Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Kirbmarc]

It also means: ignore what the author of the quote says about the quote. He's wrong, you're right and he should apologize for endorsing the Pit. Even if he says he never endorsed the Pit. It was obviously accidental endorsement.

Because Zvan is always right, especially when she isn't.

Yep.

Though she successfully derailed the discussion.
Something I suspect was her only objective.

True. She changed the subject from Watson to Mehta to her ow harassment at the hands of the evil Slymepit. If he really wanted to prove his point, Ron Lindsay should have told us all to stay on topic. In polite but firm terms.

[Shatterface as Guest]

By the way, is it just me but doesn't Sarah Brown's (auntysarah) statement about her "side" being "nicer" sound a bit ... sea-liony?

They are 'nicer', if you know your etymology:

nice (adj.)
late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know" (see science).

Shatterface

[Struth]

Louis Theroux documentary

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

[Shatterface as Guest]

Yet if anyone else said they wanted to cut her boobs off they'd be misogynists.

#damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudon 't

Shatterface

[Ape+lust]

Haha, wonderful! :clap: :clap: :clap:

I think these infographics you've been doing lately are the Right Stuff.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

This interested me.

Over at Meyers's place, it seems that some of his white commenters might be a tad...is racist the word? Condescending seems too charitable.

http://i.imgur.com/rsA5TuF.png

Well, that's nice of you. Using big words like "eloquently" makes me trust you and admire you, Al Dente.

And since we're dealing with white folk, Cainaji obviously gets in there:

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

Aw, ain't that sweet.

Hey, hang on. What the fuck is all this about congratulating Jay Smooth (PoC) on his "eloquence"? What a weird word to choose. Wait a fucking minute...

http://i.imgur.com/9CvejzR.png

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well done, you racist fucking morons.

[Kirbmarc]

Yet if anyone else said they wanted to cut her boobs off they'd be misogynists.

#damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudon 't

Shatterface

To be fair I'd be concerned too if I were a woman and someone told me he wanted to cut off my boobs. And yes, they'd be misogynists (also batshit insane, violent idiots, but that's beside the point).

The teenage girl who wanted to cut off her boobs was obviously in need of good professional help. Just not the trans activists' help.

[Gefan]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

First Ape's work gets a mention.

Now Jan.

:obscene-hanged:

[Easy J]

Is wanting to cut a man's moobs off misandrist?

[SkepticalCat]

And since we're dealing with white folk, Cainaji obviously gets in there:

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

Aw, ain't that sweet.

What? Caine is "Caine" again, instead of Injuni or whatever the heck it was? Why?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

First Ape's work gets a mention.

Now Jan.

:obscene-hanged:

What's your fucking problem, loser? Who do you think you are, Grindel?

[Really?]

Oh, shit. Look at who tweeted the Zvan and who reinforced the Zvan.

Could...could the baboons finally be losing?

[Brive1987]

[Karmakin]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

First Ape's work gets a mention.

Now Jan.

:obscene-hanged:

What's your fucking problem, loser? Who do you think you are, Grindel?

THAT'S what they choose to be fucking upset about? Holy shit.

The fish comics are as tame as they come.

[Struth]

[Struth]

Yet if anyone else said they wanted to cut her boobs off they'd be misogynists.

#damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudon 't

Shatterface

What a messed up thing to say. Who/what is Shatterface? is this a guest/troll? Can anyone just post here without registering?

[Brive1987]

Haha, wonderful! :clap: :clap: :clap:

I think these infographics you've been doing lately are the Right Stuff.

Hey thanks! Their words are usually all you need, but with pics like yours .......

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

And since we're dealing with white folk, Cainaji obviously gets in there:

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

Aw, ain't that sweet.

What? Caine is "Caine" again, instead of Injuni or whatever the heck it was? Why?

Dude, why can I not kill myself by trying to tell my heart not to beat?

The chick is a weird, morphing creature. She just can't control herself, leaping around from one identity to another, then back again. One day she's Scandinavian white, the next she's 1/729th Injun...Just accept the Cainaji craziness and hope that you never have to deal in real life with a woman who without a doubt in my mind can't order a Big Mac and fries without the whole thing ending up with her shrieking, throwing shit (possibly literally), and leaving the scene tied onto a stretcher.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

"Obsessive" needs highlighting, too. It's a recognized mental illness term.

[CuntajusRationality]

Nugent again: Secular Policy Institute asks why are “shock jock” bloggers invited to lecture at major secular conferences?

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/10 ... -bloggers/

[Billie from Ockham]

What's your fucking problem, loser? Who do you think you are, Grindel?

This reminds me: I can't remember who it was, but someone used the name of a character from Miyazaki's Spirited Away in a hypothetical during the "debate" with Stephanie Zvan on the CFI site. That was totes cool. :clap:

[Shatterface as Guest]

Yet if anyone else said they wanted to cut her boobs off they'd be misogynists.

#damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudon 't

Shatterface

What a messed up thing to say. Who/what is Shatterface? is this a guest/troll? Can anyone just post here without registering?

It was a sarcastic comment about self-mutilation, dipshit.

Shatterface

[JackSkeptic]

Is wanting to cut a man's moobs off misandrist?

Ask Clarance, he has man boobs to die for.

[JackSkeptic]

I'm overdosing on Nugent posts, I need to lie down.

Here's another one. http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/10 ... more-11621

[KiwiInOz]

Yet if anyone else said they wanted to cut her boobs off they'd be misogynists.

#damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudon 't

Shatterface

What a messed up thing to say. Who/what is Shatterface? is this a guest/troll? Can anyone just post here without registering?

It was a sarcastic comment about self-mutilation, dipshit.

Shatterface

That's right.

You fuck just one goat ...

[James Caruthers]

Is wanting to cut a man's moobs off misandrist?

Ask Clarance, he has man boobs to die for.

Clarence's moobs, 2010-2015 never forget.

I fap errytime.

[Southern]

Shoo, Mengele. (Ve are ze Natzis!)

1386816183983.png

I found this one for Matt:

https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.co ... ta_rgb.jpg

I like this one even though, as per usual, about half of the bricks are pure ideologue bullshit.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-efr9i-Ir5cQ/U ... prison.jpg

"GMO foods" "chemtrails" "flouride" lol top kek

"Zyklon-B" Garrison's comics are priceless. Jack Chick-level of priceless, in my modest opinion.

[Southern]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

These people are cuddled. They would have a heart attack if they drove by a chan for a change.

I mean, there are places where I saw people's dox plastered on gore pics specifically to trigger anyone trying to look at it. Oh, and mods had to clarify that posting videos and pics of animals getting crushed is, in fact, against US law and so they had to delete it. And raw ISIS footage.

I also love how they think Nugent and Mehta and the others only rebuked PZ because the Pit said so - and ignore the months of Nugent meticulously asking for PZ to retract a single false statement and being ridiculed because of it. yeah, it's all about attacking Rebecca Twatson, I'm sure. Everything always have to go back to Twatson's dirty twat, doesn't it? Predictable.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

Sorry, this was actually on Becky Whatnot's post:

http://skepchick.org/2015/04/the-friend ... ate-forum/

[Pitchguest]

Psycho? FREAKOUT? I think Miri needs to step in. Myers is out of control.

[Skep tickle]

Nugent again: Secular Policy Institute asks why are “shock jock” bloggers invited to lecture at major secular conferences?

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/10 ... -bloggers/

I'm overdosing on Nugent posts, I need to lie down.

Here's another one. http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/10 ... more-11621

Title: Secular Policy Institute asks why are “shock jock” bloggers invited to lecture at major secular conferences?

Also, note the post right before that one, also from today:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/09 ... amendment/
also at: http://atheist.ie/2015/04/abortion-repe ... amendment/

Support the right to abortion – Atheist Ireland joins Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment

Atheist Ireland today joined the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment, to enable the Irish Government to legislate for abortion consistently with the human rights of pregnant women.

Other members of the Coalition are:

Abortion Rights Campaign; Action for Choice; AIMS; Akidwa; Anti-Racism Network; Atheist Ireland, Choice Ireland; Cork Women’s Right to Choose; Doctors for Choice ; Galway Pro-Choice; Irish Council for Civil Liberties Lawyers for Choice; National Women’s Council of Ireland; Northern Ireland Alliance for Choice; People Before Profit Alliance; Rape Crisis Network Ireland; Re(al) Reproductive Health ROSA; Socialist Party; Socialist Workers Party; Trade Union Campaign to Repeal the 8th Amendment; Union of Students in Ireland; United Left; UNITE The Union.

In January 2013, Jane Donnelly and I were witnesses at the Irish parliamentary hearings on abortion law, along with representatives of six Irish religions. Here is my opening contribution to the session. ...

... Also, contribution from Senator Ivana Bacik, who is also a member of Atheist Ireland. ...

MN gives transcript of comments from 1/2013, which were probably also posted then (I haven't gone back to check). He tells of the important next step that happened:

This is the hugely significant exchange in Geneva in July, where Atheist Ireland attended to brief the UN Human Rights Committee, along with other advocacy groups, before the UN Committee questioned Ireland.

During this exchange, the Irish Government formally accepted that the will of the Irish people as expressed in a referendum or parliamentary vote cannot be used to deny human rights, including on abortion. Of course it has not vindicated this back at home. ...

The UN Human Rights Committee asked Ireland why it was in breach of the human right of pregnant women to an abortion in wider circumstances than allowed by Irish law.

The Irish State replied that Irish abortion law reflects the will of the Irish people, as allowed under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The UN Human Rights Committee said that that was a completely unacceptable reason for denying human rights, and that the very core of human rights law is a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority.

After a break in the session, the Irish Justice Minister Frances FitzGerald formally withdrew the remark and accepted that “the majority will does not and can not derogate from human rights obligations.” ...

This is more progress in the legal underpinnings of women's rights than I'm aware of any other country, not to mention US state, achieving in a 2-year period in decades. (I'm thinking of Roe v Wade in the 1970's, but that may be too US-centric.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'd be happy to know that there have been other major advances in at least one country at some point in the not-too distant past (and of course happy to be proven wrong - I won't even argue with you about what you meant compared with what you wrote ;) )

At any rate, there's undoubtedly much more more work to be done, but Atheist Ireland - as led by its executive committee - is working hard at accomplishing progress in secular society, not just saying it should happen or complaining that it's not.

:clap:

This is the kind of group I'd like to hear from at major secular conferences - hear how they plan their strategy, keep momentum going, decide who with & how to partner on these efforts which so often do require a coalition of people/groups that have differences but want some of the same outcomes. (And, sure, also people who can inspire, and/or teach, in other areas useful to secularism & skepticism, who don't just google the material for their talks or try to bash other groups.)

[dog puke]

Well, my ship has come in and I'm out of here, misogynist shitlord rapists.

My keen investment nose sniffed an opportunity late last year and told my broker to put everything into my SFP on the NYSE. Now I'm cashing out - just bought most of Rarotonga.

http://i.imgur.com/9DR8LCp.png

Have fun with the Stefalump, Pissy Myers, Rebeccunt and Ophie the Prune.

[dog puke]

Oh yeah, this is on me, …enjoy! Free of charge.... gratis...

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

... you're welcome.

[clownshoe]

Random comment for Atheist Ireland from a hipster lurker here...
I was calling PZ a cunt before it was cool.

[Easy J]

Random comment for Atheist Ireland from a hipster lurker here...
I was calling PZ a cunt before it was cool.

He was a cunt long before that & it still isn't cool.

[subbie1957]

Michael Nugent once claimed that Myers smears of him for saying he provided a haven for rapists would have real-world consequences.

Nugent was right!

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

Sorry, this was actually on Becky Whatnot's post:

http://skepchick.org/2015/04/the-friend ... ate-forum/

One can hardly expect a Rebecca Watson sycophant to have a sense of humour. Note that Myers also posted his usual pack of lies there:

April 9, 2015 at 9:55 am — Log in to Reply

Here’s all you need to know.

The Slymepit formed several years ago, directly in reaction to Elevatorgate. They’re a forum that acts like a kind of derivative of 4chan: anarchic, with their most precious value being the preservation of their anonymity, and largely acting as a reservoir of stupid memes that they gladly regurgitate in any open comment section they can find. They hate Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anything connected with Social Justice.

They have successfully parasitized Atheist Ireland, in particular the head of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent. About 6 months ago, this head of an atheist organization decided he needed to spend a great deal of time scolding one individual, me. Flattering as it is that Atheist Ireland, i.e. Michael Nugent, finds me the greatest threat to godlessness in the world, requiring 30+ repetitive, long-winded posts and nearly daily Twitter harassment, it got old fast…especially since his arguments consisted entirely of strung-together slymepit memes.

Really. A lot of those memes are based on long-propagated errors within the slymepit community, along with common obsessions, all of which I’ve heard over and over for years. They have signature traits that make it really easy to spot their source, and Nugent has simply been regurgitating slymepit hate-stories.

These same slymepitters comment frequently on the Friendly Atheist, puking up the same myths.

So when Hemant Mehta agrees with Atheist Ireland (which is bizarre in itself: Nugent has been fucking deranged and obsessed lately) he is in fact endorsing the slymepit and their party line. He has actively sided with a group that considers Rebecca Watson Public Enemy #1, and I can see why Rebecca would be less than impressed.

I suppose we can congratulate ourselves for being so influential in marginalizing PZ Myers and his cult of smear mongers.

[Skep tickle]

Another long one; scroll past if you are so inclined. The topic is male privilege; the source is skepchick; the impetus is "gee, I wonder what inspiring things are various A/S groups doing/posting these days?"

1) One of the posts on the main page of skepchick.org now, by skepchick/'grounded parent' "Steph" (not SZ): http://groundedparents.com/2015/04/08/m ... -hard-too/

All emphasis as in the original; 1 link not copied over:

Men have it hard, too.

Today, I had the privilege to engage in a discussion about male privilege with a man who was tired of being accused of mansplaining. Ironic, because the context of the conversation was pretty much the definition of mansplaining. My point – admitting that you are privileged or that male privilege exists doesn’t mean that you are claiming that men don’t ever experience challenges or face sexism. When someone who is not a cisgender man says the words – “stop mansplaining!” or makes a joke about “male tears,” I guarantee that they are doing it out of a sense of self-preservation or preservation of self in a “man’s world,” rather than a desire to promote a subversive feminist agenda or to make you feel less than.

I acknowledge that there are many situations that are challenging for men – even white, heterosexual, cisgender men (like the person with whom I was talking). I acknowledge that individual men may experience discrimination or have unfair or horrible things happen to them. But does that mean that even those men who have experienced hardship or discrimination aren’t privileged? My response was: “no.”

I don’t understand how one can claim that men don’t have privilege in our society or that acknowledging that privilege is harmful. In an attempt to generate some empathy, I provided some examples:

• Have you ever had to schedule your walk to the store or morning run because you are worried about the possibility of getting raped?
• Have you ever even thought about being raped?
• Have you ever been hired for a position and realize that all of the other people (of another gender) in the same position and with less experience than you make $20K more?
• Are members of governing bodies in your local, state and federal government predominately your gender?
• Are the people in leadership at the place you work?
• Have you ever been gaslighted within the context of a relationship and made to believe that what you are feeling is just being an “over-emotional member of your gender?”
• Have you ever faced judgement and discrimination for being a single mom, while seeing everyone fawn over a single dad for being a rock star parent?
• Have you had countless people comment about your appearance, as if it’s a value or your only contribution to the world?
• Have you ever been catcalled?
• Have you ever been asked by customer service if they can speak to your husband regarding the topic YOU contacted them about?
• Have you ever been coerced to have sex or engage in romance because of expectations of sexual favors in exchange for kindness?
• And when you say “no, thanks,” get accused of putting someone in the “friend zone?”
• Have you ever been told that you just don’t have a sense of humor, because members of your gender don’t get jokes, when you don’t laugh at a rape joke?
• Have you ever been asked in a job interview when/if you planned to start a family?
• Have you ever been called a bitch or a cunt for standing up for yourself?

I could go on. All of these things have happened to me, many of them recently, and I am white, educated and privileged. Sexism is pervasive, internalized and systematic.

To continue the conversation, I would like to invite you to share your examples, your lived experience, in the comments below.

Can men understand what it’s like to not be men? To not experience privilege? Probably not, but I believe that they can acknowledge that privilege and try to have some empathy. That they can acknowledge that just because they have it hard doesn’t mean they aren’t privileged? Here’s hoping.

There are a number of replies, with Steph commenting frequently, agreeing w/the women & telling the men to check their privilege (basically) and the things they think they have hard are due to patriarchy (basically). Then a man (I'll call him JT) puts up a long comment, in the middle of which is this:

–When our daughter died, my wife got immediate support and compassion. She was offered a counselor to talk to from the hospital, while I was given instead paperwork to go through regarding everything that had happened. I, as the man, was expected to take the emotional hit, take care of all our problems, including the financial aspects that arose with her not going to work for several months, and take care of my wife’s emotional needs. And I rose to that challenge as strongly as I could…and it took 3 years of therapy to recover from the damage done from my being unable to take time for my own grieving (to this day, my ex-wife refuses to acknowledge that I felt any grief at all, all because I was felt it was my duty to be strong for her).

followed by an anecdote of being treated like he was stupid & gullible by store clerks when he went to buy a gift for his girlfriend. He closes with:

No, it isn’t fair. But we can’t act like women aren’t deriving a little benefit here at male expense with the expectation that men are to be invulnerable, strong, and protective, who can take care of any and every problem (that doesn’t involve beauty or the kitchen), and who are looked down upon when they don’t succeed with their head held high. Feminists acknowledge this problem and seek to change it, as they should. But I’m sure you can understand why men get miffed about hearing about “privilege” by women who don’t acknowledge that there are situations in which they also derive some benefit (fewer benefits to be sure, but many women rarely acknowledge any situations at all in which they get better treatment). No, men can’t understand what it’s like to not be a man…but can women understand what it’s like to not be a woman?

Skepchick OP author replies:

This isn’t about men not having hard times. In fact, I acknowledge that in the article. It’s about women overall having it worse off. Which they do. You can’t seriously be comparing your discomfort shopping at ULTA with the kind of systemic discrimination and violence that women face on a daily basis? Seriously? Yes, I might get served first at a bar by a male bartender, but if that happens because he wants to have sex with me, does that make my status greater or less than yours? I don’t personally expect men to be invulnerable, strong and protective. I can and do take care of myself and seek out men who don’t fit that mold. All of these things – the gender roles that are imposed on both men and women and the differences in expectations about showing emotion and vulnerability and what we should want and desire. They are all a product of the patriarchy. It hurts us all. By posting this – “but, men DO have it hard and women have it good sometimes” rant, you feed into the same system that has hurt you.

She overtly dismissed his shopping anecdote & was, I thought, rude (as the OP author, at "grounded parents" no less) in not acknowledging the death of his child and his grief thereafter (whether or not she felt inclined to acknowledge the gender aspect).

Then another woman weighs in, opening with:

Thank you JT. That was heartfelt and made me cry. I was raised like a man, so I kinda get it. I was also raised dirt poor and had to deal with...

trish goes on to tell of her tough upbringing, but how she didn't learn how to protect herself from men so was taken advantage of for a while after she left home. Near the end she talks about having gained some "insight into what men face as well" because she & her sister were "raised as boys", and she talks about some of the ways she's seen her husband face assumptions that are made about men.

FWIW, I found JT & trish's exchange did a good job making it a more equal discussion, after Steph made it clear that's not what she was after.
______

2) To top that off, the skepchick.org main page also features this post right now: Bad Chart Thursday. It's Life expectancy by musical genre & gender, with the x-axis reflecting time (cohorts over the decades) even though the labeling doesn't make that obvious.

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

The bold yellow & blue lines are average age at death of popular musicians in each genre (e.g. popular musicians over time). And, pet peeve alert, notice also those non-bolded yellow & blue lines, the ones that show the life expectancy for the population (meaning all babies born that year). Note how the yellow line is 5-10 years above the blue line, all across the graph. Recall that this doesn't just reflect deaths of people age 55-75, but the age at which half the cohort born that year can expect to live - meaning that half of people that gender (yellow or blue, female or male) are expected to die before the age on the y-axis.

_____

So, from skepchick.org,"a collection of...blogs focused on science and critical thinking": men have privilege no matter what & if they try to give counterexamples they're mansplaining or whining. Even though they die 5-10 years younger, on average.

[rayshul]

George Bush doesn't care about rap people

[KiwiInOz]

snip male tears
______

2) To top that off, the skepchick.org main page also features this post right now: Bad Chart Thursday. It's Life expectancy by musical genre & gender, with the x-axis reflecting time (cohorts over the decades) even though the labeling doesn't make that obvious.

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

The bold yellow & blue lines are average age at death of popular musicians in each genre (e.g. popular musicians over time). And, pet peeve alert, notice also those non-bolded yellow & blue lines, the ones that show the life expectancy for the population (meaning all babies born that year). Note how the yellow line is 5-10 years above the blue line, all across the graph. Recall that this doesn't just reflect deaths of people age 55-75, but the age at which half the cohort born that year can expect to live - meaning that half of people that gender (yellow or blue, female or male) are expected to die before the age on the y-axis.

_____

So, from skepchick.org,"a collection of...blogs focused on science and critical thinking": men have privilege no matter what & if they try to give counterexamples they're mansplaining or whining. Even though they die 5-10 years younger, on average.

That is an atrocious graph - the data are not continuous nor over time, so using a line is wrong. A bar chart would have been more appropriate. What do they teach at school these days?

[KiwiInOz]

Damn. Ninja'd in the post that I was criticising. That's got to be a record that even Phil can't beat.

[SoylentAtheist]

So Ron Lindsay is stepping down come December.

I will make a prediction. Ron will be replaced by a woman, just so they can have a woman in place to tell all of these SJW fools that she isn't buying any more of their crap, and that their ideas are sexist, bigoted and full of shit.

[Pitchguest]

George Bush doesn't care about rap people

Stop rapping me!

[Tony Parsehole]

I honestly don't know what Popehat is getting at here.[/quote]

Same. I've had a few interactions with Popehat where he comes across as anti-SJW but as soon as Watson or Myers are involved he leaps to their defence.
I dunno what he believes.

[Brive1987]

Well Skep disagrees with me at Nugent's when I say JREF should join Nugent's public quorum of civility against PZish dialog.

My response is in moderation but is as follows:

....................................................


Skep, I respectively disagree. The call is for relevant organisations to publicly support civil discourse and reject PZism.

PZ has a focus on atheism but is happy to meander through traditional skeptical topics and back again. This was the basis for his past TAM talks and current forays into science based topics. Accordingly, until his recent breakdowns, he was recognised by other non-athesistic commentators as a voice for scientific rationalism. Most notably the discourses with Steve Novella. SGU has consistently engaged with religion only when it makes testable physical claims.

Just like JREF.

Nugent has issued a clear clarion call for all current and former supporters of Myers to reject his MO, not privately, but as part of a common wave of revulsion.

Myers extends his MO to cover all enemies, religious, political, secular and skeptical. He has in fact been scathing of the big tent skepticism espoused by JREF. More so in fact than he has of many religious figures.

Need I say *Shermer* or *Radford*?

Need I explain just why he chose to avoid the alleged misogyny of TAM?

It therefore behoves JREF to join the chorus of decency and reject PZs wanton abuse of skeptical organisations and leaders.

But then maybe both of us are working to a false premise. Does JREF even exist as a tangible organisation anymore?

[Tony Parsehole]

Just because I want to gush about this to everyone everywhere: in the past month or so, I isolated-->artificially constructed and synthesized-->tested 35 anti-HIV monoclonal antibodies, and the results are fucking exciting. Beyond anything I expected to see (nobody looks in Average Joe/Janes, turns out they are amazing). Have another 45 in the pipeline. And these are all from one patient!

There are supposed to be three postdocs on this project, but I've done it all as the sole postdoc, with the help of some great techs and support staff. All women, btw.

I think about all the cool stuff I've done in the past 4 years. Stuff I would have said 'Dude, there's no way I can do that.' Remember that the freshmen at that student leadership conference where Watson attacked those kids are now graduating with a degree (or two). And then I see Watson and Svan...

I have absolutely no idea what you just said, but I'm reasonably certain it doesn't revolve around third wave feminists being offended on the internet.

Shame on you!

Whatever it is you're up to, how about The Pit gets a shout-out in your Nobel Prize acceptance speech?

Imagine. Oh, dear Christ. Can you just imagine that?



(And well done Abbie.)

[Tony Parsehole]

(this image is the top hit when I Google image search for 'triggered')

FUUUUUUUCK! I just image searched "triggered".
Poor cow. That must be harsh.

Hahahahaha! I just laughed my hole off! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's fantastic! Couldn't have happened to a nicer person!

Pure class. I'm imagining people innocently researching PTSD triggers and being introduced to all that shite. So funny.

[Dick Strawkins]

So Ron Lindsay is stepping down come December.

I will make a prediction. Ron will be replaced by a woman, just so they can have a woman in place to tell all of these SJW fools that she isn't buying any more of their crap, and that their ideas are sexist, bigoted and full of shit.

I don't see that as much of a possibility.

Lindsay's term of office cannot be seen as anything other than a failure.
Even if we ignore the Melody Hensley situation we can see one underlying issue that has hogtied any attempts to confront the crazies.
That is the question of financing the organization.
CFI are reliant on continual donations from members of the public for their running costs. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to claims of discrimination/abuse/racism etc, that may impact their ability to solicit donations.

I have little doubt that Lindsay would have liked to tell Myers and Watson to go fuck themselves and then ensure they never darken the towels of any future CFI conference. But we all know what happened when he raised more than a whimper about their behaviour.
The only way he could realistically have solved this problem would have been to sort out the finances such that they were not vulnerable to SJW outrage campaigns.
I don't know how he would have done this (other than maybe getting a huge chunk of money from some major sponsors which would have made the organization financially secure for five to ten years) but clearly neither did Lindsay - and it was his job to do this.

He will be leaving the organization in the same precarious position - open to attack and thus possible loss of income - and so I don't see it likely that the organization will appoint anyone who will rock the boat with the SJWs.

[Tony Parsehole]

These political cartoons where every fucking thing in the drawing is labeled, so we cud-chewers can understand the point being made by the inifnitely smarter cartoonist, are so American these days. I'm pretty sure British newspapers last ran them in about 1893, whereas it seems Americans still need to have their information chewed into pap by mummy and spat directly into the back of their mouth.

LMAO. That's spot on. I remember one where a skinny man in rags had "famine" written on him and some fat bloke in a top hat had a ribbon flowing about him saying "The rich" just in case the proles were too thick to suss out the subtle metaphors for themselves.

[Shatterface as Guest]

Well Skep disagrees with me at Nugent's when I say JREF should join Nugent's public quorum of civility against PZish dialog.

My response is in moderation but is as follows:

....................................................


Skep, I respectively disagree. The call is for relevant organisations to publicly support civil discourse and reject PZism.

PZ has a focus on atheism but is happy to meander through traditional skeptical topics and back again. This was the basis for his past TAM talks and current forays into science based topics. Accordingly, until his recent breakdowns, he was recognised by other non-athesistic commentators as a voice for scientific rationalism. Most notably the discourses with Steve Novella. SGU has consistently engaged with religion only when it makes testable physical claims.

Just like JREF.

Nugent has issued a clear clarion call for all current and former supporters of Myers to reject his MO, not privately, but as part of a common wave of revulsion.

Myers extends his MO to cover all enemies, religious, political, secular and skeptical. He has in fact been scathing of the big tent skepticism espoused by JREF. More so in fact than he has of many religious figures.

Need I say *Shermer* or *Radford*?

Need I explain just why he chose to avoid the alleged misogyny of TAM?

It therefore behoves JREF to join the chorus of decency and reject PZs wanton abuse of skeptical organisations and leaders.

But then maybe both of us are working to a false premise. Does JREF even exist as a tangible organisation anymore?

You mentioned Shermer by name - probably why you are in moderation.

Shatterface

[Tony Parsehole]

Oh, shit. Look at who tweeted the Zvan and who reinforced the Zvan.

Could...could the baboons finally be losing?

Shit. That didn't take long to get spread about.

[Soylent Atheist]

That is the question of financing the organization.
CFI are reliant on continual donations from members of the public for their running costs. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to claims of discrimination/abuse/racism etc, that may impact their ability to solicit donations.

I have little doubt that Lindsay would have liked to tell Myers and Watson to go fuck themselves and then ensure they never darken the towels of any future CFI conference. But we all know what happened when he raised more than a whimper about their behaviour.
The only way he could realistically have solved this problem would have been to sort out the finances such that they were not vulnerable to SJW outrage campaigns.
I don't know how he would have done this (other than maybe getting a huge chunk of money from some major sponsors which would have made the organization financially secure for five to ten years) but clearly neither did Lindsay - and it was his job to do this.

He will be leaving the organization in the same precarious position - open to attack and thus possible loss of income - and so I don't see it likely that the organization will appoint anyone who will rock the boat with the SJWs.

When I last peeked at CFI's contributions, it was readily apparent that the vast bulk of their donations came from a handful of big donors. Small contributors & memberships amounted to chump change.

One tactic that CFI uses to try and avoid loss of contributions is to have separate donation funds. If major donor B hates CFI project X, then Lindsay can just tell them, well contribute to Project Z, which you like, and absolutely none of your money will go to project X. Smart move on CFI's part.

So I guess CFI's biggest issue is either their current major donors prefer the direction they are going in, or Ron Lindsay doesn't know his major donors well enough in order to determine if standing up to the crowd is a safe choice for his organization.

[Tony Parsehole]

Random comment for Atheist Ireland from a hipster lurker here...
I was calling PZ a cunt before it was cool.

Pffff....Get out, Micky Mainstream.
I was one of the creationists PZ used to pick on in 2005.

[Pitchguest]

http://i.imgur.com/sr1Dvrr.png

From Mehta's Meyers blog. Look what the red link goes to: JAN STEEN! CONGRATS, JAN! :clap: :dance:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=318

Sorry, this was actually on Becky Whatnot's post:

http://skepchick.org/2015/04/the-friend ... ate-forum/

One can hardly expect a Rebecca Watson sycophant to have a sense of humour. Note that Myers also posted his usual pack of lies there:

April 9, 2015 at 9:55 am — Log in to Reply

Here’s all you need to know.

The Slymepit formed several years ago, directly in reaction to Elevatorgate. They’re a forum that acts like a kind of derivative of 4chan: anarchic, with their most precious value being the preservation of their anonymity, and largely acting as a reservoir of stupid memes that they gladly regurgitate in any open comment section they can find. They hate Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anything connected with Social Justice.

They have successfully parasitized Atheist Ireland, in particular the head of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent. About 6 months ago, this head of an atheist organization decided he needed to spend a great deal of time scolding one individual, me. Flattering as it is that Atheist Ireland, i.e. Michael Nugent, finds me the greatest threat to godlessness in the world, requiring 30+ repetitive, long-winded posts and nearly daily Twitter harassment, it got old fast…especially since his arguments consisted entirely of strung-together slymepit memes.

Really. A lot of those memes are based on long-propagated errors within the slymepit community, along with common obsessions, all of which I’ve heard over and over for years. They have signature traits that make it really easy to spot their source, and Nugent has simply been regurgitating slymepit hate-stories.

These same slymepitters comment frequently on the Friendly Atheist, puking up the same myths.

So when Hemant Mehta agrees with Atheist Ireland (which is bizarre in itself: Nugent has been fucking deranged and obsessed lately) he is in fact endorsing the slymepit and their party line. He has actively sided with a group that considers Rebecca Watson Public Enemy #1, and I can see why Rebecca would be less than impressed.

I suppose we can congratulate ourselves for being so influential in marginalizing PZ Myers and his cult of smear mongers.

Hahaha, yes, we have "successfully parasitized" Atheist Ireland ... and we have in effect also "parasitized" the other organisations who've decided to disassociate with him as well. That's the kind of influence we have. We're going for the church next. Or ... it could just be that Michael Nugent, the current chair of Atheist Ireland, grew increasingly wary of the behaviour exhibited and frustrated by the constant smears and defamation and decided to finally pull the plug. Gee. I can't imagine what really happened. I suppose we'll never know.

It never ceases to amaze me, truly, how he always seems to add things to his lies with every retelling. I guess that's a sign of creativity. He should've taken advantage of that for his book. Ah well. Maybe next time.

What's also incredible to me is that he's managed to accrue a sycophantic fanbase on two sites that claims to be about scepticism, and being sycophants he knows they'll lap up everything he says with no effort to question his words or verify them. That would be violating some sort of moral code. Note that he provides no sources, no links. He just expects them to follow. Which they do. Lapdogs usually are very obedient.

[Skep tickle]

Well Skep disagrees with me at Nugent's when I say JREF should join Nugent's public quorum of civility against PZish dialog.

My response is in moderation but is as follows:

....................................................


Skep, I respectively disagree. The call is for relevant organisations to publicly support civil discourse and reject PZism.

PZ has a focus on atheism but is happy to meander through traditional skeptical topics and back again. This was the basis for his past TAM talks and current forays into science based topics. Accordingly, until his recent breakdowns, he was recognised by other non-athesistic commentators as a voice for scientific rationalism. Most notably the discourses with Steve Novella. SGU has consistently engaged with religion only when it makes testable physical claims.

Just like JREF.

Nugent has issued a clear clarion call for all current and former supporters of Myers to reject his MO, not privately, but as part of a common wave of revulsion.

Myers extends his MO to cover all enemies, religious, political, secular and skeptical. He has in fact been scathing of the big tent skepticism espoused by JREF. More so in fact than he has of many religious figures.

Need I say *Shermer* or *Radford*?

Need I explain just why he chose to avoid the alleged misogyny of TAM?

It therefore behoves JREF to join the chorus of decency and reject PZs wanton abuse of skeptical organisations and leaders.

But then maybe both of us are working to a false premise. Does JREF even exist as a tangible organisation anymore?

1) Playing the "which string of letters might MN's filter have caught" game, I'm going to go with "false".

2) What, I don't warrant "respectful" disagreement? ;)

3) Nah, I still think JREF cut the ties long ago: no invitation to speak since 2011 & one of their senior fellows dissed Myers in a speech at a skeptic conference w/ Myers in the audience (having just spoken) in 2013. I think they're well over him, brushed off their hands long ago, & weren't playing a role in unduly propping up his reputation. They're a nonprofit whose focus really has little intersection w/ what Myers focuses on.

Next you'll be wanting the university where he did his postdoc to issue a statement decrying his online rhetoric...

[Skep tickle]

<snip>

You mentioned Shermer by name - probably why you are in moderation.

Shatterface

I want to change my guess to what Shatterface just said.

[Pitchguest]

http://groundedparents.com/2015/04/08/m ... -hard-too/

This isn’t about men not having hard times. In fact, I acknowledge that in the article. It’s about women overall having it worse off. Which they do. You can’t seriously be comparing your discomfort shopping at ULTA with the kind of systemic discrimination and violence that women face on a daily basis? Seriously? Yes, I might get served first at a bar by a male bartender, but if that happens because he wants to have sex with me, does that make my status greater or less than yours? I don’t personally expect men to be invulnerable, strong and protective. I can and do take care of myself and seek out men who don’t fit that mold. All of these things – the gender roles that are imposed on both men and women and the differences in expectations about showing emotion and vulnerability and what we should want and desire. They are all a product of the patriarchy. It hurts us all. By posting this – “but, men DO have it hard and women have it good sometimes” rant, you feed into the same system that has hurt you.

Bolding mine.

1. Thanks for the womansplaining, Steph.

2. Dear. Muslima.

3. So then, conversely, your entire article "feeds into the same system that has hurt you" because it's basically the same fucking rant.

Congratulations. You're a moron.

[Tony Parsehole]

Gotta love Franc's way with words:

The slymepit is a hornets nest. Left undisturbed, they would disturb no one. Watson and company chose to stomp all over it with tank girl boots. The slymepit is her doing. On the remote chance that these Jacobins, slanders and vandals vanish, so to will the slymepit. But until that happens, the ‘pit will haunt every step these frauds make.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... orum/P100/

[Pitchguest]

Also, she's faulting the man for answering her stupid questions. Her stupidly, obviously leading questions. What a twat.