Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[CommanderTuvok]

Good to see Queen Bee's followers emulate their leader.

[sacha]

Whenever the whole subject of veganism comes up I always recommend The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. It explores the reasons why people adopt extreme vegetarianism(moral, health, environmental) and why those reasons are wrong. She's an ex-vegan herself and has been physically assaulted and shouted down by groups of vegans when on speaking tours.
I apologize if I've been belaboring this.

Any mention of the Weston A Price Foundation is a red flag;
http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/revie ... -myth.html

The reasons for diet are way too OT to deal with here, but Messing hints at some of the issues in that review.

I've got a pdf copy of the book open. Am skimming the bibliography. Some references that immediately struck my eye:

-5 (URL) references to wikipedia entries
-1 (URL) reference to "Google Answers"
-2 (URL) references to Weston A Price articles
-5 (URL) references to articles on mercola.com, which describes itself as "The World's #1 Natural Health Website"
-1 (URL) reference to an article on a site called "Beyond Vegetarianism"
-1 (URL) reference to an article on "Bill's Excellent Blog"
-1 (URL) reference to a skeptic.com article
-1 (URL) reference to an article(?) @ http://hometown.aol.com/xcolumn/myhomepage/
-1 (URL) reference to faqs.org
-A bunch of references to other pop health/science books
-Several references to anti-porn feminist writings, including Andrea Dworkin (no idea how this fits in??)

Oh and I found this fun passage:

That endless struggle for power results in men committing brutal and violating acts as a matter of course. Psychological profiles of rapists have found “that they are ‘ordinary’ and ‘normal’ men who sexually assault women in order to assert power and control over them.” We need to be questioning ordinary, normal men and masculinity. Battering is the most common violent crime in the US, committed once every fifteen seconds. It’s one of the leading causes of injury and death to women in the US. A Canadian survey found that four out of five female undergraduates had been victims of violence in a dating relationship. The World Health Organization estimates that “one in four women will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, sometimes with fatal consequences.” Anything happening on this scale is clearly normal, a part of everyday life, the behavior into which a global culture of male dominance is socializing men as a matter of course.

The real brilliance of patriarchy is that it sexualizes acts of oppression. For the perpetrators, violation and brutality lead to arousal. In any other circumstance, the same acts would be recognized as hateful. Witness Abu Ghraib. When men are stripped, put in postures of submission, and then photographed, the power is obvious, the oppression clear, and the world is outraged. Meanwhile, women and girls are bought, sold, raped, and displayed as a matter of course, and the world can’t get enough. There are entire countries balancing their budgets on sex trafficking.

Keith, Lierre. The Vegetarian Myth. p. 261

I don't think this is the book for me.

well done, Linus. I could not be bothered to dig up all of the skepticism from reliable sources that have decimated that book.

It's often cited by meat eaters in the herbivore/omnivore wars

[Badger3k]

Did your martial arts training look like this?

[youtube]KGL_vNtelrM[/youtube]

I thought it was more like this:

[youtube]4bCyIAsSid8[/youtube]

[CommanderTuvok]

Let's just hope Convergence won't be full of RAPISTS by the time the sun rises.

[sacha]

http://i.imgur.com/bs4I5C1.png

It is just that I am a very large, muscular man with martial arts training who never goes anywhere without my pit bull, and I always carry a gun. I am also famous for kicking ass, generally.

Not that I'm necessarily saying that the presence of a very large, muscular, self-proclaimed kicker of asses with a pitbull, a gun, a rape switch, a testosterone damaged brain and martial arts prowess (over nine thousand!) at the conference means he's the culprit, I'm just saying that he is there, in person, at the venue, and he has not publicly denounced the punching....so draw your own conclusions! ;)

hahaha!

[sacha]

In my experience, the number of partners has been a very good measure of what I consider to be "skilled" sexually. There are many things that contribute to this. Lack of embarrassment/shyness, lack of hesitation, experience, ability to read response accurately, as I've said before, they know what they like, they know what they want...

It is not only anecdote, but also what I like sexually is certainly not for everyone, I'd say I'm in the small minority, so is it that those with high numbers that I've had experience with knew what I like, from experience, or did they just like the same things? I've asked, and apparently they all have liked the same things, including the lack of embarrassment/shyness, lack of hesitation, experience, ability to read response accurately that comes along with my experience as well.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2075064576/h49EA6F6B/

sorry, Mykeru

[sacha]

Badger3k:

Those kinds of deities are just "weaker" conceptions designed to circumvent premises in pro-atheism arguments (simple example: If god exists, then evil does not exist). If you allow this, you're admitting such premises are false, and you might as well be a theist.

Yeah, maybe there is some sort of being that doesn't give a shit and leaves absolutely no evidence, be it physical, logical, or otherwise. But not only do I reject such beings on the basis of their complete ad-hocness, they wouldn't be deities anyway.

And?

and that is how I see it.

[BarnOwl]

At Black Svan's cesspit of shit, she has a picture of the latest ANTI-HARASSMENT poster for Convergence, or whatever shit it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Q0cP6Ym.jpg

WTF?

So remember peeps, COSTUMES ARE NOT CONSENT!!! More brilliant advice from your favourite Baboons.

And cartoon characters can only be recognized as scientists if they are white, male, balding, wearing glasses and lab coats, and carrying flasks or test tubes full of colorful liquids.

[Lsuoma]

that is my recommendation to new students on the best way to block an attack. Don't let things escalate.

Oh, here we go! welch is going to lecture us all on his oh so masterful *technique* to block attacks and avoid escalation! Just what we fucking need. Another blowhard know-it-all. STFU, welch, and let the *real* internet tough guys deal with this.

http://www.chiefrok.com/blog/wp-content ... gh-you.jpg

[Guest]

what inconsiderate wankstain takes the elevator to the second floor?

[Lsuoma]

[quote="Wonderist"
Oh, here we go! welch is going to lecture us all on his oh so masterful *technique* to block attacks and avoid escalation! Just what we fucking need. Another blowhard know-it-all. STFU, welch, and let the *real* internet tough guys deal with this.[/quote]
BTW, nice "technique".

[justinvacula]

Seeing as Morsi/Egypt came up recently I thought I would just drop these off here:

15 Photos From the Tahrir Square Protests You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #Egypt #Morsi #Obama
http://directorblue.blogspot.ca/2013/07 ... tests.html

Here is a sample:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-qkeWcCGDZ0Y/UdItU ... pt-054.jpg

Trigger warning: Misogyny :doh:

[KiwiInOz]

In my experience, the number of partners has been a very good measure of what I consider to be "skilled" sexually. There are many things that contribute to this. Lack of embarrassment/shyness, lack of hesitation, experience, ability to read response accurately, as I've said before, they know what they like, they know what they want...

It is not only anecdote, but also what I like sexually is certainly not for everyone, I'd say I'm in the small minority, so is it that those with high numbers that I've had experience with knew what I like, from experience, or did they just like the same things? I've asked, and apparently they all have liked the same things, including the lack of embarrassment/shyness, lack of hesitation, experience, ability to read response accurately that comes along with my experience as well.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2075064576/h49EA6F6B/

sorry, Mykeru

Don't you listen to the eunuch.

[welch]

Of course, dear. You're right again, as always, dear.

Quit following me around the internet, stalker.

Whatever you say, dear.

[welch]

Oh, here we go! welch is going to lecture us all on his oh so masterful *technique* to block attacks and avoid escalation! Just what we fucking need. Another blowhard know-it-all. STFU, welch, and let the *real* internet tough guys deal with this.

BTW, nice "technique".

:-D

[welch]

Good to see Queen Bee's followers emulate their leader.

I want to know what all the tweets about being punched in the face and bleeding were all about.

[TheMan]

Entertainment break...

I have to go for a walk to get over all the goose bumps.... Phil...PHIL! She's not far away from you I want to see a couple of singles out with this young woman by th end of the year.

[youtube]IChJ6eO3k48[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

http://i.imgur.com/bs4I5C1.png

Can't tell whether others will recognize "Punched in the Kisser" as a drink; h/t @Elevatorgate:

Sounds like quite the boozy party. Tough luck for the teetotalers including alcoholics in recovery, I guess.

[mikelf]

What you seek, young Padawan, is all around you, but Pride hath blinded you to its discernment. You have been granted two ears and only one mouth so that you may listen twice as much as you talk. Similarly, you have two eyes, yet only type with one hand, so that you may read twice as much as you write.

So, that's a, "No," then?

No, it is not. The evidence you seek is right here in every response to you, but, alas, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[sacha]

Of course, dear. You're right again, as always, dear.

Quit following me around the internet, stalker.

Whatever you say, dear.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Antique-Hand-Cra ... ~60_35.JPG

[KiwiInOz]

Entertainment break...

I have to go for a walk to get over all the goose bumps.... Phil...PHIL! She's not far away from you I want to see a couple of singles out with this young woman by th end of the year.

[youtube]IChJ6eO3k48[/youtube]

Wow. Just wow.

[sacha]

What you seek, young Padawan, is all around you, but Pride hath blinded you to its discernment. You have been granted two ears and only one mouth so that you may listen twice as much as you talk. Similarly, you have two eyes, yet only type with one hand, so that you may read twice as much as you write.

So, that's a, "No," then?

No, it is not. The evidence you seek is right here in every response to you, but, alas, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/images/th ... 50_250.jpg

[AndrewV69]

Did your martial arts training look like this?

[tube]KGL_vNtelrM[/tube]

I thought it was more like this:

[tube]4bCyIAsSid8[/tube]

Oh FFS! Guys do not get into fights. You could get bitch slapped for one:
[youtube]ziNRUULTSZA[/youtube]

Guys do not do that. OK?

[zenbabe]

True artists who are totally committed to what they do are incredibly rare. Even rarer are those that do relevant, important work within the context of their art and overall message. There are many examples in the case of Abramović, but 'The Artist is present' was a remarkable exercise. My favorite moment was when Ulay, her former lover/partner/collaborator paid an unannounced visit to 'The Artist is Present' and participated:

[youtube]OS0Tg0IjCp4[/youtube]

Zenspace,
Thank you for posting that.
Quite glad I paused in my frantic scrolling to watch it.
Exquisite

[Badger3k]

Lousy has an audio of the eve psych panel. http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... nel-audio/

Direct link to the mp3 is here

Apparently the haters lost, as there was no mass walkout. Wahhh. While a walkout might have been made some feel better, I think the better route would be to not go at all. I guess there isn't a lot of diversity in the audience either. Get to work SJWs - I'm sure you know what to do!

Plus, Lousy wants someone to transcribe what they can understand...isn't that what the A+ professionals are for? :? :lol:

[TheMan]

Lousy has an audio of the eve psych panel. http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... nel-audio/

Direct link to the mp3 is here

Apparently the haters lost, as there was no mass walkout. Wahhh. While a walkout might have been made some feel better, I think the better route would be to not go at all. I guess there isn't a lot of diversity in the audience either. Get to work SJWs - I'm sure you know what to do!

Plus, Lousy wants someone to transcribe what they can understand...isn't that what the A+ professionals are for? :? :lol:

I must have skipped something over scrolling past Wonderist....what was the significance of the walking out?

[Metalogic42]

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity

Does anyone else see missing articles?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity

Does anyone else see missing articles?

I see dead links.

They're gone. Memory Hole.

I clipped the pages, just in case. What a pussy Loftus is.

[HoneyWagon]

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity

Does anyone else see missing articles?

It does appear to not be listed as one of the recent articles.
Still there though:
http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... ut-justin/

[HoneyWagon]

The rest of that section:
http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... tegorized/

[Metalogic42]

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity

Does anyone else see missing articles?

It does appear to not be listed as one of the recent articles.
Still there though:
http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... ut-justin/

Haha he even fails at memory holing! How long until he realizes his mistake?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Why'd Lofty-Ass feel the need to hide these posts?

FTR, he deleted my comments on the About Justin post, but left mine under the Atheism Entails. I'm guessing because he thinks he trounced me with his mad debatin' skillz. He couldn't last two minutes in a real debate.

Wanker.

[16bitheretic]

16bit, can you do this?

http://www.teamjimmyjoe.com/wp-content/ ... ce-Day.jpg

Only if I can clear the rights for this as the background music:

"Light Your Ass on Fire" by Busta Rhymes

And I might need to do as much heroin as Steve-O as well ^_^

Apparently the haters lost, as there was no mass walkout. Wahhh. While a walkout might have been made some feel better, I think the better route would be to not go at all. I guess there isn't a lot of diversity in the audience either. Get to work SJWs - I'm sure you know what to do!

Not going is the best route by far, because then you're not financially supporting them at all nor giving them more numbers to boast about. Now I'm not saying I'd never go to a general convention if some of the people we usually poke fun at here just happened to be part of a larger lineup. After all, someone in the lineup needs to be lame enough to afford people the chance to go take a break and do something besides sit and listen presentations non-stop, but for an event like this particular con I'd not even attend if it was free.

[sacha]

Why'd Lofty-Ass feel the need to hide these posts?

FTR, he deleted my comments on the About Justin post, but left mine under the Atheism Entails. I'm guessing because he thinks he trounced me with his mad debatin' skillz. He couldn't last two minutes in a real debate.

Wanker.

I liked your chemtrail analogy. he attacks a typo but never the point of the comment

[sacha]

Why'd Lofty-Ass feel the need to hide these posts?

FTR, he deleted my comments on the About Justin post, but left mine under the Atheism Entails. I'm guessing because he thinks he trounced me with his mad debatin' skillz. He couldn't last two minutes in a real debate.

Wanker.

If I make the following image smaller, it is quite difficult to read, so one must scroll down:

achemtrailism.jpg

(118.69 KiB) Downloaded 233 times

[Badger3k]

Lousy has an audio of the eve psych panel. http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... nel-audio/

Direct link to the mp3 is here

Apparently the haters lost, as there was no mass walkout. Wahhh. While a walkout might have been made some feel better, I think the better route would be to not go at all. I guess there isn't a lot of diversity in the audience either. Get to work SJWs - I'm sure you know what to do!

Plus, Lousy wants someone to transcribe what they can understand...isn't that what the A+ professionals are for? :? :lol:

I must have skipped something over scrolling past Wonderist....what was the significance of the walking out?

Apparently some attendees wanted to stage a walk-out in protest of the people on the panel. Someone said that somebody commented about it on twitter.

[Dick Strawkins]

Lousy has an audio of the eve psych panel. http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... nel-audio/

Direct link to the mp3 is here

Apparently the haters lost, as there was no mass walkout. Wahhh. While a walkout might have been made some feel better, I think the better route would be to not go at all. I guess there isn't a lot of diversity in the audience either. Get to work SJWs - I'm sure you know what to do!

Plus, Lousy wants someone to transcribe what they can understand...isn't that what the A+ professionals are for? :? :lol:

I must have skipped something over scrolling past Wonderist....what was the significance of the walking out?

Apparently some attendees wanted to stage a walk-out in protest of the people on the panel. Someone said that somebody commented about it on twitter.

Why would anyone stage a walkout?
This is SkepChickCon - the true believers meeting.
It is the fanclub of Watson and the Minessota mafia.
Nobody is going to be there to hear real science, they just want to party with their idols.

[Dick Strawkins]

................
At the moment, however, hardly anyone in the general population knows enough about BPD to realise that the abusive person might be a sufferer of BPD. Even most people in relationships with violent borderlines do not know about that disorder. And more importantly they do not know that there is no real cure or effective treatment. They tend to stick it out thinking that it may be a phase or temporary psychological state (like depression) that will settle down if they are patient.
.................

Untrue. BPD may be extremely difficult to overcome in most cases and there is a lot of cynicism and ignorance amongst members of the mental health professions, but it is possible for some people to overcome BPD.

OK, point taken, let me rephrase.
There is no cure or effective treatment in the vast majority of cases.
As you mention, there may be a minority of cases that do respond to therapy, either medication or behavioral modification techniques, but this depends on the BPD sufferer recognizing they have a condition that requires active treatment - and, given the prevalence of the condition, this seems relatively rare. BPD sufferers simply do not know that they have this condition. Whats more, partners of BPD frequently do not know of the condition either.

It's not always a black and white thing with BPD partnerships as narcissists and co-dependent types often end up in relationships with BPDs. There are message boards for ex partners of BPDs who disseminate a lot of hateful anti-BPD propaganda and it's frequently obvious that the dysfunction is not all on one side.I used to participate on a forum for BPDs in recovery and there were a lot of good people on there who not only suffer a tragic disorder, but are also unfairly tainted with the stigma of being incurably evil.

It's clearly wrong to describe BPD sufferers as 'incurably evil'. The people who suffer most with the condition are those with BPD themselves. But it is horribly misguided to discount the experiences of the partners or even children of sufferers.
BPD suffers are not evil, but many of them inflict evil (or at least abuse that is equivalent to 'evil') on their partners and children.
There seems to be a spectrum of severity in the condition and this means that some partners and children will have it relatively easy while others may be subject to occasional bouts of genuinely horrifying abuse.
It is a feature of BPD that the suffer will behave in self destructive or vindictive ways that seem designed to push away their partner - and then either threaten to or attempt suicide if the partner does make a move to leave.
The threat of suicide from BPD sufferers is not hollow.
The earlier figure I quoted for suicide risk amongst female BPD sufferers is 800 times that of non BPD females.
What you are equating as' narcissists' or 'co-dependent types' are often just men (or women, many man are BPD sufferers too) who are faced with this situation and are not prepared (at that point) to accept the suicide of their partner - or risk having the children of that relationship ending up in the sole care of the abusive partner.
How many people would, if faced with a suicidal family member, say a child, sibling or partner, just walk away?
And if they don't walk away does that mean they are simply narcissists or co-dependent?

Having said this I recognize that it can end up not being all one sided. BPD relationships can be very destructive for both partners and the long term consequences of living in a situation of constant 'walking on eggshells' should not be underestimated. Breaking this cycle can only be achieved by recognizing the facts of the condition and dealing with them (which, unfortunately, in the majority of cases is going to mean ending the relationship.)

[windy]

Why'd Lofty-Ass feel the need to hide these posts?

FTR, he deleted my comments on the About Justin post, but left mine under the Atheism Entails. I'm guessing because he thinks he trounced me with his mad debatin' skillz. He couldn't last two minutes in a real debate.

Wanker.

Did you see the update on the Justin post?

Further Edit: Unrelated to Justin, I [John] am so disgusted with some of the people who commented on this turn of events that I wrote two additional posts: I Must Completely Disassociate Myself From Men’s Rights Groups, and Atheism Entails Anti-Discrimination!

As if there were people arguing for discrimination in those comments? WTF?

[Guest]

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

That robot seems like an objectified, sexualized woman. My perfect type. Remove her personality, humanity, flaws, and reduce her to a fucktoy slave that will do what I demand and not give me any shit about it.

make me a sandwich
inflate your breasts
bend over I am going to put it up your exhaust piping.
get me a beer

Is there an explanation of why convergence (whatever convergence is because I couldn't find it in my 10 second google) has such a sexualized image?

[Karmakin]

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

That robot seems like an objectified, sexualized woman. My perfect type. Remove her personality, humanity, flaws, and reduce her to a fucktoy slave that will do what I demand and not give me any shit about it.

make me a sandwich
inflate your breasts
bend over I am going to put it up your exhaust piping.
get me a beer

Is there an explanation of why convergence (whatever convergence is because I couldn't find it in my 10 second google) has such a sexualized image?

Because nobody actually cares about sexualized images in this schism. It's about weapons to use against the other. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Scented Nectar]

I used to sometimes, when faced with a smug or condescending form of 'dear', call the person 'antelope' in return. They never got the joke though (dear sounds like being called a deer), so I stopped doing it.

That made me laugh. Perhaps if you replied with "cupcake"?

Well, I wish you were there at the time. Maybe I wouldn't have been the only one laughing. :lol: I just got weird puzzled looks from them even when explaining "...get it? Deer - antelope?". It wasn't until years later (at that oh so peaceful, polite place known as pharyngula), that I ever heard 'cupcake' used as a name to call someone. I think though, that some of the people calling me 'dear' might have taken cupcake as an affectionate nickname or something, like 'honeybun' or 'sweety pie' or some other dessert food.

[Mykeru]

Why would anyone stage a walkout?
This is SkepChickCon - the true believers meeting.
It is the fanclub of Watson and the Minessota mafia.
Nobody is going to be there to hear real science, they just want to party with their idols.

This is something Richard Sanderson tweeted about in order to yank the chain of #FTBullies and now Peezus will predictably claim "The SlymePit" failed again.

Why'd Lofty-Ass feel the need to hide these posts?

FTR, he deleted my comments on the About Justin post, but left mine under the Atheism Entails. I'm guessing because he thinks he trounced me with his mad debatin' skillz. He couldn't last two minutes in a real debate.

Wanker.

If I make the following image smaller, it is quite difficult to read, so one must scroll down:

achemtrailism.jpg

Loftus has the "Skeptic in Name Only" habit of shouting "that's a non-sequitur" and "you are making assumptions" while giving no indication that he knows what a non-sequitur is and, no kidding, everyone makes assumptions, the question is whether they stand to reason. Loftus would dismiss observational hypothesis as "mere assertion". It's just a pejorative he likes. He seems to have no grasp of the mechanism of critical reasoning and tosses out terms the same way he would refer to "truth" and "love" while doing apologetics. What's even more annoying than the fact he has no clue what he's talking about is that, like the new-born skeptic social justice warriors he just tosses out argument terms of art as a form of moral censure while doing far worse in his own argumentation himself. I guess he writes himself exemptions for the simple reason that he's doing good therefore anyone who disagree with him is, by definition, doing bad things.

[Scented Nectar]

I used to sometimes, when faced with a smug or condescending form of 'dear', call the person 'antelope' in return. They never got the joke though (dear sounds like being called a deer), so I stopped doing it.

Too bad 'sweetheart' is already taken. (Sweet 'hart'.)

Sweetheart is sometimes ok. As long as they say it in the style and accent of old movies.

I'm a strange one. :shock:

[Dick Strawkins]

I'm so glad John Loftus is around to show the misogynists how to treat women with the respect they deserve, rather than simply use them as sexually demeaning eye candy, just to sell products.

http://i.imgur.com/gwedKo4.jpg

:think:

[Apples]

So, yeah...I was perusing one of the Puertorican paper websites this morning and looky looky...the O.T. with the self-harm fetish is there!
http://www.vocero.com/se-hace-pierna-or ... ego-video/

That's the one who used to post sometimes on FfTB, sometimes calling herself ziztur on youtube. She's into self harm in a big way. She cut off her toes (by accident? on purpose?), and then more recently her whole lower leg. She hinted that she did these things because she strongly wanted to but that she had to be careful of her wording so that it would officially stay under the banner 'accident'. I'm guessing she'd get fired or disqualify for some benefit or something if they knew for sure that she did it all on purpose.

What does O.T. stand for?

I believe she's an occupational therapist. It should be said that the toe story is a little obscure, though as I recall she did give the impression that she'd intentionally chopped a toe or two. The lower leg amputation apparently happened after she mangled her foot by dropping her car on it while doing a brake job (I blame the patriarchy) and decided to have it removed instead of risking a bunch of potentially ineffective surgeries to save it. That said, I'd be willing to bet she's on the "bodily integrity identity disorder" spectrum. Here's a Slate piece on a documentary about "amputee wannabes":

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... a_leg.html

[Hunt]

Looks like Fogg is slowly causing a seismic shift in FtB. Now Carrier has suddenly upgraded to being an expert in how to do "Men's Rights" right, though he really doesn't like that word "rights."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

The tl;dr version is that men's groups are A-OK so long as they don't leverage hate (agreed) and don't take anything away from addressing women's issues, which was a concern voiced by Fogg as well. In both instances I expected the stated concern to be followed by reciprocation, but I guess that was a bit too much to hope for, making this, I think, the first couple instances of "What about teh womynz?" of which I'm sure there will be much more to come. Nobody has yet dared utter it in any recognizable form, but it will come, it will come.

Carrier, of course, loves Patriarchy Theory. A person who does not believe PT is a loathsome bigot. Even if certain pegs will not fit the PT hole, it only indicates the need to apply a hammer. No other theory can be substituted and no other concept need apply, not Capitalism, not Plutocracy. This currency is not transferable. If you don't believe all that PT tells you, there is something wrong with your brain.

Other little tidbits: the fact that prostate cancer is underfunded but comparable to breast cancer fatality is men's fault. And radical MRAs are turning all people off to legitimate men's groups. (However, the theory that radfems are turning people off to feminism and might be a contributing factor for the formation of the MRM is not mentioned...and is therefore probably not valid).

[Apples]

If Setar starts a thread claiming that "This is X," you can be pretty sure that this is "not-X." Here he touts a Truthdig article with the shocking title, "Redacted FBI Documents Show Plot to Kill Occupy Leaders If ‘Deemed Necessary’" in support of his contention that the US is a totalitarian state.

Predictably, in reaction to a reasonable objection, he overturns his pram and sets it on fire (and moderator Ischemgeek comes to the rescue).

It's a very short exchange, but I find it delicious and ironic because it so clearly demonstrates Setar's furiously authoritarian need to have whatever twisted shit he says accepted without question and whatever he believes affirmed instantly and completely.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5032

[Kareem]

Looks like Fogg is slowly causing a seismic shift in FtB. Now Carrier has suddenly upgraded to being an expert in how to do "Men's Rights" right, though he really doesn't like that word "rights."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

The tl;dr version is that men's groups are A-OK so long as they don't leverage hate (agreed) and don't take anything away from addressing women's issues, which was a concern voiced by Fogg as well. In both instances I expected the stated concern to be followed by reciprocation, but I guess that was a bit too much to hope for, making this, I think, the first couple instances of "What about teh womynz?" of which I'm sure there will be much more to come. Nobody has yet dared utter it in any recognizable form, but it will come, it will come.

Carrier, of course, loves Patriarchy Theory. A person who does not believe PT is a loathsome bigot. Even if certain pegs will not fit the PT hole, it only indicates the need to apply a hammer. No other theory can be substituted and no other concept need apply, not Capitalism, not Plutocracy. This currency is not transferable. If you don't believe all that PT tells you, there is something wrong with your brain.

Other little tidbits: the fact that prostate cancer is underfunded but comparable to breast cancer fatality is men's fault. And radical MRAs are turning all people off to legitimate men's groups. (However, the theory that radfems are turning people off to feminism and might be a contributing factor for the formation of the MRM is not mentioned...and is therefore probably not valid).

Meh. I don't identify as a MRA or Feminist. I'm a "don't be an asshole"-ist. My problem with modern feminism isn't so much that it doesn't address men as much as it just doesn't make sense in many areas. Asking "what about the menz" won't magically make me forget the logical shortcomings.

[Linus]

There was a thread on JREF following Rebecca Watson's Evopsych talk where I posed the question: can you give me an example of a significant advancement to science or valuable finding from evolutionary psychology? I never got an answer. This would not be a difficult question for biology, psychology, physics and many other scientific fields. I'm currently viewing evopsych more along the lines of sociology and social theory*, more comparable to feminist theory and literary theory than to psychological science or biology. But, since I don't actually know a ton about evopsych, I'm certainly open to changing my mind.

[Hunt]

Meh. I don't identify as a MRA or Feminist. I'm a "don't be an asshole"-ist. My problem with modern feminism isn't so much that it doesn't address men as much as it just doesn't make sense in many areas. Asking "what about the menz" won't magically make me forget the logical shortcomings.

Both are way too doctrinaire disciplines, so I would probably count myself in your camp, particularly if I devoted more time to studying both (which I sure as hell am not going to do). There are good things to be salvaged from both. The trouble with Carrier is that he DOES identify as feminist, and right as this moment feminists on FtB are going through a certain phase of mind fuck. I didn't think it was happening until I saw Carrier's post, but now I really think they're trying to grapple with this new black monolith that has suddenly appeared to them: what to do and say about men's activism and men's groups. You just know damn well that part of them wants to cling to the old standby that feminism is all you, or anyone, will every need, and that there's a place for men in feminism--even though Carrier seems to have parted from that, or perhaps he never supported it. Now men are kind of on their own, and any ill-effects they may be experiencing are their own damn fault. Basically, the FtB mind fuck for today boils down to this: How the hell can they reconcile themselves to the "good" men's groups when feminism was supposed to be the panacea? This is the slow-motion dance we're witnessing from Myers, Carrier, and (well, that's about it so far...) The hardliners are going to stick with the old line for a while longer, but eventually they're probably going to have to jump ship.

[welch]

Looking at it, I can't even call what loftus did memoryholing, it's too amateurish for that. It looks like any posts he deemed inconvenient were yanked from 'main' page, as was the link to justin's section. note, it's all still there, you just have to work mildly harder to get to it.

I love watching guys like him think they know everything because they've mastered pointing, clicking, and typing.

[Scented Nectar]

So, yeah...I was perusing one of the Puertorican paper websites this morning and looky looky...the O.T. with the self-harm fetish is there!
http://www.vocero.com/se-hace-pierna-or ... ego-video/

That's the one who used to post sometimes on FfTB, sometimes calling herself ziztur on youtube. She's into self harm in a big way. She cut off her toes (by accident? on purpose?), and then more recently her whole lower leg. She hinted that she did these things because she strongly wanted to but that she had to be careful of her wording so that it would officially stay under the banner 'accident'. I'm guessing she'd get fired or disqualify for some benefit or something if they knew for sure that she did it all on purpose.

What does O.T. stand for?

I believe she's an occupational therapist. It should be said that the toe story is a little obscure, though as I recall she did give the impression that she'd intentionally chopped a toe or two. The lower leg amputation apparently happened after she mangled her foot by dropping her car on it while doing a brake job (I blame the patriarchy) and decided to have it removed instead of risking a bunch of potentially ineffective surgeries to save it. That said, I'd be willing to bet she's on the "bodily integrity identity disorder" spectrum. Here's a Slate piece on a documentary about "amputee wannabes":

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... a_leg.html

Too bizarre. With that type of self-destructive mental disorder (assuming she has it), I don't think she should be an occupational therapist or any other type of therapist.

[Guest]

Meh. I don't identify as a MRA or Feminist. I'm a "don't be an asshole"-ist. My problem with modern feminism isn't so much that it doesn't address men as much as it just doesn't make sense in many areas. Asking "what about the menz" won't magically make me forget the logical shortcomings.

Both are way too doctrinaire disciplines, so I would probably count myself in your camp, particularly if I devoted more time to studying both (which I sure as hell am not going to do). There are good things to be salvaged from both. The trouble with Carrier is that he DOES identify as feminist, and right as this moment feminists on FtB are going through a certain phase of mind fuck. I didn't think it was happening until I saw Carrier's post, but now I really think they're trying to grapple with this new black monolith that has suddenly appeared to them: what to do and say about men's activism and men's groups. You just know damn well that part of them wants to cling to the old standby that feminism is all you, or anyone, will every need, and that there's a place for men in feminism--even though Carrier seems to have parted from that, or perhaps he never supported it. Now men are kind of on their own, and any ill-effects they may be experiencing are their own damn fault. Basically, the FtB mind fuck for today boils down to this: How the hell can they reconcile themselves to the "good" men's groups when feminism was supposed to be the panacea? This is the slow-motion dance we're witnessing from Myers, Carrier, and (well, that's about it so far...) The hardliners are going to stick with the old line for a while longer, but eventually they're probably going to have to jump ship.

What you may be missing is that the men's activists they align themselves with are explicitly ones that examine men's issues with the entire kool-aid feminist viewpoint.

Google Michael Flood, Michael Kimmel, google things like The Goodmen Project. So there is no conflict there, it's more like what feminism says, we will do your men's rights for you, and here they are doing that.

But if you read around and read what these guys say and read what other "actual" men's activists say there are enormous conflicts as these guys take a mostly male shaming, male blaming, men are bad, and yet men have to act to protect women that are helpless victims and not rational, nor agents in their own lives.

But since when goes Group X get to choose who the leaders of Group Y's movement is, especially when Group Y says they are in conflict with Group X.

Do the Israeli's get to choose the Palestinian leaders?
Do Republican's get to say who gay rights leaders should be?

"Oh sure, us Republicans, we love America and the Constitution, and of course we will act for gay Americans to achieve civil rights for all. In order to do that though, you need to disband all of your groups which are counter productive and alienate people, and follow our Republican Gay Rights groups."

And all you need to do is observe what these groups say about custody, about domestic violence, about misandry, and watch the behaviors of feminists in Congress and in courts to truly understand whether Feminists can lookout for men's issues.

http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/pu ... ties.shtml

Stony Brook creates a male studies program, puts feminist Michael Kimmel in charge and on the board is Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Eve Ensler, Carol Gilligan, ...

It's a male studies program where it's run entirely by feminists.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... hejoke.jpg

[Dick Strawkins]

Meh. I don't identify as a MRA or Feminist. I'm a "don't be an asshole"-ist. My problem with modern feminism isn't so much that it doesn't address men as much as it just doesn't make sense in many areas. Asking "what about the menz" won't magically make me forget the logical shortcomings.

Both are way too doctrinaire disciplines, so I would probably count myself in your camp, particularly if I devoted more time to studying both (which I sure as hell am not going to do). There are good things to be salvaged from both. The trouble with Carrier is that he DOES identify as feminist, and right as this moment feminists on FtB are going through a certain phase of mind fuck. I didn't think it was happening until I saw Carrier's post, but now I really think they're trying to grapple with this new black monolith that has suddenly appeared to them: what to do and say about men's activism and men's groups. You just know damn well that part of them wants to cling to the old standby that feminism is all you, or anyone, will every need, and that there's a place for men in feminism--even though Carrier seems to have parted from that, or perhaps he never supported it. Now men are kind of on their own, and any ill-effects they may be experiencing are their own damn fault. Basically, the FtB mind fuck for today boils down to this: How the hell can they reconcile themselves to the "good" men's groups when feminism was supposed to be the panacea? This is the slow-motion dance we're witnessing from Myers, Carrier, and (well, that's about it so far...) The hardliners are going to stick with the old line for a while longer, but eventually they're probably going to have to jump ship.

If they are going to admit any kind of nuance in others arguments they are heading into dangerous territory.
Previously it was simple for them to say "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", and use that slogan as a way of 'proving' those who didn't identify as feminists were automatically misogynists ('they don't think women are people!')

Now we have Ally Fogg, someone in the middle of the FTB camp who explicitly denies the term feminist for himself.
Whats more, while he seems to on board as regards most womens issues, Ally Fogg takes the question of mens problems and experiences seriously. The question of prison rape, partner abuse, child custody or other matters pertaining to men are not simply mocked out of hand with a sneering, "what about the menz", dismissal.

The problem this situation creates relates to how the Minnesota mafia deal with their enemies. They can't simply state everyone who doesn't call themselves a feminist is, like MRAs, anti-feminist.
Fogg's positition is that of a progressive but it is well within the range of the slymepit. Many of us here have no problem using the term feminism to cover our position. Indeed Fogg has far more dialogue with genuine MRAs than the pit does.

Fogg is a ticking timebomb on FTB, not because he has a controversial position, but because he has a reasonable position. Sooner or later we all know its going to explode.

[Dick Strawkins]

There was a thread on JREF following Rebecca Watson's Evopsych talk where I posed the question: can you give me an example of a significant advancement to science or valuable finding from evolutionary psychology? I never got an answer. This would not be a difficult question for biology, psychology, physics and many other scientific fields. I'm currently viewing evopsych more along the lines of sociology and social theory*, more comparable to feminist theory and literary theory than to psychological science or biology. But, since I don't actually know a ton about evopsych, I'm certainly open to changing my mind.

I think Jerry Coyne wrote about this on WEIT and, while recognizing some problems in this area of research, was not dismissive of the field.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... worthless/

[Tribble]

Looks like Fogg is slowly causing a seismic shift in FtB. Now Carrier has suddenly upgraded to being an expert in how to do "Men's Rights" right, though he really doesn't like that word "rights."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

The tl;dr version is that men's groups are A-OK so long as they don't leverage hate (agreed) and don't take anything away from addressing women's issues, which was a concern voiced by Fogg as well. In both instances I expected the stated concern to be followed by reciprocation, but I guess that was a bit too much to hope for, making this, I think, the first couple instances of "What about teh womynz?" of which I'm sure there will be much more to come. Nobody has yet dared utter it in any recognizable form, but it will come, it will come.

I'm a humanist. The radfem SJW shit that Carrier endorses is anti-humanist as it is, simply put, applied bigotry for one-sided social change in favor of women at the expense of men. Otherwise known as a 'zero sum' game where men have to 'lose' so women can 'win.' I prefer equality and the meritocracy.

Carrier, of course, loves Patriarchy Theory. A person who does not believe PT is a loathsome bigot. Even if certain pegs will not fit the PT hole, it only indicates the need to apply a hammer. No other theory can be substituted and no other concept need apply, not Capitalism, not Plutocracy. This currency is not transferable. If you don't believe all that PT tells you, there is something wrong with your brain.

Of course he does. It's unfalsifiable. Which means you can spend an entire career pulling shit out of your ass and still get tenure. Unlike real scientists and academics who have to get it right.

Other little tidbits: the fact that prostate cancer is underfunded but comparable to breast cancer fatality is men's fault. And radical MRAs are turning all people off to legitimate men's groups. (However, the theory that radfems are turning people off to feminism and might be a contributing factor for the formation of the MRM is not mentioned...and is therefore probably not valid).

It's always men's fault. Unless it's good. Then it was from hard working sisters defeating the patriarchy and shit.

[Dick Strawkins]

Looks like Fogg is slowly causing a seismic shift in FtB. Now Carrier has suddenly upgraded to being an expert in how to do "Men's Rights" right, though he really doesn't like that word "rights."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

The tl;dr version is that men's groups are A-OK so long as they don't leverage hate (agreed) and don't take anything away from addressing women's issues, which was a concern voiced by Fogg as well. In both instances I expected the stated concern to be followed by reciprocation, but I guess that was a bit too much to hope for, making this, I think, the first couple instances of "What about teh womynz?" of which I'm sure there will be much more to come. Nobody has yet dared utter it in any recognizable form, but it will come, it will come.

I'm a humanist. The radfem SJW shit that Carrier endorses is anti-humanist as it is, simply put, applied bigotry for one-sided social change in favor of women at the expense of men. Otherwise known as a 'zero sum' game where men have to 'lose' so women can 'win.' I prefer equality and the meritocracy.

Carrier, of course, loves Patriarchy Theory. A person who does not believe PT is a loathsome bigot. Even if certain pegs will not fit the PT hole, it only indicates the need to apply a hammer. No other theory can be substituted and no other concept need apply, not Capitalism, not Plutocracy. This currency is not transferable. If you don't believe all that PT tells you, there is something wrong with your brain.

Of course he does. It's unfalsifiable. Which means you can spend an entire career pulling shit out of your ass and still get tenure. Unlike real scientists and academics who have to get it right.

Other little tidbits: the fact that prostate cancer is underfunded but comparable to breast cancer fatality is men's fault. And radical MRAs are turning all people off to legitimate men's groups. (However, the theory that radfems are turning people off to feminism and might be a contributing factor for the formation of the MRM is not mentioned...and is therefore probably not valid).

It's always men's fault. Unless it's good. Then it was from hard working sisters defeating the patriarchy and shit.

Carrier's article did have a real point (mens issues are too important to be left to the MRA groups) but he buried that point within a lot of waffle.

His defence of Patriarchy theory was quite laughable for someone who is an academic.

He makes the following claim:

In fact, the concept of patriarchy is an empirically testable theory of social attitudes and organization, and the evidence more than bears it out.

OK, get that?

We are dealing with "an empirically testable theory of social attitudes and organization" that has evidence which strongly supports it.

I'm all ears Richard.
Do go on.

First he gives the following definition:

A basic definition of patriarchy

(based on Allan G. Johnson's The Gender Knot):

Patriarchal social structures are:

1. Male dominated--which doesn't mean that all men are powerful or all women are powerless--only that the most powerful roles in most sectors of society are held predominantly by men, and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women

2. Organized around an obsession with control, with men elevated in the social structure because of their presumed ability to exert control (whether rationally or through violence or the threat of violence) and women devalued for their supposed lack of control--women are assumed to need men's supervision, protection, or control

3. Male identified: aspects of society and personal attributes that are highly valued are associated with men, while devalued attributes and social activities are associated with women. There is a sense of threat to the social structure of patriarchies when these gendered associations are destabilized--and the response in patriarchy is to increase the level of control, often by exerting control over women (as well as groups who are devalued by virtue of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or class).

4. Male centered: It is taken for granted that the center of attention is the natural place for men and boys, and that women should occupy the margins. Public attention is focused on men. (To test this, take a look at any daily newspaper; what do you find on the front page about men? about women?)

And then, the knockout punch.
Not one, but two pieces of evidence that support patriarchy theory, which are...

...both Cristina Rad youtube videos.

:think:

[welch]

Hey, I just realized Loftus didn't respond to my criticism of his "atheism is the result of blahblah" shit.


Therefore, I am now THE ONLY MAN JOHN LOFTUS FEARS TO DEBATE

[Tribble]

There was a thread on JREF following Rebecca Watson's Evopsych talk where I posed the question: can you give me an example of a significant advancement to science or valuable finding from evolutionary psychology? I never got an answer. This would not be a difficult question for biology, psychology, physics and many other scientific fields. I'm currently viewing evopsych more along the lines of sociology and social theory*, more comparable to feminist theory and literary theory than to psychological science or biology. But, since I don't actually know a ton about evopsych, I'm certainly open to changing my mind.

The field is new because, until recently, you couldn't so much of what was needed to get beyond 'mere' psychology. So it's bound to be fluid and have a lot of mis-steps. But unlike feminist theory and literary theory, it's actually grounded in real science.

It's kind of like the early days of 'modern' physics. A hundred years ago they went through four standard models of the atom before settling on Bohr's model. Which, in turn, fell to newer models until we're at where we're at today...