Bleeding from the Bunghole

[katamari Damassi]

So...Breaking Bad?

Predictable but cathartic. I liked it.

[Parody Accountant]

I don't know enough about this naming names of Blockbot authors to know if I'd consider it doxxing.

However

I do-... this naming names of Blockbot authors... consider it doxxing.

[Dick Strawkins]

I'd like to say clearly here and now, That one sentence of my definition was badly worded. But the point I was making still stands in relation to the specific context I was responding to.

If I call myself SPACKlick on Slymepit and NOTspackLICK on some other site. And if I publish some information about my career as NOTspackLICK and publish some information about my sex life as SPACKlick. Then i would consider it doxxing to publicise the information about my sex life associated with the nym NOTspackLICK unless I have publically revealed that SPACKlick and NOTspackLICK are the same person.

My point was then and is now, that information being public/private isn't the standard for doxxing, it's information being publically linked to the persona/nym in question.

But I phrased it like ARSE. I don't know enough about this naming names of Blockbot authors to know if I'd consider it doxxing.

It is still unclear.

If Spacklick and NOTspacklick are the same person on different sites, then you either admit this fact on one or both of the sites (and thus make the information public yourself (not doxxing)) or someone else uses some other means (perhaps non public, such as IP address or forum registration email address) to link the two nyms and then publicises the link, which I would therefore count as doxxing.

I agree about the blockbot team - I don't know enough about them to know whether the information was indeed doxxing.
The initial post seemed to be simply pointing out their lack of diversity.
For example Josh Spokesgay was included on the list without his full name being revealed - and he has been open and public about this name for years - but his picture was shown to illustrate that he was, like most of the rest of the team in the eyes of Brennan, white and male.
We, at the slymepit, often had similar comments on pictures of the audience or panels at Skepticon or SkepchickCon - and that's how it was interpreted here, not as some kind of gleeful celebration of our opponents getting doxxed.

[welch]

Greta continues the weird fundraising antics with a special manicure:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... -manicure/

She doesn't mention the issue of the exposure of nail salon workers to the toxic chemicals present in most manicure cosmetics, but the Bay Area is one of the few USAian places in which it's possible to obtain a (relatively) non-toxic professional manicure easily, thanks to this organization (a friend is on the advisory committee).

But I guess I shouldn't continue to be surprised that FtB SJWs apparently aren't concerned about social justice issues that I (and many of my friends) think are are important. This just doesn't permeate my thick skull for some reason. I has the dumb.

I don't have that much of a problem with the "do goofy shit to raise money for a cause", I've done it myself.

I'm just unsure how broccoli is a major thing, unless she's allergic to it. If that's the case, then yeah, I understand charging a lot. If it's like my allergy, $10K is the starting figure for that multi-night sojourn in retroperistalsis hell.

[Tribble]

Not really. Oregon sweeps it under the rug:

The incidence of domestic violence against men appears to be so low that it is hard to get reliable estimates.

The truth is, is that it's about the same as it against against women. And it's not hard to get those statistics. The CDC has them. You can get them from other places.

Hmm, yeah. At least they admit it happens though. :? I do find it funny that people who are so against "victim blaming" have no problem "blaming" men for reporting these crimes less frequently than women. In my brief experience working with shelters in Oregon, there were lots of women-only shelters, but none for adult men. This is a serious gender inequality and I wish the MRAs or whoever could stop whining about "don't be that guy" posters long enough to start putting resources together. The statistics I was able to find on domestic violence showed that women are even a little bit more likely to become violent. I'm not sure if that's because of cultural attitudes towards female-on-male violence, or why that is.

https://www.google.com/search?q=shelter ... =firefox-a

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domesti ... -women.htm
"You're not alone."
Except of course, that speaking from a cultural perspective, you often are. You see the advice in this article? Get evidence. Okay fine. Get advice on domestic abuse from a shelter. Okay fine. What I'm not seeing is any kind of place a man can go to escape this abusive relationship temporarily.

Not with your children and there is a distinct possibility that you'll be charged with kidnapping if you snatch them. In any case, you'll automatically lose custody of your children and you'll have to fight for any visitation since you're now a 'snatching' risk.

Not strangely, women who do this are not sanctioned or lose their rights. When the crazy woman did this to me, it took me from December, 1999 to April, 2000 to get visitation. She was 'supposed' to lose her parental rights. I was 'supposed' to get full custody as I remained in the family home and she was 'supposed' to have to sue for visitation. None of that happened because as a man, you're automatically assumed to be 'the problem' and a 'dangerous, potential-child-molesting/abusing beast' who is ready to ruin your children without a woman to be there between you and them.

Anyway Tribble, sorry to hear about the experience you went through. I'm going into a career where I may have the option to write grant applications for charities. Maybe, over time, we'll see more resources for male victims of domestic violence emerge. I would love to work with those kinds of organizations. The notion that one gender is abusive and the other is abused is just plain sexist.

Hell, I recently read a news story about trans women. They had gone to a female domestic violence shelter and a few of the women there got all pissed off and wanted to kick them out because "they're not really women." Funny how that egalitarian attitude breaks down when women feel entitled to their "safe space." I wonder what Zinnia Jones would think of that.

Yeah, I've seen the feminist/female discrimination against transgendered women. I would think the Sisterhood of Oppressed Femynist Wymyns would give them support since they have it even worse. Instead, the jack boots are put on and the stomping begins.

Funny thing is, it reminds me of Big Red. Despite Big Red's assertion that Feminists are 'fighting for menz' I have yet to see a feminist argue for men having anything close to 'roughly equal rights.' Sure, coffee in an elevator, shutting down talks about mens rights or 'lads' magazines are important fights against the patriarchy. But men and women having equal rights and equal outcomes based on relative factors clearly isn't important.

And that all comes back to their delusional-Victorian-influenced world-view of women not being human but are some special class of being that's 'better' than human, like a Saint or some such. It's like they can't realize when it comes to bad, human behaviors, women are, in most areas, just as bad as men.

Having you a vagina doesn't make you a Saint. Having a penis doesn't make you a Sinner. And neither group has any real high-ground as a population.

[SPACKlick]

I'd like to say clearly here and now, That one sentence of my definition was badly worded. But the point I was making still stands in relation to the specific context I was responding to.

If I call myself SPACKlick on Slymepit and NOTspackLICK on some other site. And if I publish some information about my career as NOTspackLICK and publish some information about my sex life as SPACKlick. Then i would consider it doxxing to publicise the information about my sex life associated with the nym NOTspackLICK unless I have publically revealed that SPACKlick and NOTspackLICK are the same person.

My point was then and is now, that information being public/private isn't the standard for doxxing, it's information being publically linked to the persona/nym in question.

But I phrased it like ARSE. I don't know enough about this naming names of Blockbot authors to know if I'd consider it doxxing.

It is still unclear.

If Spacklick and NOTspacklick are the same person on different sites, then you either admit this fact on one or both of the sites (and thus make the information public yourself (not doxxing)) or someone else uses some other means (perhaps non public, such as IP address or forum registration email address) to link the two nyms and then publicises the link, which I would therefore count as doxxing.

My point was that they could publicise the information without publicising the link at which point they are making information about ME public which I had already made public. Unless you want to call DISCOVERING the link between the two nyms doxxing then you have to allow that linking public information to a figure it is not publicly linked to yet can be doxxing.

[Tribble]

a satirical take on victim blaming, starts funny and gets quite dark. Very effective in my opinion.

[youtube]8hC0Ng_ajpY[/youtube]

Also. awesome shop Strawkins, laughed out loud.

I watched it for a bit. I thought it went off the rails when it took what people said about risk minimization and what-not and twisted it into victim blaming. It's like the concept of 'contributory negligence' doesn't exist in some people's universe.

[Dick Strawkins]

My point was that they could publicise the information without publicising the link at which point they are making information about ME public which I had already made public. Unless you want to call DISCOVERING the link between the two nyms doxxing then you have to allow that linking public information to a figure it is not publicly linked to yet can be doxxing.

I'm still unclear whether you are describing anything other than someone using private information to link the nym to a further set of information (for example linking Spacklick to NOTspacklick.)

[Tribble]

Some misguided soul is asking the A+ idiots for help on his love life.

That poor bastard's gonna end up celibate for the rest of his wretched life if he takes their advice.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 453#p94168

He's doomed. I'm getting the felling he's writing tomes while trying to develop 'relationships' and is, no doubt, engaging in some self-castration.

As a population I found that when dealing with women you should be short, reference one thing the woman said and do that with a sense of humor. Women want to talk, not listen and they like a guy who can say something funny that's supportive and shows you were listening. They also want you take the lead on dates, etc., because (despite feminist claims of a different kind of women who doesn't exist) they're expecting to be treated as princesses. Even the ones who think they don't want to be treated like princesses.

Took me forever to learn that.

[BarnOwl]

I don't have that much of a problem with the "do goofy shit to raise money for a cause", I've done it myself.

I'm just unsure how broccoli is a major thing, unless she's allergic to it. If that's the case, then yeah, I understand charging a lot. If it's like my allergy, $10K is the starting figure for that multi-night sojourn in retroperistalsis hell.

Oh, I don't either - it's not my choice of fundraising methods, but lots of worthwhile organizations use similar tactics. I do have a problem, however, with choosing a stunt that has the potential to increase cancer risks and adverse health outcomes for others. I thought Greta might be aware of such issues for nail salon workers, most of whom are female and Asian (particularly Vietnamese)-American. I'd go point this out on her blag, since she hasn't mentioned it, but I'm pretty sure I'm banninated for prior offenses (don't want to be doxxed there either).

[SPACKlick]

My point was that they could publicise the information without publicising the link at which point they are making information about ME public which I had already made public. Unless you want to call DISCOVERING the link between the two nyms doxxing then you have to allow that linking public information to a figure it is not publicly linked to yet can be doxxing.

I'm still unclear whether you are describing anything other than someone using private information to link the nym to a further set of information (for example linking Spacklick to NOTspacklick.)

Yes someone is USING private information but they are not REVEALING private information. that's the distinction I was aiming for.

[Dick Strawkins]

a satirical take on victim blaming, starts funny and gets quite dark. Very effective in my opinion.

[youtube]8hC0Ng_ajpY[/youtube]

Also. awesome shop Strawkins, laughed out loud.

I watched it for a bit. I thought it went off the rails when it took what people said about risk minimization and what-not and twisted it into victim blaming. It's like the concept of 'contributory negligence' doesn't exist in some people's universe.

This video is very professionally put together but I'm not sure whether the Indian perspective is entirely appropriate for other countries.

The term 'rape culture', meaning a culture that uses rape or the threat of rape or sexual violence to keep women in line, applies quite well to tranditionalist cultures - and in particular where there is an 'honor' system in place. For example India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many parts of the Arab world can legitimately be seen to have such a culture that is widely supported by the population.

As an example of the differences in culture just read this piece that was on the bbc site about a week or so ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24170866

Not only were the couple brutally killed (the boy was dismembered while still alive) but the reporter could find nobody in the locality who had a problem with the actions of the killers.

The video makes sense in the context of opposing this kind of culture, rather than being universally applicable.

[SkepticalCat]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /own-goal/
Not quite sure what PZ's doing these days. He seems to be sort of drunkenly stumbling about on his blog. He's posting constantly, but his posts aren't really up to much. Picks a fight with Condell and then displays some random twitter slapfight for his readers?

American actress Amanda Bynes has been in the news for much of this year for behaving erratically and constantly picking fights and attacking other celebrities via Twitter, usually calling them "ugly". Last I heard she was in some sort of mental hospital.

PZ is turning into the Atheism/skepticism version of Amanda Bynes.

[Brive1987]

Publicising hard to find info to simply upset = doxxing
Publicising public website or social media info with a legit point in mind less so.

Ie it is trivial to find Caines hometown on her own photography website. It is instructive she lives in a 100% white community. Is this legit info or not when she sprouts on diversity?

Not 100% white - she never tires of asserting her authority on race issues by saying that she is half Oglala Lakota American Indian. Though if she's sprouting on diversity she should see a dermatologist.

Ha! Either she didn't complete the last census form or Wikipedia rounds her out in the reported stats!

[katamari Damassi]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /own-goal/
Not quite sure what PZ's doing these days. He seems to be sort of drunkenly stumbling about on his blog. He's posting constantly, but his posts aren't really up to much. Picks a fight with Condell and then displays some random twitter slapfight for his readers? At least PZ finally realized his long-hoped-for dream of having something racist said about him. Victim card punched!

The "anti-racist is code for anti-white" people seem to be a group of internet dicks who shitpost on practically every popular YT video.
[youtube]lKDeyuM0-Og[/youtube]

This video is damn hilarious though.

Every time an historical movie depicting slavery comes out, you can bet some asshole will post about how slavery "really wasn't that bad and besides Africans did too."

[katamari Damassi]

That's what I've observed on movie sites like Ain't It Cool.

[Aneris]

a satirical take on victim blaming, starts funny and gets quite dark. Very effective in my opinion.

[.youtube]8hC0Ng_ajpY[/youtube]

Also. awesome shop Strawkins, laughed out loud.

I watched it for a bit. I thought it went off the rails when it took what people said about risk minimization and what-not and twisted it into victim blaming. It's like the concept of 'contributory negligence' doesn't exist in some people's universe.

This video is very professionally put together but I'm not sure whether the Indian perspective is entirely appropriate for other countries.

The term 'rape culture', meaning a culture that uses rape or the threat of rape or sexual violence to keep women in line, applies quite well to tranditionalist cultures - and in particular where there is an 'honor' system in place. For example India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many parts of the Arab world can legitimately be seen to have such a culture that is widely supported by the population.

As an example of the differences in culture just read this piece that was on the bbc site about a week or so ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24170866

Not only were the couple brutally killed (the boy was dismembered while still alive) but the reporter could find nobody in the locality who had a problem with the actions of the killers.

The video makes sense in the context of opposing this kind of culture, rather than being universally applicable.

It is perhaps, once again, not a black/white thing but a continuum. The situation in the US already seems very different than it is here. It seems, in general, conservative, low income, less literate millieus tend to be both more sexist and more apologizing for brutal behavior of men, and expect more submissiveness from women (who, in those millieus cooperate). I have no current data for that at hand, but general observation, anecdotes and perhaps prejudice (I'm willing to change my view with contrary data of course, but I'd be seriously surprised to see them).

[Service Dog]

[youtube]kIHRgisdbeY[/youtube]

[windy]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... s-he-isnt/

Pat Condell drama continues.

The drama... The drama...

"Racistfinder General" :D

[bovarchist]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /own-goal/
Not quite sure what PZ's doing these days. He seems to be sort of drunkenly stumbling about on his blog. He's posting constantly, but his posts aren't really up to much. Picks a fight with Condell and then displays some random twitter slapfight for his readers?

American actress Amanda Bynes has been in the news for much of this year for behaving erratically and constantly picking fights and attacking other celebrities via Twitter, usually calling them "ugly". Last I heard she was in some sort of mental hospital.

PZ is turning into the Atheism/skepticism version of Amanda Bynes.

Don't you mean Amanda Bynes is turning into the Hollywood version of PZ Myers?

[Liesmith]

"Racistfinder General" :D

I'm going to assume that this is a reference to Good Omens and approve of his reference on a probationary basis.

[Tribble]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /own-goal/
Not quite sure what PZ's doing these days. He seems to be sort of drunkenly stumbling about on his blog. He's posting constantly, but his posts aren't really up to much. Picks a fight with Condell and then displays some random twitter slapfight for his readers?

American actress Amanda Bynes has been in the news for much of this year for behaving erratically and constantly picking fights and attacking other celebrities via Twitter, usually calling them "ugly". Last I heard she was in some sort of mental hospital.

PZ is turning into the Atheism/skepticism version of Amanda Bynes.

I was actually beginning to think of him as the 'dotty old Uncle' nobody wants to invite to family get-togethers but shows up anyway and regales us with Hitler's accomplishments while glossing over the horrors of Nazi Germany. Things like "Hitler really turned around the German economy!" and "Hitler invented the Volkswagen!" Or maybe when he talks about his days as an Army Ranger and then starts off about the upcoming 'Hippie Revolution' and you better cut your hair because he doesn't want to shoot us by accident... Or "Clinton's Jew Lawyers" who kept him out of jail.

Topics like those just a laugh-riot and make every family get-together a joyous occasion full of fond memories.

[another lurker]

At least Amanda Bynes is pretty.

[Trophy]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... s-he-isnt/

Pat Condell drama continues.

The drama... The drama...

"Racistfinder General" :D

PZ has shown that arguing with him is completely useless. Here he goes again, starting the hyperbole right from the title of the post. Did Anne Marie said that "There is only one problem and it's Muslim"? Nope.

Waters tries to support her claim that feminists are happy to let Islamic violence against women slide by listing lots of examples of feminists pursuing other problems than Sharia law.

Except that she listed examples from her experience where the feminist groups told her it was racist to criticise Islamic misogyny. It's funny how women's experiences do not count when they contradict PZ's preconcieved notations but all must shut up and listen to women when they agree with him.

When a woman is being beaten, we shouldn’t focus on the color of the hands doing the beating, but rather on just stopping it.

Ignoring the role of Islam and just "focusing on the hands that does the beating" is similar to ignoring the role of religion in fighting creationism and "focusing on the people who teach it". It is foolish and bending over backwards to satisfy religious assholes.

Condell in this case has a point: that many of the feminists just pursue "white problems" and generally are not very interested in actively battling much more serious problems faced by minority women.

That being said, it's hard to argue that Condell is not a bigot. My own litmus test of bigotry against Muslims is to see whether or not the person has tried to thwart the efforts by that community of Muslims to build the so-called "ground zero Mosque". And Condell was a big stupid bigot when it came to that.

[Trophy]

And finally, does anyone find it funny that PZ calls Anne Marie Waters a "nutter" when she often partners up with Maryam Namazie in fight against Islamic misogyny? Also, given that she is very active in that area, shouldn't PZ trust her experience when it comes to interactions between the feminist groups and Islam?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamaz ... our-fight/

Warmest wishes
Maryam Namazie
Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK
tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
email: onelawforall@gmail.com
web: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

[Trophy]

Okay, one last thing, this post by Namazie (I was thinking, maybe sometimes PZ should shut up and listen to her) is also relevant:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamaz ... w-for-all/

A new report by One Law for All entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” exposes Stop the War Coalition, Respect Party, Unite Against Fascism and individuals such as Ken Livingstone and George Galloway and their agenda and methods.

This section of the Left uses accusations of racism and Islamophobia and a conflation of Muslim with Islamist in order to defend Islamism and Islam rather than out of any real concern for prejudice against Muslims or their rights, particularly since Muslims or those labelled as such are the first victims of Islamism and on the frontlines of resisting it.

The report has been written as a companion volume to “Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right”. Like the far-Right which ‘despises’ multiculturalism yet benefits from its idea of difference to scapegoat the ‘other’ and promote its own form of white identity politics, the pro-Islamist Left also uses multiculturalism to side with the oppressor by viewing the ‘Muslim community’ and ‘Muslim world’ as homogeneous entities thereby ignoring and silencing dissenters.

This politics of betrayal sides with the Islamic far-Right and the oppressor. Challenging this perspective is especially important given its wide acceptance as ‘progressive’ in mainstream society.

Any principled point of view must oppose all forms of fascism, including Islamic fascism, and instead side with the countless people, including Muslims, who are fighting and challenging Islamism here in Europe as well as the Middle East, North Africa and the world.

[Southern]

And finally, does anyone find it funny that PZ calls Anne Marie Waters a "nutter" when she often partners up with Maryam Namazie in fight against Islamic misogyny? Also, given that she is very active in that area, shouldn't PZ trust her experience when it comes to interactions between the feminist groups and Islam?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamaz ... our-fight/

Warmest wishes
Maryam Namazie
Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK
tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
email: onelawforall@gmail.com
web: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

Yes. Yes he should. If PZ Myers was a serious person with a shred of dignity, he would listen to the woman, as he and his cohorts always tell to their adversaries.

But, the real question should be, is PZ Myers a serious person with a minimun shred of dignity? Is he capable of anything else but bitter hatred and hypocrisy? And to this question, I should only point to his fucking blog'o'shit, and the question is answered.

[SkepticalCat]

At least Amanda Bynes is pretty.

You think?
http://lynrd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/amanda.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3825/8800 ... 8bc6_n.jpg

Though a few years ago, no doubt about it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Compo ... id-4x2.jpg

:(

[another lurker]

@SkepticalCat

She just needs a good bath and a fresh haircut. The raw materials are there.

[windy]

"Racistfinder General" :D

I'm going to assume that this is a reference to Good Omens and approve of his reference on a probationary basis.

More likely it's a reference to the actual historical (but fake) Witchfinder General:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I love that book, though- "Shadwell hated all southerners and, by inference, was standing at the North Pole." :lol:

[Walter Ego]

Does anyone remember the motel manager lady I had a confrontation with back in June? Details here: viewtopic.php?p=103996#p103996

Here's an update. After our shouting match in the lobby she disappeared from the motel and was replaced by a new, less hysterical woman manager. I was told she had to go "back" to the hospital and I never saw her again... until today.

(Frankly in my non-medical opinion, the woman is bonkers and the "hospital" was probably a euphemism for the loony bin. She always seemed on the knife-edge of hysteria to me.)

Anyway, I had to pee today and stepped into a motel owned by the same company as the one I was staying in back in June and who was behind the front desk? None other than Laura, the Crazy Motel Manager Lady!

She didn't seem to recognize me at first, but after I took my whiz, but she was giving me one of those "where have I seen him before'' looks as I made my hasty exit. Thankfully the police didn't get involved and to my knowledge she hasn't been carted away to the "hospital" again.

All in all, though... a close call!

[Southern]

Does anyone remember the motel manager lady I had a confrontation with back in June? Details here: viewtopic.php?p=103996#p103996

Here's an update. After our shouting match in the lobby she disappeared from the motel and was replaced by a new, less hysterical woman manager. I was told she had to go "back" to the hospital and I never saw her again... until today.

(Frankly in my non-medical opinion, the woman is bonkers and the "hospital" was probably a euphemism for the loony bin. She always seemed on the knife-edge of hysteria to me.)

Anyway, I had to pee today and stepped into a motel owned by the same company as the one I was staying in back in June and who was behind the front desk? None other than Laura, the Crazy Motel Manager Lady!

She didn't seem to recognize me at first, but after I took my whiz, but she was giving me one of those "where have I seen him before'' looks as I made my hasty exit. Thankfully the police didn't get involved and to my knowledge she hasn't been carted away to the "hospital" again.

All in all, though... a close call!

Stop doxxing crazy hotel managers.

[feathers]

PZ has shown that arguing with him is completely useless. Here he goes again, starting the hyperbole right from the title of the post. Did Anne Marie said that "There is only one problem and it's Muslim"? Nope.

In the old days, PZ used the comic-sans-with-mr-gumby style only for some of the most crazy creationists. Now he uses it for anyone who disagrees with him.

[Walter Ego]

Stop doxxing crazy hotel managers.

I did give her last name or the address of the motel she's working at now. I'll feel bad enough if the mere sight of me caused her to have another breakdown. Hopefully, she won't be able to remember me.

[Walter Ego]

I did give her last name or the address of the motel she's working at now. I'll feel bad enough if the mere sight of me caused her to have another breakdown. Hopefully, she won't be able to remember me.

Correction. I didn't use her last name. I probably shouldn't have used her first name either. Oh, shit. You think she might be reading this right now? I may be in real trouble this time!

[Aneris]

"Racistfinder General" :D

I'm going to assume that this is a reference to Good Omens and approve of his reference on a probationary basis.

More likely it's a reference to the actual historical (but fake) Witchfinder General:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I love that book, though- "Shadwell hated all southerners and, by inference, was standing at the North Pole." :lol:

[youtube]98gzk6VSzfU[/youtube]

[Cunt of Personality]

[youtube]lE4qFhCueBc[/youtube]

[Aneris]

I somehow suddenly see photoshops incoming...
I must be a medium. Plenty of material, here.

[Zenspace]

Some misguided soul is asking the A+ idiots for help on his love life.

That poor bastard's gonna end up celibate for the rest of his wretched life if he takes their advice.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 453#p94168

He's doomed. I'm getting the felling he's writing tomes while trying to develop 'relationships' and is, no doubt, engaging in some self-castration.

As a population I found that when dealing with women you should be short, reference one thing the woman said and do that with a sense of humor. Women want to talk, not listen and they like a guy who can say something funny that's supportive and shows you were listening. They also want you take the lead on dates, etc., because (despite feminist claims of a different kind of women who doesn't exist) they're expecting to be treated as princesses. Even the ones who think they don't want to be treated like princesses.

Took me forever to learn that.

Same here. I took the common, projected 'what women want in a man' information provided by women quite literally for years and received nothing but disappointment for it - from the women! It wasn't until I finally sorted what the reality of the whole thing was - many (most?) women say the words, but few actually mean it. Most woman want a confident, take charge male to associate with. Ironically, the less interested I was in satisfying them, the more they seemed interested in me. It still screws with my head to go back over that realization and then experiencing it in reality. It ultimately defined my very happy, successful marriage (closing on three decades now). My wife-to-be was drawn to the confident take-charge type. The sensitive, wishy-washy feeling type need not apply.

Where it gets interesting is when you really *are* an attentive sort who wants to do the right thing by your mate. She recently reprimanded me (nicely!) for not being assertive enough because I kept deferring to her preferences for dinner - which I intended as being thoughtful! Nope - she didn't want the work of having to make those decisions - I was supposed to tell her what *I* wanted and she would take it from there.

Wierd, but I do finally get it now, or at least have gotten much better at it!

[Service Dog]

According to PZ: Atheists should drop everything
to deal with white western feminists' coffee-in-elevator issues.
(And questioning the urgency of the elevator problem is Dear Muslima misogyny.)

BUT

PZ also contends that white western feminists should not drop everything (elevator issues)
to tackle organized genital mutilation + extrajudicial-victim-punishing-islamic-rape-courts,
because that would be racist.

http://i.imgur.com/FSAHS5R.jpg

[free thoughtpolice]

I somehow suddenly see photoshops incoming...
I must be a medium. Plenty of material, here.

A medium? or a WITCH!

[another lurker]

Zenspace wrote:

Ironically, the less interested I was in satisfying them, the more they seemed interested in me.

Doesn't that work both ways, to an extent? I think it plays on people's insecurities. "Want what you can't have" and all that.

[bhoytony]

Hey, Abbie:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVXRqUqIgAAedDz.jpg

RAEP!

[Lsuoma]

Hey, Abbie:

[blimg]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVXRqUqIgAAedDz.jpg[/blimg]

RAEP!

Yep, looks like that one needs to go in "Up the Arse Corner" in Viz!

[Walter Ego]

According to PZ: Atheists should drop everything
to deal with white western feminists' coffee-in-elevator issues.
(And questioning the urgency of the elevator problem is Dear Muslima misogyny.)

BUT

PZ also contends that white western feminists should not drop everything (elevator issues)
to tackle organized genital mutilation + extrajudicial-victim-punishing-islamic-rape-courts,
because that would be racist.

http://i.imgur.com/FSAHS5R.jpg

Yet another reason I'm glad I prefer to suck cock rather than eat pussy.

(Not that I have anything against the ladies, mind you.)

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey, Abbie:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVXRqUqIgAAedDz.jpg

Oh, Al! You both look just adorable :D

[Dick Strawkins]

Hey, Abbie:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVXRqUqIgAAedDz.jpg

Woof means No!
:naughty:

[deLurch]

Does anyone remember the motel manager lady I had a confrontation with back in June? Details here: viewtopic.php?p=103996#p103996

Here's an update.

So what good things are going on in your life?

[another lurker]

According to PZ: Atheists should drop everything
to deal with white western feminists' coffee-in-elevator issues.
(And questioning the urgency of the elevator problem is Dear Muslima misogyny.)

BUT

PZ also contends that white western feminists should not drop everything (elevator issues)
to tackle organized genital mutilation + extrajudicial-victim-punishing-islamic-rape-courts,
because that would be racist.

http://i.imgur.com/FSAHS5R.jpg

Yet another reason I'm glad I prefer to suck cock rather than eat pussy.

(Not that I have anything against the ladies, mind you.)

You should do it in front of the crazy hotel lady :popcorn:

[Zenspace]

Zenspace wrote:

Ironically, the less interested I was in satisfying them, the more they seemed interested in me.

Doesn't that work both ways, to an extent? I think it plays on people's insecurities. "Want what you can't have" and all that.

Probably something to that. It was never my game, though, my expectations tend to be more realistic (most days!). I've never been one to obsess over what I can't have as I'm not much of a materialist, nor is the 'keep-up-with-the-Joneses' status game of any interest to me at all. I *do* have a bit of a competitive streak, tho. That has gotten me into trouble on more than one occasion! :D

[Zenspace]

Hey, Abbie:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVXRqUqIgAAedDz.jpg

Woof means No!
:naughty:

Damn. I thought 'No!' meant 'No!' I thought 'Woof!' meant things were going particularly well.

Damn literalism keeps getting me into trouble. :doh:

[Guest]

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

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/N9KPOMI.jpg

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

[Linus]

To make my background more clear, I was a graduate student / research assistant in experimental psychology for a few years before deciding to study statistics instead. BTW, for those who see "psychology" and immediately think "therapy" or "psychiatry", stop that. Biologists are not (necessarily) physicians. Same principle.

Some differences:

-Evolution is a theory. EvoPsych is more like a framework. It makes sense to say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe evolution is true". It does not make much sense to say "I believe in evopsych" or "I believe evopsych is true".

Maybe, but that's because it's a field rather than a theory. I would imagine that if you replaced "evopsych" with palaeontology or even evolutionary biology you would have the same sort of sentence there, to the same end.

And like palaeontology EP is, at times, going to explore the wrong road, or a cul-de-sac. That's not a reason to recognise that palaeontology is increasingly exploring genuinely interesting/convincing territory. Whilst EP is not as established as palaeontology I think the same sort of thing is happening.

-Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. The value of EP as a framework/methodology/field is (AFAIK) not backed up by mountains of evidence.

It depends what you're talking about. Something like the Stroop effect has masses of evidentiary support - and marries well with evolutionary explanations. Something like Theory of Mind is well demonstrated not only cross human cultures, but also compared to the ability of great apes to show degrees of the pertinent skills.

I'd even, tentatively, suggest that phenomena which are well illustrated in psychology tend to have more evidence in their support than those demonstrated by biology precisely because so many different variations on experiments need to be run to account for confounding variables.

If you're arguing that psychology as a field has value, I completely agree. I don't see how the Stroop effect or theory of mind fall within the realm of "evolutionary psychology" as opposed to just plain old psychology. One who does not believe in evolution should have no logical difficulty with acknowledging the Stroop effect or agreeing with theory of mind.

-Evolution and creationism tend to be mutually exclusive. EP is not mutually exclusive with feminism, humanism or any social justice theories that I'm aware of. You pointed this out yourself.

Right. But my point isn't in the lack of a potential synthesis but in regards to the attitude and quality of the arguments that are marshalled against (in the case of Rebecca, PZ, Amanda Marcotte and so on).

Of course, any EP claims about psychological differences between sexes or races, I can understand being worrisome or unwelcome to humanist activists/advocates, because such things could potentially be used to promote stereotyping, constrict gender roles and/or justify sexism and racism. So yes, your point is still there to a certain extent, despite the differences. And one could certainly have ulterior motives either decrying or lauding EvoPsych. This isn't limited to EP, as EP is certainly not the only 'field' in which people have reached conclusions about differences between sexes and races.

Regarding race - the contention shared between most EPers is that there are no differences. We (as a species) are thought to have the same psychological capacities and innate propensities as those who lived @40,000 years ago - and this is down precisely to the observation that there is no delineation between typical modern humans of various races that cannot be said to be sociocultural. There are some tentative explorations regarding circumstantial evidence to the fact that some jewish and/or parsee people might lay myelin down faster - making for a quicker neural network and better neurological connectivity - that's about it really.

Unless you're talking about some of Kanazawa's ideas - which have been deemed invalid by EPers in general.

Sex differences are illustrated, they could be used to justify oppressive notions of social roles - they could be used to justify greater compassion and understanding between the genders. So what do we do? Pretend they don't exist?

As for "PZ's reactions do ring hollow if he claims them to be made in the spirit of good academic critique." Well you are probably right here. I say that not because I'm familiar with PZ's reactions to EP in detail, but because I find PZ to be an intellectually dishoenst, petty asshole in general. OTOH I've heard some absurd claims made about PZ and Rebecca Watson with respect to EP such as "they don't believe evolution plays any role in our thinking" or "they believe humans are blank slates", which they haven't been able to back up.

I wouldn't level those charges against him myself, I can understand the feelings of those that do. PZ has a number of times said stuff like "plasticity is everything" - this differs from the notion of an effective blank slate ... how?

Also various people, Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, Ed Clint, Jesse Marczyk and Chas Peterson, have entered PZ's ambit with the intention of talking seriously about the issue and he has either ignored or dismissed them.

So the impression I'm left with is that despite his protests that he isn't a "blank slater" that is little more than the minimum he needs to do to retain an air of scientific credibility on the issue.

I believe I've located the quote (or one of them):

"My main point: Developmental plasticity is all. The fundamental premises of evo psych are false."
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 1-cvg2013/

Fair enough. He does almost come off like a blank slater. If pressed I'm sure he would at least admit that innate drives, perceptual structures, language capacity, and other fundamental cognitive structures exist. But I won't defend him any longer.

And I found Ed Clint's critique of Waton's anti-EP talk to be over the top and ridiculous on some points. Even though Watson's talk was lazily researched and involved some false generalizing. So I'd say there's some irrationality and dishonesty on both sides of the argument.

Where would you say Ed was irrational or dishonest? For my taste he spent too much of the post talking about his impression of her as a denier - whereas the interesting stuff was in her list of mistakes - but that's a matter of taste - I can't see where he was technically wrong about her, and in a couple of issues he was too generous in taking her word for things.

Unclear writing on my part. I didn't intend to say Ed was dishonest. The "some irrationality and dishonesty" was in reference to JREFers I've argued with as mentioned in my previous paragraph as well as Ed and others. What I said about Ed was that I found some of his points over the top and ridiculous. I would call this a bit irrational. Like accusing Watson of "science denialism".

I had to cut this short due to the character limit, but I appreciate the detailed reply.

[gooby]

Exactly, if you "believe" in evolution, and you if "believe" that homo sapiens was throughout it's various previous stages and even presently subjected to the same evoltuonary pressures as any other living organism, then you should "believe" in evo psych.

Accepting human evolution doesn't compel commitment to tenets like massive modularity, which are in no sense supported by the (developmental) neuroscientific evidence, or indeed more theoretical ideas in cognitive science: there has been a massive shift in artificial intelligence over the past few decades to domain-general learning mechanisms which are driven principally by experience.

In other words, it's not "evo psych or creationist, pick one and only one".

[Git]

[youtube]lE4qFhCueBc[/youtube]

TAKE ALL OF MY INTERNETS!

You win, CofP!

\m/

[deLurch]

http://i.imgur.com/N9KPOMI.jpg

I think the bigger issue here is the 20 year minimum sentencing written into law. I suspect that many people would think that is excessive for an incident that did not result in any injury or loss of life.

[gooby]

Regarding race - the contention shared between most EPers is that there are no differences.

Races can be clustered very accurately from genetic material once you start looking at multiple loci:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2013/05/le ... -hurt.html

What I find irritating about evolutionary psychologists is that they invoke biology and genetics where not actually warranted but then back down where it is warranted due to political correctness.

[free thoughtpolice]

Tribble wrote:

Women want to talk, not listen and they like a guy who can say something funny that's supportive and shows you were listening.

To steal and paraphrase a joke from Bill Maher;
When Muslim men go to heaven, they get 72 virgins, when Muslim women go to heaven, they get 72 men that just listen.

[Bourne Skeptic]

Tribble wrote:

Women want to talk, not listen and they like a guy who can say something funny that's supportive and shows you were listening.

To steal and paraphrase a joke from Bill Maher;
When Muslim men go to heaven, they get 72 virgins, when Muslim women go to heaven, they get 72 men that just listen.

When the men go to heaven they also get 72 Mother-in-laws along with the 72 virgins.

I'll pass on that!

[Suet Cardigan]

[youtube]lE4qFhCueBc[/youtube]

TAKE ALL OF MY INTERNETS!

You win, CofP!

\m/

They got into a bit of trouble with that album cover. The topless woman is Joanne Latham, if I remember correctly.