Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Altair]

Just a note to say how sad I am tonight. My feathered friend that serves as my avatar died in my hand tonight.

I'm sorry to hear that, JAB. My thoughts are with you.

[Wonderist]

Again, to notice the difference, you need to have a noisy environment. In the game, there's no noise. You always know what the other player played exactly. There's no misunderstandings. When I get back to it later, I'll see if there's any simulators out there, but I doubt it, honestly. If there's enough interest, I could write one.

BTW: All the most successful strategies (barring colluding strategies) will play All-C in a noiseless game. It's the optimal solution for cooperative strategies. That's why you won't see any big difference without noise.

Could we simulate noise be deliberately misinterpreting Serendip's moves once or twice?

:think: Yes, you could. You'd probably want to also simulate noise in the other direction, but deliberately sending the opposite signal to Serendip occasionally.

If you're interested and want to play around with it, I would try noise levels of between say 5% and 25%. You could use a spreadsheet or calculator's random function to simulate. Or if you can program, most language have random functions. Or in your browser, you could put this javascript URL in the address bar (in a separate tab):

Code: Select all

javascript:Math.random()<0.05 ? "noise" : "signal"; 

This uses 5% as your noise level, and you can adjust the 0.05 to whatever noise level you want. Use F5 to refresh your browser to get a new "noise" or "signal" message.

[Wonderist]

New from LeftSidePositive responding to

More to the point, I think you’re ignoring the real question: “How do you reduce sexism in the secular movement?”

http://skepchick.org/2013/04/an-open-le ... ent-167078

Emphasis mine

A very real start would be: get the leaders in our movement to realize that sexism and harassment are not misunderstandings, and they won’t be solved by dialogue. They will be solved by making our environment unquestionably inhospitable to overt sexists, and to those with unexamined privilege . This would include ditching DJ Grothe, for starters, and making sure conferences don’t invite people who have said stupid, evidence-free shit about women, their abilities, and the value of their autonomy. It would include refusing to admit individuals like Justin Vacula, Ryan Grant Long, Reap Paden, and many others to even REGISTER for a conference, let alone speak at it. It would include showing that harassment gets you complete ostracism, and we reserve the right to decide how long it takes before we’ll give you another shot.

Great! Now feminists who have said stupid evidence-free shit about women, their abilities, and the value of their autonomy can be purged (on Julian's reasoning)!!11oneone

...and the hate-fest for DJ continues with a special shoutout to Reap and I + non-pitter Ryan Grant Long (well, everyone who disagrees is a pitter, huh?). #secularshunning

They will be declared unpersons! I no longer have a son! He is dead to me! Burn the witch!

[Wonderist]

by* deliberately, not but deliberately

[Gefan]

I'd say it was because this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_sit ... ll_600.jpg

...is, in essence, the mentality of the Pharygulites.

Whereas this:

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vultu ... 10x408.jpg

...is basically the Slymepit....

The Slymepit abides.

[Skep tickle]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Wow, Adam Lee is tiptoeing in broken glass and it's still not good enough. That's fucking hilarious!

Holy crap! What a spectacular fail! Went in for his Official Feminist badge cookie, and came out a full blown mansplaining misogynist! :lol:

:popcorn:

[CommanderTuvok]

A bit of Twitter insanity from Lord Setar....

http://i.imgur.com/yMI1RE2.jpg

I don't trust people who don't like dogs. I've always seen them as a bit racist, or summat!

:)

[ERV]

Just a note to say how sad I am tonight. My feathered friend that serves as my avatar died in my hand tonight.

:( *HUG*

[Pitchguest]

Oh, Christo. He's a jerk who hates puppies. Don't ever give when they do that. When they do that, just firmly repeat your points with the reply, over and over.

Lsuoma, I'm curious about the antique picture you have there. What is that?

Meanwhile I'm curious about the kitteh in your avatar. Tell me more!

lol. What are those stones doing on your kitteh's head? And why are they blue?

No idea, Apparently they look like dildos, but its just a random image I found on the web of a grumpy-looking cat with stones on its head.

The cat represents the Palestinian people and the stones represent the weight of Israeli oppression.

*busts gut* It's 4 AM, goddamnit! You can't write funny (as fuck) things at 4 AM! :lol:

[AndrewV69]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... -its-cover

In an earlier post, I explain why virtually all stereotypes are empirically true. Stereotypes come from the aggregation and generalization of the daily experiences of millions of people, so they cannot possibly fail to be true. Stereotypes are based on massive empirical data, and empirical data don't lie. However, I also explain that one of the very few stereotypes that are not empirically true is the aphorism "You can't judge a book by its cover." Contrary to popular belief, you can very accurately judge people's character just by looking at them.

Incredible. Surprising the guy has a job at Psychology Today. Seems not to realize that stereotypes are generally true, but only of some smallish segment of the population. The problems arise in judging the entire group on the basis of that segment - sexism, and racism, for examples.

Steers, while he did say "you can", he did not say how accurate j.random.person would be at it. And, I am not too sure about stereotypes applying to a minority in all cases. I would say it would be much more important not to let being aware of various stereotypes colour your judgement on any given individual instead.

Anyway, I was also a bit amused because I was reminded of this article and the paper it referenced.

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/research/ ... -a-rapist/

Research participants weren’t good at telling the violent offenders from the nonviolent offenders, or pinpointing the type of crime—the drug dealers vs. the arsonists, for example.

But you know what they were worst at?

Spotting the rapists.

Rapists were rated least likely of all photo types, including noncriminals, to have committed any crime.

Women were particularly bad at it.

…females rated rapists as significantly less likely to have committed a crime than the other three criminal types…and significantly less likely to have committed a crime than non-criminals…

OK, So apparently people were especially bad at spotting a rapist. Think you can do better?
Start at P.21 of this paper and see how well you do:

THE ACCURACY OF INFERENCES ABOUT CRIMINALITY BASED ON FACIAL APPEARANCE
http://137.140.1.71/jsec/articles/volum ... l5Iss1.pdf

[ERV]

Well now Im all bummed out about JABs birdie...


I was going to say that I got a flat tire on the way to kung fu tonight. Like not 'a nail in the tire' but 'somehow ol boy got shredded'.

I stood inside, in a heated building, while two gentlemen put on my spare (in the dark, freezing, pouring, OK rain). They were fucking drenched. I was shaking standing outside for 30 seconds. Luckily there is a liquor store across the street and I got them some nice beer.

*DAMN YOU PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!*

[Wonderist]

You're not going to give any credence or support to that "xe/xi/xo/xum" shit are you?

I noticed that LeftSidePositive used "zem" over at Svan's. Because "them" is....... sexist? :think:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222326

It's also anti-semitic. I saw one of them old war movies, and that's how the Nazis talked in them. "Send zem to ze gas chamber!" :o :oops: Come on! If Mel Brooks had said it, you'd be laughing! :evil:

[Altair]

Adam Lee asks a question on twitter

lee.PNG

(9.92 KiB) Downloaded 174 times

So he thinks at least some slYmepitters would be mad about the open letter. Probably because pitters love abuse and harassment and whatnot.

But from what I've read, people here (and on twitter and other blogs, let's remember you don't need to post here to be a pitter) are actually more concerned and bothered by the criticism to the letter (skepchick) and the organizations who refused to sign it (secular woman and another one I forget right now).

So Adam, in case you're reading this, or you have someone who'll send you info about the pit, here's my opinion about the letter (and I emphasize MY opinion. Despite what some people out there think, all people here don't share the same hivemind)

I'm not mad about the letter. I like the letter.

Why do I like the letter?

We seek to promote productive debate and discussion. We firmly believe open and candid discussion is the most reliable means of resolving differences of opinion and bringing about needed change.

Debate and discussion are why I'm a skeptic. Debate and discussion is what I think should be applied to everything. Even feminism and gender stuff. You'll notice that secular woman specifically said there should be no discussion and debate about feminism and sexism. Think about what that means.

We seek not only civil equality for everyone, regardless of sex, but an end to discriminatory social structures and conventions – again often the legacy of our religious heritage—that limit opportunities for both women and men

Despite this last part being in a section called "The debate over sexism and feminism", notice how the letter focuses on both genders, and acknowledges that there are structures and conventions that limit opportunities for both women and men. Notice also how secular women condemned the letter for not strongly supporting feminism. A clear and present statement for equality was shot down because it didn't focus on one gender only. Food for thought, Adam.

Any organization or individual engaged in blogging or administering a forum has an obligation to moderate comments. Slurs, threats, and so forth beget more of the same. Keeping our online spaces free of these elements creates a civil climate that makes it much easier for people to engage issues productively.

Although this could degenerate into censorship, it would also mean no more rusty porcupines, no more die on a fire, or drop dead, or any other insults that can be found in certain spaces. so I'm going to tentatively agree with this.

When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it. If you don’t have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk

Take a moment to think who are the ones who are saying that posting a picture on twitter to shame people, and writing a blog post to call people sexist and harassers over a joke was a good thing. Think who are the people who thought that should have been handled privately. Think about it, Adam, and wonder which one of those groups would be mad.

• Dial down the drama.
(...)
• Be more charitable.
(...)
• Trust but verify.

All these are principles that I can support. Think who is it that's asking people to take women's personal testimonies at face value. Think who are the ones who always claim that lived experiences trump everything. Wonder who will be mad about this.

I'm not mad, Adam, and I don't think anyone here is mad either (again, just my opinion, everyone here has their own ideas and opinions). The criticism and dogmatism are coming from other sources.

[Skep tickle]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

The comments at the Shakesville are true to form.

Re the comments at Lee's blog wrt the latest from Shakesville: are there big cracks in the facade, or have his commentors always said stuff like this? (I've never looked at his site before)

People with privilege are people too. Being less privileged in one particular area is not a blank check. ...

Why should correction of error be reserved for those who “have privilege?” Shouldn’t everyone else care about whether their conclusions are correct or their behavior reasonable? It’s one thing to observe that privilege creates an obligation to take it into account and REALLY THINK about whether the error you think you’re seeing is due to your cognitive biases, it’s quite another to insist that a less privileged person cannot be wrong, at least not so that a more privileged person cannot identify it. ...

Correcting contrafactual aspersions cast on one’s motives, character, and behavior is not “boasting.” What is WRONG with you?

...this is abuse-enabling bullshit. No one is obliged to just give and give and give regardless of whether they’re treated fairly in response, that rewards bullying and cheating and leads to a deeply dysfunctional society.

Lee, next time you request ideas on how men can be better allies… just come out and say input from feminists not wanted. Cos from this whole thing—yeah, you’ve made that point loud and clear, even though you don’t think yourself part of that so-called small and vocal minority that make the movement unwelcoming to women. You are. You are not an ally. You’re part of the problem. And after all this, you still don’t want to understand why.

I fail to see what is dogmatic about A+. Is it really too much to ask that women and other minorities be treated as people?

From A+’s official FAQ:

Does A+ represent the official atheist position on social justice? No. Not all atheists are interested in advocating for social justice.

The implicit assertion being that atheists who are not part of A+ are not interested in advocating for social justice.

[Submariner]

Adam Lee asks a question on twitter


SNIP

I'm not mad, Adam, and I don't think anyone here is mad either (again, just my opinion, everyone here has their own ideas and opinions). The criticism and dogmatism are coming from other sources.

Brilliant post Altair! :clap: :clap:

[Percentage]

People with privilege are people too.

This is sort of an important point. Idk, but it's like the SJWs expect "privileged groups" to be like emotionless automatons who should simply tolerate "valid" vitriol, dehumanization, and abuse... and that's a reasonable expectation to have.

What? No. Fuck off.

[welch]

Adam Lee asks a question on twitter

lee.PNG

So he thinks at least some slYmepitters would be mad about the open letter. Probably because pitters love abuse and harassment and whatnot.

But from what I've read, people here (and on twitter and other blogs, let's remember you don't need to post here to be a pitter) are actually more concerned and bothered by the criticism to the letter (skepchick) and the organizations who refused to sign it (secular woman and another one I forget right now).

So Adam, in case you're reading this, or you have someone who'll send you info about the pit, here's my opinion about the letter (and I emphasize MY opinion. Despite what some people out there think, all people here don't share the same hivemind)

I'm not mad about the letter. I like the letter.

Why do I like the letter?

We seek to promote productive debate and discussion. We firmly believe open and candid discussion is the most reliable means of resolving differences of opinion and bringing about needed change.

Debate and discussion are why I'm a skeptic. Debate and discussion is what I think should be applied to everything. Even feminism and gender stuff. You'll notice that secular woman specifically said there should be no discussion and debate about feminism and sexism. Think about what that means.

We seek not only civil equality for everyone, regardless of sex, but an end to discriminatory social structures and conventions – again often the legacy of our religious heritage—that limit opportunities for both women and men

Despite this last part being in a section called "The debate over sexism and feminism", notice how the letter focuses on both genders, and acknowledges that there are structures and conventions that limit opportunities for both women and men. Notice also how secular women condemned the letter for not strongly supporting feminism. A clear and present statement for equality was shot down because it didn't focus on one gender only. Food for thought, Adam.

Any organization or individual engaged in blogging or administering a forum has an obligation to moderate comments. Slurs, threats, and so forth beget more of the same. Keeping our online spaces free of these elements creates a civil climate that makes it much easier for people to engage issues productively.

Although this could degenerate into censorship, it would also mean no more rusty porcupines, no more die on a fire, or drop dead, or any other insults that can be found in certain spaces. so I'm going to tentatively agree with this.

When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it. If you don’t have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk

Take a moment to think who are the ones who are saying that posting a picture on twitter to shame people, and writing a blog post to call people sexist and harassers over a joke was a good thing. Think who are the people who thought that should have been handled privately. Think about it, Adam, and wonder which one of those groups would be mad.

• Dial down the drama.
(...)
• Be more charitable.
(...)
• Trust but verify.

All these are principles that I can support. Think who is it that's asking people to take women's personal testimonies at face value. Think who are the ones who always claim that lived experiences trump everything. Wonder who will be mad about this.

I'm not mad, Adam, and I don't think anyone here is mad either (again, just my opinion, everyone here has their own ideas and opinions). The criticism and dogmatism are coming from other sources.

Oh the little drama llama is fishing.

If we aren't made, (and I doubt anyone really is), it shows how wrong the letter is as written.

If we are, it shows how intolerant we are.

[welch]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

[ReneeHendricks]

For those interested, Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes Episode #10 with Rock2466 is up in MP3 format at http://chillgirlsinpinkcorvettes.com/?p=65. Working on the YouTube verson now.

[Pitchguest]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'

Speaking of which, the response Bradley made to the hit-piece done here by Avicenna is not better. (Another claim that 'people of colour' can't be racist is made.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

[Metalogic42]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

This one is especially creepy: http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/T ... 24x768.jpg

[Michael J]

So, ...
The key is not that we all agree (that'll never fucking happen). The key is that we all basically want to reach the same or basically similar goal(s). Even figuring out *just* what those goals *are* is something we could use help in hammering out.
...

Interesting question. I'm not sure that everybody's goals are the same. What I want like to happen is for the whole FTB/Skepchick thing to stop being a force in atheism/skepticism.

I think will happen no matter what. It depends on how long it takes as the FTB/Skepchick thing is too unstable.

One of three things will happen:
1. People will just stop turning up at their blogs and conferences (Another FTB blogger has left). People will go to conferences that talk about science, creationism and Bigfoot. If there are social justice people talking, it will somebody from the front line who is actually helping in the struggle.

2. There will be a schism around PZ. Either the new uber-feminists see through his hypocrisy (Keep showing that video guys) or another baboon gets the EBW treatment and this time their friends don't stay silent.

3. Some of the Baboons find that we aren't that bad which then causes the 'rift' to shrink around the remaining baboons.

I think that the third is the least likely but it is the best outcome you could expect from your talks. If I was doing the strategy I would try to encourage the split by going easier on Svan and the other participants and try to lay as much of the problem at PZ's and Rebecca's door

[Skep tickle]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'

Speaking of which, the response Bradley made to the hit-piece done here by Avicenna is not better. (Another claim that 'people of colour' can't be racist is made.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

I *think* LSP is female but can't remember where or when I saw xir gender mentioned.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

welch: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fuc ... us+drawing

[Garlic]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

This one is especially creepy: http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/T ... 24x768.jpg

Ooooh, so that's where all these memes were coming from! Great find.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

welch: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fuc ... us+drawing

Just for you, geekboy:

http://blog.djapoc.com/2010/05/fuck-off-jesus/

[Wonderist]

Quick question: either a stupid one ... or an epically "heretical" one, which may doom the skeptical atheist movement to be purged from reality!!!1

So, brace yourself, here it comes:
The claim "atheists do exist" is supported by what evidence exactly?

I thought about it. But I am kind of stumped, because as far as I see it, there is nothing more than individuals claiming to be atheists. But anybody can claim to be anything; doesn't make it true. I know that atheists do exist, because I know I am an atheist and I exist. But that shouldn't convince anybody else, because it's nothing more than an anecdote.

Googling the issue leads me to religitards' theological crap, only. I haven't found a skeptical approach to the issue. Any help?

Relevantly, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, and his major area of investigation so far has been into the brain mechanisms of belief, specifically theist belief and non-theist belief as a focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29

You can measure (to some extent) belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in the brain, using fMRI. Yes, atheists exist.

I thought that line needed some rebalancing of its emphasis.

Hey, better than nothing, eh? Which was the original conundrum lurktard was wondering about. Plus, fMRI and other techniques are getting better all the time. We've got proof of concept. Really think we're going to fail to fully identify the neural basis of belief? I bet newer stuff since Harris's studies a few years ago has strengthened the case, not weakened it. Care to take that bet?

[16bitheretic]

Carrier is butthurt that his Atheism+ speech has gotten so many downvotes on Youtube

And he's demonstrating in that post that he doesn't understand how YouTube works. Dislikes do not affect the visibility of the video and they do not move the video up or down on any search lists. They ONLY represent the popular opinion of the viewers, and as far as I can see are only visible once you've brought the video up, thus contradicting the statement that dislike votes were discouraging people from watching.

Maybe Carrier is confusing YouTube with reddit

Also, unless he is the uploader of the vid who has access to stats, he cannot say without speculation whether or not people watched the whole thing before they voted dislike. Of course I've seen him before in his blog posts go on this dismissive kick where if someone doesn't respond to something exactly like he wants them to then he automatically assumes that you either didn't read the whole thing or are incapable of comprehending what he posted, which is of course a very bad method of assumption

[Garlic]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

I don't know much about LSP, but if you're talking about this comment (the only one in which "chill girl" appears), I think you misread it pretty badly.

OTOH, from Rebecca's comment:

Being skeptical of “white privilege” is not even in the same ball park as denying that racism lives on.

She's wrong on that. "Privilege" is defined as such a way that it's a necessary corollary of any discrimination - it is the status of the people who are not subject to this discrimination.

If you agree that there is racism, then you immediately agree that there is "privilege" - again, by definition of the term.

[16bitheretic]

Oh, and speaking of those captioned Jesus pics:

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... c8bdb7.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 2b6f1b.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 89719d.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... cc6ea4.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 99bc55.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 9ac529.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 73b4ae.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... eaec6a.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 61b339.jpg


I've got more of these on my computer, they're awesome

[Aneris]

[...]

And I see some attempts, the latest by Anne C. Hanna attempting to herd EBW back into the fold.

Yeah - Hanna says,

So I guess the question I find myself always asking here, and I think the question many people are going to be asking as they watch your developing response to this incident is, is this really the incident you want to use to define your relationship to the people here, and is the particular response that you’re making really founding the kind of relationship you want to have? If you decide that the most important thing about this relationship is to win your fight to have everyone acknowledge that your role in that original comments thread was completely without blemish, and that the angry responses of some commenters were completely beyond the pale, then you’re selecting one style of relationship. If you instead decide to think of this as a massive and completely unintentional miscommunication on your part with people whom you would rather maintain as allies, then you’re selecting a different style of relationship, and one which may have a productive future if you work to understand how that misunderstanding came about and communicate with the other parties involved about how to avoid it in the future.

I don’t want to presume to tell you which choice is right for you, or to suggest that these are the only possible alternatives. But I nevertheless personally hope that you will choose something more like the second of the two options I mentioned, because I like to see people I respect working together rather than becoming enemies unnecessarily.

Which is an extremely long way of saying - is this the hill you want to die on, EllenBeth? Because even if you're right, you'd better roll over and play dead or your reputation is fucked forever at FTB.

A thinly veiled you are either with us, or against us. Pathetic. Ellen, nobody expects you to join the Slymepit. We still have sympathies for you or not, depending on individual opinion.

[Aneris]

Oh, and speaking of those captioned Jesus pics:


I've got more of these on my computer, they're awesome

Was about to post these...
http://jesusisajerk.tumblr.com/

[Wonderist]

Because I was feeling a bit of a hankering for crazy, I checked out this post by McEwan at Shakesville:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/04/and- ... pened.html

which relates to this post by Adam Lee:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... continued/

Because Shakesville ain't Shakesville if it can't castigate PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Adam Lee within the space of a few weeks for being insufficiently feminist (i.e., not kissing McEwan's ass with proper groveling deference).

Wow, Adam Lee is tiptoeing in broken glass and it's still not good enough. That's fucking hilarious!

Holy crap! What a spectacular fail! Went in for his Official Feminist badge cookie, and came out a full blown mansplaining misogynist! :lol:

I wonder if 'our' semi-radfems are going to start to think twice about 'their' full-radfems (you never go full radfem) and go, "Sheesh, those feminists are a wee bit extreme, doncha think? Not very skeptical, are they? A tad dogmatic, even, ya might say."

[16bitheretic]

Was about to post these...
http://jesusisajerk.tumblr.com/

Heh, there's so much you can do with these pics:

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 6c87db.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... d250a4.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... d813d7.jpg
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... ece9f5.jpg

[welch]

[...]

And I see some attempts, the latest by Anne C. Hanna attempting to herd EBW back into the fold.

Yeah - Hanna says,

So I guess the question I find myself always asking here, and I think the question many people are going to be asking as they watch your developing response to this incident is, is this really the incident you want to use to define your relationship to the people here, and is the particular response that you’re making really founding the kind of relationship you want to have? If you decide that the most important thing about this relationship is to win your fight to have everyone acknowledge that your role in that original comments thread was completely without blemish, and that the angry responses of some commenters were completely beyond the pale, then you’re selecting one style of relationship. If you instead decide to think of this as a massive and completely unintentional miscommunication on your part with people whom you would rather maintain as allies, then you’re selecting a different style of relationship, and one which may have a productive future if you work to understand how that misunderstanding came about and communicate with the other parties involved about how to avoid it in the future.

I don’t want to presume to tell you which choice is right for you, or to suggest that these are the only possible alternatives. But I nevertheless personally hope that you will choose something more like the second of the two options I mentioned, because I like to see people I respect working together rather than becoming enemies unnecessarily.

Which is an extremely long way of saying - is this the hill you want to die on, EllenBeth? Because even if you're right, you'd better roll over and play dead or your reputation is fucked forever at FTB.

A thinly veiled you are either with us, or against us. Pathetic. Ellen, nobody expects you to join the Slymepit. We still have sympathies for you or not, depending on individual opinion.

I'm surprised the "EBW IS JOINING THE 'PIT" hasn't been more prevalent. It's their standard way of shitting all over someone without having to waste time on points.

[sacha]

NEW Slymepit fundraiser for Muttville Senior Dog Rescue



Donations welcome from $1 US - PayPal friendly!

any amount will make a difference. please help them

[Steersman]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'

Speaking of which, the response Bradley made to the hit-piece done here by Avicenna is not better. (Another claim that 'people of colour' can't be racist is made.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

I *think* LSP is female but can't remember where or when I saw xir gender mentioned.

Female:

Patrick, I appreciate your overall sentiments, but

I’m a bit startled by your response to his post.

WHAT?!?!?!? I think you mean HER post! I think I’m generally fairly open about being female?

Although the question mark at the end there is a little incongruous, but maybe just questioning why someone would have reached that conclusion. However, if there isn't any gravatar or link to website then it's maybe a little much to expect that everyone is going to know where and when that information was made available.

[sacha]

$180 US from the previous fundraising website on the way to Muttville, and link closed.

[Whig]

Jen Peeples of GB & TAE on her facebook says that A+ has never been about the forums. A move from self-described A+ who actually do things that is totally understandable, however disingenuous.



I just had a brief exchange with some Tweeps I didn't know were following me, including a misogynist asshole I blocked on FB nearly 2 yrs ago. (And I don't use the term misogynist lightly.) They were apparently incensed that I mentioned on Russell's post that the usual MRA trolls had shown up to down vote Richard Carrier's AAcon13 talk on YouTube. Richard talked about - horrors! - Atheism+, which has been declared dead by its haters almost as many times as evolution has been declared dead by creationists.

One of the now-blocked Tweeps suggested I spend time on the A+ forums before accusing Slyme Pitters of bad behavior. Well, here's the thing - aside from the fact that I've never accused Slyme Pitters of anything, A+ is not, and never was, about what happens on a forum. It's about what you actually *do* in the community. If you don't like the label, don't use it. If you just want to do the work of community organizing, social justice, etc. without using any label, you won't find any disagreement with me. See, I don't care what you call yourself as long as the work gets done.

If, on the other hand, you want your atheism "pure," and you regard inclusion of any other issue with it to be the cause of a "schism," we have a problem. Specifically, you are the problem. You're not well-acquainted with reality, and I'm exceptionally fond of reality. The reality that minority atheists live in says racism is real and religion has used it to keep minorities in their place. The reality that women atheists live in says sexism is real, and religion is a root cause of it. The reality that poor people live in says that poverty and injustice are real, and religion is used to keep people poor, fearful, uncertain, and compliant. If these things don't bother you - if you really can't be bothered to help a fellow human being who might just have it worse than you - please do us both a favor and unfriend me now.

[AndrewV69]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

This one is especially creepy: http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/T ... 24x768.jpg

Ooooh, so that's where all these memes were coming from! Great find.

For some reason this is my fave:

http://www.bestmemes.com/image/847.html
http://www.bestmemes.com/pix/28133129.jpg

[BarnOwl]

Just a note to say how sad I am tonight. My feathered friend that serves as my avatar died in my hand tonight.

Very sorry to hear the sad news, JAB - my sympathies and condolences on your loss.

[Pitchguest]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

I don't know much about LSP, but if you're talking about this comment (the only one in which "chill girl" appears), I think you misread it pretty badly.

No. On Zvan's blog.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222384

According to LSP, "chill girls" are women that can be dismissed. Rebecca Bradley is a "chill girl." You do the math.

[JackSkeptic]

Carrier is butthurt that his Atheism+ speech has gotten so many downvotes on Youtube:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3351
http://www.freezepage.com/1365008856UUSWHJZBPA

Wow! He's really pulling a "Wahhhh!" here. He's claiming people downvoted without watching. He's pulling a PZ by having people arbitrarily go and just upvote it. Yeah, that's intellectual honesty.

There's also the assumption that downvoters are 'haters' when they may simply be people who disagree or passing trolls who don't care. They really can't help going to extremes when dealing with people who do not agree with them. No nuance at all. It's indicative of the highly emotive and aggressive language which has been one of the causes of all the problems. Carrier, please stop it, be subtle and stop assuming emotions on people that you can't back up with evidence.

[Steersman]

LeftSidePositive has gone full Setar. Wow. I am just reading his comments on Zvan's blog and he's gone completely fucking nuts. Goes further than Richard Carrier in their McCarthyism and describes Rebecca Bradley as a 'chill girl.'
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

I don't know much about LSP, but if you're talking about this comment (the only one in which "chill girl" appears), I think you misread it pretty badly.

No. On Zvan's blog.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222384

According to LSP, "chill girls" are women that can be dismissed. Rebecca Bradley is a "chill girl." You do the math.

How do you reach that conclusion? The only reference I see to “chill girl” is this comment from her:

Yeah, Avicenna does a fantastic job here debunking a chill girl who is willfully disregarding what privilege means.

I haven’t read all of Avicenna’s post, and Rebecca Bradley looks like a rather accomplished woman so one might question how thorough a job he does of “debunking” her. But asserting, at least on that basis, that she is saying that “chill girls are women [who] can be dismissed” looks rather much of a stretch.

Sorry, but your math is looking a little wonky.

[Badger3k]

You're not going to give any credence or support to that "xe/xi/xo/xum" shit are you?

Yes Justin, why don't zou mansplain zour use of non gendered pronouns, to zus.

Shouldn't that be "cismansplained"?

Xou are quite right. How non-well thought out (but not stupid 'cause that's abelist) of me.

Almost right...after reading this, Xi realized that Xi had left out the other part..."white, heteronormative cismansplaining." I ... er Xi...left out Old since Justin isn't. Did Xi miss anything else? Xi'll say several Our Peezuses and Hail Ophelias in pennance.

[lonesagi]

How do you reach that conclusion? The only reference I see to “chill girl” is this comment from her:

Yeah, Avicenna does a fantastic job here debunking a chill girl who is willfully disregarding what privilege means.

I haven’t read all of Avicenna’s post, and Rebecca Bradley looks like a rather accomplished woman so one might question how thorough a job he does of “debunking” her. But asserting, at least on that basis, that she is saying that “chill girls are women [who] can be dismissed” looks rather much of a stretch.

Sorry, but your math is looking a little wonky.

Steersman,

If you’d actually stop strawmanning for a moment, you would learn that we want to be treated like PEOPLE, not like Chill Girls that can be dismissed or statues on pedestals to be revered.

-from http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

Add that to the other one and I think the math might work out... maybe...

Anyways, JAB, you have my sympathies.

[lonesagi]

Okay, screwed the link up. This is the correct one:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81348

[Steersman]

How do you reach that conclusion? The only reference I see to “chill girl” is this comment from her:

Yeah, Avicenna does a fantastic job here debunking a chill girl who is willfully disregarding what privilege means.

I haven’t read all of Avicenna’s post, and Rebecca Bradley looks like a rather accomplished woman so one might question how thorough a job he does of “debunking” her. But asserting, at least on that basis, that she is saying that “chill girls are women [who] can be dismissed” looks rather much of a stretch.

Sorry, but your math is looking a little wonky.

Steersman,

If you’d actually stop strawmanning for a moment, you would learn that we want to be treated like PEOPLE, not like Chill Girls that can be dismissed or statues on pedestals to be revered.

-from http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

Add that to the other one and I think the math might work out... maybe...

Anyways, JAB, you have my sympathies.

Thanks for the info; it's a good point; I stand corrected.

[Skep tickle]

Weren't some people talking about Iain Banks here in the last day or two?

He has announced that he has cancer of the gallbladder, incurable with poor prognosis: http://www.iain-banks.net/

(And, fwiw, if anyone from Pharyngula is reading here, you might alert PZ that his post says "terminal bladder cancer" rather than "gallbladder cancer", he might want to correct that info.)

[AndrewV69]

Weren't some people talking about Iain Banks here in the last day or two?

He has announced that he has cancer of the gallbladder, incurable with poor prognosis: http://www.iain-banks.net/

(And, fwiw, if anyone from Pharyngula is reading here, you might alert PZ that his post says "terminal bladder cancer" rather than "gallbladder cancer", he might want to correct that info.)

Dammit. That is all I have to say.

[Skep tickle]

Okay, now here's why I'd peeked in on Pharyngula:

A thread at A+ forum called "Fuckbrained assholes, aka Liberturds (TW!! rape)" (1)

points to PZ's post "Just when you thought Libertarians couldn’t get any more revolting" (2) (tag "Fuckbrained assholes"),

which points to Amanda Marcotte's "College Professor Gives Credence to Rapist Rationalizations" (3),

which (finally) points to the blog post with the thought experiment that's got their panties in a bunch: Steve Landsberg's post "Censorship, Environmentalism and Steubenville" (4), which IMO is moderately interesting (the blog post & comments). Then Marcotte writes it up for Slate, that gets linked in the comments, and this follows:

Post 164 at Landsberg's:

Ken B
April 3, 2013 at 2:27 pm

re 159 and Marcotte:

This is why honest debate is so hard. Let’s look at what Landsburg is actually doing. He is challenging a common moral theory –the one he prefers actually — to see if it is adequate. He does so by facing it with a serious problem. This is what an honest person does with their own theories. Scientitst try to disprove their conjectures. It’s even what reputable professionals do in their areas of competence. When I want to see if my code works I try to break it, I look for cases it cannot handle.

Not all professionals are like this of course. Amanda Marcotte seems more interesting in generating emotional reactions than in understanding, more interested in getting noticed than getting it right.

Some of the anger at Atheism+ forum includes saying libertarians are sociopathic and should "get out", that the A+'ers will be (or are?) called "the meanie pants brigade" (lol), and this:

This is the kind of shit that civility-mongers want us to entertain seriously and with absolute control over our emotions, lest we derail the Really Important conversation with our spittle-flecked rage. 'Cause, you know, shit like this it totally worthy of being given a platform of legitimacy by responding politely, and if we can't hack that then we should get off the internet (never mind that it happens all the time in meatspace, too).

________________ (references in the Steersman style) ____________________

(1) http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4395

(2) http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... revolting/

(3) http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... doesn.html

(4) http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/03/ ... ubenville/

[TheMan]

For the Aussies. Forum style TV discussion panel QandA on ABC1 this week had a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Catholic and an atheist. Next week an all women panel discussing feminism. In publicising the program on Twitter they posted a link to this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013 ... girls-club

[bovarchist]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

This one is especially creepy: http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/T ... 24x768.jpg

Dental Assistant is waaaaaaaaaaaaay creepier.
http://jesus-withyoualways.com/text/DentalTXT.jpg

[Skep tickle]

For the Aussies. Forum style TV discussion panel QandA on ABC1 this week had a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Catholic and an atheist. Next week an all women panel discussing feminism. In publicising the program on Twitter they posted a link to this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013 ... girls-club

LOL well if the speakers have seen that link it should be an especially interesting discussion.

(Title of linked article is "There’s no point in online feminism if it’s an exclusive, Mean Girls club", photo in it is from the movie "Heathers", I think)

[bovarchist]

oh, awesome site:

http://jesus-withyoualways.com

This one is especially creepy: http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/T ... 24x768.jpg

Dental Assistant is waaaaaaaaaaaaay creepier.
http://jesus-withyoualways.com/text/DentalTXT.jpg

And of course the correct link for the Dental Assistant Jesus is...
http://jesus-withyoualways.com/images/D ... 24x768.jpg

[Skep tickle]

Oh, and some of the complaints about Landsberg's hypothetical claim that he's saying it's fine for women to be raped (in certain circumstances), when his question, see below, (a) doesn't specify gender (except in the actual example from Steubenville) and (b) doesn't say it's okay, he's asking for people to think and talk about how the law should treat it, and why, if there's no physical harm:

Let’s suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm — no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I’ve read, was not even aware that she’d been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.) Despite the lack of physical damage, we are shocked, appalled and horrified at the thought of being treated in this way, and suffer deep trauma as a result. Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?

[KiwiInOz]

For the Aussies. Forum style TV discussion panel QandA on ABC1 this week had a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Catholic and an atheist. Next week an all women panel discussing feminism. In publicising the program on Twitter they posted a link to this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013 ... girls-club

Was it any good? While I like Josh and his self deprecating humour, I did wonder about his stature against the "serious" people.

[DownThunder]

Some more men basking in their privilege, having an easy time being an atheist:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/banglad ... VsCHr_ntUQ

Dont suppose some of the victim queens could come down off their throne to lend some support to these men?

Wouldn't want to be accused of Islamophobia now though either.

[Skep tickle]

How do you reach that conclusion? The only reference I see to “chill girl” is this comment from her:

Yeah, Avicenna does a fantastic job here debunking a chill girl who is willfully disregarding what privilege means.

I haven’t read all of Avicenna’s post, and Rebecca Bradley looks like a rather accomplished woman so one might question how thorough a job he does of “debunking” her. But asserting, at least on that basis, that she is saying that “chill girls are women [who] can be dismissed” looks rather much of a stretch.

Sorry, but your math is looking a little wonky.

Steersman,

If you’d actually stop strawmanning for a moment, you would learn that we want to be treated like PEOPLE, not like Chill Girls that can be dismissed or statues on pedestals to be revered.

-from http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-81875

Add that to the other one and I think the math might work out... maybe...

Anyways, JAB, you have my sympathies.

Thanks for the info; it's a good point; I stand corrected.

I don't read that second LSP quote as (necessarily) saying LSP says some women are chill girls who can be dismissed. Its pairing with "or statues on pedestals", both contrasted with "PEOPLE", suggests to me that she thinks some OTHER people treat women as Chill Girls "that" [sic] can be dismissed.

BICBW, particularly in light of the first LSP quote above.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Some of the anger at Atheism+ forum includes saying libertarians are sociopathic and should "get out", that the A+'ers will be (or are?) called "the meanie pants brigade" (lol), and this:

This is the kind of shit that civility-mongers want us to entertain seriously and with absolute control over our emotions, lest we derail the Really Important conversation with our spittle-flecked rage. 'Cause, you know, shit like this it totally worthy of being given a platform of legitimacy by responding politely, and if we can't hack that then we should get off the internet (never mind that it happens all the time in meatspace, too).

Really an odd type of conversation to be having in a way, all this discussion about politeness and “civility-mongers” [that’s a keeper: "I'll have 3 yes-pleases, 2 by-your-leaves, but the after-you-alphonses are looking a little off"] and anger as a debating tactic; “don’t get mad; get even” is, I figure, a better one. Curiously though, I think PZ kind of nails it, although I don’t think he’s yet realized the consequences:

However, man, some of you commenters were brutal. I’m all in favor of letting your views hang out there and letting you express yourselves freely, but this is a case where some of you were so angry that it interfered with your ability to communicate rationally. And then I’m torn, because that anger is actually valid, too.

All too easy for our emotions to get the better of us; bad karma [sorry sacha!], I think, to give them too much free rein. “One toke over the line”, and all that ….

________________ (references in the Steersman style) ____________________

:-) Another second or two in my 15 minutes of fame!

But I noticed that in an earlier post of yours and had been planning on mentioning that I was only doing that in Nugent’s threads because the posts go into auto-moderation if there’s more than 2 live links in it – and sometimes any depending on the link itself. And I was doing that largely because of the time differences – kind of a drag to be having a conversation and have a post sit in limbo for 8 or 12 hours before someone there releases it.

As for here, while I kind of think it is still a good way of providing the links, as it is a bit of pain to copy the link into some [url] BBC, it is maybe a little more convenient for others to use. Six of one and half-dozen of the other, I guess ….