Bleeding from the Bunghole

Old subthreads
Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19681

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Skep tickle wrote:Aneris is down the rabbit hole:
I find the use of the term 'liar' very interesting from Ophelia.
I've mentioned before that I have been a long term reader of Butterflies and Wheels and those of you who read that site four or five years ago will also notice the change in the usage of 'liar' and 'lies'.
Up until a few years back Butterflies and Wheels used to be hosted in the UK and the domain was held by Jeremy Stangroom.
Due to UK libel laws they (the writers (Benson) and owners (Stangroom) of Butterflies and Wheels were paranoid about calling anyone a liar - since that, if incorrect, is libelous in the UK.
Hence you had Ophelia patrolling the comment sections like a hawk and deleting any instance of anyone being called a liar -or at least anyone who might sue.

But the Stangroom/Benson writing team fell apart during the accomodationist wars and Stangroom, making a clean break of it, turned over the keys of the blog to Ophelia, and she shifted the hosting to a US based company.
I don't think the shift in her attitude to 'liar' happened immediately but was more of a gradual process - leading to what we see today.

How I would describe Ophelia's use of liar is as follows:

Ophelia treats the word liar as having three separate meanings.

1. "A person who has told something that I disagree with".
This is her standard response to being told something based on evidence (such as quoting her own words, or those of her favorite sycophants) that deviates from the script of FTB=good, non FTB=bad.
Usually the use of liar in this circumstance is just another word for "bad" since there is no amount of evidence that will get Ophelia to withdraw the charge - she will just move on to a new attack.

2. "A person who has said something that is wrong".
This definition is close to the standard popular notion of liar - although it doesn't require intent to deceive. Making a factual error (for example saying that one commenter said something when in fact it was another - or getting the quote slightly wrong, even if the message is the same, is enough to be labeled a liar.
This definition is often conflated with definition 1 - because Ophelia and commenters don't generally bother to check sources, particularly if they fear the facts might not line up in their favor.

3. "A person who has said something that they know is wrong"
This definition requires absolute knowledge that the statement is incorrect and the intent to deceive others.
Ophelia uses this definition whenever anyone accuses HER of telling an untruth.
How can you call her a liar unless you know that she knew what she saw saying was untrue - and since you cannot possibly KNOW what she believed at that time you have no basis for assuming she was lying rather than simply being incorrect.

This intellectual hopscotch - jumping between the different definitions in order to further your own progress in a debate - is, perhaps, one of the defining techniques of SJW rhetoric.

Feminism is the notion that women are people.
Feminism is the advocacy for the rights of women.
Feminism is the organized opposition to the patriarchal dominated rape culture in which we find ourselves.

Choose whatever definition suits the moment and discard it at a moments notice for the next definition if that one works better in the argument. And then switch back again when required.
The fact that the definitions may be incompatible with each other is beside the point. It takes too long for your opponent to explain that and if they try you just accuse them of trying to derail the argument.
It is pretty much the exact equivalent of what you find in religious debate - the switch between literal and metaphorical meanings of sacred texts. These are incompatible and yet it is standard practice for apologists to do the same kind of intellectual hopscotch - hence you end up with internally contradictory positions like the Catholic churches teachings on Adam and Eve (the story is a metaphor but they really did exist!)

This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand is so common it must have a name - some generic fallacy, but I don't know what it's called.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19682

Post by Michael K Gray »

Dick Strawkins wrote:This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand is so common it must have a name - some generic fallacy, but I don't know what it's called.
牛糞尿!
(Nihon-ese)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19683

Post by Steersman »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Aneris is down the rabbit hole:
[_tweet][/tweet]
[_tweet][/tweet]
[_tweet][/tweet]
[_tweet][/tweet]
[_tweet][/tweet]
I find the use of the term 'liar' very interesting from Ophelia.
Indeed. I was remembering her tweets - along with those from "the usual suspects" - to Derek [last name forgotten] of Atheist Ireland complaining that someone was calling her a cunt on several of Nugent's threads during that "Atheist-Skeptic Dialog". If I'm not mistaken, I think Derek basically told her she was full of it; beginning to think that her hysteria is getting the better of her rationality.
Dick Strawkins wrote:This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand is so common it must have a name - some generic fallacy, but I don't know what it's called.
Moving the goalposts? An "Ophelianism"? I remember Jennifer B (?) Philips on one of Brayton's posts insisting that anyone who used a dictionary in an Internet argument had to forfeit it - definitely a jaw-dropping moment. But rather too typical.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19684

Post by Brive1987 »

Sunder wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:I saw this and thought - "no more crazies in my life please".

http://i.imgur.com/tJ5IJw1.jpg
Hey, if she likes Brad Neely, she can't be all bad.
Based on her twitter background, I suspect she is pretending to be a dinosaur.

Nuf said, the girl's a fruitloop.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19685

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Steersman wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand is so common it must have a name - some generic fallacy, but I don't know what it's called.
Moving the goalposts? An "Ophelianism"? I remember Jennifer B (?) Philips on one of Brayton's posts insisting that anyone who used a dictionary in an Internet argument had to forfeit it - definitely a jaw-dropping moment. But rather too typical.
It is not exactly moving the goalposts as that can be an endless series of obfuscations with no fixed position ever reached (just try arguing with a creationist or Damion for the perfect example)

The think I'm talking about involves jumping between a small number of contradictory positions.
The classic example in the feminism debate is the use of arguments that come from porn negative radical feminism - as well as arguments that come from sex work positive feminism. Hence you can have someone like Greta Christina railing against rape culture - while simultaneously selling a book that promotes rape porn as a positive thing. The only way you can square that circle is of you are prepared to switch between different worldviews at a moments notice (it's not promoting rape culture - it's celebrating kink and sex positivity!)

It would be easier if we had a simple name for this type of tactic - like "Godwined" or "Boycotted".

Ophelianism is a little complicated, how about 'Bensoned' ? "Myersed"?

Satan
.
.
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:32 am
Location: Hell

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19686

Post by Satan »

Steersman wrote:Moving the goalposts? An "Ophelianism"?
It's not an exact match, but it looks like a form of equivocation. From wiki:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19687

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Satan wrote:
Steersman wrote:Moving the goalposts? An "Ophelianism"?
It's not an exact match, but it looks like a form of equivocation. From wiki:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
I don't think it is equivocation.
Equivocation usually involves single words that have different meanings, for example "spiritual" (in awe of nature, or in awe of supernatural beings) or words that have meanings that are different in different contexts (like "theory" in scientific use and common use.)

The thing I'm talking about is the use of arguments based on incompatible world views with the knowledge that you are doing so, and the switch back and forth between these worldviews at different points in your argument.

Satan
.
.
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:32 am
Location: Hell

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19688

Post by Satan »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Ophelianism is a little complicated, how about 'Bensoned' ? "Myersed"?
Watsoning?

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19689

Post by Southern »

bhoytony wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Cheetahs are all close cousins.

I thought I'd read somewhere that a population could survive a bottleneck of 1 male : 7 females, but I don't know if that was a ratio or a total # of individuals. So, for the sake of humanity, I'm gonna have to go with me and six women in the shelter.
Ophelia, Caine, Beccy, Melody, Jen McHorse and Scurvy Amy?
If that's what we got to keep humanity going, I say let this damn species die already.

TedDahlberg
.
.
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19690

Post by TedDahlberg »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I don't think it is equivocation.
Equivocation usually involves single words that have different meanings, for example "spiritual" (in awe of nature, or in awe of supernatural beings) or words that have meanings that are different in different contexts (like "theory" in scientific use and common use.)

The thing I'm talking about is the use of arguments based on incompatible world views with the knowledge that you are doing so, and the switch back and forth between these worldviews at different points in your argument.
Lying? ;)

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19691

Post by Guest »

this gon b gud, I'm refreshing freedramablogs with a speed of light now


Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19692

Post by Guest »

[youtube]xM7tg0J06ok[/youtube]

full link, just in case I failed again:

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19693

Post by Suet Cardigan »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Satan wrote:
Steersman wrote:Moving the goalposts? An "Ophelianism"?
It's not an exact match, but it looks like a form of equivocation. From wiki:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
I don't think it is equivocation.
Equivocation usually involves single words that have different meanings, for example "spiritual" (in awe of nature, or in awe of supernatural beings) or words that have meanings that are different in different contexts (like "theory" in scientific use and common use.)

The thing I'm talking about is the use of arguments based on incompatible world views with the knowledge that you are doing so, and the switch back and forth between these worldviews at different points in your argument.
Kettle Logic or Alternative pleading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19694

Post by Southern »

Satan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Ophelianism is a little complicated, how about 'Bensoned' ? "Myersed"?
Watsoning?
What does getting yourself drunk until you're puking your eyeballs has to do with this uninspired drama-o-rama?

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19695

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
I don't think it is equivocation.
Equivocation usually involves single words that have different meanings, for example "spiritual" (in awe of nature, or in awe of supernatural beings) or words that have meanings that are different in different contexts (like "theory" in scientific use and common use.)

The thing I'm talking about is the use of arguments based on incompatible world views with the knowledge that you are doing so, and the switch back and forth between these worldviews at different points in your argument.
Kettle Logic or Alternative pleading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading
Kettle logic is the closest. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that with 'Kettle Logic' a number of contradictory explanations are offered at the outset. The technique I'm describing will only use one explanation/worldview at a time, but will switch to another whenever it is a rhetorical advantage (for example using a radfem argument about patriarchy, power differentials and mansplaining but then switching to a simplistic AronRa type "feminism is the opposite of sexism" when the radfem talking points start getting bogged down by uncomfortable facts intruding from the real world.)
This rhetorical technique is so common with both SJW aguments and religious apologetics that someone must have given it a name before now.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19696

Post by Brive1987 »

.
Watson quote of the week:

"Sometimes I tire of speaking of gender"
SGU Nov 2 2013

You can tell when that happens by the silence.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19697

Post by James Caruthers »

Guest wrote:[youtube]xM7tg0J06ok[/youtube]

full link, just in case I failed again:
The crowd in that video really pissed me off.

Person A tries to kick Person B
Person B pushes or punches Person A in response
Person A tries again to assault Person B
Person B pushes Person A back, this time through a window

In this genderless examination of the two people, who was the victim? Who was the assaulter?

What a radical notion, that a person born with a penis has the legal right to defend himself against an assault from a person born with a vagina. Almost as radical as the notion that "women are people too." :roll:

Anyway, I hope the video gets really big and prompts FTB to mansplain to us plebs about why having a society bias against holding a violent woman accountable for her violence is totes awesome.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19698

Post by Za-zen »

[youtube]_CGFMwtJTyE[/youtube]

Some minds are too beautiful

[youtube]dipFMJckZOM[/youtube]

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19699

Post by Guest »

James Caruthers wrote: Person A tries to kick Person B
Person B pushes or punches Person A in response
Person A tries again to assault Person B
Person B pushes Person A back, this time through a window

In this genderless examination of the two people, who was the victim? Who was the assaulter?

What a radical notion, that a person born with a penis has the legal right to defend himself against an assault from a person born with a vagina. Almost as radical as the notion that "women are people too." :roll:

Anyway, I hope the video gets really big and prompts FTB to mansplain to us plebs about why having a society bias against holding a violent woman accountable for her violence is totes awesome.
Don't know about the 'straya (I guess that's where it was filmed) but in my part of the civilized world both those delinquents broke the law and who started the whole shebang wouldn't really matter, especially given video evidence. Not that I didn't cheer for one of the sides anyway, in a moralisation-less fashion. Maybe it was simply worth it for one of them.

Waiting for name

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19700

Post by Waiting for name »

James Caruthers wrote:
Guest wrote:[youtube]xM7tg0J06ok[/youtube]

full link, just in case I failed again:
The crowd in that video really pissed me off.

Person A tries to kick Person B
Person B pushes or punches Person A in response
Person A tries again to assault Person B
Person B pushes Person A back, this time through a window

In this genderless examination of the two people, who was the victim? Who was the assaulter?

What a radical notion, that a person born with a penis has the legal right to defend himself against an assault from a person born with a vagina. Almost as radical as the notion that "women are people too." :roll:

Anyway, I hope the video gets really big and prompts FTB to mansplain to us plebs about why having a society bias against holding a violent woman accountable for her violence is totes awesome.
Here's what I don't understand. Why would Person A (the aggressor) feel it was wise to start a physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier? What in the world made Person A feel that was a logical plan?

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19701

Post by Scented Nectar »

Brive1987 wrote:Anyway that's my two cents. To coin a phrase "rock on"
"Rock On" was one of my favourite songs as a kid. The other day I found that David Essex has an official youtube channel, and on that channel, I found this...

[youtube]r9g2ZJ4VNCo[/youtube]

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19702

Post by Za-zen »

Waiting for name wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:
Guest wrote:[youtube]xM7tg0J06ok[/youtube]

full link, just in case I failed again:
The crowd in that video really pissed me off.

Person A tries to kick Person B
Person B pushes or punches Person A in response
Person A tries again to assault Person B
Person B pushes Person A back, this time through a window

In this genderless examination of the two people, who was the victim? Who was the assaulter?

What a radical notion, that a person born with a penis has the legal right to defend himself against an assault from a person born with a vagina. Almost as radical as the notion that "women are people too." :roll:

Anyway, I hope the video gets really big and prompts FTB to mansplain to us plebs about why having a society bias against holding a violent woman accountable for her violence is totes awesome.
Here's what I don't understand. Why would Person A (the aggressor) feel it was wise to start a physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier? What in the world made Person A feel that was a logical plan?
Person B should be thankful they didn't get their face rearranged. Don't fire your fists, unless you are prepared to be fucked up. It's a simple lesson. I am of the opinion Person A showed great restraint, as once you open that form of communication, all bets are off, and fuck you.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19703

Post by Za-zen »

Ahh i meant the original assaulter (person A, not B)

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19704

Post by Guest »

Waiting for name wrote: Here's what I don't understand. Why would Person A (the aggressor) feel it was wise to start a physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier? What in the world made Person A feel that was a logical plan?
Don't play fool and pretend you don't know the answer. Yes, the gist of said answer is hypocritical to the extreme but everyone knows what's going on.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19705

Post by Scented Nectar »

katamari Damassi wrote:
Ogvorbis wrote: Both of those happened the same summer and I didn’t remember them until Friday. Same summer. So close to being evil. And I buried that evil inside me and lucked out when we moved to a new school, a school where I didn’t have a reputation as someone easy to bully and violent. I still got bullied but I became passive and accepting of it because the alternative, the rage, the monster, was too scary.

Did I actually make a decision that summer to be a good person? Was it fear? I feel like I stood at the edge of any abyss and stepped back (this is me, now, looking at this, not me back then).

Is the monster still there? I think so. And trying to help people, provide a witness to people’s suffering, and raging at certain people, seems to placate that rage. Fuck it. it works, right? ..


I also have undiagnosed PTSD (well, the shrinks I have seen refer to it as ‘PTSD-like symptoms (whatever the hell that means)) from working down in NYC after 9/11. And I know that the panic attacks and the nightmares show up after a trigger (see yesterday (and last nigh) for example) and it changes the way that I view the world for a few days. ...
First off, undiagnosed PTSD is actually self diagnosed PTSD in this case, and since this guy isn't a psychologist he's likely wrong.
Second, "I didn't remember them until Friday". Repressed/recovered memory? Does anyone believe anything this guy says?
After a confession like that, the only thing he has going for himself is that it's likely made up due to his claiming that he knows about it from one of those "recovered memory" pieces of bullshit. Just like the feminists did in the 80s and 90s, breaking up many families with feminist therapists all over the place convincing their clients that any old nightmare really meant that they had been raped as an infant by their father. The clients believed it all since it gives a cause (even though untrue) to all the angst in their lives.

In Orbagisomethingwhatever's case, he wants to be the most repentant ex-patriarchal criminal around. What's more criminal to feminists than rape? Especially that of a child? He just wants to be congratulated on coming the most far in turning into a non-rapey feminist.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19706

Post by Za-zen »

Scented Nectar wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:
Ogvorbis wrote: Both of those happened the same summer and I didn’t remember them until Friday. Same summer. So close to being evil. And I buried that evil inside me and lucked out when we moved to a new school, a school where I didn’t have a reputation as someone easy to bully and violent. I still got bullied but I became passive and accepting of it because the alternative, the rage, the monster, was too scary.

Did I actually make a decision that summer to be a good person? Was it fear? I feel like I stood at the edge of any abyss and stepped back (this is me, now, looking at this, not me back then).

Is the monster still there? I think so. And trying to help people, provide a witness to people’s suffering, and raging at certain people, seems to placate that rage. Fuck it. it works, right? ..


I also have undiagnosed PTSD (well, the shrinks I have seen refer to it as ‘PTSD-like symptoms (whatever the hell that means)) from working down in NYC after 9/11. And I know that the panic attacks and the nightmares show up after a trigger (see yesterday (and last nigh) for example) and it changes the way that I view the world for a few days. ...
First off, undiagnosed PTSD is actually self diagnosed PTSD in this case, and since this guy isn't a psychologist he's likely wrong.
Second, "I didn't remember them until Friday". Repressed/recovered memory? Does anyone believe anything this guy says?
After a confession like that, the only thing he has going for himself is that it's likely made up due to his claiming that he knows about it from one of those "recovered memory" pieces of bullshit. Just like the feminists did in the 80s and 90s, breaking up many families with feminist therapists all over the place convincing their clients that any old nightmare really meant that they had been raped as an infant by their father. The clients believed it all since it gives a cause (even though untrue) to all the angst in their lives.

In Orbagisomethingwhatever's case, he wants to be the most repentant ex-patriarchal criminal around. What's more criminal to feminists than rape? Especially that of a child? He just wants to be congratulated on coming the most far in turning into a non-rapey feminist.
We've seen the model used before, every church loves the testimony of its resident "worst sinner ever" who was "saved" accepted the truth into his heart, and became a decent human being.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19707

Post by BarnOwl »

PeeZus suggests that eliminating daylight savings time and consolidating the four time zones of the contiguous 48 states are Good Ideas. One commenter proposes that we should simplify our lives such that time zones don't matter, and receives the following response:
Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers
3 November 2013 at 10:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Joseph Yaroch:
What we really need to do, is simplify our lives, enough so that the time zones don’t really matter.

My, what a pretentious, self-righteous, and off-topic comment. You first, dude. Send me all the stuff you’re not using.
Now, if one of the approved pharyngulars, like Caine or Ms Cutter, had posted the exact same sentiment as did the hapless Joseph Yaroch, s/h/it would have received resounding approval in the replies. Lots of (undoubtedly dishonest) tales of self-imposed simplification, in the name of fighting the white heteronormative patriarchomaterialistic industrial complex. But alas, it wasn't one of the horde who expressed the "simplify" sentiment, so let's take all his stuff!!11!!

TedDahlberg
.
.
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19708

Post by TedDahlberg »

BarnOwl wrote:PeeZus suggests that eliminating daylight savings time and consolidating the four time zones of the contiguous 48 states are Good Ideas. One commenter proposes that we should simplify our lives such that time zones don't matter, and receives the following response:
Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers
3 November 2013 at 10:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Joseph Yaroch:
What we really need to do, is simplify our lives, enough so that the time zones don’t really matter.

My, what a pretentious, self-righteous, and off-topic comment. You first, dude. Send me all the stuff you’re not using.
Now, if one of the approved pharyngulars, like Caine or Ms Cutter, had posted the exact same sentiment as did the hapless Joseph Yaroch, s/h/it would have received resounding approval in the replies. Lots of (undoubtedly dishonest) tales of self-imposed simplification, in the name of fighting the white heteronormative patriarchomaterialistic industrial complex. But alas, it wasn't one of the horde who expressed the "simplify" sentiment, so let's take all his stuff!!11!!
I think they have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) three important little words; "I disagree because". Now I get most of my exposure to FTB comments here on the 'pit, so there may well be selection bias at play. But they seem unable to disagree without simultaneously attacking. "I think you're wrong" isn't enough (let alone "I think you're wrong for reasons X and Y"), it has to be "I think you're wrong you horrible person". It seems like such an emotionally exhausting way to live your life.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19709

Post by Dick Strawkins »

TedDahlberg wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:PeeZus suggests that eliminating daylight savings time and consolidating the four time zones of the contiguous 48 states are Good Ideas. One commenter proposes that we should simplify our lives such that time zones don't matter, and receives the following response:
Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers
3 November 2013 at 10:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Joseph Yaroch:
What we really need to do, is simplify our lives, enough so that the time zones don’t really matter.

My, what a pretentious, self-righteous, and off-topic comment. You first, dude. Send me all the stuff you’re not using.
Now, if one of the approved pharyngulars, like Caine or Ms Cutter, had posted the exact same sentiment as did the hapless Joseph Yaroch, s/h/it would have received resounding approval in the replies. Lots of (undoubtedly dishonest) tales of self-imposed simplification, in the name of fighting the white heteronormative patriarchomaterialistic industrial complex. But alas, it wasn't one of the horde who expressed the "simplify" sentiment, so let's take all his stuff!!11!!
I think they have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) three important little words; "I disagree because". Now I get most of my exposure to FTB comments here on the 'pit, so there may well be selection bias at play. But they seem unable to disagree without simultaneously attacking. "I think you're wrong" isn't enough (let alone "I think you're wrong for reasons X and Y"), it has to be "I think you're wrong you horrible person". It seems like such an emotionally exhausting way to live your life.
They allow a fairly wide margin of disagreement between approved regulars (so long as this disagreement doesn't stray into pointing out positive aspects/shades of grey in their opponents (big atheism, big skepticism, the slymepit, and MRAs in general.)

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19710

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Guest wrote:
Waiting for name wrote: Here's what I don't understand. Why would Person A (the aggressor) feel it was wise to start a physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier? What in the world made Person A feel that was a logical plan?
Don't play fool and pretend you don't know the answer. Yes, the gist of said answer is hypocritical to the extreme but everyone knows what's going on.
I'm guessing it's that she gambled that most men are socialized into thinking that you do NOT hit a woman, no matter what the provocation, and so she could get away with it unless he turned out to be one of the small percentage of men who would hit a woman.
As it was, the guy came away looking like a bully who overreacted and dished out disproportionate punishment on the girl.
Of course if it was a smaller man who had hit the guy in green and been punched through the window people would have a different reaction (probably thinking it served him right for provoking the green giant.)
In reality both of them are idiots playing out a common Saturday night drunken scenario. When I was a teenager I used to work part time in a grill like that and we had incidents like that, or worse, every weekend (we used to keep an iron bar under the counter ready for angry drunks who would come lunging over the counter, screaming they were going to rip your head off.)

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19711

Post by Guest »

Spot on, Dick Strawkins.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19712

Post by Za-zen »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Guest wrote:
Waiting for name wrote: Here's what I don't understand. Why would Person A (the aggressor) feel it was wise to start a physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier? What in the world made Person A feel that was a logical plan?
Don't play fool and pretend you don't know the answer. Yes, the gist of said answer is hypocritical to the extreme but everyone knows what's going on.
I'm guessing it's that she gambled that most men are socialized into thinking that you do NOT hit a woman, no matter what the provocation, and so she could get away with it unless he turned out to be one of the small percentage of men who would hit a woman.
As it was, the guy came away looking like a bully who overreacted and dished out disproportionate punishment on the girl.
Of course if it was a smaller man who had hit the guy in green and been punched through the window people would have a different reaction (probably thinking it served him right for provoking the green giant.)
In reality both of them are idiots playing out a common Saturday night drunken scenario. When I was a teenager I used to work part time in a grill like that and we had incidents like that, or worse, every weekend (we used to keep an iron bar under the counter ready for angry drunks who would come lunging over the counter, screaming they were going to rip your head off.)
I spent over a decade as a nightclub bouncer, and from my read, the green giant appeared to be functioning in that role (though he wasn't wearing any distinguishing clothing). In the UK many late night food joints have security on the door for when the clubs unleash their tsunami of human waste onto the street. What we aren't privy to is what the lead up to the assault on him was. Were they removed? Or was he preventing entry for some reason? The sharp eye may have noticed after the assault commenced, an individual made exit and there seemed to be an altercation taking place between him, and a number of the individuals who had been at the door.

This is in all fact completely irrelevant, as the green giant's limited response was justified whether he was security or not.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19713

Post by Tony Parsehole »

ERV wrote:
The Skepchicks are like the Graeae, sharing one brain cell between them all...
You have no idea how much I love that put-down.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19714

Post by Tony Parsehole »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:http://i.imgur.com/CyOJtsl.jpg
HAHA! Spot on!
Is this a thing now? Are we making our own Bjartleby Fogshaw cartoons?

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19715

Post by Tony Parsehole »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:The TSA confiscated my beach plum jelly. Yes, the terrorists have won.
I can't even shout my real name in an airport without fear of arrest*. The terrorists have won.

*My real name is Alan Ackbar.

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19716

Post by Guest »

Za-zen wrote: I spent over a decade as a nightclub bouncer, and from my read, the green giant appeared to be functioning in that role (though he wasn't wearing any distinguishing clothing). In the UK many late night food joints have security on the door for when the clubs unleash their tsunami of human waste onto the street. What we aren't privy to is what the lead up to the assault on him was. Were they removed? Or was he preventing entry for some reason? The sharp eye may have noticed after the assault commenced, an individual made exit and there seemed to be an altercation taking place between him, and a number of the individuals who had been at the door.
What do you mean by "limited response" ? Is this a legal term? Where I live, judging just by this video, they both were in the wrong and both would be criminally charged (who more would depend mainly on sustained/caused damage to body and property). This isn't about "morals" or "justice" (yet), just sanctioned law.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19717

Post by Gefan »

Tony Parsehole wrote: ...Oh shit, is this serious? People were banging on about this yesterday and i thought it was a piss-take. So hard to tell nowadays.
And therein The Pit's doom is summarized.
I've been taking a few days off from here, partly to work damage-control on a series of on-going explosions in teh real life, and I come back to find baboonery reaching new heights, yet again.

This is a relentless pattern. If the purpose of this place is, at least to some degree, satire and mockery, in the long run we're fucked.
As much as I respect the talent of Jan Steen, Gumby, Parsehole, and the rest of the 'Shopping Crew; as much as I admire the wit of Southern, Cunt of Personality, Bhoytoy; in the end they're going to overload us all with "The Crazy".
Eventually it will no longer be possible to do anything funnier than what the baboons produce as naturally as breathing.

All that will be left will be Steersman, endlessly, earnestly toiling away, flailing at the hurricane of nuttiness that never gets tired and never ceases to intensify.

I mean, just read the last five of six pages. Look at it!
The Arcturian ambassador to the Skeptical Movement. Caine and her rat skulls. The return of Ogvorbis. A piece written in opposition to raising awareness of prostate cancer where no-one could tell if the piece or the writer's bio were real or a put-on.
This is a genuine, free-range fucking loony-bin we're dealing with here. I'm not sure we're not all guilty of fucking with the mentally ill.
Peez should just have done with it and put on a fucking top hat and a red coat and stand in the middle of this fucking circus beaming away at what he's gathered around himself.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19718

Post by Za-zen »

[youtube]nr7NvpFEbIU[/youtube]

Pogsurf

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19719

Post by Pogsurf »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
I don't think it is equivocation.
Equivocation usually involves single words that have different meanings, for example "spiritual" (in awe of nature, or in awe of supernatural beings) or words that have meanings that are different in different contexts (like "theory" in scientific use and common use.)

The thing I'm talking about is the use of arguments based on incompatible world views with the knowledge that you are doing so, and the switch back and forth between these worldviews at different points in your argument.
Kettle Logic or Alternative pleading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading
Kettle logic is the closest. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that with 'Kettle Logic' a number of contradictory explanations are offered at the outset. The technique I'm describing will only use one explanation/worldview at a time, but will switch to another whenever it is a rhetorical advantage (for example using a radfem argument about patriarchy, power differentials and mansplaining but then switching to a simplistic AronRa type "feminism is the opposite of sexism" when the radfem talking points start getting bogged down by uncomfortable facts intruding from the real world.)
This rhetorical technique is so common with both SJW aguments and religious apologetics that someone must have given it a name before now.
I think the thing that is being spoken of here is 'bad faith'. It is as a result of adopting contradictory positions and not being willing to admit the error. Many of the SJWs have declared "I am a skeptic and a feminist" without for a second considering that at some point one position may contradict the other. When the contradictions are highlighted by others, rather than admit a problem, some sort of ground-shifting has to occur. Someone who I admire and who has realised this type of problem can easily occur is V S Ramachandran. He is a leading neuroscientist and a practising Hindu. When asked if there is a contradiction between being a scientist and being religious, he says no because he has two selves. When in the lab he is one person, and when in the temple he is another.

Take Myers. Anyone who spots contradictions in Myers' positions is labelled a sexist, a racist, an MRA or whatever. They are then isolated away from Myers so that they cannot pick at the chinks in his armour. Myers is aware that his arguments have holes, so he takes active steps to avoid debating with a whole host of people in public.

Benson is different. She seems to be unaware of her own contradictions. She has not introspected enough to see this. She doesn't hide away from her detractors so much as Myers, but then she has to practice things like ground-shifting to avoid the terror (for her) of admitting that her position is inconsistent.

Someone who introspected fully, come up with an entirely logically consistent position, and thus doesn't need to argue in bad faith is Dawkins. He knows that if he sticks to good faith argumentation, trying to take the best of his opponents' positions and explore them fully, his reasoning skills will win though. He doesn't need to swear at his ideological opponents, because he doesn't need to employ shaming tactics at all to get his point across. The type of opponent that Dawkins has to be very wary of is Watson. She knows how win an audience over through charm, and covers the gaps in her arguments with sarcasm. Again, these are bad faith tactics. Quite a dangerous opponent for Dawkins to face, since she does have the power to make him look foolish, if Dawkins were ever daft enough to debate her.

As well as employing conventional bad faith tactics, Myers, Benson and Watson, but not Dawkins and Ramachandran, can be seen to be caught in an existential bad faith, where they are deluded into believing their choices are limited, and are thus trapped into behaving in certain ways. Because they 'have to' behave this way, they believe they are absolved from the moral consequences of their actions. Bad behaviour can be excused. If they could face their internal contradictions, dissolve the 'have to' delusion of needing to hide their ideological inconsistencies, and complete the necessary introspection to resolve their inner conflicts, the world would be a much nicer place. ;)

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19720

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Za-zen wrote:
This is in all fact completely irrelevant, as the green giant's limited response was justified whether he was security or not.
Pushing people through windows in movies is fun, since nobody really gets hurt.
In real life it's fucking dangerous. Whatever you think about the girls actions I don't think anyone would conclude she deserved to get sliced up by plate glass - which is easily what could have happened.
Probably the guy (bouncer?) didn't mean to stick her through the window, but striking out at her in the confined space of the entrance surely risks such a result.

Huehuehue
.
.
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:53 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19721

Post by Huehuehue »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Za-zen wrote:
This is in all fact completely irrelevant, as the green giant's limited response was justified whether he was security or not.
Pushing people through windows in movies is fun, since nobody really gets hurt.
In real life it's fucking dangerous. Whatever you think about the girls actions I don't think anyone would conclude she deserved to get sliced up by plate glass - which is easily what could have happened.
Probably the guy (bouncer?) didn't mean to stick her through the window, but striking out at her in the confined space of the entrance surely risks such a result.
Indeed it does. It also opens him to criminal liability for ABH and the like. Even if he didn't intend for it to happen, least UK PoV, you can impute intention from the inherent recklessness (R v G and all that case-law IIRC).

Think we can conclude they've both made errors here, although, without any wider context, it seems the women did indeed instigate it, but we don't know what was being said etc. Either way, I think he's still blame-worthy for shoving someone into glass.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19722

Post by welch »

John Greg wrote:James Caruthers said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 13#p139713):
Spectator will be a pitter before the week is out. Too much logic in one post, and she's taking hell for it.
Well, I kind of doubt it. She thinks John C. Welch, and John Greg -- "the two Johns of the Slymepit" -- are truly evil beings.
I would love for any of these twonks to be around "truly evil" people for more than ten minutes. I understand Manson is allowed visitors. Probably Gary Ridgeway too.

But yes, two middle-aged assholes who say rude things on a website are "truly evil".

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19723

Post by welch »

Huehuehue wrote:

I've wondered this myself, I've heard claims that men and women tend to value different aspects of perspective careers, one could ponder whether, if this is true, if this is "natural" or really the result of some form of social conditioning.

Not read any data on it personally, but I suspect such a finding which argued, for example, that women don't find STEM careers rewarding may be instantly vilified.
I can't speak to *why* but the number of women leaving at least the computer industry in their 30s-40s is not small. It's large enough that a friend of mine who is female, who loves her work, and is a nerd's nerd finds her self with very few women to talk to about career issues. "The Mid-Career donut hole" is her term for it, (may not be HER term as in created it, but it's what she calls it.) It's where she's trying to decide, stay in tech/research, or move into management. She'd like to be able to talk to other women in her situation, but she has a very hard time finding them. It's a bit of a pickle.

I (obviously) can't speak to any woman's feelings in the field, but I know in my case, it took me a long time to become comfortable with the fact that (BIZARRELY) my favorite aspect of my career isn't the tech, but helping the people use it. You want to talk about a part of the field "looked down upon", oy vey. But when I think of a gig where all I'd deal with are machines and monitoring and incidental human contact, I honestly don't want that. Which makes things hard in this field, because that's kind of the holy grail. I've a few friends doing that and they love it. But me, I like the hu-mans, and I like helping them figure out how to solve their problems.

There's a few reasons for that, but it has a lot of implications for my career. That part took me a long time to figure out and become settled with, (in fact, i finally did come to terms with it only recently), and a lot of that was there's really not a lot of good resources to figure this out. IT is still very much a weird field for people who don't mind working with other people who aren't IT people.

So yeah, I totally get why someone would bail on STEM to do something they found more enjoyable. If her career field was anything like mine, I'm surprised she lasted as long as she did.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19724

Post by welch »

Badger3k wrote:
Huehuehue wrote:

I've wondered this myself, I've heard claims that men and women tend to value different aspects of perspective careers, one could ponder whether, if this is true, if this is "natural" or really the result of some form of social conditioning.

Not read any data on it personally, but I suspect such a finding which argued, for example, that women don't find STEM careers rewarding may be instantly vilified.
I just wonder if she does decide to leave and go to a job she likes, whether she will declare she was run out of STEM due to the Patriarchy harassing her or defining gender roles or something.

I do agree that she should go and do what she wants to do - so long as she can support herself - and to hell with what other people think. Why this obsession with what unknown people think of you - why? When a kid got into trouble, I always asked "does this person's opinion matter to you?" and if they said no, I had to ask then why get upset over it? There are other influences as well (social stigma, reputation, etc) but at the heart of it is "why does it matter what they think?"
Guilt maybe? I imagine the pressure to say in STEM as a woman is not small.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19725

Post by welch »

Tribble wrote:
Aneris wrote: What does that mean? "Because he was not abused into it." What the heck!?
I read that to mean 'coerced.' That is, being threatened with life or limb to do an act he would otherwise not do.

No, he voluntarily raped children. She's using his past suffering as an excuse for his bad behavior. It is a false premise that being abused excuses ones abuse towards other as it denies the perpetrators agency in the act.

But, they don't care. They're tribal and have become so cult-like and insular they have lost all moral compass. What they do -- including exculpating child rapists -- is ok. What we do -- acts such as condemning child rapists -- is evil.
what was the bit a few posts back? If you approve of the behaver...

guarantee if someone here said the same thing, they'd be calling the cops.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19726

Post by welch »

bovarchist wrote:
welch wrote:
Yep. It's why I used "Arachinda" instead of "spiders" in the (rapidly becoming) epic comment about Ophie's inner ugly.

1) It ups the pretentious level a few steps without a lot of work on my part.
2) For those who know I'm a huge arachnophobe, it adds a bit of oomph to just how thoroughly distasteful I find Ophie.

But yeah, that's a great trick. For example, "People always say you can get more flies with honey than vinegar. Well, to be honest, you attract far more members of Drosophilia with shit than either the first two options, which then creates a further question: Why are you doing this at all?"
Drosophila.

BAM! 100+ PEDANT POINTS!

Speaking of which, if you're trying to catch flies in the first place, you're probably a hillbilly. :rimshot:

Well-played sirrah! The much-coveted chair by the bar is now yours!

why do you even have to try to catch flies? They're about fucking everywhere, no effort needed.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19727

Post by welch »

Tribble wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Aneris is down the rabbit hole:
I don't remember any 'being forced' to rape those girls. He had been molested as a child. Years later, while babysitting those three children, he raped them and there was no one there to force him.
Don't forget how he "almost killed someone" because he let the monster out. Well, he would have, but someone pulled him off the guy, but only after he'd laid waste to them. Oh, and the other kid is ALWAYS larger and older. Sometimes even an athlete or a boxer/wrestler/MMA type. But ALWAYS larger and older. Bet he could bench-press a fucking car too. With a screwdriver.

How is it that ALL of these fuckers have the same goddamned story? Is there a club where they decide who gets what? "Okay, billy, you have to keep it straight. YOU tried to kill your bully with a brick, OGG is the one who made him eat a bug."

"But we both would have killed them if someone hadn't pulled us off in time, right?"

"Right, that's always the ending. Good job, you're getting it now!"

Sorry, but i hear that trope, and my ability to take them at face value drops to nil.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19728

Post by welch »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote: Nah, I think you would need at least 500 people in a population to prevent problems with inbreeding (recessive genes and all that).
What if we swapped out one of the older women for a young, fertile cheetah?
what if one of the men had a screwdriver?

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19729

Post by welch »

Brive1987 wrote: I think the intent is clear. He stepped into the circle and this transformed him. He was no longer an instrument / perpetrator of rape culture. No. By becoming self aware he is now a reformed instrument of social justice - available every second Saturday for babysitting.

Your lack of awareness paints you as a very different sort of person ......

-----------

And Oggie? You are a fucking rapist. You are lucky not to have been chemically castrated when decent society had the chance.
Better watch out. Oggie might snap, beat your ass and make you eat a bug. But only if someone is there to pull him off you before he REALLY hurts you.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19730

Post by welch »

helenhighwater wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12024

This made me laugh. And the comments get pretty funny.
How did Helen Keller burn her head?

Answered the Iron.

How did Helen Keller burn her face?

Bobbing for French Fries

How do you make Helen Keller crazy?

Put her in a round room and tell her to stand in the corner.

Why does Helen Keller masturbate with only one hand?

She needs the other one to moan with.

What happened when Helen Keller fell in the well?

She yelled and yelled until her hands turned blue.

How did Helen Keller's parents punish her when she was bad?

They left a plunger in the toilet.


There. If THAT doesn't give them a stroke, nothing will.




TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19731

Post by welch »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Tribble wrote:
I don't remember any 'being forced' to rape those girls. He had been molested as a child. Years later, while babysitting those three children, he raped them and there was no one there to force him.
According to Oggie, the poor thing still hasn't recovered from his victimization of decades ago and by the way he and his pals act he will only get worse rather than better. If that hasn't forced him to offend then what would! Oh and I couldn't think of someone I would rather have as a babysitter is a phrase I heard from some of the Pharyngulites.
Just as Hitler was forced to off all those jews, because his papa beat him as a child.
Look at stalin. His parents made him go to a seminary...

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19732

Post by welch »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Is there no common human situation into which the FfTB commenters can's insert some fucking pleading reference to the fact that they claim to have some kind of vague fucking medical condition which means they are unable to participate in some normal, run of the fucking mill activity?

It's like the took the "black disabled lesbian" meme as some kind of blueprint for their lives.

http://i.imgur.com/ZVsi9Sj.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12002

LOOK AT ME GUIZE! LOOK AT ME! SEE WHAT I'M DOING? SEE? SEE? GUIZE!

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19733

Post by welch »

ERV wrote:So Dawkins said something non-controversial: The absurd gymnastics we go through today to fly means the terrorists have won. They have. We have changed our behaviors out of fear of them. We all know this, Dawkins just vented his personal frustration about it today.

This is liek, totes, drama, according to the newest skepchick (one of many twatters/retwats) LOL First Word White Guy Problems LOL: Who suddenly remembered she was unemployed after bragging about spending $15 to get her eyebrows waxed at a vegan salon what the fuck? Please ignore the First World White Chick problems, the First World White Guy problems are just oh-so-lulz-worthy.

The Skepchicks are like the Graeae, sharing one brain cell between them all...
Yeah, but they forgot the order: eye first, then brain cell. So for the last few years, it's actually been a shiny rock.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19734

Post by Skep tickle »

Brive1987 wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Uh, well, if you're Laden you doxx her?

:rimshot:
Get "laden 'ta hose her" ?
I was reaching way back to Laden's doxxing of a woman named Maria (in 2011, I think).

Here's a recent storify in which she comments, briefly:
http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ll-and-the

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19735

Post by welch »

Skep tickle wrote: "Guest post by Bill Cooke", posted at Butterflies & Wheels on November 3, 2013, about some of the work CFI is doing & supporting in Kenya. (Great work - he spoke about it at the CFI Summit, and welcomed help in increasing the online presence of CFI International.)

Turns out this "guest post" is the first 4 paragraphs of Cooke's post from March 12, 2013 at CFI's On Campus site: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampu ... cfi_world/
(plus 8 words added to the end of the first paragraph, to explain to readers at Benson's site what & where CFI is).

The original post goes on to describe some of CFI's work in Uganda and Egypt, too. Seems kind of odd that there's no link to the original post, nor a mention that the guest post was taken from it.

At the bottom of the CFI page from which the guest post came is marked "©2013 Center for Inquiry", and the Terms of Use page linked at the bottom of that page says:
Commercial use or publication of all or any items displayed on the CFI Web site is strictly prohibited without prior authorization from CFI. ...
I don't see any comment to the effect that it was reproduced with permission from CFI. Presumably just an oversight, either on Benson's part (or on mine, if it's there but tucked away & I'm not seeing it).

At the bottom of the guest post, there's a comment: "Addendum: If you want to donate to support this work, donate to CFI and earmark it for the International Program" with a link to CFI donation page, from which one can go on to become a 1-time or a monthly donor.

The original post said at the bottom, "Support CFI's international outreach efforts! Become a monthly supporter and help sustain our programs in Uganda, Kenya, and Egypt" with a link to CFI's monthly donation page.

The bugaboo here is that there's no apparent way to earmark one's donations via these pages; it would just go in as a general donation with some (small) portion going to CFI International.

I suppose a donor could follow up with an email to CFI saying the intent was to earmark the donation, but that tip is not given at the end of either version of Cooke's post.
more proof at how evil CFI is. Helping starving children instead of making sure Melody Hensley is happy.

THE NERVE!

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19736

Post by Tony Parsehole »

welch wrote:


Why does Helen Keller masturbate with only one hand?

She needs the other one to moan with.
Sublime.

Ericb
.
.
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:20 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19737

Post by Ericb »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
welch wrote:


Why does Helen Keller masturbate with only one hand?

She needs the other one to moan with.
Sublime.
I actually laughed at that one.

German LurkBoatsman

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19738

Post by German LurkBoatsman »

Pogsurf wrote:The type of opponent that Dawkins has to be very wary of is Watson. She knows how win an audience over through charm, and covers the gaps in her arguments with sarcasm. Again, these are bad faith tactics. Quite a dangerous opponent for Dawkins to face, since she does have the power to make him look foolish, if Dawkins were ever daft enough to debate her.
Debate her on what? The other day I re-watched the attack on Stef McGraw because someone linked to it somewhere and a lot of the current drama still originates from there. Watson is nothing but anecdotes and (mostly) lame jokes. Even then, when she tried to give some background why disagreeing with her really was sexism she was really stretching thin and wide. She could have elucidated what sexism means to her or how she would apply her knowledge to the community she allegedly cares so much about. But she doesn't have any deep knowledge, nor ideas beyond self-serving PR stunts. She just went for the first thing that looked like a definition of sexism and could be twisted enough so it just barely seems to cover the McGraw situation, then slacked away from further work. Believe me, I'm a slacker myself (though one with a day job) - I know lazy work when I see it.

Then her new, patreon supported videos. Same old Rebecca show. She tries to cut away from the drama, but she's left with not very much content after that. That DNA video was a mixture of advertisement, Becky-goes-to-science-camp narrative and some high-school talking points. There was just no point to the video, no message, nothing new, nothing to learn if you ever heard about DNA in your life. Some people pay some real money to get their weekly fix of barely structured high school science videos from her while the whole net brims with actual academic work and educational resources offered for free and science journalism is maybe at its peak right now (in quality, not in prospects to make a living from it).

And I just can't grasp what's wrong with her face! Click on any point in that last video and at least every second still picture looks like a grimace, sarc or narc induced, I don't know. You could use any one of those for a shop and people would go: "why'd you take one where she looks so stupid". Because there are no others, is the correct answer.

Lastly, about the patreon support she gets. If you do the math, something like 2/3 of her income is paid by just 6 people, and I'm pretty sure there's one person that pays like 40-60$ per vid. Thats like 200-300$ per month. Now, either that person is Courtney Closser, who seems to work for Patreon and was one of the first supporters, so that whole Patreon thing may be a payed gig from the beginning. Or Watson finally found herself a Suggar Daddy. Whatever it is, all the luck to Ms Watson and may no more than the necessary number of threaths reach her, essential for keeping the business alive.

/End of monday rant. Lovely week to all of you.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19739

Post by Dick Strawkins »

welch wrote:
ERV wrote:So Dawkins said something non-controversial: The absurd gymnastics we go through today to fly means the terrorists have won. They have. We have changed our behaviors out of fear of them. We all know this, Dawkins just vented his personal frustration about it today.

This is liek, totes, drama, according to the newest skepchick (one of many twatters/retwats) LOL First Word White Guy Problems LOL:

...snip...

Please ignore the First World White Chick problems, the First World White Guy problems are just oh-so-lulz-worthy.

The Skepchicks are like the Graeae, sharing one brain cell between them all...
Yeah, but they forgot the order: eye first, then brain cell. So for the last few years, it's actually been a shiny rock.
To be fair, Dawkins tweet is a little silly.

http://i.imgur.com/DZK9NhQ.jpg

He is great at public debates, inspired generations in the love of science, and writes wonderful books. Yet for all that he is a bit crap when it comes to twitter and commenting on messageboards.

Doesn't he realize that there is a whole army of SJWs whose idea of social justice consists entirely of reading his tweets to see if he's said something stupid?

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#19740

Post by Skep tickle »

Gefan wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote: ...Oh shit, is this serious? People were banging on about this yesterday and i thought it was a piss-take. So hard to tell nowadays.
... I mean, just read the last five of six pages. Look at it!

The Arcturian ambassador to the Skeptical Movement. Caine and her rat skulls. The return of Ogvorbis. A piece written in opposition to raising awareness of prostate cancer where no-one could tell if the piece or the writer's bio were real or a put-on.
This is a genuine, free-range fucking loony-bin we're dealing with here. I'm not sure we're not all guilty of fucking with the mentally ill.
Peez should just have done with it and put on a fucking top hat and a red coat and stand in the middle of this fucking circus beaming away at what he's gathered around himself.
Then there's #honeygate, sparked recently (yesterday?) by Dawkins tweeting that bin Laden had won because Dawkins couldn't take honey through airport security. Quite a few people are accusing him of privilege, etc. But, good news, the anti-Dawkins SJW crowd (tweet below, I'm just assuming she's SJkW, couldn't be arsed to check) is diluted by more general hubub (cf the tweets in the Independent link below), plus a bunch of people tweeted puns (how security's action must have stung, etc), which lightened things up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv- ... 20364.html

Locked