Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Percentage]

Benson's most recent is 8% original content.

The woman is a genius- her work/exposure ratio is off the charts.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

With no comment at all about her body (though I would not chastise anyone who did make comments about it, as she has publically displayed it in a post telling the world how little she cares for it): that trampstamp is fucking hideous, and looks cheap as fuck. Is it really a strawberry with a crown on?

[JackSkeptic]

Benson's most recent is 8% original content.

The woman is a genius- her work/exposure ratio is off the charts.

When someone like Nugent gives you a free lunch no need for effort.

I hope he is ready for their visit at the conference in Ireland. Grovelling will be the order of the day. There is no way she is ever going to let it go.

[codelette]

that trampstamp is fucking hideous, and looks cheap as fuck. Is it really a strawberry with a crown on?

Sacred Heart, i believe

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I am literally LOLing. THIS IS FUCKING HILARIOUS.

Nerd of Redhead on Meyers's blog thinks he's one of the feminist in-crowd, just because he attacks anyone who dares to ask a female commenter to back up her claims. So, he's really gone for the whole xe/xir thing, because he thinks using these non-gendered pronouns makes him a feminist. Check out the word he's made up himself, though:

Yawn, xrod still not getting it. Xe keeps thinking xis inane opinion is meaningful to us. Not until it shows us xe can think with empathy for a three year old girl.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! He obviously thinks that the commenter is a male, but knows that he has to be gender neutral until they declare it themselves. So he makes up "xis", which is just "his" with an "x" on the front. The whole point of "xe" and "xir" is that it combines the male/female pronouns into a non-gendered mix, but this cunt is so fucking stupid he can't learn two fucking new words, and cannot suppress his subconscious sufficiently to come up with anything better than "xis".

Oh, fuck, I am aching from laughter. I love Nerd.

[Percentage]

My reaction to Elyse's pictures? Meh. That's pretty much exactly how I'd someone who recently lost a lot of weight to look. As someone who has suffered from body image issues, this shit really is 95% in your head.

[welch]

I don't have a problem with the idea that sexism in video games is real, and that it should be considered in a serious, rational manner. But Sarkeesian's book report has effectively fucked that up for the next few years, and THAT is what pisses me off.

I don't see how that's possible - she's not even done with it. Also, she references a bajillion games in her first video. But what is good about it is that it is like a book report. Instead of talking about how she feels for 20 minutes followed by a brief snippet of a game, she presents lots of games and lots of facts and very little personal opinion.

SOURCES are not ANALYSIS. That was literally parroting facts. I can get 100% of the "content" she delivered in ten minutes or so on wikipedia.

THAT is what 160K gets? and yes, I am in fact, bizarrely, basing my opinion of the series on what i have seen of said series. Were she to suddenly provide ACTUAL ANALYSIS, then I would in fact change my fucking opinion.

Do you actually understand what the difference is between analysis and blind regurgitation?

No, apparently I don't. She clearly throws in a few opinions, but emphasis on few. "I could get this off of Wikipedia," may be true. You can get many things from other sources. Is it packaged as cleanly as on her video? Probably not. It's like arguing that evolution textbooks are garbage because you could just read the primary sources. Again, you aren't required to like it. But good criticism isn't based solely on your personal opinion. If you took someone who knew nothing about video games or video game cliches, would this be a helpful video? Yes, I think.

Helpful for what? A deeper understanding of the trope? No, she barely talks about the trope in and of itself at all. A deeper understanding of how it's used in video games? If by "deeper" you mean "more than not knowing anything at all", then yes. But you could attain the same level of understanding by:

1) Playing some mario and zelda games, (a far more enjoyable way to spend one's time)
2) HAVING A FUNCTIONING FUCKING BRAIN

And you keep missing the point in what I must now assume are deliberate attempts to ignore them. Getting information from other sources is not bad. In fact, it's a rather important part of anything. But it is what you DO with the information that matters. If all you do is regurgitate it with nothing original added, then change your name to ophelia benson and party the fuck on.

Literally, what she did is what Benson does.

1) Do a quick google search to find things of use
2) Copypasta them into your medium of choice with just barely enough original material to not violate copyright
3) ???
4) PROFIT

There is nothing, nothing whatsoever in that video that I needed Anita Sarkeesian for. I reproduced almost her entire history of the damsel in distress without trying. I clearly know more about the Zelda franchise than she does, and while I am not a Mario fan, my son, who is, reminded me of the Paper Mario series in which Peach does more than just sit on her ass helplessly. In fact, in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, he pointed out, Peach damned near frees herself, and through the entire game, is rather subverting the machinations of her captors. She is not helplessly doing nothing waiting to be collected.

But according to Sarkessian, she's helpless except in one (two actually) games and those aren't a part of the core Mario series. Oh, except for that other game. That is a part of the Mario series. That she left out.

I guess when she bought all those video games, she forgot the some that are a core part of her main points in her first video. OOPS.

So she's not even taken the time for a deep understanding of the two central pillars of the thesis of the first fucking video.

Other than decent production values, what, in those two videos, does *Anita Sarkeesian* bring to the table that would be hard to get somewhere else in short order.

This isn't about her sources. Every scientist since Og decided to test which kind of stick works best against skulls rather than just using the brown one on the ground has used someone else's work as a source. But they put their OWN work into it and bring something NEW to the table, thereby advancing the field. Microsoft didn't create the IDE, but they have done a lot of work into making Visual Studio one hell of an environment. They took the original source work of others and brought something new and unique to it. You may not like VS, but it is definitely not just the gcc toolchain with a different logo.

Sexism and gender issues/roles in video games is actually a field that should be studied. But what sarkeesian has done to date does NOTHING to further any of that.

Again, what does *Anita Sarkeesian* do beyond regurgitation (and rather incompetently mind you) of google results?

[welch]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange...

... Since I have spent the last two months with this brain modeling among my primary interests, the act of bringing it into reality made me get emotionally sensitive about it in weird ways…

I can sympathise. I'm just finishing my thesis on brain modelling and I'm feeling pretty emotionally sensitive about it at the moment.

Me too. But man between the glue and the paint fumes, I'm so fucking wasted.

[welch]

Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A. I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

So Mario was popular because he was a fat italian guy, or because it was the best platforming game to come out at that time.

Back then, with small teams making these games, 95% of the effort went into gameplay, graphics and level design. You can see it start to branch out in the 90s as there was more competition then.

Stating nintendo games in the mid-late 80s were popular is like saying a lot of people went to see the first movies. OK, and? Was it actually about the message in the movies or was it about the fact that there were now "moving" pictures? Early games were about the technology and figuring out what gameplay was popular, couple that with 95% of developers being male(who would shocking make the characters male) and there you go. Let's see, spend a lot of billable hours working on a story, or shoehorn old fable involving princess in tower guarded by dragon as story, hire 3 less people... sounds good!

I totally agree. This isn't about judging people who made videogames in the 80's. OTOH, it is 2013. Mario games still don't have playable women characters, so there is time to think about why this is.

Ah, so now it's about playable woman characters. That's kind of different.

[welch]

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

I love you SO HARD right now.

[decius]

Games now is it? Yes...

I noticed myself that white gets to move first in Chess, perhaps someone should link that to a piece on game rules as subliminal inculcation of white supremacy along with Cludeo which of course has Dr Black murdered by a gang of power elite phallocrats. Playing cards are the worst, a quarter of them use the racially offensive description of "spades".

I think I get it now. Essentially what you do is find some part of society and examine it until you can find something in that which can be used as further evidence that culture is biased against [add your own grievance]. It doesn't really matter that is makes no real sense, there is an audience for it. The mechanics of it seem to be exactly the same as every other conspiracy theory and post-modern meta-fictional narrative. Start with a theory or plot and weave a tapestry of "facts" in with the conjecture to make it sound plausible.

A lot of this seems to be akin to the antagonists of Borges' "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". It makes sense, if some can have The Bible and others "Atlas Shrugged", some might have "Das Kapital" or "Principia Discordia" or "Nineteen Eighty-Four" as their blueprint to Utopia, it would seem obvious post-modernists would be inspired by a text that mocks their intellectual hubris whilst being oblivious to that meaning.

Very well put.

[welch]

fuck punctuation i go ee cummings from now

Hehe. You said 'cum'.

heheheh...so did you...heheheheh

[welch]

True, though in Sarkeesian's defense, her first video was not about sexism in videogames but about the history of the damsel in distress trope. Her second video promises to address a point you brought up - how are things now for this trope? OTOH the great thing about something that is good is that people can take multiple things away from it. No doubt Phayngula will take away that Nintendo has a plot to destroy women, while people with brains may take away something else entirely. It is interesting to see how videogames reflect what companies think we want to buy and play.

Damsel in Distress -- Be warned, TVTropes ruins your life.

add some screen caps, and you'll have equaled what it cost sarkeesian 160K to make.

[decius]

Fantastic stuff, Jan.

[Southern]

Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A. I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

So Mario was popular because he was a fat italian guy, or because it was the best platforming game to come out at that time.

Back then, with small teams making these games, 95% of the effort went into gameplay, graphics and level design. You can see it start to branch out in the 90s as there was more competition then.

Stating nintendo games in the mid-late 80s were popular is like saying a lot of people went to see the first movies. OK, and? Was it actually about the message in the movies or was it about the fact that there were now "moving" pictures? Early games were about the technology and figuring out what gameplay was popular, couple that with 95% of developers being male(who would shocking make the characters male) and there you go. Let's see, spend a lot of billable hours working on a story, or shoehorn old fable involving princess in tower guarded by dragon as story, hire 3 less people... sounds good!

I totally agree. This isn't about judging people who made videogames in the 80's. OTOH, it is 2013. Mario games still don't have playable women characters, so there is time to think about why this is.

So every series of games should have a female protagonist now?

[welch]

Re: Sarkeesian's video...

It was a decent demonstration of a trope that is in some games. That's about it.

Up front-I'm not a fan of hers, mainly because I think that feminism in western society is largely a load of horseshit to start with, and because I've already sensed a bit of manipulation and dishonesty in her previous stuff. For example, her tendency toward Watson/FTB style media manipulation, like how she never allows comments on her videos, and rarely if ever responds to legitimate criticism, but allowed all the trolls to troll up her fundraising video to demonstrate the horrible oppressiveness of internet culture. Cha-Ching! Here's $150,000, you poor, poor victim! She obviously buys into just about every feminist trope there is, and truly believes that women are some kind of victim class in the west. Therefore, I already doubt I'll find much of value in her opinions, but I'm willing to be wrong.

I'm with Welch in that I wouldn't mind seeing some actual analysis of video games and game culture, but I don't expect to agree with much. If she's gone to the effort to point out the trope, she must consider it a problem worth confronting....but why? Seriously, how does the Mario games being short on female lead characters hurt anyone? There have been plenty of gender-neutral games since the Atari 2600, and there have been female lead characters ever since the graphics were good enough to represent a female without it just being a blurry caricature of tits. There are games that pander to supposedly "feminine" values, instead of violence and action. There may still not be full gender parity in all aspects of video games, but why is complete parity a requirement? Most female gamers I know want some good female lead characters, and that's about it. None of them want anything more feminist than that, as far as I've seen. They don't take games for real life anymore than they take action movies for real life. I would rather see some analysis of why she thinks a few tropes are a problem in so wide a market. Some video game designers chose to utilize simple, centuries-old storylines that are still popular.....so the fuck what? Show me that some harm is actually being done, and I might give a fuck. I'm also of the opinion that the wider acceptance of video game culture will lead to market solutions that will be faster and more effective than anything that activist analysis can accomplish.

Anyway, I'll give her future videos in the series an honest shot, but based on past content, I'm not expecting to be impressed.

Personally, I'd like to see more female villains, but unless they are portrayed as fully fleshed-out characters and sensitive, tragic anti-heroes, I doubt many feminists would be thrilled about THAT particular gender parity (although my SO would love it).

Ironically, if you want to see a game with well-developed characters, check out Zelda Twilight Princess. Multiple major female characters, including one you literally cannot survive without, and a sense that the world is quite able to survive without you. Midna and Zelda both are rather a lot more than a 'prize'. It's the first zelda game I really enjoyed playing, because it was a really excellent story. (The baby who runs an aggressive, almost mafia-like crushing of the weapons market in CastleTown so that he can take it over is awesome, and kind of scary.)

It's a shame skyward sword was so bad, although even there, Zelda is not a helpless victim. But I guess Sarkesian was too busy reading TV Tropes to notice the evolution of that game.

[welch]

Scenario: You offer to do a job for $6000. The internet gives you $160,000.

Do you:

a) Say "thanks very much i'll make a slightly improved version of what I was going to do anyway".
b) Say "this is ridiculous, i'll return your money" and forget the entire thing.
c) Say "oh well, now I have money i'll just do something completely different".

If you didn't choose a) you are mental.

For 160K, I would have spent some real time getting good research help from FSU and FAMU, and I would have liveblogged along the way so people could see what was up. You could have even done a great survey (or ten) that was properly constructed and analyzed to help show how people who play games and are not me view things.

You know, if I was doing more than the world's most profitable book report.

[welch]

I want to talk to you about how you talk to me about how I talk about my body, and how I talk about how I feel about my body, and what’s wrong with everything you have to say about what I have to say.

In short, fuck you.

I don’t love my body. My body is awful. I will never love my body. I never have. And I’m 35 and maybe you think that’s too old to have real hang ups about my body. But I do. And I always will. And maybe you think that because I’ve lost a bunch of weight I should feel great about my body. But I don’t. And I won’t.

Dear Elyse, I don't know why you want to talk to me about this, but I can assure you I have never talked to you about how you talk about your body, and I never even gave your body a single thought until you wrote this rant and posted all those awful pictures of your awful body. In short, fuck you, too.

http://skepchick.org/2013/03/dont-tell- ... e-my-body/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363111576IGFKWRYYLD

Dear Elyse, Dr. Cox may have one thing to teach you about hating your body:

o_HAXan1wSQ

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

Then to top it off she self describes as:

Elyse MoFo Anders is the bad ass behind the Women Thinking, inc and the superhero in charge of the Hug Me! I'm Vaccinated campaign as well as a podcaster, writer, and slacktivist extraordinaire. You probably think she's awesome so you follow her on twitter.

Quite apart from being a legend in her own mind, I would say she is bad news for everyone around her, starting with herself.

The more someone calls themselves a badass, the less they are.

[Karmakin]

Re: Sarkeesian's video...

It was a decent demonstration of a trope that is in some games. That's about it.

Up front-I'm not a fan of hers, mainly because I think that feminism in western society is largely a load of horseshit to start with, and because I've already sensed a bit of manipulation and dishonesty in her previous stuff. For example, her tendency toward Watson/FTB style media manipulation, like how she never allows comments on her videos, and rarely if ever responds to legitimate criticism, but allowed all the trolls to troll up her fundraising video to demonstrate the horrible oppressiveness of internet culture. Cha-Ching! Here's $150,000, you poor, poor victim! She obviously buys into just about every feminist trope there is, and truly believes that women are some kind of victim class in the west. Therefore, I already doubt I'll find much of value in her opinions, but I'm willing to be wrong.

I'm with Welch in that I wouldn't mind seeing some actual analysis of video games and game culture, but I don't expect to agree with much. If she's gone to the effort to point out the trope, she must consider it a problem worth confronting....but why? Seriously, how does the Mario games being short on female lead characters hurt anyone? There have been plenty of gender-neutral games since the Atari 2600, and there have been female lead characters ever since the graphics were good enough to represent a female without it just being a blurry caricature of tits. There are games that pander to supposedly "feminine" values, instead of violence and action. There may still not be full gender parity in all aspects of video games, but why is complete parity a requirement? Most female gamers I know want some good female lead characters, and that's about it. None of them want anything more feminist than that, as far as I've seen. They don't take games for real life anymore than they take action movies for real life. I would rather see some analysis of why she thinks a few tropes are a problem in so wide a market. Some video game designers chose to utilize simple, centuries-old storylines that are still popular.....so the fuck what? Show me that some harm is actually being done, and I might give a fuck. I'm also of the opinion that the wider acceptance of video game culture will lead to market solutions that will be faster and more effective than anything that activist analysis can accomplish.

Anyway, I'll give her future videos in the series an honest shot, but based on past content, I'm not expecting to be impressed.

Personally, I'd like to see more female villains, but unless they are portrayed as fully fleshed-out characters and sensitive, tragic anti-heroes, I doubt many feminists would be thrilled about THAT particular gender parity (although my SO would love it).

Ironically, if you want to see a game with well-developed characters, check out Zelda Twilight Princess. Multiple major female characters, including one you literally cannot survive without, and a sense that the world is quite able to survive without you. Midna and Zelda both are rather a lot more than a 'prize'. It's the first zelda game I really enjoyed playing, because it was a really excellent story. (The baby who runs an aggressive, almost mafia-like crushing of the weapons market in CastleTown so that he can take it over is awesome, and kind of scary.)

It's a shame skyward sword was so bad, although even there, Zelda is not a helpless victim. But I guess Sarkesian was too busy reading TV Tropes to notice the evolution of that game.

The problem isn't even just the desire for parity...it's the desire for immediate parity..and that's not to say that we can even really define what parity would actually look like anyway.

In any case, the biggest change in this trope in particular most certain comes with the fact that game stories and characters have become more complex and multi-faceted since the medium started. As Welch mentioned, the way that Zelda was portrayed in the later LoZ games is entirely different than how she was portrayed in the earlier ones. You don't really see this particular trope used very often, and very rarely is an entire game based around it, as what is used to be the case. And generally the context is entirely different.

There's actually a lot more into the trope you can go in to...the concept of the "Damsel" who is an open prize to anybody is entirely different than the idea of the Damsel who is someone who is already connected to the protagonist. It's actually a much more complicated subject than one could possibly hope to go into in a YouTube video...it deserves a written format with plenty of links and footnotes.

[Submariner]

So every series of games should have a female protagonist now?

Yes, that's the only way to make completely non-sexist video games.

[welch]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

Yeh, no one 'does it to themselves' unless they are on heavy drug use or something. As to he self imagine its a shame but if talking about it helps then good. I'm no looker but I overcome it by ignoring it and pretending to myself I'm the best thing since sliced bread. We all have ways of coping. It's easy for me as I'm generally confident, for others it will be tough.

we all handle our shortcomings differently. I would rather not be overweight. On the other hand, I'm doing large sets of leg presses at 330lbs, and can max a bench press at close to 200lbs. Not huge, but for me, a real improvement over where I was two years ago. I haven't been able to find a local martial arts school I like, (i'm picky about the vibe from the school based on semi-professional experience), but when I do, I'll add that in.

Even if I *never* look down and see a six-pack, I also don't look in the mirror and see someone who's out of shape and *never tries to make it better*. In fact, i'm glad that I'm NOT chasing a definite goal. It keeps me working to be a little better than the last time. That's my goal every day. To move just a little bit past where I was yesterday. Which, when most of the people I work out with are half, or less than half my age, can occasionally be pretty cool. Like when I'm doing a standing jump onto a 3' or taller box and they're acting like it's impossible.

Hey, if the fat old man just did it, so can your young skinny ass.

I may never be completely happy with my physical appearance, but fuck, I do what I can to improve it, and try to be gracious with myself when I fail or backslide.

As long as I know i'm at least doing something beyond sitting on my ass and crying at the unfairness of the universe for not giving me the perfect body out of the box, then the stuff that maybe takes longer to fix isn't such a big deal.

[welch]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

I don't see the serious abuse either.
Isn't she recovering from cancer treatment? She looks awesome for a cancer patient. Sure, she doesn't look like a youngster, but she does look her age.

am I the only one with no idea what that post is trying to say other than "stop telling me to feel good about myself"???

[Submariner]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

I don't see the serious abuse either.
Isn't she recovering from cancer treatment? She looks awesome for a cancer patient. Sure, she doesn't look like a youngster, but she does look her age.

am I the only one with no idea what that post is trying to say other than "stop telling me to feel good about myself"???

No.

[Skep tickle]

No, really, Tigzy's latest offering is a work of marvel (haha). If this whole mess were just a battle of wit and humour, that panel would win the war. I don't usually find photoshops posted here extremely funny (save Jan and Skep Tickle) but really. Ali is looking at me in a weird way as i'm still laughing out loud.

Well played, Tigzy!

What's extremely funny (besides Jan's creations) is that I don't photoshop. :lol:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

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

I love you SO HARD right now.

Rapist.

[Patrick]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

Yeh, no one 'does it to themselves' unless they are on heavy drug use or something. As to he self imagine its a shame but if talking about it helps then good. I'm no looker but I overcome it by ignoring it and pretending to myself I'm the best thing since sliced bread. We all have ways of coping. It's easy for me as I'm generally confident, for others it will be tough.

we all handle our shortcomings differently. I would rather not be overweight. On the other hand, I'm doing large sets of leg presses at 330lbs, and can max a bench press at close to 200lbs. Not huge, but for me, a real improvement over where I was two years ago. I haven't been able to find a local martial arts school I like, (i'm picky about the vibe from the school based on semi-professional experience), but when I do, I'll add that in.

Even if I *never* look down and see a six-pack, I also don't look in the mirror and see someone who's out of shape and *never tries to make it better*. In fact, i'm glad that I'm NOT chasing a definite goal. It keeps me working to be a little better than the last time. That's my goal every day. To move just a little bit past where I was yesterday. Which, when most of the people I work out with are half, or less than half my age, can occasionally be pretty cool. Like when I'm doing a standing jump onto a 3' or taller box and they're acting like it's impossible.

Hey, if the fat old man just did it, so can your young skinny ass.

I may never be completely happy with my physical appearance, but fuck, I do what I can to improve it, and try to be gracious with myself when I fail or backslide.

As long as I know i'm at least doing something beyond sitting on my ass and crying at the unfairness of the universe for not giving me the perfect body out of the box, then the stuff that maybe takes longer to fix isn't such a big deal.

One more rep. Five more pounds on the bar. Come back tomorrow and do it again.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--7Lc ... 120_n.jpeg

[Steersman]

The whole tribalism discussion is a total distractor and a waste of time, the same as the arguments about who is the most moral.

I agree, it's just a smokescreen. The "dialogue" threads always seem to attract those FTB defenders who don't believe in dialogue and insist in repeating that over and over. But the problem with trying to discuss ideas at this point is that the well has been poisoned, filled in and cemented over.

Don’t think I can really agree with that, at least the first part. Seems to me that one of the primary criticisms that “we” have – though it is not the only thing that unites this “tribe” – of FTB and company is they tend to be problematically prone to group-think. And while I think Chas has a bit of bias on the question – I see that you’ve also noticed that he has recently flounced from that discussion on Nugent’s post – I also think he has some justification in suggesting that there is some evidence of that here.

I already addressed this over there- it's not that tribalism doesn't exist, it's that accusing others of tribalism is a non-starter (especially if one is a participant in the argument at the same time).

But why is it a “non-starter”? Because it’s not really a problem? Or because those doing the accusing tend to be more or less guilty of it as well? Seems to me that the best way of getting over that hurdle is to concede the point at the outset that both pot and kettle are rather blackish, and quibble later over which is the blacker of the two.

Where I think Chas goes off the rails is in not being cognizant of some significant differences: group-think as an opinion imposed on slaves versus autonomous individuals thinking and reaching the same conclusion even if that might be based on common premises, particularly if those are open to review rather than being seen as infallible dogma.

But nearly everyone would say that the other side is engaging in groupthink and that they themselves are the individual thinkers. Better to focus on more specific complaints, IMO.

Yes, I certainly agree with the first part as there seems to be quite a bit of evidence of that. But on the “more specific complaints” part I think that one of Michael Nugent’s “25 next steps” is particularly relevant:

Try to approach each issue on its merits, rather than on the basis of which side you think the person is on.

Seems to me that it is rather difficult to “focus on more specific complaints” when many people – on both sides of these “rifts” – seem to have their thumbs on the scales, when they have an in-built bias to judge an issue, not “on its merits”, but on the side presenting it – largely a manifestation of groupthink and tribalism. I would say that “Job One” is to first get over that particular hurdle together. Although "Job Zero" might be to list those "specific complaints", the first of which might be "not approaching each issue on its merits" ….

[Aneris]

A side note about a side bar. I noticed on FfTB's sidebar the name Natalie Reed and remember where PZ made a big story how she was harassed out of the movement by, when I remember correctly YOU (yes, you personally, Slymepitter). It was probably the first time I heard about you guys and found it weird how PZ can be sure, given the internet, free-roaming trolls etc. I remember that I didn't buy his version back then as she wrote herself that there were multipe reasons, including other interests and priorities. Now I see the name again, current article. Same with the Zvan. I also thought she was packing up, but she seems to be frolicking on her blog as usual. Now, I could care less. I'm more wondering was this is about, and it annoys me somewhat that their pseudo-flounce-off always merited a drama story and was presented as "proof" how terrible the community (outside of FfTB) was to them.

[Zenspace]

A side note about a side bar. I noticed on FfTB's sidebar the name Natalie Reed and remember where PZ made a big story how she was harassed out of the movement by, when I remember correctly YOU (yes, you personally, Slymepitter). It was probably the first time I heard about you guys and found it weird how PZ can be sure, given the internet, free-roaming trolls etc. I remember that I didn't buy his version back then as she wrote herself that there were multipe reasons, including other interests and priorities. Now I see the name again, current article. Same with the Zvan. I also thought she was packing up, but she seems to be frolicking on her blog as usual. Now, I could care less. I'm more wondering was this is about, and it annoys me somewhat that their pseudo-flounce-off always merited a drama story and was presented as "proof" how terrible the community (outside of FfTB) was to them.

<sigh> They grow up so fast...

[Aneris]

I mixed up Almost Diamonds with BlagHag, I believe. Scratch that part.

[some guy]

A side note about a side bar. I noticed on FfTB's sidebar the name Natalie Reed and remember where PZ made a big story how she was harassed out of the movement by, when I remember correctly YOU (yes, you personally, Slymepitter). It was probably the first time I heard about you guys and found it weird how PZ can be sure, given the internet, free-roaming trolls etc. I remember that I didn't buy his version back then as she wrote herself that there were multipe reasons, including other interests and priorities. Now I see the name again, current article. Same with the Zvan. I also thought she was packing up, but she seems to be frolicking on her blog as usual. Now, I could care less. I'm more wondering was this is about, and it annoys me somewhat that their pseudo-flounce-off always merited a drama story and was presented as "proof" how terrible the community (outside of FfTB) was to them.

Maybe it's about the "tip jar"? A little drama to get people to feel sympathy, get 'em donating, etc.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Aneris reminded me to check out Jen McCreight's blog for the first time in a while. Here's what I got from the latest post by this self-described "pervert":

As someone who was interested in human evolution, behavior, and sex, I thought that evolutionary psychology was my calling. That was until we got to a specific lecture on human sexuality.

What happened, Jen? Did your professor get onto the subject of homeless people wanking in public?

You lying fucking fraud.

[JackSkeptic]

The whole tribalism discussion is a total distractor and a waste of time, the same as the arguments about who is the most moral.

I agree, it's just a smokescreen. The "dialogue" threads always seem to attract those FTB defenders who don't believe in dialogue and insist in repeating that over and over. But the problem with trying to discuss ideas at this point is that the well has been poisoned, filled in and cemented over.

Don’t think I can really agree with that, at least the first part. Seems to me that one of the primary criticisms that “we” have – though it is not the only thing that unites this “tribe” – of FTB and company is they tend to be problematically prone to group-think. And while I think Chas has a bit of bias on the question – I see that you’ve also noticed that he has recently flounced from that discussion on Nugent’s post – I also think he has some justification in suggesting that there is some evidence of that here.

I already addressed this over there- it's not that tribalism doesn't exist, it's that accusing others of tribalism is a non-starter (especially if one is a participant in the argument at the same time).

But why is it a “non-starter”? Because it’s not really a problem? Or because those doing the accusing tend to be more or less guilty of it as well? Seems to me that the best way of getting over that hurdle is to concede the point at the outset that both pot and kettle are rather blackish, and quibble later over which is the blacker of the two.

Where I think Chas goes off the rails is in not being cognizant of some significant differences: group-think as an opinion imposed on slaves versus autonomous individuals thinking and reaching the same conclusion even if that might be based on common premises, particularly if those are open to review rather than being seen as infallible dogma.

But nearly everyone would say that the other side is engaging in groupthink and that they themselves are the individual thinkers. Better to focus on more specific complaints, IMO.

Yes, I certainly agree with the first part as there seems to be quite a bit of evidence of that. But on the “more specific complaints” part I think that one of Michael Nugent’s “25 next steps” is particularly relevant:

Try to approach each issue on its merits, rather than on the basis of which side you think the person is on.

Seems to me that it is rather difficult to “focus on more specific complaints” when many people – on both sides of these “rifts” – seem to have their thumbs on the scales, when they have an in-built bias to judge an issue, not “on its merits”, but on the side presenting it – largely a manifestation of groupthink and tribalism. I would say that “Job One” is to first get over that particular hurdle together. Although "Job Zero" might be to list those "specific complaints", the first of which might be "not approaching each issue on its merits" ….

Steersman you did an amazing job over there, everyone did. I don't think there was a realistic chance at any breakthrough but if there was I feel focusing on ideology and definitions would have been more constructive than defining 'sides' which includes tribalism. This is bigger than just us and them. Much bigger. We just happen to be the noisy ones willing to stick our necks out.

Having said that they hardly turned up in droves anyway and it was a set up from the start in my opinion.

[JackSkeptic]

I mixed up Almost Diamonds with BlagHag, I believe. Scratch that part.

She actually corrected PZ later, who conveniently ignored it, and said it was NOT because of any issues here. She seemed annoyed he had used her as an excuse to get at us.

[JackSkeptic]

Aneris reminded me to check out Jen McCreight's blog for the first time in a while. Here's what I got from the latest post by this self-described "pervert":

As someone who was interested in human evolution, behavior, and sex, I thought that evolutionary psychology was my calling. That was until we got to a specific lecture on human sexuality.

What happened, Jen? Did your professor get onto the subject of homeless people wanking in public?

You lying fucking fraud.

She saying ONE lecture put her off a whole subject? That ONE lecture can inform her of everything in that subject? Wow she must be smart.

[clownshoe]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

[JackSkeptic]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

I still play D and D.

I claim the prize for the saddest geek at the Slympit. Resistance is futile.

[welch]

Aneris reminded me to check out Jen McCreight's blog for the first time in a while. Here's what I got from the latest post by this self-described "pervert":

As someone who was interested in human evolution, behavior, and sex, I thought that evolutionary psychology was my calling. That was until we got to a specific lecture on human sexuality.

What happened, Jen? Did your professor get onto the subject of homeless people wanking in public?

You lying fucking fraud.

She saying ONE lecture put her off a whole subject? That ONE lecture can inform her of everything in that subject? Wow she must be smart.

WTF is "cryptic" about ovulating? Most women I know have at least a general idea of when they're ovulating. They can't tell "ping, there's an egg", but the idea she presents that they don't know or can't really tell seems quite odd.

[welch]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

I still play D and D.

I claim the prize for the saddest geek at the Slympit. Resistance is futile.

pfft. I play multiple monks in D&D ONLINE!

[TheMudbrooker]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

I still play D and D.

I claim the prize for the saddest geek at the Slympit. Resistance is futile.

There's nothing worse than playing D&D one person short of the usual group because someone got stuck babysitting the grandkids on game night.

[KiwiInOz]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

I still play D and D.

I claim the prize for the saddest geek at the Slympit. Resistance is futile.

pfft. I play multiple monks in D&D ONLINE!

I have never played D & D, and haven't played video games since the original spacies in the early 80's. Suck on that you gamer freaks.

[welch]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

:lol: You're giving them ideas. If a New Media Shill starts whining Fantasy RPG artwork from thirty to forty years ago, I'm blaming you.

"The dragon on the front cover of the original D&D boxset is being oppressed by the Patriarchy, now where is my Salon writing job?"

I still play D and D.

I claim the prize for the saddest geek at the Slympit. Resistance is futile.

pfft. I play multiple monks in D&D ONLINE!

I have never played D & D, and haven't played video games since the original spacies in the early 80's. Suck on that you gamer freaks.

Loser. You should try and socialize more.

[ianfc]

I've been following a discussion on The Punch

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/ath ... -religion/

and a commenter writes that Rebecca Watson is a sexual assault victim of the atheist community, ergo atheists are cunts and sexists and god is the answer.

Zac says
11:48am | 13/03/13
@Dale Winnings
Militant Atheist - Dale Winnings is telling me another Atheist Rebecca Watson - a sexual assault victim at the hands of the Atheist community - is a militant feminazi. I am enjoying the infighting among the Atheist religiousnists. So when the accusations doesn’t suit you and exposes the filth in the Atheist community, the trick is to question her credibility.

I'm relatively new to these discussions and formating etc. I know by RW's account she wasn't assaulted in the elevator but I'm unsure if some digital comments could be considered a sexual assault, from what I've read I would say probably no. I'd be interested in any thoughts about this.

PS not JAQing off here, I'd like to call Zac out on this, I suspect he's a lying prick.

[16bitheretic]

I see someone mentioned D&D:

[youtube]haOys7E2Zbo[/youtube]

[KiwiInOz]

I've been following a discussion on The Punch

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/ath ... -religion/

and a commenter writes that Rebecca Watson is a sexual assault victim of the atheist community, ergo atheists are cunts and sexists and god is the answer.

Zac says
11:48am | 13/03/13
@Dale Winnings
Militant Atheist - Dale Winnings is telling me another Atheist Rebecca Watson - a sexual assault victim at the hands of the Atheist community - is a militant feminazi. I am enjoying the infighting among the Atheist religiousnists. So when the accusations doesn’t suit you and exposes the filth in the Atheist community, the trick is to question her credibility.

I'm relatively new to these discussions and formating etc. I know by RW's account she wasn't assaulted in the elevator but I'm unsure if some digital comments could be considered a sexual assault, from what I've read I would say probably no. I'd be interested in any thoughts about this.

PS not JAQing off here, I'd like to call Zac out on this, I suspect he's a lying prick.

He's a lying (and disingenuous) prick.

IANAL but digital rape/assault actually requires said digits to touch or penetrate. Exposure to digital media probably doesn't count.

[AndrewV69]

She is 35 and her body shows every sign of being seriously abused. Including a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Only 35 and this is what she has done to herself!

She had a few kids and lost a ton of weight. As for the tramp stamp, is this remarkable to you? She'll never be a swimsuit model, but I guess I'm not seeing "serious abuse" or an extremely unusual body type for her demographic.

Ah being pregnant a few times would do it, likewise a rapid weight loss.

The "tramp stamp" however, in my experience says not good long term relationship material.

There might be exceptions of course, and I could be wrong also, but that particular type of tattoo is firmly associated in my mind with a lifestyle that is not conducive to a stable family life.

Any man who marries a woman with a "tramp stamp" should not be surprised if she files for divorce within ten years.

[Wonderist]

Hey Wonderist - sounds like you've got a baboon who thinks his mad skillz exceed yours:

Heh. That'll be the day. ;-)

Hypothetical response to Brony follows:

I have a proposal with respect to online harassment. I want to meet, and maybe train Rhetorical Assassins and organize ethical counter strikes in online forums where speech is being suppressed.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Lesson #1: No violence, no actual threats of violence, and even no violent rhetoric. Of course, that last one isn't strictly necessary, but it avoids getting tangled up in that issue in the first place. Why even bother going there? You can make the same points without the violent rhetoric, so just make them.

Now that I just dropped a bunch of very loaded words let me define them and my intentions for you.

Harassment
What I defined here,
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03 ... ent-196218
…when arguing with the Projectionists from the Pit. Why harasser instead of harass? Because the target is more important, we already know the behavior.

Individuals who have the effect of de facto emotionally draining the people they disagree with instead of exchanging ideas, and/or de facto replace communication with suppression of the message. This is a matter of basic human psychology and I will back this up with citations if you wish. When a person has to spend too much time dealing with:

*bullshit about appearance, sexuality, parentage, or any other insulting language instead of their message. This includes visual attacks like photoshoped images and disturbing visual spam
*misrepresentations, distortions, and outright deception concerning their position or person. This includes fake accounts pretending to be the person, and I will toss in hacked accounts because I can see that happening someday
*repetition of the above to a level that the victim can not keep up with and distracts from their message

It tires them out. Its human behavior designed to make the person give up and go away and “Win” instead of trying to be find out what the world is really like. I loathe it like nothing else.

The entire post is sans any mention of *evidence*, that all important subject in this affair.

Ethical Counterstrikes
I would define this as specifically responding to instances of harassment as fast as we can. Once there the object is not abuse, but will be perceived as an attack because of unavoidable human nature. Like it or not criticism is felt as abuse to a bully. I work in a middle school in a southern state and I see it every day. A harasser hates their behavior pointed out like nothing else so I assert that the perception of criticism be is a fact of reality in a combat situation, which is what the harasser is transforming place of communication into, a combat zone.

Without discussing evidence, this entire idea is moot and pointless. Although, this strikes me as poignantly ironic: "Like it or not criticism is felt as abuse to a bully."

So I propose that volunteer squads of individuals with excellent critical and logical skills be organized into teams.

Guaranteed backfire. If you want to enforce a dogma, you need loyal followers, not critical thinkers.

The object of these teams is moral support, and rescue of the victims message. We do this with hyper-criticism shaped to direct the harassers comments back to the topic. Relentlessly, neutrally, and specifically. No insult is to be used that is not based on a real observation of behavior that is related to the suppression of the victims message.

I notice no mention of evidence.... Hmmm.

Reality is to be respected, used, and deception is to be shunned as we do not mix ourselves with what they are.

Oh! So close. Almost mentioned evidence. Well, at least you seem to respect reality. There may be hope for you yet, Brony.

Our target should be precisely defined, and our aims no less precise. Are you trying to hurt people, don’t do this. Are you trying to provide moral support, consider doing this. Are you trying to support someone having a right to have their ideas seriously considered in a general sense? Consider doing this. How would I define the most acceptable deliberate harm? You want to create a catharsis in your target.

How about *no* harm? Are you really now mulling over your 'standards' of "the most acceptable deliberate harm"? Can you not see where you are headed? Are you really surprised that skeptics are 'pushing back' against this nonsense?

Sounds like the 'Pit should be prepared for an influx of Brony-trained "Rhetorical Assassins," though I'm unsure how this place would qualify as a place where "speech is being suppressed." Somehow I doubt he and his gang will invade A+, even though that's one online a/s forum where there is a blatantly obvious speech suppression problem.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-576993
http://www.freezepage.com/1363043806VSMARNJSOS

We're dealing with the equivalent of theist-level reasoning here. The attitude of Brony and his proposed 'rhetorical assassins' reminds me of presuppositionalists and their attempts to redefine logic and reason to suit their ideological ends. In a way, actually, I look forward to dealing with some of these younger and naively enthusiastic folks. They end up serving their own dogma up for display, and when skeptics showcase it (as atheists/skeptics have been doing with presuppers for years, e.g.), it serves as a good warning sign for others who might be on the sidelines thinking, "Hey, feminism's a good thing, right? Water seems nice. Maybe I'll jump in all the way." Yeah, no. Slimy turds await ye.
:hankey:

[Wonderist]

Do all these 'freeze peach' idiots just plain not understand the philosophical basis that the right to free speech is built upon, or are they just being willfully ignorant/obtuse in their special-pleading whinging about how a private entity does not have to follow constitutional law? I'm seriously wondering...

they can't be THAT fucking stupid, can they?

Yes. In answer to all three queries.

Remember theists? Yes. These people exist.

[Wonderist]

Huh...
A few interesting points about how the attention the A+ crowd gets from forums like this actually helps their attention-whoring.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... -solution/

From link:

So please people, stop fueling the fire and giving attention to these whores. It’s all they need. They don’t care if you hate them, they don’t care if you shine the light of recognition on their activities, they don’t care how absurd they look, so long as that ad revenue keeps rolling in. You’re only slowing their eventual decline into obscurity.

Doesn't work. Didn't work with religion, won't work here. They don't *actually* go away when you ignore them. They just fester and get worse. As if Westboro Baptists would stop being bigots *if only* reasonable people stopped paying attention to them. Yeahhh....

[Skep tickle]

Aneris reminded me to check out Jen McCreight's blog for the first time in a while. Here's what I got from the latest post by this self-described "pervert":

As someone who was interested in human evolution, behavior, and sex, I thought that evolutionary psychology was my calling. That was until we got to a specific lecture on human sexuality.

What happened, Jen? Did your professor get onto the subject of homeless people wanking in public?

You lying fucking fraud.

She saying ONE lecture put her off a whole subject? That ONE lecture can inform her of everything in that subject? Wow she must be smart.

WTF is "cryptic" about ovulating? Most women I know have at least a general idea of when they're ovulating. They can't tell "ping, there's an egg", but the idea she presents that they don't know or can't really tell seems quite odd.

"Concealed ovulation" - the term's been in use since at least the late 1970's, in evolutionary biology & comparative biology circles at least. That part isn't some novel idea that JMcC came up with, though "cryptic fertility" seems to be her own term*.

I'm going to guess that that any knowledge or general idea women have that they're ovulating occurs in women who have already learned that ovulation occurs mid-cycle (and what some of the symptoms would be), in which case symptoms can be interpreted (often correctly, I'm sure) as indicating that it's ovulation time. Which would fairly well restrict that understanding to modern times and to modern education.

*Her idea was that "cryptic fertility" could make women more likely to seek out multiple partners, not less likely, and her beef with evo pych reportedly started when her instructor in that class lapped up her idea without seeming to care to consider how a hypothesis in evo psych might be tested.

[Wonderist]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

I agree with this analysis. Again, the similarities with the retreat of theists online and off is not a coincidence, IMO. Just like with theists, the course of action to take is continued persistence and confrontation with evidence, in front of public audiences. There will be flare ups, but they will get more and more obviously ridiculous, and more and more people will see through them. Eventually, they will lose all credibility. It's inevitable, *if* we collectively persist in our individual actions.

[Skep tickle]

Huh...
A few interesting points about how the attention the A+ crowd gets from forums like this actually helps their attention-whoring.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... -solution/

From link:

So please people, stop fueling the fire and giving attention to these whores. It’s all they need. They don’t care if you hate them, they don’t care if you shine the light of recognition on their activities, they don’t care how absurd they look, so long as that ad revenue keeps rolling in. You’re only slowing their eventual decline into obscurity.

Doesn't work. Didn't work with religion, won't work here. They don't *actually* go away when you ignore them. They just fester and get worse. As if Westboro Baptists would stop being bigots *if only* reasonable people stopped paying attention to them. Yeahhh....

Good points about the tactic not working for religion, but the analogy only goes so far. Most of the action for the FtB/Skepchick crowd is on the internet, with blog hits & conference gigs then fueling finances & fame. When blog hits & conference gigs dry up, what do they have left?

[Michael K Gray]

I agree with this analysis. Again, the similarities with the retreat of theists online and off is not a coincidence, IMO. Just like with theists, the course of action to take is continued persistence and confrontation with evidence, in front of public audiences. There will be flare ups, but they will get more and more obviously ridiculous, and more and more people will see through them. Eventually, they will lose all credibility. It's inevitable, *if* we collectively persist in our individual actions.

Hear here! (× 1E3)
The more "we" reveal "their" antics as the desperate hypocritical parasitism that it truly is, by employing a subtle blend of evidence combined with their own standards and actions, the more that outsiders, (fence-sitters, and on-lookers), will view their ramping-up of their crazed histrionics to DEAF-CON XII as being but the reckless terminal screechings of a cornered sewer-rat.

Like any anthelmintic, an hiatus in treatment only make the parasite bounce back even stronger.

If we give an inch, they take a light year.

[Michael K Gray]

Huh...
A few interesting points about how the attention the A+ crowd gets from forums like this actually helps their attention-whoring.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... -solution/

From link:

So please people, stop fueling the fire and giving attention to these whores. It’s all they need. They don’t care if you hate them, they don’t care if you shine the light of recognition on their activities, they don’t care how absurd they look, so long as that ad revenue keeps rolling in. You’re only slowing their eventual decline into obscurity.

Doesn't work. Didn't work with religion, won't work here. They don't *actually* go away when you ignore them. They just fester and get worse. As if Westboro Baptists would stop being bigots *if only* reasonable people stopped paying attention to them. Yeahhh....

Good points about the tactic not working for religion, but the analogy only goes so far. Most of the action for the FtB/Skepchick crowd is on the internet, with blog hits & conference gigs then fueling finances & fame. When blog hits & conference gigs dry up, what do they have left?

Cardboard, Zebra fish, fraudulent IUDs, and an Army of dollies.
Oh, and the Elite A+Theism Rhetorical Warrior Squadron, at your cervix, Ma'am.
All 2 of them.
[Salutes, but hits hand on forehead quite stoutly. Goes off to cry in Ninja corner]
Stop laughing. The Rhetorical Warrior has never been hit so hard since he inked his 4 year old sister's Barbie doll.

Setar!! Put down that box cutter!

[Lurkion]

I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

Sarkeesian is finding the evidence she is looking for instead of following it. Fail.

I don't find that to be true. It isn't like Donkey Kong, Mario, and Legend of Zelda are bit players in the history of video games and she had to work really hard to find a damsel in distress in a video game. My oldest daughter is just getting into video games a bit. We play Spelunky together and she likes to choose the female character. I don't think it's cherry picking to say that in Mario you simply can't choose a girl character in all the games except for the one which wasn't really designed to be a Mario game.

No, it will be the same as she previously bemoaned with Lego.

If it's the same as (or not relevantly different from) the guy's storyline, it's the man with boobs trope. If it's different in a way that is seen to appeal to women, it will be reinforcing gender roles.

It's lose-lose when the patriarchy is always the explanation.

Choosing a female character ( ala Mass Effect) will likely not be praised by AS either. It will be seen as the "man with boobs" trope. The only thing which might appease her is for game designers to create two separate story lines depending on which gender the player chooses./serious

Even then, the outcry will be "What about the other 21 genders" /sarcasm

[Lurkion]

I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

Sarkeesian is finding the evidence she is looking for instead of following it. Fail.

I don't find that to be true. It isn't like Donkey Kong, Mario, and Legend of Zelda are bit players in the history of video games and she had to work really hard to find a damsel in distress in a video game. My oldest daughter is just getting into video games a bit. We play Spelunky together and she likes to choose the female character. I don't think it's cherry picking to say that in Mario you simply can't choose a girl character in all the games except for the one which wasn't really designed to be a Mario game.

No, it will be the same as she previously bemoaned with Lego.

If it's the same as (or not relevantly different from) the guy's storyline, it's the man with boobs trope. If it's different in a way that is seen to appeal to women, it will be reinforcing gender roles.

It's lose-lose when the patriarchy is always the explanation.

Choosing a female character ( ala Mass Effect) will likely not be praised by AS either. It will be seen as the "man with boobs" trope. The only thing which might appease her is for game designers to create two separate story lines depending on which gender the player chooses./serious

Even then, the outcry will be "What about the other 21 genders" /sarcasm

hahahaha fucked it. the bold bits are mine.

[Pitchguest]

A side note about a side bar. I noticed on FfTB's sidebar the name Natalie Reed and remember where PZ made a big story how she was harassed out of the movement by, when I remember correctly YOU (yes, you personally, Slymepitter). It was probably the first time I heard about you guys and found it weird how PZ can be sure, given the internet, free-roaming trolls etc. I remember that I didn't buy his version back then as she wrote herself that there were multipe reasons, including other interests and priorities. Now I see the name again, current article. Same with the Zvan. I also thought she was packing up, but she seems to be frolicking on her blog as usual. Now, I could care less. I'm more wondering was this is about, and it annoys me somewhat that their pseudo-flounce-off always merited a drama story and was presented as "proof" how terrible the community (outside of FfTB) was to them.

To be fair, Jen said she would "take a break." She didn't say she would flounce off forever. Although she also said she wouldn't involve herself in the atheist community ever again and, er, well, we've seen how well that promise went. (Not well at all, really.)

As for Natalie, it seems she's still on to leave. On her latest (which could rival Steersman on longwindedness [but credit to her for actually writing something herself - Ophelia, take note]), she writes this at the very end:

I’m putting up my last post to Freethought Blogs on Friday! To be kept up to date on where I’ll be going next, please follow my twitter, @nataliereed84. If you’d like to help me land on my feet, cover my medicine until I get my insurance coverage reinstated, save up for SRS, and invest in future projects, please donate to my Tip Jar!

[Skep tickle]

PZ posts "Congratulations to FBB and Greta Christina!"

The Foundation Beyond Belief raised $430,000 for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and cancer research.

Last year the Foundation named Christopher Hitchens as their honored hero to represent the struggle against cancer. This year, it’s FtB’s very own Greta Christina. Give her a thumbs up…and most importantly, they’re trying to raise more money this year, so donate if you can!

Obediently, 3 of the 4 commenters congratulate Greta. (The 4th was on the CFI-Los Angeles team that was one of the top fundraisers for the Light the Night drive this year.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -christina

Foundation Beyond Belief's mention of her is in the last paragraph at the link in PZ's post:

Every four minutes, someone is diagnosed with a blood cancer. Together, we can make that prospect a little less frightening. Please join International Team Captain Todd Stiefel, 2013 Honored Hero Greta Christina, and our national partners in supporting this cause.

Greta Christina's post on it gives more of a sandwich, starting and ending with comments on FBB & the Lymphoma & Leukemia Society, & in the middle quotes a longer blurb from FBB (that I hadn't otherwise seen at their site) that includes this information that I haven't seen anywhere before:

She has a presumptive diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome (a diagnosis based on family history), which significantly increases the odds of getting certain kinds of cancers, including endometrial and colon.

I commend Greta on her more detailed description of the charitable efforts, and on how she closed her post:

I’ll be writing more about this when I’m not on the road. For now, I’ll just say that I am hugely touched. If you want to participate with the Foundation Beyond Belief in the Light the Night Walk, here’s how to do it. Let’s show the world just how good we can be without God!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... elief-lls/

Good for her. The most important information is about the disease that's being targeted, and the efforts to raise funds & awareness. The choice of a particular person as a spokesperson/etc is secondary, even if it's yourself or a friend.

(I notice that no-one actually having or having had leukemia or lymphoma is mentioned; is the implication that one cancer is much like the next? Ah, but 'tis a quibble.)

Disclaimer: I am a sustaining donor to FBB but had nothing to do with the choice of Greta for this or any other role with them

[Skep tickle]

Gah. By "...this information that I haven't seen anywhere before:

She has a presumptive diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome (a diagnosis based on family history), which significantly increases the odds of getting certain kinds of cancers, including endometrial and colon.

"

I meant that I hadn't heard/read before that Greta may have this familial cancer syndrome. I have seen information on Lynch syndrome before. Rough estimate, ~1/1000 people may have it.

[Steersman]

[Post 7773]

<snip>
Seems to me that it is rather difficult to “focus on more specific complaints” when many people – on both sides of these “rifts” – seem to have their thumbs on the scales, when they have an in-built bias to judge an issue, not “on its merits”, but on the side presenting it – largely a manifestation of groupthink and tribalism. I would say that “Job One” is to first get over that particular hurdle together. Although "Job Zero" might be to list those "specific complaints", the first of which might be "not approaching each issue on its merits" ….

Steersman you did an amazing job over there, everyone did.

Lots of very good comments from all and sundry [new user?] – “I'd say that we’re all in line for some important promotions and personal citations [even NoR] when this thing's over with” [so to speak] – with more than a few from “them”. Although I note in passing that they seem to have abandoned the field in some disarray. But I really don’t envy Michael trying to boil all of that down into something that he can use in his mediations – if that is his intent and plan.

I don't think there was a realistic chance at any breakthrough but if there was I feel focusing on ideology and definitions would have been more constructive than defining 'sides' which includes tribalism.

As suggested, I quite agree that “ideology and definitions” are a vitally important part of the process. However, a little difficult to agree on those points if they are strongly coloured or influenced by the group one happens to be part of. For instance, consider the difficulty just in deciding or agreeing whether “gendered insults” are sexist and misogynistic, or just simply rude and crude. And even the definition of “feminism” is all over the map, and a serious bone of contention. But you might want to take a look at this Wikipedia article section on morality from the point of view of “in-groups” and “out-groups”; in addition, the anthropologist John Hartung also has an interesting article on the topic as well (Love Thy Neighbor: The evolution of in-group morality).

This is bigger than just us and them. Much bigger. We just happen to be the noisy ones willing to stick our necks out.

Yes, I tend to agree with that, that there are some important issues hanging in the balance. Happened to watch yesterday a few bits and pieces of the recent talk by Dr. Janice Fiamengo at the University of Toronto on the topic of “What’s Wrong With Women’s Studies?” that Andrew mentioned the other day, and which is linked to by A Voice for Men. I don’t know exactly who she is, and how credible their claims are – it would help if AVfM or others would create some transcripts of her talks – but this summary from one of the videos suggests that, as indicated by the title, there is in fact something still quite seriously wrong if not actually rotten with “Women’s Studies”, at least in Canada:

She tackles the feminist idea that "feelings" are the intellect of women and are just as valuable as logic, reason, rationality and critical thinking.

Which would seem to qualify as some serious “woo”. And pretty much underlining the review – by some sensible feminists – of the book Professing Feminism which argued that many “Women’s Studies programs” exhibit an “isolationist attitude”, and a “virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment”. If the situation is half as bad as those sources suggest then, yes, I would most definitely say that “this is bigger than just us and them”.

Having said that they hardly turned up in droves anyway and it was a set up from the start in my opinion.

No they didn’t – apart from people like Stepanie Zvan who popped in to bleat about supposed lies being told about her, and “commitments to dialog”, and then proceeded to skedaddle, never to be heard from again, without even once attempting to refute said lies or actually engage in the dialog she supposedly wanted.

But I think you’re wrong to argue that it was a “set up from the start”, particularly on so little evidence. While you might be right, my impression from a number of comments here and on his site is that Michael was involved in some capacity in brokering some peace in Ireland which would suggest some degree of honesty and equanimity. And even if he hadn’t been I would still be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, contingent, of course, on further developments.