Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[LMU]

Forget about finding "differences in alles" to account for "the distribution of IQ", first, show me that IQ is a well-defined and measurable concept.

FFS. Everyone knows (or should by now) that IQ is not "well-defined".

I thought IQ was well-defined as the outcome of a test. Or the calculated outcome after multiple applications of tests. My understanding was that "intelligence" is not well defined, and IQ was an attempt to make an operational definition for part of it.

The inputs however can be problematic. IOW someone can be illiterate due to lack of education but can still have a fairly high IQ ( note I am not an expert I could be talking out my arse).

Last time I checked there have been attempts to create "culture and literacy neutral" tests using for example geometric shapes.

My impression is similar to yours but no more precise (I remember hearing about attempts to make culture neutral IQ tests, didn't know about the literacy ones, that's interesting.) So IQ may have had a single strict definition at one point, but probably doesn't anymore. You might be able to state someone's IQ, but you'd have to qualify it with the method used.

[decius]

Incidentally, the FTB demographics have changed. The preponderant age used to be in the range 34-45.

When adults leave, it's yet another clear sign that they are WINNING.

[Apples]

NM. I think I figured it out - had to go into my control panel and remove some subbed topics. Whew! I was getting so many emails, it was driving me a bit Ophie.

"It was driving me a bit Ophie." That works!

[deLurch]

Incidentally, the FTB demographics have changed. The preponderant age used to be in the range 34-45.
When adults leave, it's yet another clear sign that they are WINNING.

http://i.imgur.com/mwP40ob.jpg

[Tigzy]

I DID! And they told me that you'd changed your screen name to, guess what, Anthony K! Imagine that! Therefore, as long as Skep Tickle refers to themself as a pseudonym, SO SHOULD YOU.

Well, unless Anthony can point to a site where Skep gives her real name and says 'I'm also known as SkepTickle on the Slymepit!', then I'll take his point. Until then, he remains the same stubby cretin I laugh at.

Truth is, it's not an outright doxxing as such - SkepTickle's situation has involved a sort drip-feed of info, not just from Ophie but a few other Babs also. Micro-aggressive doxxing, perhaps? Drip-doxxing? As ever, it at least gives Prune the veneer of plausible deniability; the same cowardly obfuscation that infests her shit writing, lest anyone make her look dumb by nailing her on a clear point which she has gotten wrong. Yeah, it really does take Ophelia Benson to take doxxing to an ever more greasy and unappealing level.

What remains to be seen now is if the babs use the info to make a move on her professional or personal life.

[free thoughtpolice]

Jesus Christ what's wrong with you people? All this back and forth about doxing Brownian and no pictures of his nude selfie with the cat?

You are slipping.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 58c7d7.png

Why is it I suddenly get the urge to send this photo along with the relevant information to the Alberta, Canada branch of PETA?

[ERV]

LOL Awwww. I still dont know Skep tickles name cause I dont read their shit sites. God they arent even 'blogs' anymore, are they? I always called ERV a 'blag' to differentiate it from the respectable blogs (Loom, Respectful Insolence, Pandas Thumb). Theyre like, I dunno, LiveJournal?

[curriejean]

Derailing the Skep Tickle saga a moment, re: Dave Silverman.

Do you remember the source of the list he linked, with the 10 things to make women more comfortable? Sounds like a real gem...

FINALLY FOUND IT! I spent a an hour google-failing, gave up in frustration, then later made a replacement FB account and just now realized I could probably use it to look far enough back in Dave Silverman's post history. Criticizing someone without evidence is not how I prefer to roll.

Here's the post on his wall:


Here's the source of the list itself:
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-p ... -other-men

Included in the list:

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

7. Watch for “professional trolls” from the “Men’s Rights” or “Father’s Rights” groups. They will often use terms such as “misandry” and refer to the feminist movement as anti-male or the domestic violence movement as an “industry.”

Disagreement equals trolling? Acknowledging that men can be treated hatefully because they're men equals trolling? Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Oh, and a nice ad-hom attempt at 'humor,' expecially considering that the list conflates disagreement with harassment/bullying/trolling:

6. Use humor. We can post something like, “Dude, put down your club—your caveman is showing!” Search online for feminist comedians of all genders who have done entire routines on this.

Hahaha, "Feminist comedians." One in particular comes to mind.
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -kilstein/

But anyway.

This looked like, and continues to look like, real promotion of ideologically-backed sexism on Silverman's part. I'd be interested to hear whether Silverman actually supports ideas so antithetical to skepticism and reasoning as these. My first thought is that I'd like him to be asked about it when he appears on Vacula's show (he didn't respond to detractors as far as I know), but then this stuff is months old and I might not be aware of updates. I don't think it should be thrown upon him without warning as a "gotcha," at least, since for all we know, he may have forgotten about it.

[Steersman]

[Post #25914]

Quietly amazed that Skep Tickle has drawn fire. And is being doxxed or threatened with doxxing. Can't think of anyone who's been more moderate and calm in the fray, and more open to discussing dialogue.

What has been Nugent's position on this, by the way? The "dialogue" he proposed seems to have wound up in threats and silencing tactics from FtB's side.

Thanks. Sadly, I'm not amazed, just given what their behavior has been like.

To clarify: I do not think Michael Nugent had any part in Stephanie Zvan's & Ophelia Benson's information-acquisition or their actions.

<snip>

Ophelia emailed me during the "discussion" on the "Stalking" thread, using a different email than I'd used in the Nugent effort but instead one I suspect she got from Stephanie. ....

Ophelia is arguing that she only used the e-mail address that you used recently to sign-on to and post in her various threads:

1) How lovely. Your “healing the rift” effort required a sharing of email addresses at least one of which has been distributed to Ophelia Benson ….

No. No email addresses have been “distributed” to me. “Skep tickle” gave me her email address by commenting here – commenting to tell me to “get help” for my “paranoia.”

While I think it was rather chickenshit of her to be using your first name in her own posts and to be, apparently, threatening to reveal further information, if she e-mailed you at an address that you provided her then I can’t see that that justifies anyone arguing that there was skullduggery and collusion with Zvan to do so.

However, from a broader perspective and relative to that post on Nugent’s blog that she responded to, while I haven’t delved into all of the details of that post, and while I also have some serious reservations about Benson’s interpretations and the morality of her position, it seems that whoever wrote that post was looking at events through some rather rosy-coloured glasses.

[PwnySlaystation]

"Feminist comedians" made me choke on my coffee. Bravo.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I love how in the Game of Thrones universe, they've apparently invented the Gillette Fusion before the steam engine.

You win, kind person. Screen was saved by a very fast head-move to the right. Cat is pissed off, though...

[deLurch]

This looked like, and continues to look like, real promotion of ideologically-backed sexism on Silverman's part.

He just linked to a feel-good article.

I'd be interested to hear whether Silverman actually supports ideas so antithetical to skepticism and reasoning as these.

I am glad you are staying skeptical instead of ascribing everything in an article he linked to, back towards him. You can probably just ask him. He is fairly accessible. Keep in mind, Silverman is an Atheist. To my knowledge he has never claimed to be a skeptic.

I don't think it should be thrown upon him without warning as a "gotcha," at least, since for all we know, he may have forgotten about it.

If curiosity is your primary interest, then just fire him an email.

[Dick Strawkins]

[Post #25914]

Quietly amazed that Skep Tickle has drawn fire. And is being doxxed or threatened with doxxing. Can't think of anyone who's been more moderate and calm in the fray, and more open to discussing dialogue.

What has been Nugent's position on this, by the way? The "dialogue" he proposed seems to have wound up in threats and silencing tactics from FtB's side.

Thanks. Sadly, I'm not amazed, just given what their behavior has been like.

To clarify: I do not think Michael Nugent had any part in Stephanie Zvan's & Ophelia Benson's information-acquisition or their actions.

<snip>

Ophelia emailed me during the "discussion" on the "Stalking" thread, using a different email than I'd used in the Nugent effort but instead one I suspect she got from Stephanie. ....

Ophelia is arguing that she only used the e-mail address that you used recently to sign-on to and post in her various threads:

1) How lovely. Your “healing the rift” effort required a sharing of email addresses at least one of which has been distributed to Ophelia Benson ….

No. No email addresses have been “distributed” to me. “Skep tickle” gave me her email address by commenting here – commenting to tell me to “get help” for my “paranoia.”

While I think it was rather chickenshit of her to be using your first name in her own posts and to be, apparently, threatening to reveal further information, if she e-mailed you at an address that you provided her then I can’t see that that justifies anyone arguing that there was skullduggery and collusion with Zvan to do so.

However, from a broader perspective and relative to that post on Nugent’s blog that she responded to, while I haven’t delved into all of the details of that post, and while I also have some serious reservations about Benson’s interpretations and the morality of her position, it seems that whoever wrote that post was looking at events through some rather rosy-coloured glasses.

But Benson states that the email Skep tickle used to comment wasn't the one she used to reply to.

I didn’t use that email address because it’s a string of gibberish followed by what looks like a joke email account – in other words, a fake. Lots of commenters use fake email addresses. I figured it would be wasted effort to use that one so I looked to see if she’d used another one. That’s why.

So she "looked to see if she'd used another one".

If Skep tickle is correct, and she'd only used the replied to email on Svans blog (and with a different nym), then how did Ophelia get it?

[Reap]

Just my opinion...
http://atheiststoday.com/blogs/reapercussions/?p=178

[curriejean]

This looked like, and continues to look like, real promotion of ideologically-backed sexism on Silverman's part.

He just linked to a feel-good article.

I'd be interested to hear whether Silverman actually supports ideas so antithetical to skepticism and reasoning as these.

I am glad you are staying skeptical instead of ascribing everything in an article he linked to, back towards him. You can probably just ask him. He is fairly accessible. Keep in mind, Silverman is an Atheist. To my knowledge he has never claimed to be a skeptic.

I don't think it should be thrown upon him without warning as a "gotcha," at least, since for all we know, he may have forgotten about it.

If curiosity is your primary interest, then just fire him an email.

Previously, I had let him know through FB about some local activism I'd done and he responded with props, which was nice of him. But when I asked him about this, no response. I know he hasn't professed to be a Skeptic, but he frequently defends his atheism using reason and skepticism, and gives the appearance that he values such thinking. As for whether this is a "feel good" article... YMMV. "God is love" articles are "feel good" for some people too. It sure didn't make me feel good, for good reason.

But yeah, I may as well pop off an email since contacting through FB didn't work. Give it another shot.

[Jan Steen]

The new commenting form of FreeThoughtBlogs:

http://i.imgur.com/jY0PZJ2.jpg

[Zenspace]

Incidentally, the FTB demographics have changed. The preponderant age used to be in the range 34-45.

When adults leave, it's yet another clear sign that they are WINNING.

I noticed that as well, but not knowing the original stats didn't comment. It certainly goes a long ways to explain why they tend to behave like petulant children.

Winning? I don't really think so. (I realize you were probably being sarcastic). That can't be a viable long term strategy unless you are intent on removing the absolute last shred of credibility. But it seems they may have long since passed that point anyway.

As welch likes to remind us, this is a piss fight in a very small pool. I keep reminding myself of that, it helps keep perspective.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Peezus has a post up linking to other FTB bloggers, the first of which is Miri who argues for the sociological definition of the word "racism" rather than the dictionary definition.

A small point, but could the Pyt Crew PLEASE stop referring to a "Sociological" definition?

"Racism" not a technical term, and I have never encountered a "definition" of it in the field beyond common usage. Sociologists know that things like "power" or even "institution" are local, not global. More importantly: to do a study you need to operationalize the "*-ism" concept into specific measures, and from there it's the character of the measurement that's interesting, not the politics of the author.

So, again, if you could hold down the slander on Social Science, that would be nice.

Thank you.

-Vh-

Sorry to say, but I ,for one, will not be holding down on social "science" bullshit.

[KiwiInOz]

And you're such a cute anteater.

You and Tigzy really know how to target my vulnerabilities and insecurities. <sob>

[some guy]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attached. That's not the same thing at all.

[Pitchguest]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

[DeepInsideYourMind]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attached. That's not the same thing at all.

Yeah, either way you read it ... it is a ludicrous proposition.

I agree with people who are right, or can convince me they are likely to be right - those are the only attributes I agree with someone based upon. I certainly don't use my FB to publicly support people "just because"

But then I am a skeptic and not a SJW

[ReneeHendricks]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

I noticed that as well. Another thing I noticed is that between the 2 posts on this on FfTB and the resulting comments, I was able to very easily figure out Skeptickle's name. So, they've pretty much accomplished what Ophie says she wasn't doing. Assholes.

[Steersman]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attacked. That's not the same thing at all.

But how is that different from Paul Elam's argument that men on juries trying rape cases should automatically vote for acquital, regardless of the evidence?

This horseshit of "my country, sex, race, or party - right or wrong" could be the death of us all. And something that EllenBeth Wachs decried not too long ago ....

[decius]

Winning? I don't really think so. (I realize you were probably being sarcastic).

Aye.

[PwnySlaystation]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attached. That's not the same thing at all.

It's actually worse I think. He's starting from the conclusion that things feminists write is "correct" and making the assumption that everyone who reads is clearly in agreement. What's really pathetic is his view of women. Men must not need people to stand with them and agree with them. Women do though! Help them! Stand in solidarity with them! They cannot take it on their own!

[Dick Strawkins]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

oolons name has been public for a while - I think he uses it on his own blog.

Aratina has an almost orgasmic desire for doxxing anyone who doesn't completely agree with him.
Just last week he wrote a long screed on his blog in which he doxxed 'Skep Sheik'.

As for the rest, they are, as you can expect from those spineless fucks, all falling into line, with one surprising exception.
Jadehawk seems to be firmly against their doxxing behavior.

[Steersman]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

I noticed that as well. Another thing I noticed is that between the 2 posts on this on FfTB and the resulting comments, I was able to very easily figure out Skeptickle's name. So, they've pretty much accomplished what Ophie says she wasn't doing. Assholes.

How do you reach that conclusion? If I'm not mistaken Skep tickle agreed that no one had revealed the precise "atheist organization" that she is a member of - and it isn't American Atheists. A first name seems hardly sufficient given the rather large number of possible candidate organizations.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attached. That's not the same thing at all.

Yeah, either way you read it ... it is a ludicrous proposition.

I agree with people who are right, or can convince me they are likely to be right - those are the only attributes I agree with someone based upon. I certainly don't use my FB to publicly support people "just because"

But then I am a skeptic and not a SJW

Which just made me realise I could put that better ...

The absolute worst kind of friend you can have is one who won't disagree with you, who will always agree and back you up.

The best kind of friend you can have is one who will tell you when you are wrong, will tell you when you are being an ass, will tell you when you are thinking like a creationist.

[bovarchist]

Jesus Christ what's wrong with you people? All this back and forth about doxing Brownian and no pictures of his nude selfie with the cat?

You are slipping.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 58c7d7.png

Why is it I suddenly get the urge to send this photo along with the relevant information to the Alberta, Canada branch of PETA?

Won't help. This is Alberta we're talking about; the local PETA is sponsored by Black Angus.

[Dick Strawkins]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

I noticed that as well. Another thing I noticed is that between the 2 posts on this on FfTB and the resulting comments, I was able to very easily figure out Skeptickle's name. So, they've pretty much accomplished what Ophie says she wasn't doing. Assholes.

How do you reach that conclusion? If I'm not mistaken Skep tickle agreed that no one had revealed the precise "atheist organization" that she is a member of - and it isn't American Atheists. A first name seems hardly sufficient given the rather large number of possible candidate organizations.

There have been a lot of posts since Skep tickle wrote that and I guess those are the ones that Renee is referring to.
Someone on Pharyngula posted a link to an article she wrote for her organization.

[Tigzy]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

Yes, I regularly see Babs congratulating Abbie, MKG, Welch, Renee etc. on their bravery.

[ReneeHendricks]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

I noticed that as well. Another thing I noticed is that between the 2 posts on this on FfTB and the resulting comments, I was able to very easily figure out Skeptickle's name. So, they've pretty much accomplished what Ophie says she wasn't doing. Assholes.

How do you reach that conclusion? If I'm not mistaken Skep tickle agreed that no one had revealed the precise "atheist organization" that she is a member of - and it isn't American Atheists. A first name seems hardly sufficient given the rather large number of possible candidate organizations.

From them putting out her first name and the link put out by a commenter regarding an organization membership.

[AndrewV69]

Some dudebro in the manosphere decides to dox himself and notes:
http://apocalypsecometh.com/my-name-is-c-m-sturges/

Actually now that I’m doing this, I find it a bit liberating. No more am I going to pull any punches with my writing that I felt I had to do when writing under a pseudonym.

[Steersman]

<snip>
While I think it was rather chickenshit of her to be using your first name in her own posts and to be, apparently, threatening to reveal further information, if she e-mailed you at an address that you provided her then I can’t see that that justifies anyone arguing that there was skullduggery and collusion with Zvan to do so.
....

But Benson states that the email Skep tickle used to comment wasn't the one she used to reply to.

I didn’t use that email address because it’s a string of gibberish followed by what looks like a joke email account – in other words, a fake. Lots of commenters use fake email addresses. I figured it would be wasted effort to use that one so I looked to see if she’d used another one. That’s why.

So she "looked to see if she'd used another one".

If Skep tickle is correct, and she'd only used the replied to email on Svans blog (and with a different nym), then how did Ophelia get it?

Thanks - I hadn't seen that comment on Benson's blog.

But good question as to where Benson would have gotten that e-mail. But Benson's subsequent response suggests that she had found an e-mail address from an earlier comment on her blog by Skep-tickle. If that is not the case then Benson and Zvan are still not off the hook. And, given the later efforts by Benson - "What does it matter which of her email addresses I used?" - to deflect that question, then I would be tempted to say, "guilty as charged".

[bovarchist]

The new commenting form of FreeThoughtBlogs:

http://i.imgur.com/jY0PZJ2.jpg

Well, that puts the ball-vice to future recruitment, doesn't it? I can't imagine anybody reading that form without reflexively crossing their legs, let alone filling it out.

Pharyngula: Splashing cold water on skeptical penises everywhere.

[ReneeHendricks]

Isn't it wonderful how most people in the FtB threads decry anonymity as cowardice, while content in the irony that they, too, have nyms and are for all intents and purposes anonymous?

I don't see the slimy turd using his real name. I don't see Aratina using his real name. I don't see A Hermit using his real name. If they're not so concerned about their own anonymity, even though that should be perfectly acceptable, then how about they put their money where their mouth is or shut the fuck up?

I noticed that as well. Another thing I noticed is that between the 2 posts on this on FfTB and the resulting comments, I was able to very easily figure out Skeptickle's name. So, they've pretty much accomplished what Ophie says she wasn't doing. Assholes.

How do you reach that conclusion? If I'm not mistaken Skep tickle agreed that no one had revealed the precise "atheist organization" that she is a member of - and it isn't American Atheists. A first name seems hardly sufficient given the rather large number of possible candidate organizations.

There have been a lot of posts since Skep tickle wrote that and I guess those are the ones that Renee is referring to.
Someone on Pharyngula posted a link to an article she wrote for her organization.

Yep, as I said, her first name and the link put out was enough to figure it out. So, yeah...Ophie did exactly what she said she wasn't doing with a bit of help from PShitMyers.

[BarnOwl]

I can see the reviews already:

"A DELIBERATE TOUR DE FORCE" (Avatar of Reasonableness)

"DAWKINS WISH THAT HE WAS AS GOOD WRITER AS PEEZEE IS! THAT'S WHY I'M NOT BUYING DICK'S BOOKS ANYMORE! NOW I ONLY USE PEEZEE!" (Blue-Haired White Dragon)

"I WOULD REVIEW THIS BOOK NOW, BUT I'M SWAMPED RIGHT NOW, AND I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR ENERGY TO DO SO. SO I'M CROWSOURCING THE REVIEW. PS: SEND ME FLUEVOGS" (A Busy Profissional Blogger)

"THE COVER OF THIS BOOK IS LOOKING AT ME... IT'S STALKING ME... I'LL OUT YOU, MOFO!" (Granny Goodness)

"THIS BOOKE IS VERY GOODE! BETTER THAN MOBBY DICKE! I RECOMMENDEEE ITTE!" (Some Professor Dude)

:lol:

I am so totally stalking you when I manage to take that trip to Brazil I've been planning for the last 5 years.

[AndrewV69]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attacked. That's not the same thing at all.

But how is that different from Paul Elam's argument that men on juries trying rape cases should automatically vote for acquital, regardless of the evidence?

This horseshit of "my country, sex, race, or party - right or wrong" could be the death of us all. And something that EllenBeth Wachs decried not too long ago ....

Admit it. You guys are really trying to suck me into this. Welp not this time. Mind, I do reserve the right to raise up on my hind legs later one, but for now y'all are on your own.

[windy]

Just last week he wrote a long screed on his blog in which he doxxed 'Skep Sheik'.

This one?
http://aratina.blogspot.com/2013/05/ske ... -lord.html
From the comments:

You know damn well that they are nothing alike, windy. There is no mirror image. Of all people, you should never have picked up that cult's purple slime to quaff in the first place. Please enjoy this nicely-aged porcupine corpse as you fuck off!

At least Aratina's definitely over that weird polite phase :roll:

He neglected to mention how I should enjoy the porcupine corpse, so I think I'll go with Dutch Oven Roasted Porcupine. Yum!

[Cunning Punt]

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1711

We call on atheist conference organizers not to enable campaigns of such harassment too much,

What the fuck does that mean?

[ianfc]

I see Watson is not on PZ's SkepchickCON evo-psych panel. The discussion will include spotting the bullshit in evo-psych and given that Watson is an expert in this field it will probably be a nogoer. I could be wrong about Watson though, I'm new to this stuff, but I'm sure I've heard she's some sort of expert regarding bullshit.

http://schedule.convergence-con.org/eve ... aaHr8qncfo

[Dick Strawkins]

Just last week he wrote a long screed on his blog in which he doxxed 'Skep Sheik'.

This one?
http://aratina.blogspot.com/2013/05/ske ... -lord.html
From the comments:

You know damn well that they are nothing alike, windy. There is no mirror image. Of all people, you should never have picked up that cult's purple slime to quaff in the first place. Please enjoy this nicely-aged porcupine corpse as you fuck off!

At least Aratina's definitely over that weird polite phase :roll:

He neglected to mention how I should enjoy the porcupine corpse, so I think I'll go with Dutch Oven Roasted Porcupine. Yum!

That's the one.
So that's two of the non FTB team in Nugents dialogue process who have been doxxed in the last week.

And to think people said they were bored by the whole thing and that nothing was going to happen!

:snooty:

[acathode]

Sarkeesian doesn't deserve to have her video flagged, despite the fact that she's using copyrighted content in her video. That's fair use, because she's critiquing it.

By the same token, anyone who has critiqued Those Pesky Dames videos should not have had their content flagged down simply because they used clips of Those Pesky Dames in their reply. But I don't see any Feminists complaining about that.

Of course none of them deserve that, any such attempt is an actual attempt to silence them, and thus a real attack on their right to free speech. While "frozen peaches" isn't all that popular with the SJW brigade, it should be to the rest of us.

As for the content of Sarkeesian's video though, it's mostly crap. It's badly researched and overall it's just scream "lazy and shallow". Her bias is obvious to any neutral observer, and her whole video seem to be basically just one big example of cherry-picking to support a conclusion she reached long before she even laid eyes on any of the games she mentioned.

Just some of the main rather stupid things she does:
Early in the video she complains that even though that games today often give their "damsel" real character traits and have them try to escape and sometimes gives the player a helping hand, this is still not enough, because it's still not "empowering". At this point, it pretty much seem as if her real beef is that the "damsel" isn't the actual playable character, because that's really the only way you'll get the amount of "empowerment" Sarkeesian demands. At some point you will just have to accept that the one driving the story forward and doing the really important stuff will mainly be the main character, the hero, which usually is the very character that the player plays as.

After that we get into the really cherry-picked stuff. She starts with the "Woman in the refrigerator" - the killing of women (usually the wife or girlfriend) for the sake of character development. This is cherry-picking at it's finest. Sure, it happens quite often that a love interest is killed off to drive the character-development and the plot forward, but it also happen quite often that the hero's parents or relatives, best friend, etc etc etc is killed off - for the exact same reasons.

Then there's her "violence against women", which others have pointed out, is just absurd considering the amount of virtual men that get butchered in your average game that feature violence of any kind.

Then comes the part in where she's basically gone to TvTropes pages on "Mercy Kill" and Kill the ones you love" and searched for all mentions of female characters while conveniently ignoring all the entries where it's your best buddy or similar that you have to put out of his misery.
Anyone that played WoW and esp. those who raided in ICC should really just have gone "BWHAHAHA" at this point, I mean, really, how many good guys turned bad by mindcontrol or being raised as death-knights or whatever didn't Blizzard throw at us?

To lay it on extra thick, she then adds an embarrassing shallow, high school level analysis of her invented trope, on how it is promoting violence against women. I mean, just wow, to ignore all the various moral dilemmas of good people having to choose between two evil deeds and the emotional impact that these tropes are supposed to have on the main character, and instead reduce it down to a defense for the wife batterer "she asked for it", is just sick. I can't describe it any other way, you're either a psychopath who simply cannot grasp the concept of empathy, or you're a dishonest lowlife who only care about crafting a narrative that will sell whatever bullshit you're peddling.

She also raises the complaint that women are often only given skin deep depth, and instead made up of a handful or even just one cliché like "sensual and sexy", completely ignoring the fact that in many games, that's how ALL characters are represented, including even the main protagonist.

There's just so much that's so bad in this video I could go on and on, but at this point, I doubt many are still reading, so I'll end it with this:

She has one good point though, which is that game developers often are lazy in the way they play on female vulnerability to get a quick and easy emotional response from the players. Unfortunately, she completely fucks this up by playing that the very same damn violent herself, when she start repeating the usual feminist violence against women statistics etc, describing violence against women as an epidemic, and ratting off a couple of horrible numbers on how often women are victims of violent crimes.
Fact is, that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women in most western countries, in all categories ranging from lighter muggings and beatings to really severe grave assaults, manslaughter and murders. The one exception are violent sexual crimes, but adding all up, due to the low number of sex crimes compared to other violent crimes, men usually dominate the total victim statistics.

Yet, by rattling of these statistics, Sarkeesian tries to play on the very same strings that she just minutes ago criticized the game devs for lazily exploiting, our bias towards seeing women as primarily victims that need to be defended and how violence against women are much more morally reprehensibly than violence against a man.

Overall, I think her video manages to be even worse than her first one. However, I won't ever say is that she is somehow scamming or ripping off her donors. On the contrary, the people that donated are getting EXACTLY what they paid for - your usual tumbler SJW style feminist ideology, condensed into short youtube clips that reinforce their beliefs and which can be showed down the throat of anyone who disagree with them to prove their point on just how bad the gaming community is.
From that perspective, as we all should know by now, being factually correct, offering though-provoking ideas, or delivering genuine quality content is completely irrelevant, they just want dogma sausages.

[AndrewV69]

I see Watson is not on PZ's SkepchickCON evo-psych panel. The discussion will include spotting the bullshit in evo-psych and given that Watson is an expert in this field it will probably be a nogoer. I could be wrong about Watson though, I'm new to this stuff, but I'm sure I've heard she's some sort of expert regarding bullshit.

http://schedule.convergence-con.org/eve ... aaHr8qncfo

PeeZuss Christ has professed so much ideology over the last couple of years I would doubt his expertise in evo-psych myself.

[decius]

PeeZuss Christ has professed so much ideology over the last couple of years I would doubt his expertise in evo-psych myself.

And you'd be absolutely correct in doing so. He is engaging in leftist denialism also over that one.

[katamari Damassi]

Since Peezus has already rejected skepticism, how long until he rejects the scientific method altogether and embraces "Women's ways of knowing"? He could blog on herstory after studying The Chalice and the Blade.

[Dick Strawkins]

I see Watson is not on PZ's SkepchickCON evo-psych panel. The discussion will include spotting the bullshit in evo-psych and given that Watson is an expert in this field it will probably be a nogoer. I could be wrong about Watson though, I'm new to this stuff, but I'm sure I've heard she's some sort of expert regarding bullshit.

http://schedule.convergence-con.org/eve ... aaHr8qncfo

PeeZuss Christ has professed so much ideology over the last couple of years I would doubt his expertise in evo-psych myself.

Myers is not an expert on Evo Psych.
He's a former developmental biology researcher who hasn't published a novel research article in over a decade and who now works as a teacher at a provincial public University.

He doesn't have any professional knowledge of Evo Psych.

Do they have a real Evo Psych expert on the panel?

[Cunning Punt]

3. Write, "I think you’re right," in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.

... Publicly agree with women (Feminist women) whether you actually agree with them or not? What are men supposed to do when Feminists disagree with one another? Just shut up and listen?

Where does he say to "agree" with them whether you actually agree with them or not? I read it as him saying agree with them whether or not you think they have been harrassed or attacked. That's not the same thing at all.

But how is that different from Paul Elam's argument that men on juries trying rape cases should automatically vote for acquittal, regardless of the evidence?

One's a conversation between two people, the other is a trial of a person that may go to jail for committing a terrible crime? Quite different I would think.

This horseshit of "my country, sex, race, or party - right or wrong" could be the death of us all. And something that EllenBeth Wachs decried not too long ago ....

This was good. Is that 140 chars? Tweet, my good man!

[BarnOwl]

LOL Awwww. I still dont know Skep tickles name cause I dont read their shit sites. God they arent even 'blogs' anymore, are they? I always called ERV a 'blag' to differentiate it from the respectable blogs (Loom, Respectful Insolence, Pandas Thumb). Theyre like, I dunno, LiveJournal?

Disingenuous crap like this is what passes for "blogging" over there:

When Brayton and I put this network tog ... y history.

PZ knows perfectly well that this has nothing to do with diversity, or with anyone's opposition to diversity. As a group, they are demonstrably lacking in diversity of almost any kind (and it appears to be rather a sore point with them ... a few barbs have found their mark). The quote above comes from a post written in bizarre defense of a narcissistic white woman who behaves like East Coast old money. How is that encouraging diversity, unless you're talking about an annoying collection of personality disorders?

[BarnOwl]

Ooops, quote tags intended instead of url tags. Derp.

[Hemisphere]

PZ Myers panel at CONvergence (Dead Space anyone?) 2013 on evolutionary psychology consists of Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan (mod), Amanda Marcotte, Indre Viskontas, PZ Myers. Any guesses as to which of them is a psychologist, let alone an actual evolutionary psychologist? That's right, none of them are.

At least they made a show of trying by including Indre Viskontas (a cognitive neuroscientist) who has actually done some fairly interesting and important work IIRC. Plus as a neuroscientist she is well placed to criticise it on the basis of the assumption it makes about modular brain functioning.

PZ and Greg may have something to offer considering that they both work/worked in fields that overlapped with evolutionary theory, but I wouldn't bet on them having much of a clue beyond the basics.

As far as I am aware neither Marcotte or Zvan possess relevant qualifications, they are likely going to be out of their depth

So we've got a panel of non-experts and as I understand at least 4 of the 5 are firmly on one side of the argument.

Couldn't they have wrangled Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, or Bloom for some balance?

[Guest]

LOL Awwww. I still dont know Skep tickles name cause I dont read their shit sites. God they arent even 'blogs' anymore, are they? I always called ERV a 'blag' to differentiate it from the respectable blogs (Loom, Respectful Insolence, Pandas Thumb). Theyre like, I dunno, LiveJournal?

geocities, but without the class and competence

[decius]

Do they have a real Evo Psych expert on the panel?

Of course not. There's the entire Politburo, including Men-Are-Failed-Women Laden.

Expect great science in the service of the Quinquennial Plan.

I shit you not.

Panelists: Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan (mod), Amanda Marcotte, Indre Viskontas, PZ Myers

[sacha]

http://i.imgur.com/Eyn9Kox.png


hahaha! Damion, you are such a pussy. A pretentious tone-trolling pussy. Blocking responses and deleting posts? hahaha! In your world calling someone a cunt is worse than that? You are exactly what I have been saying all along. A baboon, pure and simple. Go grovel at Nanny FeeFee's feet. Beg for forgiveness, perhaps they will let you be a slave in the Baboon lair.

As for Trophy, she is not even worthy of the time it would take to compose a response. She is weak and irrelevant. A dying fly buzzing about and crashing into windows.

[bovarchist]

PZ Myers panel at CONvergence (Dead Space anyone?) 2013 on evolutionary psychology consists of Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan (mod), Amanda Marcotte, Indre Viskontas, PZ Myers. Any guesses as to which of them is a psychologist, let alone an actual evolutionary psychologist? That's right, none of them are.

At least they made a show of trying by including Indre Viskontas (a cognitive neuroscientist) who has actually done some fairly interesting and important work IIRC. Plus as a neuroscientist she is well placed to criticise it on the basis of the assumption it makes about modular brain functioning.

PZ and Greg may have something to offer considering that they both work/worked in fields that overlapped with evolutionary theory, but I wouldn't bet on them having much of a clue beyond the basics.

As far as I am aware neither Marcotte or Zvan possess relevant qualifications, they are likely going to be out of their depth

So we've got a panel of non-experts and as I understand at least 4 of the 5 are firmly on one side of the argument.

Couldn't they have wrangled Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, or Bloom for some balance?

Wouldn't it be nice to get those four into the audience for a little creative Q+A?

[Zenspace]

PZ Myers panel at CONvergence (Dead Space anyone?) 2013 on evolutionary psychology consists of Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan (mod), Amanda Marcotte, Indre Viskontas, PZ Myers. Any guesses as to which of them is a psychologist, let alone an actual evolutionary psychologist? That's right, none of them are.

At least they made a show of trying by including Indre Viskontas (a cognitive neuroscientist) who has actually done some fairly interesting and important work IIRC. Plus as a neuroscientist she is well placed to criticise it on the basis of the assumption it makes about modular brain functioning.

PZ and Greg may have something to offer considering that they both work/worked in fields that overlapped with evolutionary theory, but I wouldn't bet on them having much of a clue beyond the basics.

As far as I am aware neither Marcotte or Zvan possess relevant qualifications, they are likely going to be out of their depth

So we've got a panel of non-experts and as I understand at least 4 of the 5 are firmly on one side of the argument.

Couldn't they have wrangled Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, or Bloom for some balance?

Not likely and probably never will. They have continued to burn every bridge in sight and no one of any real substance is likely to have much to do with their increasingly dysfuntional acts in the future - which is a good thing. Let them slowly disappear into their own little cesspit. Be nice if it would happen a bit more quickly.

[bovarchist]

Couldn't they have wrangled Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, or Bloom for some balance?

Wouldn't it be nice to get those four into the audience for a little creative Q+A?

Oh fuck, I just advocated harassment, didn't I? Do I have to denounce something now?

[sacha]

At this point, I only have a question for you, which I suppose is in the mind of many others. Do you talk to people IRL the same way, for instance comparing them to dogs in need of mercy killing...

he does, decius. He is no different when a computer is not present.

[Zenspace]

PZ Myers panel at CONvergence (Dead Space anyone?) 2013 on evolutionary psychology consists of Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan (mod), Amanda Marcotte, Indre Viskontas, PZ Myers. Any guesses as to which of them is a psychologist, let alone an actual evolutionary psychologist? That's right, none of them are.

At least they made a show of trying by including Indre Viskontas (a cognitive neuroscientist) who has actually done some fairly interesting and important work IIRC. Plus as a neuroscientist she is well placed to criticise it on the basis of the assumption it makes about modular brain functioning.

PZ and Greg may have something to offer considering that they both work/worked in fields that overlapped with evolutionary theory, but I wouldn't bet on them having much of a clue beyond the basics.

As far as I am aware neither Marcotte or Zvan possess relevant qualifications, they are likely going to be out of their depth

So we've got a panel of non-experts and as I understand at least 4 of the 5 are firmly on one side of the argument.

Couldn't they have wrangled Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, or Bloom for some balance?

Not likely and probably never will. They have continued to burn every bridge in sight and no one of any real substance is likely to have much to do with their increasingly dysfuntional acts in the future - which is a good thing. Let them slowly disappear into their own little cesspit. Be nice if it would happen a bit more quickly.

Hmmm. Indre Viskontas is actually an interesting one - just looked her up as I was not familiar with her. What the hell is she doing with the rest of those clowns? :think: