Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Kareem]

I talked to my tumblr addicted niece today; she told me my hair was triggering her.

Where did I go wrong?

[Linus]

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 34036b.jpg

No, the mirror should be doing a fine job of making you feel unattractive.

I disagree, I think she is attractive.

I ALSO like the sign. If you re-read, you might see that she may not exactly be endorsing Feminism.

Now, is she smirking or not? What do you think?

(I agree. In fact I think I might be in love. Totes my type. Tho' if I did find her unattractive I wouldn't bash her for it.)

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

[Early Cuyler]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 23983.html

http://i.imgur.com/zMB6MzI.jpg
Another feminist myth is born.

Patriarchy has kept knowledge of the clitoris purposefully suppressed. Except it hasn't.

Come visit Pinkley Ford and drive away with your new Pinkley Taurus!!

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5457800448/h95286398/

[Parody Accountant]

I'm just gonna drop this off...to creep you out.
[youtube]tK52Pxva5es[/youtube]

Wow. Guess I'm not sleeping tonight.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdv42 ... o1_500.gif

[Steersman]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Sorry, but don't see it that way; maybe you're looking to see offense where none is intended. I don't see his comment as laughing at those with auditory hallucinations, but at the incongruity of someone else using that as an excuse. Humour is a little idiosyncratic and highly nuanced at the best of times - no accounting for taste, and all that - but expecting everyone to see the same "sense" as you or anyone else does seems just a bit arrogant.

But maybe I feel that way in part because of a joke I posted on Novella's blog some time ago [seems to be gone: no sense of humour] to illustrate my argument about the problematic, if not amusing, nature of errors in communication:

I’m reminded of the old (?) classic joke of the flirtations, the conversations between a man and woman who both suffer from a handicap of one sort or another; he has a false eye, a wooden one, while she has a cleft palate. They’re talking and hitting it off fairly well and he screws-up his courage and boldly asks whether she would like to go out on a date. And she enthusiastically responds with, “Wouldn’ I!, wouldn’ I!”. And he, mis-hearing and wounded, responds with “Harelip, harelip!”

The sense isn't laughing about individual limitations and handicaps, but at the fact that we all share related aspects. Part of the reason why I think Jewish humour is so great: self-deprecating but incisive and universal. Apropos of which, Jerry Coyne recently told this one: "What's a moral quandry to a Jew? A sign in a butcher's shop window: free pork." :rimshot:

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Heh:

I’d hoped to avoid making a public thing out of having left Pharyngula, because for one thing I’d prefer to move on, and for another there are some who will seize on anything they can to try to create trouble for a number of the bloggers at FreeThought Blogs, and needless public drama is tha last thing PZ needs right now.

Poor Peezy, having all this needless public drama forced upon him.

I loathe the shithouse of the Pharyngula commentariat, those SJWs that he praises for their rhetoric (and no action), but I lick up every bit of PZ's jizz, since I'm as keen on power as PZ is.

Oh, Chris, you're amazing. Stupid, a suck-up, and a hypocrite, just like the other SJWs.

Gotta love the way he disconnects the commentariat from their pudgy protector, despite how obvious it is that PZ has been selectively breeding his toothless attack poodles for years. How Dillahuntyesque. When these types get a good gumming by the 'Horde' they seem unable to connect their experience to the shit they've helped to dish out. Seems that Wachs is a bit of an anomaly. One of the vilest things about the Pharyngula culture is the viciousness on display when there is blood in the water. Never let them see vulnerability because they are likely to exploit it, and they will try to hurt you, which is why I find Avicenna's whiny victim posturing so hypocritically distasteful.
.

[JackRayner]

I'm just gonna drop this off...to creep you out.
[youtube]tK52Pxva5es[/youtube]

:lol:

I love the music you use for these. I'm not sure why but it makes it more hilarious for me.

[rpguest]

hadn't noticed this the other day but apparently jerry used a particular turn of phrase to describe ray comforts recent film that i think some of you will recognize

http://i.imgur.com/j9jsvck.png

pretty much has to be on purpose right? :P

[sacha]

The Pit slows down and, like clockwork, the morality brigade are back.

I don't really take a position on the "where's the line?" question but, now that you mention The Pit slowing a bit, where the hell is Sacha?
I just realized she's been MIA for what seems like weeks.

I got a response from her on the 17th saying that she would try to be here. So I gather from that response she might be busy with real life stuff.

yeah, August was dreadful...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Tha cartoon was quite funny in its execution, I thought, especially the Burt Reynolds part.

When I was in full dehydration a few weeks ago, I had very vivid visual and auditory hallucinations. So much so that I imagined there was a "kitty night" organised down my building with all lost cats gattering to find their owners (it was 2 days after Darwin disapeared) , and said owners going down the building's façade sliding on ropes commando style. Thankfuly, my girlfriend was here to keep me in check. At another point, I locked her and myself up in the taberna holding my replica of the Hobbit's "Sting" sword, persuaded there was a swarm of spider-wasps waiting for me in the corridor. And last but not least, two nights in a row I had my sister gossiping with my father about me, right outside the living room window (we have no balcony, they were just floating there and chatting).

So I can honestly say I've experienced voices in my head first-hand, and still found the comics funny.

(The hallucinations were apparently caused by an imbalance in magnesium, but I feel much better now, or so my giant rabbit doctor says)

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Sorry, but don't see it that way; maybe you're looking to see offense where none is intended. I don't see his comment as laughing at those with auditory hallucinations, but at the incongruity of someone else using that as an excuse. Humour is a little idiosyncratic and highly nuanced at the best of times - no accounting for taste, and all that - but expecting everyone to see the same "sense" as you or anyone else does seems just a bit arrogant.

But maybe I feel that way in part because of a joke I posted on Novella's blog some time ago [seems to be gone: no sense of humour] to illustrate my argument about the problematic, if not amusing, nature of errors in communication:

I’m reminded of the old (?) classic joke of the flirtations, the conversations between a man and woman who both suffer from a handicap of one sort or another; he has a false eye, a wooden one, while she has a cleft palate. They’re talking and hitting it off fairly well and he screws-up his courage and boldly asks whether she would like to go out on a date. And she enthusiastically responds with, “Wouldn’ I!, wouldn’ I!”. And he, mis-hearing and wounded, responds with “Harelip, harelip!”

The sense isn't laughing about individual limitations and handicaps, but at the fact that we all share related aspects. Part of the reason why I think Jewish humour is so great: self-deprecating but incisive and universal. Apropos of which, Jerry Coyne recently told this one: "What's a moral quandry to a Jew? A sign in a butcher's shop window: free pork." :rimshot:

Fuck off, Steersman.

This is a guy, and his associates, who literally spend their days searching for things to be offended by. See here for a truly funny cartoon showing how they work: viewtopic.php?p=120378#p120378

They have set themselves up as the absolute moral judges, and fuck you into the ground if you transgress.

Yet here he is, showing a woman faking mental illness in order to get a day off work. That's a shit move, and he is rightly called a cunt for it.

Now fuck off, Steersman.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Tha cartoon was quite funny in its execution, I thought, especially the Burt Reynolds part.

When I was in full dehydration a few weeks ago, I had very vivid visual and auditory hallucinations. So much so that I imagined there was a "kitty night" organised down my building with all lost cats gattering to find their owners (it was 2 days after Darwin disapeared) , and said owners going down the building's façade sliding on ropes commando style. Thankfuly, my girlfriend was here to keep me in check. At another point, I locked her and myself up in the taberna holding my replica of the Hobbit's "Sting" sword, persuaded there was a swarm of spider-wasps waiting for me in the corridor. And last but not least, two nights in a row I had my sister gossiping with my father about me, right outside the living room window (we have no balcony, they were just floating there and chatting).

So I can honestly say I've experienced voices in my head first-hand, and still found the comics funny.

(The hallucinations were apparently caused by an imbalance in magnesium, but I feel much better now, or so my giant rabbit doctor says)

Well bless your heart, Phil. Now that you've had some hallucinations because of a poor diet, or a sickly kidney, or whatever caused it, you are definitely experienced in psychosis and schizophrenia.

It wasn't about someone with an electrolyte imbalance, it was about someone feigning mental illness. And while I may laugh at such things myself (although this was IMO weepingly unfunny per se), my point is WHO is doing the mocking here? I couldn't give a shit who chuckles or not, the point is the hypocrisy of Meyers and co: IT'S OKAY WHEN WE DO IT, remember?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Oh, I completely agree with the hypocrisy stance, and I wasn't trying to pull a Melody. I just found the cartoon funny.

[AndrewV69]

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/31/im-holding-this-excuse-in-reserve

One of my Guild members has paranoid schizophrenia. He told me that one day he was heading into work planning on killing his boss when he figured out that it was probably not a good idea and that he should probably see a shrink instead.

*shrug*

Anyway, he lives on disability now, and I am sure his ex-boss was kind of relieved that he did not follow through on his plans.

Anyone have any questions for him? He does not play EQ2 as much as he used to, so it might take a little while to get back to you with his answer.

[DownThunder]

(I agree. In fact I think I might be in love. Totes my type. Tho' if I did find her unattractive I wouldn't bash her for it.)

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

Yeah I think she is cute too. With these fem/sjw types, its usually the ugliness on the inside which is the problem (which is why I find it ironic that they say that women should only be judged on their personality, seems to be promoting by far their worst attribute). Seriously, who is saying that not being harassed means you're ugly? These "I need feminism because...." posters have really illuminated the alternate reality that these people live in. I believe it is called tumblr.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Oh, I completely agree with the hypocrisy stance, and I wasn't trying to pull a Melody. I just found the cartoon funny.

Hehe! "Pulling a Melody"!! Nice.

[Lsuoma]

One of my Guild members has paranoid schizophrenia. He told me that one day he was heading into work planning on killing his boss when he figured out that it was probably not a good idea and that he should probably see a shrink instead.

*shrug*

Anyway, he lives on disability now, and I am sure his ex-boss was kind of relieved that he did not follow through on his plans.

I don't think his boss would be likely to have had any regrets post hoc.

[Steersman]

<snip>

The sense isn't laughing about individual limitations and handicaps, but at the fact that we all share related aspects. Part of the reason why I think Jewish humour is so great: self-deprecating but incisive and universal. Apropos of which, Jerry Coyne recently told this one: "What's a moral quandry to a Jew? A sign in a butcher's shop window: free pork." :rimshot:

Fuck off, Steersman.

Chuck you too Farley.

This is a guy, and his associates, who literally spend their days searching for things to be offended by. See here for a truly funny cartoon showing how they work: viewtopic.php?p=120378#p120378

Yea, well, one might argue that you’re the one who is closer to “meddlesome ratbag” than Ophelia is: scouring the Internet (mostly Pharyngula, by the look of it) to find things to be offended by. And rather trivial if not specious ones at that.

They have set themselves up as the absolute moral judges, and fuck you into the ground if you transgress.

And PZ isn't always wrong and his commentariat is hardly ever right. Except maybe when the latter agree with you.

Yet here he is, showing a woman faking mental illness in order to get a day off work. That's a shit move, and he is rightly called a cunt for it.

Others might disagree. And I argue, and PZ’s point apparently was, that the joke was in the faking, not in the auditory hallucinations – they were generally only providing the context.

But you carry on calling them the way you see them – we all do – even if others might think you might have your thumb on the scales.

[AndrewV69]

(I agree. In fact I think I might be in love. Totes my type. Tho' if I did find her unattractive I wouldn't bash her for it.)

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

Yeah I think she is cute too. With these fem/sjw types, its usually the ugliness on the inside which is the problem (which is why I find it ironic that they say that women should only be judged on their personality, seems to be promoting by far their worst attribute). Seriously, who is saying that not being harassed means you're ugly? These "I need feminism because...." posters have really illuminated the alternate reality that these people live in. I believe it is called tumblr.

OK guys, thanks for your thoughts on this but I think I still need some help here. Anyone else want to weigh in? First the sign once again:

I need feminism because ...
never having experienced

STREET HARRASMENT(sic)

Shouldn't make me feel

UNATTRACTIVE

So tell me (Linus and Down Thunder can comment again if they feel like it):

Why should a woman feel unattractive because she has never been harassed in the street?
Why would she feel that she needs Feminism to feel attractive when she already is?

[AndrewV69]

One of my Guild members has paranoid schizophrenia. He told me that one day he was heading into work planning on killing his boss when he figured out that it was probably not a good idea and that he should probably see a shrink instead.

*shrug*

Anyway, he lives on disability now, and I am sure his ex-boss was kind of relieved that he did not follow through on his plans.

I don't think his boss would be likely to have had any regrets post hoc.

I just had a brilliant flash of insight that tells me you might just be correct.

[Steersman]

<snip>
OK guys, thanks for your thoughts on this but I think I still need some help here. Anyone else want to weigh in? First the sign once again:

I need feminism because ...
never having experienced

STREET HARRASMENT(sic)

Shouldn't make me feel

UNATTRACTIVE

So tell me (Linus and Down Thunder can comment again if they feel like it):

Why should a woman feel unattractive because she has never been harassed in the street?
Why would she feel that she needs Feminism to feel attractive when she already is?

Unstated or presumed premise of feminism is apparently that street harassment = attractive, the corollory apparently being that no street harassment = not attractive. That is, I think she’s saying, “Thanks (but no thanks) feminism”. I think it’s generally a shot at “feminism”.

But what do I know? I got 330, or 9000 depending on who you talk to, on that AQ test .... ;-)

[ERV]

Oh, I completely agree with the hypocrisy stance, and I wasn't trying to pull a Melody. I just found the cartoon funny.

Thanks for the story-- I love brains. I was actually planning on going into brains (a lot of my undergrad was in brains), but the virus guy offered me a job first.

When brains jack up, I just find that fascinating. When I get a migraine, all of my senses are 'wrong', and I know what Im feeling/seeing/hearing/tasting isnt real, but, it still *is*. And then I take a nap and Im fine, like restarting a computer thats starting to tweak out.

Brains are weird :)

[JackRayner]

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 34036b.jpg

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

That isn't quite what she's saying though, is it?

She's complaining that never having been "street harassed" shouldn't make her feel unattractive...and that this somehow makes Feminism a necessity [no fucking clue how, I'll leave others to decipher how that makes a lick of sense].

[ERV]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

[Skep tickle]

I followed a link (I think from Chris Clarke's site) and got to the Pharyngula wiki. Interesting place. Not a big surprise, but Myers seems to be treated as a celebrity there (by what may be a handful of admins/editors).

For example, the entry for Wowbagger (who is described (apparently positively) as "having one of his more offensive comments cited by a pissant regular at The Intersection as an illustration of how shockingly crass Pharyngulites can be"), ends with: "Attended the GAC in Melbourne 2010 where he met, amongst others, PZ himself."

The entire entry under "Career" on the PZ Myers' page, says: "In 2011, Prof. Myers was elected chair of the biology department at the University of Minnesota." (The faculty in that small department probably rotate as chair; I've seen no indication that he's chair now.) All the links under "Research" are to blog posts at Pharyngula.

Anyway, here's a recent [url=http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:M ... discussion about an edit to the "Misogyny Wars" page[/url] describing why a section on Shmeargate (literally calling itself "word to the wise") was removed:

http://i.imgur.com/ouTWQHz.png?1

(I haven't yet looked to see if there are pages for Bunnygate or cartoons about auditory hallucinations.)

[Steersman]

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 34036b.jpg

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

That isn't quite what she's saying though, is it?

She's complaining that never having been "street harassed" shouldn't make her feel unattractive...and that this somehow makes Feminism a necessity [no fucking clue how, I'll leave others to decipher how that makes a lick of sense].

Irony, Jack, irony. ;-)

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance),[1] in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event characterized by an incongruity, or contrast, between reality (what is) and appearance (what seems to be).

She's saying, I think, that she certainly doesn't need "feminism" if that is one of its salient "principles".

[Steersman]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

Alllll right!!! Finish line in sight!! :)

[DownThunder]

So tell me (Linus and Down Thunder can comment again if they feel like it):

Why should a woman feel unattractive because she has never been harassed in the street?
Why would she feel that she needs Feminism to feel attractive when she already is?

I don't think we are on entirely different wavelengths. First off, there is a definite trope amongst these signs to claim that feminism is necessary because of Reason X, as if to imply that there are people advocating or promoting the opposite of X. Seriously, who has said that not experiencing harassment makes you unattractive? Who are these people? Where are they?

These signs consistently follow the form of "I need feminism because (insert total nonsensical non sequitur)"

Xzibit A: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 578&type=3

I think this girl is serious in her message, and is a feminist. The format of the sign is just so similar. She could always be a poe, but that's kind of what a poe is - indistinguishable.

Dont know if that addresses your first question, but as for "Why would she feel that she needs Feminism to feel attractive when she already is?"

My simple answer to that is women are drawn to feminism in order to control what it means to be attractive, not to be freed from the psychological dependency of feeling attractive. I think they are just reliant on group affirmation.

[Linus]

I think she IS endorsing feminism with the sign. But who cares? There are good aspects of feminism. And there's nothing wrong with being against street harassment (unless you have one of those Atheism+ harassment radars that would be set off by someone asking you the time of day).

That isn't quite what she's saying though, is it?

She's complaining that never having been "street harassed" shouldn't make her feel unattractive...and that this somehow makes Feminism a necessity [no fucking clue how, I'll leave others to decipher how that makes a lick of sense].

Eh honestly I don't know what the fuck the sign is supposed to mean anymore. My interpretation of was pretty much this:

"Woman are (sexually?) harassed in the street very frequently. Because this harassment is so frequent, the fact that I've never gotten harassed makes me feel unattractive. However, if women were not harassed very frequently then never having been harassed wouldn't make me feel unattractive. Feminism generally seeks to reduce street harassment of women. Therefore, I need feminism."

[Hunt]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Myers has a massive blind spot with regards to mental illness issues. Couched in SJW-speak this is his "privilege" as a "neurotypical," but it's a noted deficiency so maybe he can exploit it for victim points: those without the capacity to see that making fun of mental illness isn't funny.

Some may remember the dreadful post he made about the African American student who lost it in class, I believe after the Trayvon Martin murder. Anyone who had an ounce of compassion realized instantly that the young woman was having some kind of psychotic break, but that didn't stop Myers from using it as comic fodder. That was the point I really had to separate myself from the Pharyngula clan, since many of them were actually defending him. I believe I was banned not long after.

Note that he hasn't revisited that post, and he won't. Resistance from the proles is met with a Stalinesque silence. Someday someone (cough-Shermer-cough) is going to force him to actually do something his ego finds distasteful. That's not going to be a happy day for PZ Myers.

[Linus]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

His commenters are telling him this.

I don't get it. On the one hand he is being the most super-duper feminist ally, sensitive to every trigger and example of patriarchy. And he has extended this to social justice in general, being hyper-alert for signs of various -isms.

But then he goes and dumps this enormously offensive turd on the welcome mat of his own blog. Right there, in huge orange/green electrons, shouting at everybody: "Hey, look! Isn't this a cool idea: phone your boss and tell him you can't come into work because voices in your head are telling you to kill people!"

What a fat, fraudulent little cunt he is.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08 ... in-reserve

Myers has a massive blind spot with regards to mental illness issues. Couched in SJW-speak this is his "privilege" as a "neurotypical," but it's a noted deficiency so maybe he can exploit it for victim points: those without the capacity to see that making fun of mental illness isn't funny.

Some may remember the dreadful post he made about the African American student who lost it in class, I believe after the Trayvon Martin murder. Anyone who had an ounce of compassion realized instantly that the young woman was having some kind of psychotic break, but that didn't stop Myers from using it as comic fodder. That was the point I really had to separate myself from the Pharyngula clan, since many of them were actually defending him. I believe I was banned not long after.

Note that he hasn't revisited that post, and he won't. Resistance from the proles is met with a Stalinesque silence. Someday someone (cough-Shermer-cough) is going to force him to actually do something his ego finds distasteful. That's not going to be a happy day for PZ Myers.

Got a link?

[Skep tickle]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

Alllll right!!! Finish line in sight!! :)

Way to go, Abbie!! :dance:

[Lsuoma]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

Alllll right!!! Finish line in sight!! :)

Way to go, Abbie!! :dance:

Hey Abbie, you've been scooped and pranked - AIDS is just a joke played by the Living PeeZus, and he'll be zooming round the world right after AACON14, laying hands on and curing all the afflicted!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!

[Skep tickle]

<snip>
OK guys, thanks for your thoughts on this but I think I still need some help here. Anyone else want to weigh in? First the sign once again:

I need feminism because ...
never having experienced

STREET HARRASMENT(sic)

Shouldn't make me feel

UNATTRACTIVE

So tell me (Linus and Down Thunder can comment again if they feel like it):

Why should a woman feel unattractive because she has never been harassed in the street?
Why would she feel that she needs Feminism to feel attractive when she already is?

Unstated or presumed premise of feminism is apparently that street harassment = attractive, the corollory apparently being that no street harassment = not attractive. That is, I think she’s saying, “Thanks (but no thanks) feminism”. I think it’s generally a shot at “feminism”.

But what do I know? I got 330, or 9000 depending on who you talk to, on that AQ test .... ;-)

Hard to tell for sure, but I'd guess that those who've interpreted this as a call for feminism by the woman pictured, have it right, convoluted though that message is from start to finish.

Personally, I'd advise her to walk confidently down the street secure in her own skin (even as she gets older and probably less conventionally attractive than she is now), and perhaps even notice the absence of catcalls as a sign of societal progress rather than taking silence as any kind of personal affront (or she could simply enjoy other sounds, like the hubub of the city or the sounds of nature, as applicable to the location, time of day, season, etc).

But, there you go, that's probably just what a chill girl gender traitor sister punisher would say, right?

[Hunt]

Got a link?

Here's the cartoon:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-reserve/

Here's the other dreadful one I mentioned:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... evolution/

[Aneris]

Heh, just suggested to Greta Christina to make a (anti) "Purity Ball Week" with a lot of detail in her crowdsourcing post. It's in moderation, [...]

There are a lot of posts of the form

something something something, It's in moderation, so let's see if it comes through

My suggestion is to grab yourself some imgur tools screenshot them, and post them here. [...]

I know, I have saved the text itself, but I think I'm first time commentor there, so I still have “good faith” that she will let it through. I wouldnt be surprised if she keeps it in limbo however (though the only reason can be only that I said upfront I'm from here, and that was the point — working together despite “rift”).

[sacha]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

well done, Abbie

[bovarchist]

Myers has a massive blind spot with regards to mental illness issues. Couched in SJW-speak this is his "privilege" as a "neurotypical," but it's a noted deficiency so maybe he can exploit it for victim points: those without the capacity to see that making fun of mental illness isn't funny.

Some may remember the dreadful post he made about the African American student who lost it in class, I believe after the Trayvon Martin murder. Anyone who had an ounce of compassion realized instantly that the young woman was having some kind of psychotic break, but that didn't stop Myers from using it as comic fodder. That was the point I really had to separate myself from the Pharyngula clan, since many of them were actually defending him. I believe I was banned not long after.

Note that he hasn't revisited that post, and he won't. Resistance from the proles is met with a Stalinesque silence. Someday someone (cough-Shermer-cough) is going to force him to actually do something his ego finds distasteful. That's not going to be a happy day for PZ Myers.

Doesn't seem like a psychotic break to me. More like a person with low impulse control throwing a temper tantrum.

[JackRayner]

She's complaining that never having been "street harassed" shouldn't make her feel unattractive...and that this somehow makes Feminism a necessity [no fucking clue how, I'll leave others to decipher how that makes a lick of sense].

Irony, Jack, irony. ;-)

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance),[1] in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event characterized by an incongruity, or contrast, between reality (what is) and appearance (what seems to be).

She's saying, I think, that she certainly doesn't need "feminism" if that is one of its salient "principles".

Yeah, no. I don't buy it. My original confusion, on whether she was being serious or not, came from the statement being nonsensical, but after a little consideration, I'd say it's nowhere near Poe Valley.

For those using "She's attractive, so totes note srs"...yeah. Don't see that either. She's unremarkable, a 4 or a 5 at best, I'd say [and in case it wasn't apparent, my wolf post was a joke].

Eh honestly I don't know what the fuck the sign is supposed to mean anymore. My interpretation of was pretty much this:

"Woman are (sexually?) harassed in the street very frequently. Because this harassment is so frequent, the fact that I've never gotten harassed makes me feel unattractive. However, if women were not harassed very frequently then never having been harassed wouldn't make me feel unattractive. Feminism generally seeks to reduce street harassment of women. Therefore, I need feminism."

I'd buy it. That's about as much sense as I think it'll ever make.

Maybe someone could find her and ask her what the hell it means?

[DownThunder]

But, there you go, that's probably just what a chill girl gender traitor sister punisher would say, right?

Yes, you're potential-victim blaming.

[Southern]

For those using "She's attractive, so totes note srs"...yeah. Don't see that either. She's unremarkable, a 4 or a 5 at best, I'd say [and in case it wasn't apparent, my wolf post was a joke].

FAP, FAP, FAP.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

BTW-- 4 of 6 dissertation chapters done, + a lot of the formatting shit. I might have Chapter 5 done as far as its going to get done (still doin experiments, but I have to stop sometime), and Chapter 6 is just a discussion I need to finish. Planning to be functionally done by Tues to pass it off to Bossman for some basic editing before I submit to graduate. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg hate this, but glad I blogged about a LOT of my references, LOL!

Alllll right!!! Finish line in sight!! :)

Way to go, Abbie!! :dance:

Ditto :dance: :dance: :dance:

[Hunt]

Doesn't seem like a psychotic break to me. More like a person with low impulse control throwing a temper tantrum.

It's hard to say. From my experience (more than limited, but less than expert) it could have been the precursor to something more than just a temper tantrum, particularly considering it was in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting. She's threatening to kill people, and so on. My point is, I don't think it's something to consider amusing, either by the onlookers in the video, who seem to be treating it as a TV show, or on Myers's blog.

[Hunt]

Doesn't seem like a psychotic break to me. More like a person with low impulse control throwing a temper tantrum.

It's hard to say. From my experience (more than limited, but less than expert) it could have been the precursor to something more than just a temper tantrum, particularly considering it was in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting. She's threatening to kill people, and so on. My point is, I don't think it's something to consider amusing, either by the onlookers in the video, who seem to be treating it as a TV show, or on Myers's blog.

[JackRayner]

For those using "She's attractive, so totes note srs"...yeah. Don't see that either. She's unremarkable, a 4 or a 5 at best, I'd say [and in case it wasn't apparent, my wolf post was a joke].

FAP, FAP, FAP.

I suppose 5's, 4's, and maybe even 3's are still serviceable, as this post on buzzfeed has shown me.

I used to kinda think "Make-up, schmake-up" before I saw that. Now I wish I hadn't. It's always in the back of my mind while I'm trying to watch some porn [And before I get dogpiled and called a shallow, lookist misogynist: Yes. Some of those women are just fine before the make-up].

[Steersman]

<snip>

Unstated or presumed premise of feminism is apparently that street harassment = attractive, the corollory apparently being that no street harassment = not attractive. That is, I think she’s saying, “Thanks (but no thanks) feminism”. I think it’s generally a shot at “feminism”.

But what do I know? I got 330, or 9000 depending on who you talk to, on that AQ test .... ;-)

Hard to tell for sure, but I'd guess that those who've interpreted this as a call for feminism by the woman pictured, have it right, convoluted though that message is from start to finish.

Personally, I'd advise her to walk confidently down the street secure in her own skin (even as she gets older and probably less conventionally attractive than she is now), and perhaps even notice the absence of catcalls as a sign of societal progress rather than taking silence as any kind of personal affront (or she could simply enjoy other sounds, like the hubub of the city or the sounds of nature, as applicable to the location, time of day, season, etc).

But, there you go, that's probably just what a chill girl gender traitor sister punisher would say, right?

Totally brain-washed. Patriarchy for the win! :-)

But you might be right. Although that only seems to work if that “shouldn’t” in “shouldn’t make me feel unattractive” implies that she thinks that feminism is able to make her feel attractive in spite of the implication that not being “street harassed” makes her feel otherwise.

But I’d agree that it is indeed a convoluted message. Reminds me of this bit from Dawkins’ The God Delusion about intentionality:

Dennett speaks of ‘third-order’ intentionality (the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her), ‘fourth-order’ intentionality (the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her) and even ‘fifth-order’ intentionality (the shaman guessed that the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her). Very high orders of intentionality are probably confined to fiction, as satirized in Michael Frayn’s hilarious novel ‘The Tin Men’: ‘Watching Numopoulos, Rick knew that he was almost certain that Anna felt a passionate contempt for Fiddlingchild’s failure to understand her feelings about Fiddlingchild, and she knew too that Nina knew she knew about Nunopoulos’s knowledge …’ But the fact that we can laugh about such contortions of other-mind inference in fiction is probably telling us something important about the way our minds have been naturally selected to work in the real world. (pg 213)

[Skep tickle]

...Reminds me of this bit from Dawkins’ The God Delusion about intentionality:

Dennett speaks of ‘third-order’ intentionality (the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her), ‘fourth-order’ intentionality (the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her) and even ‘fifth-order’ intentionality (the shaman guessed that the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her). Very high orders of intentionality are probably confined to fiction, as satirized in Michael Frayn’s hilarious novel ‘The Tin Men’: ‘Watching Numopoulos, Rick knew that he was almost certain that Anna felt a passionate contempt for Fiddlingchild’s failure to understand her feelings about Fiddlingchild, and she knew too that Nina knew she knew about Nunopoulos’s knowledge …’ But the fact that we can laugh about such contortions of other-mind inference in fiction is probably telling us something important about the way our minds have been naturally selected to work in the real world. (pg 213)

Tsk, tsk, haven't you & Dawkins heard, Steersman? Evo psych is complete hokum. (Must be true, I read it at Pharyngula)

[goddamn 'nym]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

Comment under the comic:

Sorry for the lack of Wednesday’s comic. I wasn’t feeling quite…. myself.

From his twitter 3 days earlier:

So the guy makes a comic about his health issues and inability to work and that is somehow a horrible crime?

[Skep tickle]

For those using "She's attractive, so totes note srs"...yeah. Don't see that either. She's unremarkable, a 4 or a 5 at best, I'd say [and in case it wasn't apparent, my wolf post was a joke].

FAP, FAP, FAP.

I suppose 5's, 4's, and maybe even 3's are still serviceable, as this post on buzzfeed has shown me.

I used to kinda think "Make-up, schmake-up" before I saw that. Now I wish I hadn't. It's always in the back of my mind while I'm trying to watch some porn [And before I get dogpiled and called a shallow, lookist misogynist: Yes. Some of those women are just fine before the make-up].

Well, I'm not going to touch the ratings and "serviceable" comment, but the before/after photos are pretty much how most* women would look without makeup, then with loads of makeup (and hair done, and better lighting, and maybe even the photo retouched). (

*Barring the breast implants & in at least one case lip enhancements.)

Here's an article with photos of 12-13 "Real Women: with/without makeup" (not that the women on the page you linked aren't "real women" of course). One difference (besides each photo being on a different page, grrr) is they're using much less makeup here - more like a typical amount** for everyday use, or night-out use, for many women, I'd guess, than the heavy or "stage" makeup the women had on, on the page to which you linked.

(**I base that "typical amount for many women" comment on seeing many women face to face every day in my work. I don't use makeup except in the rarest of circumstances, and of course many women don't, for various reasons.)

[Steersman]

...Reminds me of this bit from Dawkins’ The God Delusion about intentionality:

Dennett speaks of ‘third-order’ intentionality (the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her), ‘fourth-order’ intentionality (the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her) and even ‘fifth-order’ intentionality (the shaman guessed that the woman realized that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her). Very high orders of intentionality are probably confined to fiction, as satirized in Michael Frayn’s hilarious novel ‘The Tin Men’: ‘Watching Numopoulos, Rick knew that he was almost certain that Anna felt a passionate contempt for Fiddlingchild’s failure to understand her feelings about Fiddlingchild, and she knew too that Nina knew she knew about Nunopoulos’s knowledge …’ But the fact that we can laugh about such contortions of other-mind inference in fiction is probably telling us something important about the way our minds have been naturally selected to work in the real world. (pg 213)

Tsk, tsk, haven't you & Dawkins heard, Steersman? Evo psych is complete hokum. (Must be true, I read it at Pharyngula)

:-) Dang! I knew there was a reason I should have been following PZ more closely ….

But speaking about “the way our minds [and behaviours] have been naturally selected”, I had been thinking of evo psych relative to your “conventionally attractive” and had felt that it was a euphemism for “fertile and sexually desirable” which is certainly what a lot of men, particularly younger ones, seem to understand by it.

Which is maybe unfortunate for many reasons as it tends, I think, to have some problematic consequences for both men and women. Reminds me of seeing a documentary on in-vitro fertilization, probably 20 or 30 years ago when the technique was being developed, in which some young woman was devastated when she found out she wasn’t able to conceive naturally. I remember, practically like it was yesterday, how she had said that she couldn’t even do that when the implication was quite clear that she felt that that possibility was the only thing that she had going for her. People tend, I think, to put a lot more weight on such things than I think is wise or justified, although it is understandable.

[Skep tickle]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

Comment under the comic:

Sorry for the lack of Wednesday’s comic. I wasn’t feeling quite…. myself.

From his twitter 3 days earlier:
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]

So the guy makes a comic about his health issues and inability to work and that is somehow a horrible crime?

I read that as him having severe anxiety, and feeling unable to complete his scheduled cartoon (and possibly unable to do other work if applicable) due to that, thus the cartoon indeed representing an "excuse" rather than his actual situation. Which is how Myers interpreted it. But most of his commenters felt it was inappropriate for dismissing (or pushing down on - I forget their term) people with auditory hallucinations (and therefore with schizophrenia) - especially if it was intended as a joke about how to miss work.

Doesn't look like any of them referred to it as not being (I need subjunctive here) as objectionable if the cartoonist, or Myers, themselves suffered from auditory hallucinations. I didn't see any of them referring to the backstory in the tweets above (nor the cartoonist's website, which Myers did link, which says that he didn't feel up to writing a cartoon for at least one day).

[bovarchist]

I suppose 5's, 4's, and maybe even 3's are still serviceable, as this post on buzzfeed has shown me.

I used to kinda think "Make-up, schmake-up" before I saw that. Now I wish I hadn't. It's always in the back of my mind while I'm trying to watch some porn [And before I get dogpiled and called a shallow, lookist misogynist: Yes. Some of those women are just fine before the make-up].

Well, I'm not going to touch the ratings and "serviceable" comment, but the before/after photos are pretty much how most* women would look without makeup, then with loads of makeup (and hair done, and better lighting, and maybe even the photo retouched). (

*Barring the breast implants & in at least one case lip enhancements.)

Here's an article with photos of 12-13 "Real Women: with/without makeup" (not that the women on the page you linked aren't "real women" of course). One difference (besides each photo being on a different page, grrr) is they're using much less makeup here - more like a typical amount** for everyday use, or night-out use, for many women, I'd guess, than the heavy or "stage" makeup the women had on, on the page to which you linked.

(**I base that "typical amount for many women" comment on seeing many women face to face every day in my work. I don't use makeup except in the rarest of circumstances, and of course many women don't, for various reasons.)

For the most part, the ones who are attractive with makeup are also attractive without it. As one of those guys who gets yelled at for saying I prefer girls with no makeup (NO YOU DON'T, YOU JUST LIKE 'NATURAL LOOK' MAKEUP) I feel vindicated. It seems to me that the only people who really benefit from makeup are those with acne, and middle-aged women trying to keep their porn careers alive.

YMMV

[Steersman]

So PZ Meyers has posted a really dreadful cartoon which details a woman using voices in her head as an excuse for a day off work. It's just not funny is the main problem, but it is also a terrible slur on sufferers of schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses.

Comment under the comic:

Sorry for the lack of Wednesday’s comic. I wasn’t feeling quite…. myself.

From his twitter 3 days earlier:
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]
[.tweet][/tweet]

So the guy makes a comic about his health issues and inability to work and that is somehow a horrible crime?

It is maybe of only marginal relevance, but I’d recommend Unquiet Mind by Kay Redfield Jamison, one very smart and talented cookie – she has won numerous awards and published over one hundred academic articles. She has been named one of the "Best Doctors in the United States" and was chosen by Time as a "Hero of Medicine" – about her experiences with bipolar disorder and the effects that lithium therapy had on her mental processes. Fascinating reading.

[deLurch]

Doesn't seem like a psychotic break to me. More like a person with low impulse control throwing a temper tantrum.

Dude, she is going nutso on her professor & classmates and starts to initiate physical confrontation all the while repeatedly and loudly threating to kill them.

This is all I thought about when she was going on that rampage.

http://i.imgur.com/0pKh0vs.png

If that wasn't a cry for help, I don't know what is. She needs some serious mental help, and the students & professor need protection from someone who has so little impulse control that she threatens to kill them all, or at least all of the white people.

[bovarchist]

Doesn't seem like a psychotic break to me. More like a person with low impulse control throwing a temper tantrum.

Dude, she is going nutso on her professor & classmates and starts to initiate physical confrontation all the while repeatedly and loudly threating to kill them.

"I'm going to kill you" is just something women throwing temper tantrums say. Haven't you ever had a sister? Or watched 'Cops'?

[Skep tickle]

<snip>

So while his background isn't in cancer epidemiology, the topic at least seems to fit with the introductory approach he has planned. And his class is biology undergrads, he doesn't have to go into the statistics or epidemiology at a high level.

Which isn't to say, I hope he does a better job - is clearer & more accurate - than his attempt to discuss modern pharmaceutical research at his talk I attended ~6 months ago, in which he presented an unethical modern clinical study on meningitis treatment in children in Africa, but gave the impression that children died because of the pharma-sponsored study, when in fact the mortality rate was not statistically different between the usual-care and investigational-treatment arms. (Fewer kids died in the investigational treatment arm, though the #s were low.)

That study was unethical because (based on my brief review of multiple web pages about it on my phone, during his talk) the researchers circumvented the laws/rules of the country they were in; they didn't get permission to conduct the study. (There might have been more than that; I didn't delve into consent, etc.) The company did eventually lose a lawsuit, or settle and admit wrongdoing (can't recall which).

If I were in a similar position, which of course I'm not, I'd start with a discussion of what cancer is (and is not), from different perspectives (assuming that students have had courses in cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics). I'd also use my research connections and collaborations to see whether I could get a couple of colleagues to drive over from the UM Cancer Center for a day to give guest lectures in their areas of expertise. Ideally that would include at least one researcher and one clinician, and in addition to giving the lecture, maybe they could also give a research seminar or a presentation to the premed club. They might say no, if they can't be paid an honorarium or whatever, but you never know until you ask.

I'm very reluctant to tell students to "read this book" as part of a course, and I always pull from multiple sources (many of them primary) to some extent for every lecture. Maybe I've been teaching medical students for too long, and undergrads are actually OK with "read this book."

AFAIK, the "read-a-popular-well-written-book" (then discuss) approach is not uncommon in undergrad courses, though I'd guess less so in science courses. I agree, it would seem very unusual for a medical or graduate school science course.

Maybe you &/or Strawkins can weigh in on this: "what cancer is (and is not)" strikes me as one of those definitions that sounds really straight forward until you know more about the field, then the gray areas throw a wrench into easy answers. (Kind of like "what is life" and "what is consciousness".)

For cancer, that uncertainly seems to arise all along from the cellular level, to the organismic level, & even up to population level. This Time article on cancer seems reasonable (from my read of page 1, at least) & focuses on "overdiagnosis", which kind of encapsulates the "what is cancer" problem. (For example, ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS is not cancer, but AFAIK it has all the features short of invasion/metastasis, and it gets called cancer, and it gets treated as if it's cancer, because we can't tell which 40% of cases it will or would have gone on to become invasive cancer, vs which 60% it won't or wouldn't have.)

If Myers is so concerned about money influencing cancer reporting and about keeping women from coming to harm, he might want to consider overdiagnosis, particularly in mammography; see this NYT opinion piece by H Gilbert Welch, in which he carries further the saying that the best way to be diagnosed with cancer is to have a cancer screening test: "In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will skyrocket. "

Welch goes on to say, and I completely agree with him:

...it’s sincere faith in the virtue of early diagnosis, the belief that screening must be good for women. ... In light of what we know now, it is wrong to continue down (this road). ... What should be done? First and foremost, tell the truth: woman (sic) really do have a choice. While no one can dismiss the possibility that screening may help a tiny number of women, there’s no doubt that it leads many, many more to be treated for breast cancer unnecessarily. Women have to decide for themselves about the benefit and harms.

Re the cellular/histologic level of uncertainty in cancer diagnosis, I remember Welch (in a talk) citing studies illustrating the variability in pathology readings (from various tissues, as I recall) that an even mildly ambiguous sample can elicit; I'm not finding those studies on a quick search right now.

Anyway, it turns into an interesting but much more complicated question than Myers may have in mind, since his post that I'd quoted above said that "[t]hen once you all know what horrible things cancer does to people" the class will move on to the mechanisms. (I presume he means mechanisms of oncogenic transformation, not mechanisms of morbidity & mortality from cancer.)

[ccdimage]

This kind of irked me:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slymepit
There is nothing rational about lacking self awareness and promoting agendas. They just need to seriously fuck off.

A bit late and possibly already covered.
Rational wiki is an odd place. Like the rest of the internet you have to sift through a pile of shit to find the corn. Look up the pages for people like TJ or Thunderfoot.
The Talk pages are better possibablly because editing them is harder and the baboons probablly don't read the talk. Here is a bit from the top of the Slymepit talk page

This is a very silly page, especially for a wiki claiming to be a "rational" wiki.
If anything it speaks far more to the non-rational political agenda of "rationalwiki" than it does to anyone else. The page should either be removed as out of scope, or argumentative, or fixed up to resemble something close to a rational discussion.

The talk page for Thunderfoot was getting rather heated last year and made an interesting read for the popcorn consumers. Let them have their silly humorless version of encyclopedia dramatica. In fact now I think about it if you want a rational wiki ED is probablly just as good as far as rationallity goes and far more entertaining.

[Skep tickle]

Long post w/ quotes from 2 A+ forum threads. Nothing to do w/ big-name A/S'ers, just the little guys. Skip it if you're not interested. But I've been following this for a day or 2, found it popcorn-worthy:

Atheism+ forum thread by EllieMurasaki titled "need help explaining why a thing is racist plz", which links to this FB page, which shows 2 photos of black men linked in the OP (one group is MLK and others in suits marching in the ~1960's captioned "When they took us seriously" , the other is recent, several men wearing no shirts & their pants down are around their thighs, captioned "Why they don't now"). The person who posted the captioned photos on FB is apparently a black man.

Several people weigh in, saying the pair of photos/captions is definitely racist (and one person says he/she saw classist also); ceepolk isn't around to give the black perspective. EllieMurasaki posts a blow-by-blow of a hostile (FB?) argument she's having w/ her mother about the photos. Then, on page 2, new member Raskolnikov weighs in with:

It seems to be extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie (educated, privileged, in possession of social and cultural capital, etc.) at the expense of disenfranchised portion of the black community. It's more reminiscent of class warfare than racism to me given the actors and intentions involved.

Well, Raskolnikov needs to be corrected, it seems (perhaps especially because he/she is a newbie).

Lovely takes exception to Raskolnikov's post:

No.

You will not pull the "it's more about class than race" here about this.

There are undeniable elements of racism in this. Maybe you should read the replies already written in this very thread to see why it is so very racist.

Your opinions in no way are here to help the OP explain what's wrong with the image, and so you will stop.

Raskolnikov doesn't back down, saying in part:

That's my opinion, and I believe it's a reasonable one. When you show a picture of people who conformed to the status quo of the elite in terms of dressing style, how they spoke, etc., and portray them as ideal types that are not lived up to by those in the black community who prefer other lifestyles, dressing styles, etc., as a person who is part of that community's elite (the person who posted that image is a privileged minister, judging from their facebook profile), you're being primarily classist, not racist.

Lovely puts her mod hat on, says:

This is my official voice saying stop. No more 'oppression olympics' in this thread.

Raskolnikov takes it to the appropriate place, the "Are the mods capricious..." thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 633#p91633. He or she reiterates & expands on his/her position, referring to "scholars", seems to be knowledgeable, well-read, pro-social justice, and uses all the right terminology, saying for example:

So when the black bourgeoisie criticizes the dispossessed among their community, they're also engaging in racist stereotyping as defined by the dominant group in society, but the reason they can do so and the primary motivation behind their critique is class-related, in my view. They have they internalized the dominant white paradigm which is racist in nature, but the reason they have is primarily due to their privileged class status. I believe this should be evident.

Well, new guy Raskolnikov may have all the terminology down, but he/she has downplayed racism and that's a no-no.

NoGodsNoMasters helps out the new guy with this comment and a pat on the head:

...If you read my comment on that post, I also talked about classism. I said it was the first thing that pinged out to me. That is an axis that I am used to spotting very clearly because it is part of my life. What isn't part of my life, however, is racism as it is particularly felt by Black people.
I am fairly new to some of the language and the ideas surrounding *that particular kind* of racism, because it is different to the racism I experience in my own race. I was brought up in a White-dominated society (and as a white-passing person) that taught me all the awful things in that picture were true and I'm working hard to stop that way of thinking.
... But I absolutely did see and acknowledge the racism involved in that picture. I am trying to work on that part of my SJ because anti-racism is my personal axe that I bring to this forum and it's totally not okay to be anti-racism for only one race.

Acknowledgement can go a very long way. Sometimes it's okay around here to realise that you have been privilege blinded to one of the axies of oppression in A Thing. But don't just let it go unsaid.

Raskolnikov has along the way been told (by Lovely) that a reply must address the OP directly (remember, that was "help explain why this is this racist", not "is this racist, and/or is there something else going on"). Raskolnikov replies, including:

My post was a direct response to that inquiry, regardless of whether or not you agree with what I said. The person who posted that picture was, in my view, extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie, thus it was more reminiscent of class warfare than racism to me. Now, I'll perform some self-criticism at this juncture and say that I understand why someone might interpret that as weakening the relevance of racism and instead focusing it on classism, rather than explaining the basis of that racism as originating in class privilege (I thought my comment on possession of social and cultural capital, which includes adhering to racist narratives, was enough to clarify that I was making that point). But when I was called out on it by Lovely and I clarified what I meant, there was no reason for any further misunderstanding, I believe. It was certainly not necessary to give a warning to me, unless of course my view on the subject is considered wrong, in which case I'd like to know why that is the case.

Lovely, you say that if I had written that there was a lot of classism in that picture too, that would have been fine. But that's exactly what I said after you interpreted my original post in a way that suggested otherwise, and I've been saying the same thing here. It's racism, premised on class privilege, given the context (the person who posted it is a privileged member of the black community, extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie whilst looking down on those who aren't part of it).

NoGods, thank you for that post. I had read your post before I made my own, and I disagreed with the 'reversing the roles' part of it, or rather, I'd pose it differently, largely for reasons mentioned by people like Lovely. If the people in that picture were white, it would purely be an expression of classism (though this also depends on the context; if it was a picture from the 1800's depicting Irish immigrants bigotry would be involved), for the virtues of the bourgeoisie would be extolled whilst looking down on the dispossessed, on the basis of norms created by the ruling classes. That is not the case when the people in the picture belong to the marginalized peoples of society, like African-Americans, Latino's, etc., because then racism is introduced for we are dealing with people who are, in the dominant narrative, perceived as inferior on the basis of their skin color. You also recognized that it was racist, so we agree there. What I was trying to get at was what informed this racism in this particular context, and I've explained my view on that above.

Raskolnikov edits to add 6 references to his/her post, including one by bell hooks (which might save his/her ass at a+, at least for a while), also Eldredge Cleaver.

In the middle of the post above, in a part I didn't quote, Raskolnikov asks for the moderator warning from the "racist" thread to be reversed. So far, no reply (but it's only been 7 hrs; there's still time, and hope).

[Linus]

Meh, most of those buzzfeed women look better without the makeup to me and the same goes for the "real women".

[Linus]

Long post w/ quotes from 2 A+ forum threads. Nothing to do w/ big-name A/S'ers, just the little guys. Skip it if you're not interested. But I've been following this for a day or 2, found it popcorn-worthy:

Atheism+ forum thread by EllieMurasaki titled "need help explaining why a thing is racist plz", which links to this FB page, which shows 2 photos of black men linked in the OP (one group is MLK and others in suits marching in the ~1960's captioned "When they took us seriously" , the other is recent, several men wearing no shirts & their pants down are around their thighs, captioned "Why they don't now"). The person who posted the captioned photos on FB is apparently a black man.

Several people weigh in, saying the pair of photos/captions is definitely racist (and one person says he/she saw classist also); ceepolk isn't around to give the black perspective. EllieMurasaki posts a blow-by-blow of a hostile (FB?) argument she's having w/ her mother about the photos. Then, on page 2, new member Raskolnikov weighs in with:

It seems to be extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie (educated, privileged, in possession of social and cultural capital, etc.) at the expense of disenfranchised portion of the black community. It's more reminiscent of class warfare than racism to me given the actors and intentions involved.

Well, Raskolnikov needs to be corrected, it seems (perhaps especially because he/she is a newbie).

Lovely takes exception to Raskolnikov's post:

No.

You will not pull the "it's more about class than race" here about this.

There are undeniable elements of racism in this. Maybe you should read the replies already written in this very thread to see why it is so very racist.

Your opinions in no way are here to help the OP explain what's wrong with the image, and so you will stop.

Raskolnikov doesn't back down, saying in part:

That's my opinion, and I believe it's a reasonable one. When you show a picture of people who conformed to the status quo of the elite in terms of dressing style, how they spoke, etc., and portray them as ideal types that are not lived up to by those in the black community who prefer other lifestyles, dressing styles, etc., as a person who is part of that community's elite (the person who posted that image is a privileged minister, judging from their facebook profile), you're being primarily classist, not racist.

Lovely puts her mod hat on, says:

This is my official voice saying stop. No more 'oppression olympics' in this thread.

Raskolnikov takes it to the appropriate place, the "Are the mods capricious..." thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 633#p91633. He or she reiterates & expands on his/her position, referring to "scholars", seems to be knowledgeable, well-read, pro-social justice, and uses all the right terminology, saying for example:

So when the black bourgeoisie criticizes the dispossessed among their community, they're also engaging in racist stereotyping as defined by the dominant group in society, but the reason they can do so and the primary motivation behind their critique is class-related, in my view. They have they internalized the dominant white paradigm which is racist in nature, but the reason they have is primarily due to their privileged class status. I believe this should be evident.

Well, new guy Raskolnikov may have all the terminology down, but he/she has downplayed racism and that's a no-no.

NoGodsNoMasters helps out the new guy with this comment and a pat on the head:

...If you read my comment on that post, I also talked about classism. I said it was the first thing that pinged out to me. That is an axis that I am used to spotting very clearly because it is part of my life. What isn't part of my life, however, is racism as it is particularly felt by Black people.
I am fairly new to some of the language and the ideas surrounding *that particular kind* of racism, because it is different to the racism I experience in my own race. I was brought up in a White-dominated society (and as a white-passing person) that taught me all the awful things in that picture were true and I'm working hard to stop that way of thinking.
... But I absolutely did see and acknowledge the racism involved in that picture. I am trying to work on that part of my SJ because anti-racism is my personal axe that I bring to this forum and it's totally not okay to be anti-racism for only one race.

Acknowledgement can go a very long way. Sometimes it's okay around here to realise that you have been privilege blinded to one of the axies of oppression in A Thing. But don't just let it go unsaid.

Raskolnikov has along the way been told (by Lovely) that a reply must address the OP directly (remember, that was "help explain why this is this racist", not "is this racist, and/or is there something else going on"). Raskolnikov replies, including:

My post was a direct response to that inquiry, regardless of whether or not you agree with what I said. The person who posted that picture was, in my view, extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie, thus it was more reminiscent of class warfare than racism to me. Now, I'll perform some self-criticism at this juncture and say that I understand why someone might interpret that as weakening the relevance of racism and instead focusing it on classism, rather than explaining the basis of that racism as originating in class privilege (I thought my comment on possession of social and cultural capital, which includes adhering to racist narratives, was enough to clarify that I was making that point). But when I was called out on it by Lovely and I clarified what I meant, there was no reason for any further misunderstanding, I believe. It was certainly not necessary to give a warning to me, unless of course my view on the subject is considered wrong, in which case I'd like to know why that is the case.

Lovely, you say that if I had written that there was a lot of classism in that picture too, that would have been fine. But that's exactly what I said after you interpreted my original post in a way that suggested otherwise, and I've been saying the same thing here. It's racism, premised on class privilege, given the context (the person who posted it is a privileged member of the black community, extolling the virtues of the black bourgeoisie whilst looking down on those who aren't part of it).

NoGods, thank you for that post. I had read your post before I made my own, and I disagreed with the 'reversing the roles' part of it, or rather, I'd pose it differently, largely for reasons mentioned by people like Lovely. If the people in that picture were white, it would purely be an expression of classism (though this also depends on the context; if it was a picture from the 1800's depicting Irish immigrants bigotry would be involved), for the virtues of the bourgeoisie would be extolled whilst looking down on the dispossessed, on the basis of norms created by the ruling classes. That is not the case when the people in the picture belong to the marginalized peoples of society, like African-Americans, Latino's, etc., because then racism is introduced for we are dealing with people who are, in the dominant narrative, perceived as inferior on the basis of their skin color. You also recognized that it was racist, so we agree there. What I was trying to get at was what informed this racism in this particular context, and I've explained my view on that above.

Raskolnikov edits to add 6 references to his/her post, including one by bell hooks (which might save his/her ass at a+, at least for a while), also Eldredge Cleaver.

In the middle of the post above, in a part I didn't quote, Raskolnikov asks for the moderator warning from the "racist" thread to be reversed. So far, no reply (but it's only been 7 hrs; there's still time, and hope).

I would have thought the obvious point to make would be that it's racist due to the idea of taking all black people unseriously based on the fact that some black people wear their pants low. Oddly most of the A+ers seem to be missing that point and seem to be struggling to figure out why it's racist (which of course is assumed beforehand). It's not racist to not take people seriously for walking around with their underwear showing. Duh. It's racist (or at very least, stupid) to think that some black people walking around with their underwear showing is a good reason to refuse to take all black people seriously. Duh.