Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Dick Strawkins]

I noticed this being retweeted by Soraya Chemaly.
It came up in the context of dealing with online criticism.

It seems a rather dangerous path to go down. If someone posts a photo that makes you feel bad that doesn't mean copyright is involved - although reporting it for copyright infringement will get it removed whether copyright is involved or not.
(Not to mention that it's illegal to do this if copyright is not involved.)

[James Caruthers]

I noticed this being retweeted by Soraya Chemaly.
It came up in the context of dealing with online criticism.

It seems a rather dangerous path to go down. If someone posts a photo that makes you feel bad that doesn't mean copyright is involved - although reporting it for copyright infringement will get it removed whether copyright is involved or not.
(Not to mention that it's illegal to do this if copyright is not involved.)

Today these "atheist skeptic social justice activists" discover the magic of false DMCAs. So now they have truly gone full creationist.

Makes a lot of sense, actually.

[Richard Dworkins]

I noticed this being retweeted by Soraya Chemaly.
It came up in the context of dealing with online criticism.

It seems a rather dangerous path to go down. If someone posts a photo that makes you feel bad that doesn't mean copyright is involved - although reporting it for copyright infringement will get it removed whether copyright is involved or not.
(Not to mention that it's illegal to do this if copyright is not involved.)

Dangerous? Every photograph of these pathetic whiners makes me "feel bad" why would I report that? Jesus these people really need to learn to control their emotions.

[James Caruthers]

"I don't like what that person said on Twitter. In fact, I consider it ABUSE and VIOLENCE against me. I could not look at it, block the person or mute the person, but I'm far too petty and childish for that."

"Why don't you try to get them fired?"

"I tried using my pro doxxing skills, but I don't have their ISP info for a l33t trace!"

"Why not reply and mock them with an adhom?"

"I tried that, but they're still able to post on the internet and say things I don't like."

"Have you heard of... False DMCA claims?"

"False DMCAs?"

"Yes, just pretend that the photo they posted that you don't like is your own original work. It gets taken down right away and they have to prove they didn't steal it, rather than you proving you own that image."

"So, even if the image is their own, or something neither of us own, I can still abuse copyright claims to take down pictures?"

"It gets better. If you falsely flag videos for copyright, you can get entire youtube channels taken down! Silence anyone who speaks against you. The best part is that the person being flagged has to provide their dox to the flagger!"

"Wow! That's some impressive fake victim bullying! Can this deal get any better?"

"I'm glad you asked! You can combine these two methods with a third well-worn social justice tactic, called "lying." With 'lying,' you can cry to Twitter and other social media groups and claim you are being physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually abused because of internet comments you don't agree with!"

"Awesome, thanks for all the help!"

"Remember, only you have the power to bully and censor everyone who doesn't agree with you!"

After all, false DMCAs are a totally reasonable reaction to people saying things about you that you don't like or agree with. Just ask Miles:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/hmo6CMoIeSQ/0.jpg

Oh, right.

[DownThunder]

That'll be the reek character who was almost "fucked into the ground" by a man who attempted to rape him, who was flayed, sexually tortured with the assistance of two women and then castrated no nary a sound from the audience who bitched about a single ham fisted scene between Jaime and Cersei?

Well yeah they are like him in that they are utterly invisible. Which is perhaps why they have to all tweet "look at me ladies!"

Funnily enough according to many reports rapists are often big friendly guys that are a good shoulder to cry on and would never hurt a fly until they finally lose patience with that shtick and force themselves on others.

Nonsense, Im sure a male who presents himself as a self-abasing doormat will be rewarded with lots of sex for how much he LOVES ALL WOMEN CONSTANTLY. Im sure some sex-positive feminists (like Ophelia Benson and Taslima Nasreen) will happily give him a quick tug if he asks nicely and wears the correct skirt-like attire.

[Hunt]

[youtube]-dbfXp8_qjo[/youtube]

Now isn't that interesting? It looks to me like the guy has a point. Would anyone be suspended for wearing the symbol of the hammer and sickle? Stalin and Mao's kill-count were far greater that the Nazi's and their pernicious ideology had much worse ramifications for the globe than Hitler's crazy lunatics ever did. So if people are offended by his symbol and his job is threatened unless he apologise, does he not have the right to demand that the same apply to others, who may offend him?

Is being offended worse than demanding the offender lose the right to their livelihood?

What I also found deeply interesting was how rigid and idiotic the interviewers were. They have the "nazis are bad" narrative, but little else and so keep trying to pin him to the one or two points and he, like so many people I knew who claimed they were communists did, deflects the historical factual argument in favour of proposing the ideology itself is not the same as those who used it.

Not all national socialists are like that. Hilarious.

In the end they have nothing to accuse him of and stand there repeating the same thing over and over, hoping to get him to slip up so they can use that as their feature headline.

This leads me to a question. Given that people in the U.S. do have first amendments rights to freedom of speech and conscience, how long is it before someone who is expelled from a workplace for "offending" someone or some group sues the arse of the business and wins. Especially if their opinions were separate from that work. Would for instance, the Mozilla Firefox guy not have a good case against his employers?

I think the swastika will continue to have special offensiveness over things like hammer/sickle, or things like the iconic image of Che Guevara, etc. I don't think saying that National Socialism was appropriated by Nazi's is, in the end, a coherent line of reasoning, since NS was really just a propaganda stunt used by Hitler, et al. to gain power. What was/is National Socialism? The "natural hierarchical order"? That a load of BS. Hitler sought to nationalize industry, yet crush labor unions. Everything about National Socialism was a contradiction...UNLESS you viewed it as a means for the Nazis to gain power and create a war machine as efficiently as possible.

You can say the same kind of things about the USSR, of course. It wasn't really communist and it wasn't really socialist. In the end it was its own unique amalgam of political structures meant to exercise control over people. Very few, if any, regimes remain true to pure political ideology.

[Easy J]

Race is super-politically sensitive but class still has resonance with lots of folks. If Hitler gassed millions of class enemies & Stalin had millions of race enemies Gulag'd & shot we would feel a bit different about them. I don't see the logic at all but I feel what everyone else does on a gut level.

[TiBo]

In other news:

US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation

http://www.tylervigen.com/correlation_p ... cation.png

Correlation: 0.992082
(correlation is not equal to causation, but it can be a hella lots of fun)

Factor of 0.99 ? You might be on to something there ...
Could be causal, if the funding for that space stuff was taken from the funding of suicide prevention programs ;)

[Linus]

[youtube]-dbfXp8_qjo[/youtube]

Now isn't that interesting? It looks to me like the guy has a point. Would anyone be suspended for wearing the symbol of the hammer and sickle? Stalin and Mao's kill-count were far greater that the Nazi's and their pernicious ideology had much worse ramifications for the globe than Hitler's crazy lunatics ever did. So if people are offended by his symbol and his job is threatened unless he apologise, does he not have the right to demand that the same apply to others, who may offend him?

Is being offended worse than demanding the offender lose the right to their livelihood?

What I also found deeply interesting was how rigid and idiotic the interviewers were. They have the "nazis are bad" narrative, but little else and so keep trying to pin him to the one or two points and he, like so many people I knew who claimed they were communists did, deflects the historical factual argument in favour of proposing the ideology itself is not the same as those who used it.

Not all national socialists are like that. Hilarious.

In the end they have nothing to accuse him of and stand there repeating the same thing over and over, hoping to get him to slip up so they can use that as their feature headline.

This leads me to a question. Given that people in the U.S. do have first amendments rights to freedom of speech and conscience, how long is it before someone who is expelled from a workplace for "offending" someone or some group sues the arse of the business and wins. Especially if their opinions were separate from that work. Would for instance, the Mozilla Firefox guy not have a good case against his employers?

I'm not sure if the first amendment has anything to say about employers disciplining employees for expressing their political views or not. Regardless, it's a free speech issue. Now, this is normally where someone jumps in with the obligatory "Free speech only means the government can't stop you from saying things, employers can do whatever they want, ZOMG" / "Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!!11oneone". Except, no, "free speech" does actually mean "free speech" and not just "speech not prohibited by governments". And it does actually mean freedom from (certain) consequences. Of course, opinions will differ on exactly what consequences should be deemed acceptable for what speech acts, but it irks me when people act like employee suspensions/firings or even internet message board banning policies can't be talked about in terms of "free speech".

[Mykeru]

I think it's just her neutral facial expression. Some people's get misinterpreted.

Obligatory PSA:
[youtube]3v98CPXNiSk[/youtube]

Haha, yes exactly that. My resting face gets misinterpreted every once in awhile too.

Yeah, but you're actually a bitch too.

[Linus]

I'm practically Hitler.

[BarnOwl]

"Why I Don't Like Benson" (an essay):

Ophelia benson: -"It is never ever okay to use epithets like "bitch" or "cunt", whatever the use or context! It's demeaning to all women everywhere and it hurts all women!"

Random Commenter: -"I'm not sure I totally agree with the "all women" part".

Ophelia Benson: -"Yeah, because bitches ain't shit, right? I bet you wish you could kick me in the cunt right now."

This Is Why I Don't Like Benson (end of essay)

Agreed, and adding that I dislike privileged, indolent, self-involved people who whinge about being oppressed, regardless of their gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or age. It's a long-standing personal dislike developed over years of having to deal with such individuals. Benson, by her own admission, is work-avoidant and feels oppressed, yet lives a comfortable, sheltered life in an upscale neighborhood of a US city that has a relatively high cost of living. I spend a good part of my current work life having to take on extra duties because of co-"workers" who behave exactly like Benson, and, petty though it may be, I resent it. [/rant]

Zvan and Myers are in a different category though, because I believe they are both actually malicious in intent. Benson is just so self-absorbed that she's like an ego-sponge.

[James Caruthers]

[youtube]bIuer29NLmY[/youtube]

Hint hint, PZ.

[BarnOwl]

Money must be tight at FfTB. Meyers is trying to get the tired old abortion debate going again, less than a month after the last time he drug its carcass into the arena.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... galloping/

Also notice that he dishonestly tags the post "Environment," even though there's only a mention (at the very end) of Rubio's climate change denial. It's not as if the post is about a toxic waste dump near a community of socioeconomically disadvantaged people, or about clear-cutting in the rain forests, or about an oil spill, or anything that's really about the environment at all.

[HoneyWagon]

Tee hee!

Okay.

So, I'm guessing the old guy is culturally appropriating that kilt. I'm sure that by calling a kilt a skirt they are de-legitimising (making illegitimate) and undermining a proud cultural heritage. They are also gender shaming him by calling a kilt a skirt. While the photo shows him smiling, it doesn't matter, there can be no real level of consent in a situation of institutionalised hierarchy, thus he was sexually assaulted. Further to this the picture of them laughing shows that he's also being slut shamed. They also seem to be abusing an elderly man for entertainment. They should be in prison for this sort of sexual humiliation and violent sexual assault.

By their own standards.

Girls, don't do that. :naughty:

This guy's name escapes me at the moment, but he is a nice enough guy and doesn't seem to be aware of/care about any of the skeptic/atheist drama. He is from L.A.
He goes to TAM as well.

[HoneyWagon]

Tee hee!

Okay.

So, I'm guessing the old guy is culturally appropriating that kilt. I'm sure that by calling a kilt a skirt they are de-legitimising (making illegitimate) and undermining a proud cultural heritage. They are also gender shaming him by calling a kilt a skirt. While the photo shows him smiling, it doesn't matter, there can be no real level of consent in a situation of institutionalised hierarchy, thus he was sexually assaulted. Further to this the picture of them laughing shows that he's also being slut shamed. They also seem to be abusing an elderly man for entertainment. They should be in prison for this sort of sexual humiliation and violent sexual assault.

By their own standards.

Girls, don't do that. :naughty:

This guy's name escapes me at the moment, but he is a nice enough guy and doesn't seem to be aware of/care about any of the skeptic/atheist drama. He is from L.A.
He goes to TAM as well.

[Apples]

[youtube]-dbfXp8_qjo[/youtube]

... What I also found deeply interesting was how rigid and idiotic the interviewers were. They have the "nazis are bad" narrative, but little else and so keep trying to pin him to the one or two points and he, like so many people I knew who claimed they were communists did, deflects the historical factual argument in favour of proposing the ideology itself is not the same as those who used it.

Not all national socialists are like that. Hilarious.

In the end they have nothing to accuse him of and stand there repeating the same thing over and over, hoping to get him to slip up so they can use that as their feature headline. ...

Love this guy.

[JackSkeptic]

[youtube]-dbfXp8_qjo[/youtube]

... What I also found deeply interesting was how rigid and idiotic the interviewers were. They have the "nazis are bad" narrative, but little else and so keep trying to pin him to the one or two points and he, like so many people I knew who claimed they were communists did, deflects the historical factual argument in favour of proposing the ideology itself is not the same as those who used it.

Not all national socialists are like that. Hilarious.

In the end they have nothing to accuse him of and stand there repeating the same thing over and over, hoping to get him to slip up so they can use that as their feature headline. ...

Love this guy.

Replace Jews with Libertarians and Gays with the atheist movement and you have an SJW talking.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

This leads me to a question. Given that people in the U.S. do have first amendments rights to freedom of speech and conscience, how long is it before someone who is expelled from a workplace for "offending" someone or some group sues the arse of the business and wins. Especially if their opinions were separate from that work. Would for instance, the Mozilla Firefox guy not have a good case against his employers?

1) Free speech does not entail an absolute right in every venue. So long as some venues are available for free speech, it may be restricted in others;
2) Employers are therefore not obliged to grant unlimited free speech in the work environment;
3) Most employment contracts contain a clause stating the employee may be fired without cause. They don't need to give a reason, so to sue for wrongful termination, you have to prove they secretly fired you for a discriminatory reason.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I think the swastika will continue to have special offensiveness over things like hammer/sickle, or things like the iconic image of Che Guevara, etc.

How does one define "special offensiveness"? Are there categories now, Levels? Which Levels are so offensive, they aren't protected?

“The whole point of the First Amendment is that one is free to express the most marginalized, repellent, provocative and offensive ideas. Those are the views that are always targeted for suppression…. If you’re someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted … then you’re someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition; what you believe is that one is free to express only those viewpoints which the majority of citizens (and the State) allow to be expressed.”

[John D]

This leads me to a question. Given that people in the U.S. do have first amendments rights to freedom of speech and conscience, how long is it before someone who is expelled from a workplace for "offending" someone or some group sues the arse of the business and wins. Especially if their opinions were separate from that work. Would for instance, the Mozilla Firefox guy not have a good case against his employers?

1) Free speech does not entail an absolute right in every venue. So long as some venues are available for free speech, it may be restricted in others;
2) Employers are therefore not obliged to grant unlimited free speech in the work environment;
3) Most employment contracts contain a clause stating the employee may be fired without cause. They don't need to give a reason, so to sue for wrongful termination, you have to prove they secretly fired you for a discriminatory reason.

Agree with Matt on this. The law is well tested on this topic. If an employee acts in a way that discredits a business they can be terminated. This extends into private behavior. An example might be that an employee could be terminated for being charged with engaging a prostitute or using drugs on their own time. This is especially true for people who are known to represent a company such as managers and officers.

An exception is that your activity has to do with your being a specially protected class. This is why the US has so much discussion over race, class, and sexual preference. Being part of a protected class provides legal defense against things like termination.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

An exception is that your activity has to do with your being a specially protected class. This is why the US has so much discussion over race, class, and sexual preference. Being part of a protected class provides legal defense against things like termination.

But only if you're terminated or otherwise discriminated against based in your membership in that protected class. So, for example, Stephanie Svan's employer couldn't fire her just because she was a woman. But they could fire her for being a bitch.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

FTR, sexual orientation is not a protected class. The gov't. hinged its argument on just that in U.S. v. Windsor, where the IRS, under DOMA, had denied the widow of a lesbian marriage the spousal exemption to estate tax. (SC held for Windsor on other grounds.)

[Apples]

An exception is that your activity has to do with your being a specially protected class. This is why the US has so much discussion over race, class, and sexual preference. Being part of a protected class provides legal defense against things like termination.

But only if you're terminated or otherwise discriminated against based in your membership in that protected class. So, for example, Stephanie Svan's employer couldn't fire her just because she was a woman. But they could fire her for being a bitch.

Which illuminates one of the main objectives of ThoughtFreeBlags/Skeptwat/etc. -- to win protected-class status for bitches and cunts.

:cdc: :bjarte:

[ROBOKiTTY]

There are people whose careers have been built on gender differences in use of language. (Robokitty, if you're there, maybe weigh in if linguistics connection?) General idea is that women tend to be more conciliatory, seek to build consensus in their speech & conversation, whereas men tend to plow ahead with their own ideas, come across as more assertive, etc. (My understanding from poking through the literature superficially is that not everyone buys this, or some think observed differences are cultural.)

There is a physical basis to differences in language use between men and women. On average, women have a higher fundamental frequency than men (ergo higher pitch). Partly it's because women have smaller vocal tracts. A higher F1 means the harmonics are spaced farther apart, and fewer of them get amplified as a result. What this means is that biological women are on average at a psychoacoustic disadvantage. In short, women are just plain harder to hear. In the English-speaking world, at least, women in compensation generally speak more clearly, use more redundancy and circumlocution, and are more attentive listeners.

There are indeed cultural differences, but they can't have all come from nowhere.

[Really?]

One of the highlights for me was hearing Alice McDermott talk about changing attitudes toward literary novelists who are religious and who write about people of faith.

Fifteen years ago, when she told interviewers she was a practicing Roman Catholic, she could feel them thinking, “Oh, I thought you were an intellectual. Well, I guess not.” Nowadays, she finds much less of that condescension — possibly because of the influence of Pope Francis. “It’s getting a little bit more hip to be Catholic,” she says. “For me, having characters who are part of a faith then allows me to talk about how that faith either works or fails them without having to attack the institution.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/sty ... -believer/

[katamari Damassi]

[youtube]-dbfXp8_qjo[/youtube]

Now isn't that interesting? It looks to me like the guy has a point. Would anyone be suspended for wearing the symbol of the hammer and sickle? Stalin and Mao's kill-count were far greater that the Nazi's and their pernicious ideology had much worse ramifications for the globe than Hitler's crazy lunatics ever did. So if people are offended by his symbol and his job is threatened unless he apologise, does he not have the right to demand that the same apply to others, who may offend him?

Is being offended worse than demanding the offender lose the right to their livelihood?

What I also found deeply interesting was how rigid and idiotic the interviewers were. They have the "nazis are bad" narrative, but little else and so keep trying to pin him to the one or two points and he, like so many people I knew who claimed they were communists did, deflects the historical factual argument in favour of proposing the ideology itself is not the same as those who used it.

Not all national socialists are like that. Hilarious.

In the end they have nothing to accuse him of and stand there repeating the same thing over and over, hoping to get him to slip up so they can use that as their feature headline.

This leads me to a question. Given that people in the U.S. do have first amendments rights to freedom of speech and conscience, how long is it before someone who is expelled from a workplace for "offending" someone or some group sues the arse of the business and wins. Especially if their opinions were separate from that work. Would for instance, the Mozilla Firefox guy not have a good case against his employers?

He's either a very good performance artist mind-fucking all of us, or more likely a crazy Dave Chappelle character come to life.
I'm one of those people who believes that the solution to bad speech is more speech. I object to campaigns in universities and such to uninvite speakers or to organize people to shout them down. That said, I'm under no obligation to support anyone whom I disagree with. Nor am I under any obligation to not to tell the cab company he works for why I won't be riding in their cabs. The same goes for Mozilla, or Stolchinaya. This isn't rocket science, why do people have such a difficult time understanding this?

[Richard Dworkins]

Re. Nazi Driver.

@ Matt. Thanks, I know little about U.S. law and did wonder. That clears it up for me.

@ Katamari. No it's not rocket science and I don't think anyone suggest you should support businesses which you disagree with. However I do think there is a chilling factor on concept of free speech if you only defend those you agree with. Especially when it gets to the stage that one being offended is considered so serious that people deserve to lose their livelihoods. If a company comes out and says "fuck Jews" for example, then I think your actions would be reasonable, but to boycott a company based on the opinions (not actions) of one employee rather than the company itself I do see as unnecessarily and unreasonably punitive.

For an example, I knew a fair few creationists in the Health Service. They did not spout their beliefs inside the work-place and they were good at their jobs. However their entire ideology offends me. Should I then attempt to have them fired or threaten the entire Health Service with a boycott until they get rid of them because of their insane views? I don't think so.

I agree he's either fucking with people or he's just a loon (his waving of hands and ranting about "gays" makes me suspect, like you, the latter.)

Oh and I'm not saying I'm right either. I do think your view is one worth considering. However why not just say to the cab company "hey don't send the tit with the swastika" rather than boycott them outright? Am interested in hearing your view on that kind of situation.

[BarnOwl]

OK, if "privilege" is going to be a verb, shouldn't it be emprivilege?

Also, if all the Christian godbotherers in this town are so devout, why is the grocery store crowded at 10:00 Sunday morning? Shouldn't they all be praying and eating crackers at church then? [/grumpy]

[Richard Dworkins]

I think the swastika will continue to have special offensiveness over things like hammer/sickle, or things like the iconic image of Che Guevara, etc. I don't think saying that National Socialism was appropriated by Nazi's is, in the end, a coherent line of reasoning, since NS was really just a propaganda stunt used by Hitler, et al. to gain power. What was/is National Socialism? The "natural hierarchical order"? That a load of BS. Hitler sought to nationalize industry, yet crush labor unions. Everything about National Socialism was a contradiction...UNLESS you viewed it as a means for the Nazis to gain power and create a war machine as efficiently as possible.

You can say the same kind of things about the USSR, of course. It wasn't really communist and it wasn't really socialist. In the end it was its own unique amalgam of political structures meant to exercise control over people. Very few, if any, regimes remain true to pure political ideology.

Well yes the Nazi party was clearly a bunch of ultra-totalitarian nationalists who were "all things to all men" in order to grasp power. However it does seem odd to me, especially in the States, that the swastika retains the notoriety it has considering the actions of the Soviet Union whose ideology was totally and utterly reviled. I'm not suggesting we should shrug off people wearing swastikas (though it might be useful to know who these people are and if they wish to identify themselves with armbands) I'm just not sure why the same doesn't apply to other symbols of genocidal dictators other than a created narrative in which Hitler and the Nazis were some kind of super-duper special evil. Which considering the rich history of hatred of the Jews (including by some of the leaders that fought Germany) across most of the globe and especially in Europe seems rather odd. Personally speaking of course.

[Richard Dworkins]

Is that short for "where's my money, bitches?"

[Sunder]

And I'm sick of all these charities asking people to give money. That just privileges people who have money to give. What about the rest of us?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Skep, I think that is the only pic I've ever seen of poor Ophie smiling (almost). Brilliant.

But what a sad and brittle smile it is.

Poor woman; alone in the bitter desert of her dusty heart with nought to do but blemish and besmirch any and all who might one day in futures past provide succour and support.

But no more.

She has miles to go before she sleeps
And miles to go before she sleeps.

I wonder what some people's trouble with Ophelia Benson is, by comparison. I mean, Zvan is like a hundred times worse on every dimension. She actually is the first person where I feel “evil” is a genuinely apt description. I can somehow understand where the others are coming from, within limits, but Zvan is a cold, calculating, evil propagandist, that type who would make career in the Nazi party where she rationalizes every cruelty effortless.

I agree, especially regarding Zvan. She is dangerous and has no problems justifying any act using the same logic process the Nazis and other extremist organizations did. She will doxx and push for people's sacking no matter if innocent families, including children, suffer just for the crime of disagreeing. She is openly proud of being someone not to cross. The fact she claims she always wins arguments, uses any cheap argument trick to try and 'win', her habit of continuously demanding those she discusses with 'admits she was right' along with her thinking nothing of changing history by selective censorship on her own blog is telling. She confirmed she had no interest in an honest discussion during the Nugent talks as we all strongly suspected but could not publicly state at the time (it was never about healing rifts, she does not want that of course. She wants dissent shut down and removed)

With Benson I just get a big urge to give her a hug and a smile. She needs cheering up and a motive to get back to the writing she used to be good at. I know she says stupid stuff but unlike Zvan I do feel her heart is in the right place but she is blinding by the extreme bias she once abhorred in others. Zvan will never change, she gets emotional highs from being pure poison. Benson might change one day.

I think Benson is a bitter and mean-spirited individual and you give her more credit than she deserves. She's proven herself very dishonest in the way she moderates her own blog and she has this habit of expecting special treatment and demanding censorship of her enemies on other blogs. I recall her saying that she didn't like Justicar being seen making reasonable comments because he's a BAD person (paraphrasing here). She objected to something Vacula said, refused his invitation to say her piece on his show and has subsequently repeatedly called him a liar. Once she feels slighted she doesn't want to see you as anything other than all bad . She effectively doxxed Skeptickle by dropping a trail of details she had absolutely no reason at all to provide and then denied she'd done it. She is poisonous IMO, vindictive and emotionally childish.

[John Greg]

ThreeFlangedJavis said:

I think Benson is a bitter and mean-spirited individual.... poisonous IMO, vindictive and emotionally childish.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Nonetheless, I feel some pity or sympathy or something like that for her.

I do not feel any sympathy for Myers or Zvan (though I do pity them), or most of the rest of them, because they are so clearly intentional and even outspoken about their hatred, their demented desire to control the dialogue, and to control anything and everything that does not kowtow to their ideology.

But for some reason, I sort of feel poor old Ophie is just kind of caught up in a shitstorm not entirely of her own making, and in her, what I preceive as her unhappiness and general bitter aloneness, she is trying desperately to belong somewhere.

All that being said, I might indeed be entirely wrong, and perhaps she is just another foul toad on the road to perdition.

[Dick Strawkins]

And I'm sick of all these charities asking people to give money. That just privileges people who have money to give. What about the rest of us?

But wouldn't paying all speakers mean you've created an extra cost that must then be passed on to the attendees?
If that's the case (and I don't see any easy way around it) then you are simply 'privileging' those attendees who can afford to pay that extra cost.

'Privilege' seems a clunky term to use in this case - it's probably more accurate to say what you are doing is creating a hurdle for those who cannot afford the extra cost.

Still, the option is always open to Greta and chums to either start their own conferences where they can pay each other as much as they want - or they can simply take the current set of conferences over which they have influence (WISC, SkeptiCon and SkepchickCon) and introduce the payment model there.

I don't see anything wrong in principle in what she is saying. There's nothing wrong with paying for good speakers. If you organize a conference and get Dawkins, Harris or Pinker to speak then you are likely to generate a ton of interest. Paying them seems a reasonable business decision considering the income that will be generated from ticket sales.
But paying significant amounts of money to nobodies like the FTB crew or assorted Skepchicks seems highly questionable.
Are people really going to pay good money to listen to Heina Dadabhoy, Alex Gabriel or Justin Thirabeault?

I suspect that Greta thinks that conferences can operate at a loss with the cost being absorbed by the overall income of the organization.
TAM/JREF will tell them to fuck off (technically they are probably already doing what Greta suggests - they just won't invite the FTB/Skepchick crew as speakers) and so their main target, I guess, will be CFI.

[Dick Strawkins]

ThreeFlangedJavis said:

I think Benson is a bitter and mean-spirited individual.... poisonous IMO, vindictive and emotionally childish.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Nonetheless, I feel some pity or sympathy or something like that for her.

I do not feel any sympathy for Myers or Zvan (though I do pity them), or most of the rest of them, because they are so clearly intentional and even outspoken about their hatred, their demented desire to control the dialogue, and to control anything and everything that does not kowtow to their ideology.

But for some reason, I sort of feel poor old Ophie is just kind of caught up in a shitstorm not entirely of her own making, and in her, what I preceive as her unhappiness and general bitter aloneness, she is trying desperately to belong somewhere.

All that being said, I might indeed be entirely wrong, and perhaps she is just another foul toad on the road to perdition.

I see Ophelia as a flawed individual.
She still has her good points, particularly in dealing with Islam - sticking up for Ayan Hirsi Ali recently, as well as being on the right side regarding Islamist attempts to silence criticisms of that religion.
Its funny, if you only read her writing on attempted religious censorship you might imagine she is a champion of free speech and, like many of us here at the pit, is against the idea that people have a right not to be offended.

But, of course, there is the other side. She is, without doubt, clearly an identitarian. She knowlingly holds her own team to quite different standards than the group she opposes and is willing to excuse the same behavior that she sees fit to condemn others for doing (like Watson calling someone a twat.)
She is quick to label others as liars and yet throws a fit if the same is applied to her.
She behaved disgracefully last year when she doxxed Skep Tickle and her fickle and perfidious nature regarding collaborators is legendary (none of her former collaborators seem to want anything to do with her.)
She is perhaps the most vulgar of any writer on the skeptical blogospshere and yet she is the most vociferous campaigner against the use of bad words (by those not on her team.)

Is there a way back for her?
I tend to doubt it. She has burned far too many bridges and, quite frankly, her writing is not so great that her shift to identity politics would make anyone think that we've lost a great mind.

[Walter Ego]

I'd be angry too if someone fucked up my hair like that.

[JackSkeptic]

OK, if "privilege" is going to be a verb, shouldn't it be emprivilege?

Also, if all the Christian godbotherers in this town are so devout, why is the grocery store crowded at 10:00 Sunday morning? Shouldn't they all be praying and eating crackers at church then? [/grumpy]

I've always assumed speakers get costs. Although that should include an allowance for incidentals such as meals and drink I suspect it does not. If a conference can't afford it through ticket sales and donations then there is insufficient interest so why bother with it? Either scale it back, find somewhere more affordable or stop alienating people.

She is right though, speakers should have their costs covered at least.

[Southern]

ThreeFlangedJavis said:

I think Benson is a bitter and mean-spirited individual.... poisonous IMO, vindictive and emotionally childish.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Nonetheless, I feel some pity or sympathy or something like that for her.

I do not feel any sympathy for Myers or Zvan (though I do pity them), or most of the rest of them, because they are so clearly intentional and even outspoken about their hatred, their demented desire to control the dialogue, and to control anything and everything that does not kowtow to their ideology.

But for some reason, I sort of feel poor old Ophie is just kind of caught up in a shitstorm not entirely of her own making, and in her, what I preceive as her unhappiness and general bitter aloneness, she is trying desperately to belong somewhere.

All that being said, I might indeed be entirely wrong, and perhaps she is just another foul toad on the road to perdition.

I see Ophelia as a flawed individual.
She still has her good points, particularly in dealing with Islam - sticking up for Ayan Hirsi Ali recently, as well as being on the right side regarding Islamist attempts to silence criticisms of that religion.
Its funny, if you only read her writing on attempted religious censorship you might imagine she is a champion of free speech and, like many of us here at the pit, is against the idea that people have a right not to be offended.

But, of course, there is the other side. She is, without doubt, clearly an identitarian. She knowlingly holds her own team to quite different standards than the group she opposes and is willing to excuse the same behavior that she sees fit to condemn others for doing (like Watson calling someone a twat.)
She is quick to label others as liars and yet throws a fit if the same is applied to her.
She behaved disgracefully last year when she doxxed Skep Tickle and her fickle and perfidious nature regarding collaborators is legendary (none of her former collaborators seem to want anything to do with her.)
She is perhaps the most vulgar of any writer on the skeptical blogospshere and yet she is the most vociferous campaigner against the use of bad words (by those not on her team.)

Is there a way back for her?
I tend to doubt it. She has burned far too many bridges and, quite frankly, her writing is not so great that her shift to identity politics would make anyone think that we've lost a great mind.

How hard is to be on the "right side" when opposing Islam? Islam is so fucking evil, even Hitler could claim he's not that bad if he trashed this fucking barbaric religion to shreds.

[didymos]

OK, if "privilege" is going to be a verb, shouldn't it be emprivilege?

Also, if all the Christian godbotherers in this town are so devout, why is the grocery store crowded at 10:00 Sunday morning? Shouldn't they all be praying and eating crackers at church then? [/grumpy]

I've always assumed speakers get costs. Although that should include an allowance for incidentals such as meals and drink I suspect it does not.

And Fluevogs.

[JackSkeptic]

OK, if "privilege" is going to be a verb, shouldn't it be emprivilege?

Also, if all the Christian godbotherers in this town are so devout, why is the grocery store crowded at 10:00 Sunday morning? Shouldn't they all be praying and eating crackers at church then? [/grumpy]

I've always assumed speakers get costs. Although that should include an allowance for incidentals such as meals and drink I suspect it does not.

And Fluevogs.

I tend to have a soft spot for people who seem to be at least principled in some ways and who actually do something. Benson with her attacks on Islam and Greta with her atheism books do count a lot for me. Greta also comes over well in interviews and podcasts, sticking to the facts and knowledgeable. They are both doing a lot more than I am that's for sure. As to the Fluevogs she was silly in the timing but really who here has not bought something they maybe shouldn't have? She just got caught. Oops. I'm doing it all the time and it keeps me sane.

[Dick Strawkins]

OK, if "privilege" is going to be a verb, shouldn't it be emprivilege?

Also, if all the Christian godbotherers in this town are so devout, why is the grocery store crowded at 10:00 Sunday morning? Shouldn't they all be praying and eating crackers at church then? [/grumpy]

I've always assumed speakers get costs. Although that should include an allowance for incidentals such as meals and drink I suspect it does not. If a conference can't afford it through ticket sales and donations then there is insufficient interest so why bother with it? Either scale it back, find somewhere more affordable or stop alienating people.

She is right though, speakers should have their costs covered at least.

I don't think she means covering costs (transport, hotel, food and drink.)
I think she means getting paid a speaking fee in addition to the costs they already receive.

I think that CFI already gives some kind of fee but it's not particularly significant. I think people like Greta and Alex Gabriel have been arguing for a more substantial fee.
There is an argument that speakers that have to give up their time in order to attend a conference should be paid for the income they lose.
But many speakers in the FTB team are students or even unemployed.
In order to be fair we wouldn't be able to simply cover income lost by speakers - after all that would mean that students and the unemployed get nothing as a speakers fee, while others get a large fee for the same job.

[Dick Strawkins]

How hard is to be on the "right side" when opposing Islam? Islam is so fucking evil, even Hitler could claim he's not that bad if he trashed this fucking barbaric religion to shreds.

Plenty of SJWs have trouble opposing islam.

[Walter Ego]

ThreeFlangedJavis said:

I think Benson is a bitter and mean-spirited individual.... poisonous IMO, vindictive and emotionally childish.

Benson is embittered because she's old, ugly and worn out and can't get laid anymore.

[Kirbmarc]

Plenty of SJWs have trouble opposing islam.

Because opposing Islam is racist. No, wait, Islamophobic. SJW can only oppose people from Westerner cultures, better if they're white and male.

[Michael J]

And Fluevogs.

I tend to have a soft spot for people who seem to be at least principled in some ways and who actually do something. Benson with her attacks on Islam and Greta with her atheism books do count a lot for me. Greta also comes over well in interviews and podcasts, sticking to the facts and knowledgeable. They are both doing a lot more than I am that's for sure. As to the Fluevogs she was silly in the timing but really who here has not bought something they maybe shouldn't have? She just got caught. Oops. I'm doing it all the time and it keeps me sane.

People should get paid for what they do. The easy way to fix that is to publish her rates for speaking and not not speak unless the organisers will pay.

Unfortunately, there are so few people attending their conferences that the ticket cost for paying customers would end up through the roof.

There was a few comedians there. I bet they demanded and got payment.

[Skep tickle]

In reply to Greta's tweet about $$:

http://i.imgur.com/IQvqM3y.png

MH is talking about travel time. AG is talking about time to prepare the talk.

I have a simple solution. Don't invite anyone that the conference budget can't afford. Certainly don't fly someone like Gabriel over from the other side of the pond to give a 1-hour talk, or be part of a 1-hour panel - unless the conference organizers really feel it's going to enrich the conference for attendees AND the conference can afford it. Ta da. The speaker can decide whether or not it's worth it to him/her to attend as a speaker based on the honorarium (if any) & the time it'll take & any and all other considerations.

And people like RW can decide whether it's worth it to her to pay registration to attend if she doesn't get invited to talk:

[James Caruthers]

"If I'm invited" is code for "fuck you, pay me."

[Skep tickle]

[Skep tickle]

The last panel at WiS3; I can't get the tweet to show up but the photo shows who shared their wisdom on Women Empowering Women:
https://twitter.com/BrianEngler/status/ ... 40/photo/1

This one links to a photo at instagram that shows the audience (from one angle, on Sunday AM so maybe some people were sleeping in & others had already left):

[real horrorshow]

Jesus Christ. Wait...was that a microagression?

Adam Lee tweeting is an example of micro idiocy.

Oh, well played Sir!

[Richard Dworkins]

How hard is to be on the "right side" when opposing Islam? Islam is so fucking evil, even Hitler could claim he's not that bad if he trashed this fucking barbaric religion to shreds.

Plenty of SJWs have trouble opposing islam.

Which I think would show an astonishing lack of conviction if I thought they had any. It is literally guilty of every single thing they screech about except the men are generally not white.

[Brive1987]

Currently engaged in a project of sorts.

Looking for help: I recall there was an eyewitness account of the TAM 2010 BR/KS argument, door blockage / kiss attempt incident.

Does anyone remember further details or .... even have a screen cap or link?

Thanks.
Brive.

[TiBo]

I'd be angry too if someone fucked up my hair like that.

She probably did the coloring herself. When I was young, I loved having really bright blue hair and it was a real procedural pain to get there (I have medium brown hair). Colors like orange or purple are usually a sign of "from there it all went horribly wrong"

But her main problem isn't really the color of her hair, its her alopecia. From what I've heard, women react to the loss of scalp hair even less kindly than men do.

[real horrorshow]

Don't even get me started on those sanctimonious trolley dollys that call themselves nurses. I'm sure that many, if not most of them are good at their job, and helpful but the sheer volume of them I had to deal with in psychiatric units who seemed to think their job involved only scoffing all the free chocolates they received from patient's visitors and to abuse and exploit the auxiliary staff was shocking.

Someone - working in a hospital - said to told me:

On Psych, how do you tell the patients from the nurses? The patients wear slippers.

I've told the tale in the past that the nurses in a private Psych company I worked for were - with very few exceptions - the worst people I've ever worked with. Manipulative, aggressive and uncaring. Oh, and scoffing biscuits and chocolate bought for patients was how they spent most of their shift.

The media in the UK and using more and more stories of poor nursing practice. I think this is due to a combination of factors: Decades ago - when nurses were basically doctors' maid service - they weren't trained or allowed to do more than the routine messy jobs which, while often unpleasant, were most important to patients. This got them a good reputation. Back in the Seventies, British TV had a nursing drama called, quite without irony, Angels. When you can't wipe your own arse, you're grateful for someone who does.

Since then, nursing has been 'professionalised'. That is, becoming a nurse requires a degree. This was done to allow the increase in ratio of nurses to doctors, who cost a lot more. The arse-wiping was to be hived off to nursing assistants who were even cheaper than nurses. However, budget crises have meant a shortage of all kinds of staff and when there's no designated arse-wiper, nurses - now graduates - are reluctant to do it.

Another factor in all the 'professionalised' health care roles is that the new graduates have been coming into the NHS at the bottom of the ladder and subordinate to older staff who are not graduates and resent the implication that they're less skilled or are old fashioned. Add that to the already existing hierarchical, pay-your-dues, culture that's always been there, and qualifying as a healthcare professional is now a painful rite of passage, but one which leads to a job for life. No surprise that those who make it have quite a sense of entitlement.

[Semi]

This was in an article in the NY Times today:

Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.

The warnings, which have their ideological roots in feminist thought, have gained the most traction at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the student government formally called for them. But there have been similar requests from students at Oberlin College, Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, George Washington University and other schools.

The whole article is an Orwellian horror show.

[Skep tickle]

Currently engaged in a project of sorts.

Looking for help: I recall there was an eyewitness account of the TAM 2010 BR/KS argument, door blockage / kiss attempt incident.

Does anyone remember further details or .... even have a screen cap or link?

Thanks.
Brive.

http://i.imgur.com/nwNnaD2.png?1

[HoneyWagon]

Perhaps a different definition is in order:
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/statu ... 7956592643

http://www.clipular.com/c/6470864191094 ... 1St3pX2Rns

[real horrorshow]

Good grief.

Well, when you factor in that they consider it "harassment" when someone simply disagree with them or read their tweets/blogs and refute their arguments... in that sort of utter bastardization of the word, they are technically correct...

No, they're only correct if you agree that Internet trolling of women is being conducted by a "force w/a political agenda". My guess is it's either the Illuminati, the Reptilians or those fucking Jews. Or they're all in it together.

This meme does make me wonder. If they really believe this. That some force with massive Internet power (whatever that means) is out to silence them, what do they imagine they can do about it? It's like the response I read once to conspiracy theories in general:

If you really believe that some secret cabal is controlling everything important in the world, how can you possibly stop them?

And my own addendum: If everything you say - loudly and often - about the power and malice of these people is true, why aren't you dead?

Also, whether they believe it, or are only pretending to do so as a tactic. Do they really think that they can somehow make "disagreeing with a woman on the internet" into a crime?

[Brive1987]

Currently engaged in a project of sorts.

Looking for help: I recall there was an eyewitness account of the TAM 2010 BR/KS argument, door blockage / kiss attempt incident.

Does anyone remember further details or .... even have a screen cap or link?

Thanks.
Brive.

http://i.imgur.com/nwNnaD2.png?1

Umm. You trolling me Ms? ;)