Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/PJJka40.jpg

[JAB]

@ Wonderist:

In high school (several geologic era's ago) I took a SF and Fantasy in Literature course and the required reading was "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula K. Le Guin. A really interesting story with applications in the gender wars. Le Guin posits a race of neutrally gendered people (who only morph into genders for reproduction).

I was very glad I took that course.

I've read a lot of Le Guin over the years. Left Hand is one of the best. Also try The Dispossessed, and The Telling. Anyone who read The Word for World is Forest recognizes the world in Avatar, and Harry Potter read like a kids version of the Earthsea Trilogy except that that was alreay supposed to be for kids. (don't watch the bad attempt at a film version of that)

My sister the anthropologist put me on to her stuff since most of her stuff reads like an anthro study of one investigator going in to study the society and you always find out all the stuff an anthro study would.. except with an added dramatic story on top.

[Guest]

@ Edward Gemmer
Hi
Delurking for a moment here to tell you that you are completely correct on Nugent’s rape thread.

Recidivism percentages bear out that “telling rapists not to rape” is a ridiculous notion. Rapists rape because rape is what rapists do. I spent 20 years in the trenches as prosecutor and no SJW can erase that many years of lived experience! LOL

As an aside: I have been threatened with rape and my family has been threatened with death by really horrible people shouting the details of what they wanted to do directly in my face. I did not melt into a puddle of protoplasm. I took pleasure in mocking them.

When I did get a threat that I considered credible (real life stuff), I obtained an injunction/interdict. I did not bleat about it online, but did what was necessary to protect myself and my family. Credible threats are not funny and require legal action – not internet bleating.

SA Guest

[AndrewV69]

@ Wonderist:

In high school (several geologic era's ago) I took a SF and Fantasy in Literature course and the required reading was "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula K. Le Guin. A really interesting story with applications in the gender wars. Le Guin posits a race of neutrally gendered people (who only morph into genders for reproduction).

I was very glad I took that course.

I can not say I recall much from that one. "Always Coming Home" is the one I best remember her by.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

(I read PZ's knives/flense/ass comment as using "ass" as in "jackass" not as in "rectum" so didn't see him alluding to ass-raping w/ knives. Didn't necessarily intend that as a "charitable" reading, that's just what I saw in it. To me, seeing an ass-raping reference is stretching it, though given the porcupine meme I can see why people would read it that way.)

Well played, miss, well played.

[Submariner]

@ Wonderist:

In high school (several geologic era's ago) I took a SF and Fantasy in Literature course and the required reading was "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula K. Le Guin. A really interesting story with applications in the gender wars. Le Guin posits a race of neutrally gendered people (who only morph into genders for reproduction).

I was very glad I took that course.

I can not say I recall much from that one. "Always Coming Home" is the one I best remember her by.

I didn't read that one. Alas, even in a lifetime as long as mine (think somewhere between Louis Woo and Lazarus Long) one cannot read everything worth reading.

[AndrewV69]

To add to the above post, I guess the idea behind Caine's comment is that since we allow "sexism" and "misogyny", we might as well allow anything. Since of course the only difference between calling someone a cunt and an actual death threat is that only the latter is illegal.

Or because we are clearly sexists we must be racists as well. Hence the demands for the reasons why terms like nigger, wop, gook etc. etc. are not in common usage.

The fact that people here are really not racist and really not sexist never seems to occur to them (for whatever value of them you choose to assign).

Pretty amusing from my perspective anyway.

[16bitheretic]

I would say plenty of us would be willing and eager to talk about feminism if terms were defined clearly and you could question/discuss its tenets without being accused of sexism/misogyny.

Why would the terms be defined clearly? They abuse their terminology to be malleable to any whim or argument they encounter, and the accusations and ad hominems are an easy out to avoid defending their positions.

One of the common patriarchy hypotheses states that men systematically elevate themselves at the expense of women. Well clearly more men than women hold power, so by one definition one could say there is at the very least a patriarchal tendency on a population level, but any further analysis than that to determine whether there is an active and conscious promotion of men over women at work on a large scale and whether or not this patriarchy hypothesis works on an individual basis meets resistance.

When someone like me comes along and says that maybe the problem isn't so much one of active systemic gender oppression, but class oppression and that poor folks of both genders are subject to the same disadvantages, there's also resistance or tossing about of other unclear and ill-defined concepts like "intersectionality" which they throw into the mix, usually with a condescending assumption that asking for clarity of terms and definitions is a sign of inability to understand such a complicated subject.
*cue rolling eyes*

As someone who has seen and experienced sexism on an individual basis, I have questions about the validity of this alleged wide scale, society-encompassing sexism and misogynystic oppression that many 3rd wave/modern/radfems assume as fact. This assumption of fact before the discussion begins is to me on the same level of presuppositional religious apologetics (ala Eric Hovind). I'm not saying all is fine and perfect between the genders, but I find the scale and reach of modern feminist thought to be lacking in the evidence to support the almost (and sometimes overt) conspiratorial tones of their ideology. However, I can't ever get any of them to debate the issue out and examine the claims, I simply get shifting definitions, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, and most often simple diversions and ad hominems. I almost feel it's impossible to debate these people or engage them in an in-depth analysis where they are not allowed to assume certain things as fact beforehand. I've decided to consciously stop referring to it as feminist "theory" anymore, I don't feel any of the stuff I hear coming from people who take feminist gender studies seriously has enough grounding to be called a theory, unless of course I use the creationist definition of theory. :lol:

Others seem to think 'Pitters are opposed to any/all "harassment policies" at conferences, which isn't true. Donglegate, however (and Surly Amy's TAM meltdown), shows how careful you need to be about what's in the policy and how you handle reporting/consequences. The Richards thread at Pharyngula lays bare how restrictive and reactive some of these folks are inclined to be about this stuff.

I've never attended an atheist or skeptical conference, but I have attended an anime con. The anime con, which was attended by numerous pubescent teens in skimpy cosplay outfits of sexualized anime, manga, comic and videogame characters managed to get by without incident with only one line about harassment stating "Avoid harassment of other people" in the short list of guidelines. Somehow these atheist and skeptic cons, according to certain people, need to have paragraphs and paragraphs of rules and regulations which cover minute details about individual scenarios inside the con hall as well as in privately owned businesses nearby like bars and restaurants? That paints a pretty bad image of the average atheist and skeptic if you ask me.

I'm fine with kicking any actual creep or harasser out of an event, as most logical and sane people are, but they seem to want to make us all paranoid that every person at the con is ready to drag someone into a corner and rape them. And I'm not sure that telling mature grown adults who are at an event to have fun and socialize to read a lengthy manifesto of do's and dont's is actually effective at stopping any harassers.

[Dilurk]

Okay you lurkers out there: Registered membership at the Slymepit now stands at 599. If just one of you dilurks,

Yes? You called?

[AndrewV69]

@ Edward Gemmer
Hi
Delurking for a moment here to tell you that you are completely correct on Nugent’s rape thread.

Recidivism percentages bear out that “telling rapists not to rape” is a ridiculous notion. Rapists rape because rape is what rapists do. I spent 20 years in the trenches as prosecutor and no SJW can erase that many years of lived experience! LOL

As an aside: I have been threatened with rape and my family has been threatened with death by really horrible people shouting the details of what they wanted to do directly in my face. I did not melt into a puddle of protoplasm. I took pleasure in mocking them.

When I did get a threat that I considered credible (real life stuff), I obtained an injunction/interdict. I did not bleat about it online, but did what was necessary to protect myself and my family. Credible threats are not funny and require legal action – not internet bleating.

SA Guest

I will just add this here:

Lisak, David; Miller, Paul M. (February 2002). "Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists". Violence and Victims 17 (1): 73–84.
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cach ... 134851.pdf
p.8

A majority of the undetected rapists in this sample were repeat offenders. Almost two-
thirds of them raped more than once, and a majority also committed other acts of inter-
personal violence, such as battery, child physical abuse, and child sexual abuse. These
repeat rapists each committed an average of six rapes and/or attempted rapes and an aver-
age of 14 interpersonally violent acts. Within the universe of 3,698 violent acts that the
1,882 men in this sample were responsible for, the 76 repeat rapists by themselves
accounted for 1,045 of that total. That is representing only 4% of the sample, the repeat
rapists accounted for 28% of the violence. Their level of violence was nearly ten times that
of non-rapists, and nearly three and a half times that of single-act rapists.
The evidence that a relatively small small proportion of men are responsible for a large num-
ber of rapes and other interpersonal crimes may provide at least a partial answer to an oft-
noted paradox: namely, that while victimization surveys have established that a substantial
proportion of women are sexually victimized, relatively small percentages of men report
committing acts of sexual violence (e.g., Rubenzahl & Corcoran, 1998). In this sample of
1,882 men, 76 (4%) individuals were responsible for an estimated 439 rapes and attempt-
ed rapes.

Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/24 ... Nature.pdf
P.2

Underlying this paradox are numerous, intersecting mythologies about
rape. There are the “classic” myths about victims: “women secretly harbor a
desire to be raped;” women “cry rape” only when it suits them; and men are never
the victims of rape. There are also “classic” myths about rapists: they wear ski
masks, hide in ambush, attack strangers and inflict brutal injuries on their victims.

There is also a set of newer myths about rape, myths that have been
spawned by the new generation of victimization studies that have emerged since
the 1980’s. These studies documented that rape was both far more prevalent than
traditional crime surveys indicated, and that most rape victims did not report
their victimization. These studies also clearly revealed that most rapes are not
committed by strangers in ski masks, but rather by “acquaintances” or “non-strangers.”

[Git]

Hi all,
to keep mordacious1 happy, have got the pyt to 600. Been lurking here since July 2012, after watching the 'Dear Muslima' thing explode.
Thanks for doing the hard yards by preserving the evidence of craziness before it gets memory holed.
Liked Asimov's Foundation and Robot stories, but after 40 years I still think Arthur C Clarke's are the best - clear, concise stories with (unusually) no religious waffle or grandstanding, just technical people trying to sort problems out.
Back to lurking.
Peter E.

Welcome Greylurker, here's your obligatory welcome basket of (grey)pussy:

http://assets.dogtime.com/asset/image/4 ... basket.jpg

[Corylus]

Even assuming the 2 men in the audience at Pycon were purposefully making double entendres, how's that sexist, and how's it sexist against women? I could see it as sexually objectifying (for the purposes of a double entendre) the man whose code they admired, and maybe penises (?), and clearly it made Adria Richards uncomfortable and angry and apparently it felt like the last straw to her, but I fail to see how anything they said was directed to her or sexist against women.

A theory. It can equal sexism for an individual if they equate it to a personal memory that was sexist.

For example, reading Adria's story, I could reach the conclusion that it was harassment if I related to a memory I have. This memory is of being a 16 year old innocent, working a weekend job in a male dominated environment (hardware store) and experiencing several men talking (very loudly and with glances in my direction) about what they would like to do to a women in a magazine they were looking at: all this while we were in a private staff room.

Of course, these days, I would pointedly look at the magazine and made a comment along the lines of “Whoa, look at that – yo momma's had her hair done”. Back then though, I just kept silent and tried to sink into my seat – which was the object of their exercise I suspect. Yes, they were evidently getting off on it. Yes, they were lowlifes. I don't think of it very often though, and when I do, I cheerfully look at my revenge of living well. I no longer have to work with them due to having studied hard.

What possible reason would I have to equate this memory with Adria though? There are so many things that are completely dissimilar.

Firstly, because we try to make sense of the experience of others by assessing our own memories. This is useful, and can always be stopped if we find it not relevant.

Secondly, and less helpfully, there is another reason why people (in the type of environment that PZ has created) might equate it with sexism/harassment. This is because his site provides ample opportunities for revenge.

Still feel bad about sinking into your seat? Well strike back now! You will feel better, you know you will. Forget what you didn't say, forget acting like a wimp – you are powerful now.

This is not useful therapy though, as facts are facts, and sooner or later the memory will come back. This cure it is symptomatic only – and the therapeutic window of that particular drug (Outragum? Bilium? Vitrium? :P ) closes down quickly. Cruelty is as addictive as crack.

-=-=-

Caine, if you are reading this, I think you are a junkie. I am very, very sorry that bad things have happened to you (things that make any memory of mine barely worth recalling). I am more sorry than I can ever say.

I don't think what you do online is ultimately good for you though.

[John Greg]

The caged rat is claiming that the Pit, writ large, is/was behind the false Twitter accounts, and the FTB bullies tag.

The rat says:

I went for a long time not saying much of anything while the Slyimepit encouraged some really nasty characters to emerge on Twitter who were dedicated to harassing a few people and impersonating the people they were harassing by using lowercase “L” for uppercase “i”, or using uppercase “i” for lowercase “L”, so that the impersonator’s name on Twitter matched their target’s name for all intents and purposes. A campaign driven by the slimepit was also started to label the bloggers at FTB “bullies”.

I responded:

Prove it, sunshine.

Michael, for all your vaunted cries for not calling someone a liar, I would like to point out that that statement by the caged rat contains several blatant lies. To wit: The Pit had nothing to do with the false Twitter accounts, nor with the FTB bullies tag. And the rat will be unable to provide any proof of that claim.

I request that you leave Aratina's deceitful post, but that you ask Aratina to provide proof for such an egregious claim.

Fuck a duck. I am in moderation. I guess that's because I used that cunty word "lie" on Nugent's prissy blog.

[John Greg]

Fuck another duck. I am in moderation again, for this:

A Hermit said:

“you have to ignore the fact those same women are receiving a daily torrent of deliberate verbal abuse in the form of e-mails, tweets and unsolicited blog comments.”

So, in effect, with your loose and overly generalistic smear, you are implying:

1. Twitter and blogs are not public spaces.
2. Disagreement is abuse
3. Disagreement is harrassment.
4. Disagreement is a campaign of harrassment.
5. All disagreement they receive originates from the Pit.

I am quite certain that some commenters who comment in blogs or on Twitter are vile, and perhaps even verbally abusive — though that is in itself a pretty darned tenuous claim — but what you are effectively trying to imply is that anything you, or the recipients, receive, that they do not like, is therefore, ipso facto, abusive and harrassing. And that’s just horse balls.

You, like most of the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ universes are far, far too comfortable with avoiding and disavowing any and all responsibility for your own actions. The Pit began as a response to some quite questionable behaviour by R. Watson, and it continues as a response to the ongoing, mind numbing hypocrisy of the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ universes.

The Pit is not a movement; the Pit is not an ideological group; the Pit is not a unified network of same-thinking individuals.

The Pit is a group of disparate individuals with a wide range of often conflicting opinions.

As to the reactions from folks like Ophie, Watson, Myers et al, if they appear to be hyper-sensitive it’s because their remarkable, blatant, and obvious hypocrisy moves them to cry foul whenever any of their own tactics / verbal hostilities are applied back at them. And indeed their nerves have been rubbed raw by a continuing campaign of exposing their hypocrisy to the world. Ignoring that fact is either sloppy thinking or outright dishonesty. I’ll be uncharitable, and assume the latter in your, and their, case.

Here: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/22 ... ent-206325

[greylurker]

Thanks for the welcomes. Odd experience for somebody who has made 'how not to be seen' into an art form.

Wonderist wrote:
(start quote)
Clarke was my favourite for many years, including the time in high school when my friends were trying to get me to read
Foundation. My favourite of his at the time, was Childhood's End, the first book I'd ever read whose ending seemed so sad that
I cried (strange, there's no sad emoticon available here). I later got hooked on William Gibson, until I realized he's a bit
of a one-trick-pony.
<snip>
Now! As for Clarke being a faster-moving writer than Asimov? Seriously? An *entire* novel:

Spaceship arrives in solar system. Mission to board the spaceship succeeds. Crew dick around for a bit. Shit happens, but not
much in the grand scheme of things. Crew leaves the ship to go back to Earth. Spaceship leaves solar system.

Took an entire novel to tell that story. I told it in six sentences. He's no Dickens, but Asimov beats him by about a year of
action per page. By the way, Rendezvous with Rama was my second fav Clarke after Childhood's end, so I'm not dissing it!'
(end quote)

Well my first three science fiction books were all by Clarke - 2001, Sands of Mars, and Childhood's End, so there is a
personal bias. In your six sentence compression you left out the setup: Asteroid hits Earth, wipes Venice. Project Spaceguard
started as a response. Incoming object > spaceship detected. Fairly dense action there.

John Brunner wrote some interesting stuff, 'Squares of the City, Shockwave Rider'.

Back into the crate before sunup.

[Michael J]

Hey, does anyone here have a Sonos speaker? I have one and it is the boss, but sometimes the network drops out. Wondering if anyone has tips or experience.

I have a lot of clients with Sonos setups and they are pretty solid. I would check you wireless router strength as you might need a booster through the house.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

[welch]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

I'm waiting for someone to start an assassin's rhetorical guild. Then we just wait for the suicide attacks

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Here we go with weed talks again...

[agarybuseychristmas]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

I love how this basically amounts to being a neo-Temperance Movement busy-body.

[Guest]

@ AndrewV69 [Post 11650]

I do not know how to do the quote thingies. Sorry.

Thanks. There are many, many studies bearing this out, but selective reading and fitting the facts to the narrative seems to be the preferred method of scepticism in certain circles.

Just another thought: Men do not have rape switches. Rapists have rape switches.

Thanks for the crab juice. I will take my leave now.

SA Guest

[EdwardGemmer]

@ Edward Gemmer
Hi
Delurking for a moment here to tell you that you are completely correct on Nugent’s rape thread.

Recidivism percentages bear out that “telling rapists not to rape” is a ridiculous notion. Rapists rape because rape is what rapists do. I spent 20 years in the trenches as prosecutor and no SJW can erase that many years of lived experience! LOL

As an aside: I have been threatened with rape and my family has been threatened with death by really horrible people shouting the details of what they wanted to do directly in my face. I did not melt into a puddle of protoplasm. I took pleasure in mocking them.

When I did get a threat that I considered credible (real life stuff), I obtained an injunction/interdict. I did not bleat about it online, but did what was necessary to protect myself and my family. Credible threats are not funny and require legal action – not internet bleating.

SA Guest

Hey, thanks for reading! Yeah, I don't get the conclusions that if the evidence suggests most rapes are done by a small minority of people who know it is wrong and do it repeatedly, then the solution is tell men not to rape. This doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be better for women to identify these people and not be in intimate situations with them? That seems pretty logical to me, but the whole "women are helpless" meme is rampant among the SJW crowd. That's what I hate among these people, like the DongleGate junk - it just reinforces the stereotype that women are helpless, humorless and ever in need of male help.

[EdwardGemmer]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

I love how this basically amounts to being a neo-Temperance Movement busy-body.

This bored lawyer welcomes the challenge.

[EdwardGemmer]

Hey, does anyone here have a Sonos speaker? I have one and it is the boss, but sometimes the network drops out. Wondering if anyone has tips or experience.

I have a lot of clients with Sonos setups and they are pretty solid. I would check you wireless router strength as you might need a booster through the house.

It's great, but I don't think it is signal strength. It's just occasionally the signal drops out and I have to reconnect everything. It seem quite random so I was wondering if anyone else has an issue. But generally - Sonos plus Spotify equals a great thing.

[Apples]

She has literally nothing to say except for "durrrrr I like this thing another person said". This really sucks, because she could say so much more about Paine's writing. Maybe even something about its appropriateness to the atheist/skeptic community today. But instead, we get two sentences with no new information, and fewer words than even this very comment on a forum, written off the top of my head.

And yet she expends a great many more words in the prior post telling a random Twitter critic of her latest "Critical Inquiry" piece (in which she is harping on, who else, Michael Shermer) to "Read Better."

What did she write?

Shermer however genuinely does seem to think that “prominence” should confer immunity to challenge. After he mentions the putative purge of “such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris” he says that “I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders.” Our what? Whose “leaders”? I don’t recall joining any army, or even a party. I don’t consider Dawkins and Harris my “leaders”; I don’t consider anyone that.

No, I’m sorry, that won’t do. I’m not going to bend the knee to “our most prominent leaders” and I’m not going to refrain from criticizing them and go looking for less prominent people to dispute. On the contrary: the prominence itself is a reason to dispute a bit of thoughtless sexism. The honcho dudes are influential, so it’s all the more unfortunate if they’re recycling dopy sexist stereotypes.

What did Atheist Missionary say?

Your “bend a knee” comment suggests @michaelshermer somehow bows to popular figures in freethought movement or it suggests that @michaelshermer expects you to bow to him. Both suggestions are BS, IMHO.

Okay, so pretty straightforward. Ophie says Shermer seems to believe his prominence gives him immunity to challenge, and she says she's not going to "bend the knee" or refrain from criticizing prominent people by letting sexist stereotypes slide. Fine.

And AtheistMissionary disagrees with Ophie's claim that Shermer seems to think he or other prominent leaders should be immune to challenge and expect others to bow or bend a knee.

So Ophie's gonna refute this criticism by defending her claim that Shermer thinks "prominence should confer immunity to challenge," right? Wrong:

What I said there suggests neither that Shermer “bows to popular figures in freethought movement” nor that he expects me to bow to him. What it suggests, if you’re paying attention to the words on the page, is that Shermer thinks it’s out of bounds to criticize things that “our most prominent leaders” – his words, not mine – say. My refusal to bend the knee is (surely obviously) a repudiation of the demand for deference implicit in what Shermer said. It’s not that difficult to grasp.

What? Whatwhatwhatwhatwhat? What you said does not suggest that "he expects you to bow to him?" - You said he thinks prominence confers immunity to challenge, but that you're not going to bend a knee. Why on earth would you claim that's not what you said -- you just said it again! *headdesk* The "demand for deference" Ophie - that's what AtheistMissionary is disputing. But then, you know that. You're just bullshitting and digging a deeper hole, as you almost always do when faced with the slightest resistance.

Apparently your meaning would be pretty "difficult to grasp" for any literate reader of English, since you are plainly denying the clear meaning of what you wrote. That, or you realize you can't defend what you wrote, and you think a bit of haughty smoke-blowing and sophistry is going to distract from the reality that you said -- to coin a phrase, exactly that, or excuse the fact that you don't have a shred of evidence for your claim.

Unsurprisingly, since no one could possibly address the substance of what Ophie says in the post without revealing that she's being either dishonest or moronic, the comments ignore it completely and veer off into a discussion of the Slymepit.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ad-better/
http://www.freezepage.com/1364158863UMIIBGJZET

[Apples]

67 guests browsing the board at the moment.

[Submariner]

One of the Youtubers I subscribe to (who is horribly under-subscribed IMHO) released a rather beautiful 200 subs and Q&A vid. If you feel like watching it it is here.

Tell her SubMan sent you.

[AndrewV69]

As someone who has seen and experienced sexism on an individual basis, I have questions about the validity of this alleged wide scale, society-encompassing sexism and misogynystic oppression that many 3rd wave/modern/radfems assume as fact.

I doubt it is valid. Many MRAs view it as a "shame and blame" tactic to gain even more special privileges for a specific class of women who tend to be already pretty privileged in addition to being white and middle class.

They also point out that genuine issues with disadvantaged minority women appear to be given lip service when they are not being outright ignored or silenced.

A good example of the type of the type of insidious racism, the type that is really harmful because it is so ingrained was displayed by Amanda Marcotte herself (and was brought up here not too long ago):

http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/update/
http://inastrangeland.wordpress.com/200 ... an-to-say/
http://bfpfinal.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/3/

I'm fine with kicking any actual creep or harasser out of an event, as most logical and sane people are, but they seem to want to make us all paranoid that every person at the con is ready to drag someone into a corner and rape them.

Noted. Occasionally a Black MRA brings up this point, that some clearly want women to be afraid of men, and that what has happened to the Black community in the USA was largely ignored till it started happening to Whites. I would be lying if I said they do not sound bitter when they say it.

Speaking of which, the Black Community in the USA does appear to be struggling with issues that are now becoming apparent to other segments of society.

"Sherri Shepherd, co-host of ABC's "The View," and Jacque Reid, star of VH1's "Let's Talk About Pep," will debate "CSI" star Hill Harper, and Jimi Izrael, author of "The Denzel Principle" on why many successful black women cannot find a man. Are black women's expectations too high? Who's to blame, black women or black men?"

Sherri_Shepherd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherri_Shepherd http://www.sherrishepherd.com/
Jacque Reid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Reid http://jacquereid.com/
Jimi Izrael http://www.jimiizrael.com/
Hill Harper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Harper

Note that Feminism was never brought up (that I noticed anyway)

Many of the common Manosphere tropes are in the talk (in no particular order):

- Women can not "have it all".
- Women are getting the jobs but men are not.
- Men are never intimidated by a woman (but they do feel ashamed ).
- Women with unrealistic expectations of men, and the rationalization hamster.
- Men who are unhappy married talk about it. Men who are hapily married do not.
- Women who fuck the "alphas"/bad boys/thugs their 20s, then in their 30 start looking for a "beta provider" by then they are now in competition with younger women for the same men who could care less about their degrees and/or business and career success.
- The state of formal family formation. Blacks have gone from 70% married to 30% married. and the consequences for the children of single mothers.

- 95% of women trying to date 5% men.
- 95% of men trying to date 5% women.
- Men cheat (nothing about said about the women they cheat with)
- Black men and women are not even friends any more. They are not talking to each other (but at each other).

There is some humor in there. Sherri Shepherd had me in stiches about her story about trying to start a relationship with a guy who worked in Home Depot and had no clue who she is.

PT.01.
PT.02.
PT.03.
PT.04.
PT.05.
PT.06.
PT.07.
PT.08.
PT.09.
PT.10.

[Metalogic42]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

Rhetorical Assassins, rofl.

http://i.qkme.me/3oijn5.jpg

[welch]

Hey, does anyone here have a Sonos speaker? I have one and it is the boss, but sometimes the network drops out. Wondering if anyone has tips or experience.

I have a lot of clients with Sonos setups and they are pretty solid. I would check you wireless router strength as you might need a booster through the house.

It's great, but I don't think it is signal strength. It's just occasionally the signal drops out and I have to reconnect everything. It seem quite random so I was wondering if anyone else has an issue. But generally - Sonos plus Spotify equals a great thing.

are any other devices affected?

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

[Metalogic42]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

Awww it's over so soon...any plans for a new series?

[KiwiInOz]

by greylurker » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:15 am • [Post 11613]

Hi all,
to keep mordacious1 happy, have got the pyt to 600. Been lurking here since July 2012, after watching the 'Dear Muslima' thing explode.

Ah, nice round and firm, six hundred...no change.

Welcome and you don't even have to "fuck off" (unless you want to, of course).

greylurker - I hope that you realise how honoured you have been, by being addressed by the prominant slymepitter mordacious1. He is really prominant. And a slymepitter.

:whistle:

[KiwiInOz]

Hey, does anyone here have a Sonos speaker? I have one and it is the boss, but sometimes the network drops out. Wondering if anyone has tips or experience.

I have a lot of clients with Sonos setups and they are pretty solid. I would check you wireless router strength as you might need a booster through the house.

I have a couple of Sonos speakers and a wifi booster. Works just fine.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

Awww it's over so soon...any plans for a new series?

Only very vague ones. They may or may not materialize.

[Skep tickle]

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-vi ... 2gfx0.html

Here are five reasons why feminists should try to eliminate meat:

[snip nonsense]

The very first thing that popped into my head:
[Image: For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three]

Seriously, I've heard all sorts of arguments for and against vegetarianism, but this has got to be the stupidest fucking one yet. "MEAT IS TEH PATRIARCHY!!!11one" You honestly expect anyone who isn't an SJW nutter to take that seriously?

Every now and then at Shakesville some vegan sneaks in and tries to apply their concept of intersectionality to different species-which actually makes total sense if you really believe in intersectionality, but McEwan and company will not have it. NO ONE is telling those fat chicks that they can't eat something.

*roots around in closet for tone troll hat; puts it on*
I was with you up to the bolded line, where IMO a pointless insult derails the interesting observation you were relating.

I don't know whether or not the moderation team there is all heavy women; that's not really the point, is it?

Isn't it that they're dogmatists, and can't or won't allow someone to apply the very same principles they espouse to a different situation in which they start looking hypocritical (particularly if they won't examine the situation in that light)? And that could be true regardless of weight or gender?

The last line could have read something like: "NO ONE is telling them where intersectionality might apply, outside of the areas they're already applying it" or something like that, and not have had the same lulz factor for some but would probably have been a more accurate description of the situation, applicable to other similar but not exactly identical situations.

*takes tone troll hat off & stuffs it back in the closet*

[JackSkeptic]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

I'm waiting for someone to start an assassin's rhetorical guild. Then we just wait for the suicide attacks

Ooops. Seems I'm as incompetent as Reg.

I can imagine the meeting:

[youtube]ExWfh6sGyso[/youtube]

[JackSkeptic]

@ AndrewV69 [Post 11650]

I do not know how to do the quote thingies. Sorry.

Thanks. There are many, many studies bearing this out, but selective reading and fitting the facts to the narrative seems to be the preferred method of scepticism in certain circles.

Just another thought: Men do not have rape switches. Rapists have rape switches.

Thanks for the crab juice. I will take my leave now.

SA Guest

You hit the quote button on the post you want to quote.

[JackSkeptic]

http://i.imgur.com/rGR0D9n.jpg

Yeah, Brony. The A+theism forums are an excellent home for a Rhetorical Assasins Guild. Absolutely. I'm sure Ceepolk, Setar and the other inmates will be happy to assist you. In the meantime I will buy me a jumbo bag of popcorn.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... erdome-23/

I love how this basically amounts to being a neo-Temperance Movement busy-body.

This bored lawyer welcomes the challenge.

It's easy, just make sure they do not try the trick of switching the burden of proof (as Nugent tried on his first blog post)

[tina]

Anyone else getting bored with bad werdz debate?

My comment FWIW.....

Michael: Re your OP question.
The werdz debate is a red herring. I doubt anyone is srsly bothered about werdz. They’re used so mind-numbingly frequently that, imo, they’ve lost most of any power they ever had to shock or hurt. They’re still used to poke and provoke in this ideological warfare, in which the web serves to insulate the user from negative real life consequences, unless personal reputations or livelihoods of identified persons are concerned. Ophelia is quite correct on that score.

IRL I expect few from either side use them at all, or only very very rarely, in face to face interaction with other people; Could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. In ideological warfare werdz get used for the usual time tested propoganda and other obvious purposes. All tedious.

Anyway, unless you proceed with the process somehow incorporating a strict format that calls foul on certain sets of words offered up by either side as, well, foul, then it’s difficult.

It’s difficult for a number of reasons such as:

a) neither side is a monolith.

b) individuals may have vested interest in retaining language deemed objectionable by ‘the other side’ for both personal or ideological reasons i.e. the accusation of someone being classed as sexist or misogynistic may be seen as a foundational or unavoidable to the pov being expressed.

c) some folk are actually addicted to this conflict.

d) the usual trolls *sigh*

Just a few thoughts of an evening. I’m sure your post tomorrow will have all that sorted Michael :popcorn:

As you were, frabjous bandysnoods.

[free thoughtpolice]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

Awww it's over so soon...any plans for a new series?

Only very vague ones. They may or may not materialize.

Jan; I had some great laughs with those two, hopefully the inspiration bug (or fish) keeps biting you.

[John Brown]

Tony the Queer Shoop, cluck-splaining why men should check their privilege and shut the fuck up about the Adria Richards fiasco:

You do not get to determine what is or is or is not a minor offense to women. You have not lived your whole life being treated as an objectified sex toy who exists for the gratification of men. You have not struggled to have your voice heard while all the men in the room make fun of, laugh at, or dismiss you because of your gender. You have not had it beaten into your head that because of your gender, you belong in certain fields.

Geez... with friends like these, who needs the patriarchy?

I've been paying attention to these kinds of blow ups for years now and I can tell you that this is a set pattern. This paragraph has been repeated over and over and over again in nearly every thread I've read concerning these blow ups.

And, it's usually always a white man who says it.

The simple response is, "What about all the women on this thread who feel the same way? Do they have a say? Or, are rather than men do you just mean people who don't agree with you? I invite you to think carefully about this, because the moment you say that the women who disagree with you are wrong...well, you see the delicious irony that awaits you, I would hope."

Or, "Why in the world do you think so lowly of women? You may think of them as an objectified sex toy who exists for your gratification, but I don't, and neither does any other decent human being. What the fuck us wrong with you? How did you become such a sexist, misogynistic douche-bag?"

Because, really, that's what's going on here. It's complete psychological projection.

[Skep tickle]

@ AndrewV69 [Post 11650]

I do not know how to do the quote thingies. Sorry.

Thanks. There are many, many studies bearing this out, but selective reading and fitting the facts to the narrative seems to be the preferred method of scepticism in certain circles.

Just another thought: Men do not have rape switches. Rapists have rape switches.

Thanks for the crab juice. I will take my leave now.

SA Guest

You hit the quote button on the post you want to quote.

Guests may not see the quote button?

At any rate, you can always use [ quote ]Stuff you want to quote here[ /quote ] but without the spaces in the brackets.

[AndrewV69]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

Awww it's over so soon...any plans for a new series?

Only very vague ones. They may or may not materialize.

That was a pretty good ending. Upbeat too depending on how you look at it. Free to behave like how they are supposed to behave in a natural environment rather than an artificial one.

[JackSkeptic]

Anyone else getting bored with bad werdz debate?

My comment FWIW.....

Michael: Re your OP question.
The werdz debate is a red herring. I doubt anyone is srsly bothered about werdz. They’re used so mind-numbingly frequently that, imo, they’ve lost most of any power they ever had to shock or hurt. They’re still used to poke and provoke in this ideological warfare, in which the web serves to insulate the user from negative real life consequences, unless personal reputations or livelihoods of identified persons are concerned. Ophelia is quite correct on that score.

IRL I expect few from either side use them at all, or only very very rarely, in face to face interaction with other people; Could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. In ideological warfare werdz get used for the usual time tested propoganda and other obvious purposes. All tedious.

Anyway, unless you proceed with the process somehow incorporating a strict format that calls foul on certain sets of words offered up by either side as, well, foul, then it’s difficult.

It’s difficult for a number of reasons such as:

a) neither side is a monolith.

b) individuals may have vested interest in retaining language deemed objectionable by ‘the other side’ for both personal or ideological reasons i.e. the accusation of someone being classed as sexist or misogynistic may be seen as a foundational or unavoidable to the pov being expressed.

c) some folk are actually addicted to this conflict.

d) the usual trolls *sigh*

Just a few thoughts of an evening. I’m sure your post tomorrow will have all that sorted Michael :popcorn:

As you were, frabjous bandysnoods.

Yep it's boring. It's like trying to explain absolute morality to a theist. Instead of a god they have ideology. Instead of the bible they have 'emotions' and the deluded writings of some social commentators who wouldn't know a scientific theory if it hit them over the head with a mallet. Unfalsifiable clap trap.

Until they stop labelling everyone they disagree with misogynists and racists as well as trying to say who is in or out the 'movement' they can moan and whine all day for all I care. They can stop saying things such as every conference is full of rape threats and terrible for women. They can stop calling us racists. They can stop lying for once.

I'm so bored of their lies and they need to be called on it.

[KiwiInOz]

Anyone else getting bored with bad werdz debate?

My comment FWIW.....

Michael: Re your OP question.
The werdz debate is a red herring. I doubt anyone is srsly bothered about werdz. They’re used so mind-numbingly frequently that, imo, they’ve lost most of any power they ever had to shock or hurt. They’re still used to poke and provoke in this ideological warfare, in which the web serves to insulate the user from negative real life consequences, unless personal reputations or livelihoods of identified persons are concerned. Ophelia is quite correct on that score.

IRL I expect few from either side use them at all, or only very very rarely, in face to face interaction with other people; Could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. In ideological warfare werdz get used for the usual time tested propoganda and other obvious purposes. All tedious.

Anyway, unless you proceed with the process somehow incorporating a strict format that calls foul on certain sets of words offered up by either side as, well, foul, then it’s difficult.

It’s difficult for a number of reasons such as:

a) neither side is a monolith.

b) individuals may have vested interest in retaining language deemed objectionable by ‘the other side’ for both personal or ideological reasons i.e. the accusation of someone being classed as sexist or misogynistic may be seen as a foundational or unavoidable to the pov being expressed.

c) some folk are actually addicted to this conflict.

d) the usual trolls *sigh*

Just a few thoughts of an evening. I’m sure your post tomorrow will have all that sorted Michael :popcorn:

As you were, frabjous bandysnoods.

Yep. You got it in one.

[Lsuoma]

Rhetorical Assassins' Guild == RAG?

Sounds like something Becca should get off, eh?

[free thoughtpolice]

Rhetorical Assassins' Guild == RAG?

Sounds like something Becca should get off, eh?

I wonder sometimes if he isn't actually a My Little Poeny fan.

[Jan Steen]

It looks as if the FTB anti-propaganda against the 'Pit starts to lose it's magic.

http://i.imgur.com/4hr0jD4.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-587307

The reactions are predictable.

[Jan Steen]

Did I just write 'it's' for 'its' ? I must be getting tired.

[BarnOwl]

What did she write?

Shermer however genuinely does seem to think that “prominence” should confer immunity to challenge. After he mentions the putative purge of “such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris” he says that “I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders.” Our what? Whose “leaders”? I don’t recall joining any army, or even a party. I don’t consider Dawkins and Harris my “leaders”; I don’t consider anyone that.

No, I’m sorry, that won’t do. I’m not going to bend the knee to “our most prominent leaders” and I’m not going to refrain from criticizing them and go looking for less prominent people to dispute. On the contrary: the prominence itself is a reason to dispute a bit of thoughtless sexism. The honcho dudes are influential, so it’s all the more unfortunate if they’re recycling dopy sexist stereotypes.

Yet she (and many others) were quick to defer to that unnamed London Skeptics serial groper, weren't they? Backed right off that prominent lawyer leader, and still no resolution, AFAIK.

Glad that Pureflower and Ligase (I know that's not the correct name but that's how I read it, can't help it) made it back to the Amazon, but they'd better have swum their own piscine cloacas to South America. Carbon offsetting for the flight from Minnesota to Brazil is certainly beyond their means.

[JackSkeptic]

Rhetorical Assassins' Guild == RAG?

Sounds like something Becca should get off, eh?

Maybe we should form the Atheist Rhetorical Secular Assassins.

[Apples]

http://i.imgur.com/8XLL7hI.jpg

(The complete series of Pureflower & Ligeia can be found in the images thread, starting here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=150#p66518)

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[mordacious1]

by KiwiInOz » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:18 pm • [Post 11673]

greylurker - I hope that you realise how honoured you have been, by being addressed by the prominant slymepitter mordacious1. He is really prominant. And a slymepitter.

You'd only know that if you got to look at PZ's list of Prominent Slymepitters. Friend of his, are you? (checks KiwiInOz for wire)

[Tigzy]

It looks as if the FTB anti-propaganda against the 'Pit starts to lose it's magic.

http://i.imgur.com/4hr0jD4.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-587307

The reactions are predictable.

Holy shit! Peez has just gone and banned 'shotgun to the mouth' Julian for being a slymepitter! :lol: :lol: :lol:

PZ Myers

24 March 2013 at 6:08 pm (UTC -5)

I came here thinking this was just the slympit exaggerating shit to drum up hate against you guys.

Wait, you came here from the slymepit to complain that we are too abusive? Are you stoned out of your mind? Please, tell me, what kinds of things have the ‘pitters said about her? Because I recall long, tedious periods of abuse of “EllenBethWacko” and other such names on the #FtBullies hashtag…which apparently are all forgotten now that some people here were angry with her.

For the record, I consider EllenBeth Wachs a friend and positive contributor to the cause of atheism and humanism and to feminism. I think she was wrong here — she was thinking too much as a conference organizer, and not enough as a minority fighting for respect — but that the reactions here were far too heated to be useful.

However, I also knew that this thread would end up a long one, with lots of hot tempers, and an influx of morons, and I made a conscious decision early on to let it burn on. That’s how Matthew Best managed to be left alone for so long. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but ALL sides were allowed to rage on here unchecked. And now, of course, the Brave Heroes of FreezePeach are all squawking. Am I supposed to tell people how to express themselves? Or not?

However, the confession that you’re a slymepitter breaks one of my absolute rules. Bye. Don’t bother coming back, hypocrite.

(I like the way Peezee always uses 'confession' in this context - for being of t'pit is a grave sin, so 'tis. As we see in this case, he does it even if you aren't actually a Slymepitter - cos you can sin in thought as well as deed, after all)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-587363

[BarnOwl]

Where's the Steersfish when you need him?

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
24 March 2013 at 5:32 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Sorry fuckwit. You’re fucked up. No evidence, no foul. Either toss in some citations or shut the fuck up. That is if you have honesty and integrity….

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
24 March 2013 at 5:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Wrong cupcake. We just don’t mince words with faux politeness. Now, either substantiate your claims with evidence or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not a drawing room.

Science?

[Jan Steen]

Glad that Pureflower and Ligase (I know that's not the correct name but that's how I read it, can't help it) made it back to the Amazon, but they'd better have swum their own piscine cloacas to South America. Carbon offsetting for the flight from Minnesota to Brazil is certainly beyond their means.

I believe they got a lift from someone who went to a skeptics conference.

[Apples]

It looks as if the FTB anti-propaganda against the 'Pit starts to lose it's magic.

http://i.imgur.com/4hr0jD4.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-587307

The reactions are predictable.

Fuck yeah. This whole thread is an incredible own-goal.

[John Brown]

PZ Myers

24 March 2013 at 6:08 pm (UTC -5)

I came here thinking this was just the slympit exaggerating shit to drum up hate against you guys.

Wait, you came here from the slymepit to complain that we are too abusive? Are you stoned out of your mind? Please, tell me, what kinds of things have the ‘pitters said about her? Because I recall long, tedious periods of abuse of “EllenBethWacko” and other such names on the #FtBullies hashtag…which apparently are all forgotten now that some people here were angry with her.

For the record, I consider EllenBeth Wachs a friend and positive contributor to the cause of atheism and humanism and to feminism. I think she was wrong here — she was thinking too much as a conference organizer, and not enough as a minority fighting for respect — but that the reactions here were far too heated to be useful.

However, I also knew that this thread would end up a long one, with lots of hot tempers, and an influx of morons, and I made a conscious decision early on to let it burn on. That’s how Matthew Best managed to be left alone for so long. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but ALL sides were allowed to rage on here unchecked. And now, of course, the Brave Heroes of FreezePeach are all squawking. Am I supposed to tell people how to express themselves? Or not?

However, the confession that you’re a slymepitter breaks one of my absolute rules. Bye. Don’t bother coming back, hypocrite.

(I like the way Peezee always uses 'confession' in this context - for being of t'pit is a grave sin, so 'tis. As we see in this case, he does it even if you aren't actually a Slymepitter - cos you can sin in thought as well as deed, after all)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-587363

My favorite part is where PZ tells a woman who disagrees with her what she was thinking and how she should feel.

[tina]

by KiwiInOz » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:18 pm • [Post 11673]

greylurker - I hope that you realise how honoured you have been, by being addressed by the prominant slymepitter mordacious1. He is really prominant. And a slymepitter.

Rubbish. He hasn't even got a personalised number plate.... MORD 1. I followed him to check. That's not harassment, is it?