Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[jet_lagg]

[.img]http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/882/1497315194.png[/img]
http://www.change.org/p/bay-area-scienc ... al-program

A petition like this is more compelling and credible when there aren't at least three misspelled words in the opening paragraph.

Also some people seem to be emphasizing the fact that Little Paul doxed "a woman," like it matters more because she's a woman. I mean, it matters from the point of view of IOWWDI hypocrisy, and I recognize the rhetorical power of turning SJWs' own twisted logic against them, but, at the same time, I think it's important not to lend too much credibility to imbecilic tropes like "x was mean to someone / that person was a woman / therefore x is a misogynist (or the white knight implication - 'therefore it's a meaner act than if he'd done it to a man') -- unless the irony is reasonably obvious.

Anybody else notice how this anti-doxx petition doxxes?

First thing I noticed actually. Is it possible to contact the OP to get them to edit the message? I can't seem to find a way.

[Note: Edited out pic to remove personal details. - Gumby]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'll try and post some vids/pics if I can.

[jet_lagg]

Oh, just saw SkepTickle is posting there with her real name anyway. Guess if she doesn't care then I don't care.

[windy]

And since you appear to have missed this part:

But as long as you feel like arguing with me, mind answering my question from above? How is your argument about REAL WORLD HARM not retroactively justifying Skep Tickle's doxxing and similar underhanded tactics? (PZ: "I think the *** hospital should know what one of their doctors does in her spare time, so I’m not going to shy away from mentioning her name.")

Simple. It isn't a lie to say PZ harmed someone. PZ lied to harm someone. Was there a difficult question I am missing?

Whether he lied or not is a different question from whether he's causing real world harm. You're missing that PZ is also justifying his doxxing by referring to potential real-world harm.

(And did he lie? He interpreted Skep Tickle's joke in as sinister a way as possible but didn't lie about what she said.)

[Brive1987]

Brive, the problem, the primary problem and difference between your (and sinister's, for example) views and my views is what constitutes or, to use your metaphor, what it means for the rubber to hit the road.

Whose rubber and what are its constituents? :auto-dirtbike:

What road, and where is it going? :animals-dogrun:

My belief is that how an individual acts is generally their responsibility, so if you want to go the Mykeru route, that's fine; that's your business; that might even work to some small degree (though I have my doubts: CrackerGate?).

And I do agree with the arguments that outline how that is not the same thing as doxxing; however, I am also a bit confused as to its relevance: how does PeeZus's professional employment come into this (other than eye for an eye; weapons of the enemy)?

Anyway, back to the point: The overall sense I get from you and sinister is one of not objecting to adopting the enemy's weapons to battle the enemy (let's allow the colourful mataphoric language for now as it is somewhat apropos). And I do not, and cannot understand how becoming (even if only in part) that which you abhore is a good thing to do.

We probably have to disagree here. Cops carry guns. And use them.

Saying "if you egregiously doxx someone in the future from our group - that will result in an equal but opposite reaction" is simply inviting them to hoist themselves on their own shitty moral petard.

If I could automate the whole process I would. Cause > Effect.

No anger. No torches. Just a language they seem to understand.

[sinister]

I'll try and post some vids/pics if I can.

Careful, if you don't my angry mental ass might come after you! BOOGA! BOOGA! :o

[Gumby]

Yes going mental. Jesus, don't stoop to their level, unless I am doing it, then I can be a telepath! I can impugn your arugumets by making them "mental" and "angry."

I am not upset people disagree, I am upset they are doing so in a dishonest way. One doesn't have to be angry or mental to disagree with you. One doesn't have to be emotional to defend their position. So, why don't you sit your sanctimonious self-refuting ass down and work out the internal logic of berating someones tactics using the tactics you claim they shouldn't be using.

I'm not even angry about your post! I just follow along with your escalation of rhetoric. Hell, the only reason I am responding here is once again, dishonesty.

Since people disagree with you, that automatically means they're doing it dishonestly. Right. Got it. Your reasoning is fucking pristine. What a fucking moron.

[Mykeru]

Oh, and while I'll pull up a Damon on the doxx matter and sit on the fence about going all out on Peezus & friends (oh show me your sugoi ways damon-sensei), because I can see pros and cons of both sides, I'll ask people willing to go ahead against Peezus to ask SkepTickle what she thinks of the matter first. Because, after all, it's her ass that Peezus is trying to tar and feather, and whatever you do may affect her one way or another.

Damn, I almost wanted to PM this rather than give the game away, but has it occurred to you that one purpose in pissing Peezus off is so he will not only be distracted from his original target, but now have to attack a far more hardened target?

No? Didn't occur to anyone?

Tactics? On teh interwebz?

:naughty: :lol:

Dammit, I jizz like a demented lawn sprinkler just thinking about Peez going after me. It would be like Christmas and government cheese all rolled up into one.

The hay I could make.

Come on people, talking about Peez elsewhere, throw my name out there. Let him know who he should really be teaching a lesson.

GODDAMMIT THROW ME A FRIGGIN' BONE ALREADY.

[blitzem]

If anyone has time for some AVFM drama as relayed by David Futrelle, there is a fun video out by John The Other explaining for the first time why he disappeared or was kicked out of AVFM in June even though for 2 - 3 years he had been 2nd in command and being about 15 years younger than Elam had others presuming he was soon to be named golden child and cult leader.

Futrelle:
https://archive.today/1ex64

John's Video:


Apparently John's sin was

+ complaining about Stefan Molyneux
+ complaining about Janet Bloomfield (Judgy Bitch)
+ complaining about one article by a trans man he felt was bullshit

Futrelle is accurate on at least one count

+ John has published several shit articles of his own

And I've pointed out at reddit, that several of John's articles do no one any good and are so full of "justice porn" that I doubted even he acted as he claimed he did.

I found John's video interesting in terms of AVFM drama, I think his points about Judgy Bitch are mostly wrong even though I find some of Judgy Bitch's tweets and other behaviors wrong and counterproductive on several occasions. Mainly, I think she needs to up her game and stop committing bush league errors.

If you watch this video as I did, you will be able to feel superior to

+ David Futrelle
+ John The Other
+ Janet Bloomfield
+ Stefan Molyneux
+ Paul Elam

:eusa-snooty:

By not watching this video, you can probably add me to the list above.

I watched a bit of these, then I watched a couple more of JtOs' vids.

Now my brain hurts. How old are these people? And is it me or does every movement the US implode in on itself due to dogma issues?

[Tigzy]

http://www.freezepage.com/1412889170EMUCUGBUBY

[name redacted - Gumby] previous venture in the category of Misusing Professional Credentials to Abuse Someone.

Skep tickle says

May 27, 2013 at 9:44 am(Edit)

Please get some professional psychological help. I’m serious. Paranoia seems to be consuming you.

She’s so caring and concerned.

Misusing her professional credentials. Guess that'll be why she posted it under the name 'Skep tickle', then.

Oh, and remember this one, Oafie? :

'Go die in a fire. I mean it. I really want you to die in a fire.'

I know. It doesn't count. Cos one of your widdle fwiends said it.

[CuntajusRationality]

To make my point as clearly as I can, why would we get upset at PZ doxxing SkepTickle if all we are going to do is the same thing back at PZ et al?

If no-one had addressed this point before, then raising it as a question would be fine, but, to be blunt, I find the above really fucking annoying.

The difference is really simple: PZ mixes his job with his on-line activity. He uses his job-title on both his twitter feed and his blog, and his job uses his on-line activity as something to boast about.

SkepTickle does the exact opposite. She doesn't mix the two and wants them to be separate.

Thus, bringing PZ's job into this is not doing anything that he hasn't already done himself for years.

Bringing SkepTickle's job into this is doing something that she has never done and never wanted done.

Understand?

Agreed. I can understand if people think it's just an ineffective tactic or if they have some kind of personal moral or ethical objection to it, but the idea that anyone is "doing the same thing back" seems to ignore some key distinctions.

There is a material difference between going after someone IRL for an online comment versus going after someone IRL for going after someone IRL for an online comment. One is clearly way over-the-top, whereas the other is pretty much exactly proportional to the instigating volley.

Proportionality and intentions do actually matter and fighting back (not physically of course) is not the same as starting a fight.

[sinister]

(And did he lie? He interpreted Skep Tickle's joke in as sinister a way as possible but didn't lie about what she said.)

Wow. Okay then. If you are unsure what truth and lies are, I can't help. He lied about her post, a lot. Also, trying to tease apart lies from the harm caused by them is nonsense.
If I get you fired for something you didn't do,it is not equivalent to someone being fired for something they have done.

If you don't see why that distinction is important, then I am not even sure why a lie would ever matter to you.

[Badger3k]

If you expect nuance, subtlety and careful consideration from a "suck site" (which is pretty much what the Slymepit is), you may need to Lurk Moar.

Ok, but it's a pretty serious accusation though. And even beyond the rapist himself, just allowing an adult to talk about his sex crimes on your Web site is deeply shitty. But the ogvorbis situation, I really do think that's categorically different.

Great. Let's move on to the next point: how do feel about PZ Myers, a college professor, posting on his blog sex dreams about his female students?

I've told myself not to post anything until I get caught up, but this one - it's completely unprofessional and opens himself up to harassment charges - if anyone cares about it. He posts, in public, in a blog that his students know about (and some in the past may have commented/posted on), that he fantasizes about having sex with his students (at least once). So, any of his students who read his blog would have to wonder if he is objectifying them (this would be his term for it) and seeing them not as students but sex objects. Being in a college with adults (although he may be teaching kids who are still technically not adults or at the age of consent/majority - not sure what it is in Mn) is a bit different than earlier grades, but letting students know you may be thinking of them this way is a bit creepy and pervy. Would you want to take a class where your teacher might not be thinking of you as a student, but as a sex toy? Even if you swing that way (as a teacher), you don't fucking make it public. He may think tenure protects him, but if enough students complained, I'm not sure how much protection that would be - I know tenure can be revoked under some circumstances, sexual impropriety or harassment may be one of them.

[Gumby]

Oh, just saw SkepTickle is posting there with her real name anyway. Guess if she doesn't care then I don't care.

TO ALL:

From here on out please don't post Skep Tickle's name here, in text or image form.

Thank you.

[Mykeru]

In your call, you were actually rather respectful, restrained, and well reasoned. Call it a shoo-ing away of the pestering mosquito that is Meyers, not a full on emotion driven rage attack. No doxxing, no lying or misquoting or misappropriating.

I'm mostly concerned for Myers well-being. What's more, as he unravels, there are innocents that will feel the full force of his impotent rage.

Think of the Zebra Fish.

[sinister]

Since people disagree with you, that automatically means they're doing it dishonestly. Right. Got it. Your reasoning is fucking pristine. What a fucking moron.

Go ahead then, point out where I have a flawed argument. Uh, ass-licker? I am not even sure when the name calling started, but I am not so good at it.

[blitzem]

Tactics? On teh interwebz?

:naughty: :lol:

Dammit, I jizz like a demented lawn sprinkler just thinking about Peez going after me. It would be like Christmas and government cheese all rolled up into one.

The hay I could make.

Come on people, talking about Peez elsewhere, throw my name out there. Let him know who he should really be teaching a lesson.

GODDAMMIT THROW ME A FRIGGIN' BONE ALREADY.

Well, there is a small convo going on over at noelplum99s with his offering in the mix:



But he got railroaded off of FfTB ages ago so I doubt the Horde is paying attention, let alone Peezus. Also, he didn't like Matt's post very much, but I am not sure that he understood the point. BSR posted a comment that seemed to clear the air a bit.

[Gumby]

Since people disagree with you, that automatically means they're doing it dishonestly. Right. Got it. Your reasoning is fucking pristine. What a fucking moron.

Go ahead then, point out where I have a flawed argument. Uh, ass-licker? I am not even sure when the name calling started, but I am not so good at it.

I don't even care what your argument is. I'm just pointing out that you've been throwing a fit and browbeating everyone who doesn't agree with you for hours now. You look like a petulant little brat.

I'm done.

[Tribble]

Obviously you are free to disagree with my line. But "an anger-based, revenge using the enemy's weapons and methods" is not an accurate description of my approach.

I'm actually boringly calm and logical here. The moral opprobrium in my approach is on the other side. You state your moral preference, you drawn a pragmatic line in the sand and you tell the other guy "but hit the red button and see what happens". The responsibility lies with them not to cross the self evidently ethical line.

This happens all the time, break a rule and bad things, not normally on the table, happen. Cause and effect.

The real issue here is that many don't seem to think harassing employers on top of doxxing is a serious enough precedent on which to make a stand. And maybe it's not. Though I can't imagine what the next point of escalation could be? Maybe what you are really saying is that there is no point at which rubber should hit the road?

But I definitely did not say we should rush off and doxx people now, the only people with torches and wearing their crazy faces are the FtBers.

Stand, yes, but mutually assured destruction is not the answer. If people keep acting like Aneris and some others who are pushing back, but keeping it on the high road, on Nugent's blog people will see.

To make a vague and weak comparison, I kind of look at our choices being similar to the civil rights era MLK stratagy versus Malcom X strategy. One pushed for equality and integration and won, though it cost him his life. The other was a black separatist and, ultimately, accomplished nothing beyond getting killed by Nation of Islam member when he left it.

MLK is remembered as a great man and has streets, buildings and other civic venues named after him. He even has his birthday recognized. Malcom X is routinely forgotten and I believe when I homeschooled my daughter in US History, Malcom X was pretty much a footnote at best. Whereas, MLK and his contributions filled many pages.

In short, let THEM be the assholes and idiots and liars and fuck-sticks. Show the world you are better than them.

So do you see what I'm saying? Or are you going to go all Damion on me? ;)

[sinister]

LOL dishonest post- dishonest post- dishonest post- pretend the dishonesty doesn't matter- declare victory. Genius.

[Mykeru]

Celebratory dinner was 39.99 euros. I'm that classy.

What's that in real money?

[JacquesCuze]

Oh, just saw SkepTickle is posting there with her real name anyway. Guess if she doesn't care then I don't care.

TO ALL:

From here on out please don't post Skep Tickle's name here, in text or image form.

Thank you.

/stones Gumby the Blasphemer

[Tribble]

And I do not, and cannot understand how becoming (even if only in part) that which you abhore is a good thing to do.

For the same reason you would consider it acceptable, upon sighting a spree shooter armed with a pistol, to pull out a pistol of your own and shoot him. Your goal is not to shoot people, but to stop further harm to people's lives.

OH SHIT, YOU JUST USED THE WEAPONS OF THE ENEMY!

:roll:

Bad analogy. You're comparing a life threatening situation with a social-change issue. Myers, et. al., need marginizlation. Acting like 4chan goons, or FTB goons, isn't going to do anything but satisfy your eye-for-an-eye-until-we're-all-blind need for revenge. There are other ways. And they work. And they work well.

They just take time.

[Badger3k]

For those people who thought PZ owed Nugent an apology you clearly underestimated the mental gymnastics ability of PZs horde of drooling cretins:

http://i.imgur.com/5vAcBHC.png

That's right Nugent owes PZ an apology because English works so differently in America than it does in Ireland that the word somehow means something different. Personally I would take great pleasure in slapping Mr Logic right here.

Honestly, I thought that post was a joke. I can't even wrap my brain around what he is trying to say.

Keep a link handy for when they want an example of rape apology. I guess the corollary is "It's not Rape when we do it"?

[BlueShiftRhino]

Screwtape - Sorry that I lost it. I took a walk. I'm OK now. I was annoyed because I took your post as implying that we haven't thought about the tit-for-tat issue. I, for one, have spent way too much time on exactly that issue in the last day or so. If that isn't what you meant, then I'm sorry. And even if it was what you meant, a mere Fuck You would have been sufficient.

[Badger3k]

Hey you all -- over at Nugent's, the Pit's reputation is rising dramatically. People are saying nice things about us!

So before it's too late, we should probably lift that ban on scat gifs.

Far as I know, nobody banned scat gifs. We just ragged on Mykeru until it got old, and moved on.

Since I've already borked my not-posting, I figured I'd throw in my own scat video:

[youtube]T6nU-h3pLQU[/youtube]

Hadn't heard this one before.

[Tribble]

Is there even a point in debating this?

If some people don't want to cross a certain line or, as they say "stoop to their level", that's fine by me. I haven't been lectured about the wrongness of my ways here yet, so I think I'm pretty safe in assuming I can do as I like regarding this matter, as an individual.

And so should everybody else.

Exactly. Several posters have explained their position and it's up to each person to decide the best course of action. I presume that the point of the discussion is to make an informed decision, and not to reach a corporate agreement.

I'll insist once more on what I consider good reasons not to pursue this matter IRL:

1. If the rational member of the A/S movement behave in exactly the same way as the lunatic fringe, ir will be harder to recruit the support of prominent atheists in a shunning campaign.

Absolutely. Why choose a side when both are nothing more than assholes? Best to go do something else...

2. Any IRL action will likely fail to produce any favourable outcome. I don't think that anybody should see his job jeopardised by his online activities; yes, that's precisely what PZ did, but the general principle should always hold. Unless one is prepared to accept that murderers should be murdered, general principles like that one are desirable.

Yeah. It's bloody hard to unseat a tenured professor. Better to make him a pariah in the A/S community by illustrating his boorish behavior while not acting like a fool.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Plus, people, there are many things that can be done without involving the pit as whole. Not everything need be advertised. Except Mykeru. He and Matt seem to scare the baboons to crazy levels, so good on them.

[comhcinc]

Holy Shit. Things were getting boring so I was playing skyrim for the last couple of days. Fucking wow.

[Mykeru]

Huh, what? Oh....

http://www.freezepage.com/1412890791DEVAVHKCDC

Nice catch.

[windy]

I think some people are conflating two different, although overlapping, goals - or maybe they have different goals entirely. One being to marginalize Myers to the point where he has no real influence, and the other being to declaw and defang Myers in some way so that he is less able or less apt to do actual damage to people IRL. I would agree that Nugent's blog, and similar more diplomatic approaches, are effective in furthering the first goal, but not the second. In order to accomplish the second goal, it's necessary to make it clear that there are serious consequences for fucking with people IRL, thereby changing the moral calculus or the cost-benefit analysis that justifies what he does.

OK, absolute best case scenario: Myers gets warned off by his school not to doxx people in the future. He actually listens to them. Later, he gets the urge to punish some uppity skeptic again. What's to stop him from simply passing off info to other FTB:ers to do the more usual drip-doxxing? Lest we forget, it was Benson and Zvan who originally doxxed Skep.

And what about the doxxing of "Victor Ivanoff"? IIRC people mostly mocked him for that, and yes, it was pretty ridiculous but far as PZ was concerned, he was outing a real person.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Gumby, I just want to say that I think you are doing a very pragmatic and meritorious job of moderating. The baboons are eager to hang themselves, so let's give them enough rope and be extra cautious for now.

Otherwise, you still suck as usual. ;)

[John Greg]

James C. said:

For the same reason you would consider it acceptable, upon sighting a spree shooter armed with a pistol, to pull out a pistol of your own and shoot him. Your goal is not to shoot people, but to stop further harm to people's lives.

OH SHIT, YOU JUST USED THE WEAPONS OF THE ENEMY!

Bullshit sophistry, and irrelevant to the topic and its specifics. You can do better than that; you are better than that.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Who says PZ would be the incentive to stop future goddamned doxxing?

I don't want anybody doxxed, but if FtB needs encouragement then the insurance has to be viable. Yes it's MAD but as a child of the 1970s and 80s I know that works.

My vote would be to take Oggie hostage because a) he sought kiddie-rape points b) he may be a kiddie-raper c) the stupid cunt has doxxed himself and d) he is someone the horde actually care about so the plan may just work.

To reiterate, I don't want anyone to be doxxed. The question is how to stop the rogue nation-state now using this vile tactic at will. Or whether we should even bother to try.

PZ would probably love for Oggie to take a bullet and garner the victim points himself. Probably feels the same about most of them. Despite all the bluster, I doubt anyone can legally lay a glove on PC, so don't chuck away your strongest hand, the clear contrast in behaviour, just when it's starting to get noticed. There's no shame in being realistic.

[sinister]

OK, absolute best case scenario: Myers gets warned off by his school not to doxx people in the future. He actually listens to them. Later, he gets the urge to punish some uppity skeptic again. What's to stop him from simply passing off info to other FTB:ers to do the more usual drip-doxxing? Lest we forget, it was Benson and Zvan who originally doxxed Skep.

And what about the doxxing of "Victor Ivanoff"? IIRC people mostly mocked him for that, and yes, it was pretty ridiculous but far as PZ was concerned, he was outing a real person.

I have only been around for this issue, and being aware of the past, I think action is waranted. The fact is I don't want his job. I explained this last night. I want him to be aware people have noticed this action. I want him to be fully aware, that real harm being caused does garner notice outside blogs and the internet. I can only whack-a-mole as I see them. So, I can't fix the past, but I can work at fixing the future, right? I don't worry as much about Benson and Zvan as they don't hold a position of power over many people. I see no reason to allow someone willing to hurt people, in the real world, a position of power, or for anyone in a position of power to act unchecked.

I will act next as the next situation arises. Based on the actions done. I can't do any better than that now though.

[Gumby]

Gumby, I just want to say that I think you are doing a very pragmatic and meritorious job of moderating. The baboons are eager to hang themselves, so let's give them enough rope and be extra cautious for now.

Thanks. One of the benefits of being a moderator here is I never had to do anything. Until now :lol:

Otherwise, you still suck as usual. ;)

Goddamn right. And don't you forget it!

[Apples]

http://i.imgur.com/2y4iY5Z.jpg
Which FTB blog post did he post this comment? The one I own, or another one?

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/880/3955954690.png
http://web.archive.org/web/201410072245 ... erdome-55/

[Brive1987]

Obviously you are free to disagree with my line. But "an anger-based, revenge using the enemy's weapons and methods" is not an accurate description of my approach.

I'm actually boringly calm and logical here. The moral opprobrium in my approach is on the other side. You state your moral preference, you drawn a pragmatic line in the sand and you tell the other guy "but hit the red button and see what happens". The responsibility lies with them not to cross the self evidently ethical line.

This happens all the time, break a rule and bad things, not normally on the table, happen. Cause and effect.

The real issue here is that many don't seem to think harassing employers on top of doxxing is a serious enough precedent on which to make a stand. And maybe it's not. Though I can't imagine what the next point of escalation could be? Maybe what you are really saying is that there is no point at which rubber should hit the road?

But I definitely did not say we should rush off and doxx people now, the only people with torches and wearing their crazy faces are the FtBers.

Stand, yes, but mutually assured destruction is not the answer. If people keep acting like Aneris and some others who are pushing back, but keeping it on the high road, on Nugent's blog people will see.

To make a vague and weak comparison, I kind of look at our choices being similar to the civil rights era MLK stratagy versus Malcom X strategy. One pushed for equality and integration and won, though it cost him his life. The other was a black separatist and, ultimately, accomplished nothing beyond getting killed by Nation of Islam member when he left it.

MLK is remembered as a great man and has streets, buildings and other civic venues named after him. He even has his birthday recognized. Malcom X is routinely forgotten and I believe when I homeschooled my daughter in US History, Malcom X was pretty much a footnote at best. Whereas, MLK and his contributions filled many pages.

In short, let THEM be the assholes and idiots and liars and fuck-sticks. Show the world you are better than them.

So do you see what I'm saying? Or are you going to go all Damion on me? ;)

I get it. I disagree.

Yes there is a broader movement wide issue with the schism. And that requires patient prodding to get the FtBers increasingly radical and therefore marginalised. And no, running around like idiots is not effective here.

But to use your analogy, what we saw yesterday was a lynching. And that's when the fancy "dream" speeches stop for a moment while some bit of trash gets fried, or thrown into a black hole for the rest of their life.
And no one gets hypersensitive or worries about the feelings of the rest of the trailer trash.

Then the game starts again.

Because if you don't do this then you implicitly under-right the crime and thereby legitimise its future use.

So my question is what is the appropriate response to this 'lynching'? I've put up, so I don't have to shut up. But all I've heard and seen here is a suggestion another speech at the podium will do the trick.

We are all (mostly) hood people here. This is a pragmatic problem to solve.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Celebratory dinner was 39.99 euros. I'm that classy.

What's that in real money?

39.99 Euros is like 445000 dollars. Or so I've heard. I'm pretty insular.

[Badger3k]

I haven't kept up with Dr. Who for the last couple of years or so. Can someone tell me what's going on. Today an acquaintance of mine who's a religious catholic homo, who is neither a priest nor Andrew Sullivan, posted something on Facebook about how happy he is that the recent Dr. Who episode was so "pro-life". Anyone know what he's talking about?

If I told you, it would ruin the episode for you or anyone else reading here. It really isn't a "pro-life" episode so much as Dr. Who has always been pretty much the kind of character that doesn't want to kill aliens or humans.

I thought the Doctor insisting it wasn't his responsibility to make the decision and leaving it to the humans (who were non-coincidentally all female) to decide whether or not to kill the space flea before it hatched, along with the word "abort" on the bomb controller, made it fairly clear there was an abortion metaphor going on. Exactly what conclusion was arrived at - either "abortion is wrong", or "abortion is a choice entirely in the woman's hands", or even "if you're male, you're in the wrong no matter what you say, so you may as well keep your mouth shut" - or whether no conclusion was arrived at and the idea was just to raise the question, is harder to say.

Never saw that. Just another episode where the Doctor takes a step back and can't (or says he can't) make some decisions. They've always played up the part that there are some points in time that even Time Lords can't affect - Tennants Doctor tried it with the Water on Mars episode and found out how true that is. I think part of it might be a way of getting Jenna out (rumors have gone both ways), part of it might be trying to distance the Doctor from the more human/soft Doctors of the past few regenerations - a different doctor would have explained it differently than he did at the end. Probably other reasons. It also came across as being a bit out of character for Clara - she was willing to sacrifice herself to save the Doctor, but it's different when it's just humans affected? Add in the "I used to love him now I don't even know him" drama they are putting in (again, probably to distance the Doctor character from any romance with companions that has been a staple of the new series (plural)).

[Tribble]

OK, absolute best case scenario: Myers gets warned off by his school not to doxx people in the future. He actually listens to them. Later, he gets the urge to punish some uppity skeptic again. What's to stop him from simply passing off info to other FTB:ers to do the more usual drip-doxxing? Lest we forget, it was Benson and Zvan who originally doxxed Skep.

And what about the doxxing of "Victor Ivanoff"? IIRC people mostly mocked him for that, and yes, it was pretty ridiculous but far as PZ was concerned, he was outing a real person.

He'll do it like Benson did the first time and give enough hints that his 'hordelett' will take care of it or he'll just send it the Skepchicks or some other FTB goon-squad blogger. He's not so stupid that he can't figure out ways to have plausible deniability.

But, honestly, who is kidding whom that tattling to UMM will matter? We have a huge history of assholish behavior beyond slandering Shermer with rapegate, we also have crackergate, gelato man and lap-top woman who were all doxxed and/or fired and/or ruined and/or stirred-up mountains of outrage did nothing to slow him down.

So color me skeptical, but I have major doubts the doxxing Skeptickle will cause UMM to do anything or slow him down and engaging in tit-for-tat will not help. Rather, just take the high road and keep the full-court pressure on the Horde when they leave their little bubble and keep making PZ Myers, FTB, Skepchicks, et.al. and their shitty behavior in the spotlight.

[comhcinc]

If you watch this video as I did, you will be able to feel superior to

+ David Futrelle
+ John The Other
+ Janet Bloomfield
+ Stefan Molyneux
+ Paul Elam

:eusa-snooty:

I don't need to watch a video to feel superior to those people.

Or you.

Or any of you.

I fucking rock.

[Apples]

I lowered myself to skimming through some of the comments over at Adam Lee's blog. It is instructive to see how these lies get repeated over and over and even the most dubious rumor starts to morph into "fact". As background, someone (Dallas Hough) that was clearly mentally ill and decompensating posted a comment at PZ's blog claiming he had been raped by Michael Shermer. Even PZ apparently didn't believe it, and for once he did the right thing and had the authorities do a welfare check on someone that was clearly in mental distress. Although the monumental bonehead HJ Hornbeck repeated this as if it happened, the rest of the baboons probably realized it was just a delusion and kept quiet about it. Oolon digs it back up and posts it on Lee's blog.

Avatar
oolon Sally Strange • 10 days ago

That is what pushed me over the edge from thinking Nugent was a Dawkins fanboy and helpful idiot to outright nasty. Claiming he is taking the moral high road and helping the victms! When Alison and the other victim, Dallas Haugh, have both said they want it publicised. I don't think so Mick.
19
•
Reply
•
Share ›

I noticed that HJ Hornbeck had recently been trying to remind people about Dallas "the creative pooper" Haugh. I knew he and oolOn were demented ... but I didn't realize they were quite this fucking demented.

[BarnOwl]

By tomorrow around 4pm, I will be off to the mountains to assist the final Mix of Kerion's latest album. This plus no neck brace make me very happy, giddy, and full of butterflies and unicorns.

Myers is still a little fucker, though.

Sounds awesome, Phil.

Congrats on being free of the neck brace!

[Parody Accountant]

http://i.imgur.com/of34h4N.jpg

Really guys, was it necessary to leave in the sign with Mykeru's personal information? :naughty:

holy fuck. That La-Den got me.

SCARY SHIT BRO.

[Apples]

... For someone who fancies himself the smartest guy in the room, Damion isn't very bright. ...

QFT

[Tribble]

I get it. I disagree.

Yes there is a broader movement wide issue with the schism. And that requires patient prodding to get the FtBers increasingly radical and therefore marginalised. And no, running around like idiots is not effective here.

But to use your analogy, what we saw yesterday was a lynching. And that's when the fancy "dream" speeches stop for a moment while some bit of trash gets fried, or thrown into a black hole for the rest of their life.
And no one gets hypersensitive or worries about the feelings of the rest of the trailer trash.

Then the game starts again.

Because if you don't do this then you implicitly under-right the crime and thereby legitimise its future use.

So my question is what is the appropriate response to this 'lynching'? I've put up, so I don't have to shut up. But all I've heard and seen here is a suggestion another speech at the podium will do the trick.

We are all (mostly) hood people here. This is a pragmatic problem to solve.

You're as gansta as white bread and less of threat to PZ Myers than my cats.

lus, I've been around the block with bullshit a lot more than you. Myers has weathered multiple incidents with nary a rebuke from UMM and this will be the same. YOU WILL LOSE. UMM WILL DO NOTHING. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING BEFORE. THEY WON'T THIS TIME.

So WIN BY BEING SMARTER than your opponent instead acting like some white bread gansta and spinning your wheels and setting back the efforts of others who are playing it smarter and better than your proposal.

[Apples]

Holy shit, are we at it again, wondering if we should have a time out, sit in the corner with our thumbs swirling around our assholes and think about it some more until we reach a state of zen apathy? Didn't we do this last time when doing something about the Radford situation -- bringing in AVfM to get the word out and fill the war chest -- was met with the same response?

Happy to be the guy who gets shit for doing. This time, because I've got a bad case of deja vu, I'm not going to apologize, explain or argue about it.

http://i.imgur.com/V7nv3fA.jpg

Yeah I get it, the next time something big happens I'll make a point not to come here.

:clap: :lol:

as Parsehole would say - oh my sides!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

So color me skeptical, but I have major doubts the doxxing Skeptickle will cause UMM to do anything or slow him down and engaging in tit-for-tat will not help. Rather, just take the high road and keep the full-court pressure on the Horde when they leave their little bubble and keep making PZ Myers, FTB, Skepchicks, et.al. and their shitty behavior in the spotlight.

There's no high road. There was never a high road, and there never will be one. UMM can do whatever the fuck they want, but exposing Myers's antics is going to leave a mark. It will, as you say, put their shitty behaviors in the spotlight.

Anything wrong with that?

[Tribble]

Well, that was a fucked edit.

[Clarence]

Ok, but it's a pretty serious accusation though. And even beyond the rapist himself, just allowing an adult to talk about his sex crimes on your Web site is deeply shitty. But the ogvorbis situation, I really do think that's categorically different.

Great. Let's move on to the next point: how do feel about PZ Myers, a college professor, posting on his blog sex dreams about his female students?

I've told myself not to post anything until I get caught up, but this one - it's completely unprofessional and opens himself up to harassment charges - if anyone cares about it. He posts, in public, in a blog that his students know about (and some in the past may have commented/posted on), that he fantasizes about having sex with his students (at least once). So, any of his students who read his blog would have to wonder if he is objectifying them (this would be his term for it) and seeing them not as students but sex objects. Being in a college with adults (although he may be teaching kids who are still technically not adults or at the age of consent/majority - not sure what it is in Mn) is a bit different than earlier grades, but letting students know you may be thinking of them this way is a bit creepy and pervy. Would you want to take a class where your teacher might not be thinking of you as a student, but as a sex toy? Even if you swing that way (as a teacher), you don't fucking make it public. He may think tenure protects him, but if enough students complained, I'm not sure how much protection that would be - I know tenure can be revoked under some circumstances, sexual impropriety or harassment may be one of them.[/quote]

While I agree that there is a good reason to ban sex between students and teachers in HS, and to ban it when one is currently in the class of the professor he/she is boffing during college, I think this rather ridiculous censorous puritanism is ridiculous. You want to guarantee that NO male teacher ever looks at your adult daughter with prurient fantasies?

Replace him with a robot.

As it is , I don't care if Peez had 'mermaid' fantasies about his adult female students (or male, if he was gay). Provided it didn't affect their grades and he didn't force those fantasies (via sexually harassing comments, etc) on them, it really is none of our concern. That being said, he probably should have kept it to himself, but really what kind of bitch I'd have to be to complain about such a post on his private blog about his fantasies about me 1, 5, 10, or 15 years before, esp when I'm still as anonymous as ever.

[comhcinc]

Replace him with a robot.

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uplo ... bender.jpg

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If The Slymepit ever had a purpose -- other than being the grail stone of never-ending juvenile humor -- it was to thwart the baboons by mocking them, exposing their hypocrisy and foibles, and goading them into making fools of themselves. I think the Pit has largely achieved those goals, the juvenile humor especially.

It nows looks as if our half-assed efforts have actually paid off: in the opinion of most neutral observers, PZ, Ophie, the Skepchicks have jumped the shark.

As I truly believe that PZ is a pervert who's repeatedly shown his inability to respect the lines of propriety, I am personally troubled by his role as a public educator to young women. But that's neither my direct concern, nor part of the Pit's 'mandate.' ( I'm not going to tell others how to deal with that issue on their own.) We wanted to end PZ's ruinous influence in A/S. Him losing his job, however much schadenfreude that might provide, was never Pitvölkisch.

It's important that we don't let PZ & gang up off the mat when we have them pinned. But the way to finish them off, imho, is with the very same tactics that got us to this point: mock them, expose them, let them be their true selves while others are watching. And use traditional, above-the-board channels for disseminating information to spread the word about the baboons. We don't need to engage in the same underhanded tactics they do -- just let more people in the A/S world see & read what the baboons do & write.

We never gave a damn about our bad reputation, and that was the key -- in trying to besmirch us, the baboons, for whom reputation did matter, only smeared the slyme all over themselves. But we were just irreverent, harsh, and a little crude, not devious, deceitful or spiteful. And so we won. Ironically, our reputation seems to be at an all-time high right now. (Though still quite low, hopefully.) Let's stay on course.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Myers doxes someone for a joke they made, then expects to get off scot-free.

Do I really need to make it clear why he needs some strong response, or am I talking with a litter of 5-days-old kitties?

Nevermind. it may just be my Mediterranean blood speaking.

[Apples]

Nobody can out-weird Ophelia's weird metaphors. In order to agree with Laurie Penny's assertion that justice warriors are winning, Ophelia has declared herself not-a-dog (though I'm pretty sure she's still a toilet).

https://archive.today/Vv6dV

http://imgur.com/oy7cOBK.jpg

:shock:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/882/6100706087.png

[screwtape]

To make my point as clearly as I can, why would we get upset at PZ doxxing SkepTickle if all we are going to do is the same thing back at PZ et al?

If no-one had addressed this point before, then raising it as a question would be fine, but, to be blunt, I find the above really fucking annoying.

The difference is really simple: PZ mixes his job with his on-line activity. He uses his job-title on both his twitter feed and his blog, and his job uses his on-line activity as something to boast about.

SkepTickle does the exact opposite. She doesn't mix the two and wants them to be separate.

Thus, bringing PZ's job into this is not doing anything that he hasn't already done himself for years.

Bringing SkepTickle's job into this is doing something that she has never done and never wanted done.

Understand?

Please read it again. I was talking about Brive's proposal to dox horde members. Here are the relevant parts:

.
Doxxing Manifesto

(preamble snipped)

Specific doxxing info on an especially loved horder is retained by no more than two moderators
Protocols developed for release - hopefully in theory only.
Limited doxxing info provided privately to PZ as "proof of life" - hopefully he will back channel it.

Now tell me you are in favour of that. As far as I am concerned you can talk to UMM till you are blue in the face, I don't mind a bit. I don't think they will do a thing about it. Sadly, it isn't easy for a physician's online life to be separate from her professional one. I don't know about licensing bodies in the States, but here we have stringent policies about physicians having any online presence. Including, for some provinces, some silly stuff about only using your real name for everything, and being accountable to that old standard of 'bringing the profession into disrepute'. By that standard I am already guilty by being fucking annoying to you. Telling you not to be so bloody pompous would get me in trouble too, but let's live dangerously, shall we?

[Tribble]

So color me skeptical, but I have major doubts the doxxing Skeptickle will cause UMM to do anything or slow him down and engaging in tit-for-tat will not help. Rather, just take the high road and keep the full-court pressure on the Horde when they leave their little bubble and keep making PZ Myers, FTB, Skepchicks, et.al. and their shitty behavior in the spotlight.

There's no high road. There was never a high road, and there never will be one. UMM can do whatever the fuck they want, but exposing Myers's antics is going to leave a mark. It will, as you say, put their shitty behaviors in the spotlight.

Anything wrong with that?

Come on Phil, you've been around. How many times has going directly after Myers worked? ZERO. You know it. I know it. He knows it. He laughs at the 'revengers.'

It didn't work with Cracker Gate and that made TV with Bill Donohue of the Catholic Screaming and Yelling on every station that would have him on. It didn't work with Laptop lady who lost her job. It didn't work with Gelato Man. It didn't work with Shermer. It didn't work with anyone or any situation EVER despite the howls of outrage from all those offended.

So what do the 'revenge seekers' believe will suddenly make the Grand Fairy of UMM do something about behavior that Myers did on his free time? If you think they're going to do anything, you're suffering from MAGICAL THINKING + REVENGE.

I'm saying be smart and use his asshole behavior against him. Point out his shitty behavior. Show how he's a hypocrite. How he'll take a joke and use it to manufacture outrage and try to destroy someone over something completely trivial because he's a hate-filled man.

Or just ineffectively beat your head against the wall like so many before you. What the hell, it's your skull.

[screwtape]

And now I have got as far as your apology, BSR. So let's fuck. Glad we're friends again.

[Tribble]

Here's a nice little cracker-gate follow up. Shows you just how much all that outrage stopped him:

[youtube]av8CCueUbXo[/youtube]

As you can see, he's shaking in his boots. Oh, wait, he's not. He's just adding insult to injury. So much for Public Outrage and UMM censoring him.

[CuntajusRationality]

I think some people are conflating two different, although overlapping, goals - or maybe they have different goals entirely. One being to marginalize Myers to the point where he has no real influence, and the other being to declaw and defang Myers in some way so that he is less able or less apt to do actual damage to people IRL. I would agree that Nugent's blog, and similar more diplomatic approaches, are effective in furthering the first goal, but not the second. In order to accomplish the second goal, it's necessary to make it clear that there are serious consequences for fucking with people IRL, thereby changing the moral calculus or the cost-benefit analysis that justifies what he does.

OK, absolute best case scenario: Myers gets warned off by his school not to doxx people in the future. He actually listens to them. Later, he gets the urge to punish some uppity skeptic again. What's to stop him from simply passing off info to other FTB:ers to do the more usual drip-doxxing? Lest we forget, it was Benson and Zvan who originally doxxed Skep.

And what about the doxxing of "Victor Ivanoff"? IIRC people mostly mocked him for that, and yes, it was pretty ridiculous but far as PZ was concerned, he was outing a real person.

Good point, you may be right, maybe there's not much that would prevent that kind of scenario of doxing by proxy. But on the other hand, secrets have a way of getting out eventually, and so maybe it would instill just enough fear of reprisal that he might think twice. There's also the implied threat that the tit-for-tat and/or escalation would continue and so he would be potentially putting at risk whomever he decides to use as pawns in his little game. However I can't disagree with you that all of this might not be enough to deter him in any way and it might even spur him on. There are risks involved in every option, including inaction.

Out of curiosity, what do you is likely to happen if nobody decides to instigate for some kind of action by the Uni or something of similar proportionality. The proposed alternatives seem to be signing a change.org petition, writing to the Science Guy, lobbying conference organizers to sever ties, lobbying the big guns like Dawkins, Harris, et. al. to publicly disavow or shame him, blocking and reporting twitter accounts, writing more blog posts and continuing to comment on those posts. I may have missed some but these seem to be the main ideas that have been floated by others.

Best case scenario, let's assume that all of the above alternatives are successful - how does that prevent or deter him from future doxing either by himself or by proxy? Seems to me all of the available options suffer from this problem, in that none of them can guarantee the desired outcome. That can't be a good reason to discard any particular option, or else all of them would need to be discarded.

I think the best solution is for everyone to take what they believe is best course of action following careful consideration. Given the variety of opinions and ideas, that will result in a range of responses that likely covers the entire list of alternatives. Some people will (figuratively) hit him high, some low, and some from behind - and not a few will continue to sit on the sidelines.