Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

Old subthreads
Locked
ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1501

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Gefan wrote:Went to Urban Dictionary.
Either I've just been called a fag (flattered but I'm not good-looking enough) or (I think) a poseur.
As the self-admitted dumbest, least educated Pitter of the lot, the second one seems a bit harsh.

Still, *hugs*.
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Dear Goldwing, I would never insult the creator of the Clownfall series.

My reply, in the British vernacular, was sort of calling you a "poseur". Sort of. I was just making light of your reply to a series of wanking jokes, which was kind of serious and arty.
I remember first seeing that and being struck by how the already established physical layout of the scene forced them to make Quagmire left-handed in order for the gag to work.
That's all, just gentle ribbing of you for making a serious, arty point about wank gags.


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1502

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Damn these skepto-atheist conferences need some cleaning up. There seems to be some toxic folks hanging around them.
PZ comments on Zvan's blog:
July 7, 2015 at 1:43 pm

I’m still confused. The Convergence web site is excellent — useful and informative. I was there all weekend with it up on my iPad, because it was more useful than the grid or the full program. She can’t have been fired for botching the product, because it was great. Like you say, there may have been things behind the scenes.

We encountered one annoying personality clash ourselves this weekend, though, so I can see how sometimes performance isn’t sufficient to categorize someone’s contribution.

Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... z3fMHoAjlO

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1503

Post by Parody Accountant »

http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Strawberry Bitch stirred up some trouble in the comment section by posting here...

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10835
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1504

Post by comhcinc »

Parody Accountant wrote:http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Strawberry Bitch stirred up some trouble in the comment section by posting here...

I am seeing nothing!

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1505

Post by Really? »

Parody Accountant wrote:http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Strawberry Bitch stirred up some trouble in the comment section by posting here...
I popped it into archive.org. All I see are her thighs and a bunch of sentences that demonstrates she really hates her husband and son. (Is the kid a son?)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150709032 ... use-of-you

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10835
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1506

Post by comhcinc »

Parody Accountant wrote:http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Strawberry Bitch stirred up some trouble in the comment section by posting here...
Your link is to a page that only has 5 comments.

I also I had to open firefox to the page to load and then had to stop some script from working.

fuzzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1507

Post by fuzzy »

[youtube]KVKpEXajxQw[/youtube]

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1508

Post by jet_lagg »

Was wondering if Strawberry bitch was a troll or not. Hoping not. We could use a few genuine SJWs around here to keep our arguments sharp.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1509

Post by Gefan »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Gefan wrote:Went to Urban Dictionary.
Either I've just been called a fag (flattered but I'm not good-looking enough) or (I think) a poseur.
As the self-admitted dumbest, least educated Pitter of the lot, the second one seems a bit harsh.

Still, *hugs*.
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Dear Goldwing, I would never insult the creator of the Clownfall series.

My reply, in the British vernacular, was sort of calling you a "poseur". Sort of. I was just making light of your reply to a series of wanking jokes, which was kind of serious and arty.
I remember first seeing that and being struck by how the already established physical layout of the scene forced them to make Quagmire left-handed in order for the gag to work.
That's all, just gentle ribbing of you for making a serious, arty point about wank gags.


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
Goddamn it. Now I had to go look up the meaning of "girl's blouse" too.

No worries. I really apologize if it came across that way.
Trust me, I'm neither serious or arty. In fact, I'm basically dumb as a box of rocks (ie barely twice as smart as Nerd Of Redhead) and half the time I have no idea what people are talking about here (that number approaches one hundred per cent when it's Steersman talking).

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1510

Post by Skep tickle »

jet_lagg wrote:Was wondering if Strawberry bitch was a troll or not. Hoping not. We could use a few genuine SJWs around here to keep our arguments sharp.
But the problem with just dropping a quote from Elyse's blog is that people like me read it & think, "Yeah, that is ridiculous; I see why you posted that here, Guest nymed Strawberry Bitch." If SB had hoped for a different reaction, IMO it would have helped if SB had explained her/his views, reason for posting it, etc.

I've put the actual link in SB's post as quoted below; that link works for me.
Strawberry Bitch wrote:http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Trolling is an assault on women. It is an organized weapon of terrorism used to silence feminist voices. The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us. How little the world wants us to exist. It is an act of terrorism designed to force us into facing that, more of that, escalating levels of that… or being silent. It is an act of war against feminism. And if you do not relent, they will not only come after you, but your family, your friends, your job. Their goal is not only to drive you into silence, but to wipe your presence from the earth.
Shall we unpack this?
Elyse Anders wrote:Trolling is an assault on women.
No, actually, trolling is not a gendered term. You can provide another definition if you like, but let's try this from dictionary.com:
Digital Technology, Informal.
  • to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
  • to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments
Turns out if you search (w/o quotes) "trolling feminist definition" some of what turns up is stuff about feminists trolling others (admirably, from Jezebel's point of view). Oops!
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an organized weapon of terrorism used to silence feminist voices.
"Organized weapon of terrorism"? If you mean that & have evidence, you should definitely contact the FBI. Otherwise that sounds like 4 metric tons of hyperbole.
Elyse Anders wrote:The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us.
If you're talking about actual harassment & stalking, do report it to whichever authorities are most appropriate. But if you're talking about "push back" & disagreement, please know that everyone (of any gender) who puts their viewpoints out in a public space gets some of that, and the speed & reach of the reaction is magnified many-fold on the internet. It's been suggested that one key is how you react to it.
Elyse Anders wrote:How little the world wants us to exist.
Hold it. Most of the world is fine with women existing, though in more patriarchal societies women's roles are far more limited than in the one in which you're privileged to live, and to have access to the public spaces of the internet, and to have freedom of speech.

Besides which, regarding "want[ing] us to exist": in some countries female feticide and even infanticide occurs & certainly would support a claim there that the lives of girls & women are far less valued and, indeed, some in those countries don't "wan[t them] to exist".

But since you don't live in one of those countries...and you made it past birth & infancy...that probably doesn't apply to you or your peers.
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an act of terrorism designed to force us into facing that, more of that, escalating levels of that… or being silent.
Terrorism? Again, please report it to the FBI if you are serious. Here's the FBI tips & reporting page: https://tips.fbi.gov/
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an act of war against feminism.
No, it isn't - certainly not against "dictionary feminism". In fact, being trolled just like anyone else on the internet would argue that equality is nigh - a cause for celebration! (Can't find it now, but there was a survey last year that found women tend to receive more sexually explicit comments than men, but men tend to get more threats of violence, so it seemed like a pretty even playing field.)
Elyse Anders wrote:And if you do not relent, they will not only come after you, but your family, your friends, your job.
Like I said above, if you're talking about actual stalking or harassment, that could be not only scary but illegal: document & report it. If you're talking about people online who go after other people's jobs as a punitive measure, then yes I agree, that's egregious behavior.
Elyse Anders wrote:Their goal is not only to drive you into silence, but to wipe your presence from the earth.
More hyperbole. Maybe it feelz that way, but that mostly suggests your calibration is off. In fact, take a look here and here and here if you'd like to see some groups that are having their presence (as individuals) "wipe[d]...from the earth" at a faster rate than you & your peers.

____________

Finally: have Ms Anders' experiences that she'd consider harassment & silencing occurred only at the hands of people widely regarded as "anti-feminists"*? Or, could it be that she has experienced behavior she'd consider harassment from other women - her peers - who identify as, & would be widely identified as, feminists? :whistle:

*though of course for most "trolls" their actual viewpoints don't come into play, they're just going for a reaction

Oglebart
.
.
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: Ingerland

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1511

Post by Oglebart »

free thoughtpolice wrote:Damn these skepto-atheist conferences need some cleaning up. There seems to be some toxic folks hanging around them.
PZ comments on Zvan's blog:
July 7, 2015 at 1:43 pm

I’m still confused. The Convergence web site is excellent — useful and informative. I was there all weekend with it up on my iPad, because it was more useful than the grid or the full program. She can’t have been fired for botching the product, because it was great. Like you say, there may have been things behind the scenes.

We encountered one annoying personality clash ourselves this weekend, though, so I can see how sometimes performance isn’t sufficient to categorize someone’s contribution.

Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... z3fMHoAjlO
It's amazing isn't it? It's almost as if the intended demographic of theses conferences has a unusually high number of insufferable arsheholes. I'm shocked, I tell ya. ;)

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1512

Post by Sunder »

When a feminist conflates internet trolling with terrorism this is the first thing I think of:

[youtube]DNO6G4ApJQY[/youtube]

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1513

Post by Skep tickle »

Elyse Anders wrote:The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us.
Forgot to add, there are privacy settings & safe spaces you can use online, Ms Anders, to protect the content you add from being seen by the great unwashed, or to protect you from unfiltered responses. (Not that Atheism Plus Forum with its private forum, or Shakesville with its heavy moderation, would necessarily be your cup of tea - but you could find or create a safe space that fit the bill for you.) Apologies, though - I don't know a way to "go online" & view content more broadly without running the risk of seeing something you find offensive.

Also, my line "Most of the world is fine with women existing" comes across as too watered down. If women stopped existing, the remaining population would presumably fall into rapid crisis, and human life would become extinct within 100 years. :)

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1514

Post by Gefan »

Skep tickle wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:Was wondering if Strawberry bitch was a troll or not. Hoping not. We could use a few genuine SJWs around here to keep our arguments sharp.
But the problem with just dropping a quote from Elyse's blog is that people like me read it & think, "Yeah, that is ridiculous; I see why you posted that here, Guest nymed Strawberry Bitch." If SB had hoped for a different reaction, IMO it would have helped if SB had explained her/his views, reason for posting it, etc.

I've put the actual link in SB's post as quoted below; that link works for me.
Strawberry Bitch wrote:http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... -on-speech

Trolling is an assault on women. It is an organized weapon of terrorism used to silence feminist voices. The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us. How little the world wants us to exist. It is an act of terrorism designed to force us into facing that, more of that, escalating levels of that… or being silent. It is an act of war against feminism. And if you do not relent, they will not only come after you, but your family, your friends, your job. Their goal is not only to drive you into silence, but to wipe your presence from the earth.
Shall we unpack this?
Elyse Anders wrote:Trolling is an assault on women.
No, actually, trolling is not a gendered term. You can provide another definition if you like, but let's try this from dictionary.com:
Digital Technology, Informal.
  • to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
  • to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments
Turns out if you search (w/o quotes) "trolling feminist definition" some of what turns up is stuff about feminists trolling others (admirably, from Jezebel's point of view). Oops!
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an organized weapon of terrorism used to silence feminist voices.
"Organized weapon of terrorism"? If you mean that & have evidence, you should definitely contact the FBI. Otherwise that sounds like 4 metric tons of hyperbole.
Elyse Anders wrote:The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us.
If you're talking about actual harassment & stalking, do report it to whichever authorities are most appropriate. But if you're talking about "push back" & disagreement, please know that everyone (of any gender) who puts their viewpoints out in a public space gets some of that, and the speed & reach of the reaction is magnified many-fold on the internet. It's been suggested that one key is how you react to it.
Elyse Anders wrote:How little the world wants us to exist.
Hold it. Most of the world is fine with women existing, though in more patriarchal societies women's roles are far more limited than in the one in which you're privileged to live, and to have access to the public spaces of the internet, and to have freedom of speech.

Besides which, regarding "want[ing] us to exist": in some countries female feticide and even infanticide occurs & certainly would support a claim there that the lives of girls & women are far less valued and, indeed, some in those countries don't "wan[t them] to exist".

But since you don't live in one of those countries...and you made it past birth & infancy...that probably doesn't apply to you or your peers.
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an act of terrorism designed to force us into facing that, more of that, escalating levels of that… or being silent.
Terrorism? Again, please report it to the FBI if you are serious. Here's the FBI tips & reporting page: https://tips.fbi.gov/
Elyse Anders wrote:It is an act of war against feminism.
No, it isn't - certainly not against "dictionary feminism". In fact, being trolled just like anyone else on the internet would argue that equality is nigh - a cause for celebration! (Can't find it now, but there was a survey last year that found women tend to receive more sexually explicit comments than men, but men tend to get more threats of violence, so it seemed like a pretty even playing field.)
Elyse Anders wrote:And if you do not relent, they will not only come after you, but your family, your friends, your job.
Like I said above, if you're talking about actual stalking or harassment, that could be not only scary but illegal: document & report it. If you're talking about people online who go after other people's jobs as a punitive measure, then yes I agree, that's egregious behavior.
Elyse Anders wrote:Their goal is not only to drive you into silence, but to wipe your presence from the earth.
More hyperbole. Maybe it feelz that way, but that mostly suggests your calibration is off. In fact, take a look here and here and here if you'd like to see some groups that are having their presence (as individuals) "wipe[d]...from the earth" at a faster rate than you & your peers.

____________

Finally: have Ms Anders' experiences that she'd consider harassment & silencing occurred only at the hands of people widely regarded as "anti-feminists"*? Or, could it be that she has experienced behavior she'd consider harassment from other women - her peers - who identify as, & would be widely identified as, feminists? :whistle:

*though of course for most "trolls" their actual viewpoints don't come into play, they're just going for a reaction

Next up from Elyse MoFo Anders, how Rick-Rolling is genocide, and Alcoholics Anonymous are the Khmer Rouge.
Stay tuned for more yuks from Elyse as soon as the latest dose of medication wears off.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1515

Post by Steersman »

Gefan wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: <snip>

That's all, just gentle ribbing of you for making a serious, arty point about wank gags.
....

Goddamn it. Now I had to go look up the meaning of "girl's blouse" too.
No worries. I really apologize if it came across that way.
Trust me, I'm neither serious or arty. In fact, I'm basically dumb as a box of rocks (ie barely twice as smart as Nerd Of Redhead) and half the time I have no idea what people are talking about here (that number approaches one hundred per cent when it's Steersman talking).
Sorry about that Chief - if you were to "elucidate exactly the specificity" of your confusion (a phrase from a Canadian columnist, Alan Fotheringham, some years ago), I would be happy to elaborate. ;-) But for what it's worth, while I'm generally impressed with your Clownfall series, I have to admit to being frequently at a loss as to what your point or perspective is. Kind of a general problem we all share, I think: different languages and terms of reference that periodically require a Rosetta Stone to make sense of. Which is frequently not readily available.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1516

Post by Gefan »

Just spent the evening with someone who was recounting their experience of leaving the Mormon church. I know a bunch of these people, and their stories always move and inspire me. These folk have some serious courage. When you hear what they go through it can be like listening to a person from a past century.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1517

Post by Tony Parsehole »


Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1518

Post by Steersman »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
Hornbeck likes to string together big word salads that are illogical nonsense,and/or just straight bullshit. I think some people* are naive or otherwise deluded to think that his use of obscure big words and jargon means he is stating a complex or profound idea when he is just spouting pretentious hot air.

* I think you know who I mean
Oh, burn. :-) Though I think it is less a question of that than at least trying to be fair - maybe to a fault. Particularly since I rarely have time to read much more than an abstract or the TL;DR ....

But while I'll concede that he seems to be a bit of blatherskite, one might ask if you have any specific objections to his arguments or whether your position is based more on feelings than not.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1519

Post by Gefan »

Steersman wrote:
Gefan wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: <snip>

That's all, just gentle ribbing of you for making a serious, arty point about wank gags.
....

Goddamn it. Now I had to go look up the meaning of "girl's blouse" too.
No worries. I really apologize if it came across that way.
Trust me, I'm neither serious or arty. In fact, I'm basically dumb as a box of rocks (ie barely twice as smart as Nerd Of Redhead) and half the time I have no idea what people are talking about here (that number approaches one hundred per cent when it's Steersman talking).
Sorry about that Chief - if you were to "elucidate exactly the specificity" of your confusion (a phrase from a Canadian columnist, Alan Fotheringham, some years ago), I would be happy to elaborate. ;-) But for what it's worth, while I'm generally impressed with your Clownfall series, I have to admit to being frequently at a loss as to what your point or perspective is. Kind of a general problem we all share, I think: different languages and terms of reference that periodically require a Rosetta Stone to make sense of. Which is frequently not readily available.
Steers, to paraphrase Gore Vidal, I'm not sure I have a point - that's the point.
Way back when, there was some kind of Pit survey where we listed our jobs. I didn't even understand what most of the jobs were, let alone what they entailed. I think at the time I wrote something along the lines of "How the fuck did I get let in here?".
Really, other than an inclination to standing up to bullying and a dislike of being told what to do, I'm not sure I have any overall perspective, and I stay out of a lot of conversations because they genuinely go way over my head.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1520

Post by Steersman »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
I did say "seems to be quite knowledgeable". And I wonder if you've taken a look at that recent post of his: A Statistical Analysis of a Sexual Assault Case: Part Five. While I'll concede and did say previously, I think, that he makes any number of highly questionable assumptions in coming up with that 0.4% number, I think if you take a close look at that post you'll probably see that he actually seems quite knowledgeable in the field - he wrote several spreadsheet programs to illustrate his calculation process. I think you can throw any number of stones at his basic assumptions - notably in that case that Alison's circumstances followed the mean or norm of the group defined by a "correlation of alcohol with rapes by recent acquaintances". I really do think he has his thumb on the scales as far as his assumptions are concerned, but assuming those are accurate - which I would seriously question - then presumably what follows by the rules of statistics seems a reasonable conclusion.

But, somewhat in passing, I wonder which "basic principles" you think he has flouted or abrogated.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1521

Post by Steersman »

Lsuoma wrote:
Steersman did a sort of Swedish exercise, starting at the base of the spine, carrying on through the shoulder-blades and finishing up among the back hair.

Then he told her.

In the chats I have had with this wonder man, I have always found his English fluent, but a bit on the mixed side.
....
"I am a serious man. I do not wish a few larks on my windows. I enjoy larks on my windows worse as any. It is very little all right. If such rannygazoo is to arrive, I do not remain any longer in this house no more. I buzz off and do not stay planted."
Arrh, arrh.

But somewhat in passing, any plans to edit that post of Really?'s to indicate that I didn't actually make the statement that he suggested I did? If not then how is that different from comhcinc's case where you did so? Except maybe because of "in-group morality, and out-group hostility" ....

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1522

Post by AndrewV69 »

A wee spot of bother up here in Canukistan.

Possibly of interest to Canucks, and Brits seeing as it concerns the search for the lost ships of the 1845 Franklin expedition. The money shot so far is The letter said, words to the effect, “You must cease all reporting on anything related to John Geiger.”

From the interview:
Paul, is it possible that the pressure placed on The Toronto Star didn't come from John Geiger, but from government?

Anything is possible, I don't have the answer to those questions but I hope to have them someday. But I would be shocked if a newspaper that is publicly known to be left of centre, allied with the Liberal party sometimes, sometimes the NDP, but certainly not the Federal Conservative party, I would be shocked if they are somehow working together to keep the story out of the newspaper.
Also, I dunno if you are aware of this kind of thing happening in your country but apparently it does happen in Canukistan (the ones I have heard of have all been under Harper).
This is a symptom of a broader disease that is eating away at the core of our democracy. Experts on climate, on medicine, on things that are central to our society are being silenced by a government that does favours for the politically connected. And that is just very dangerous for our future.

Shatterface as Guest

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1523

Post by Shatterface as Guest »

Za-zen wrote:
Shatterface as Guest wrote:
Za-zen wrote:hehehe had this pop up in my youtube feed. No matter what you think of Galloway, he is a fantastic orator, and his mind is as sharp as a knife, loved how he gutted the morons of the US senate, he made their panel look like a club of mental deficients. It reminded me also that the wizard of oz song "ding dong the witch is dead" raced to the top of the charts, and all the media did there best to ignore it, if not actually refuse to play it! Establishment twats, I think they were expecting another bout of collective morony and faux sentimentality, like when that muppet diana croked it. Funny as fuck watching crowds of lemmings in group tears.

I fucking love Galloway, he's the only guy I have ever seen debate Hitchens and hand him his ass.
Even by the standards of British politicians Galloway is an evil cunt.

Shatterface
He is one of the few conviction politicians left, at the very least you know exactly what he stands for, and has an understandable logic to his position, which he makes no apology for. As for the rest of what qualifies as politicians in the UK, they are middle management, corporate speak, careerists. Each and all only in political wrestles over who can appeal most to "the middle". The consequence of which is to say fuck all that may offend anybody, to ensure that you don't appear to be anything other than a centrist (someone who doesn't have any position on fucking anything). The one exception made to this, is the last refuge exception. Where politicos will trip over each other to appear to flag wave and appeal to the lowest common denominator (the centre). Don't get me wrong it's perfectly okay for the voting populace to be centrist, I actually would prefer it, because the majority of the populace are not well enough informed or capable of engaging in any real political debate.
Galloway is an unreconstructed Stalinist sack of shit who won his former seat by playing the race card, rarely represented his constituency by actually attending Parliament, who fucked off for weeks to appear in a reality show, who promotes anti-Semitism, who supported Saddam Hussein and continues to promote Islamist cunts at home and abroad.

The fact he could talk over a bunch of hicks without actually answering the fucking questions doesn't make him a great orator.

Shatterface

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1524

Post by AndrewV69 »

Gefan wrote:
Next up from Elyse MoFo Anders, how Rick-Rolling is genocide, and Alcoholics Anonymous are the Khmer Rouge.
Stay tuned for more yuks from Elyse as soon as the latest dose of medication wears off.
I actually tried to RickRoll Ye Olde Slymepitte not too long ago. I recall no howls of outrage and disgust followed so perhaps I should assume that no one clicked on the link to the video?

dog puke
.
.
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:54 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1525

Post by dog puke »

Steersman - anybody that uses the word 'blatherskite', or reads Fotheringham is OK in my books.









nigger

dog puke
.
.
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:54 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1526

Post by dog puke »

Skep tickle wrote:
Elyse Anders wrote:The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us.
Forgot to add, there are privacy settings & safe spaces you can use online, Ms Anders, to protect the content you add from being seen by the great unwashed, or to protect you from unfiltered responses. (Not that Atheism Plus Forum with its private forum, or Shakesville with its heavy moderation, would necessarily be your cup of tea - but you could find or create a safe space that fit the bill for you.) Apologies, though - I don't know a way to "go online" & view content more broadly without running the risk of seeing something you find offensive.

Also, my line "Most of the world is fine with women existing" comes across as too watered down. If women stopped existing, the remaining population would presumably fall into rapid crisis, and human life would become extinct within 100 years. :)
And the Zebra dishes out a smackdown. Great post Skep.

Reading Elyse's original blog - the endless list of what she is tired of with male behaviour - she's most definitely has an elevated opinion of herself and her sexuality. The endless complaints about being objectified and hit on kind of ring hollow when recalling how she perv/leched some pal's boyfriend at an event when after meeting him she said to her friend "I gotta get me some of that.", to which her friend took great umbrage. (Can't recall the event or friend... anyone?)

Cunt of Personality
.
.
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 10:17 am
Location: France

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1527

Post by Cunt of Personality »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Typical - put the disabled transblack muslim midget behind the rich white woman. This is progress?

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1528

Post by feathers »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
I've never had statistics, but you got me curious: how on earth does the man apply it to put a number on the likelihood of a rape accusation being true? Why haven't the police figured this out, eh?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1529

Post by Brive1987 »

All I know is that when presented by this argument (taken from Hornbecks blog) Shermer promptly dropped his case against PZ and drank his crowd sourced funds to drown his defeat.

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

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1530

Post by Kirbmarc »

feathers wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
I've never had statistics, but you got me curious: how on earth does the man apply it to put a number on the likelihood of a rape accusation being true? Why haven't the police figured this out, eh?
Bayesian inference is used in courtroom.

However you have to gauge it carefully and most of all you have to start with a presumption of innocence to be tested against evidence:
Wikipedia wrote:Gardner-Medwin argues that the criterion on which a verdict in a criminal trial should be based is not the probability of guilt, but rather the probability of the evidence, given that the defendant is innocent (akin to a frequentist p-value). He argues that if the posterior probability of guilt is to be computed by Bayes' theorem, the prior probability of guilt must be known. This will depend on the incidence of the crime, which is an unusual piece of evidence to consider in a criminal trial. Consider the following three propositions:

A The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is guilty
B The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is innocent
C The defendant is guilty.
Gardner-Medwin argues that the jury should believe both A and not-B in order to convict. A and not-B implies the truth of C, but the reverse is not true. It is possible that B and C are both true, but in this case he argues that a jury should acquit, even though they know that they will be letting some guilty people go free.
Hornbeck starts with a different approach, that of the preponderance of evidence, where the deck is stacked against the accused since all the accuser has to do is prove that it's likely (more than 50%) that the known facts and testimony could have arisen if the accused is guilty (A). Hornbeck doesn't give a thought to proving not-B, i.e. that it's very unlikely the known facts and testimony could have arisen if the accused is innocent.

Basically Hornbeck doesn't allow Shermer to defend himself and simply gauges the credibility of the accusation. Moreover he does so basing his assumptions on some dubious statistics on rape. Garbage in, garbage out: even if his reasoning were flawless (and that's dubious, too) if he starts with flawed assumption he's going to end up with flawed results.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1531

Post by Kirbmarc »

Furthermore, it's still completely possible that Smith didn't deliberately alter events in her accusation of Shermer but that she might have fallen prey to confabulation: she doesn't intend to deceive but still gets some details wrong.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1532

Post by Brive1987 »

Oh Hornbeck. Does anyone take you seriously. (Quoted at SZvans)

http://i.imgur.com/s6oUdBz.jpg

http://www.geeksandcleats.com/wp-conten ... n-meme.jpg


So how did that work out when I posted on his blog after the Stollznow retraction came out?

http://i.imgur.com/iIQI3i8.jpg

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1533

Post by Suet Cardigan »

dog puke wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:
Elyse Anders wrote:The abuse is a mob attack, flooding our inboxes and comments Twitter mentions and Facebook pages, so that there is nowhere we can go online without seeing how little the world thinks of us.
Forgot to add, there are privacy settings & safe spaces you can use online, Ms Anders, to protect the content you add from being seen by the great unwashed, or to protect you from unfiltered responses. (Not that Atheism Plus Forum with its private forum, or Shakesville with its heavy moderation, would necessarily be your cup of tea - but you could find or create a safe space that fit the bill for you.) Apologies, though - I don't know a way to "go online" & view content more broadly without running the risk of seeing something you find offensive.

Also, my line "Most of the world is fine with women existing" comes across as too watered down. If women stopped existing, the remaining population would presumably fall into rapid crisis, and human life would become extinct within 100 years. :)
And the Zebra dishes out a smackdown. Great post Skep.

Reading Elyse's original blog - the endless list of what she is tired of with male behaviour - she's most definitely has an elevated opinion of herself and her sexuality. The endless complaints about being objectified and hit on kind of ring hollow when recalling how she perv/leched some pal's boyfriend at an event when after meeting him she said to her friend "I gotta get me some of that.", to which her friend took great umbrage. (Can't recall the event or friend... anyone?)
IIRC it was Sara Mayhew's boyfriend.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1534

Post by Scented Nectar »

AndrewV69 wrote:A wee spot of bother up here in Canukistan.

Possibly of interest to Canucks, and Brits seeing as it concerns the search for the lost ships of the 1845 Franklin expedition. The money shot so far is The letter said, words to the effect, “You must cease all reporting on anything related to John Geiger.”

From the interview:
Paul, is it possible that the pressure placed on The Toronto Star didn't come from John Geiger, but from government?

Anything is possible, I don't have the answer to those questions but I hope to have them someday. But I would be shocked if a newspaper that is publicly known to be left of centre, allied with the Liberal party sometimes, sometimes the NDP, but certainly not the Federal Conservative party, I would be shocked if they are somehow working together to keep the story out of the newspaper.
Also, I dunno if you are aware of this kind of thing happening in your country but apparently it does happen in Canukistan (the ones I have heard of have all been under Harper).
This is a symptom of a broader disease that is eating away at the core of our democracy. Experts on climate, on medicine, on things that are central to our society are being silenced by a government that does favours for the politically connected. And that is just very dangerous for our future.
Feminists who always pretend they are being silenced, should read Paul Watson's story. THAT'S what being silenced is. It makes me very angry what they are doing to him. I've bookmarked his blog so that I can read more as it happens.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1535

Post by Brive1987 »

Is there a secret link at Elyse's post to all the death threats those 10,000s of haters left?

Right now it looks like she yelled "show me how much your care!!" And the internet rolled over and went back to sleep.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1536

Post by Badger3k »

AndrewV69 wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:So there will be a Han Solo Starwars Prequel.
cnn.com/2015/07/07/entertainment/star-wars-han-solo-prequel-movie-feat/index.html

I myself will be holding out for the Jar Jar Binks prequel. At least Star Wars Episode One took major steps towards minority representation & inclusivity.
Jar Jar Binks was the end of the franchise for me. I have never watched another Star Wars since and it was also the last time I went to the cinema.

I was not even offended in any way shape or form on behalf of anyone either, it was just a bridge too far for me to cross in terms of a willing suspension of reality.
I watched the Rifftrax versions of the films, and am glad I didn't pay to see them in the theaters. I haven't even watched anything on the new movie coming out, and have absolutely zero desire to see it. Lucas did kill the franchise for me with his prequel BS.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1537

Post by Badger3k »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
Haven't you noticed the resemblance in style and substance? Steers and Hornytoad are spiritual kin. He has to defend him somehow, more so than he usually defends them, or else he risks looking too closely into the mirror.

Shatterface as Guest

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1538

Post by Shatterface as Guest »

So 50 year old Marisa Tomei has been cast as Spider-Man's Aunt May and some fans (not me; I''m fine with it) are complaining she's too young - and SJWs are suddenly forgetting that there are too few roles for older women and criticising the fans because fans are shitlords and therefore always in the wrong.

Shatterface

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1539

Post by jimthepleb »

Suet Cardigan wrote:
dog puke wrote:
Reading Elyse's original blog - the endless list of what she is tired of with male behaviour - she's most definitely has an elevated opinion of herself and her sexuality. The endless complaints about being objectified and hit on kind of ring hollow when recalling how she perv/leched some pal's boyfriend at an event when after meeting him she said to her friend "I gotta get me some of that.", to which her friend took great umbrage. (Can't recall the event or friend... anyone?)
IIRC it was Sara Mayhew's boyfriend.
HAHA bet that went down like a ton of shit.
Just caught up... Richard Carrier ... well I can't say I saw that coming.
Only kidding. Bwahahahahahahahahaha. What a prat.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1540

Post by Badger3k »

Cunt of Personality wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Typical - put the disabled transblack muslim midget behind the rich white woman. This is progress?
Quick, Robin, to the Elfwick Pole!

(ok, that sounded pornographic, more so than the "bat-pole")

I took it to be sarcastic. A lot of comments on it were similar, and I don't see her as celebrating that. Could always be wrong. I liked how someone made a picture of the two silhouettes side by side equal in height, which was supposedly impossible for the person designing that logo or whatever it is.

Shatterface as Guest

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1541

Post by Shatterface as Guest »

Cunt of Personality wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Typical - put the disabled transblack muslim midget behind the rich white woman. This is progress?
How is standing so close behind a woman not threatening behaviour?

The new logo reeks of misogyny.

Shatterface

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1542

Post by Scented Nectar »

:text-tmi: In the spirit of Carrieristic TMI, I'd like to announce that I'm celebrating having passed the 1 year point of having no periods. I am now POST-menopausal. Yippee! No more monthly visits with it coming back again and again like a bloody bouncing ball :sad-bored:
:text-woo:

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1543

Post by Sulman »

Skep tickle wrote:or Shakesville with its heavy moderation
Oh you [emoji7]

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1544

Post by AndrewV69 »

Scented Nectar wrote::text-tmi: In the spirit of Carrieristic TMI, I'd like to announce that I'm celebrating having passed the 1 year point of having no periods. I am now POST-menopausal. Yippee! No more monthly visits with it coming back again and again like a bloody bouncing ball :sad-bored:
:text-woo:
Congratz ... so no more of those hot flash thingies I have heard about?

paddybrown
.
.
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:06 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1545

Post by paddybrown »

Za-zen wrote: He is one of the few conviction politicians left, at the very least you know exactly what he stands for, and has an understandable logic to his position, which he makes no apology for.
He really isn't. He's just a populist machine politician, an opportunist vote farmer, and he's even a failure at that - the client group he patronises has got smaller and smaller as the years have gone on. Now the Muslim community of Bradford have rejected him, he doesn't have a client base at all. Good riddance to him.

Couch
.
.
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1546

Post by Couch »

Scented Nectar wrote::text-tmi: In the spirit of Carrieristic TMI, I'd like to announce that I'm celebrating having passed the 1 year point of having no periods. I am now POST-menopausal. Yippee! No more monthly visits with it coming back again and again like a bloody bouncing ball :sad-bored:
:text-woo:
Hooray!

I like Carrieristic TMI. I'm using that.

My contribution: I wore a brand spanking new black t-shirt under my business shirt today. Is my belly-button lint black tonight? No. It's fucken BLUE, of course... How does that shit happen!?

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1547

Post by Scented Nectar »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote::text-tmi: In the spirit of Carrieristic TMI, I'd like to announce that I'm celebrating having passed the 1 year point of having no periods. I am now POST-menopausal. Yippee! No more monthly visits with it coming back again and again like a bloody bouncing ball :sad-bored:
:text-woo:
Congratz ... so no more of those hot flash thingies I have heard about?
Hardly any of those any more. I didn't really mind them much. They are even a bit pleasant sometimes, like a sauna can be.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1548

Post by Scented Nectar »

Couch wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote::text-tmi: In the spirit of Carrieristic TMI, I'd like to announce that I'm celebrating having passed the 1 year point of having no periods. I am now POST-menopausal. Yippee! No more monthly visits with it coming back again and again like a bloody bouncing ball :sad-bored:
:text-woo:
Hooray!

I like Carrieristic TMI. I'm using that.

My contribution: I wore a brand spanking new black t-shirt under my business shirt today. Is my belly-button lint black tonight? No. It's fucken BLUE, of course... How does that shit happen!?
Thank you for carrying my meme child. Must say though, I thought being post-menopausal meant I wouldn't be having any kids. :D

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1549

Post by feathers »

Miss Nectar, you are under arrest for the postmenstrual murder of S. Lymepit. You don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1550

Post by Scented Nectar »

feathers wrote:Miss Nectar, you are under arrest for the postmenstrual murder of S. Lymepit. You don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...
Uh oh. I'd better tamp-on some wood for good luck in court. Groan. Let's try again. But, no one has RED me my rights. Groan. My ability to pun ran off with my periods. No one told me this would happen. :cry:

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1551

Post by feathers »

Come come, take a holiday to the Red Sea for a period.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1552

Post by Scented Nectar »

Scented Nectar wrote:
feathers wrote:Miss Nectar, you are under arrest for the postmenstrual murder of S. Lymepit. You don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...
Uh oh. I'd better tamp-on some wood for good luck in court. Groan. Let's try again. But, no one has RED me my rights. Groan. My ability to pun ran off with my periods. No one told me this would happen. :cry:
Also, I can no longer swim, ride horses, or run through meadows any more.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1553

Post by Scented Nectar »

feathers wrote:Come come, take a holiday to the Red Sea for a period.
No. No more sea-ing red. Uh uh. :hand:

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1554

Post by feathers »

Willfully Misheard Lyrics flashback:

[youtube]-AvS4PjGTZ0[/youtube]

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1555

Post by Karmakin »

Skep tickle wrote:
Elyse Anders wrote:Trolling is an assault on women.
No, actually, trolling is not a gendered term. You can provide another definition if you like, but let's try this from dictionary.com:
Digital Technology, Informal.
  • to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
  • to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments
Turns out if you search (w/o quotes) "trolling feminist definition" some of what turns up is stuff about feminists trolling others (admirably, from Jezebel's point of view). Oops!
The one other big part that definition is missing, is that it's indicating that it's just "messages" or "comments". OP's can be trolling as well, articles designed to be clickbait or to induce an angry response in order to gain fame and tribal support.

Hypocrisy, in general is something that is a strong form of trolling. And considering that my impression of Elyse is that she's a glommer (I.E. she's likely to physically pounce on any guy she's attracted to)...all of that reads as hypocritical nonsense to me.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1556

Post by CuntajusRationality »

Steersman wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
[snip]
But, somewhat in passing, I wonder which "basic principles" you think he has flouted or abrogated.
It's more than just piss-poor assumptions, although that's definitely part of it. There are some very basic principles in play here that he was unable to wrap his head around. Namely, the cases from which the initial odds were drawn (cases involving filing a police report) are materially differenent from the comparison case (Smith-Shermer), such that an inference from the one to the other would not hold any water.

Since I know you love analogies, here's one to illustrate Hornbeck's epic fail.

Let's imagine I am trying to make a point about the likelihood of dying in a car accident. First I cite studies that calculate the odds of dying when wearing a seat-belt to be x%. I then try to use those odds to make a direct prediction about how likely it is that someone dies when not wearing a seat-belt. It should be obvious what the problem here is; wearing a seat-belt materially changes (reduces) the odds, and so a direct inference from the one to the other would not hold water. Unless of course one admits the completely ridiculous and demonstrably false assumption that seat-belts have literally zero effect on the odds; or unless one takes an extra step to factor in an estimate for seat-belt effectiveness. Absent that that extra step, the inference doesn't hold up. I would argue that it doesn't take a statistician to see the problem here, and that it's painfully obvious with just a layman's understanding and some basic common sense reasoning skills.

Analogously, Hornbeck first cited the odds of falsifying a rape allegation when a police report was filed, and he tried to use that to make a direct inference to the Smith-Shermer case, wherein no police report was filed. Involving the police is pretty much guaranteed to mean that the accuser will need to provide a formal statement, there will be some form of an investigation, there is a possibility that it will end up in court, there are potential legal penalties for filing a false report and perjury, etc. All of these things have a significant impact on how likely someone is to falsify an allegation; and they all serve to discourage such because of the possible severe penalties in play. This is analogous to wearing a seat-belt, which serves to reduce the odds of dying in a wreck. Contrast that with the Smith-Shermer case, not involving the police (not wearing the seat-belt), being reported apparently only to a then-boyfriend and subsequently made public years after the fact via the rumor-mill and blogoshpere. No formal statement, no investigation of the claims, no possible penalty for filing a false report or perjury, etc. The cases are too different. A direct inference from the one to the other doesn't hold up because the cases and data sets are not similar enough, and Hornbeck made no effort to factor in the estimated effects of filing a police report. For his inference to hold any water, one would have to accept the ridiculous assumption that involving the police has literally zero effect on the odds.

This is not just a trivial misunderstanding or mistake on his part. It betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to how to properly apply these techniques. And this is just one example among many more. Here's one last analogy for you. It's as if he's a construction worker who knows the mechanics of how to properly swing a hammer, but instead of hammering nails he goes around punching holes in the wall and breaking windows, sincerely believing all the while that he was doing good work. It would be insane to claim that this person seems "quite knowledgeable" about how to use a hammer. This is the situation with HJ Hornbeck and here you are putting yourself in the position of his champion.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1557

Post by CuntajusRationality »

feathers wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Steersman wrote:But that said, he [HJ Hornbeck] seems to be quite knowledgeable in a number of areas, notably statistics and Bayes Theorem.
Steersman, dear god, what the fuck are you talking about? HJ Hornbeck "quite knowledgeable"? Are you kidding?

As someone else just mentioned, he seems to have just barely enough knowledge to practice his very own cargo-cult version of statistical analysis.

Have you seen the truly awful and embarrassing "Evidence-based Feminism" videos (1, 2) for example? Or the time he laughingly tried to use statistical inference to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer as being 0.4% or less - during which he misapplied and seemed unable to even comprehend some pretty basic principles?
I've never had statistics, but you got me curious: how on earth does the man apply it to put a number on the likelihood of a rape accusation being true? Why haven't the police figured this out, eh?
It went like this:
HJ Hornbeck wrote:A. Odds of a false rape report: 2-8% to police (Lisak 2010). Let’s be charitable and say it’s 4%.
B. Odds of a false rape report involving alcohol: Kelly (2005) notes 13 of 120 cases the police considered false were dismissed due to alcohol consumption.
[snip]
Combining A and B together, we estimate the baseline odds of Smith falsifying her report as roughly 0.4%. Most importantly, this only takes into account Smith’s testimony; you can push it down further when you start adding in witnesses, and it doesn’t invoke any bloggers you hate. 0.4% is damn good, as you only need less than 1-10% to declare you’ve refuted the null hypothesis, or 20-35% to convict someone of a criminal act.
Damion asked him over and over to justify or defend this nonsense and he dodged, evaded, obfuscated over and over again. He genuinely seemed unable to even understand the criticisms, much less to address them in any meaningful way.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1558

Post by Sulman »

CuntajusRationality wrote: It went like this:
HJ Hornbeck wrote:A. Odds of a false rape report: 2-8% to police (Lisak 2010). Let’s be charitable and say it’s 4%.
B. Odds of a false rape report involving alcohol: Kelly (2005) notes 13 of 120 cases the police considered false were dismissed due to alcohol consumption.
[snip]
Combining A and B together, we estimate the baseline odds of Smith falsifying her report as roughly 0.4%. Most importantly, this only takes into account Smith’s testimony; you can push it down further when you start adding in witnesses, and it doesn’t invoke any bloggers you hate. 0.4% is damn good, as you only need less than 1-10% to declare you’ve refuted the null hypothesis, or 20-35% to convict someone of a criminal act.
Damion asked him over and over to justify or defend this nonsense and he dodged, evaded, obfuscated over and over again. He genuinely seemed unable to even understand the criticisms, much less to address them in any meaningful way.
I'm not sure how he's done his maths, but even that wouldn't be the problem - it is the fact he appears to have no grasp of some fundamentals. You can't just pluck numbers from a smorgasboard of fundamentally different sources and start declaring proofs. That's a cunt's errand.

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1559

Post by Parody Accountant »

Sulman wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:or Shakesville with its heavy moderation
Oh you [emoji7]
Bwahaha
Scented Nectar wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:A wee spot of bother up here in Canukistan.

Possibly of interest to Canucks, and Brits seeing as it concerns the search for the lost ships of the 1845 Franklin expedition. The money shot so far is The letter said, words to the effect, “You must cease all reporting on anything related to John Geiger.”

From the interview:
Paul, is it possible that the pressure placed on The Toronto Star didn't come from John Geiger, but from government?

Anything is possible, I don't have the answer to those questions but I hope to have them someday. But I would be shocked if a newspaper that is publicly known to be left of centre, allied with the Liberal party sometimes, sometimes the NDP, but certainly not the Federal Conservative party, I would be shocked if they are somehow working together to keep the story out of the newspaper.
Also, I dunno if you are aware of this kind of thing happening in your country but apparently it does happen in Canukistan (the ones I have heard of have all been under Harper).
This is a symptom of a broader disease that is eating away at the core of our democracy. Experts on climate, on medicine, on things that are central to our society are being silenced by a government that does favours for the politically connected. And that is just very dangerous for our future.
Feminists who always pretend they are being silenced, should read Paul Watson's story. THAT'S what being silenced is. It makes me very angry what they are doing to him. I've bookmarked his blog so that I can read more as it happens.

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#1560

Post by Parody Accountant »

Scented Nectar wrote:
feathers wrote:Miss Nectar, you are under arrest for the postmenstrual murder of S. Lymepit. You don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...
Uh oh. I'd better tamp-on some wood for good luck in court. Groan. Let's try again. But, no one has RED me my rights. Groan. My ability to pun ran off with my periods. No one told me this would happen. :cry:
Were the last periods any different? I'm picturing dry balls of blood, a coughing sound, maybe a wisp of smoke?

Locked