Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

#46321

:snooty: Roi de la merde. :snooty:

#46322

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yeah, I've seen they've also called a fatwa on Canada. Canada, for fuck's sake!

Arggh, living in the most heavily muslim-populated sections of Canada, I think I'll just stay indoors for the next few years. Many around here are strict ones. There are many women in the neighbourhood who wear the full assortment of potato sacks, sometimes even the ones with a netting over their eyes.

#46323

James Caruthers wrote::snooty: Roi de la merde. :snooty:

Seigneur de la merde. Roi de la merde would be shitking, and I don't aspire that high. Yet.

#46324

Outstanding balance here, NPR.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

#46325

Going out for groceries. If I don't return, it's been nice knowing you all.

#46326

James Caruthers wrote:http://33.media.tumblr.com/fee27c395183 ... o1_400.png
Pointing out that a penis is male and a vagina is female is now rape.

You're all rapists.

[youtube]PQvnZOR_oIk[/youtube]

ERHMAGUD! REAP!!!!

#46327

Sulman wrote:Outstanding balance here, NPR.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

there seems to be a universal law that if you have Diqus on your website journalism didn't happen there.

#46328

Scented Nectar wrote:Going out for groceries. If I don't return, it's been nice knowing you all.

What the hell groceries are you going to...wait...is "groceries" some kind of code? Help!

#46329

FlyingV wrote:It's starting to sound like Shermer slept with quite a few women that were drunk. He probably used the same lines and made them feel special. I suspect that he has a few "go to's" for things that he says, "OMG! It's like we finish each other's sentences!" or some such other bullshit that women in the twenties fall for.

[youtube]ttp6SHraCMU[/youtube]

#46330

Scented Nectar wrote:Going out for groceries. If I don't return, it's been nice knowing you all.

I went grocery shopping this morning. Nothing much happened. On the other hand, maybe it's the Collar of Shame protecting me.

Hear that, SN? HAHA!.....SN? Er...

#46331

What is with the Sarkeaian fan, "sure she cherry picks and distorts games, but she has a point" argument? If she had a freaking point, she would be able to make it without lying and distorting. Basically it boils down to they like what they hear, so that means she must be on to something. Of course this is usually followed with, "if she is so wrong why are people getting upset," nonsense.

#46332

sinister wrote:What is with the Sarkeaian fan, "sure she cherry picks and distorts games, but she has a point" argument? If she had a freaking point, she would be able to make it without lying and distorting. Basically it boils down to they like what they hear, so that means she must be on to something. Of course this is usually followed with, "if she is so wrong why are people getting upset," nonsense.

I haven't touched a one of my 600+ steam games because I don't know where to start. So I just read the pit.

I blame the patriarchy.

#46333

Scented Nectar wrote:Going out for groceries. If I don't return, it's been nice knowing you all.

Don't do it. It won't end well. I could tell you some grocery shopping related horror stories that would make your hair stand on end. Last week, for example, I noticed that the â‚¬/kg price of a 24 pack of cat food was MORE EXPENSIVE than the 12 sachet pack. I was literally shaking with rage and couldn't even.

#46334

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
James Caruthers wrote::snooty: Roi de la merde. :snooty:
Seigneur de la merde. Roi de la merde would be shitking, and I don't aspire that high. Yet.

Make it "chevalier" and you can start your own pseudo- medieval society. Perhaps the FraternitÃ© de l'Ordure?

#46335

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
James Caruthers wrote::snooty: Roi de la merde. :snooty:
Seigneur de la merde. Roi de la merde would be shitking, and I don't aspire that high. Yet.
Make it "chevalier" and you can start your own pseudo- medieval society. Perhaps the FraternitÃ© de l'Ordure?

L'Ordure des Chevaliers Brunes?

#46336

UncaYimmy wrote:
Dave wrote: I dont think that anyone here is suggesting that an investigation into what Randi and the rest of JREF knew and when is not in order.
What would be the point in an investigation? No crime was committed. Smith doesn't even have a basis for a civil suit. By her own account she knowingly got drunk and went to his room. They had sex. There are no accusations of violence or threats of violence. She was ambulatory and able to talk, so she was fully capable of expressing consent or non-consent both verbally and non-verbally. She has never once claimed she actively refused.

What's the JREF supposed to do with that?

Wow. You're absolutely correct. The only person who is a person and matters in all this doesn't have a basis for a civil suit, so there is no reason at all to investigate. Anyone who thinks that there might be other people who matter (either directly or downstream) or thinks that one should investigate before deciding if a crime or tort exists is a [insert insult-de-jour here].

#46337

Speaking of things French, the quietly spoken mathematician Condorcet copped the epithet (pace Ophelia) of Le Mouton EnragÃ©. Can't think who that reminds me of...

<add frothing PZ in sheeps' clothing GiF>

#46338

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
UncaYimmy wrote:
Dave wrote: I dont think that anyone here is suggesting that an investigation into what Randi and the rest of JREF knew and when is not in order.
What would be the point in an investigation? No crime was committed. Smith doesn't even have a basis for a civil suit. By her own account she knowingly got drunk and went to his room. They had sex. There are no accusations of violence or threats of violence. She was ambulatory and able to talk, so she was fully capable of expressing consent or non-consent both verbally and non-verbally. She has never once claimed she actively refused.

What's the JREF supposed to do with that?
Wow. You're absolutely correct. The only person who is a person and matters in all this doesn't have a basis for a civil suit, so there is no reason at all to investigate. Anyone who thinks that there might be other people who matter (either directly or downstream) or thinks that one should investigate before deciding if a crime or tort exists is a [insert insult-de-jour here].

To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.

#46339

PZ has a post about pacification of baboon troops (of all thing!), in which he dances gracefully around the precipitating factor being a radical change in aggressive gene frequency caused by a catastrophic die-off. You can tell he's slightly conflicted ideologically here, since he hastens to add that this was just the "proximal" cause.

And so it was that humans evolved into slow moving leaf eaters...Until Zed arrived.

#46340

Brive1987 wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:It's not an insult if it's true. Watson has no ethics.
Have you woken happy or still islamaphobic? :mrgreen:

Just FYI Australia is also labouring under a "kill innocent people everywhere" fatwa. A couple of police "copped" it yesterday.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-d ... 3gfsr.html

Not a problem I recall from my youth.

From reading ShiaChat I learned some time ago that AUS had Salafis running around and openly attacking Shia Muslims so I am really not surprised.

Just as I am not going to be surprised if there is another incident sourced in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) seeing as Mississauga is overrun with Salafis. Salim Mansur (a practising Muslim himself) has been talking about these fanatics for some time now. From the earlier link:

Mansur's criticisms of other parts of the world have extended so far that he has testified on October 1, 2012 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that Canada should stop immigration from Muslim countries. Mansur stated:
The flow of immigration into Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim countries, means a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society of people from cultures at best non-liberal. But we know through our studies and observations that the illiberal mix of cultures poses one of the greatest dilemmas and an unprecedented challenge to liberal societies, such as ours, when there is no demand placed on immigrants any longer to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country to which they have immigrated to and, instead, by a misguided and thoroughly wrong-headed policy of multiculturalism encourage the opposite.[15]

Not the first time I have mentioned Mansur, and not the first time that I believe Canukistan is heading towards sectarian violence at some point in the future.

This is like allowing a bunch of Chechen to settle anywhere near you. Bad shit is going to happen and it is just a matter of time. OK so what about the Highland Scots you may ask? My answer is that it took a couple hundred years at a minimum to settle them down. And a lot of that time was devoted to wholesale slaughter cause the people involved tended to view rape, murder & stealing as part of an honourable profession.

(For those just joining us: I have not suddenly changed my tune because of what Phil recently said. I am simply repeating what I have said here previously)

Anyway, for some reason I am reminded of the The Mackenzie Prayer (full disclosure I am a Mackenzie myself in part though not in whole):

Dear Lord, bless a' the Mackenzies an' a' the Mackenzie childer;
Their sons and sons' childer and their dochiters' for a thousan' years to come.
Lord, bless the wee coo an' make it a big coo,
An' bless the sucklin' and make it a grand boar,
An' bless the wee bairns Angus, Alex an' Bessie an' Maggie an' Florrie.
An' be ye gracious, Lord, an' send doon mountains o' snuff, an' rivers o' whiskey.
An' oh Lord send doon swords an' pistols an' daggers as monie as the sands on the shore
To kill the Macdonalds an' the Clan Ranalds an' the Campbells.
An' oh Lord, build up a great wall 'tween us an' the Irish,
With broken bottles on the top, so they cannae come over.
An' oh Lord, if ye hae anything gude to gie, dunna gie it to the Irish,
But gie it to your chosen people the Scots,
Especially the Clan Mackenzie an' a' their friends.
Glorious ye are for evermore. Amen!

Indeed.

#46341

Cunt of Personality wrote:
To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.

I'm going to say it now so that it's out of the way: I'm surprised, and a bit suspicious, that Shermer hasn't started any litigation or other action beside his PDF stuff by now, what with his status and public image.

[youtube]Otm4RusESNU[/youtube]

#46342

sinister wrote:What is with the Sarkeaian fan, "sure she cherry picks and distorts games, but she has a point" argument? If she had a freaking point, she would be able to make it without lying and distorting. Basically it boils down to they like what they hear, so that means she must be on to something. Of course this is usually followed with, "if she is so wrong why are people getting upset," nonsense.

If anyone of them is an atheist, you should tell them: "You're completely right. You blew my mind. But, for the sake of honesty, I think you should accept Young Earth Creationism. Sure, Creationists cherry pick and distort science, but they have a point. And if they're so wrong, why are all you atheists getting upset?".

#46343

Melody really does find herself to be quite important! Wow, if she feels insulted no one should invite who she doesn't like to speak, because she is the almighty goddess of twitter PTSD and Secularism. The CFI at this point are a laughing stock. The least they could do is request Melody take their name off her Twitter, but I guess that would be microagressions or something.

#46344

sinister wrote:Melody really does find herself to be quite important! Wow, if she feels insulted no one should invite who she doesn't like to speak, because she is the almighty goddess of twitter PTSD and Secularism. The CFI at this point are a laughing stock. The least they could do is request Melody take their name off her Twitter, but I guess that would be microagressions or something.

http://imgur.com/9JCsoYg.png

#46345

Cunt of Personality wrote:To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.

OK. I can sort-of buy that. But the key difference between what you wrote and what UncaYimmy wrote is that you didn't mention anyone in particular. UY says, in effect, that only Alison could be a victim, so, once we've established that she can't file, we're done. UY willfully ignores that Shermer could be a victim - something that I'm seeing again and again, and find somewhat annoying. If, instead, you shake your head and say everyone involved is an idiot and no-one has a chance in hell of successfully suing anybody else, then I agree. The only reason I can give for giving a shit is a bit of a parallel to recent Emma Watson: if it turns out, for example, that Alison tried to jump Shermer in a bathroom and all the anonymous hinting and later accusing is motivated by her embarrassment, and this was the first event on the road to ElevatorGate and what has followed, then isn't that interesting? A fucking false flag starting the Schism or Rift?

As to Watson vs The Snarky Twitter Troll ... it was cute and the troll clearly succeeded, but that's all it is, IMO.

As to bigger things ... Aneris continues to enact the labor and I'm very appreciative. :clap:

#46346

Sorry the NPR comments are killing me here
q: "Why focus on Quinn's sex life, and not the journalists?"
a: "Well it's a sort of messy question, she was sleeping WITH JOURNALISTS."
q: "But why focus on her sex life then?"
a: "Sleeping. with. the. journalists."
q: "So it is about her sex life?"

And at this point people let me know just how hard they are willing to press themselves into a corner to not look at facts.

#46347

Brive1987 wrote:From the mouths of babes.

http://i.imgur.com/r7rK8Ng.jpg

Randi, btw, was the President & Chairman when this happened. He went from Chair/Pres to just Chairman. He was followed by Plait as President. Then Grothe as President.

And Randi does make money off of JREF. His 2013 salary was $195,000. So we can't just chalk it up to 'honorary' title and nothing more.

#46348

So what's up with this Rotherham thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_ ... on_scandal

Seems to be a case of people covering it up because it was politically incorrect to point out that the perps were not white.

#46349

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'm going to say it now so that it's out of the way: I'm surprised, and a bit suspicious, that Shermer hasn't started any litigation or other action beside his PDF stuff by now, what with his status and public image.

Suspicious, sure, but you should not be surprised. Over here, he'd be subject to being deposed and, even if he's less in the wrong, that would not go well. He appears to have consulted a lawyer about a year ago and he was probably warned of this then. So he tried to bluff PZ, but failed, which has made it worse. Now he's probably just cursing everyone, including folks like us, for continuing to hash this over.

Put another way, we are feeding the trolls and/or doing exactly what Poppy, PZ, and Alison appear to desire: keeping the topic alive while not forcing anyone to back up their claims in court. If I gave a shit about Shermer, I'd be embarrassed by my own behavior.

#46350

Wow, the NPR comment moderation is something else. Some deleted comments are marked as deleted, others disappear into the wind. There is some serious bias going on over there and I would hate to have to go buy a tin-foil hat, but...

#46351

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
Cunt of Personality wrote:To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.
OK. I can sort-of buy that. But the key difference between what you wrote and what UncaYimmy wrote is that you didn't mention anyone in particular. UY says, in effect, that only Alison could be a victim, so, once we've established that she can't file, we're done. UY willfully ignores that Shermer could be a victim - something that I'm seeing again and again, and find somewhat annoying. If, instead, you shake your head and say everyone involved is an idiot and no-one has a chance in hell of successfully suing anybody else, then I agree. The only reason I can give for giving a shit is a bit of a parallel to recent Emma Watson: if it turns out, for example, that Alison tried to jump Shermer in a bathroom and all the anonymous hinting and later accusing is motivated by her embarrassment, and this was the first event on the road to ElevatorGate and what has followed, then isn't that interesting? A fucking false flag starting the Schism or Rift?

As to Watson vs The Snarky Twitter Troll ... it was cute and the troll clearly succeeded, but that's all it is, IMO.

As to bigger things ... Aneris continues to enact the labor and I'm very appreciative. :clap:

Shermer clearly indicates he is not a victim by virtue of his positive claim that he was sober and she was sober and it was consensual sex.

#46352

With all this Sherminator rapey hotel Alison malarkey going on, it's funny how weirdly prescient this scene from The Office (the proper UK version) seems:

[youtube]RAW8Tzt28Ts[/youtube]

#46353

Tribble wrote:Shermer clearly indicates he is not a victim by virtue of his positive claim that he was sober and she was sober and it was consensual sex.

Sorry. I was thinking larger than that. Yes, he wasn't a victim in the original event, but one could easily argue that he's been the victim ever since. That's what I meant.

#46354

FlyingV wrote:It's starting to sound like Shermer slept with quite a few women that were drunk. He probably used the same lines and made them feel special. I suspect that he has a few "go to's" for things that he says, "OMG! It's like we finish each other's sentences!" or some such other bullshit that women in the twenties fall for. Once they started putting the pieces together that he sleeps around and that they are not special, the hazy memories started changing a bit. It's not that they *aren't* special...it's that he coerced them.

It's funny that the timing of the "I'm not saying which skeptic is a sleezebag, but there is one, and he's important" all started coming out around the same time, and Alison partook....years after they slept together. I suspect that this is groupthink in action.

If Alison Wonderland is to be believed at all, Shermer's most successful line is suggesting he & nubile target collaborate on articles.

Mos def a sleaze master. But hey, his conquests fell for that bullshit.

I think it's funny how Peez and the baboons accuse is of 'hero worship' with Shermer, when all I've seen at the Pit are acknowledgements of Shermer's creep factor, and 'meh' on his professional contributions. Projection and false dichotomy -- serving Social Justice Atheism since 2012!

#46355

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If Alison Wonderland is to be believed at all, Shermer's most successful line is suggesting he & nubile target collaborate on articles.

Note to self: fewer single-authored pubs.

#46356

sinister wrote:Sorry the NPR comments are killing me here
q: "Why focus on Quinn's sex life, and not the journalists?"
a: "Well it's a sort of messy question, she was sleeping WITH JOURNALISTS."
q: "But why focus on her sex life then?"
a: "Sleeping. with. the. journalists."
q: "So it is about her sex life?"

And at this point people let me know just how hard they are willing to press themselves into a corner to not look at facts.

They've been trained well, NEVER deviate from the established talking points.

Keep parroting the same thing until you are given a new slogan to pitch.

#46357

Cunt of Personality wrote: To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.

According to Smith's claims, as confirmed by Wagg, she told Wagg that she was raped.

If someone told a representative of my company that they were raped, by someone we hired to present, at an event we put on, I damn well would expect them to inform HR and Legal. If that did not happen, I promise you pink slips would be delivered. No one outside of those departments has the authority to decide if there is reason or not to investigate or what we need to do about the claim. That an employee claims she (or he) was raped by a contractor of the company is sufficient to require action by the organization, and no one without appropriate authority should making any decisions on the validity of those claims.

Given the size of JREF, I would expect the only person with appropriate authority would be the President/Executive Director (Im not familiar with the title structure used there).

#46358

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
Tribble wrote:Shermer clearly indicates he is not a victim by virtue of his positive claim that he was sober and she was sober and it was consensual sex.
Sorry. I was thinking larger than that. Yes, he wasn't a victim in the original event, but one could easily argue that he's been the victim ever since. That's what I meant.

Yeah. There is that.

#46359

Dave wrote:
Cunt of Personality wrote: To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.
According to Smith's claims, as confirmed by Wagg, she told Wagg that she was raped.

If someone told a representative of my company that they were raped, by someone we hired to present, at an event we put on, I damn well would expect them to inform HR and Legal. If that did not happen, I promise you pink slips would be delivered. No one outside of those departments has the authority to decide if there is reason or not to investigate or what we need to do about the claim. That an employee claims she (or he) was raped by a contractor of the company is sufficient to require action by the organization, and no one without appropriate authority should making any decisions on the validity of those claims.

Given the size of JREF, I would expect the only person with appropriate authority would be the President/Executive Director (Im not familiar with the title structure used there).

That's not really what I was getting at. To return briefly to the dangers of grocery shopping - If someone were to club me over the back of the head and steal my wallet in the yoghurt aisle, I really don't want middle management to have a fucking focus-group meeting over whether to escalate the problematic situation to someone at head-office.

#46360

Shermer is guilty of

A. Being a popular spokesperson for Skepisism.(eclipsing those more deserving like Peez and co.)

B. Not towing the SJW line, (the filth actually seems to have some libertarian leanings)

C. Enjoys the ladies (in the veiw of the new puritans, males are to be obedient toilet slaves.)

D. Sticking his dick in crazy.

#46361

Cunt of Personality wrote:
AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Seigneur de la merde. Roi de la merde would be shitking, and I don't aspire that high. Yet.
Make it "chevalier" and you can start your own pseudo- medieval society. Perhaps the FraternitÃ© de l'Ordure?
L'Ordure des ~~Chevaliers~~ Chapeaux Bruns?

FTFY

#46362

Sulman wrote:Outstanding balance here, NPR.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

NPR uses disqus but for better or worse, they don't use the same user account names. That's fine. I don't use alts or socks, but that doesn't mean I use the same username everywhere. And at NPR, I do note that typical names, non-handle names, are treated better than names with handles. But no need to give them my real name. Anyway...

So I logged in to upvote and discovered some disqus notifications from this article, a story about the June Men's Rights conference.

http://i.imgur.com/Z2UfK4G.jpg

They marked as "spam" and comment noting that the speakers there represented a fairly diverse group, and people of color and women were very well represented in the speakers.

http://laurie-penny.com/why-were-winnin ... lture-war/

http://i.imgur.com/RBFM9zK.jpg

#46363

Spike13 wrote:Shermer is guilty of

A. Being a popular spokesperson for Skepisism.(eclipsing those more deserving like Peez and co.)

B. Not towing the SJW line, (the filth actually seems to have some libertarian leanings)

C. Enjoys the ladies (in the veiw of the new puritans, males are to be obedient toilet slaves.)

D. Sticking his dick in crazy.

D, D is all the evidence we need that human males aren't intelligently designed. How many of us didn't do this, or get to live through one of our friends doing this?

#46364

What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

#46365

Spike13 wrote:What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

If I had to guess, it's the kind of person that disagrees with selected women that think they represent the entirety of their gender for fun.

You know ... Mykeru.

#46366

Spike13 wrote:What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

I have noticed a trend in articles like this, the writers always seem to think they are the smartest person ever, and the best way to show this is using language in a way no one has ever used it before. I am not sure I understand the desired outcome, but it is rampant.

#46367

Spike13 wrote:What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

A Pitter.

#46368

sinister wrote:
Spike13 wrote:Shermer is guilty of

A. Being a popular spokesperson for Skepisism.(eclipsing those more deserving like Peez and co.)

B. Not towing the SJW line, (the filth actually seems to have some libertarian leanings)

C. Enjoys the ladies (in the veiw of the new puritans, males are to be obedient toilet slaves.)

D. Sticking his dick in crazy.
D, D is all the evidence we need that human males aren't intelligently designed. How many of us didn't do this, or get to live through one of our friends doing this?

Crazy pussy = best pussy.

#46369

Spike13 wrote:What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

A man.

#46370

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If Alison Wonderland is to be believed at all, Shermer's most successful line is suggesting he & nubile target collaborate on articles.
Note to self: fewer single-authored pubs.

Oh, babeee! You an' me could make beautiful peer review together!

#46371

Cunt of Personality wrote:
Dave wrote:
Cunt of Personality wrote: To the casual "couldn't give a fuck one way or the other" observer, it's seems that indeed there is no reason to investigate, since nobody with any skin in the game has approached anyone with any competency whatsoever in the area of investigation.
According to Smith's claims, as confirmed by Wagg, she told Wagg that she was raped.

If someone told a representative of my company that they were raped, by someone we hired to present, at an event we put on, I damn well would expect them to inform HR and Legal. If that did not happen, I promise you pink slips would be delivered. No one outside of those departments has the authority to decide if there is reason or not to investigate or what we need to do about the claim. That an employee claims she (or he) was raped by a contractor of the company is sufficient to require action by the organization, and no one without appropriate authority should making any decisions on the validity of those claims.

Given the size of JREF, I would expect the only person with appropriate authority would be the President/Executive Director (Im not familiar with the title structure used there).
That's not really what I was getting at. To return briefly to the dangers of grocery shopping - If someone were to club me over the back of the head and steal my wallet in the yoghurt aisle, I really don't want middle management to have a fucking focus-group meeting over whether to escalate the problematic situation to someone at head-office.

Perhaps Im still missing your point, but they shouldnt have a fucking focus-group meeting, they should report it to the head office, full stop. They should have policy that that tells them who to report it to, and should do so without delay. They should do so irrespective of what you want, because this is to protect their own ass not yours. (Although reasonable steps in protecting yours is necessary to protect their own.)

#46372

Spike13 wrote:What the hell is a "recreational misogynist"?

I asked Google. This is what I got.

http://i.imgur.com/aus2erL.jpg

Seems like something I might enjoy.

#46373

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'm going to say it now so that it's out of the way: I'm surprised, and a bit suspicious, that Shermer hasn't started any litigation or other action beside his PDF stuff by now, what with his status and public image.
Suspicious, sure, but you should not be surprised. Over here, he'd be subject to being deposed and, even if he's less in the wrong, that would not go well. He appears to have consulted a lawyer about a year ago and he was probably warned of this then. So he tried to bluff PZ, but failed, which has made it worse. Now he's probably just cursing everyone, including folks like us, for continuing to hash this over.

Put another way, we are feeding the trolls and/or doing exactly what Poppy, PZ, and Alison appear to desire: keeping the topic alive while not forcing anyone to back up their claims in court. If I gave a shit about Shermer, I'd be embarrassed by my own behavior.

And Shermer's memory is just as malleable as yours, mine and Alison Wonderland's. He's probably racking his brains trying to remember just how much consent he did obtain, and may not dare to sue as he's no longer sure about it. Even if he feels certain he did no wrong it will be his word against hers with no guarantee of the desired outcome.

#46374

comhcinc wrote: Crazy pussy = best pussy.

I didn't want to admit to anything, but this seems to be true. However, after having to call the cops because of suicide threats, I decided enough was enough.

On another note, there is a trend in comments that pointing out someone is a feminist is evidence that you are an MRA. Apparently using a label the person themselves chose is now some form of attack. Why are apparently intelligent people the worst at commenting about articles? (Ignoring the trolls of course.)

#46375

BTW, apologies for slowness - server is getting hit pretty hard with shellshock probes (google it).

#46376

It's similar to how they're now saying SJW is a slur, even though for the longest time, these fucking assholes would go around on their high horses calling themselves "social justice activists" and the only real change anyone is making to the label is the ironic "warrior" to denote how hugely self-important these morons are.

#46377

comhcinc wrote:
sinister wrote:
Spike13 wrote:Shermer is guilty of

A. Being a popular spokesperson for Skepisism.(eclipsing those more deserving like Peez and co.)

B. Not towing the SJW line, (the filth actually seems to have some libertarian leanings)

C. Enjoys the ladies (in the veiw of the new puritans, males are to be obedient toilet slaves.)

D. Sticking his dick in crazy.
D, D is all the evidence we need that human males aren't intelligently designed. How many of us didn't do this, or get to live through one of our friends doing this?

Crazy pussy = best pussy.

For a little while, sure. But eventually, your world will come crashing down. Watch True Detective. It's like an adult after-school special on the dangers of crazy pussy.

#46378

James Caruthers wrote:It's similar to how they're now saying SJW is a slur, even though for the longest time, these fucking assholes would go around on their high horses calling themselves "social justice activists" and the only real change anyone is making to the label is the ironic "warrior" to denote how hugely self-important these morons are.

The first time I heard a very angry online commenter refer to herself as a "social justice warrior" I had to laugh, because there is nothing warrior like about being an asshole on the interwebs.

#46379

TwentyTwo wrote:
"In short, if it's not about the problem you want it to be about, it's misogyny?"
The article is about the way women are treated in the industry, not about Gamergate. Gamergate is used as an example of how women are treated in the industry, but it isn't the focus of the article. Look, however, at the top-rated comments. They all demand to talk about Gamergate. They don't want to talk about the topic at hand, they want to change the subject. That condones the actions of people who are behaving badly by keeping the conversation (and the condemnation of those bad behaviors that should be happening) off the table. It says, "this isn't really the problem, the problem is over here". You don't have to explicitly condone something with your words to act in a way that supports it.
"And if it is, then it's misogyny, because that's what's important to you?"
No, it's about the way that women are treated in the games industry because that's the topic of the article. If you don't want to talk about the way women are treated in the games industry, then don't comment on an article about the way women are treated in the games industry.

This quote is posted in an article titled "#Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate On Women And Video Games"
So, if people want to point out there most certainly are differing views on "how women are treated" then they are distracting from the article.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconside ... 1604672743

#46380

James Caruthers wrote:So what's up with this Rotherham thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_ ... on_scandal

Seems to be a case of people covering it up because it was politically incorrect to point out that the perps were not white.

Pretty much and par for the course. The report may be found here : Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 â€“ 2013) | Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Some people find it difficult to believe that this could have happened but I do not. As I recall Clarence said something to the effect that the numbers were probably inflated but the report says 14,000 over a span of 16-17 years.

Which reminds me of an exchange I had with Alishaba where we both missed the point the other was making about keeping your hands to yourself. Well I did actually, till I remembered where she was from and why she possibly did not understand mine.

(Easy enough to do on Twatter I suppose)