Bleeding from the Bunghole

[John D]

Okay... I will post to see if we can move past the picture of Marcotte. But I will insert this gem instead.

[free thoughtpolice]

Can we all step up the posting rate and get to the next page so that I don't have Marcotte's soul-less, lizard-like gaze pointed at me every time I log onto the fucking thread?

It's unsettling.

Didn't you listen to anything Thunderf00t said? By admitting your weakness, you invite further victimization...

http://i.imgur.com/LQL5vr6.png

"Shud ah Shpit oh-ah shwallow?"

Holy Shit! Has Tom Cruise ever let himself go!

[John D]

Shit... that was not enough length to get us to the next page. I will try again...

[debaser71]

Some feminist types "hate" gay men because these gay men are immune to the lure of pussy. These feminists can't use their pussy power on gay men.

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/hQ6dahZ.jpg

[debaser71]

Can we all step up the posting rate and get to the next page so that I don't have Marcotte's soul-less, lizard-like gaze pointed at me every time I log onto the fucking thread?

It's unsettling.

Didn't you listen to anything Thunderf00t said? By admitting your weakness, you invite further victimization...

Holy Shit! Has Tom Cruise ever let himself go!

Yo, I called that first!

viewtopic.php?p=111511#p111511

[Service Dog]

It's abundantly clear that PZ has never set foot in the hood, much less lived in it. As another commenter pointed out above (sorry can't find it right now) men make all sorts of adjustments to their behavior depending on the current situation. I had never worn flip-flops until I was in my late 20's because they're difficult to run in. As a child growing up in the California East Bay during the crack/gang years of the late 80's and early 90's just getting to school and back in one piece took street survival skills most SJWs can't fathom. To sit there and say men have it easy when men are getting shot every day all around you shows a complete lack of empathy.

So-called 'victim-blaming' arguments are used by men towards men contrary to SJW beliefs. If a friend says they got robbed late at night in West Oakland, the response isn't 'oh you poor thing', it's 'what the fuck were you doing on MLK at 2 AM? Are you stupid?' While it would be nice to live in a world where people don't take advantage of one another, we have this world instead, and in the end your safety and well-being are dependent upon your own actions. The perps will always be perps; it's up to the individual to show some personal responsibility to provide for and protect themselves.

Your mention of flip-flops reminds me of a complementary point-- to my comments above about footwear--

When Watson sarcastically asked if women are supposed to walk-around ready to fight like a hornet at all times... she failed to realize that 'not looking like a victim' isn't just about Taking Every Available Precaution (such as walking around bristling with swords, guns, and body armor)... but it's also about understanding an unspoken code of when 'not looking like a victim' means NOT taking precautions-- but taking risks.

Wearing flip-flops in the hood before you're grown-- marks you as easy to defeat. But as a guy gets older (perhaps with some jail time in his background) wearing house shoes or super-sagged jeans... can plausibly signal a hard-to-defeat kamikaze risk-taking attitude.

Lots of nerds wear all-black, combat boots, spikes-- trying to look tough, but instead advertising how afraid they are. Tough guys sometimes dress like peacocks or slobs-- to show they don't give a fuck & will fight to the death rather than run. Complex codes of dress, carriage, and conduct... aren't specific to women.

[gargamel]

http://i.imgur.com/hQ6dahZ.jpg

Dear god... what hell hath technology wrought?

[windy]

Can we all step up the posting rate and get to the next page so that I don't have Marcotte's soul-less, lizard-like gaze pointed at me every time I log onto the fucking thread?

It's unsettling.

As you wish.

[Service Dog]

http://waly1039.com/sites/default/files/tootsie_0.jpg

[Zenspace]

Can we all step up the posting rate and get to the next page so that I don't have Marcotte's soul-less, lizard-like gaze pointed at me every time I log onto the fucking thread?

It's unsettling.

As you wish.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr. Gefan, here are your internets! :lol:

[Zenspace]

Can we all step up the posting rate and get to the next page so that I don't have Marcotte's soul-less, lizard-like gaze pointed at me every time I log onto the fucking thread?

It's unsettling.

As you wish.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr. Gefan, here are your internets! :lol:

Damn. Gefan, give those internets to Windy, please. :doh:

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

PZ's wife's choice to not walk through a parking garage is actually counter to a discussion I had a year or two ago on Butt and Wheels. At that time an opinion like that, which was my recommendation to any women dealing with a known dangerous area, was considered rape culture apology, as was ardently explained to me. I immediately discounted them as nutters, since they were putting ideological principle before the safety of women. I don't see any real difference between their argument then and their objections to Tfoot's opinions now. I just knew then that this was puss-filled abscess that was going to rupture sooner or later. This is exactly the type of situation where left-wing politics makes a face-plant. The commonsense and moral thing to do is place the exigencies of reality and women's safety above politics and ideology. This is where the left becomes immoral. And I'm usually a leftist.

Or, in the words of a Sant Mat Guru type when asked why he takes on select individual initiates rather than trying sort out the planet, "When you see a man drowning in a cess pit, do you pull the man out or drain the cess pit?"

[Zenspace]

http://i.imgur.com/LQL5vr6.png

Even as a photographer, I have to note the difference a bunch of makeup and good lighting can do. :shock:

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/Qcgf4qH.jpg

[Service Dog]

http://i.imgur.com/R5Mp8K5.jpg

[John D]

Rats! Still not enough to get us to the next page... One more try to put us over....

[Badger3k]

Meyers is feeding off the Thunderf00t again.

He comes up with this beautiful piece of hypocrisy, where he presents imaginary scenarios, tells us what the men's response would definitely be, and then has a go at TF for making up imaginary scenarios.

Seriously, this Meyers cunt is delusional, demential, or has just plain fucking lost it in his desire to get balls deep in some college-aged mermaids.

http://i.imgur.com/hEjpHG8.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... underf00t/

It's funny how Myers's wife presents an example perfectly illustrating Tfoot's point, which Myers deftly sidetracks into a reverse gender parallel, which is totally irrelevant to the point. One wonders exactly how that conversation transpired, and whether his wife was actually trying to kick some sense through his thick skull. Prior to this he recounts just how "unfair" risk management is. No shit PZ; life is unfair. That is utterly irrelevant to the point. Because it is unfair that women should take some precautions that men don't, we should not dare encourage them to do so? Once again, as in delayed rape report, PZ et al. seem to have hit upon a philosophy maximally injuries to women.

At one point, I worked for Dade County FL, processing traffic tickets. The County Courthouse, at the time, was at the edge of Overtown, as was the rail station we all used. You bet your ass we were warned to walk to the station in groups, to stay in groups even on the train, because at the time, (mid-1980s), Overtown was dangerous as fuck, to the residents as much as anyone else.

So yes, we were in fact told *exactly* that, and you know what? We were glad they'd taken the extra time. Did it suck? Of course it did, but when ideology and reality conflict, you need to go with reality. How the fuck was the county going to fix that issue? What, police escorts? Fuck that, would have been a riot on the spot.

PZ is once again, making the mistake of thinking that any problem outside of his domain of expertise must be totally simple to solve, because he doesn't even begin to understand what the fuck he's talking about.

PZ (and many of his SJW ilk) seem to really be insulated from what the rest of us are already aware of. He's spent a long time as a white, middle-class individual in a small northern town (a college town, also) and in academia (which is quite different from the life experience of those in other fields). He's like the middle class white guy railing against immigrants taking his job, when he's never met any, nor knows anyone who has. The insulation keeps him ignorant, and it shows when he tries to talk about things outside his experience.

[jimthepleb]

am i alone in feeling vaguely nauseous?

[John D]

am i alone in feeling vaguely nauseous?

I will stop posting pictures of my friend Becki. I got us past that page of Marcotte pictures (the stated goal) and started the new page with Becki-boo so we can all look at that for a day or two.

[Git]

Hold on, is that really a still of Watson?

I call Shenanigans.

http://guessimold.files.wordpress.com/2 ... porter.jpg

Janet Street Porter is 66.

[another lurker]

am i alone in feeling vaguely nauseous?

Me too.

I've been meaning to change my avatar for a while.

Thx windy. Much luv.

[Zenspace]

am i alone in feeling vaguely nauseous?

Now that you mention it, my lunch isn't exactly sitting right. :confusion-seeingstars:

[jimthepleb]

y'know what this page needs......?


http://www.strangecelebrities.com/image ... t/2335.jpg


For the fascist tit :hankey:

[another lurker]

I feel dirty now.

[another lurker]

And it's from the avatar, not Anne Robinson in leather.

[Git]

[youtube]juFZh92MUOY[/youtube]

[Suet Cardigan]

am i alone in feeling vaguely nauseous?

No, you are not alone.

I mean, for fuck's sake. First Marcotte being taken from behind, then Beccy and her cleavage, and then Janet Street fucking Porter. Are you lot trying to give me nightmares?

[jimthepleb]

I swear the SJW's have got to my 3 yr old daughter.
'Daddy you can't have a bad heart. Boys don't have hearts.'
Besides the infantalising use of 'boys' there is her suggestion i am not human.

[Suet Cardigan]

y'know what this page needs......?


http://www.strangecelebrities.com/image ... t/2335.jpg


For the fascist tit :hankey:

Right, that's it. I'm off to watch 2 girls and 1 cup to clear my mental pallette.

[John D]

Hold on, is that really a still of Watson?

I call Shenanigans.

http://guessimold.files.wordpress.com/2 ... porter.jpg

Janet Street Porter is 66.

Are you talking about the still I posted. Yes! It is Rebecca Watson. I found a bunch of her pictures online in one of those photo sharing sites. Haha. I have a few more.

[Guest]

I swear the SJW's have got to my 3 yr old daughter.
'Daddy you can't have a bad heart. Boys don't have hearts.'
Besides the infantalising use of 'boys' there is her suggestion i am not human.

If you are having heart issues, I can definitely sympathize and offer you my best wishes (SJW rules apply, if you are accepting wishes that is because I would never want to wish rape you with unconsented wishes.)

[Git]

Talking about the one of her that looks like a still from the photo, the one originally posted by Guest about 5 pages back, and the one where she looks about 50.

[Git]

Just for Phil, a full-frontal shot of my pussy:

DSC_0021 (2).jpg

(136.99 KiB) Downloaded 561 times

(he's called Mithras, and is now living out his retirement (he's 13) with my ex-wife in Versailles)

[jimthepleb]

I swear the SJW's have got to my 3 yr old daughter.
'Daddy you can't have a bad heart. Boys don't have hearts.'
Besides the infantalising use of 'boys' there is her suggestion i am not human.

If you are having heart issues, I can definitely sympathize and offer you my best wishes (SJW rules apply, if you are accepting wishes that is because I would never want to wish rape you with unconsented wishes.)

Thanks for the wishes etc, it's been ongoing for a while and is largely in hand, until it isn't, when the problem will no longer be mine:)
Must Give Up Smoking though.
Tbh at my age (42) I'm lucky my younger brother had his stent recently; otherwise i would have continued to think i was having terrible indigestion rather than angina, and apparently at least one minor MI in the recent past. Which mis-self-diagnosis led to all my uncles deaths before their 45th year.
And i get to crack 'acute angina' jokes with the very pretty Irish nurses in the CCU. (I am certain all my jokes are fresh as the day for them)

[welch]

I swear the SJW's have got to my 3 yr old daughter.
'Daddy you can't have a bad heart. Boys don't have hearts.'
Besides the infantalising use of 'boys' there is her suggestion i am not human.

If you are having heart issues, I can definitely sympathize and offer you my best wishes (SJW rules apply, if you are accepting wishes that is because I would never want to wish rape you with unconsented wishes.)

having dealt with three year olds, she's not completely wrong.

[Guest]

I swear the SJW's have got to my 3 yr old daughter.
'Daddy you can't have a bad heart. Boys don't have hearts.'
Besides the infantalising use of 'boys' there is her suggestion i am not human.

If you are having heart issues, I can definitely sympathize and offer you my best wishes (SJW rules apply, if you are accepting wishes that is because I would never want to wish rape you with unconsented wishes.)

Thanks for the wishes etc, it's been ongoing for a while and is largely in hand, until it isn't, when the problem will no longer be mine:)
Must Give Up Smoking though.
Tbh at my age (42) I'm lucky my younger brother had his stent recently; otherwise i would have continued to think i was having terrible indigestion rather than angina, and apparently at least one minor MI in the recent past. Which mis-self-diagnosis led to all my uncles deaths before their 45th year.
And i get to crack 'acute angina' jokes with the very pretty Irish nurses in the CCU. (I am certain all my jokes are fresh as the day for them)

Yikes, you do seem to have a family history worth concern.

Your daughter, (despite her feminist brainwashing), sounds very sweet, and I wish all of you the best for decades to come.

My own heart issues hit in my mid 40s, a congenital heart defect. Never angina, more like a sudden need to pass out when climing three flights of stairs at work.

[bovarchist]

Didn't you listen to anything Thunderf00t said? By admitting your weakness, you invite further victimization...

http://i.imgur.com/LQL5vr6.png

"Shud ah Shpit oh-ah shwallow?"

Holy Shit! Has Tom Cruise ever let himself go!

Funny, I was thinking John McCain has never looked better!

[bovarchist]

Rats! Still not enough to get us to the next page... One more try to put us over....

Every page has exactly 75 posts, you know. It's not rocket surgery. ;)

[John D]

Rats! Still not enough to get us to the next page... One more try to put us over....

Every page has exactly 75 posts, you know. It's not rocket surgery. ;)

I did not know... and so... now I do! How fast can we run through this page.... I will add another. (how drunk is that guy holding those giant froo froo drinks? Look at his eye-slits)

[Zenspace]

OK, just for a change from the Pyt's sudden fetish for portraiture:

I'll just leave this here. Some fun reading:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-gsel ... z2h3j6Inks

Note the author: gselevator!

Must be a coincidence. :shock:

[Steersman]

d4m10n said: "I'm going to go with the usual accomodationist bollocks."

Oh dear. Going to be hard to lecture from Olympus if you keep coming down with the proles. Run along holy one, don't become unclean.

Pit moves kind of fast - guess I must have missed where Lsuoma or Gumby appointed you as enforcer here. You taking lessons from Caine? ....

Comprehension failure on your part as he claimed no such thing in his mocking post.

Sorry, don’t think so. I figure that it was a rhetorical question, a bit of hyperbole, to emphasize that I thought Welch was being a bit of dickhead in rather imperiously telling Damion “to run along”. What’s next? A suggestion about porcupines? Virtually everyone has a right to post here – one of the Pit’s many credible claims to fame – and any suggestion otherwise seems a serious crossing of the line.

BTW, you're featured as a 'pretentious nym' on Damian's new "Pit Post," never mind he has the pretentious name from The Omen. Whether by choice (nym) or inheritance (his parents):

On a recent post, a fellow calling himself “Steersman” (sounds a bit pretentious to me, but hey, it’s an internet pseudonym) suggested that I was being unfair in the way that I have been sampling the Pit, picking out the worst bits and drawing attention to them. In the interests of statistics and fairness, then, let us sample the pit randomly. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... Oz704.dpuf

I guess he's trolling for comments from Pitters because while Skeptical Ink started with bang, it is turning into a wimper. Blackford is rarely posting, Maltseva hasn't posted in forever, Damion's turned into a 'holier than thou' asshole and turns many people off with his "I'm better than everyone' attitude, Loftus left, Vacula was kicked-out and it seems like a lot of wind went out of a lot of sails after that.

I think the unnecessary and childish dig tells us everything we need to know about Damian's alleged 'above it all.' Which is to say, he's not. He's just on his own 'drama queen' side where he gets to make free with the behaviors he condemns from his Holy Seat of Superiority.

Haven’t followed much of the goings-on at Skeptic-Ink so you might well be right that it’s kind of going down the tubes – overly draconian moderation policies tend to do that. Maybe unfortunate as they have a few credible people over there.

As for Damion’s post – thanks for the heads-up. While the reference to my ‘nym seems somewhat dickish too – it’s a reference to this field of science, Damion; you might want to reduce your ignorance somewhat on the topic – I kind of take it as evidence that some of my comments on his blog were hitting home. He did, sort of begrudgingly, concede that his Storify tarring the entire Slymepit was misplaced or unwise. And he at least made some effort with his subsequent post to be a little more fair about his “sampling” of questionable comments here.

However, I still think he is “straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole” in focusing on “bad werdz” rather than on the reasons for them. While I tend to the view suggested by Michael Nugent – that we “balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas” – I think Damion and company stumble over that “unnecessarily”: sometimes there is a manifest and urgent necessity to do that, even if only to get their attention.

However, I think he has a credible point in arguing that at least some of that “hurting” is just gratuitous and petty – a tweet recently directed at Benson which she discussed in some detail being a case in point. But not at all easy, at least at times, to see where the dividing line is.

[Git]

As an aside, this is possibly the best piece of writing I've read in a while. Poignant, moving, and funny as fuck:

"Some poor bugger died last week"
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=15066

[Linus]

Surrounding someone to prevent them from leaving unless they give in to your demands is not "peacefully protesting" IMO. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in the hypothetical one it's not being done to a cop and the demand is different.

What other means are you referring to?

Have you taken to redefining peaceful protests a' la' FTB and words only mean what I want them to mean? The Courts, using a REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD, are clear that being surrounded by sitting protestors is not a violent protest. You actually have to have VIOLENCE or the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of IMPENDING VIOLENCE to use force.

Reasonable person. Embrace the concept, that way you won't go so far down the wrong path in trying to win a losing argument by playing rhetorical, semantic and fallacious devices.

My comment about your stupid example stands.

Fine, but I've already said I wasn't making a legal argument, so your comment doesn't really apply. Use caps and call me an FTBer if it makes you feel better,

How do you get out of a situation where you're surrounded by people unwilling to move if not by using force? You didn't answer my question.

[Linus]

The courts have ruled that the individuals sprayed/tasered have to be posing an immediate threat to the officers or others. These people were sitting and posing no threat. If they wanted to arrest them for not obeying a lawful order to disperse, then they should have done so. If the crowd then got violent, spray the snot out of them. That's not what happened.

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

You still are. You were inconvenienced at best, not under imminent threat. The correct response in that situation is not to attack someone with potentially deadly force. Mace and similar are not just irritants, they are in fact, potentially deadly, and given the commonality of asthma, it is not a small potential.

This is not just "oh, you wash it out, you'll be fine" kind of stuff, and keep in mind, the shit the cops use is far stronger than the civilian shit.

Wow, seriously? Okay what should I do in that situation then, just give them my wallet?

[Dick Strawkins]

As for Damion’s post – thanks for the heads-up. While the reference to my ‘nym seems somewhat dickish too – it’s a reference to this field of science, Damion; you might want to reduce your ignorance somewhat on the topic – I kind of take it as evidence that some of my comments on his blog were hitting home. He did, sort of begrudgingly, concede that his Storify tarring the entire Slymepit was misplaced or unwise. And he at least made some effort with his subsequent post to be a little more fair about his “sampling” of questionable comments here.

However, I still think he is “straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole” in focusing on “bad werdz” rather than on the reasons for them. While I tend to the view suggested by Michael Nugent – that we “balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas” – I think Damion and company stumble over that “unnecessarily”: sometimes there is a manifest and urgent necessity to do that, even if only to get their attention.

I went through his 'random sampling of the slymepit' post.
As you might expect if you are a regular here, a ramdom sampling isn't enough to pick up particularly controversial comments.
There's no dodgy photoshops (there hasn't been more then two or three in the history of the slymepit (goatse etc) so it's unlikely they would appear in a list of random comments) and no particularly nasty insults.
It also shows that other topics other than FTB are discussed here.
In other words, random sampling of the slymepit appears to show an online community that is not that different to many other skeptic/atheist boards and not some hellish collection of malcontents who spend their whole time calling their opponents cunts and photoshopping them into porn.

Poor Damion, he must be furious!
:lol:
Damion must

[bovarchist]

I did not know... and so... now I do! How fast can we run through this page.... I will add another. (how drunk is that guy holding those giant froo froo drinks? Look at his eye-slits)

I look at that picture and I wonder...Is Rebecca emptying those glasses, or filling them?

[deLurch]

http://i.imgur.com/hQ6dahZ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/oZwsWd3.jpg

[Dave]

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

You still are. You were inconvenienced at best, not under imminent threat. The correct response in that situation is not to attack someone with potentially deadly force. Mace and similar are not just irritants, they are in fact, potentially deadly, and given the commonality of asthma, it is not a small potential.

This is not just "oh, you wash it out, you'll be fine" kind of stuff, and keep in mind, the shit the cops use is far stronger than the civilian shit.

Wow, seriously? Okay what should I do in that situation then, just give them my wallet?

Take out your cell phone and call 911? Yell for help? Attempt to leave? Wait for them to get bored?

If your first reaction is escalate to potentially deadly force, you suck at conflict resolution more than Congress.

If you had a CCW, would your first reaction be to draw and shoot?

[free thoughtpolice]

Steersman wrote:

As for Damion’s post – thanks for the heads-up. While the reference to my ‘nym seems somewhat dickish too – it’s a reference to this field of science, Damion; you might want to reduce your ignorance somewhat on the topic – I kind of take it as evidence that some of my comments on his blog were hitting home.

Steers; you know you are really winning when they call you long winded, boring,and passive aggressively politically correct. ;)

[Steersman]

As for Damion’s post – thanks for the heads-up. While the reference to my ‘nym seems somewhat dickish too – it’s a reference to this field of science, Damion; you might want to reduce your ignorance somewhat on the topic – I kind of take it as evidence that some of my comments on his blog were hitting home. He did, sort of begrudgingly, concede that his Storify tarring the entire Slymepit was misplaced or unwise. And he at least made some effort with his subsequent post to be a little more fair about his “sampling” of questionable comments here.

However, I still think he is “straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole” in focusing on “bad werdz” rather than on the reasons for them. While I tend to the view suggested by Michael Nugent – that we “balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas” – I think Damion and company stumble over that “unnecessarily”: sometimes there is a manifest and urgent necessity to do that, even if only to get their attention.

I went through his 'random sampling of the slymepit' post.
As you might expect if you are a regular here, a ramdom sampling isn't enough to pick up particularly controversial comments.
There's no dodgy photoshops (there hasn't been more then two or three in the history of the slymepit (goatse etc) so it's unlikely they would appear in a list of random comments) and no particularly nasty insults.
It also shows that other topics other than FTB are discussed here.
In other words, random sampling of the slymepit appears to show an online community that is not that different to many other skeptic/atheist boards and not some hellish collection of malcontents who spend their whole time calling their opponents cunts and photoshopping them into porn.

Poor Damion, he must be furious!
:lol:

:-) Indeed.

Although I think maybe less furious than nonplussed. Must be a bit of a pain to have made a noisy argument in favour of a hypothesis and then, when challenged to use some “due diligence”, some of the vaunted scientific method they’re supposedly a major proponent of, find the data doesn’t really support it.

[bovarchist]

Wow, seriously? Okay what should I do in that situation then, just give them my wallet?

Take out your cell phone and call 911? Yell for help? Attempt to leave? Wait for them to get bored?

If your first reaction is escalate to potentially deadly force, you suck at conflict resolution more than Congress.

If you had a CCW, would your first reaction be to draw and shoot?

Stop saying 'potentially', it's such a weasel-word.

[John Greg]

Steers said:

Must be a bit of a pain to have made a noisy argument in favour of a hypothesis and then, when challenged to use some “due diligence”, some of the vaunted scientific method they’re supposedly a major proponent of, find the data doesn’t really support it.

Well, yes and no. No, because the entire random sampling thingamabob is flawed because it entirely leaves out context. How can you make a generalisation about a community via its commentary when you leave out the commentary context? You can't.

[deLurch]

Wow, seriously? Okay what should I do in that situation then, just give them my wallet?

Take out your cell phone and call 911? Yell for help? Attempt to leave? Wait for them to get bored?

If your first reaction is escalate to potentially deadly force, you suck at conflict resolution more than Congress.

If you had a CCW, would your first reaction be to draw and shoot?

Stop saying 'potentially', it's such a weasel-word.

It's only potentially a weasel-word.

[Steersman]

Steersman wrote:

As for Damion’s post – thanks for the heads-up. While the reference to my ‘nym seems somewhat dickish too – it’s a reference to this field of science, Damion; you might want to reduce your ignorance somewhat on the topic – I kind of take it as evidence that some of my comments on his blog were hitting home.

Steers; you know you are really winning when they call you long winded, boring,and passive aggressively politically correct. ;)

:-) But if everyone was saying that then of course I would have to consider whether there was some merit in the contention.

However some don't - "Captain FluffyBunny" (I think) being a recent case in point. And others seem discredited because their arguments don't hold much water. Or they wind up shooting themselves in the feet - as with Welch's "...bagging on someone over how they look. It's a dick move, it has always been a dick move, it always will be a dick move" as that was largely the point I was trying to make. Although I would disagree with the "always" - sometimes how people look have some relevance to their arguments and philosophies - the actual ideas they're supporting.

Although I will note that I've made some effort to reduce the verbiage as a result of some welcome feedback .... ;-)

[Steersman]

Steers said:

Must be a bit of a pain to have made a noisy argument in favour of a hypothesis and then, when challenged to use some “due diligence”, some of the vaunted scientific method they’re supposedly a major proponent of, find the data doesn’t really support it.

Well, yes and no. No, because the entire random sampling thingamabob is flawed because it entirely leaves out context. How can you make a generalisation about a community via its commentary when you leave out the commentary context? You can't.

True. I think that that was the problem with the rather impressive study that Franc did a while back on the use of various epithets on FftB: they, Ophelia in particular, certainly seemed to be using “cunt”, for example, far more than any one here does. But most if not all of that was of the “mention” variety – in the “use-mention” dichotomy.

Not to say that context can’t be factored into any “equations” – just a lot harder to do.

[free thoughtpolice]

Steersman wrote;
Making fun of a person's appearance may be a bit of a dick move, but if that person is being a dick already, it's often best to fight dickishness with dickishness.
As a very wise man (probably me) once said: "Never bring a tongue to a dickslapping match).

[Bourne Skeptic]

Steersman wrote;
Making fun of a person's appearance may be a bit of a dick move, but if that person is being a dick already, it's often best to fight dickishness with dickishness.
As a very wise man (probably me) once said: "Never bring a tongue to a dickslapping match).

What's the rule for bringing a knife to a cock fight?

[Gumby]

Although I think maybe less furious than nonplussed. Must be a bit of a pain to have made a noisy argument in favour of a hypothesis and then, when challenged to use some “due diligence”, some of the vaunted scientific method they’re supposedly a major proponent of, find the data doesn’t really support it.

I'm not gonna give him the page view but this seems really silly for him to do this. He already knows the Pit very well, so he had to have a good idea how a random sampling of posts would turn out. What the fuck did he expect?

[Steersman]

Although I think maybe less furious than nonplussed. Must be a bit of a pain to have made a noisy argument in favour of a hypothesis and then, when challenged to use some “due diligence”, some of the vaunted scientific method they’re supposedly a major proponent of, find the data doesn’t really support it.

I'm not gonna give him the page view but this seems really silly for him to do this. He already knows the Pit very well, so he had to have a good idea how a random sampling of posts would turn out. What the fuck did he expect?

Indeed. Butthurt can make a person more reactive than reflective.