howler.

[Lsuoma]

Right - and he wants "to make Q&A a big part of" his presentation.

A session in which "Q&A" about Carrier's feminism is "a big part", but only approved/moderated questions, but presumably approved/moderated by someone other than Carrier if they're coming in live via chat. Imagine what questions the FtB commentariat might come up with for him. Or the answers he might give. Or not, in which case: the dead air. Recorded for posterity.

Well, considering he'd probably have to read the questions off himself, I'd be amazed if he simply didn't make up his own, to show off his intellectual brilliance.

In other news, WTF is it with bad poetry at FTB? First they let cuttlefish have a blog to post his drivel, then Yemini and her ecosexual garbage, now PZ-clone Chris Clarke has done it. The whole thing :

In Boring fields the suburbs grow
In Council houses row on row,
A cozy place; and in the sky
The plastic bags still bravely fly
Used once by urbanites below.
We paved the Dead. Short days ago
It lived, sank roots, let seedpods blow,
Ten thousand years, but bid goodbye
to Boring fields.
Dig up the squirrel with backhoe:
On us, the moneyed hands bestow
A coin, a handshake and school tie.
You’ll do no good to wonder why.
We shall not sleep till leaseholds grow
In Boring fields.

It has to do with some English minister made a comment about having to build on environmentally boring fields - from what I read, it seems like his comments are concerned with an increasing population and no room for housing, and having to decide where to build. Not sure of the backstory on it, but the fact is that something has to give if people need room for housing, even if we want to build something like Mega-City One's blocs (or Warhammer's Hives).

Still, the main point is...wtf is up with poetry? Are we going to see ads for Hemp shoes next?

It's a deliberate tour de force attempt at emulation of John Betjeman's Slough

[Ape+lust]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

[welch]

Hm. Reading back a bit on the discussion on paying for kids. I'm definitely against the idea of someone who is essentially a sperm donor being forced to pay for a child, or having any forced legal obligation there. I'm lucky as a woman I have more control of reproduction so that's unlikely to happen to me but if I was a man and someone attempted to do that to me, I'd exit the country and never return. I pay taxes so my government should be able to support children and single-parent families without forcing people to pay for children they don't want. It's worrying that it happens.

If you want to have sex and not have kids and are completely unwilling to pay for them should accidents happen, why should I have to pay for your fuckup? Or the rest of the taxpayers! It's great when a safety net exists, but I'd you seriously think living in a government orphanage or foster care system is some kind of good thing, you're either completely ignorant or willfully blind. Those things are last chances to keep people from starving, and even then, they barely function as that.

If you cannot or will not accept responsibility for your actions, don't take those actions. Also, at least in the US? Skipping the country won't do dick.

I have my own vested interest in this issue anyway - the twins I'm currently pregnant with are the result of a private donation. We have signed basic legal papers to make clear that the donor will absolutely *not* have any financial obligation, but I do know that sometimes this shit can go to court and even these pre-agreements won't help (particularly in other countries). For couples with infertility issues, it's incredibly important that people are allowed to make the choice to be a parent or not and that financial obligations are worked out early. I think it's a considerable risk to any couples looking at private donation if donors are not fully reassured that they can be a donor without the risk, later down the track, of getting caught up in a financial problem.

There is inequality in reproduction between the genders, and that's not going to change. But I think you can make it as fair as possible legally.

There is a world of difference between your situation, wherein everyone hashes out the details going in, both understanding and accepting their respective responsibilities and the whiny MGTOW/MRA shit of "I didn't want the kid, let the taxpayers have them"

[welch]

Yes, I kind of wondered about that. If she doesn't have the goods then her reputation is going to take a serious hit. And if she does then she really should just put those cards on the table.

Wanna play poker?
You sound like a natural with that bit of knowledgable advice.
AU$5,000 buy-in, maximum raise AU$1,000.
I expect that EBW might also 'want in on' the game as well, given the stellar sagacity of your advice to her, and the superiority of your 'wor(l)dly ways' over hers.

Come in spinner?

I was going to say, EBW is playing a fun game. Could bite her in the ass, could bite some other people in the ass. The question is, how badly do they want to force her hand?

[welch]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

"Waaaaaah, the mean man won't support my right to dump all my problems on other people, waaaaah"

[welch]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

Eh. I just think that we should expect better from our government and our society. If we can't trust our government to look after our children that's the problem, and it isn't really getting solved by forcing people to financially support children they never intended or wanted to have. It's just another form of punishing people for having sex.

Separate issue, and I mostly agree. However, even if the various foster care systems weren't as bad as they are, the idea that "oh, this child is inconvenient for me, I shall let everyone else but me take responsibility and care for them" would still be bullshit writ large. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay.

[welch]

<snip>
That’s a little rich for my blood so I’ll pass at those table stakes.

However, considering that you apparently have much higher standards and more knowledge of the arcana of poker on which to base your criticism of my assessment, maybe you would care to explain how that statement of hers doesn’t qualify as a potential bluff or as a bet which the other “team” has to match or fold. Or, to mix metaphors, as having let the cat out of the bag.

Because when you're bluffing, you should put your cards out on the table to prove that you're not bluffing. Before even being called on it? I'm struggling to follow your logic here Steersman.

Not having played all that much poker, I’m winging it a little. But my impression of a bluff is to state you’re holding cards that you don’t actually have:

By extension, the term is often used outside the context of poker to describe the act of making threats one cannot execute.

In EBW’s case, if that is in fact a bluff and she doesn’t have that proof then, as I said, I think her reputation will suffer. And that was why I said a “potential” bluff. But if she does – which is, I think, the more likely case – then that is the smoking gun, the winning hand which I think she should lay out for all to see.

But that charge of trying to get Lindsay fired seems to have first shown up in the Skeptic Woman [SW] petition which someone else responded to here:

We are aware of a campaign, headed by Amanda Marcotte and others, to remove Ronald A. Lindsay from his position as CEO of the Center for Inquiry. We do not support this effort.

Where? Where has anybody, Amanda Marcotte or otherwise, lead a “campaign” for Ron Lindsay to be fired? Everybody I have read has asked for an apology, either from him or on his behalf.

Although I suppose one might quibble over the connotations of getting Lindsay fired versus “wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley”. Or it might be quite significant.

You really have no concept of fun. The fun is letting your opponent, so sure you don't have the other two aces, over extend themselves, maybe even talking a bunch of shit first. Your way just ends the hand. Where's the fun in that. If EBW really does have solid evidence, waiting for Hensley et all to talk a bunch of shit about her first, then laying down the cards isn't just a win, it's a beatdown.

Sometimes, you don't want just to win.

[welch]

<blah blah blah from FtB re FtBcon>

I'm for ignoring the entire fucking thing. You know what it will be, so why waste the effort. They'll put up transcripts for the more masochistic, but fuck, unless they devote a session to how big an asshole I am, all it's going to be is the spoken word version of their written idiocy. So stupid, only slower. Fuck that.

and if they ARE doing a session on how big an asshole I am, I hope I can review the notes, they'll probably miss some important bits.

I think it's an interesting idea. Misses out on several of the high points of attending a conference in-person, but on the flip side is more available to more people at much lower cost (costs including $, time, even CO2).

I'll be interested to see how they do with it, and that the content will be recorded for posterity as it occurs - including, potentially, people speaking on topics they have little to no background in (which seems to happen more than infrequently around them, but the audience is usually relatively small, limited in ability to fact-check real-time, & the online version doesn't come out for weeks).

Interested, too, to get a sense of how they're moderating he Q&A and how they handle the inevitable difficult or challenging questions, the people who go off-script, etc.

The fact check issue will be huge I think. They often spout nonsense (Watson in her Evo Psyc talk)and there can now be timely responses. Also I often criticise them for not 'getting a cam' and doing meets online rather than wasting money and spewing Co2 so I credit them for having a go at it.

My main issue is it will be extremely boring. Unreliable data, cherry picking and personal anecdotes given as fact to back up their beliefs. There will be nothing new. The only hope of any interesting conversation may be from some outside of FtB who are capable of rational discussion without getting into a fit of wobbly rage every time someone disagrees with them on their core beliefs.

And a big chunk of it being how much we suck.

[Ape+lust]

EllenBeth Wachs on June 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm said:

You don’t have to just believe me about them wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley. I have proof. I haven’t wanted to pull it out yet until they deny it.

I am definitely looking forward to the day when EBW publishes that proof. The frantic scrambling and doubling down that it will surely produce will be gloriously entertaining.

Yeah, it'll be fun, but I don't expect scrambling from Zvan. She'll post one her lumbering doorstops explaining evidence isn't evidence and the very words she just wrote don't mean what they mean. Methodically cold-blooded, that one. Some hellhole dictator is missing the press secretary he should've had.

[welch]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

"We'll drop you, but don't stop sending us money. We're completely incapable of functioning in the real world."

What a fucking idiot.

[ERV]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference.

They suck at naaaaaaaames.

A† theism

FTB Con Science

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

[welch]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference.

They suck at naaaaaaaames.

A† theism

FTB Con Science

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Because one of them read a book on marketing once. Probably some of the tripe Seth godin puts out.

[Ape+lust]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference.

They suck at naaaaaaaames.

A† theism

FTB Con Science

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Looks like Spanglish. Like they're doing science for a change.

[Mykeru]

OKay everyone: Lighten up:

25 Funniest Five-Second Films Ever

Some of those were actually quite funny. "Gettin' Laid" was a howler.

Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I like the fast and dirty bait and switch of The Banishment and The Slip, for example.

[Tribble]

<snip>
So, presumably, one could quite reasonably argue that PZ and the rest of the Horde now view “slut” as a sexist slur that “hits everyone in the group women” and is therefore misogynistic. But the point is that that standard is the result of some relatively recent revelation on PZ’s road to Damascus, and not one that he held at the time of that “slut” joke. And for you and others to be trying to hold him to that standard – to rake him over the coals for that specific transgression – is a case of “applying new laws retroactively”. Not at all cricket – at least in my view.

<snip>
There's no road to Damascus conversion because he's a lifelong convert.
According to him.
So no benefit of the doubt from me.
Do you have any quotes from PZ where he admits to using misogynistic slurs in the past and says he has now changed?

That looks like a case of moving the goalposts, of grasing at straws there Dick. So to speak. You’re a better man than that – Gunga Din. :-)

Throw stones at him if you wish that he doesn’t engage in some public self-flagellation as atonement for not being sufficiently enlightened at the time of that joke. Although I don’t see any crime of misogyny there, only a joke turning on the meaning of a word. But judging him on that lack of past enlightenment – something that most of us are probably guilty of, with the possible exception of welch – seems rather different from judging him on the transgression of a law, regardless of how questionable if not flaky it is, that he hadn’t accepted, articulated, defined, or committed himself to until well after the supposed crime itself.

I was a complete idiot in my 20s. Fuck, i'm probably still one now. But that's not what people are pissed at PeeZus about, and you well know this. I sometimes wonder if you've ever actually seen a forest, or is it naught but vaguely organized cells and molecules to you, with the overall purpose being something you simply cannot grasp, because you're 300meters BELOW the weeds.

He's being deliberatly obtuse. It was like when the younger daughter decided she didn't have to clean up her toys 'because her hands were too small.'

In a bit of logic I pointed out that she made the mess with those very same hands and, therefore, if they were big enough to make the mess, they were big to clean up the mess...

But arguing with logic against three-year-old who is bound and determined to have 'too small hands' is pointless. Her hands were still 'too small.'

It was like this: [youtube][/youtube] Only cleaning up, not cookies...

[JackSkeptic]

EllenBeth Wachs on June 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm said:

You don’t have to just believe me about them wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley. I have proof. I haven’t wanted to pull it out yet until they deny it.

I am definitely looking forward to the day when EBW publishes that proof. The frantic scrambling and doubling down that it will surely produce will be gloriously entertaining.

Yeah, it'll be fun, but I don't expect scrambling from Zvan. She'll post one her lumbering doorstops explaining evidence isn't evidence and the very words she just wrote don't mean what they mean. Methodically cold-blooded, that one. Some hellhole dictator is missing the press secretary he should've had.

She'll also do a blog titled 'Is it ever write to disclose information given in confidence?' with the full knowledge everyone will say 'no'.

[JackSkeptic]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference.

They suck at naaaaaaaames.

A† theism

FTB Con Science

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

They don't get irony.

[codelette]

FtBConscience , what a horrible name for any conference.

They suck at naaaaaaaames.

A† theism

FTB Con Science

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Looks like Spanglish. Like they're doing science for a change.

FTBCONCarne?

Lol!!!

[ReneeHendricks]

I would never be part of anything with that name no matter what it was about.

FTB-style Hypocrisy, much?
Proud Slymepit poster you are being.
Echoes of unawareness, Sensing am I.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... a_SWSB.jpg

ROFL! I just spit energy drink *everywhere*! I hear Yoda's voice in my head now. Damn you, MKG!!

[JackSkeptic]

Silverman:

'But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication...'

'We strive for equality, not advantage...'

I don't think Silverman has got to grips with what is going on.

[welch]

Silverman:

'But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication...'

'We strive for equality, not advantage...'

I don't think Silverman has got to grips with what is going on.

The equality of women behaving properly, and if they won't, fuck those bitches.

[Cunt of Personality]

They don't get irony.

Which is, given the amount of ironic humour that they generate, somewhat ironic.

[Ape+lust]

Silverman:

'But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication...'

'We strive for equality, not advantage...'

I don't think Silverman has got to grips with what is going on.

He'd better have a good grip on his office furniture, because some people are probably thinking a blue-haired president would be good for diversity.

[LurkerPerson]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

Eh. I just think that we should expect better from our government and our society. If we can't trust our government to look after our children that's the problem, and it isn't really getting solved by forcing people to financially support children they never intended or wanted to have. It's just another form of punishing people for having sex.

Separate issue, and I mostly agree. However, even if the various foster care systems weren't as bad as they are, the idea that "oh, this child is inconvenient for me, I shall let everyone else but me take responsibility and care for them" would still be bullshit writ large. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay.

It's more "this child is inconvenient for me, and I had absolutely no choice in the matter, as opposed to the other party who quite clearly did". So much fucking irony. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay indeed. I'm going to start saying that to women with unwanted pregnancies. You wanna keep the kid? Own up to the consequences. If the father is willing to pitch in, fucking great for you. He isn't, or doesn't have the capacity/maturity for it? Well shit, maybe you should have been more careful who you fucked. It's clearly "slut shaming" and "sexism", at least when aimed at one sex. It's apparently just deserts when aimed at the other one.

But fuck it, this is just going around and around now, and we're clearly not going to agree. So go fuck yourself, or your significant other. Make sure to use a condom.

[JackSkeptic]

Lsuoma, is there any way I can change my user name here to JackSkeptic? Thanks oh great leader and person of extreme benevolence.

[mikelf]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

[LurkerPerson]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey, just a quick heads up - we're doing Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes today at 9 am PDT and EllenBeth Wachs is our guest today. Feel free to join in and call and shit :D http://t.co/iHePU17DWs

[ReneeHendricks]

This is why I don't type too much in the mornings. Please don't come and shit on BTR :D

[ReneeHendricks]

Oh, and Skeptickle is a co-host :D Back to your regularly programmed 'pit mayhem.

[Ape+lust]

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

Wrong move, if that's what he's doing. Imagine if someone like Nerd of Redhead files an amicus brief. Silverman won't just lose, he'll get deported as an enemy of the state.

[codelette]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

After the events this past few days (AJ Jonhson's lawsuit and Silverman's reply); I daresay this interview is more damage control.
I expect the depositions from that case are going to be way more interesting than Paula Deen's case.

[codelette]

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

Damn right, he is!

[JackSkeptic]

Oh, and Skeptickle is a co-host :D Back to your regularly programmed 'pit mayhem.

I'll definitely be listening but maybe not when live.

[Ape+lust]

After the events this past few days (AJ Jonhson's lawsuit and Silverman's reply); I daresay this interview is more damage control.
I expect the depositions from that case are going to be way more interesting than Paula Deen's case.

He's certainly spinning and blowing smoke signals. That NARAL button screams, "trying way too hard."