Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Walter Ego]

It's my lack of approval face at you obsessing over someone you've blocked.

Please present some evidence (with links, please) I'm obsessing over Welch or anyone else. I'm a skeptic. Convince me I'm obsessing and I'll stop doing it.

[Service Dog]

http://i.imgur.com/xi9ab47.jpg

[Aneris]

Why is Stephanie Zvan sniffing somebodies wrist in her Facebook profile pic?

Difficult to discern, due to digital artifacts in the enhanced image.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/rYPHVao.jpg[/img]

Top left picture really looks like Parsehole...

PZ Myers: I suddenly feeling a bit uncomfortable with my face (oct 20)

http://i.imgur.com/gorTM5O.jpg

[halophilic]

It's my lack of approval face at you obsessing over someone you've blocked.

Please present some evidence (with links, please) I'm obsessing over Welch or anyone else. I'm a skeptic. Convince me I'm obsessing and I'll stop doing it.

ಠ_ಠ

[James Caruthers]

Peezus has a self congratulatory post up about how Bora scandal shows that the scienceblogging community is so much better than the atheist community.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... do-better/

They disgust me, the lot of them.

The thing that shits me about this article from Peezus is the commentors

a) arguing that the atheist community is full of arrogant people who like to feel better than everyone else, and that's why they're atheist
b) turning around and humblebragging the FTB community by saying none of them consider themselves superior to anyone else

"Those people over there aren't the REAL skeptics, because they disagree with us. If they were REAL skeptics, they'd be over here."

Come the fuck on. They talk so much about other people blind to privilege, and then say their own group isn't chock-full of puffed-up egos that go around ordering people about on moral issues in order to feel superior? Pssht, sod off.

[Walter Ego]

It's my lack of approval face at you obsessing over someone you've blocked.

Please present some evidence (with links, please) I'm obsessing over Welch or anyone else. I'm a skeptic. Convince me I'm obsessing and I'll stop doing it.

ಠ_ಠ

So you have no evidence and no argument. Why am I not surprised?

[James Caruthers]

Congratulations, Walter! You found the "add foe" button. You deserve a gold star:

images.jpg

Amazingly, that post was about, surprise surprise, people who disagree with them.

[James Caruthers]

On PZ's Do Better post, Eric makes an observation, apparently about the Pharyngula crowd:

UnknownEric the Apostate

23 October 2013 at 10:05 am (UTC -5)

This community is full of people who are already convinced that they are better than everyone else.

Exactly. They’re atheists/skeptics not because they used the tools of skepticism to come to the atheist conclusion, but they’re atheists/skeptics because that makes them feel cooler and superior to those stupid theists. When it comes to actually being skeptical of things they want to believe, they can’t be arsed to try.

Whoops, fucked up. This is the post I wanted.

They're talking about people who disagree with them. Lol. Because only they are the true free thinkers.

[welch]

Congratulations, Walter! You found the "add foe" button. You deserve a gold star:

images.jpg

But take back half for not knowing how to actually ignore people.

[welch]

Congratulations, Walter! You found the "add foe" button. You deserve a gold star:

images.jpg

Actually, Welch is not a foe, I just find his cluster fuck posting style and his babbling about his profession tedious. He wont remember this but he and I engaged in some Skype voice chats last year with Justicar (integralmath) and others and I found him to be a nice, pleasant, well-informed person. Perhaps I would have the same opinion of you should we meet in real life.

Don't confuse internet personas with real people. I don't.

Thank god your posting about your life is so interesting to everyone.

[Tony Parsehole]

Why is Stephanie Zvan sniffing somebodies wrist in her Facebook profile pic?

Difficult to discern, due to digital artifacts in the enhanced image.

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

Top left picture really looks like Parsehole...

Now I must kill myself.

Service Dog, your pictures are utterly mental (but in a good way). They're like stream-of-consciousness-writing in image form.

[welch]

PZ Myers wrote:

"We all screw up — what’s important is that we recognize it and try to better ourselves."

Says the man who publicly accuses people of being serial rapists, based on nothing more than hearsay, won't listen to any criticism of his actions, and doesn't believe he's done anything wrong.

I've never heard any more meaningless words in all my life.

That's just 'cause you're like a cowardly marc lepine, an unredeemable vicious piece of shit.

[welch]

It's my lack of approval face at you obsessing over someone you've blocked.

Please present some evidence (with links, please) I'm obsessing over Welch or anyone else. I'm a skeptic. Convince me I'm obsessing and I'll stop doing it.

ಠ_ಠ

dude, you're being subtle with someone who thinks Shemp is dry wit.

(the best part about knowing someone's ignoring you is being able to talk shit about them, and they can't really say much without killing the ignore.)

[Sulman]

Service Dog, your pictures are utterly mental (but in a good way). They're like stream-of-consciousness-writing in image form.

It also makes me think of Spinal Tap, which is also good.

"It wasn't a glove they wanted her to smell, I can tell you!"

[Tribble]

So I was reading the comments in that Slate article and something hit me:

If an inebriated woman can allow or even initiate sexual activity with someone she otherwise wouldn't, then how would teaching men "not to rape" ever help in cases where the man is inebriated?

I read this in an article titled What EVERY GUY must know about date rape

Another area of confusion on the date rape topic is intoxication. Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn’t matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then “get together” with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn’t matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex.

I'm actually not a drinker, but I imagine it would be just as hard for a drunk guy to say "this woman is drunk and unable to consent so I should ignore that she's coming on to me," any more than we should expect women to be able to give informed consent.

It seems like don't get drunk is advice we should be telling everyone.

Oh good god no, don't tell the Watsonites and Plussers they can't get drunk. That will not do.

Besides, they have it all figured out. All they have to do is navigate the Social Justice Warrior Sexual Consent flowchart. It accounts for every alcohol-intake and privilege-imbalance scenario.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 066432.jpg

See? It's easy to balance getting plastered and following all the Gnu Feminist commandments!

Mines easier:

Did he have sex with you? If yes, you were raped. If no, you were raped.

[free thoughtpolice]

I'm still waiting, with deeply excited anticipation, for Blag Hag's "most difficult post I've ever written".

The fact that she hasn't posted it [2 months ago?] proves just how difficult it is to write.

[John Greg]

From Donald Prothero at Skepticblog: A large group of baboons is a congress. HAHAHA.

link: http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/23/a ... n-science/

[Tony Parsehole]

Greg Laden is one creepy looking motherfucker.


What's scarier?
Waking up in a coffin or waking up and seeing Greg Laden standing over you, breathing heavily through his mouth?

[Tony Parsehole]

I'm still waiting, with deeply excited anticipation, for Blag Hag's "most difficult post I've ever written".

The fact that she hasn't posted it [2 months ago?] proves just how difficult it is to write.

It's already written but due to the enormity of the content she's having it engraved on a bronze plaque.

[JAB]

Peezus has a self congratulatory post up about how Bora scandal shows that the scienceblogging community is so much better than the atheist community.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... do-better/

They disgust me, the lot of them.

The thing that shits me about this article from Peezus is the commentors

a) arguing that the atheist community is full of arrogant people who like to feel better than everyone else, and that's why they're atheist
b) turning around and humblebragging the FTB community by saying none of them consider themselves superior to anyone else

"Those people over there aren't the REAL skeptics, because they disagree with us. If they were REAL skeptics, they'd be over here."

Come the fuck on. They talk so much about other people blind to privilege, and then say their own group isn't chock-full of puffed-up egos that go around ordering people about on moral issues in order to feel superior? Pssht, sod off.

Yes. They pride themselves on their humility.
:lol:

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Did anyone catch this gem from my lousy compatriot's blog the other day? Jason Thibault's exhaustive list of risk factors for rape, at http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... lete-list/

Here's the list:

1. Being within fucking-distance (or even groping-distance) of someone who rapes people.

Aaand that's it. From the comments, he seems to feel that potential victims (which presumably includes everybody except rapists) have exactly two choices: to withdraw from society entirely, or "teach people not to rape". Apparently, elementary precautions, self-defense lessons, assertiveness, taking responsibility for yourself, etc, are all bad things, or at least will not reduce your risk of being raped. So he's engaging in a peculiar form of victim-blaming, presenting a false dilemma, and trashing those of us who try to behave responsibly, all at one time. Pretty good for a one-liner.

.

Can someone answer me a serious question: What do these people think of Sex offender registration? I mean registers where the names are available to the public in particular. The purpose of publishing the names of offenders is surely so that people know who to avoid, who to keep their kids away from etc. But according to SJW logic, doing anything to avoid the risk of being the victim of a sex crime is victim blaming. :think:

The problem with the sex registry is that it does not necessary portray the circumstances correctly...there are teens that get in trouble for sexting...a bunch of 14 year old girls just got caught sexting...technically they can be required to register... A 17 year old has sex with 16 year old..both could have to register...

Or worse outcomes:

http://engineeringevil.com/2013/10/10/b ... ball-game/

[Lsuoma]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 066432.jpg

See? It's easy to balance getting plastered and following all the Gnu Feminist commandments!

Gumbers, no matter which browser I use, I can't see this full size. Any chance you can upload to something other than Photocrapit?

[free thoughtpolice]

From Donald Prothero at Skepticblog: A large group of baboons is a congress. HAHAHA.

link: http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/23/a ... n-science/

I sent in a comment, in moderation right now.

Ithought a group of baboons is called a pharyngula.

[Marsmar]

Why is Stephanie Zvan sniffing somebodies wrist in her Facebook profile pic?

Difficult to discern, due to digital artifacts in the enhanced image.

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

Looks like the kind of thing you'd expect to be called "Modern art"

[John Greg]

HAHA.

[John Greg]

I was laughing at free thoughtpolice.

[Steersman]

halophilic: "It's my lack of approval face at you obsessing over someone you've blocked."
Please present some evidence (with links, please) I'm obsessing over Welch or anyone else. I'm a skeptic. Convince me I'm obsessing and I'll stop doing it.

ಠ_ಠ

dude, you're being subtle with someone who thinks Shemp is dry wit.

(the best part about knowing someone's ignoring you is being able to talk shit about them, and they can't really say much without killing the ignore.)

:lol: :clap:

[Steersman]

I was laughing at free thoughtpolice.

Indeed. A troop of baboons, a pharyngula of baboons – suggestive of an embryonic stage of development, just short of an abortion. Does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm still waiting, with deeply excited anticipation, for Blag Hag's "most difficult post I've ever written".

The fact that she hasn't posted it [2 months ago?] proves just how difficult it is to write.

I do hope this is a sign that Jen has heeded my advice to concentrate on her studies -- and herself -- instead of succumbing to the pressure from Zvan et al. to churn out blog content.
Jen really needs to beat that clinical depression. .. And get some usable experiment results for once, gosh darn it!

I'd invite her out to the ranch for a little sabbatical, to get some fresh air and leave the stress behind for a while , but I'm sure Steph would malign me as some wine-pouring predator out to seduce a pretty young thing.

[Tigzy]

From Donald Prothero at Skepticblog: A large group of baboons is a congress. HAHAHA.

link: http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/23/a ... n-science/

I sent in a comment, in moderation right now.

Ithought a group of baboons is called a pharyngula.

It ain't in moderation anymore. :lol:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/23/a ... ment-89779

[Gumby]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 066432.jpg

See? It's easy to balance getting plastered and following all the Gnu Feminist commandments!

Gumbers, no matter which browser I use, I can't see this full size. Any chance you can upload to something other than Photocrapit?

That's the full size. Just grabbed a random ridiculously complex flowchart off Google Images and labeled it "SJW Sex Consent Flowchart".

I think the flowchart actually had something to do with immigration.

[Lsuoma]

A thing of beauty:

http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/babshorde.jpg

[Brive1987]

PZ complains about RW being mischaracterised

They’re still repeating this nonsense, despite the ready availability of the video that shows they’re all wrong? She didn’t even imply that the guy was frightening, she didn’t present herself as a victim, and she was already a popular speaker on the lecture circui

Does he really not comprehend that EG exploded not because of 1 specific incident but because RW broadened the conversation into the whole "it was late, a foreign land etc" which clearly was about FUD and then the convo, with her acquiesce, broadened again into all men are potential rapists, cross the road etc? Plus she injected a whole head of chillgirl blame while grandstanding on a podium etc etc

Donkey.

Well, they also ignore how many people didn't really give a fuck about "guys don't do that" and instead got pissed at her treatment of Stef McGraw at a conference.

That was what got to me. Fuck if I care what she feels about anything, she has the right to feel whatever. It's when she shits on someone by abusing the power of the podium, and then mansplains, along with PZ the fuck out of things, telling Stef she was *wrong* to feel what she felt.

That was the shining moment that fully illustrated, for me, the level of hypocrisy in all those fuckers, and how "It's okay when WE do it" is in fact their root philosophy.

It certainly gave an ugly insight into RW and PZs mind. The EG thing then really escalated when RW justified her original video with 3WF gender stereotypes, abuse began and was fuel to her fire, Dawkins stepped into the bear trap and focused the discussion on P/P, PZ hitched his wagon with all his small man insecurities/jealousies, his harem of harpies gathered their brooms and bang *schism*, madness.

[Brive1987]

PZ complains about RW being mischaracterised

They’re still repeating this nonsense, despite the ready availability of the video that shows they’re all wrong? She didn’t even imply that the guy was frightening, she didn’t present herself as a victim, and she was already a popular speaker on the lecture circui

Does he really not comprehend that EG exploded not because of 1 specific incident but because RW broadened the conversation into the whole "it was late, a foreign land etc" which clearly was about FUD and then the convo, with her acquiesce, broadened again into all men are potential rapists, cross the road etc? Plus she injected a whole head of chillgirl blame while grandstanding on a podium etc etc

Donkey.

Well, they also ignore how many people didn't really give a fuck about "guys don't do that" and instead got pissed at her treatment of Stef McGraw at a conference.

That was what got to me. Fuck if I care what she feels about anything, she has the right to feel whatever. It's when she shits on someone by abusing the power of the podium, and then mansplains, along with PZ the fuck out of things, telling Stef she was *wrong* to feel what she felt.

That was the shining moment that fully illustrated, for me, the level of hypocrisy in all those fuckers, and how "It's okay when WE do it" is in fact their root philosophy.

It certainly gave an ugly insight into RW and PZs mind. The EG thing then really escalated when RW justified her original video with 3WF gender stereotypes, abuse began and was fuel to her fire, Dawkins stepped into the bear trap and focused the discussion on P/P, PZ hitched his wagon with all his small man insecurities/jealousies, his harem of harpies gathered their brooms and bang *schism*, madness.

And all the while RW laughs on. She can't even really be bothered with PZ stule bridge burning faux zealotry. Hellllloooo SGU. Responsibility, intent, awareness, arrogance, couldn't give a damn.

That's why I think she is an ethically criminal piece of shit and I have no compunction paying out on her in particular in any way shape or form.

[Brive1987]

I'm still waiting, with deeply excited anticipation, for Blag Hag's "most difficult post I've ever written".

The fact that she hasn't posted it [2 months ago?] proves just how difficult it is to write.

It's already written but due to the enormity of the content she's having it engraved on a bronze plaque.

Wasn't that her criticism of what's his name? Retracted with a 'kiss amongst friends' a day or so later?

[Brive1987]

PZ

Yikes, this is an awkward story. A teaching assistant mailed her students personal, nude photos of herself instead of homework answers. If it was a genuine mistake, and I assume it was, I feel for her — she’s going to get some unfortunate student feedback.

But to everyone giggling over it, I would say, grow up. Adults are sexual beings. They will have sex lives; they aren’t going to sacrifice that so students can pretend they’re all alabaster statues. This was an unfortunate error, but it doesn’t mean she’s something unusual: educated people, like your professors, tend to have rather adventurous and interesting sex experiences. They just don’t usually expose them.

Me thinks he is sweating thru the hair on his palms and worrying about his last exam notes .... Did I, didn't I? Could I have?

[Dan]

Michael Shermer interviews Richard Dawkins. There are a few subtle digs at the baboons & sjw's https://instance.clickstreamtv.net/cst/15248148

[John Greg]

Brive1987 said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 18#p137818):

Wasn't that her criticism of what's his name? Retracted with a 'kiss amongst friends' a day or so later?

Well, I must admit that had crossed my mind -- and I seem to recall some other folks wodered the same thing at the time. But so far as I know, there is nothing indicating one way or the other.

[Gumby]

PZ

Yikes, this is an awkward story. A teaching assistant mailed her students personal, nude photos of herself instead of homework answers. If it was a genuine mistake, and I assume it was, I feel for her — she’s going to get some unfortunate student feedback.

But to everyone giggling over it, I would say, grow up. Adults are sexual beings. They will have sex lives; they aren’t going to sacrifice that so students can pretend they’re all alabaster statues. This was an unfortunate error, but it doesn’t mean she’s something unusual: educated people, like your professors, tend to have rather adventurous and interesting sex experiences. They just don’t usually expose them.

Me thinks he is sweating thru the hair on his palms and worrying about his last exam notes .... Did I, didn't I? Could I have?

If a male teaching assistant had made the same error, PZ would have been calling for his execution as a rapist.

[Pitchguest]

The person who had her FB account banned appears on Ophelia's comment section to defend herself, by pointing to National Geographic as a template for acceptable use of nude imagery in magazines or blogs.

Quinn Martindale asserts that National Geographic's standards for "how and when it displays nudity have been pretty racist over the years."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-719715

To corroborate s/h/it's findings, links to this article. An editorial blog. And the source for this information? "Reading National Geographic", a book authored by two feminist women, Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins, and this post by Rob Boyte. Both of which seem to have left their objective cap behind, as both seem to lean heavily that the only reason that nude (native) women are depicted in nature magazines, like National Geographic, is to satisfy the predominantly male and white audience that read and publish these works, rather than anthropology.

:roll:

[Bhurzum]

Michael Shermer interviews Richard Dawkins. There are a few subtle digs at the baboons & sjw's https://instance.clickstreamtv.net/cst/15248148

Shermer - "You know you've made the big time when the lawyers give you something to read"

PZ should be thanking Shermers lawyers.

:D

[John Greg]

Fuckin' amazing (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -cringing/).

A university teaching assistant accidentally emails some videos/graphics of her and someone else masturbating online for/to each other, and some of the sex positive Pharyngulhanas respond thusly:

Jackie teh kitteh cuddler says:

She exposed herself to her students by sending them amateur porn. Accidental or not, that was unprofessional and likely freaked out her students. I would not be opposed to her losing her job. I’m comfortable with sexuality and nudity, but I don’t want to receive unsolicited porn from anyone.

Cryp Dyke, Right Reverend Feminst FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says:

I’m not opposed to a disciplinary letter or something. Unwanted exposure to porn is a serious form of sexual harassment, and it shouldn’t be easy to say, “Whoops”. There should be a record so that patterns can be noticed.

Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- said:

Yeah, I think it would be reasonable if she lost that class....

Jackie etc. said:

Being sex positive doesn’t mean thinking that emailing gifs of you masturbating out to several students is just a faux pas. I don’t think that it’s prudish to say that she crossed a line that could very well cost her job and I think the university would be within it’s rights to fire her. It isn’t the fact she made a sex tape that’s the problem, it was sending it to her students that was the problem. That it was accidental is certainly better than had she been doing it for the thrill, but the outcome was the same. I’m not saying she should be fired, but that I think firing would be justifiable.

AND

Who is talking about punishing? There are reasons for the university to consider ending her employment with them that do not include punishing her.

John Horstman said:

She should probably be fired. This is sexual harassment (TAs have power over students by way of grades, and power differentials are the basis of sexual harassment), and could be experienced as harmful by students. We can’t run around saying unsolicited pictures of men’s genitals sent to unsuspecting women constitute harassment but pictures and gifs sent by a woman aren’t, even granting that gender is part of context and gender differentials can mean the same actions have different effects/impacts depending on gender.... Accidental sexual harassment is still harassment, and this is not a simple mistake to make unless one is incredibly negligent, almost willfully negligent....This is exactly as much of a problem as it would be if I posted some porn of myself on our front office bulletin board.

I honestly do not know what world these diseased xenomorphs live in, but it certainly has nothing in common with the one I've inhabited for the last 57 years.

And again, the fucking names these sociopaths adopt? Jesus fucksticks on a holy merry-go-round!

[Southern]

I'm still waiting, with deeply excited anticipation, for Blag Hag's "most difficult post I've ever written".

....

Nah. Not really.

Wasn't that some bullshit about some big guy being a rapist, and then he threatened to sue her ass? Or was that before her most difficult post EVAR! thing?

[screwtape]

As a biologist and former physician, I can tell you that the idea that men are 1/2 female is bullocks. A better way to think of it is this. There are 46 chromosomes total, You need the 44 automsomes and 2 sex chromosomes. If you have only one X (45 chromosomes), you will suffer a syndrome known as Turner Syndrome. So, a better way to say it, if you actually understand biology as Aron claims to, is that to be a woman you need 44 + X + X and to be a male you need 44 + X + Y. If you are 44 + X, you will not be functionally female( i.e. infertility, under-developed sex characteristics, possibly no uterus, under-developed genitalia, neck webbing, etc. Aron's statement proves only that he is a complete moron and lacking in the basics of biology despite his expert claims.

Isn't the best way to think of this, if we have to think of it at all - since it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the culture wars between FTB and the Pit, as us having 44 chromosomes that contain genes that are completely agnostic about the sex/gender (gender would be be to re-awaken Lysenko in this case!) of the parent from whom they came, one sex chromosome (an X) that feels just the same, and one sex chromosome that has a 50% chance of feeling otherwise? The vast majority of our genes, whatever our chromosomal sex status, care not which parent they came from.

BTW, here's a little genetic trivia to amuse you: the very first gene on the Y chromosome to have its function decoded was shown to be the one that decides if you grow hair in your ear canals as you age. True story.

[Lsuoma]

And again, the fucking names these sociopaths adopt? Jesus fucksticks on a holy merry-go-round!

Limiting usernames to just 20 characters here was a positive decision driven by these morons' choice of online pseudonyms.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I consider mailing nude photos of yourself enthusiastic consent.

[BarnOwl]

Isn't the best way to think of this, if we have to think of it at all - since it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the culture wars between FTB and the Pit, as us having 44 chromosomes that contain genes that are completely agnostic about the sex/gender (gender would be be to re-awaken Lysenko in this case!) of the parent from whom they came, one sex chromosome (an X) that feels just the same, and one sex chromosome that has a 50% chance of feeling otherwise? The vast majority of our genes, whatever our chromosomal sex status, care not which parent they came from.

BTW, here's a little genetic trivia to amuse you: the very first gene on the Y chromosome to have its function decoded was shown to be the one that decides if you grow hair in your ear canals as you age. True story.

When this first came out (in Science, IIRC):

http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~doerge/STAT ... hrom01.jpg

I remember joking with a couple of other female scientists about our translocations - one woman had the FLP gene, I've got the BLZ-1 gene, etc. Probably an indication that we're all gender traitors and chill girls.

[James Caruthers]

Wait, so mailing nude photographs constitutes SEXUAL HARASSMENT!?

Just imagine the legal implications if our courts worked this way. Nobody, INCLUDING the social justice warriors, would stay out of jail. At least some of these chucklefucks are applying the standard fairly evenly.

God-DAMN these people are fucking puritans. It amazes me how anti-sex they can be even while claiming to be the sex-positive ones. Our right-wingers in this country are probably more sexually permissive in practice than these SJWs are. Conservatives talk a good game about restricting sex, but in practice they're all sending nude photos and hooking up for anonymous gay blowjobs. Way more sexually permissive than SJWs. If you do something sexual that they don't approve off, just go confess and plead the blood. Get forgiven. Then go do it again next week. No punishments!

These SJWs? Fuck, a few nude photos get out and they're calling for her to be reprimanded, fired, calling it "sexual harassment."

STOP THE PLANET, I WANT TO GET OFF. I can't live in a world where the left is more anti-sex than the right. What is the state of politics coming to?

[welch]

Fuckin' amazing (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -cringing/).

A university teaching assistant accidentally emails some videos/graphics of her and someone else masturbating online for/to each other, and some of the sex positive Pharyngulhanas respond thusly:

Jackie teh kitteh cuddler says:

She exposed herself to her students by sending them amateur porn. Accidental or not, that was unprofessional and likely freaked out her students. I would not be opposed to her losing her job. I’m comfortable with sexuality and nudity, but I don’t want to receive unsolicited porn from anyone.

Cryp Dyke, Right Reverend Feminst FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says:

I’m not opposed to a disciplinary letter or something. Unwanted exposure to porn is a serious form of sexual harassment, and it shouldn’t be easy to say, “Whoops”. There should be a record so that patterns can be noticed.

Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- said:

Yeah, I think it would be reasonable if she lost that class....

Jackie etc. said:

Being sex positive doesn’t mean thinking that emailing gifs of you masturbating out to several students is just a faux pas. I don’t think that it’s prudish to say that she crossed a line that could very well cost her job and I think the university would be within it’s rights to fire her. It isn’t the fact she made a sex tape that’s the problem, it was sending it to her students that was the problem. That it was accidental is certainly better than had she been doing it for the thrill, but the outcome was the same. I’m not saying she should be fired, but that I think firing would be justifiable.

AND

Who is talking about punishing? There are reasons for the university to consider ending her employment with them that do not include punishing her.

John Horstman said:

She should probably be fired. This is sexual harassment (TAs have power over students by way of grades, and power differentials are the basis of sexual harassment), and could be experienced as harmful by students. We can’t run around saying unsolicited pictures of men’s genitals sent to unsuspecting women constitute harassment but pictures and gifs sent by a woman aren’t, even granting that gender is part of context and gender differentials can mean the same actions have different effects/impacts depending on gender.... Accidental sexual harassment is still harassment, and this is not a simple mistake to make unless one is incredibly negligent, almost willfully negligent....This is exactly as much of a problem as it would be if I posted some porn of myself on our front office bulletin board.

I honestly do not know what world these diseased xenomorphs live in, but it certainly has nothing in common with the one I've inhabited for the last 57 years.

And again, the fucking names these sociopaths adopt? Jesus fucksticks on a holy merry-go-round!

She did something dumb. Given the situation, and the high probability that it was accidental, if it's her first faux pas, have her apologize, and as long as she sins no more, in a year, remove the incident from her record.

If she has this "accident" a lot? Okay, different story.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Fuck me, Ophelia is a dumb cunt.

This is the photo she posted (redacted because it may not be legal in my jurisdiction to post the image.)

http://i.imgur.com/ZgGV94o.png

But the "trigger warning"? WTF? Myself, I don't see much value in having a trigger warning one fucking centimeter above the fucking trigger, and especially when that trigger is a photograph, not words.

Does she think people scroll down webpages, one line of text at a time, just in waiting for a TW so they can close their eyes as they scroll past something objectionable?

She clearly has not the slightest understanding of what a trigger warning is really for, which is not surprising coming from this privileged, white, old, American trustafarian. Fucking dumb cunt.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Christ, just imagine for some reason finding yourself having to have a conversation with Ophelia Benson. That smugly condescending face and tone of voice, the nervous feeling that anything you say may be twisted into a personal insult or *ist comment, the restraining of anger that you are being "splained" to by a rich old white person. But perhaps worst, the musty smell of cobwebs and cockroaches wafting upwards from her vagina.

Ugh.

[Bhurzum]

Wait, so mailing nude photographs constitutes SEXUAL HARASSMENT!?

God-DAMN these people are fucking puritans. It amazes me how anti-sex they can be even while claiming to be the sex-positive ones. Our right-wingers in this country are probably more sexually permissive in practice than these SJWs are. Conservatives talk a good game about restricting sex, but in practice they're all sending nude photos and hooking up for anonymous gay blowjobs. Way more sexually permissive than SJWs. If you do something sexual that they don't approve off, just go confess and plead the blood. Get forgiven. Then go do it again next week. No punishments!

Ah, but we have no way of knowing what PZ (as a random example) might get up to behind closed doors. He might be an amyl nitrate snorting cock-fiend with an arsehole like a glazed doughnut.

#Schrödingersgimpprofessor

[welch]

Fuck me, Ophelia is a dumb cunt.

This is the photo she posted (redacted because it may not be legal in my jurisdiction to post the image.)

http://i.imgur.com/ZgGV94o.png

But the "trigger warning"? WTF? Myself, I don't see much value in having a trigger warning one fucking centimeter above the fucking trigger, and especially when that trigger is a photograph, not words.

Does she think people scroll down webpages, one line of text at a time, just in waiting for a TW so they can close their eyes as they scroll past something objectionable?

She clearly has not the slightest understanding of what a trigger warning is really for, which is not surprising coming from this privileged, white, old, American trustafarian. Fucking dumb cunt.

The whole thing is fucking stupid, and like so many things, has ruined a useful thing. If I am say, a forensics person, and doing a presentation on spree killers, and part of that preso includes really explicit pictures of what the victims look like freshly dead or what have you, a trigger warning, BEFORE I SHOW THE PICS is a good thing.

if I'm going to talk about a graphic/explicit account of a gang rape, a warning, BEFORE I START giving people enough time to act on that warning is a good thing.

Any more, it's a bunch of shit, because now EVERYTHING is a trigger.

and that shit becomes a damned trope ala "Every Child Is Special". If every child is special, NO CHILD IS SPECIAL.

They're turning everything beige.

[free thoughtpolice]

Wait, so mailing nude photographs constitutes SEXUAL HARASSMENT!?

Just imagine the legal implications if our courts worked this way. Nobody, INCLUDING the social justice warriors, would stay out of jail. At least some of these chucklefucks are applying the standard fairly evenly.

God-DAMN these people are fucking puritans. It amazes me how anti-sex they can be even while claiming to be the sex-positive ones. Our right-wingers in this country are probably more sexually permissive in practice than these SJWs are. Conservatives talk a good game about restricting sex, but in practice they're all sending nude photos and hooking up for anonymous gay blowjobs. Way more sexually permissive than SJWs. If you do something sexual that they don't approve off, just go confess and plead the blood. Get forgiven. Then go do it again next week. No punishments!

These SJWs? Fuck, a few nude photos get out and they're calling for her to be reprimanded, fired, calling it "sexual harassment."

STOP THE PLANET, I WANT TO GET OFF. I can't live in a world where the left is more anti-sex than the right. What is the state of politics coming to?

Well, I don't know about you, but those kindanude calenders that feminist victim Rebecca Watson made certainly not so much herassed me but disappointed me, i am considering suing her for creeping me out!
Also as Laura Helmuth would certainly agree; if at least 2 people have been creeped out by Rebecca Watson, she is a certified creep!
Therefore; she is also a predator!

[KarlVonMox]

PZ Myers wrote:

"We all screw up — what’s important is that we recognize it and try to better ourselves."

Says the man who publicly accuses people of being serial rapists, based on nothing more than hearsay, won't listen to any criticism of his actions, and doesn't believe he's done anything wrong.

Really, lets not forget that this is the same PZ Myers that blatantly propositioned a woman for on a stage in front of an audience and on camera, as has been pointed out multiple times on youtube. The often blatant hypocrisy of these people only illustrates just how empty their moral crusade is - certain people are exempt from their own rules if they are accepted into their little internet social circle.

I dont know how they can seriously call themselves feminists. The way that women have to be shielded from any comment that might offend them, protected from Michael Shermers bottomless wine glass, from coffee requests, from mean t-shirts and from fake fewelry - its a total reduction from a person to a passive object with no agency whatsoever.

Wait, so mailing nude photographs constitutes SEXUAL HARASSMENT!?

Just imagine the legal implications if our courts worked this way. Nobody, INCLUDING the social justice warriors, would stay out of jail. At least some of these chucklefucks are applying the standard fairly evenly.

I guess even they know that applying different rules to someone just because she is female would be too obvious hypocrisy. Due to their own insecurities, they really want to impose some kind of bizzare, puritanical sexual morality on the rest of the population - and it shows.

[Lsuoma]

Christ, just imagine for some reason finding yourself having to have a conversation with Ophelia Benson. That smugly condescending face and tone of voice, the nervous feeling that anything you say may be twisted into a personal insult or *ist comment, the restraining of anger that you are being "splained" to by a rich old white person. But perhaps worst, the musty smell of cobwebs and cockroaches wafting upwards from her vagina.

Ugh.

If I was a woman, I'd kick her in the cunt. Cunt.

[Suet Cardigan]

If I was a woman, I'd kick her in the cunt. Cunt.

NO!

(Yes, I have read the original slimepit archive).

[Steersman]

Fuck me, Ophelia is a dumb cunt.

This is the photo she posted (redacted because it may not be legal in my jurisdiction to post the image.)

http://i.imgur.com/ZgGV94o.png

But the "trigger warning"? WTF? Myself, I don't see much value in having a trigger warning one fucking centimeter above the fucking trigger, and especially when that trigger is a photograph, not words.

Does she think people scroll down webpages, one line of text at a time, just in waiting for a TW so they can close their eyes as they scroll past something objectionable?

She clearly has not the slightest understanding of what a trigger warning is really for, which is not surprising coming from this privileged, white, old, American trustafarian. Fucking dumb cunt.

The whole thing is fucking stupid, and like so many things, has ruined a useful thing. If I am say, a forensics person, and doing a presentation on spree killers, and part of that preso includes really explicit pictures of what the victims look like freshly dead or what have you, a trigger warning, BEFORE I SHOW THE PICS is a good thing.

if I'm going to talk about a graphic/explicit account of a gang rape, a warning, BEFORE I START giving people enough time to act on that warning is a good thing.

Any more, it's a bunch of shit, because now EVERYTHING is a trigger.

and that shit becomes a damned trope ala "Every Child Is Special". If every child is special, NO CHILD IS SPECIAL.

They're turning everything beige.

Kind of agree with you about the trigger warnings - a little over-done. Although there seems to be quite a range of things that can trigger people - from maps to pictures of spiders .... Maybe books will have to come with a preface that lists all of the things that could trigger people. Or they could just look in the indexes.

However, not sure that that bit about "every child is special" holds all that much water. For instance, one can have a set of numbers, all of which are different, all of which are unique.

[Steersman]

Christ, just imagine for some reason finding yourself having to have a conversation with Ophelia Benson. That smugly condescending face and tone of voice, the nervous feeling that anything you say may be twisted into a personal insult or *ist comment, the restraining of anger that you are being "splained" to by a rich old white person. But perhaps worst, the musty smell of cobwebs and cockroaches wafting upwards from her vagina.

Ugh.

You do seem to have a bit of an obsession about her genitalia. And a predilection for the cheap shots, for hitting below the belt. One might wonder the reasons for that ....

[Pitchguest]

Fuck me, Ophelia is a dumb cunt.

...

She really *is* dumb.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... hen-again/

She writes about India refusing to sign a resolution against child marriage, and then quotes this line from the url she cites:

India, the world’s child marriage capital, has once again failed its under-age brides.
The country has refused to sign the first-ever global resolution on early and forced marriage of children led by the UN.
The resolution was supported by a cross-regional group of over 107 countries, including almost all countries with high rates of child marriage—Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras and Yemen.

Whereupon she finds something offensive in the last paragraph.

Almost all? That doesn’t look like almost all to me. Nowhere near almost all.
Brides Not Wives provided the list:

The list cites the countries that were presented with the resolution.

Ophelia's idiocy comes from the fact that she didn't understand a crucial part of the paragraph she takes offense to, namely "including almost all countries with high rates of child marriage—" That's the countries with high rates of child marriage that's being cited, Ophelia, not the countries that's being presented with the resolution, you silly dumb pineapple. "Almost" would mean that India *would* have been included except that India refused to sign the resolution! See how easily facts can be distorted when they're wielded by irrational ideaologues? Here's some advice that techies indulge to certain laymen: read the fucking manual.