Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Lsuoma]

No, Jen McWrong, the reason is because you're thicker than pig shit.

How DID she end up doing a PhD at a major uni like UW? Is that something you can just buy a place on?

[ianfc]

I see Clarence is back so I'll just post this to see if you think the guy in the orange Tshirt is a cunt.
[youtube]6sfMRclXrHo[/youtube]

[Ä uest]

I'm going to ask this question here, rather than at JudgyBitch, though it fits in with the link Andrew Posted.

Over the past many weeks I netflixed Warehouse 13, and in Warehouse 13, the heroine, Myka Bering, always wears her blouse unbuttoned.

http://i.imgur.com/Y9I6POz.jpg

I know this is TV.
I know this is fan service
I know I'm a guy and like seeing tits.

But it's distracting.

Not the most annoying thing about many of these shows, but definitely "button your shirt!"

I don't work in offices where the women come in all dressed up.

Is this unbuttoned blouse thing:

not a real world thing, it's just tv dumbass
a real world thing because that's where they put the buttons in blouses and the alternative is buttoned too high
a real world thing because some women just like showing off their tight, perky, creamy upturned breasts?
an indicator I am in denial and probably a latent homosexual

[JackRayner]

I agree. As I said in my response to Welch, I apply "Hanlon's Razor" to the whole "nice guy" phenomenon.

If I seem to display a bit of contempt for these type of men, much of it comes from fact that I've tried helping lots of them [the majority who've come to me for help] and they end up being "Definition of Insanity" types. It's frustrating seeing friends suffer needlessly...

I tended to give the same basic advice: be honest, with her and yourself. There is nothing, nothing wrong with letting the object of your desire that they are in fact, just that. Done in an honest, reasonably polite way, telling someone you are warm for their form, and should they ever crook a finger at you, you'd run over a rhino to get there? Don't be creepy or a jerk about it, but fuck why wouldn't you want someone to know that. It's kind of hard to decide if you want to get intimate with someone if they keep telling you they don't want that. Eventually, you believe them.

Why not? Maybe because it would kill the excitement that uncertainty brings into these sorts of things? My take is that women love this sort of stuff. If they don't, that's perfectly fine! ...They're free to stop being the typically passive participant, risk rejection, and advance things how they want, and as quickly as they want [but knowing that 90%+ won't though, does this make me an asshole? :whistle: ]. I never state my interest, I display it only, and advance based on things like receptivity and reciprocation. It takes awareness of non-verbal cues, among other things, but I've had a lot of fun with it. It's paid off.

If they decide against it, okay, shit happens. Ain't no reason to be overly hurt or mad, and they're probably still pretty fucking cool. You just ain't gonna see them naked. No biggie.

The way I put it to my latest case is that he needs to see her disinterest as a difference in opinion. Told him that if he is incapable of getting over her, and hanging out just gets those silly feels going again, then he needs to just stop talking to her period, and treat her like any old neighbor. Won't listen though, and like mentioned, keeps calling me to vent and ask for more advice to not follow. Maybe it'll sink in when it gets to the point where she's fucking disgusted by him and doesn't want anything to do with him...

I also tell them "Stop filtering every fucking thing you do or say through the "get laid" filter". If you go out with them be yourself, be who you are, relax, and have fun. If you do that, it is easier for them to do the same, and who knows, they might decide that the real you is pretty awesome too. You'd rather have someone want you for a make-believe you?" Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. But I can't see anything wrong with that advice.

Hahaha! Yeah, these friend's I've mentioned aren't even up to that point, so... :D

[ianfc]

Just sitting and musing a bit and a SJW pub crossed my mind.

[Bourne Skeptic]

I'm going to ask this question here, rather than at JudgyBitch, though it fits in with the link Andrew Posted.

Over the past many weeks I netflixed Warehouse 13, and in Warehouse 13, the heroine, Myka Bering, always wears her blouse unbuttoned.

http://i.imgur.com/Y9I6POz.jpg

I know this is TV.
I know this is fan service
I know I'm a guy and like seeing tits.

But it's distracting.

Not the most annoying thing about many of these shows, but definitely "button your shirt!"

I don't work in offices where the women come in all dressed up.

Is this unbuttoned blouse thing:

not a real world thing, it's just tv dumbass
a real world thing because that's where they put the buttons in blouses and the alternative is buttoned too high
a real world thing because some women just like showing off their tight, perky, creamy upturned breasts?
an indicator I am in denial and probably a latent homosexual

Short answer. All of the above, in varying degrees.

[Clarence]

The one and only time I was on "FreeThought" blogs, until Ally Fogg's blog.
I came over from a Feminist Critics thread.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -increase/

Figured people here might find it interesting. I quickly pegged Svan's political/blogging character, wouldn't you say?

[ianfc]

And standing at the bar having a chat with NoR.

[Bourne Skeptic]

Just sitting and musing a bit and a SJW pub crossed my mind.

The SJW Pub presents:

Ladies Nite Special

Bottomless glass of wine for all the little ladies!!

[ianfc]

and there's Steersman sitting between the stools bending oolon's ear

[clownshoe]

<snip for brevity/>
[GWW's vids seem to be a big part of the reason why Thunderf00t has gone anti-Feminist, also]

Could you expand on that?
thunderf00t was kicked off FtB and they and their friends attempted to drag his name through their muck.
I was of the opinion that that was his starting motivation in making his non-Science videos.
Though thunderf00t has used/quoted parts of GWW videos before, the cross-over to my mind ends with convenient allies, and not with her being a motivational factor.

[ianfc]

fuck oh my god, Josh has lost it and threatening Laden with a pair of broken wine bottles

[JackRayner]

I don't work in offices where the women come in all dressed up.

Is this unbuttoned blouse thing:

not a real world thing, it's just tv dumbass
a real world thing because that's where they put the buttons in blouses and the alternative is buttoned too high
a real world thing because some women just like showing off their tight, perky, creamy upturned breasts?
an indicator I am in denial and probably a latent homosexual

:lol:

I'll admit that I sometimes appreciate when women wear turtlenecks and hide everything between their jaws and their nipples. It's nice to take a break sometimes. :D

[ianfc]

and there's Stephanie coming out of the toilets shaking her hand, i wonder what that stuff is.

[ianfc]

Oh dear someone has just shouted Rape, there it is again

[ianfc]

I think it's Sally no no it's Josh

[Satan]

Is this unbuttoned blouse thing:

It's a TV thing.

Costumes for professional women on TV are much more revealing than would be acceptable in a real office with an equivalent dress code.

Unbuttoned blouses and skirts that don't even reach the top of the knee are staples of TV 'professional' costumes but they would get their wearer sent home in a real professional environment.

[disumbrationist]

Of course he's such a lab rat, he's spent the entire summer doing experiments, right?

I look forward to his upcoming publications in the scientific literature.

[Guest]

Heads up, I think RobotAnna's taking notice of you guys on Twitter. Get ready for people even less rational than the FreeFromThoughtBloggers.

[JackRayner]

<snip for brevity/>
[GWW's vids seem to be a big part of the reason why Thunderf00t has gone anti-Feminist, also]

Could you expand on that?
thunderf00t was kicked off FtB and they and their friends attempted to drag his name through their muck.
I was of the opinion that that was his starting motivation in making his non-Science videos.
Though thunderf00t has used/quoted parts of GWW videos before, the cross-over to my mind ends with convenient allies, and not with her being a motivational factor.

Sure. Thunderf00t's videos during the spat on FtB and slightly after he got the boot were more of a critique on the folk running FtB, Skepchick, et al. Being a subscriber to his youtube channel though, I started noticing that he was watching, liking, and adding many of GWW's videos to his favorites, and from then, he's since turned it into part of his bread and butter (thought people have been asking, BEGGING him for the next "Why do people laugh at creationists?", and to drop the criticisms of Feminists for many months now).

I may just be projecting though... :shifty:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Jen's presentation on social media at Secular Student Alliance 2013 annual conference following her being "bullied out of the movement" as some have claimed:

[youtube]Hgf_Uxn7mMw[/youtube]

That was so sad. So, so sad. She must have been fucking heartbroken when she saw the crowd. Oh, man, I don't want to take the piss out of her any more. Poor Jenny Titwobble, with an amazing talk about how to make a Facebook profile and how to post YouTube videos, and that is the audience she attracts.

I bet she gave her dad a real good shouting at that night. "You promised me, daddy. You promised me that there would be thousands of people all there to hear me speak. Where were they? No, you can't use that old trick to buy my happine...really? As many toppings as I want? Let's go!"

[John Greg]

Gumbers said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 34#p122334):

I've made some mistakes that made me lose some hours, and the moment when you realize your fuckup is not pretty.

Yargh, yes. This is not Photoshop/art related, but in my third year as a pro tech writer, and knowing full well how/when/why/where to keep regular backups of my files, I somehow, somehow, somehow, accidentally permanently and irretrievably deleted a full four and a half week's worth of a tightly deadlined project.

Very, very bad mojo that was.

[JackRayner]

I just dumpster dived at Ashley Miller's, and there's actually a very interesting debate going on (she's not banning!) between a few sane people politely pointing out facts of law vs. Hordelings spewing bile and lunacy:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... egal-fund/

Is this quote from the comments for real?:

"That’s not so much a rape joke as advocacy in favor of rape. I reported it to indiegogo and I hope others will do the same." (R Johnson)

This comment was made in reference to Emery Emery (who's voluntarily crowd funding for Dr. Shermer's legal fees), offering: "For $5000 you will receive a night of drinking wine with Emery Emery who will not be drinking but keeping your glass full."

Seriously? R Johnson is going to report that as rape advocacy? I would like to remove myself from humanity now, because people are just too fucking stupid, it hurts my skull to even have to read their moronic words. I would rather chew glass than read anymore of their dumb-ass logic.

Part of me sees that as the typical lunacy generated by the FtB whackaloons, and part of me sees it as a deliberate attempt to shut down the fundraiser.

I think it's the latter.

After the Feminists got Kickstarter to ban any future Pick Up Artist projects from being funded through their website, [because pulling the veil of pretend mystery off of female mating behavior is apparently "misogyny"], I really wouldn't be surprised if these cunts all rallied together and squawked and harassed indiegogo into shutting that bitch down.

They'll build a threat narrative, cry RAPE and MISOGYNY, and draw as much new-media attention as possible, organize petitions, boycotts, the works....maybe. I dunno. I wouldn't put it past them though...

[Voryn]

JT Eberhard's Facebook page recently went kaboom! with comments. He was informed about the slut-shaming comment from Jennifer McCreight as well as another comment that "mental illness shamed" him. I don't think JT is going to be grovelling for forgiveness anytime soon. It looks to be as though this incident hasn't gained them any support and has just severed more times between the FTBers and their once supporters.

Shocking. I know :whistle:

Also McWrong made up some excuse about him breaking policy rules to explain her original tweet on his sex life. Everyone can see through your bullshit Jennifer, unless their head is permanently stuck up a tuckus.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Opheliar reaches the perfect state of lazy blogging Zen: just post a fucking comment, and see what happens. It's beautiful, really.

http://i.imgur.com/AaCix0T.png

[Skep tickle]

Here's that page on California defamation law (from Digital Media Law Project, as tweeted by EBW):
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/califor ... mation-law

...
The elements of a defamation claim are:

publication of a statement of fact
that is false,*
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.

*As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. ...A reader further points out that, even when the burden is technically on the plaintiff to prove falsity, the plaintiff can easily shift the burden to the defendant simply by testifying that the statements at issue are false.

Defamation Per Se

A plaintiff need not show special damages (e.g., damages to the plaintiff's property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from the defamation) if the statement is defamation per se. A statement is defamation per se if it defames the plaintiff on its face, that is, without the need for extrinsic evidence to explain the statement's defamatory nature. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

....

Public Figures

In California, to classify a person as a public figure, the person must have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. Someone who voluntarily seeks to influence resolution of public issues may also be considered a public figure in California. For example, the following persons have been considered public figures in California: ...

Actual Malice and Negligence

In California, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on the standards and terminology mentioned in this subsection.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The kicker may be that Shermer will have to prove that he didn’t rape that woman, i.e., he is guilty until proven innocent.

Play that one out for us, would ya? Cuz that's impossible, and impossible things generally don't get written into civil codes.

At least according to this rather old review of the relevant Supreme Court decision.

I didn't read all 66 pages of that brief, and I doubt you did. either. In the first paragraph, though, they cite

NYT v. Sullivan
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 54_ZS.html

and

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 23_ZS.html


INALBISWO. I have some thoughts on the relevance of those two rulings, but perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your interpretation of them?

[Ä uest]

Here's that page on California defamation law (from Digital Media Law Project, as tweeted by EBW):
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/califor ... mation-law

...
The elements of a defamation claim are:

publication of a statement of fact
that is false,*
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.

*As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. ...A reader further points out that, even when the burden is technically on the plaintiff to prove falsity, the plaintiff can easily shift the burden to the defendant simply by testifying that the statements at issue are false.

Defamation Per Se

A plaintiff need not show special damages (e.g., damages to the plaintiff's property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from the defamation) if the statement is defamation per se. A statement is defamation per se if it defames the plaintiff on its face, that is, without the need for extrinsic evidence to explain the statement's defamatory nature. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

....

Public Figures

In California, to classify a person as a public figure, the person must have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. Someone who voluntarily seeks to influence resolution of public issues may also be considered a public figure in California. For example, the following persons have been considered public figures in California: ...

Actual Malice and Negligence

In California, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on the standards and terminology mentioned in this subsection.

In addition PeeZus (and his commentors, and Ed Brayton) may find comfort (or not) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/yARHl0l.jpg

[curriejean]

Heads up, I think RobotAnna's taking notice of you guys on Twitter. Get ready for people even less rational than the FreeFromThoughtBloggers.

Hoshit, the subreddit destroyer. I'd have a really fun time talking to her again. Too bad her tweets are all private, I'd be interested in what you're referring to.

[Ä uest]

The kicker may be that Shermer will have to prove that he didn’t rape that woman, i.e., he is guilty until proven innocent.

Play that one out for us, would ya? Cuz that's impossible, and impossible things generally don't get written into civil codes.

Skep Tickle's reference says the same thing.

*As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. ...A reader further points out that, even when the burden is technically on the plaintiff to prove falsity, the plaintiff can easily shift the burden to the defendant simply by testifying that the statements at issue are false.

I am not a lawyer but it seems the law would say the claim has to be false. Ergo, Shermer needs to prove the PZ's statement is false. It does say that you can possibly just testify the statement is false, at which point PZ would have to prove a rape occurred, but as Dick Carrier (now that's not a name screaming in latent homosexuality (NTTAWT) points out (I think it's possible he is correct), that then turns into a Shermer vs. PZ, he said/he said taking place in civil court where the legal burden of proof is probably just preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as it would be in a criminal case.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation ... _of_speech

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Is this quote from the comments for real?:

"That’s not so much a rape joke as advocacy in favor of rape. I reported it to indiegogo and I hope others will do the same." (R Johnson)

This comment was made in reference to Emery Emery ... offering: "For $5000 you will receive a night of drinking wine with Emery Emery who will not be drinking but keeping your glass full."

Seriously? R Johnson is going to report that as rape advocacy? I would like to remove myself from humanity now, because people are just too fucking stupid, it hurts my skull to even have to read their moronic words. I would rather chew glass than read anymore of their dumb-ass logic.

Someone should have reported R Johnson's mother to CPS, for dropping lil' R repeatedly as a baby.

[Guest]

Heads up, I think RobotAnna's taking notice of you guys on Twitter. Get ready for people even less rational than the FreeFromThoughtBloggers.

Hoshit, the subreddit destroyer. I'd have a really fun time talking to her again. Too bad her tweets are all private, I'd be interested in what you're referring to.

Just enter "slymepit" in the Twitter search engine, she'll have 2-3 posts under "Robot Gamer Girl Anna" or some shit.

[clownshoe]

<snip for brevity/>
[GWW's vids seem to be a big part of the reason why Thunderf00t has gone anti-Feminist, also]

Could you expand on that?
thunderf00t was kicked off FtB and they and their friends attempted to drag his name through their muck.
I was of the opinion that that was his starting motivation in making his non-Science videos.
Though thunderf00t has used/quoted parts of GWW videos before, the cross-over to my mind ends with convenient allies, and not with her being a motivational factor.

Sure. Thunderf00t's videos during the spat on FtB and slightly after he got the boot were more of a critique on the folk running FtB, Skepchick, et al. Being a subscriber to his youtube channel though, I started noticing that he was watching, liking, and adding many of GWW's videos to his favorites, and from then, he's since turned it into part of his bread and butter (thought people have been asking, BEGGING him for the next "Why do people laugh at creationists?", and to drop the criticisms of Feminists for many months now).

I may just be projecting though... :shifty:

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from. His videos of Anita Sarkeesian were bitingly direct.
Personally I've found his videos highly entertaining no matter the subject matter.

His audience are truly scary in size. No wonder FtB tried to leverage off it.

[curriejean]

No results. I'd appreciate a link if you would.

[deLurch]

http://www.anony.ws/i/2013/08/23/3PiUr.png

http://www.anony.ws/i/2013/08/23/rFCHe.png

Well you see, if you join the lynch mob, no one will suspect you as the next witch, because you are on their side right... right guys? BURN HIM!

[Pitchguest]

WAT HAPPENED AT 5.30?? WHY WHERE THERE ONLY 5 PEOPLE IN THE AUDIANCE? WAT?

Also, the rest of the talk is boring/obvious. Very odd. Odd...

:lol:

:laughing-rolling:

No one was there to watch it! Ahahahahahaha! I'm dying! Hahahaha!

[Guest]

No results. I'd appreciate a link if you would.

https://twitter.com/search?q=slymepit&src=typd

Here you are, just look for FakeRobotGamer.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

PeeZus prepares to spend a few days at a field station:

All summer long I’ve been indoors, in this nice shiny air-conditioned building, so it’s going to be a shock. I hear there is deadly radiation sleeting out of the sky that can incinerate my skin, and swarms of flesh-eating, blood-sucking arthropods that will try to devour me, and that when it gets hot out you just have to carry out filthy biological functions like sweating to cool off. I’ll try to survive and get back by Sunday.

Of course he's such a lab rat, he's spent the entire summer doing experiments, right? :roll:

Seriously, though, does he not spend any time outdoors exercising or working in the yard? For the last two months I've been working 50-60 hours per week at an indoor job, but I manage to spend time outdoors daily with the dogs, working in the yard, riding my horses, or running whenever possible.

PZ Myers is worthless and weak.

I normally spend most waking hours outside, but I've had to shut down nearly all work because of daily, heavy smoke coming from this bastard:

fire-1.jpg

(567.43 KiB) Downloaded 300 times

Been burning for three weeks, and is expected to burn for another two. There are 9 forest fires in the area (Nor Cal) totalling over 100,000 acres. Not counting the new Rim fire, grown to 70,000 acres in just three days, which will probably take out Yosemite.

It's been cool of late (around 90º), but we've had several intense heat waves around 105º-110º -- First one came beginning of May. So, until the smoke dissipates, no working horses, or other projects. Heck, I get short of breath just picking manure. Thus have I become a Slymepit junkie.

[bovarchist]

and there's Steersman sitting between the stools bending oolon's ear

And in the elevator Watson guards a keg of beer.

[deLurch]

No, Jen McWrong, the reason is because you're thicker than pig shit.

How DID she end up doing a PhD at a major uni like UW? Is that something you can just buy a place on?

I had an ex-girlfriend who got a degree in IT, but couldn't think herself outside a box when it comes to computers. Some people are really great at digesting information and spitting it back out for tests & papers. But when it comes to applying what they have learned, they just cannot connect the dots, or think creatively outside of what has been fed to them. Masters in psychology. Lots of books smarts, but zero street smarts. Often I felt like there was nothing knocking around upstairs. Ultimately, I had to let that one go.

[bovarchist]

Shit, I've lost the plot. Who's GWW again?

[AndrewV69]

Heads up, I think RobotAnna's taking notice of you guys on Twitter. Get ready for people even less rational than the FreeFromThoughtBloggers.

Hoshit, the subreddit destroyer. I'd have a really fun time talking to her again. Too bad her tweets are all private, I'd be interested in what you're referring to.

Your wish is my desire:

[Pitchguest]

No, Jen McWrong, the reason is because you're thicker than pig shit.

Something Zvan and her have in common. She's thicker than pig shit and Zvan seems she grew up in thicker-than-pig-shit-ville.

[Darren]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/f48432ac9481 ... o1_500.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/084a1290c852 ... o1_500.jpg

I'm pretty sure those are parodies - the second one in particular makes a joke with the line about how he has good spelling (and then immediately spells the word "grammar" incorrectly in the same sentence).

If that's parody, it's funny as heck. If it's not parody - well, that's even funnier.

[Ä uest]

Shit, I've lost the plot. Who's GWW again?

https://www.google.com/search?q=girl+writes+what

"Girl Writes What" is a prolific videotuber and blogger. A 40ish year old MRA "honeybadger" and mother living in Canada.

A bit of a minor youtube hero, especially in MRA circles.

A whole lot smarter than Paul Elam and most of the other AVFM folk.

[AndrewV69]

Shit, I've lost the plot. Who's GWW again?

GWW = Girl Writes What.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat
AVfM : http://www.avoiceformen.com/author/girl-writes-what/
Blog: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca/

[AndrewV69]

Hmmm. It seems that there is a war of words on between Wolly and GWW and AVfM is asking what happened to $6K in donations.

Okay, I really wasn't interested in doing this, but...
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca/2013/ ... doing.html

For anyone who doesn't know, The Wooly Bumblbee (Kristina Hansen) is an internet atheist who found the MRM during the atheist/sceptic schism over Atheism+. She is on a rampage of epic proportions, determined to avenge her honor after being wronged by the MRM.

Where’s the money, Kristina?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for ... nt-page-1/

She publicly acknowledged collecting over $6,000 from our community and continues to accept donations, yet continually attacks or blocks or ignores anyone who inquires about the money or what’s being done with it.

[Gefan]

Does anybody else get the feeling that McCreight is on the downward spiral to full on sexual hatred of men, and fast forward 20 years she will look and act like this? Im finding the resemblance slightly triggering.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 08899f.gif

What an ugly beast Andrea Dworkin was. Can you beleive that she claims she was raped in 1989? As if any guy would risk his dick falling off after fucking that.

My usual reaction to pictures of Dworkin is along the lines of; "Oh. That's unfortunate" but that one of her grinning is FUCKING TERRIFYING.
I'm quite serious about that.

I could build a complete horror film around that image. Someone waking up, turning on the light and seeing that sitting in the corner? It goes right up there with the "nurse's station scene" in Exorcist 3.

[Gefan]

...I often laugh at what various people have posted here (and wince sometimes too), but particularly want to call out Gefan for being on a roll (for quite a while now) with really funny, incisive, pithy posts. :clap:

Thank you I am genuinely flattered!

Now, why can't I get ANY recognition from the baboons?

You can overlook my being a strong candidate for least educated and accomplished Pitter (I didn't even understand most of the job titles people posted on that list a while back) but those damn SJW snobs won't react to anything I do :angry-banghead:

Elitist bastards, all of them!

[Skep tickle]

Someone mentioned a couple of days ago that there's now a fundraiser on indigogo to "Send Atheism Plus to Skepticon" (aiming for $700 to "fund at least one generic person").

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/send- ... -skepticon

Just noticed the thread at atheismplus forum from a couple of days ago, planning then announcing the fundraiser: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5227

Grimalkin's reasons for it are:

1. Skepticon sounds like fun. Meeting A+ people would be fun. Both of those together would be SUPER FUN. Except, while I can (probably) get funding to go, other people can't. But they should be able to go. WE SHOULD MAKE THEM ABLE TO GO.
2. Why not?
3. This would upset the slymepit. Things that upset the slymepit make a LOT of money. Lots of money = everyone forever can go!
4. We could zerg rush any assholes at Skepticon with our horrible ideals of "people are people" and "harassment is bad" if enough of us got to go.

Not quite sure why Grimalkin thought this would upset "the slymepit" and, even if so, why that would make lots of money. (Artsy perks for donations are also seen as a reason people would donate). *shrug*

But since Grimalkin is "le chickenshit" (his words) about "contact[ing] the bigger name A+ers" to ask "'Will you pleeeaaase tell your ilk loyal fans about this so they can apply for a grant/ add in some money?'", I'll do it for him:

"Bigger name A+ers" who read here, whoever people at the atheismplus forum might consider that to be (PZ? Greta? Jen?), how about publicizing the indigogo fundraiser set up by atheismplus forum members to send 1 or more atheismplus forum members to Skepticon 6? (Of course, Skepticon 6 also needs donations, but certainly you could publicize both.)

It would be interesting to see how "MAK[ING PEOPLE] ABLE TO GO" works.

Also how the selection process goes, described in first iteration (Grimalkin's post) as: "...take submissions of 'why I should get to go' essays from A+ people, and choose some people to get a "go to Skepticon" grant." (Course, maybe the funds will just pour in, and Grimalkin can send "Hopefully ALL the people. All of them" who want to go.)

It would also be interesting to hear the results of the atheismplus forum members "zerg rushing any assholes at Skepticon" (as they foresee as a benefit of their being there) with their deep insight "people are people" and "harassment is bad".

Oh, and JT Eberhard is scheduled to be at Skepticon (still; maybe that'll change). Even though the atheismplus forum has revoked his ally card: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5231 (and, in the process, come up with ideas for single-antler hats to show their displeasure with JT, which then morphed into ideas for "ilk" merchandise - maybe buttons or T-shirts - and a secret handshake - to identify the "in" group).

[Gefan]

Here's, what for me, is the most egregious example of Fedora fuckwittery (TM pending) I've ever seen.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/507 ... Miller.jpg

Theoretically, Frank Miller is old enough to know better but he's part of a special breed of neo-con, chickenhawk, wanna-be tough guy.
All his disturbed manly fantasies seem to come spilling out (as it were) in "300" and yet he's the most obvious pussy imaginable just from the sheer "trying way too hard" image of that one photo.

I have no pretensions to being a tough guy. I haven't set foot in a boxing ring for more than ten years but, as a result of a minor amateur boxing background and having previously worked with ex-cons (one of whom had just been released from Folsom after nearly beating to death two CHP officers) I've become fairly adept at recognizing those who are. They don't, as a rule, go around wearing fedoras and scowling.

[Gefan]

On the relationship of poverty to population growth, Hitch breaks it down:

[youtube]IQBQEQwFuZY[/youtube]

Excuse me, I now I have to go rebuild my misogyny cred.

[Skep tickle]

My bad, the fundraiser initiated by a+ forum isn't only for members of that forum; Grimalkin comments that followers of the "bigger name A+ers" could apply for it, too.

[ThePrussian]

Update posted on the Michael Shermer legal fundraiser posted by Emery Emery:

Update 1:

Many have asked if Michael Shermer knows about this fundraiser. He had been notified of my intent and today, sent me this statement to post:

"People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is mshermer@skeptic.com, which is posted on our web page http://www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong--legally or morally--and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney."

--Michael Shermer

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/ ... 47ncl3.jpg

Though I would prefer if Myers was nuked from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Thanks Justin.

Fair enough - that is brilliant! But... nukes? Really? They don't kill cockroaches you know.

[ThePrussian]

Who was just complaining about "people who just emote over offering hard, practical advice"...?
.

That is why I posted that. I'd hammered that reply out and then thought better of it. It's called an "apology"

[VAXherd]

Next, I plan to describe the experiment, but I'd like to keep these posts short. So let's check in with you here. Anything unscientific or unclear so far?

No, please continue.

For the experiment we needed to build a model of the real world situation. This meant creating a game that people could play that would recreate as much of the experience as possible. I was interested in the exchange of material goods, so I wanted it to match in to Economic theory, and we decided to use the A - B - C network because it was simple and clear cut (and required the fewest people). The game would be played through a computer so everything could be recorded.

To go with the three players there were three "goods", Red, Green and Blue. On each round of the game the players started with 100 "chips" of their own color, and 1 chip each of the other two. The goods were valued using a Cobb-Douglas utility function with equal preference for each color. So to score well, you needed equal amounts of all three goods.

The basic question was whether the middle player would have an advantage, but the interesting part was that the prior work suggested that depends on how the exchanging of goods is done. In an economic style transaction, with negotiated deals between impersonal actors, the middle position should be advantaged. But in a social transaction, based on gifts between people who know each other, it should not.

So we had two manipulations, the method of the exchange, and the social environment. Half the groups got screens that allowed them to send exchange offers to the other players, and to accept or reject offers made to them; the other half got screens allowing them to give the other players some of their chips. For half the groups the players were taken directly to a room with a computer terminal without meeting the others, and were identified on screen only by position ("Player 1"); for half they were introduced to each other before going to the terminals, and were identified on screen by their names.

The basic prediction was that all groups would start out with no advantage to the middle player, but as they played the games repeatedly, the economic groups would show increasing advantage to the middle player, while the social groups would not. The part I really liked was that by using the demand functions, I could get a specific prediction for the economic groups: once they had the game figured out, the middle players should finish each round with about 60 chips of each color, with the outer players both having about 20 of each.

Questions or comments on this part?

[Skep tickle]

On the relationship of poverty to population growth, Hitch breaks it down:

[ youtube ] IQBQEQwFuZY [ youtube ]

Excuse me, I now I have to go rebuild my misogyny cred.

Thanks for posting that.

Education (even basic grade-school education) is an important component of the "empowerment" he refers to (as well as information about, and access to, contraception).

As an aside: One of the things I found very weak about PZ Myers' talk in Seattle in 3/2013 was that he (briefly) presented condoms as the answer to overpopulation - that and "giving" women economic means. But male condoms don't empower women with control over reproduction - they take control out of women's hands.

[DownThunder]

My usual reaction to pictures of Dworkin is along the lines of; "Oh. That's unfortunate" but that one of her grinning is FUCKING TERRIFYING.
I'm quite serious about that.

I could build a complete horror film around that image. Someone waking up, turning on the light and seeing that sitting in the corner? It goes right up there with the "nurse's station scene" in Exorcist 3.

Sweet dreams tonight.....

Andrea_Dworkin.jpg

(44.25 KiB) Downloaded 330 times

[ThePrussian]

Bullshit. The planet can sustain c. 3 billion people; we've got 7 billion and growing. I'm worried about that -- does that make me racist?

I suppose the worry that the Prussian might be articulating (and I'm not saying he necessarily is, but still - he can clarify) is that notions of sustainability are usually expressed (as you do here) in terms of number as opposed to ecological impact.

Okay, Re: Mat Cavanaugh, no I don't think you're a racist; that is not an accusation that I make lightly. I think you are using flawed science that is typically promoted by people not untinged with racism. If you look at Malthus, he argued specifically to support the corn laws that lead to the deaths of about a million Irish. If you look at Paul Ehrlich, the way he writes about Indians and Bangladeshis is unconscionable.

There isn't an overpopulation problem and there never was. Birth rates go down as wealth goes up, to the point that what we in Europe have is a serious lack of a replacement population.

The problem is, again, poverty. And, sadly the Hitch is wrong - women's emancipation is one of the first results of the development of an industrial, capitalist society - it's not the other way around. If you go back and read the attacks on the industrial revolution, one of them was that, now that women could find work outside the home and get their own money, they were spending it on 'luxuries' like shoes and hats, and becoming independently minded.