Fuck you. Fuck you into the ground. That's one little dash amidst the twelve fucking letters I put together for the name. It's like you just put the fucking swoosh under my brand name 'Nike'. Here's $35, now fuck off.Mykeru wrote:It seems Renee won't give me a slot (giggity) on Skepti-Schism -- even though I was the one that suggested the all-important hyphen which just makes it, if you ask me -- unless I ask her really, really nicely.
http://yeinjee.com/tag/nobuyuki-nov-takahashi/ (via Wikipedia)Aneris wrote:I thought this was at a con, and pop culture (Aliens?). Not witches at halloween. That would be our costume.Lsuoma wrote:When did dressing-up games become "Cosplay"?Aneris wrote: I don't see the issue. So she does Cosplay. And?*
*It's not that Rebecca Watson is an academic with some gravitas. Even if she was. I don't think that Feynman would disapprove that.
Well, I see where you are coming from and perhaps in time with a little honest introspection she might also.Pitchguest wrote: I was just stunned at that bit of cognitive dissonance. I don't really care if she can get laid whenever she likes; if she can, good for her. But many people sure can't and to say that this bit of, hm, shall we say 'privilege'? - hasn't got anything to do with her being a nominately attractive woman, she's either deluded, or she thinks her audience are idiots. Also, that sentence, "The fact that I can get them is absolutely useless to me." If only everyone had it that simple.
I think the opposition to displays of sexuality by sex-negative, but heterosexual, feminists is ultimately driven by mate competition instincts.KenD wrote:The idea that women are victims who need to be saved from men's "beastly lust"* is definitely a throwback to a Victorian view of the sexes.
That's surprising, considering Renee's server has a dual-core processor.Mykeru wrote: Well, it sure takes its sweet-ass time sending an email
I just can't help but wonder how Becky would react if fat, shirtless, sloppy drunk guys started partying in her personal space. Come on, gross is gross.Guest wrote:Yeah. Next thing you know they'll see a woman who's cosplaying in a rather mild outfit and get all shocked and disgusted, because OMG bare midriff + extra pounds = "I'M REVOLTED".Tribble wrote:
I am amazed, or I should say revolted, in so many ways... Does she have no self-respect? Or is she just completely unaware?
If you care, here's the relevant clip. (Spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the movie but might want to.)Skep tickle wrote:I think I posted the first photo here of the Prometheus costume, not knowing that's what it was but instead because seeing PZ Myers beaming next to Rebecca Watson who has just given birth to a squid isn't something you see every day.
It's clear that I'm out of the loop on certain aspects of modern culture. Hadn't heard of Prometheus-the-movie, and hadn't heard of that non-PC card game Lousy Canuck was tweeting about.
No idea why a C-section incision + appears-to-be-term "baby" gets called an "abortion" (that's probably in the movie).
I dont find the hypocrisy surprising. Its about maximising ones own position while cutting your competition off at the knees, as it were. Its one thing that makes me wary of sex positive feminists, that the positivism refers to their own benefits while being happy to apply different standards, usually to males, but also females.Satan wrote:I think the opposition to displays of sexuality by sex-negative, but heterosexual, feminists is ultimately driven by mate competition instincts.KenD wrote:The idea that women are victims who need to be saved from men's "beastly lust"* is definitely a throwback to a Victorian view of the sexes.
They don't trust their male partners not to cheat with the every other woman they see, so all sexual displays by other women must be stamped in order to prevent men from seeing other women to cheat with.
This interpretation explains why feminists of this stripe hate public displays of sexuality by other women (which they consider to be objectification) but see nothing wrong with displaying their own sexuality.
Hmm. Ok, I need to beat the shit out of my mail server, it seems. Just send me an email at 1webdeveloper at gmail dot com with what you want for a user name and site name and I'll manually set it up.Mykeru wrote:Well, it sure takes its sweet-ass time sending an emailReneeHendricks wrote:Wait, what? Um, you can create it right here: http://skeptischism.com/wp-signup.php.Mykeru wrote:It seems Renee won't give me a slot (giggity) on Skepti-Schism -- even though I was the one that suggested the all-important hyphen which just makes it, if you ask me -- unless I ask her really, really nicely.
As I am constitutionally incapable of being really nice, let alone really, really nice, this presents something of a poser for me.
Can anyone draft a "really really nice" request to fucking Hendricks that doesn't fall into the faux pas I did, what with the use of the phrases "Jello Shot cum-dumpster" and "Even if I asked you nicely, like you'd remember"?
Thanks in advance and fuck off.
Silly Mykeru!
I think I first heard it called that in....2002 or so.Lsuoma wrote:When did dressing-up games become "Cosplay"?Aneris wrote: I don't see the issue. So she does Cosplay. And?*
*It's not that Rebecca Watson is an academic with some gravitas. Even if she was. I don't think that Feynman would disapprove that.
BAAAHAHAHAAHAHAA. Brilliant!EdwardGemmer wrote:http://skeptischism.com/bdc/2013/07/09/ ... hendricks/
Renee answers all questions
Stupid question, but since it is one of those "bite you in the ass because it's so simple" things, does your mailserver's DNS check out forwards and backwards? It's the name lookup from IP address going boggy that trips a lot of spam filtersReneeHendricks wrote:Hmm. Ok, I need to beat the shit out of my mail server, it seems. Just send me an email at 1webdeveloper at gmail dot com with what you want for a user name and site name and I'll manually set it up.Mykeru wrote:Well, it sure takes its sweet-ass time sending an emailReneeHendricks wrote:
Wait, what? Um, you can create it right here: http://skeptischism.com/wp-signup.php.
Silly Mykeru!
What about 2013?SkepchickCON is dedicated to providing a safe and harassment-free conference experience for everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of anyone in attendance in any form.Attendees found to be violating this harassment policy may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference [without a refund] at the discretion of the convention organizers....
...If a participant engages in harassing behavior, SkepchickCON organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the CON [with no refund]. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a SkepchickCON or FTB organizer....
Wonder whether there was something specific that led to CONvergence putting its foot down, and to the absence of a specific (public, anyway) SkepchickCON policy this year.Harassment
CONvergence is dedicated to providing a safe and comfortable convention experience for everyone. Harassment of any kind, including physical assault, battery, deliberate intimidation, stalking, or unwelcome physical attentions, will not be tolerated. If people tell you “no†or to leave them alone, your business with them is done.
Leave them alone. Do not follow them or attempt to disrupt their convention experience in any way. If you continue to attempt to have contact with those people, you may be removed from the premises.
—
CONvergence is not responsible for solving any interpersonal problems that may arise between individual members. In general, we can take no action to prevent a person from attending the convention unless that person has made a specific and credible threat toward the convention itself. If you feel that a threat exists against your person, we advise you to seek a restraining order against the individual in question and to involve the host hotel itself (security staff specifically) and the municipal police department in advance of the convention; otherwise, we recommend simply avoiding that individual.
If that individual stalks, harasses, or attempts to assault you at the convention itself, you may report that individual to a member of Operations (they will report it to the hotel’s security staff who will get the police involved if necessary) or you may report it to hotel security directly, and the appropriate action will be taken. Conversely, any attempt to have an innocent person removed from the convention by falsely accusing him or her of threats will be itself treated as an act of harassment and will be dealt with appropriately. The responsibility for settling interpersonal disputes lies solely with the individuals involved, and CONvergence will not tolerate being used as a leveraging point in such disputes.
:lol:welch wrote:BAAAHAHAHAAHAHAA. Brilliant!EdwardGemmer wrote:http://skeptischism.com/bdc/2013/07/09/ ... hendricks/
Renee answers all questions
No email yet.Gumby wrote:That's surprising, considering Renee's server has a dual-core processor.Mykeru wrote: Well, it sure takes its sweet-ass time sending an email
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/332852 ... heel-o.gif
Got it, I'll be up to my ass in Wordpress back end for the next couple daysReneeHendricks wrote:
Hmm. Ok, I need to beat the shit out of my mail server, it seems. Just send me an email at 1webdeveloper at gmail dot com with what you want for a user name and site name and I'll manually set it up.
You both might be reading her wrong. For one thing she’s indicated that she’s “come out as queer†– which might be the basis for her “absolutely useless to me†comment. Interesting details here – seems she’s packed a lot – good and bad – into her last four years of schooling. And while I’ve disagreed with her posts on several points – sociological definitions, “The Patriarchyâ€, Lindsay’s “apologyâ€, and “gendered†insults for several, I have to concede she’s got guts and spirit: one can forgive the young everything except their youth ….AndrewV69 wrote:Well, I see where you are coming from and perhaps in time with a little honest introspection she might also.Pitchguest wrote: I was just stunned at that bit of cognitive dissonance. I don't really care if she can get laid whenever she likes; if she can, good for her. But many people sure can't and to say that this bit of, hm, shall we say 'privilege'? - hasn't got anything to do with her being a nominately attractive woman, she's either deluded, or she thinks her audience are idiots. Also, that sentence, "The fact that I can get them is absolutely useless to me." If only everyone had it that simple.
I kind of do not want to criticize her too harshly because, well, I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I think I understand only too well where she is coming from, and the bottom line is I am not in a position to cast the first stone.
Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.
Hehe. :lol:Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/rK1BlWa.jpg
Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.
Depends, I think, on precisely what you mean by “has anything to do with …†While conquering disease, banishing poverty, and eliminating war don’t seem to be intrinsic to atheism, it seems to me that one’s belief in or perspective on it is likely to have some influence on how one addresses those problems. Reminds me of a quote of Nietzsche in Michel Onfray’s In Defense of Atheism:JackRayner wrote:*groan*
How many more times do we have to go through this BS?
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 9b66a9.png
Source
You know, I don't even have a problem with some of that shit, but that's not the point. None of that has anything to do with not believing in/rejecting deities . Why do atheists keep trying to play this "We're moral/more moral!" game?
[And no, I don't give two shits if it's a quote from so-and-so. And don't even get me started on how stupid I think this "monument" is.]
What we think and feel about the concept of god seems to have a great deal of influence on both the “tasks for our earthly realityâ€, and on how we address them.Nietzsche wrote:The concept of “God†invented as a counter-example of life – everything harmful, poisonous, slanderous, the whole hostility unto death against life synthesized in this concept in a gruesome unity! The concept of the “beyondâ€, the “true world†invented in order to devaluate the only world there is – in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task for our earthly reality! The concept of the “soulâ€, the “spiritâ€, finally even “immortal soulâ€, invented in order to despise the body, to make it sick …. In place of health, the “salvation of the soul†– that is a folie circulaire [manic-depressive insanity] between penitential convulsions and hysteria about redemption! [Ecce Homo]
Not sure - I'll have to check. Right now, my head is banging and this headache is creeping down into my face. I think I'm done for the day.welch wrote:Stupid question, but since it is one of those "bite you in the ass because it's so simple" things, does your mailserver's DNS check out forwards and backwards? It's the name lookup from IP address going boggy that trips a lot of spam filtersReneeHendricks wrote:
Hmm. Ok, I need to beat the shit out of my mail server, it seems. Just send me an email at 1webdeveloper at gmail dot com with what you want for a user name and site name and I'll manually set it up.
Reap, that's a fucking terrible phrase you've got in your avatar. Is it a Glenn Beck quote?Reap wrote:Adam Lee obviously out during recess is tweeting away giving us all an example of how to behave like mature intelligent adults. That dude is just sad
Maybe.Steersman wrote:Depends, I think, on precisely what you mean by “has anything to do with …†While conquering disease, banishing poverty, and eliminating war don’t seem to be intrinsic to atheism, it seems to me that one’s belief in or perspective on it is likely to have some influence on how one addresses those problems. Reminds me of a quote of Nietzsche in Michel Onfray’s In Defense of Atheism:JackRayner wrote:*groan*
How many more times do we have to go through this BS?
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 9b66a9.png
Source
You know, I don't even have a problem with some of that shit, but that's not the point. None of that has anything to do with not believing in/rejecting deities . Why do atheists keep trying to play this "We're moral/more moral!" game?
[And no, I don't give two shits if it's a quote from so-and-so. And don't even get me started on how stupid I think this "monument" is.]
What we think and feel about the concept of god seems to have a great deal of influence on both the “tasks for our earthly realityâ€, and on how we address them.Nietzsche wrote:The concept of “God†invented as a counter-example of life – everything harmful, poisonous, slanderous, the whole hostility unto death against life synthesized in this concept in a gruesome unity! The concept of the “beyondâ€, the “true world†invented in order to devaluate the only world there is – in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task for our earthly reality! The concept of the “soulâ€, the “spiritâ€, finally even “immortal soulâ€, invented in order to despise the body, to make it sick …. In place of health, the “salvation of the soul†– that is a folie circulaire [manic-depressive insanity] between penitential convulsions and hysteria about redemption! [Ecce Homo]
bovarchist wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/ibIbQlc.jpg
Not me. I got banned for being a "silly willy." Or maybe it was for making that typo. Or ... or ...welch wrote: Oh Loftus replied. He ignored Justin's reply and kept on his ... "we're at least still letting you reply here" shit.
Steersman wrote: seems she’s packed a lot – good and bad – into her last four years of schooling..... I have to concede she’s got guts and spirit: one can forgive the young everything except their youth ….
Or maybe one that combines saving dolphins with interior design. Or teaching dance therapy with running a sustainable farm. Just follow your dream, Miri! And remember, Starbucks is always hiring baristas.Miri is a progressive feminist atheist currently attending a Large Midwestern University and studying psychology. After that, she hopes to get a degree in social work and pursue a career that combines activism with counseling.
Look Steers, perhaps I am misreading her. However, I have been propositioned twice by gay guys and it actually did not make any difference as to my reaction. It was similar to when I turned down women.Steersman wrote: You both might be reading her wrong. For one thing she’s indicated that she’s “come out as queer†– which might be the basis for her “absolutely useless to me†comment. Interesting details here – seems she’s packed a lot – good and bad – into her last four years of schooling. And while I’ve disagreed with her posts on several points – sociological definitions, “The Patriarchyâ€, Lindsay’s “apologyâ€, and “gendered†insults for several, I have to concede she’s got guts and spirit:
Well, the last one sounds really close to what I have said in the past when turning down a woman. Do not get me wrong though, I have accepted propositions when it was in my estimation a good match in expectations. The times I went for it despite my reservations because I am so easily lead around by my dick, I had cause to regret it.The third reason is that, in my experience, many men who claim to like women who show initiative don’t really mean it–and, more to the point–they don’t realize they don’t mean it. They say, “Oh, I’d love it if a girl asked me out.†“I’d love it if a girl asked me for sex.†But then it actually happens, and the caveats come out: “Well, sure, I like assertive women, but she’s just too aggressive.†“Well, I just felt intimidated when she asked me how I felt about her.†“Wow, she just seems really desperate and obsessed.†“I think she’s like, in love with me, and I’m not ready for that right now.â€
Aye. Youth is wasted on the young.Steersman wrote: one can forgive the young everything except their youth ….
Maybe, but if so then maybe because it’s not easy to follow the inferences and logic and intentions associated with the various uses of different types of insults.Apples wrote::? Ruh-roh. I guess we'd better hope they don't cross your rubicon. I think you're missing the point, which you quoted below.Steersman wrote:I’ve certainly found several occasions where “cunt†and “twat†are applicable – Zvan, Sally Strange, Jadehawk, CaitieCat for examples – but not too many for “nigger†or “faggotâ€. Although Crommunist and “Josh, Official Spokesgay†are pushing the limits.
Good questions. But largely because of the analogy that I’ve spent some effort trying to elucidate here and various other places: “cunt†is to a charge of misogyny as “nigger†is to a charge of racist. That is, if “cunt†isn’t misogynistic then “nigger†isn’t racist. OR, if “nigger†is racist then “cunt†is misogynistic. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. And all of that is predicated, I think, on the fact, the common relationship – as described in some detail in the Wikipedia article above, that each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.Apples wrote:So ... you're not inclined to explicitly dispute my suggestion about historical and predominant usage in the case of racial and homophobic slurs, but you hint that you're tempted to use them when a black or gay person makes you really mad -- because ... why?Steersman wrote:“Predominantly†is, I think, the nub of the matter. Seems there are more than a few misogynists who use gender insults in a universal context – “bitches ain’t shit†for example. Why context matters.Apples wrote:"Faggot" hasn't been used to refer to a particular unpleasant gay person among all those gay people you think are cool. These words have predominantly been used as tools of universal insult by bigots.
Seems to be a relatively popular phrase, although it is of course moot whether the song came first or whether it was merely the reflection of a common attitude prevalent at the time the song was written. Which then raises the question, which I failed to consider in my previous comment - mea culpa, as to whether that attitude is typically or commonly applied to all women or just to that percentage who happen to be, as the dictionary has it, “malicious, unpleasant, and selfishâ€. And while the former use could quite reasonably be construed as misogynistic, the latter only qualifies being rude and crude. But, as with the other insults, rude and crude may have some justifications, particularly where one wants to get the attention, fairly or not, of someone else who is being particularly obnoxious or difficult.Apples wrote:As for something like "bitches ain't shit," I'd wonder how many times you've heard anyone say such a thing sincerely, outside of a rap song. I never have, other than as a mantra among Pharyngulites stuffing words into the mouths of strawmen.
[youtubie]dSJxvi767kQ[/youtube]
[Off-topic, sorta]AndrewV69 wrote:Miri wrote:The third reason is that, in my experience, many men who claim to like women who show initiative don’t really mean it–and, more to the point–they don’t realize they don’t mean it. They say, “Oh, I’d love it if a girl asked me out.†“I’d love it if a girl asked me for sex.†But then it actually happens, and the caveats come out: “Well, sure, I like assertive women, but she’s just too aggressive.†“Well, I just felt intimidated when she asked me how I felt about her.†“Wow, she just seems really desperate and obsessed.†“I think she’s like, in love with me, and I’m not ready for that right now.â€
Apples wrote: So ... you're not inclined to explicitly dispute my suggestion about historical and predominant usage in the case of racial and homophobic slurs, but you hint that you're tempted to use them when a black or gay person makes you really mad -- because ... why?
I fixed your argument so it would make sense to the likes of me.Steersman wrote: Good questions. But largely because of the analogy that I’ve spent some effort trying to elucidate here and various other places:“cuntâ€"cooze" is to a charge of misogyny as “nigger†is to a charge of racist. That is, if“cuntâ€"cooze" isn’t misogynistic then “nigger†isn’t racist. OR, if “nigger†is racist then“cuntâ€"cooze" is misogynistic. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. And all of that is predicated, I think, on the fact, the common relationship – as described in some detail in the Wikipedia article above, that each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
Yumping Yimmy man! Da fuq? Bitch be crazy! You stick your dick in crazy you better not be coming to my place to hide out.JackRayner wrote:[Off-topic, sorta]AndrewV69 wrote:Miri wrote:The third reason is that, in my experience, many men who claim to like women who show initiative don’t really mean it–and, more to the point–they don’t realize they don’t mean it. They say, “Oh, I’d love it if a girl asked me out.†“I’d love it if a girl asked me for sex.†But then it actually happens, and the caveats come out: “Well, sure, I like assertive women, but she’s just too aggressive.†“Well, I just felt intimidated when she asked me how I felt about her.†“Wow, she just seems really desperate and obsessed.†“I think she’s like, in love with me, and I’m not ready for that right now.â€
I've actually seen that happen a few times. The most memorable instance involved a close friend. This really cute chick was spelling out that she wanted him, and it scared him off. They'd been in contact for a few days, and he just went ghost on her. I guess she was just too straightforward for his tastes...
...or, it might have been the fact that she followed him into the men's restroom while he was trying to take a piss, scared away some other guy that was in there, and then snorted some cocaine. Her face tattoo might have also aggravated matters. :think:
But, hey! Who cares about details?! :roll:
No dispute there.JackRayner wrote:There are atheists that believe in all sorts of nonsense.Steersman wrote: <snip>
What we think and feel about the concept of god seems to have a great deal of influence on both the “tasks for our earthly realityâ€, and on how we address them.
That sense of feeling superior is, I think, the crux of the problem – a problem, at least – with the “New Atheism†which seems to be rather arrogant in its certainty. While I’m a long ways from believing in any anthropomorphic deity who guarantees all good boys and girls go to heaven – and the bad ones (at least the girls) go everywhere else, that conception still seems to be the limit of many of the New Atheist’s imaginations. And while I think the evidence is quite clear that some ideas are better than – superior to – others, I also think it is rather problematic, bad karma, to think that there aren’t any other ones that might be even better than those on tap.JackRayner wrote:I think any atheist not in love with the smell of their own farts can recognize that. The only thing I'm sure of* when someone claims they're an atheist, is that they don't believe in god. That's it. On average atheists are supposedly more educated, but having an education doesn't mean you're smarter [as we've seen, plenty of atheists are shit skeptics]. The same goes with being more "moral", and whatever other bullshit atheists bring up to make themselves feel superior...
:-) Glad you translated my argument into your own idiom, although you didn't clearly make the necessary choice even if the implication is that you'll go with the first case - i.e., neither misogynistic nor racist.AndrewV69 wrote:Apples wrote: So ... you're not inclined to explicitly dispute my suggestion about historical and predominant usage in the case of racial and homophobic slurs, but you hint that you're tempted to use them when a black or gay person makes you really mad -- because ... why?I fixed your argument so it would make sense to the likes of me.Steersman wrote: Good questions. But largely because of the analogy that I’ve spent some effort trying to elucidate here and various other places:“cuntâ€"cooze" is to a charge of misogyny as “nigger†is to a charge of racist. That is, if“cuntâ€"cooze" isn’t misogynistic then “nigger†isn’t racist. OR, if “nigger†is racist then“cuntâ€"cooze" is misogynistic. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. And all of that is predicated, I think, on the fact, the common relationship – as described in some detail in the Wikipedia article above, that each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
The problem with the above is that it is cultural. While I may understand it froma North Americal perspective it does not feel right at all. I grew up hearing cunt and twat and quite frankly it does not resonate with me. I can accept cooze in the context, but never cunt.
(fucking imperialist trying to impose an alien cultural context on me is what it is.)
And my fee fees trumps your logic. So get knotted.
Well my understanding is that "cooze" is North American and I can only recall hearing it once. I could be wrong though. In any event to me "cooze" is just as derogatory as "nigger" so I would not use either of them in that manner.Steersman wrote::-) Glad you translated my argument into your own idiom, although you didn't clearly make the necessary choice even if the implication is that you'll go with the first case - i.e., neither misogynistic nor racist.
However, while it is maybe somewhat academic since you seemed to have picked A, I think the purpose or benefits of the analogy is that it strips out the cultural, the subjective aspects , the fee-fees, of the problem, leaving only the objective core. Presumably the objective or modus operandi of True Skeptics (tm) ....
Hm... I think "Don't stick your dick in crazy" is a term I need to add to my repertoire. I can think of many missed opportunities to use it.AndrewV69 wrote:Yumping Yimmy man! Da fuq? Bitch be crazy! You stick your dick in crazy you better not be coming to my place to hide out.JackRayner wrote: I've actually seen that happen a few times. The most memorable instance involved a close friend. This really cute chick was spelling out that she wanted him, and it scared him off. They'd been in contact for a few days, and he just went ghost on her. I guess she was just too straightforward for his tastes...
...or, it might have been the fact that she followed him into the men's restroom while he was trying to take a piss, scared away some other guy that was in there, and then snorted some cocaine. Her face tattoo might have also aggravated matters. :think:
But, hey! Who cares about details?! :roll:
Bros before Hos is one thing but there are limits. You on your own.
The question isn't whether "cunt" or "cooze" or "nigger" is derogatory, but whether they are each intrinsically derogatory of entire classes. My argument is that all of them are applicable to those entire classes OR/XOR none of them are. And I'll go with the latter - at least with the "necessarily" qualification.AndrewV69 wrote:Well my understanding is that "cooze" is North American and I can only recall hearing it once. I could be wrong though. In any event to me "cooze" is just as derogatory as "nigger" so I would not use either of them in that manner.Steersman wrote::-) Glad you translated my argument into your own idiom, although you didn't clearly make the necessary choice even if the implication is that you'll go with the first case - i.e., neither misogynistic nor racist.
However, while it is maybe somewhat academic since you seemed to have picked A, I think the purpose or benefits of the analogy is that it strips out the cultural, the subjective aspects , the fee-fees, of the problem, leaving only the objective core. Presumably the objective or modus operandi of True Skeptics (tm) ....
But "cunt"? You may as well tell me to stop saying "prick" or "dick". Not happening in my life time.
If you think that someone who is a member of the Central Committee of an official communist party is just a naive blowhard then you are an idiot.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:I can't see any reason to conclude that Namazie is any more than a naive blowhard. How do you know that she wouldn't be shocked if the benevolent dictatorship she favours turned to murder? This seems way too speculative and is encroaching on PZ/Setar territory.Jan Steen wrote:As long as the corpses belong to the bourgeoisie there is nothing wrong with mass murder. They don't even need to actually belong to the bourgeoisie. Nobody knows what that means anyway. Applying the label is sufficient alibi to commit genocide. What is Maryam going to do with all those islamists in Iran? How about moderate muslims? What is the fate of other believers? What will happen to secularists who oppose the mass murder of believers? How about their children?Southern wrote: How many times Communism must fail spetacularly until people give up on it? Jeez. It's like Communists just don't care about corpses piling up or something.
Better take them all out, to be sure. Isn't that right, comrade Namazie? Let's try to create yet another workers' paradise on a mountain of corpses. And after you have killed a few million of your bourgeois compatriots, an even meaner piece of shit than you will take over your Central Committee and torture you to death. There is only one way to prevent that from happening: purge the Central Committee. Kill them all. Chairwoman Mariam Namazie FTW.
Congratulations!Tribble wrote:(daughter gets married this Saturday and shit is hectic
Sorry Steers, but your subtle point is lost on me. I am just going to go with this:Steersman wrote:The question isn't whether "cunt" or "cooze" or "nigger" is derogatory, but whether they are each intrinsically derogatory of entire classes. My argument is that all of them are applicable to those entire classes OR/XOR none of them are. And I'll go with the latter - at least with the "necessarily" qualification.AndrewV69 wrote:Well my understanding is that "cooze" is North American and I can only recall hearing it once. I could be wrong though. In any event to me "cooze" is just as derogatory as "nigger" so I would not use either of them in that manner.Steersman wrote::-) Glad you translated my argument into your own idiom, although you didn't clearly make the necessary choice even if the implication is that you'll go with the first case - i.e., neither misogynistic nor racist.
However, while it is maybe somewhat academic since you seemed to have picked A, I think the purpose or benefits of the analogy is that it strips out the cultural, the subjective aspects , the fee-fees, of the problem, leaving only the objective core. Presumably the objective or modus operandi of True Skeptics (tm) ....
But "cunt"? You may as well tell me to stop saying "prick" or "dick". Not happening in my life time.
You might want to take a close look at that section on analogies I linked to earlier.
That works for me.Steersman wrote: each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
Ok, but if that works for you, that, apparently, insulting some black person with the epithet "nigger" is insulting all blacks then why doesn't that work for "cunt", that calling one woman a cunt isn't calling every woman a cunt?AndrewV69 wrote: <snip>
Sorry Steers, but your subtle point is lost on me. I am just going to go with this:That works for me.Steersman wrote: each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
I would only ever claim to be a practitioner, not an authority. The judo metaphor was about 'using their force against them', not about being some sort of authority.Apples wrote:But - but - he has a killer O Soto Gari!!! - viewtopic.php?p=80977#p80977
http://i.imgur.com/niozG2X.jpg
Also he has heard of a remarkable thing called the 'Socratic method.' That's makes him at least Senpai, if not Sensei.
Indeed. Although it is maybe ironic that we have to spend our youth to find that out.AndrewV69 wrote: <snip>Aye. Youth is wasted on the young.Steersman wrote: one can forgive the young everything except their youth ….
Maybe my radar is miscalibrated, but I think that framing what Miri is saying in the context of privilege is going about analyzing it the wrong way. For one thing, my impression was that most people here aren’t particularly enthused or supportive of the concept in the first place. While one might reasonably argue with her that, for instance, she should shut up and listen to those less “privileged†on the axis on which she has that particular advantage, I think that is going to be a tough sale – you or Pitchguest might wish to broach the subject with her and see how far it flies. For instance, a reasonable response from her might be “all’s fair in love and warâ€; what alternative would you suggest – burkas?AndrewV69 wrote: (anyway, this is not really what Pitchguest and I were talking about. Reading what she wrote she did come across as speaking from privilege ... ).)
D'Oh! Ok Now I see what you are getting it.Steersman wrote:Ok, but if that works for you, that, apparently, insulting some black person with the epithet "nigger" is insulting all blacks then why doesn't that work for "cunt", that calling one woman a cunt isn't calling every woman a cunt?AndrewV69 wrote: <snip>
Sorry Steers, but your subtle point is lost on me. I am just going to go with this:That works for me.Steersman wrote: each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
That is the meaning of "analogous" - the same principle, the same process, the same relationship is in play in each case. While the neurophysiology of insults - how they work, what physiological processes of pain and pleasure are triggered on hearing or speaking them - may be rather obscure, I don't think it wise or helpful - or skeptical - to throw up our hands and say "cultural biases, cultural imperialism" and to walk away from the problem. And the best way, I think, that I can see, of addressing the problem is through analogies.
Thanks. I think. :-)welch wrote: <snip>
Steersman may be pedantic as fuck, but at least, at least he gets to the motherfucking point SOMEWHERE in his fucking verbiage. Compared to you, he is Hemingway winning a bet about how short he can make a story.
Just out of curiousity, how is that terribly different from following your blog posts? Presumably you post - on your blog or others - because you think you have something worthwhile to say. And presumably people follow you - on either or both places - because they agree with you. And that is "creepy"?welch wrote:and fucking creepy too. He's taken to following me in disqus.Dave wrote:Sorry. He's just so fucking boring.welch wrote: Dave said:
"You are allowed to say whatever you want. And welch is allowed to make fun of you for being a tedious prolix twat. That's the beauty of free speech."
I was trying to be subtle.
Funny - I was wondering the same thing ....Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Where's MKG, by the way? I miss the old git!
What about calling a particular person, "an idiot"?Steersman wrote:Ok, but if that works for you, that, apparently, insulting some black person with the epithet "nigger" is insulting all blacks then why doesn't that work for "cunt", that calling one woman a cunt isn't calling every woman a cunt?AndrewV69 wrote: <snip>
Sorry Steers, but your subtle point is lost on me. I am just going to go with this:That works for me.Steersman wrote: each epithet entails or is based on a pejorative association with a physiological feature.
That is the meaning of "analogous" - the same principle, the same process, the same relationship is in play in each case. While the neurophysiology of insults - how they work, what physiological processes of pain and pleasure are triggered on hearing or speaking them - may be rather obscure, I don't think it wise or helpful - or skeptical - to throw up our hands and say "cultural biases, cultural imperialism" and to walk away from the problem. And the best way, I think, that I can see, of addressing the problem is through analogies.
I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but something tells me that surgery would require more than slicing open her abdomen, grabbing the alien out with a pair of giant forceps, then stapling her back together. I don't know, maybe that was part of the anti-science discussed on the panel. If not, it should have been.Gumby wrote:
If you care, here's the relevant clip. (Spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the movie but might want to.)
Thanks. Definitely a challenge, although an interesting one, to lay out a case, a chain of argument. I’m definitely a dilettante or a neophyte in the art but, as I mentioned a post or two ago, I’ve found the “point-reason-example-summary†technique to be a useful one.Hemisphere wrote:I personally don't find Wonderist's posts to be particularly annoying. Instead, I find many of them interesting. Though they might not be filled with dazzling wit, it is nice to occasionally read a post that isn't just someone telling someone else to fuck off in a humorous manner. I don't always agree with him, just like I don't always agree with most of you, but I appreciate the effort he takes to make his points as clear as possible (something Steersman does as well). ....
There were lots of really obvious scientific mistakes in the movie - not high level stuff, they were the kind of things that the average science nerd could spot (for example they mentioned lethal levels of carbon dioxide which weren't anything like lethal - although they would have been with carbon monoxide.)Hunt wrote:I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but something tells me that surgery would require more than slicing open her abdomen, grabbing the alien out with a pair of giant forceps, then stapling her back together. I don't know, maybe that was part of the anti-science discussed on the panel. If not, it should have been.Gumby wrote:
If you care, here's the relevant clip. (Spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the movie but might want to.)
