Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[John D]

I remember "The Star", Clarke's short fiction is often very good. Heinlein is someone I read for the same reason as I read Van Vogt: A sort of masochistic awe at how fucking terrible he is.

Asimov, I find okay in the best of his writing, but the best is a tiny part of his vast output, 99% of which is shite. The man's arrogant smugness beams out of his work. For an example of why I dislike Asimov try this review of "1984". If an 18 year old submitted this to me as an Eng Lit assignment, I'd slap him. The extent of Asimov's ignorance and stupidity is dizzying.

I agree about Heinlein, and actually I think your Asimov sentiment applies to Heinlein a lot more. I kind of like Slan and The Silkie, even as pulpy and trashy as they are.

1984 kind of sucks... no... it really sucks.

[Jan Steen]

Hyperbolic hyperbole by one of the most demented Huggers.

10 February 2014 at 8:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Ogvorbis
You’re not a monster, and I love you. This lil community is ripe with some of the most fantastic people on planet earth, and you stand out amongst them. With everything.

I'd put it slightly differently:

This little community is rife with some of the most toxic, self-righteous, hypocritical, dishonest individuals the world has ever seen, and Oggie stands out amongst them, in a negative way.

But forget Oggie for the moment. Consider this recent post on the Pharyngulag:

Gregory Greenwood

10 February 2014 at 3:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Chas @ 112;

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.

I put it to you that this is not actually the neutral statement you think it to be; in a society whose patrirachal power structures are such that there is a clear standing presumption that women compulsively lie with regard to allegations of rape and sexual assault, stating that you don’t believe anyone about anything, and that there is no way to know for sure in any case because it all happened so long ago, effectively functions to support rapists and rape apologists since this is not a level playing field we are discussing here – the existing social power dynamics already favour them over their victims.

Privileging the appearance of ‘pure’ skeptical thought over addressing a toxic state of affairs with regard to socity’s attitude toward women and toward rape is not some rarefied intellectual high ground. At best it is expressing callous apathy about the suffering of rape victims, both in respect of the physical attack itself and the subsequent trauma of trying to live in a society that blames the victim for their rape and reflexively treats them as if they lie with their every breath, and at worst amounts to throwing one’s lot in with the rape culture on the basis that the standard you walk past is the standard you support.

Ask yourself Chas, what is more important to you? Trying to support rape victims and thus doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or polishing your own halo of an impracticably high standard of impeccable skepticism about everything, and damn the conseqences?

Has it occurred to you that an issue like this may be bigger than you and whether or not you get that warm glow from believeing yourself to be right?

This entire litany boils down to the question-begging platitude: Always Believe The Victim.

This is obviously question-begging, because if we knew that the victim actually was a victim then we would indeed believe the victim. But we don't always know that, evidently. What Gregory and his ilk really are proposing is this:

Always Believe The Accuser.

This doesn't sound nearly as nice, does it? After all, this was the principle employed by the Stalinist tribunals that sent millions of innocent people to their doom in the Gulag, if they weren't executed within hours after sentencing. Being accused meant being guilty.

This is what such nice, emphatic human beings as Gregory Greenwood are advancing. A society in which you cannot defend yourself against false (or simply mistaken) accusations, unless you are lucky enough to have a solid alibi. But even then... Do you honestly think that in such a society the thugs who pass judgement would give a toss about alibies and evidence? In Gregory Greenwood's ideal world the judges will be thugs, as in Stalin's courts, because people who knowingly and routinely convict innocent people are thugs.

And do you think that in his world rape would remain the only crime were you are guilty because you have been accused? Think again.

Well, Gregory, your beloved PZ Myers and Lousy Canuck have both been accused of rape. Why don't you speak up about it? What, you don't believe these accusations?

Why not?

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Rape is, sadly, often difficult to prove. And yet, in a civilized society the solution cannot be (1) to lower the standards of evidence, and (2) to broaden the definition of rape. If you don't think that (1) & (2) would lead to an increase in the number of innocently convicted defendants as well as the number of false accusations, then you must be deluded. And if you don't care, then you are a rapist yourself. A rapist of Justice.

[AndrewV69]

<snip>

Maybe there's something about reading and preferring short fiction that makes me feel a bit jaded towards the myth-building of fantasy novels. You couldn't pay me enough to read that Silmarillion shit. For a long time, I preferred The Hobbit over LotR because of how it was so compact and yet held the elements of a much larger, untold story.

<snippety>

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4629560320/h79855EC1/

Oh fuck :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

UNCLE ... I said UNCLE ... stopt already UNCLE! UNCLE!! UNCLE!!!!

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/po ... orse_3.jpg

HALP!!! I yam being opressed!!!

[Brive1987]

And Saruman turns out to be killable. A bloody Balrog can't take out Gandalf, but his fellow Istari can be offed by a disgruntled former employee with a knife?

Aside from the rest of your clear and obvious misunderstanding, or actually lack of comprehension of what the stories are all about, Saruman had been dewizarded, so to speak, by Gandalf, and had lost all of his magical powers; he was, in effect, rendered human by Gandalf, who, through death and ressurection, had become the chief of the wizards.

Oh right, "dewizarded", that makes sense. It's also good that you've kept your sense of humour about it. What next, are going to puke all over the counter?

***Quotes messed-up***


Here is a (reasonably) informed discussion of the matter.
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/archive/ ... 14838.html


tldr - Saruman began loosing his mojo when he adopted "Saruman of Many Colours" but was formally defrocked by the Valar's (Eru?) new and improved ambassador Gandalf at Orthanc through the symbolic destruction of his staff.

... or was he?

[Pogsurf]

Renee actually did some research. Looks like they were caught in a massive Wordpress attack.

Did Renee post about it? I am curious as to what she found.

Tis here:

http://skeptischism.com/blog/2014/02/10 ... skeptical/

She points to a page with a lovely real-time graphic of attacks on Wordpress sites here:

http://www.wordfence.com/

One more click, and there's the proof that Peezus is a lying scumbag:

http://www.wordfence.com/blog/2014/02/l ... -underway/

:dance:

[Old_ones]

real horrowshow said:

And Saruman turns out to be killable. A bloody Balrog can't take out Gandalf, but his fellow Istari can be offed by a disgruntled former employee with a knife?

Aside from the rest of your clear and obvious misunderstanding, or actually lack of comprehension of what the stories are all about, Saruman had been dewizarded, so to speak, by Gandalf, and had lost all of his magical powers; he was, in effect, rendered human by Gandalf, who, through death and ressurection, had become the chief of the wizards.

Oh right, "dewizarded", that makes sense. It's also good that you've kept your sense of humour about it. What next, are going to puke all over the counter?

It actually does if you read the Silmarillion. The Istari are representatives of a group of beings from the Valinor loosely comparable to angels or demigods, the Maiar. The Istari were selected and sent to middle earth by members of the Valar (an order above the Maiar - more like true gods or archangels) for the express purpose of protecting middle earth from the return of a dark lord. It isn't explicitly stated, but its easy to imagine the Valar revoking Saruman's power and making him mortal, when he abandons his mission and betrays them. The loss of Saruman's power isn't sudden though, it is implied that it is gradually occurring throughout LOTR. The first reference I remember occurs when Gandalf is detained by Saruman in Fellowship; he notices that Saruman's robes are discoloring. That is significant because the colors of the Istari are related to their power and sphere of influence. When Gandalf becomes "the white" its been implied that Saruman has been replaced completely, and after the fall of Isengard its stated that Saruman has lost all power, save for the ability to manipulate people with his voice.

tl;dr Saruman has supervisors more powerful than him, and he probably pissed them off by breeding an orc army and attacking people with it.

[real horrorshow]

1984 kind of sucks... no... it really sucks.

Yes, it's a political tract not a great read. But criticism like this...

The great Orwellian contribution to future technology is that the
television set is two-way, and that the people who are forced to hear and
see the television screen can themselves be heard and seen at all times and
are under constant supervision even while sleeping or in the bathroom.
Hence, the meaning of the phrase 'Big Brother is watching you'.
This is an extraordinarily inefficient system of keeping everyone under
control. To have a person being watched at all times means that some other
person must be doing the watching at all times (at least in the Orwellian
society) and must be doing so very narrowly, for there is a great
development of the art of interpreting gesture and facial expression.
One person cannot watch more than one person in full concentration, and
can only do so for a comparatively short time before attention begins to
wander. I should guess, in short, that there may have to be five watchers
for every person watched. And then, of course, the watchers must themselves
be watched since no one in the Orwellian world is suspicion-free.
Consequently, the system of oppression by two-way television simply will not
work...

Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have
placed everyone under non-human surveillance.

...is just embarrassing. Firstly, the point of telescreens is not that everyone is watched all the time, but that everyone can be watched at any time. Many tyrannies without even TV technology have made this work all too well. Secondly, Asimov's 'solution' of using computers to do it is even more stupid than what he believes Orwell is proposing. How much processing power and data storage would you need to watch everyone all the time, analysing their every expression and tone of voice? And Orwell was supposed to predict the software to make this possible in 1948? That software didn't exist when Asimov wrote the review, it doesn't exist now!

Furthermore, he has a system of volunteer spies in which children report
on their parents, and neighbours on each other. This cannot possibly work
well since eventually everyone reports everyone else and it all has to be
abandoned.

What? In Stalinist Russia, at one point, it is is estimated that 10% of the population had been denounced as 'Enemies of the People', and since being related to an Enemy of the People made you an Enemy of the People too, it seemed (as Martin Amis put it) "that all the People were Enemies of the People". Denunciation is only a problem if you give a shit about the accusations being true. If your goal is simply to keep everyone in fear, then the more denunciations the better!

Orwell lacks the capacity to see (or invent) small changes. His hero
finds it difficult in his world of 1984 to get shoelaces or razor blades. So
would I in the real world of the 1980s, for so many people use slip-on shoes
and electric razors.

I didn't know that the world gave up using shoelaces and razor blades in 1980. I do know that Orwell explains very clearly that the perpetual shortages of goods are a deliberate policy of The Party. People who are perpetually scrabbling after every little necessity have less time for rebellion. I know this because I read the fucking book Isaac!

[free thoughtpolice]

Jan Steen wrote:

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Maybe you wrote that because you're the type of person that isn't doing their part to dismantle rape culture and you have a guilty conscience? :whistle:

[real horrorshow]

if you read the Silmarillion...

No.

[Jan Steen]

I detest the Lord of the Rings, the films as well as the book. I think it's pulp.

There. Now hate me.

I also wish I knew even one really great science fiction novel. I would love to read one. I can't think of any. The writing is mostly abysmal (compared with the writing of Flaubert, Chekhov, Kafka, Joyce, Borges, Gombrowicz, Nabokov, etc.), it's rarely passable, but then still not great (Lem, Banks).

On the positive side, not having to read fist-thick Fantasy and SF novels saves me a lot of time.

Full disclosure. I'm also not a gamer in any way (last computer game I played was, I think, Wolfenstein 3D :lol:).

Horrible, isn't it?

[real horrorshow]

Gregory Greenwood

Ask yourself Chas, what is more important to you? Trying to support rape victims and thus doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or polishing your own halo of an impracticably high standard of impeccable skepticism about everything, and damn the conseqences??

Ask yourself Gregory, when I show up on your doorstep with a mob and rope, what is more important to you? Doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or not being fucking murdered?

[JacquesCuze]

Renee actually did some research. Looks like they were caught in a massive Wordpress attack.

Did Renee post about it? I am curious as to what she found.

Tis here:

http://skeptischism.com/blog/2014/02/10 ... skeptical/

She points to a page with a lovely real-time graphic of attacks on Wordpress sites here:

http://www.wordfence.com/

One more click, and there's the proof that Peezus is a lying scumbag:

http://www.wordfence.com/blog/2014/02/l ... -underway/

:dance:

I saw that too, but that wordfence article is from today and FTB had been experiencing problems for at least 48 hours.

[John D]

I detest the Lord of the Rings, the films as well as the book. I think it's pulp.

There. Now hate me.

I also wish I knew even one really great science fiction novel. I would love to read one. I can't think of any. The writing is mostly abysmal (compared with the writing of Flaubert, Chekhov, Kafka, Joyce, Borges, Gombrowicz, Nabokov, etc.), it's rarely passable, but then still not great (Lem, Banks).

On the positive side, not having to read fist-thick Fantasy and SF novels saves me a lot of time.

Full disclosure. I'm also not a gamer in any way (last computer game I played was, I think, Wolfenstein 3D :lol:).

Horrible, isn't it?

Damn! A Slymepit book club would be amazing. We would all read the book... hate it our love it in our own special way... and then fight with each other for a week after finishing the reading. Shit.... this sounds really fun!

[Jan Steen]

Jan Steen wrote:

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Maybe you wrote that because you're the type of person that isn't doing their part to dismantle rape culture and you have a guilty conscience? :whistle:

*Drying my rage tears*

On the contrary, I am fighting a more insidious kind of rape culture: the rape of Justice.

I think more and more that 'Social Justice Warrior' actually means being a warrior against Social Justice. If these morons got their way then everybody would be worse off, except the human garbage that always rises to power in dictatorships, left wing or right wing.

[H. Korban]

It took me a month to catch up on reading all the crazy antics of the Baboon Collective and, just as I was on page 80 or so, the leader of my former community (Dawoodi Bohras) kicked the bucket at the ripe old age of 100. The guy has left a massive mess, with a real-life religious schism in the progress, with two contenders for his position. You can think of it is as the Battle of Two Popes. Or, a winner-takes-all between Gandalf and Saruman, to use a metaphor in rage here. Enormous amounts of money is at stake (billions of dollars) and there have been riot like situations in India. Even in the US, people have been forcibly made to swear allegiance to the leading contender, while the anti-Pope, so to speak, has launched an online propaganda machine to win over followers. Makes the "skeptic schism" seem like a kindergarten fight. I have been doing my best to annoy both sides. Religious trolling, so to speak.

Back to the usually scheduled madness.

[Skep tickle]

[H. Korban]

I think the whole "Scouring of the Shire" episode was stupid. Tolkien could have ended the book a few hundred pages earlier, without loosing anything of value. However, the worst part LoTR was the episode with Tom Bombadil. I mean, what the hell was Tolkien smoking? The love of the hobbit's weed seems to have befuddled his mind. The fate of Saruman also appears absurd, specially the ridiculous idea of him living in Bag End.

Overall, though, I am a huge Tolkien fan. I have read all he (or his son) has published, and the details he has dreamed up are really amazing. He was probably thinking about this 24/7 for years to come up with such a rich myth.

I actually liked The Hobbit movies. It did not take any enjoyment away from the book. Jackson was working from a story that has a lot of background to it, and had to do something to fill those details in. Of course, the whole "She-Elf"-Dwarf love affair is ridiculous, so is the last scene with Smaug. About his conception of Radagast, less said the better.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but here is Saruman's diary, really worth reading:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/saruman.htm

[Brive1987]

I detest the Lord of the Rings, the films as well as the book. I think it's pulp.

There. Now hate me.

I also wish I knew even one really great science fiction novel. I would love to read one. I can't think of any. The writing is mostly abysmal (compared with the writing of Flaubert, Chekhov, Kafka, Joyce, Borges, Gombrowicz, Nabokov, etc.), it's rarely passable, but then still not great (Lem, Banks).

On the positive side, not having to read fist-thick Fantasy and SF novels saves me a lot of time.

Full disclosure. I'm also not a gamer in any way (last computer game I played was, I think, Wolfenstein 3D :lol:).

Horrible, isn't it?

The Dutch were never known for imaginative passion, well fingered dykes not withstanding.

;)

[real horrorshow]

I detest the Lord of the Rings, the films as well as the book. I think it's pulp.

There. Now hate me.

I also wish I knew even one really great science fiction novel. I would love to read one. I can't think of any. The writing is mostly abysmal (compared with the writing of Flaubert, Chekhov, Kafka, Joyce, Borges, Gombrowicz, Nabokov, etc.), it's rarely passable, but then still not great (Lem, Banks).

On the positive side, not having to read fist-thick Fantasy and SF novels saves me a lot of time.

Full disclosure. I'm also not a gamer in any way (last computer game I played was, I think, Wolfenstein 3D :lol:).

Horrible, isn't it?

The Culture Police will be over directly. Seriously though, SF by someone who can really write well? Fan that I am I concede that's a tricky one. A lot of SF, even books that have been very influential are more renowned for their ideas than the quality of the prose. However, one of my favourite authors rides to the rescue: Ursula K. LeGuin. Everything of hers that I've read (which is most of what she's written) has been good. I'd especially recommend The Left Hand of Darkness. I was going to post a link to the Cesspit of Lies, but spoilers. Suffice to say the opening paragraph of the entry reads:

The Left Hand of Darkness is a 1969 science fiction novel by Ursula K. Le Guin. It is part of the Hainish Cycle, a series of books by Le Guin set in the fictional Hainish universe, which she inaugurated in 1966.[2] It is among the first books published in the feminist science fiction* genre, and the most famous examination of sexless androgyny in science fiction.[3]

Left Hand won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards as the year's "best novel" according to convention participants and science fiction writers respectively.[4] In 1987, Locus: The magazine of the science fiction & fantasy field ranked it number two among "All-Time Best SF Novels", based on a poll of subscribers.[5][a] That same year, Harold Bloom edited a critical anthology about the book and said in the introduction that "Le Guin, more than Tolkien, has raised fantasy into high literature, for our time"*.[6]

*Emphasis mine. I think that'll piss off just about everybody.

[Really?]

Every time I see some fuckwit posing in front of their carefully chosen "library" I feel the need to toe them very hard in the spuds.

I don't trust neat libraries. They reek of people who never read what is within. My bookshelves are a fucking mess and the books look like they've been beaten half to death from all the reading.

The book are so shiny and new (and unused looking) that it looks like he took the picture in a book store.

Agreed. Maybe he puts on white gloves before reading the book and has a special cushioned book holder podium into which he can place each volume. And he turns each page with a pair of tweezers.

Real question: Can you be a neckbeard if you don't have a chin?

[real horrorshow]

*Drying my rage tears*

On the contrary, I am fighting a more insidious kind of rape culture: the rape of Justice.

I think more and more that 'Social Justice Warrior' actually means being a warrior against Social Justice. If these morons got their way then everybody would be worse off, except the human garbage that always rises to power in dictatorships, left wing or right wing.

In which circumstance, the SJWs would themselves be first against the wall.

Now I think of it that way... No vade retro Satanus!

[Pogsurf]

PZ times it as starting at 19:45 on 9th Feb (but I don't know which timezone). Wordfence says the largest brute force attack they had ever seen started at 11:00 on 10th Feb EST. PZ's attack seems to be about 15 hours before the main surge.

[Brive1987]

Of course, the whole "She-Elf"-Dwarf love affair is ridiculous, so is the last scene with Smaug.

What about the other 5 mins of screen scream time?

[James Caruthers]

I think the whole "Scouring of the Shire" episode was stupid. Tolkien could have ended the book a few hundred pages earlier, without loosing anything of value. However, the worst part LoTR was the episode with Tom Bombadil. I mean, what the hell was Tolkien smoking? The love of the hobbit's weed seems to have befuddled his mind. The fate of Saruman also appears absurd, specially the ridiculous idea of him living in Bag End.

It's like my writing teachers always said: the part of your story you love the most is the part you have to cut. His love for Tom is clear, not least because he had a whole fucking series of poems and songs devoted to Tom which far predate LotR. :roll:

Tom doesn't make any damn sense, Tolkien made a point of deliberately not explaining him, and despite being probably the most powerful being on the planet next to Sauron, he does jack shit for most of the story. Because he's a homebody. :doh:

The tone of the Tom sequences is also pretty fluffy for the LotR story. It would fit a bit better in the Hobbit, and Beorn would fit a bit better in LotR. Oh well. Some people love that bumbling, singing, poetry-reading, tree-speaking prick. :lol:

[James Caruthers]

"Le Guin, more than Tolkien, has raised fantasy into high literature, for our time"*.[6]

*Emphasis mine. I think that'll piss off just about everybody.[/quote]
I have so much PTSD right now. I'm literally shaking as I type this.

[real horrorshow]

Real question: Can you be a neckbeard if you don't have a chin?

It's almost essential, in that you need either multiple chins or none. Only the possession of a single, well-defined chin (like the one concealed under my beard these many years) makes a neckbeard impossible. That and a beard trimmer.

[KiwiInOz]

Winter is sexist, dontcha know?

Baby it's cold outside.

[JacquesCuze]

PZ times it as starting at 19:45 on 9th Feb (but I don't know which timezone). Wordfence says the largest brute force attack they had ever seen started at 11:00 on 10th Feb EST. PZ's attack seems to be about 15 hours before the main surge.

I noticed problems that had me getting cloudflare pages instead of ftb as early as Saturday evening (the 8th and mountain time zone) but that could have been bad sysadminning. That though would place the problems I saw 24 hours ahead of PZ's time for the ddos. The problems I saw seemed to have resolved by Sunday morning (the 9th). So if PZ says it was 19:45 Sunday evening, sounds reasonable to say it was a different issue.

[Jan Steen]

I detest the Lord of the Rings, the films as well as the book. I think it's pulp.

There. Now hate me.

I also wish I knew even one really great science fiction novel. I would love to read one. I can't think of any. The writing is mostly abysmal (compared with the writing of Flaubert, Chekhov, Kafka, Joyce, Borges, Gombrowicz, Nabokov, etc.), it's rarely passable, but then still not great (Lem, Banks).

On the positive side, not having to read fist-thick Fantasy and SF novels saves me a lot of time.

Full disclosure. I'm also not a gamer in any way (last computer game I played was, I think, Wolfenstein 3D :lol:).

Horrible, isn't it?

The Dutch were never known for imaginative passion, well fingered dykes not withstanding.

;)

Funny enough, the story about the fingered dyke was written by an American author. It's not even well-known in the Netherlands. :D

It is true that the Dutch haven't produced all that many great writers during the last few centuries, but I would recommend Willem Frederik Hermans. He wrote his best work in the 1950s and 60s, mocked religion and dishonest social justice types alike and had no patience for bullshit of any kind. Hermans also had a great sense of humour. He would have fitted right in the 'Pit. It's too bad that his numerous essays are only available in Dutch, but some of his novels have been translated into English. Had he written in English or French he would probably be world famous.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Does anyone have that "Good Morning, Son" image that was given to TheMudbrooker for his profile image once? I think Parsehole made it, which probably means it was actually Grif...Gof...Gliftin?

Without the text would be preferable, but with would also work.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Aside from the rest of your clear and obvious misunderstanding, or actually lack of comprehension of what the stories are all about, Saruman had been dewizarded, so to speak, by Gandalf, and had lost all of his magical powers; he was, in effect, rendered human by Gandalf, who, through death and ressurection, had become the chief of the wizards.

Oh right, "dewizarded", that makes sense. It's also good that you've kept your sense of humour about it. What next, are going to puke all over the counter?

It actually does if you read the Silmarillion. *snip*

TAKE IT TO THE 'DOME. :hand: :naughty: :snooty:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Does anyone have that "Good Morning, Son" image that was given to TheMudbrooker for his profile image once? I think Parsehole made it, which probably means it was actually Grif...Gof...Gliftin?

Without the text would be preferable, but with would also work.

Shamelessly reposting because it was at the bottom of the last page.

[Suet Cardigan]

Does anyone have that "Good Morning, Son" image that was given to TheMudbrooker for his profile image once? I think Parsehole made it, which probably means it was actually Grif...Gof...Gliftin?

Without the text would be preferable, but with would also work.

Shamelessly reposting because it was at the bottom of the last page.

http://v8.en.memegenerator.net/instance ... an=AllTime

[Old_ones]

To me Radagast and his bunny sleigh are emblematic of what went wrong with the Hobbit movies. The LOTR movies had some flourishes that seemed a bit ridiculous but the Hobbit movies are mostly self indulgent masturbation. I felt like I was rolling my eyes so much in those movies that I missed more than half of them.

[Sulaco]

Hyperbolic hyperbole by one of the most demented Huggers.

10 February 2014 at 8:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Ogvorbis
You’re not a monster, and I love you. This lil community is ripe with some of the most fantastic people on planet earth, and you stand out amongst them. With everything.

I'd put it slightly differently:

This little community is rife with some of the most toxic, self-righteous, hypocritical, dishonest individuals the world has ever seen, and Oggie stands out amongst them, in a negative way.

But forget Oggie for the moment. Consider this recent post on the Pharyngulag:

Gregory Greenwood

10 February 2014 at 3:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Chas @ 112;

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.

I put it to you that this is not actually the neutral statement you think it to be; in a society whose patrirachal power structures are such that there is a clear standing presumption that women compulsively lie with regard to allegations of rape and sexual assault, stating that you don’t believe anyone about anything, and that there is no way to know for sure in any case because it all happened so long ago, effectively functions to support rapists and rape apologists since this is not a level playing field we are discussing here – the existing social power dynamics already favour them over their victims.

Privileging the appearance of ‘pure’ skeptical thought over addressing a toxic state of affairs with regard to socity’s attitude toward women and toward rape is not some rarefied intellectual high ground. At best it is expressing callous apathy about the suffering of rape victims, both in respect of the physical attack itself and the subsequent trauma of trying to live in a society that blames the victim for their rape and reflexively treats them as if they lie with their every breath, and at worst amounts to throwing one’s lot in with the rape culture on the basis that the standard you walk past is the standard you support.

Ask yourself Chas, what is more important to you? Trying to support rape victims and thus doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or polishing your own halo of an impracticably high standard of impeccable skepticism about everything, and damn the conseqences?

Has it occurred to you that an issue like this may be bigger than you and whether or not you get that warm glow from believeing yourself to be right?

This entire litany boils down to the question-begging platitude: Always Believe The Victim.

This is obviously question-begging, because if we knew that the victim actually was a victim then we would indeed believe the victim. But we don't always know that, evidently. What Gregory and his ilk really are proposing is this:

Always Believe The Accuser.

This doesn't sound nearly as nice, does it? After all, this was the principle employed by the Stalinist tribunals that sent millions of innocent people to their doom in the Gulag, if they weren't executed within hours after sentencing. Being accused meant being guilty.

This is what such nice, emphatic human beings as Gregory Greenwood are advancing. A society in which you cannot defend yourself against false (or simply mistaken) accusations, unless you are lucky enough to have a solid alibi. But even then... Do you honestly think that in such a society the thugs who pass judgement would give a toss about alibies and evidence? In Gregory Greenwood's ideal world the judges will be thugs, as in Stalin's courts, because people who knowingly and routinely convict innocent people are thugs.

And do you think that in his world rape would remain the only crime were you are guilty because you have been accused? Think again.

Well, Gregory, your beloved PZ Myers and Lousy Canuck have both been accused of rape. Why don't you speak up about it? What, you don't believe these accusations?

Why not?

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Rape is, sadly, often difficult to prove. And yet, in a civilized society the solution cannot be (1) to lower the standards of evidence, and (2) to broaden the definition of rape. If you don't think that (1) & (2) would lead to an increase in the number of innocently convicted defendants as well as the number of false accusations, then you must be deluded. And if you don't care, then you are a rapist yourself. A rapist of Justice.

Good thing to know that Greg is favor of burning all those women who were witches. A model feminist if there ever was one. Torch them chill girls!

[Brive1987]

I think the whole "Scouring of the Shire" episode was stupid. Tolkien could have ended the book a few hundred pages earlier, without loosing anything of value. However, the worst part LoTR was the episode with Tom Bombadil. I mean, what the hell was Tolkien smoking? The love of the hobbit's weed seems to have befuddled his mind. The fate of Saruman also appears absurd, specially the ridiculous idea of him living in Bag End.

It's like my writing teachers always said: the part of your story you love the most is the part you have to cut. His love for Tom is clear, not least because he had a whole fucking series of poems and songs devoted to Tom which far predate LotR. :roll:

Tom doesn't make any damn sense, Tolkien made a point of deliberately not explaining him, and despite being probably the most powerful being on the planet next to Sauron, he does jack shit for most of the story. Because he's a homebody. :doh:

The tone of the Tom sequences is also pretty fluffy for the LotR story. It would fit a bit better in the Hobbit, and Beorn would fit a bit better in LotR. Oh well. Some people love that bumbling, singing, poetry-reading, tree-speaking prick. :lol:

I am more a Goldberry fan myself.

http://i.imgur.com/B5NiDeQ.jpg

Seriously though, I suspect Tom's purpose (such as it is) was to show they had left the shire for the wild and wonderful and introduce the whole pro nature, anti Sandyman, Saruman side. I prefer to think he adopted a guise "acceptable" for Hobbits, but was something far grander.

[dogen]

Thought I'd chime in with some thoughts on good/bad scifi, and also a gaming question.

First, is anyone here a fan of Cordwainer Smith? I've read all of his Instrumentality of Mankind books, and I find them simply without parallel. Same with John Brunner and his Shockwave Rider/Zanzibar/Sheep arc (Jagged Orbit was weaker). Why isn't stuff like this written anymore?

Second, I've always been intrigued by Philip Jose Farmer as an author. His ideas are fantastic, but his abilities as writer are quite dreadful. But somehow I keep going back, which goes to show that you don't necessarily need to be a good writer to tell a good tale.

Finally, anyone here played the Banner Saga? Thumbs up or down? I was recommended it over the weekend whilst camping on a lake. It sounded good at the time, but I was wasted on rye and so my judgement may have been impaired.

[dogen]

Butterface and Squeals has a post up with the following intro:

Huh. I kind of vaguely though that “the atheist community” would be horrified by the DDOS attack on Saturday. Huh. I haven’t seen much of that. (But maybe I’ve missed it. That could be. I don’t see all the things.) I have seen some of the other thing – like for instance accusing us of blaming our “fellow atheists.”

Huh. No we haven’t. Not one person said “it was our fellow atheists who did this!”

Meanwhile, Name's Jason Thibeault has a long, poorly written, technically illiterate post explaining why it was probably the 'Pit or AVfM who did it.

:bjarte:

[Guestus Aurelius]

Hyperbolic hyperbole by one of the most demented Huggers.

10 February 2014 at 8:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Ogvorbis
You’re not a monster, and I love you. This lil community is ripe with some of the most fantastic people on planet earth, and you stand out amongst them. With everything.

I'd put it slightly differently:

This little community is rife with some of the most toxic, self-righteous, hypocritical, dishonest individuals the world has ever seen, and Oggie stands out amongst them, in a negative way.

But forget Oggie for the moment. Consider this recent post on the Pharyngulag:

Gregory Greenwood

10 February 2014 at 3:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Chas @ 112;

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.

I put it to you that this is not actually the neutral statement you think it to be; in a society whose patrirachal power structures are such that there is a clear standing presumption that women compulsively lie with regard to allegations of rape and sexual assault, stating that you don’t believe anyone about anything, and that there is no way to know for sure in any case because it all happened so long ago, effectively functions to support rapists and rape apologists since this is not a level playing field we are discussing here – the existing social power dynamics already favour them over their victims.

Privileging the appearance of ‘pure’ skeptical thought over addressing a toxic state of affairs with regard to socity’s attitude toward women and toward rape is not some rarefied intellectual high ground. At best it is expressing callous apathy about the suffering of rape victims, both in respect of the physical attack itself and the subsequent trauma of trying to live in a society that blames the victim for their rape and reflexively treats them as if they lie with their every breath, and at worst amounts to throwing one’s lot in with the rape culture on the basis that the standard you walk past is the standard you support.

Ask yourself Chas, what is more important to you? Trying to support rape victims and thus doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or polishing your own halo of an impracticably high standard of impeccable skepticism about everything, and damn the conseqences?

Has it occurred to you that an issue like this may be bigger than you and whether or not you get that warm glow from believeing yourself to be right?

This entire litany boils down to the question-begging platitude: Always Believe The Victim.

This is obviously question-begging, because if we knew that the victim actually was a victim then we would indeed believe the victim. But we don't always know that, evidently. What Gregory and his ilk really are proposing is this:

Always Believe The Accuser.

This doesn't sound nearly as nice, does it? After all, this was the principle employed by the Stalinist tribunals that sent millions of innocent people to their doom in the Gulag, if they weren't executed within hours after sentencing. Being accused meant being guilty.

This is what such nice, emphatic human beings as Gregory Greenwood are advancing. A society in which you cannot defend yourself against false (or simply mistaken) accusations, unless you are lucky enough to have a solid alibi. But even then... Do you honestly think that in such a society the thugs who pass judgement would give a toss about alibies and evidence? In Gregory Greenwood's ideal world the judges will be thugs, as in Stalin's courts, because people who knowingly and routinely convict innocent people are thugs.

And do you think that in his world rape would remain the only crime were you are guilty because you have been accused? Think again.

Well, Gregory, your beloved PZ Myers and Lousy Canuck have both been accused of rape. Why don't you speak up about it? What, you don't believe these accusations?

Why not?

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Rape is, sadly, often difficult to prove. And yet, in a civilized society the solution cannot be (1) to lower the standards of evidence, and (2) to broaden the definition of rape. If you don't think that (1) & (2) would lead to an increase in the number of innocently convicted defendants as well as the number of false accusations, then you must be deluded. And if you don't care, then you are a rapist yourself. A rapist of Justice.

I just want to say that I don't think you're overstating things at all here. These people are scum, and the comparison to Stalinist tribunals is no exaggeration. Yes, we have good laughs over these idiots, but PZ Myers and his band of priggish asshats are truly some of the most contemptible motherfuckers I've ever had the pleasure of not knowing.

[JacquesCuze]

Butterface and Squeals has a post up with the following intro:

Huh. I kind of vaguely though that “the atheist community” would be horrified by the DDOS attack on Saturday. Huh. I haven’t seen much of that. (But maybe I’ve missed it. That could be. I don’t see all the things.) I have seen some of the other thing – like for instance accusing us of blaming our “fellow atheists.”

Huh. No we haven’t. Not one person said “it was our fellow atheists who did this!”

Meanwhile, Name's Jason Thibeault has a long, poorly written, technically illiterate post explaining why it was probably the 'Pit or AVfM who did it.

:bjarte:

Complete with a rape joke!

http://i.imgur.com/6Ry2bCS.jpg

Thimbledick is comparing a DDOS to rape!

:o

[JacquesCuze]

Butterface and Squeals has a post up with the following intro:

Huh. I kind of vaguely though that “the atheist community” would be horrified by the DDOS attack on Saturday. Huh. I haven’t seen much of that. (But maybe I’ve missed it. That could be. I don’t see all the things.) I have seen some of the other thing – like for instance accusing us of blaming our “fellow atheists.”

Huh. No we haven’t. Not one person said “it was our fellow atheists who did this!”

Meanwhile, Name's Jason Thibeault has a long, poorly written, technically illiterate post explaining why it was probably the 'Pit or AVfM who did it.

:bjarte:

Thimbledick does confirm what I said, the problem began Saturday evening, not Sunday evening after PeeZus got home from prayers. So that possibly places it outside the wordfence problem which seemingly didn't begin until this morning.

[dogen]

Butterface and Squeals has a post up with the following intro:

Huh. I kind of vaguely though that “the atheist community” would be horrified by the DDOS attack on Saturday. Huh. I haven’t seen much of that. (But maybe I’ve missed it. That could be. I don’t see all the things.) I have seen some of the other thing – like for instance accusing us of blaming our “fellow atheists.”

Huh. No we haven’t. Not one person said “it was our fellow atheists who did this!”

Meanwhile, Name's Jason Thibeault has a long, poorly written, technically illiterate post explaining why it was probably the 'Pit or AVfM who did it.

:bjarte:

Complete with a rape joke!

http://i.imgur.com/6Ry2bCS.jpg

Thimbledick is comparing a DDOS to rape!

:o

Just imagine if TCP/IP had been written by the SJW's. The networks would be gridlocked with ETC (EnThusiastic Consent) and HGS (HuGS) packets, and two-way handshakes would be outlawed as unwelcome touching and discriminatory against otherly-handed computers.

[dogen]

Butterface and Squeals has a post up with the following intro:

Huh. I kind of vaguely though that “the atheist community” would be horrified by the DDOS attack on Saturday. Huh. I haven’t seen much of that. (But maybe I’ve missed it. That could be. I don’t see all the things.) I have seen some of the other thing – like for instance accusing us of blaming our “fellow atheists.”

Huh. No we haven’t. Not one person said “it was our fellow atheists who did this!”

Meanwhile, Name's Jason Thibeault has a long, poorly written, technically illiterate post explaining why it was probably the 'Pit or AVfM who did it.

:bjarte:

Complete with a rape joke!

http://i.imgur.com/6Ry2bCS.jpg

Thimbledick is comparing a DDOS to rape!

:o

I particularly enjoyed the section he refers to as some gearheaded stuff, containing this gem:

We learned that Apache, the web server program serving all these page requests, was not actually receiving any spurious requests when the site was under attack, correlating the belief that the attack was “dumb” — not intended to hack us, or cause a denial of service by causing too much CPU load.

I'm glad experts like him are on hand to give such a detailed techincal break-down of a SYN flood attack.

[JacquesCuze]

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

My guess is with tweets, videos and fundraisers describing her evil MRA arch-nemesis.

[Aneris]

Jan Steen wrote:

Because you are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of shit, that's why. People like you, Gregory Greenwood, are the indispensable helpers of the vilest dictators. They would never rise to power without the support of brain dead ideologues like you, who think they can do right by doing wrong.

Maybe you wrote that because you're the type of person that isn't doing their part to dismantle rape culture and you have a guilty conscience? :whistle:

*Drying my rage tears*

On the contrary, I am fighting a more insidious kind of rape culture: the rape of Justice.

I think more and more that 'Social Justice Warrior' actually means being a warrior against Social Justice. If these morons got their way then everybody would be worse off, except the human garbage that always rises to power in dictatorships, left wing or right wing.

Troubles me as well. I cannot yet quite find the right word for their ideology. They certainly are authoriarians and also sort of crypto-fascists, but then not really. If you look through the list, it does not match, and yet there is some eerie similarity. As a check, take any other view and run it in the same way and I don't find that effect.

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

• "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism.
• "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
• "Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
• "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
• "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
• "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
• "Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
• "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
• "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
• "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

On the face of it, for example, they aren't elitist, but when you look closer, they are. Their elites are just made by other criteria. Likewise, while they claim to promote diversity, they do the exact opposite — comment sections are typically performances of solidarity to common ideals and leaders. Disagreement is not tolerated. Let's not forget those instances which very well would allow for diverse of opinions (reasonable ones, like suspend judgement as Dalton stated), but in matters of ideology there is no room for it for them — even when their views are in fact counter to mainstream views. Rape-culture mainstream is anyway suspect, thus we get the elitist circle, akin to a „Schicksalsgemeinschaft“, Nazi jargon for people who feel dependent of the same fate and who must stick together. Which leads to the permanent „Gleichschaltung“, Nazi jargon literally „same wiring“, bringing or forcing everyone into line. Eco's point on plot obsession matches the whole patriarchy thing. The attack on modern culture is the puritan attitude many of them display. Their ideology is also neither entirely leftist nor right wing, but some amalgam. Cult if Action is noticeable, too, even if its tweeting. But they love charged words like fight the good fight and so on. The whole intellectual thing is seen negatively, experiences, mobilisation etc. are important. PZ Myers emphasises to „arm“ their crowds and to enrage them, they are against civility etc. (pacifism as trafficking with the enemy, i.e. supports misogynist status quo)

I know it is still off in some sense, but again, there is some eerie similar vibe coming from their quarter. I just throw this in.

[Brive1987]

Because we had a second IP already pointed to the domain, and our hosting provider’s script was kind of terrible in its lack of intelligence by null-routing only the IP being attacked, we were able to give Cloudflare that other IP instead. This one isn’t set up anywhere else but Cloudflare.

You changed your IP? You clever little boy. But was there nothing worthwhile between you and the Internet that could deal with direct IP based traffic? Oh that's right. A host whose security comprised "turning off the customers access and hoping the problem goes away"

That all answers the question of “how”, to the degree that I’m comfortable answering it without giving away too much.

Not much left apart from your new IP and Cloudflare admin account details.

If he tugged any harder it would fall off.

[d4m10n]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

[Brive1987]

In one para the canuck defended FtB's banning policy by saying:

some people really lose their shit when the person being banned is a libertarian in otherwise good standing elsewhere, who just happens to be perniciously arguing against things like the sociologically sound concept of privilege and is doing so in the most uncivil manner imaginable.

Then he goes on immediately to say:

The cries of being “blocked for disagreement” get repeated and eventually believed by the faction that refuses to engage in civil discourse, and refuses to acknowledge they were actually banned for being raging assholes.

So which is it? Tone trolling or defence of an "objective" ideology?

I guess it doesn't matter. Both are bullshit.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... more-13641

[welch]

Because we had a second IP already pointed to the domain, and our hosting provider’s script was kind of terrible in its lack of intelligence by null-routing only the IP being attacked, we were able to give Cloudflare that other IP instead. This one isn’t set up anywhere else but Cloudflare.

You changed your IP? You clever little boy. But was there nothing worthwhile between you and the Internet that could deal with direct IP based traffic? Oh that's right. A host whose security comprised "turning off the customers access and hoping the problem goes away"

That all answers the question of “how”, to the degree that I’m comfortable answering it without giving away too much.

Not much left apart from your new IP and Cloudflare admin account details.

If he tugged any harder it would fall off.

If that's the case, they fucked up their initial cloudflare config. Which is actually kind of hard to do.

[welch]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

He still thinks hoggle's real name is ivanov. Awesome.

Also, Didn't Greg try to dox mykeru and fuck that all up?

[Liesmith]

I couldn't comment all day because I was at work, and they'd frown on me reading Pit bullshit opinions on the corporate network, but I needed to weigh in on the fantasy novel discussion:

Guys. Ya'll need to read The Name of the Wind. I typically loathe the fantasy genre because every book is the same, and Patrick Rothfuss (the author of TNotW) felt the same way...so he wrote an awesome novel. For over a decade. Then he re-wrote it.

And so on in this fashion for a few dozen iterations until he had a highly-polished novel thick enough to allegedly beat a homeless man to death with. The world is entirely fleshed out, and it isn't lousy with dwarves, orcs, elves, etc.

The Name of the Wind, and the sequel The Wise Man's Fear are the only books I've ever immediately re-read after finishing them.

Guys. Seriously. I am not Patrick Rothfuss, but I endorse this message that I just typed. Read three chapters of The Name of the Wind, then send me money. I'm lost and I don't have bus fare. C'mon guys.

[Brive1987]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

The irony is strong with this one:

If you are anonymous and use your anonymity to harass people and they know who you are and feel like outing you, than you have not been wronged. You have been outed. One of the ways we know that someone is being a bully is that bullies make up the rules, or distort existing rules, in their own favor.

[Brive1987]

Because we had a second IP already pointed to the domain, and our hosting provider’s script was kind of terrible in its lack of intelligence by null-routing only the IP being attacked, we were able to give Cloudflare that other IP instead. This one isn’t set up anywhere else but Cloudflare.

You changed your IP? You clever little boy. But was there nothing worthwhile between you and the Internet that could deal with direct IP based traffic? Oh that's right. A host whose security comprised "turning off the customers access and hoping the problem goes away"

That all answers the question of “how”, to the degree that I’m comfortable answering it without giving away too much.

Not much left apart from your new IP and Cloudflare admin account details.

If he tugged any harder it would fall off.

If that's the case, they fucked up their initial cloudflare config. Which is actually kind of hard to do.

Wouldn't they have an external facing IP to get to Cloudflare? Or do you setup some form of private connection between your server and the security service?

[Sulaco]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

He still thinks hoggle's real name is ivanov. Awesome.

Also, Didn't Greg try to dox mykeru and fuck that all up?

Did you read this gem?

PZ has clout, and widespread respect

Bwahahahahaha!

[Brive1987]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

He still thinks hoggle's real name is ivanov. Awesome.

Also, Didn't Greg try to dox mykeru and fuck that all up?

Got his (ex) wife's address. But Mykeru is a bully so that's OK.

[Slither]

As you all might recall from upthread, Elyse Andery bought a $225 top, even though she knew that her husband might soon lose his job. And then her husband did indeed lose his job, because his company was bought out and the new owners fired 90% of her husband's ex-company's employees. And you all might also recall that Elyse's reaction was immediate: she complained that this was bad for her. And complained that she might have to get a job. And went out drinking, without her husband.

Not one word about sympathy for her husband, or how they might handle the situation. Just complaining about how she has been affected.

Unfortunately, her behavior gets worse:

And

Yes, that's right: he loses his job and is cleaning the house, while she refuses to help.

What an awful, horrible person she is! THAT is the way you treat your spouse, who has just lost his job through no fault of his own?

And I can't get over the fact that she seems to feel entitled to have a man support her financially, and that she feels that it is somehow unjust for her to be expected to contribute to support her own family. And she calls herself a feminist!

I'm just really appalled!

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Does anyone have that "Good Morning, Son" image that was given to TheMudbrooker for his profile image once? I think Parsehole made it, which probably means it was actually Grif...Gof...Gliftin?

Without the text would be preferable, but with would also work.

Shamelessly reposting because it was at the bottom of the last page.

http://v8.en.memegenerator.net/instance ... an=AllTime

Thanks, Suet.

[John D]

As you all might recall from upthread, Elyse Andery bought a $225 top, even though she knew that her husband might soon lose his job. And then her husband did indeed lose his job, because his company was bought out and the new owners fired 90% of her husband's ex-company's employees. And you all might also recall that Elyse's reaction was immediate: she complained that this was bad for her. And complained that she might have to get a job. And went out drinking, without her husband.

Not one word about sympathy for her husband, or how they might handle the situation. Just complaining about how she has been affected.

Unfortunately, her behavior gets worse:

And

Yes, that's right: he loses his job and is cleaning the house, while she refuses to help.

What an awful, horrible person she is! THAT is the way you treat your spouse, who has just lost his job through no fault of his own?

And I can't get over the fact that she seems to feel entitled to have a man support her financially, and that she feels that it is somehow unjust for her to be expected to contribute to support her own family. And she calls herself a feminist!

I'm just really appalled!

Wow ... she is hideous. I can't even imagine tweeting insults at my spouse who was just laid-off. WTF! This would be considered psychological abuse if a husband did this to his wife. Have I ever told you how awesome my wife is and how we have been married 30 years? I feel so happy sometimes I just can't believe it. I do have to avoid arguing about Woody Allen with her... but shit, when I see how some people behave I know how good we have it.

[real horrorshow]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

He still thinks hoggle's real name is ivanov. Awesome.

Also, Didn't Greg try to dox mykeru and fuck that all up?

If Hoggle/Grogan/Ivanoff has been outed how come Laden still doesn't know his real name.

I also spotted this:

If I recall correctly, the deciding factor was a threat Hoggle/Grogan/Ivanoff made against PZ, a threat that I interpreted as Ivanoff stating his intention to secretly deposit an object … I imagined it to be a lump of feces or some such thing … into PZ Myers’ pocket when he attended an upcoming conference in Australia, where Ivanoff lived.

I think a lot of people, myself included, felt there was more than sufficient reason to out Ivanoff even before the dog-poo threat, both as punishment for being a jerk and as a means of deflating his effectiveness at being a jerk.

Notice how, between the end of one paragraph and the beginning of the next, a dog turd goes from being a figment of Laden's imagination to an integral part of uncle franc's 'threat'? Classic Whored-think. Also, Laden thinks it entirely plausible that someone would carry a dog turd around all day on the off chance of meeting Peezus. Greg, you should get that imagination looked at.

...the Slime Pit (if you don’t know what the Slime Pit is, count your lucky stars) started to post awful often sub-pornographic and always insulting depictions of me and others (but mostly of women such as Rebecca Watson) on the Internet

If he really loved us, he'd get our name right. <pout>

[James Caruthers]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/ ... s-blogger/

The irony is strong with this one:

If you are anonymous and use your anonymity to harass people and they know who you are and feel like outing you, than you have not been wronged. You have been outed. One of the ways we know that someone is being a bully is that bullies make up the rules, or distort existing rules, in their own favor.

Step forward Smellody and receive your doxxing, with the Greg Laden stamp of approval!

Also, holy fuck these assholes need to learn how to self-edit.