Dimwit. Of course none, since we are all franc's socks or something.Altair wrote:The tweeters are a-tweeting!
First blow, you Skeptic Women are not real women, of course :snooty:
She's just telling us to check our privilege.Altair wrote:I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere
Some day, people will stop wielding the horror of actual rape as a thought-terminating cliche to trump dissent. They might even stop expecting women to treat the world like a convent. Some day...Ericb wrote:How many women have been raped at atheist/skeptic events?
Apparently only women who have been raped(nevermind men) can have correct and true feelings in regard to feeling safe and loved.Eskarina wrote:Dimwit. Of course none, since we are all franc's socks or something.Altair wrote:The tweeters are a-tweeting!
First blow, you Skeptic Women are not real women, of course :snooty:
She's just telling us to check our privilege.Altair wrote:I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere
Some day, when a few more billion souls have been reduced to this:curriejean wrote:Some day, people will stop wielding the horror of actual rape as a thought-terminating cliche to trump dissent. They might even stop expecting women to treat the world like a convent. Some day...Ericb wrote:How many women have been raped at atheist/skeptic events?
whatisthisIdontevenAltair wrote: I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere
Kareem wrote:whatisthisIdontevenAltair wrote: I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere
Is she saying that women don't feel awesome and loved and safe? They're so anxious to knock something down that they can't even structure their hate.
When the A+ crowd shifts their focus from exploiting gender to exploiting race, you can expect my name on a similar petition.
Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
Dude, wake up.Tigzy wrote:Hmmm. I think I'm making the mistake of assuming the baboons would actually adhere to the same principles they're so ready to shit upon others for violating, aren't I.
Yup. The A+ alone was enough to explain the moral derpitude.Empirically Inclined Atheism + morally responsible skeptical reasoning. Feminist. Vice President of We Are Atheism, blogger/admin for Atheism Resource.
My reply:Ool0n wrote: oolonJune 5, 2013 at 2:12 AM
You guys do a great job of discrediting yourselves... At least Ophelia had the class to de-godwin her Nazi Germany analogy.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... inization/
Hope you have sent this to Mick as it is.
Reply
And :SubMan wrote:SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Go home pineapple.
Reply
Ool0n returns:SubMan wrote:SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Gurdur warned my of Godwinning, and it has come to bite me in the proverbial ass. However, I have some good company. Michael Shermer for one, referenced the poem by holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller.
Also, my reference was to the Nuremberg Race Laws. These laws " deprived German Jews of their rights of citizenship, giving them the status of "subjects"'.
Isn't declaring SP's (couched in undefined "abusers" language) open targets for "social punishment" even slightly analogous? It certainly makes anyone not approved by the cadre of the elect subject to whatever internet punishment they find suitable.
I'll defend my Godwin. I wrote it. I own it.
My retort:Ool0n wrote:oolonJune 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Hehe, keep it up... You and Shermer are a credit to the legion of butthurt ;-)
Why am I not surprised you realise it's daft but won't de-godwin your own words. Admitting a mistake is not something the pitters seem good at...
Reply
SubMan wrote: SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM
You don't think "it has come to bite me in the proverbial ass" is an admission? Strange, I thought you understood English. I own what I write, unlike Carrier who apologized for his "us vs them" post when his apology was insincere as evidenced by his video at AA.
Additionally, I am allowing you, a known troll and shit stirrer to post on my page, regardless of whether I agree with your opinions or your past history of thuggery.
At least give me credit for standing up for my beliefs and walking the walk.
ReplyDelete
I honestly didn't want to, but someone has to:Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
That was a fnord comment and deserves the highest praise. :clap:Gefan wrote:"Was Magellan a terrorist?"
We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
Why bother responding to oolon? Honestly.Submariner wrote:The Ool0n posts on my now famous blog:
My reply:Ool0n wrote: oolonJune 5, 2013 at 2:12 AM
You guys do a great job of discrediting yourselves... At least Ophelia had the class to de-godwin her Nazi Germany analogy.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... inization/
Hope you have sent this to Mick as it is.
ReplyAnd :SubMan wrote:SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Go home pineapple.
ReplyOol0n returns:SubMan wrote:SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Gurdur warned my of Godwinning, and it has come to bite me in the proverbial ass. However, I have some good company. Michael Shermer for one, referenced the poem by holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller.
Also, my reference was to the Nuremberg Race Laws. These laws " deprived German Jews of their rights of citizenship, giving them the status of "subjects"'.
Isn't declaring SP's (couched in undefined "abusers" language) open targets for "social punishment" even slightly analogous? It certainly makes anyone not approved by the cadre of the elect subject to whatever internet punishment they find suitable.
I'll defend my Godwin. I wrote it. I own it.My retort:Ool0n wrote:oolonJune 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Hehe, keep it up... You and Shermer are a credit to the legion of butthurt ;-)
Why am I not surprised you realise it's daft but won't de-godwin your own words. Admitting a mistake is not something the pitters seem good at...
ReplySubMan wrote: SubMan USNJune 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM
You don't think "it has come to bite me in the proverbial ass" is an admission? Strange, I thought you understood English. I own what I write, unlike Carrier who apologized for his "us vs them" post when his apology was insincere as evidenced by his video at AA.
Additionally, I am allowing you, a known troll and shit stirrer to post on my page, regardless of whether I agree with your opinions or your past history of thuggery.
At least give me credit for standing up for my beliefs and walking the walk.
ReplyDelete
Altair wrote:The tweeters are a-tweeting!
First blow, you Skeptic Women are not real women, of course :snooty:
You also accept male superiority, who knew?
Ophelia Benson's name is a fake, we already knew that, but it's good to have confirmation
I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere
yeah...that word was somewhat poorly chosen.cunt wrote:Honestly though. The benevolence of Ron Lindsay.
1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.Remick wrote:1. Facts leaning left was a joke. Mainly that so many 'conservative' positions disregard facts.Mark Thomas wrote:I don't want to get into a political argument, because politics are about value judgements. Facts don't lean left any more than they lean right, facts are facts. What we choose to do with those facts involves value judgements which lend themselves to political arguments. If you truly believe that facts lean left, then you should examine your own biases.Remick wrote:Facts lean left. There are only a handful of points where conservatives have truth/facts on their side, and even then they can't help but exaggerate them to absurd levels. Considering a very large minority(or even possibly a majority) of conservative politicians base most of their choices on the result of prayer or 'what the bible says'(even if the bible makes no mention of it), do you honestly believe that Dems and Conservatives are both really batting .500, and it is the media that tilts in left?Mark Thomas wrote:Agree with everything except for this bit - which I think is demonstrably wrong. Read Dr. Tim Groseclose's work for a fuller treatment. To both political parties, the only good journalism is that which suports their positions. And both parties routinely find minutiae to complain about in the press. But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left. Someone once said Roger Ailes' success is due to the fact that he found a niche news market which wasn't being serviced to that point - 50% of the population.Mykeru wrote:
Conservatives in the United States have been quite successful in this tactic, complaining about the (so-called) "liberal media" enough to push the line of where moderation lies decidedly to the right. Of course, even when the media self-censors, or just abdicate their responsibility completely and presents " X said this and Y said that" stenography without any facts or analysis entering into it, the GOP will just find even more minutiae to complain about because to them the only responsible journalism consists of shilling for them.
No conservative politicians I'm aware of "base most of their choices on the result of prayer." Politicians use political issues - like religion - to their advantage when they can. More conservative politicians do this than liberal ones, and more 'very religious' people tend to vote conservative (likely because of their stands on abortion and gay marriage). But liberal politicians and voters are religious as well - if not to the extent conservatives are.
2. You have not been paying attention, we have moved past the phase where the vast majority of conservative politicians 'use' religion, and now a large minority of them base decisions on it. The more 'old school' republicans dislike them and fear their vunerablity to being 'primaried' from the right.
3. You are right, many liberal politicians pay lip service to religion or pretend to be more religious than they are in order to get elected, mainly because they correctly fear that it will cost them a lot of votes if they are seen as not religious
"Marcottening"Outwest wrote:We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
Well, many of them do base their anti-contraception anti-abortion legislation on the bible, however, if they want a shot at furthering their careers, they have to impress the very powerful pro-life religious lobby. So, even if they are not genuine in their beliefs, they certainly act like it.Evidence, please, for this statement: "a large minority of them base decisions on it." I'll also note that it's slightly different from what you said in your earlier comment where you stated that they "base most of their choices on the result of prayer."
That's a good point, it is a lot like Godwinning. The same from a rhetorical point of view. IMO any RW rule should be more about rallying support by blaming trolling on one's targets, rather than references to rape specifically.Outwest wrote:We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"Altair wrote:--snipped--
Fox leans right - Dr. Groseclose's research demonstrates that. But ideologically, according to his methodology, they are closer to the center than organizations such as the NYT, WAPO, and (I think) all of the network news organizations.cunt wrote:When you have news organisations, like Fox, that are willing to constantly ignore and distort facts in order to keep reporting a line of bullshit informed only by their strict adherence to their ideological agenda and revenue stream, then yes the facts lean left. Because apparently, the right wing has absolutely no respect for what's factually true.Mark Thomas wrote:I don't want to get into a political argument, because politics are about value judgements. Facts don't lean left any more than they lean right, facts are facts. What we choose to do with those facts involves value judgements which lend themselves to political arguments. If you truly believe that facts lean left, then you should examine your own biases.Remick wrote:Facts lean left. There are only a handful of points where conservatives have truth/facts on their side, and even then they can't help but exaggerate them to absurd levels. Considering a very large minority(or even possibly a majority) of conservative politicians base most of their choices on the result of prayer or 'what the bible says'(even if the bible makes no mention of it), do you honestly believe that Dems and Conservatives are both really batting .500, and it is the media that tilts in left?Mark Thomas wrote:Agree with everything except for this bit - which I think is demonstrably wrong. Read Dr. Tim Groseclose's work for a fuller treatment. To both political parties, the only good journalism is that which suports their positions. And both parties routinely find minutiae to complain about in the press. But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left. Someone once said Roger Ailes' success is due to the fact that he found a niche news market which wasn't being serviced to that point - 50% of the population.Mykeru wrote:
Conservatives in the United States have been quite successful in this tactic, complaining about the (so-called) "liberal media" enough to push the line of where moderation lies decidedly to the right. Of course, even when the media self-censors, or just abdicate their responsibility completely and presents " X said this and Y said that" stenography without any facts or analysis entering into it, the GOP will just find even more minutiae to complain about because to them the only responsible journalism consists of shilling for them.
Also, fuck off n00b. (traditional slyme-pit way of telling a n00b to fuck off)
Does the American South or Michelle Bachmann exist for you?Mark Thomas wrote:1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.Remick wrote:1. Facts leaning left was a joke. Mainly that so many 'conservative' positions disregard facts.Mark Thomas wrote:I don't want to get into a political argument, because politics are about value judgements. Facts don't lean left any more than they lean right, facts are facts. What we choose to do with those facts involves value judgements which lend themselves to political arguments. If you truly believe that facts lean left, then you should examine your own biases.Remick wrote:Facts lean left. There are only a handful of points where conservatives have truth/facts on their side, and even then they can't help but exaggerate them to absurd levels. Considering a very large minority(or even possibly a majority) of conservative politicians base most of their choices on the result of prayer or 'what the bible says'(even if the bible makes no mention of it), do you honestly believe that Dems and Conservatives are both really batting .500, and it is the media that tilts in left?Mark Thomas wrote:
Agree with everything except for this bit - which I think is demonstrably wrong. Read Dr. Tim Groseclose's work for a fuller treatment. To both political parties, the only good journalism is that which suports their positions. And both parties routinely find minutiae to complain about in the press. But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left. Someone once said Roger Ailes' success is due to the fact that he found a niche news market which wasn't being serviced to that point - 50% of the population.
No conservative politicians I'm aware of "base most of their choices on the result of prayer." Politicians use political issues - like religion - to their advantage when they can. More conservative politicians do this than liberal ones, and more 'very religious' people tend to vote conservative (likely because of their stands on abortion and gay marriage). But liberal politicians and voters are religious as well - if not to the extent conservatives are.
2. You have not been paying attention, we have moved past the phase where the vast majority of conservative politicians 'use' religion, and now a large minority of them base decisions on it. The more 'old school' republicans dislike them and fear their vunerablity to being 'primaried' from the right.
3. You are right, many liberal politicians pay lip service to religion or pretend to be more religious than they are in order to get elected, mainly because they correctly fear that it will cost them a lot of votes if they are seen as not religious
2. Evidence, please, for this statement: "a large minority of them base decisions on it." I'll also note that it's slightly different from what you said in your earlier comment where you stated that they "base most of their choices on the result of prayer."
1) Certainly true. However, if one side does it 3/10 and the other side does it 10/10, it is hardly equal. Both are guilty of it, I won't pretend that isn't the case, however it is vastly different in scale and frequency and therefore not equal.Mark Thomas wrote:1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.Remick wrote:1. Facts leaning left was a joke. Mainly that so many 'conservative' positions disregard facts.Mark Thomas wrote:I don't want to get into a political argument, because politics are about value judgements. Facts don't lean left any more than they lean right, facts are facts. What we choose to do with those facts involves value judgements which lend themselves to political arguments. If you truly believe that facts lean left, then you should examine your own biases.Remick wrote:Facts lean left. There are only a handful of points where conservatives have truth/facts on their side, and even then they can't help but exaggerate them to absurd levels. Considering a very large minority(or even possibly a majority) of conservative politicians base most of their choices on the result of prayer or 'what the bible says'(even if the bible makes no mention of it), do you honestly believe that Dems and Conservatives are both really batting .500, and it is the media that tilts in left?Mark Thomas wrote:
Agree with everything except for this bit - which I think is demonstrably wrong. Read Dr. Tim Groseclose's work for a fuller treatment. To both political parties, the only good journalism is that which suports their positions. And both parties routinely find minutiae to complain about in the press. But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left. Someone once said Roger Ailes' success is due to the fact that he found a niche news market which wasn't being serviced to that point - 50% of the population.
No conservative politicians I'm aware of "base most of their choices on the result of prayer." Politicians use political issues - like religion - to their advantage when they can. More conservative politicians do this than liberal ones, and more 'very religious' people tend to vote conservative (likely because of their stands on abortion and gay marriage). But liberal politicians and voters are religious as well - if not to the extent conservatives are.
2. You have not been paying attention, we have moved past the phase where the vast majority of conservative politicians 'use' religion, and now a large minority of them base decisions on it. The more 'old school' republicans dislike them and fear their vunerablity to being 'primaried' from the right.
3. You are right, many liberal politicians pay lip service to religion or pretend to be more religious than they are in order to get elected, mainly because they correctly fear that it will cost them a lot of votes if they are seen as not religious
2. Evidence, please, for this statement: "a large minority of them base decisions on it." I'll also note that it's slightly different from what you said in your earlier comment where you stated that they "base most of their choices on the result of prayer."
It doesn't have to be either/or. Thimbledick could be maliciously stupid, or stupidly malicious.dogen wrote:Jesus, the 'boons are stupid. Take this comment by Jason on Almost Diamonds, for instance:
And now let's read the first paragraph of Skep Tickle's post on Jason's blog:She posted in Skep Tickle’s defense as skeptixx over at my blog, pretending not to be the same person.
In cases like these, I'm torn between stupidity and malice as an explanation for the abject fuckwittery.Whether or not Skep tickle ‘was there only to resist the “Kool-Aidâ€â€¦â€ without “contributing directly to the health of the discussion–the purpose of the forum–itself†is one of those assessments that depends hugely on the lens you wear. My perspective is that of Skep tickle, as I am she.
Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.
This is only true if you consider 'the middle' to be directly inbetween the US republican and US democrat parties. The further to the right the republicans run, the greater the 'liberal bias' of the media appears.Mark Thomas wrote:Fox leans right - Dr. Groseclose's research demonstrates that. But ideologically, according to his methodology, they are closer to the center than organizations such as the NYT, WAPO, and (I think) all of the network news organizations.cunt wrote:When you have news organisations, like Fox, that are willing to constantly ignore and distort facts in order to keep reporting a line of bullshit informed only by their strict adherence to their ideological agenda and revenue stream, then yes the facts lean left. Because apparently, the right wing has absolutely no respect for what's factually true.Mark Thomas wrote:I don't want to get into a political argument, because politics are about value judgements. Facts don't lean left any more than they lean right, facts are facts. What we choose to do with those facts involves value judgements which lend themselves to political arguments. If you truly believe that facts lean left, then you should examine your own biases.Remick wrote:Facts lean left. There are only a handful of points where conservatives have truth/facts on their side, and even then they can't help but exaggerate them to absurd levels. Considering a very large minority(or even possibly a majority) of conservative politicians base most of their choices on the result of prayer or 'what the bible says'(even if the bible makes no mention of it), do you honestly believe that Dems and Conservatives are both really batting .500, and it is the media that tilts in left?Mark Thomas wrote:
Agree with everything except for this bit - which I think is demonstrably wrong. Read Dr. Tim Groseclose's work for a fuller treatment. To both political parties, the only good journalism is that which suports their positions. And both parties routinely find minutiae to complain about in the press. But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left. Someone once said Roger Ailes' success is due to the fact that he found a niche news market which wasn't being serviced to that point - 50% of the population.
Also, fuck off n00b. (traditional slyme-pit way of telling a n00b to fuck off)
I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.cunt wrote:Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.
Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?
:character-count: :character-count: :character-cookiemonster: :character-count: :character-count:In total there are 80 users online :: 16 registered, 4 hidden and 60 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
"Larsoning"Angry_Drunk wrote:"Marcottening"Outwest wrote:We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
Yes I think it would be unfortunate, because I would be disappointed at viewing another instance of a behaviour that I consider deeply unethical.CommanderTuvok wrote:Given Black Svan's defence of Ophelia's "doxxing", it would be unfortunate it Svan's real name was revealed.
Wouldn't it?
Larsonic poisoning?Eskarina wrote: "Larsoning"
Zackly! :DFrankGrimes wrote:Well done! :clap:curriejean wrote:http://i.imgur.com/O6PAGFt.png
Thank you all! We are live! Please click and sign if you find it represents you, and share the link far and wide.
All signatures gathered during beta testing have been erased, so anyone who already signed will need to sign again.
Many cheers to everyone who helped out with the composition and supported this effort.
Many more cheers and thank-yous to the user agarybuseychristmas who is responsible for creating the site and donating hours of custom coding work.
I can appreciate that! :lol:Gefan wrote:I'm fine with anonymity too. The reason use a 'nym is because I'm not a raging attention junkie. I don't really have a boss anymore, I live outside the US, and the list of people whose opinions of me really matter doesn't make it to five names (none of them of the Genus "Papio"). It's not like they can do much to me.Zenspace wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:Gefan wrote:
:angry-banghead:
Poor Gefan!! :lol:
Personally, I glory in my anonymity. It suits me just fine. I think I'll go for a quiet walk in the woods, now. :mrgreen:
I'd just like them to recognize my work, is all... :snooty:
too obvious? : LarsonyTigzy wrote:Larsonic poisoning?Eskarina wrote: "Larsoning"
Seems like she's getting quite nervous? I think she's finally starting to realize that her actions might have consequences, for her, not just the people she want to smear and silence.Dick Strawkins wrote:Opelia:
You know, Ophelia, in your case we would think it could.It gets crazier every day. You would think it couldn’t, but it does.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370428535KOUZBJDCCY
Apparently Ophelia has started to write to the President of Seattle Atheists to complain about Skep Tickle - or more specifically to try a bit of guilt-by-association using some crude insults about Ophelia made on the slymepit. :snooty:
It seems she at least have realized that people outside the FTB bubble isn't likely to buy her thin excuse and justification of the doxxing. No doubt she still have rationalized her actions as being "good", but with how she can't even find anything to smear Skep Tickle with, or at least not anything that will stick, she's probably quite nervously digging around on facebook, twitter, here on the pit, etc at this very moment, desperately trying to find anything to prove that Skep Tickle isn't the decent woman she by all accounts appear to be.So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand†and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle†is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.
That's a good idea, you need to be on the ball with removing obvious trolls and fakes, but still keeping those in a separate list is a good example of just exactly how welcoming and inclusive to women these SJW loons are themselves. With signatures like "No Reasonable Woman", "Elisabeth Fritzl" and "Eva Braun", they are making it quite clear that when they speak of 'women' in the secular community, what they actually mean is "women who think exactly like us!!!".curriejean wrote:The plan is to initiate a removal process, in which unsupportive (namecalling, cursing and impersonations, at least) signatures are separated from supportive. "Removed" signatures will still be listed openly.
You win the Intertubes for today. :DEricb wrote:too obvious? : LarsonyTigzy wrote:Larsonic poisoning?Eskarina wrote: "Larsoning"
And a voice from the opposite end of the political spectrum could suggest that Obama has taken the Democratic Party off the cliff in the opposite direction - could Bill Clinton, who reformed welfare and signed DOMA, be elected today? His wife certainly wasn't.Gefan wrote:A couple of things have happened in the US that are worth noting. One is that the "right" has marched off the cliff at the edge of the political spectrum.Mark Thomas wrote:I didn't realize you were speaking globally, in which case I'm not sure I disagree.Mykeru wrote:That's the point, what you consider "leaning left" is probably skewed by "gaming the ref". In point of fact, the United States has a wing that is "left" only in a relative sense and certainly wouldn't be considered left-wing in other countries. I'm not talking fruit-loop fringe, I'm talking within the system with real money and power.Mark Thomas wrote: But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left.
What we tend to call "left" in the United States are pretty much either left-leaning moderates or even moderate conservatives. So by being moderate conservative a news outfit like MSNBC is viewed as flaming commies by all the moderates who would be considered fairly far-right elsewhere.
I'm not sure 'gaming the ref' is the issue however, I think it has more to do with how the US was founded and our - more or less - adherence to the constitution.
Don't believe me? Reagan, who the GOP supposedly reveres, as President voted for multiple tax hikes and granted amnesty for illegal immigrants. As Governor of California he campaigned against a measure to ban gays from teaching in public schools (in the 1970s when there was nowhere near the acceptance of gays that there is now and this required actual political courage), and signed no-fault divorce into law. How far do you think he'd get in a Republican presidential primary now?
The saner (I would say "real" conservatives) from Frum to Sullivan have tried to point this out and have duly been tarred and feathered and run out of the movement.
Sound familiar?
The second problem is that the "mainstream" aka "corporate" media has decided that objectivity is a point equidistant between two oppositional political positions as opposed to evaluating both in light of the evidence.
Any day now the GOP will announce the Earth is flat and the headlines will read "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ".
Aside from Fox, which will probably go with; "Was Magellan a terrorist?".
Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.Remick wrote:I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.cunt wrote:Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.
Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?
But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.
TV Tropes suggests that there are subtypes/variants of Godwinning (they mention one possible subtype towards the bottom of that link). Perhaps it's just Godwin rape subvariant?Ericb wrote:too obvious? : LarsonyTigzy wrote:Larsonic poisoning?Eskarina wrote: "Larsoning"
In the world of SJWs, being raped IS a privilege. I feel bad for the ladies who haven't been lucky enough to be raped. Who speaks for them?Eskarina wrote:
She's just telling us to check our privilege.
lmaoIm also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).
Emphasis mine.Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand†and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle†is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.
How was that again with proving a negative?Angry_Drunk wrote:"Marcottening"Outwest wrote:We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
I can't even recount how many times I've had this exchange:welch wrote:at this point, it's the feminist godwin:
In any argument about feminism, the chances of rape being used to shut down one side or the other will be 100% the longer the argument goes on.
Corollary:
If any man brings up a personal experience about rape, whether themselves or someone they know where a man is the victim, they will be immediately dismissed as not caring about the problem and trying to make it all about "teh menz".
I really wish you would register so I could set your drivel on ignore.Mark Thomas wrote:And a voice from the opposite end of the political spectrum could suggest that Obama has taken the Democratic Party off the cliff in the opposite direction - could Bill Clinton, who reformed welfare and signed DOMA, be elected today? His wife certainly wasn't.Gefan wrote:A couple of things have happened in the US that are worth noting. One is that the "right" has marched off the cliff at the edge of the political spectrum.Mark Thomas wrote:I didn't realize you were speaking globally, in which case I'm not sure I disagree.Mykeru wrote:That's the point, what you consider "leaning left" is probably skewed by "gaming the ref". In point of fact, the United States has a wing that is "left" only in a relative sense and certainly wouldn't be considered left-wing in other countries. I'm not talking fruit-loop fringe, I'm talking within the system with real money and power.Mark Thomas wrote: But I think it's clear that major national news organizations lean left.
What we tend to call "left" in the United States are pretty much either left-leaning moderates or even moderate conservatives. So by being moderate conservative a news outfit like MSNBC is viewed as flaming commies by all the moderates who would be considered fairly far-right elsewhere.
I'm not sure 'gaming the ref' is the issue however, I think it has more to do with how the US was founded and our - more or less - adherence to the constitution.
Don't believe me? Reagan, who the GOP supposedly reveres, as President voted for multiple tax hikes and granted amnesty for illegal immigrants. As Governor of California he campaigned against a measure to ban gays from teaching in public schools (in the 1970s when there was nowhere near the acceptance of gays that there is now and this required actual political courage), and signed no-fault divorce into law. How far do you think he'd get in a Republican presidential primary now?
The saner (I would say "real" conservatives) from Frum to Sullivan have tried to point this out and have duly been tarred and feathered and run out of the movement.
Sound familiar?
The second problem is that the "mainstream" aka "corporate" media has decided that objectivity is a point equidistant between two oppositional political positions as opposed to evaluating both in light of the evidence.
Any day now the GOP will announce the Earth is flat and the headlines will read "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ".
Aside from Fox, which will probably go with; "Was Magellan a terrorist?".
I not arguing any political positions - I'm offering an assertion supported by the scholarly work of a professor of political science at UCLA. Almost all of the mainstream media skews left, Fox News skews right.
Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).
Graham is raising a legal, public policy question. He's writing a law, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. He's not saying where that line is, as far as I can tell. And note the specific concern here is on classified information:
THIS - is an excellent idea! Screencaps are the best, as there is no running away from that evidence.acathode wrote:Seems like she's getting quite nervous? I think she's finally starting to realize that her actions might have consequences, for her, not just the people she want to smear and silence.Dick Strawkins wrote:Opelia:
You know, Ophelia, in your case we would think it could.It gets crazier every day. You would think it couldn’t, but it does.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370428535KOUZBJDCCY
Apparently Ophelia has started to write to the President of Seattle Atheists to complain about Skep Tickle - or more specifically to try a bit of guilt-by-association using some crude insults about Ophelia made on the slymepit. :snooty:
Considering this paragraph:It seems she at least have realized that people outside the FTB bubble isn't likely to buy her thin excuse and justification of the doxxing. No doubt she still have rationalized her actions as being "good", but with how she can't even find anything to smear Skep Tickle with, or at least not anything that will stick, she's probably quite nervously digging around on facebook, twitter, here on the pit, etc at this very moment, desperately trying to find anything to prove that Skep Tickle isn't the decent woman she by all accounts appear to be.So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand†and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle†is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.
That's a good idea, you need to be on the ball with removing obvious trolls and fakes, but still keeping those in a separate list is a good example of just exactly how welcoming and inclusive to women these SJW loons are themselves. With signatures like "No Reasonable Woman", "Elisabeth Fritzl" and "Eva Braun", they are making it quite clear that when they speak of 'women' in the secular community, what they actually mean is "women who think exactly like us!!!".curriejean wrote:The plan is to initiate a removal process, in which unsupportive (namecalling, cursing and impersonations, at least) signatures are separated from supportive. "Removed" signatures will still be listed openly.
Might want to start saving those tweets etc as well, you could do a nice little "Page o' hate" yourself, throw their own tactic in their face and illustrating exactly what your welcoming statement is all about. If the SJW brigade had any brains, they'd completely ignore you, but they just wont be able to resist, they'll keep tweeting, and they'll have some blogposts up just in a few hours I'm sure, and they themselves will give you the best advertisement you could ever get.
OliveOyling.Outwest wrote:Altair wrote:Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yetEricb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.
It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.
We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"
It'll take a little while for agarybuseychristmas code in a separate list on-site, but they can be removed from view and then placed in the separate list later (with any luck, later today). I also really like the idea of having something like a "Page of 'Hate'." I'll start documenting, capping, collecting links. Responding to them one by one could be fun.acathode wrote:That's a good idea, you need to be on the ball with removing obvious trolls and fakes, but still keeping those in a separate list is a good example of just exactly how welcoming and inclusive to women these SJW loons are themselves. With signatures like "No Reasonable Woman", "Elisabeth Fritzl" and "Eva Braun", they are making it quite clear that when they speak of 'women' in the secular community, what they actually mean is "women who think exactly like us!!!".curriejean wrote:The plan is to initiate a removal process, in which unsupportive (namecalling, cursing and impersonations, at least) signatures are separated from supportive. "Removed" signatures will still be listed openly.
Might want to start saving those tweets etc as well, you could do a nice little "Page o' hate" yourself, throw their own tactic in their face and illustrating exactly what your welcoming statement is all about. If the SJW brigade had any brains, they'd completely ignore you, but they just wont be able to resist, they'll keep tweeting, and they'll have some blogposts up just in a few hours I'm sure, and they themselves will give you the best advertisement you could ever get.
I would love to see the recent commentary on how one *must* have not experienced rape or other bad things to sign the petition. Blind, ignorant assumptions by the usual parties.curriejean wrote:It'll take a little while for agarybuseychristmas code in a separate list on-site, but they can be removed from view and then placed in the separate list later (with any luck, later today). I also really like the idea of having something like a "Page of 'Hate'." I'll start documenting, capping, collecting links. Responding to them one by one could be fun.acathode wrote:That's a good idea, you need to be on the ball with removing obvious trolls and fakes, but still keeping those in a separate list is a good example of just exactly how welcoming and inclusive to women these SJW loons are themselves. With signatures like "No Reasonable Woman", "Elisabeth Fritzl" and "Eva Braun", they are making it quite clear that when they speak of 'women' in the secular community, what they actually mean is "women who think exactly like us!!!".curriejean wrote:The plan is to initiate a removal process, in which unsupportive (namecalling, cursing and impersonations, at least) signatures are separated from supportive. "Removed" signatures will still be listed openly.
Might want to start saving those tweets etc as well, you could do a nice little "Page o' hate" yourself, throw their own tactic in their face and illustrating exactly what your welcoming statement is all about. If the SJW brigade had any brains, they'd completely ignore you, but they just wont be able to resist, they'll keep tweeting, and they'll have some blogposts up just in a few hours I'm sure, and they themselves will give you the best advertisement you could ever get.
Which is absolutely correct. Then he goes on alleging that entire information industry outside, not being aligned with his extreme leftist perspective, is therefore biased or rigged in a way that amounts to a gigantic conspiracy theory. Needless to say that's bollocks as much as most of his political oeuvre.Aneris wrote:For Chomsky and Herman "flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g., "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms — which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms — flak is characterized by concerted efforts to manage public information
Elisabeth Fritzl? Oh my, I am very much hoping that this is a real but unfortunate name. She is written down as coming from Germany when the actual person comes from Austria. Unfortunately this is more likely evidence of stupidity on the part of the poster rather than a coincidental with the name.Eskarina wrote:Eva Braun, MRA Doormat and Elisabeth Fritzl are certainly worth checking out.curriejean wrote:"Ophelia F Benson" signed the statement from an Australian IP. Removed.
(Oh and about email verification -- it only verifies that the signature is associated with an email address, any email address. The form allows one verification-optional signature, then requires email verification for any additional signatures from the same IP.)
http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement
55 signs so far with only a few questionable names.
The assumption that I'm at the far left end of the political spectrum is telling. If you're correct I must be one of the very few pro- second amendment, pro- death penalty, ant-affirmative action, anti-hate crime legislation, anti-smoking ban leftists out there.Mark Thomas wrote: And a voice from the opposite end of the political spectrum could suggest that Obama has taken the Democratic Party off the cliff in the opposite direction...
Clinton was elected on a platform considerably to the left of Obama's. He reversed course and reformed welfare after the 1994 mid-terms (largely at the urging of Dick Morris)....could Bill Clinton, who reformed welfare and signed DOMA, be elected today?
...His wife certainly wasn't...
In 2008 Obama collected more money from Wall Street than any other candidate of either party. They sure must feel stupid having given all that money to a socialist.I not arguing any political positions - I'm offering an assertion supported by the scholarly work of a professor of political science at UCLA. Almost all of the mainstream media skews left, Fox News skews right
You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.cunt wrote:Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.Remick wrote:I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.cunt wrote:Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.
Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?
But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.
