Ape+lust wrote:Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!
http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png
http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png
Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.
Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
Yup. She'll never be ready for the 24-crayon box.comhcinc wrote:Like Steertler, I couldn't be bothered to actually put any thought or research into this but it seems to me that those two tweets have at least the same amount of words as her entire post.
Nope. Doing this the easy way. It's hugely worth $25 to have someone else come over and fix it. I'd be guessing at substitute screw sizes anyways.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Buy thinner or shorter screws, save yourself $24.
Yikes. Google's gonekatamari Damassi wrote:It changed PZ into Greta Christina!Couch wrote:I love how The Bensonian has a tinfoil hat!paddybrown wrote:I put my shoop of Peez and the Oaf as American Gothic through Dream Deeply:
http://s23.postimg.org/8x0f4k8mz/FTB_Go ... Deeply.jpg
Here's the thing. I'm open to the possibility of unconscious sexism in journalism with respect to titles. But one example is not remotely convincing. Instead of high-fiving for doing fuck-all, maybe do a systematic analysis? I know it requires a bit of work and there's a large risk it might not show what she wants it to show. But if she can actually demonstrate sexism in this regard, she'll have done some actual good and not have to fool herself.Ape+lust wrote:Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!
[.img]http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png[/img]
[.img]http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png[/img]
Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.
Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States, and every few seconds, a woman is beaten. Each day, 400 Americans suffer shooting injuries, and another 1,100 face criminals armed with guns. Author Gavin de Becker says victims of violent behavior usually feel a sense of fear before any threat or violence takes place. They may distrust the fear, or it may impel them to some action that saves their lives. A leading expert on predicting violent behavior, de Becker believes we can all learn to recognize these signals of the "universal code of violence," and use them as tools to help us survive. The book teaches how to identify the warning signals of a potential attacker and recommends strategies for dealing with the problem before it becomes life threatening. The case studies are gripping and suspenseful, and include tactics for dealing with similar situations.
People don't just "snap" and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. "There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil." Learning to predict violence is the cornerstone to preventing it. De Becker is a master of the psychology of violence, and his advice may save your life. --Joan Price
Aw shucks. Coming from the pit's undisputed shooping champion... cheers man.Ape+lust wrote:I don't know about the mescaline dream, but that pic on the left is fucking funny. Really nice work :Dpaddybrown wrote:I put my shoop of Peez and the Oaf as American Gothic through Dream Deeply:
http://s23.postimg.org/8x0f4k8mz/FTB_Go ... Deeply.jpg
Sure, after she's cleaned the driveway with a toothbrush :lol:jugheadnaut wrote:...maybe do a systematic analysis?
jugheadnaut wrote:
Here's the thing. I'm open to the possibility of unconscious sexism in journalism with respect to titles. But one example is not remotely convincing. Instead of high-fiving for doing fuck-all, maybe do a systematic analysis? I know it requires a bit of work and there's a large risk it might not show what she wants it to show. But if she can actually demonstrate sexism in this regard, she'll have done some actual good and not have to fool herself.
Maybe not evidence of systemic sexism. But still seems reasonable to think that there is still a possibility that that specific case was a consequence of sexism, of differential and preferential treatment by sex, whether it was unconscious or not. At least on the part of the individual(s) who wrote that article.jugheadnaut wrote:Here's the thing. I'm open to the possibility of unconscious sexism in journalism with respect to titles. But one example is not remotely convincing. Instead of high-fiving for doing fuck-all, maybe do a systematic analysis? I know it requires a bit of work and there's a large risk it might not show what she wants it to show. But if she can actually demonstrate sexism in this regard, she'll have done some actual good and not have to fool herself.Ape+lust wrote:Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!
[.img]http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png[/img]
[.img]http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png[/img]
Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.
Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
Skep tickle wrote:
"The Gift of Fear" (US amazon link) isn't new - it's from 1997 - but it spent 4 months on the NYT bestsellers list & got good reviews, including this (seemingly) balanced one posted at "American Conservative" last year. It seems likely some people might find this book "problematic" but I didn't run across anyone saying so, on an admittedly half-hearted search. I haven't read the book, but will put it on my list, in part because I'd like to know if it might be helpful for patients who are in potentially violent situations.
Bolding added to the review below:Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States, and every few seconds, a woman is beaten. Each day, 400 Americans suffer shooting injuries, and another 1,100 face criminals armed with guns. Author Gavin de Becker says victims of violent behavior usually feel a sense of fear before any threat or violence takes place. They may distrust the fear, or it may impel them to some action that saves their lives. A leading expert on predicting violent behavior, de Becker believes we can all learn to recognize these signals of the "universal code of violence," and use them as tools to help us survive. The book teaches how to identify the warning signals of a potential attacker and recommends strategies for dealing with the problem before it becomes life threatening. The case studies are gripping and suspenseful, and include tactics for dealing with similar situations.
People don't just "snap" and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. "There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil." Learning to predict violence is the cornerstone to preventing it. De Becker is a master of the psychology of violence, and his advice may save your life. --Joan Price
Read it years ago on a plane. Really good.Skep tickle wrote: https://twitter.com/daniellemuscato/sta ... 2300677120
Links to https://twitter.com/matt__enloe/status/ ... 8219593728
"The Gift of Fear" (US amazon link) isn't new - it's from 1997 - but it spent 4 months on the NYT bestsellers list & got good reviews, including this (seemingly) balanced one posted at "American Conservative" last year. It seems likely some people might find this book "problematic" but I didn't run across anyone saying so, on an admittedly half-hearted search. I haven't read the book, but will put it on my list, in part because I'd like to know if it might be helpful for patients who are in potentially violent situations.
Bolding added to the review below:Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States, and every few seconds, a woman is beaten. Each day, 400 Americans suffer shooting injuries, and another 1,100 face criminals armed with guns. Author Gavin de Becker says victims of violent behavior usually feel a sense of fear before any threat or violence takes place. They may distrust the fear, or it may impel them to some action that saves their lives. A leading expert on predicting violent behavior, de Becker believes we can all learn to recognize these signals of the "universal code of violence," and use them as tools to help us survive. The book teaches how to identify the warning signals of a potential attacker and recommends strategies for dealing with the problem before it becomes life threatening. The case studies are gripping and suspenseful, and include tactics for dealing with similar situations.
People don't just "snap" and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. "There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil." Learning to predict violence is the cornerstone to preventing it. De Becker is a master of the psychology of violence, and his advice may save your life. --Joan Price
I wonder if the "one idiot blogger" refers to Sticky Dick Carrier?• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
scb0212 • 3 days ago
Good.
This is what secularists need to do. Arguing there is no god may be fun, but this fights the perception of atheists as immoral. Humanists fight for human rights. Period. It was ridiculous when atheism+ was discouraged, despite it advancing both our cause and helping people around the world.
Besides, the lack of visibility of POC in the atheist community is to our detriment. A secular conference on #blacklivesmatter will hopefully also reach out to non-believers of other races and ethnicities, and make our tent larger and more welcoming.
13 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charleigh Kimber scb0212 • 3 days ago
Atheism+ was poorly introduced and implemented (and had one idiot blogger making an idiotic comment in support of it early on), but the negative response to it was largely fueled by irrational anger coming from some extremely prejudiced atheists who didn't like the idea of not being able to casually dismiss groups that they hold in contempt without being left behind socially.
I'll do better than that. I'll quote that fucking shitstain Breitbart himself:jugheadnaut wrote: So lets go to the belly of the beast, the actual social arch-conservatives. Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz, Palin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh. Can you find a single thing that they have said or policy they have proposed or supported that could be remotely interpreted as trying to "bully [you] into conforming with that lifestyle"?
Meta-victim-blaming! Teach po-mo feminists not to read! (That would even be a use for Steersman.)Guest wrote:Victim blaming. Teach men not to be violent!
No you're not.Gefan wrote:
<snip> I'm anti-authoritarian <snip>
Yes. I agree.Steersman wrote:Maybe not evidence of systemic sexism. But still seems reasonable to think that there is still a possibility that that specific case was a consequence of sexism, of differential and preferential treatment by sex, whether it was unconscious or not. At least on the part of the individual(s) who wrote that article.jugheadnaut wrote:Here's the thing. I'm open to the possibility of unconscious sexism in journalism with respect to titles. But one example is not remotely convincing. Instead of high-fiving for doing fuck-all, maybe do a systematic analysis? I know it requires a bit of work and there's a large risk it might not show what she wants it to show. But if she can actually demonstrate sexism in this regard, she'll have done some actual good and not have to fool herself.Ape+lust wrote:Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!
[.img]http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png[/img]
[.img]http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png[/img]
Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.
Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
Parody Accountant wrote:No you're not.Gefan wrote:
<snip> I'm anti-authoritarian <snip>
Also - don't you go around telling me what you are. I'll be deciding that, thank you very much. I don't have to answer to you.
:shock:Service Dog wrote:[.tweet][/tweet]
https://twitter.com/daniellemuscato/sta ... 2300677120
Links to
[.tweet][/tweet]
https://twitter.com/matt__enloe/status/ ... 8219593728
Nope. not "problematic"...
The book is cited by SJWs to explain that women have evolved a mindreading ability to know a man's rapey intentions before he actually does anything wrong... and thus it's safe to treat men as rapists for being "creepy".
This is orthodox feminism/ not "problematic".
I've never seen someone veer as deftly between incisive commentary and a useless, insane warbling as our Ophelia. But then again, I haven't read her blog directly for years, so maybe the "incisive commentary" bit isn't what it used to be.Ape+lust wrote:Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!
http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png
http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png
Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.
Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
I am making this cake for my next birthday....CuntajusRationality wrote:fuzzy wrote:A new comment under Carrier's semipology includes this description:
"It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8pNEBQCEAA6lLo.jpg
Shortly before he died, Hitchens said he wanted to be remembered mostly for "being against totalitarianism in all of its forms" (paraphrase?)Gefan wrote:Parody Accountant wrote:No you're not.Gefan wrote:
<snip> I'm anti-authoritarian <snip>
Also - don't you go around telling me what you are. I'll be deciding that, thank you very much. I don't have to answer to you.
The Argument Clinic is next door.
No worries, as I do as well. The whole idea of silencing people is insane. Of course, the baboons deem mockery as attempting to silence, but they are batshit insane, as they mock relentlessly. They just aren't very good at it.Gefan wrote:I'll also throw in, just off the top of my head, the relentless abuse of FCC power by the Right to drive Howard Stern from terrestrial radio, that even extended to proposals (I think Santorum was on board with this) to try and kick him off satellite. Only when it was pointed out to them that they'd have to re-write The Constitution did they back off.
Sorry, this one of the few things about which I get apopleptic with rage.
I've never seen someone veer as deftly between incisive commentary and a useless, insane warbling as our Ophelia. But then again, I haven't read her blog directly for years, so maybe the "incisive commentary" bit isn't what it used to be. /quote]Søren Lilholt wrote:Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.
I'll assume that figure is from reviewer, not the book. If it is from the book, no figure it mentions can be trusted.Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States...
I have to do courses on this stuff at work because I occasional have to deal with violent people.Sulman wrote:Read it years ago on a plane. Really good.
Very un-SJW though. Lots of examples of instinct and intuition being a part of our evolved predictive skills.
Perhaps that number will go even lower when one considers the number of female victims, as that's what the original comment pointed out. So the figures are even more dishonest.jugheadnaut wrote:I'll assume that figure is from reviewer, not the book. If it is from the book, no figure it mentions can be trusted.Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States...
75 women raped per hour is about 657,000 per year. The National Crime Victimization Survey for 2013 reports just over 300,000 rapes and sexual assaults per year. This is based on surveys, not crime reports where the number is 60,000-70,000. So the statistic is off by over 100% even when including non-reported rapes and throwing in sexual assaults. More likely, it's off by 200-300%. The sad thing is that in the domain of rape statistic quoting, being within an order of magnitude is actually much more accurate than average.
This guy has plenty of time to help you bake it:HoneyWagon wrote:I am making this cake for my next birthday....CuntajusRationality wrote:fuzzy wrote:A new comment under Carrier's semipology includes this description:
"It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8pNEBQCEAA6lLo.jpg
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/nypd-c ... -crush-on/You’d think in his 54 years, New York police Sgt. Michael Iscenko would have learned more effective ways to get a woman’s attention.
Apparently not.
Iscenko has been suspended, accused of throwing semen on a woman’s leg. The victim, in her 60s, is a co-worker who New York Magazine reports Iscenko had a crush on. The two worked together in the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau.
The woman, a civilian employee, had just come out of the women’s restroom and was walking down a hallway when Iscenko allegedly approached her from behind and splashed the liquid on her leg and shoe, the New York Post reports.
“She suddenly felt something on her leg, looked down, and said to him, ‘What are you doing?'†an unnamed source told the Post. The incident occurred in January and Iscenko was suspended in June, according to the New York Daily News.
The woman filed a complaint with her superiors and an investigation is underway.
I have had the book on my read list for a while, will have to give it a go. Though I can guarantee that there are people who become violent with no external signs at all, to contradict Comhcinc's position.comhcinc wrote:Skep tickle wrote:
"The Gift of Fear" (US amazon link) isn't new - it's from 1997 - but it spent 4 months on the NYT bestsellers list & got good reviews, including this (seemingly) balanced one posted at "American Conservative" last year. It seems likely some people might find this book "problematic" but I didn't run across anyone saying so, on an admittedly half-hearted search. I haven't read the book, but will put it on my list, in part because I'd like to know if it might be helpful for patients who are in potentially violent situations.
Bolding added to the review below:Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States, and every few seconds, a woman is beaten. Each day, 400 Americans suffer shooting injuries, and another 1,100 face criminals armed with guns. Author Gavin de Becker says victims of violent behavior usually feel a sense of fear before any threat or violence takes place. They may distrust the fear, or it may impel them to some action that saves their lives. A leading expert on predicting violent behavior, de Becker believes we can all learn to recognize these signals of the "universal code of violence," and use them as tools to help us survive. The book teaches how to identify the warning signals of a potential attacker and recommends strategies for dealing with the problem before it becomes life threatening. The case studies are gripping and suspenseful, and include tactics for dealing with similar situations.
People don't just "snap" and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. "There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil." Learning to predict violence is the cornerstone to preventing it. De Becker is a master of the psychology of violence, and his advice may save your life. --Joan Price
I haven't read the book but that review does have the ring of truth to me. In my life I have been a bouncer in a number of night clubs and in prison. There are warning signs to when someone is about to become violent. Next time I am in the library I will see if they have a copy and get it. I will report back it seems correct based off of my knowledge.
And if, during the course of events a bit of the icing ends up on my face, that's like, totally fine man. I'm not scared of catching The Diabetes.HoneyWagon wrote:I am making this cake for my next birthday....CuntajusRationality wrote:fuzzy wrote:A new comment under Carrier's semipology includes this description:
"It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8pNEBQCEAA6lLo.jpg
When I read it there's a few women's stories in there, but I didn't think that was the focus of it. It's a look at these things for everybody.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:I have had the book on my read list for a while, will have to give it a go. Though I can guarantee that there are people who become violent with no external signs at all, to contradict Comhcinc's position.comhcinc wrote:Skep tickle wrote:
"The Gift of Fear" (US amazon link) isn't new - it's from 1997 - but it spent 4 months on the NYT bestsellers list & got good reviews, including this (seemingly) balanced one posted at "American Conservative" last year. It seems likely some people might find this book "problematic" but I didn't run across anyone saying so, on an admittedly half-hearted search. I haven't read the book, but will put it on my list, in part because I'd like to know if it might be helpful for patients who are in potentially violent situations.
Bolding added to the review below:
I haven't read the book but that review does have the ring of truth to me. In my life I have been a bouncer in a number of night clubs and in prison. There are warning signs to when someone is about to become violent. Next time I am in the library I will see if they have a copy and get it. I will report back it seems correct based off of my knowledge.
This guy has plenty of time to help you bake it:HoneyWagon wrote:I am making this cake for my next birthday....CuntajusRationality wrote:fuzzy wrote:A new comment under Carrier's semipology includes this description:
"It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8pNEBQCEAA6lLo.jpg
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/nypd-c ... -crush-on/[/quote]You’d think in his 54 years, New York police Sgt. Michael Iscenko would have learned more effective ways to get a woman’s attention.
Apparently not.
Iscenko has been suspended, accused of throwing semen on a woman’s leg. The victim, in her 60s, is a co-worker who New York Magazine reports Iscenko had a crush on. The two worked together in the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau.
The woman, a civilian employee, had just come out of the women’s restroom and was walking down a hallway when Iscenko allegedly approached her from behind and splashed the liquid on her leg and shoe, the New York Post reports.
“She suddenly felt something on her leg, looked down, and said to him, ‘What are you doing?'†an unnamed source told the Post. The incident occurred in January and Iscenko was suspended in June, according to the New York Daily News.
The woman filed a complaint with her superiors and an investigation is underway.
Of course it's a possibility. It's also possible it's a simple mistake. Take as our null hypothesis that there is no sexism and suppose there's a 10% gender-neutral chance that the journalist will neglect to use a title for any given person. The chances of a story involving two male researchers and one female researcher where the men are titled and the women isn't is 8.1%. So even if this story was chosen at random, the level of confidence that the result wasn't due to chance wouldn't be considered significant. But it wasn't selected at random, it was singled out entirely because of this arrangement. Suppose there were 100 news stories a year that had this combination. Just by chance, without sexism, this would happen 8 times. But, maybe my 10% estimate is way off and there's only a 2% chance of making this error. There would still be about 2 stories a year out of 100 where this happened with no underlying sexism.Skep tickle wrote:Yes. I agree.Steersman wrote:Maybe not evidence of systemic sexism. But still seems reasonable to think that there is still a possibility that that specific case was a consequence of sexism, of differential and preferential treatment by sex, whether it was unconscious or not. At least on the part of the individual(s) who wrote that article.jugheadnaut wrote:
Here's the thing. I'm open to the possibility of unconscious sexism in journalism with respect to titles. But one example is not remotely convincing. Instead of high-fiving for doing fuck-all, maybe do a systematic analysis? I know it requires a bit of work and there's a large risk it might not show what she wants it to show. But if she can actually demonstrate sexism in this regard, she'll have done some actual good and not have to fool herself.
(In case it's not clear, the bolding & italics in Steers' comment above was added by me.)
that poor woman!every few seconds, a woman is beaten.
From Urban Dictionary:Honeywagon wrote:
Yeah...no
I will just use regular frosting
Suet Cardigan wrote:From Urban Dictionary:Honeywagon wrote:
Yeah...no
I will just use regular frosting
Yes, I missed that. While the FBI crime report rape numbers are for women only, the NCVS number includes both sexes.Really? wrote:Perhaps that number will go even lower when one considers the number of female victims, as that's what the original comment pointed out. So the figures are even more dishonest.jugheadnaut wrote:I'll assume that figure is from reviewer, not the book. If it is from the book, no figure it mentions can be trusted.Amazon review wrote:Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States...
75 women raped per hour is about 657,000 per year. The National Crime Victimization Survey for 2013 reports just over 300,000 rapes and sexual assaults per year. This is based on surveys, not crime reports where the number is 60,000-70,000. So the statistic is off by over 100% even when including non-reported rapes and throwing in sexual assaults. More likely, it's off by 200-300%. The sad thing is that in the domain of rape statistic quoting, being within an order of magnitude is actually much more accurate than average.
So, you're saying that being against totalitarianism is fatal...? Or are you one of those people who believes in coincidences?Parody Accountant wrote:Shortly before he died, Hitchens said he wanted to be remembered mostly for "being against totalitarianism in all of its forms" (paraphrase?)
I don't think you can call a country which was integral part of the United States for almost a century before the secession and seceded from the United States largely over the question of slavery "conquered people".Gefan wrote:Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.
I agree with you. I'm just not sure white southerners agree with the two of us.Kirbmarc wrote:I don't think you can call a country which was integral part of the United States for almost a century before the secession and seceded from the United States largely over the question of slavery "conquered people".Gefan wrote:Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.
The American Civil War wasn't a war of conquest, it was a war between different social, economical and political stances. The "Southern Culture" and "Southern pride" are a far more recent invention. At the time of the civil war differences between the single states were far more important than a general north-south divide. West Virginia, which is now considered hillbilly country and part of the "South" was very anti-slavery, like all of Appalachia, largely for economic reasons: the poor Scot-Irish inhabitants of Appalachia didn't have many slaves and hated and frequently clashed with the rich Anglo slaveholders of the plains.
West Virginia was so anti-slavery that when Virginia seceded from the US they seceded from Virginia to get back in the US!
I wanted to substantiate my claim that SJWs cite The Gift Of Fear in a "women's special way of knowing" type of way...Skep tickle wrote:
I hadn't considered that possibility.
Would that mean they're endorsing...evopsych ??
The bra-holster remark apparently refers to this: http://gawker.com/woman-adjusting-gun-i ... 1686552574MadPiglet
2/19/15 7:57am
Have you read "The Gift of Fear?" If not, you really should. You are getting these "uh oh" feelings in your gut for a reason, and you should listen to them. Your body is telling you, on some level, that SHIT IS NOT RIGHT and you are 100% within your rights to do whatever you need to do to feel safe (except no carrying a gun in a bra holster, since that clearly doesn't work).
Plus, you're a Mama, and those Mama Bear instincts are VERY VERY POWERFUL. Listen to them.
bibiMadPiglet
2/19/15 11:03am
That book creeped me out and made me see danger where there was none. I'm sure it is a good book for many women, but for me it just made my anxiety worse; that I had to "act" on every inkling because "omg-listen-to-yourself-or-you-will-diiiiie".
Not saying this in relation to the OP's story, but I feel I should point out that the book might not be great for everyone!
I can't make myself hate Dr. Randomercam. He's a very clever lad and I think he would make a canny politician.Old_ones wrote:I came across this interesting and amusing video by Dr. Randomercam today, about a certain kind of sophistry we've seen a fair amount of here at the pit:
[youtube]R-aKyci8PMQ[/youtube]
He calls it "use-mention bungling", by which he means a shift in focus from the topic of a discussion onto the words being used to discuss the topic, usually as a means to avert being corrected or shown to be wrong. He calls people who do this AIDSPIGs (Anti-Intellectual Demagogues Spouting Pseudo-Intellectual Gibberish). The video covers a host of variations of this that he wants to talk about, so it ends up being pretty long, but I found it worth watching.
I found it especially amusing because the first example that came to my mind as Dr. Ramdomercam expounded his theory, was the situation a couple months ago with Brive making comments here and on twitter about Karen Stollznow's final retraction in the Stollznow/Radford case, which Steers immediately jumped on Brive about because of the wording "it would be wrong to believe" which he tried to argue made it less than a retraction. After a bunch of debate, someone looked back at Steers' original reaction to the Stollznow accusation and found that he'd always been in her corner.
I guess now we have a word for that.
Send him to the comments sections of Jezebel, Feministing and Salon and you might do some good.Billie from Ockham wrote:Meta-victim-blaming! Teach po-mo feminists not to read! (That would even be a use for Steersman.)Guest wrote:Victim blaming. Teach men not to be violent!
So where's the harm in Dr. Kennedy questioning BBC directly? Seems like the direct approach is likely to be more fruitful than pussyfooting about with statistical after-the-fact analyses which still aren't all that conclusive.jugheadnaut wrote:Of course it's a possibility. It's also possible it's a simple mistake. Take as our null hypothesis that there is no sexism and suppose there's a 10% gender-neutral chance that the journalist will neglect to use a title for any given person. The chances of a story involving two male researchers and one female researcher where the men are titled and the women isn't is 8.1%. So even if this story was chosen at random, the level of confidence that the result wasn't due to chance wouldn't be considered significant. But it wasn't selected at random, it was singled out entirely because of this arrangement. Suppose there were 100 news stories a year that had this combination. Just by chance, without sexism, this would happen 8 times. But, maybe my 10% estimate is way off and there's only a 2% chance of making this error. There would still be about 2 stories a year out of 100 where this happened with no underlying sexism.Skep tickle wrote:Yes. I agree.Steersman wrote:<snip>
Maybe not evidence of systemic sexism. But still seems reasonable to think that there is still a possibility that that specific case was a consequence of sexism, of differential and preferential treatment by sex, whether it was unconscious or not. At least on the part of the individual(s) who wrote that article.
(In case it's not clear, the bolding & italics in Steers' comment above was added by me.)
The point is, without doing more analysis there's no convincing evidence of sexism even in this one story. We would expect this to happen occasionally by chance alone.
Sorry for what is likely to be an abbreviated response (yea!!) – time for a holiday (woot!) – but some good questions. And I agree that that statistic on the different reasons for dismissing rape reports has a pretty tenuous relevance to and bearing on the probability that a given rape report is false, even assuming that reports to police, and those to other groups, are on par. Pretty puzzle, as you suggest, as to how the probability of dismissal of rape reports because alcohol was involved could possibly decrease the probability that a report of a supposed rape, in a particular instance in which alcohol was involved, was false – assuming it had been made to the police.CuntajusRationality wrote:I think you'll have to also concede that your re-write of statement B doesn't make any sense either, given what it was that Hornbeck was attempting to calculate.Steersman wrote:However, I’ll concede that, for that argument to work, one has to argue that Hornbeck was somewhat “imprecise†if not mumble-mouthed, although it’s a bit of an occupational hazard for most humans – and bots, in asserting “B: Odds of a false rape report involving alcoholâ€; seems a more accurate and consistent and less confusing statement would have been, “B: Odds of a rape report being dismissed because of the confounding factor of alcohol.†Rather different kettles of fish, but which have some rather significant consequences.Q.E.D.
Remember he was trying to calculate the odds of Smith falsifying her allegation against Shermer. Pray tell, how would your re-write of B inform that calculation at all?
Assume for the sake of discussion that B was 100%, that the police automatically dismiss 100% of cases wherein the accuser was drunk (whether or not the person was actually raped). Ok, no what? According to Hornbeck’s confused logic, this would imply that it's an order of magnitude more likely that Smith falsified her allegation against Shermer. If on the other hand B were 0% (police never dismissed any cases on account of alcohol), then per Hornbeck's logic that would mean that we can be literally 100% certain that she did not falsify her allegation.
So how does that work? Can you please describe the magical statistical relationship that is driving this process?
Why would he factor in the odds of the police dismissing the case at all, for whatever reason (be it alcohol, race, age or any other factor)? What bearing does that have here given that Smith did not report the case to the police? In what way does that inform our calculation or add to our predictive power here? It appears to be a random, if tangentially relevant, statistic thrown into the calculation when in reality it has no bearing on what's being calculated or on the case in question.
No, not... the Eastern Front of the Internet.James Caruthers wrote:Send him to the comments sections of Jezebel, Feministing and Salon and you might do some good.Billie from Ockham wrote: Meta-victim-blaming! Teach po-mo feminists not to read! (That would even be a use for Steersman.)
So you take that obviously unserious speech and interpret it as an actual threat? I guess you should alert the authorities that bhoytony and I have issued death threats to Steersman. Even as a joke, he's not even remotely saying he's going to get his army buddies together and force everyone to live in the way he sees fit at gunpoint. His basic point, which is inconsequential and he knows it, is that the left is quick to make threats, but should it ever come to violence, they will be routed. Granted, the "fire the first shot" line is abysmal, even with the caveat that he only thinks it in unclear moments. But I don't judge people by their gaffes, and if this is your evidence that Breitbart is bullying you into "living in a suburban tract home, driving a minivan, being married, breeding kids, playing golf on Saturday mornings, going to church on Sunday mornings, listening to talk radio, watching Fox 'News' and despising every other fucking human being on the planet", I'm deeply unimpressed.Gefan wrote:I'll do better than that. I'll quote that fucking shitstain Breitbart himself:jugheadnaut wrote: So lets go to the belly of the beast, the actual social arch-conservatives. Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz, Palin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh. Can you find a single thing that they have said or policy they have proposed or supported that could be remotely interpreted as trying to "bully [you] into conforming with that lifestyle"?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/andrew-b ... -the-guns/
That was a direct fucking threat to me and anyone not like him. To me that qualifies as bullying. One of things that Breitbart and I agreed on was the Second Amendment. I have guns too.
Fuck him.
You're the one with the straw man problem here, sunshine, because you automatically assume I'm on the Left. I'm not. I'm anti-authoritarian and I don't give a shit whether it comes from the "right" or "left".
Bucakke?HoneyWagon wrote:I am making this cake for my next birthday....CuntajusRationality wrote:fuzzy wrote:A new comment under Carrier's semipology includes this description:
"It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8pNEBQCEAA6lLo.jpg
And you accuse me of taking him too literally.jugheadnaut wrote:So you take that obviously unserious speech and interpret it as an actual threat? I guess you should alert the authorities that bhoytony and I have issued death threats to Steersman. Even as a joke, he's not even remotely saying he's going to get his army buddies together and force everyone to live in the way he sees fit at gunpoint. His basic point, which is inconsequential and he knows it, is that the left is quick to make threats, but should it ever come to violence, they will be routed. Granted, the "fire the first shot" line is abysmal, even with the caveat that he only thinks it in unclear moments. But I don't judge people by their gaffes, and if this is your evidence that Breitbart is bullying you into "living in a suburban tract home, driving a minivan, being married, breeding kids, playing golf on Saturday mornings, going to church on Sunday mornings, listening to talk radio, watching Fox 'News' and despising every other fucking human being on the planet", I'm deeply unimpressed.Gefan wrote:I'll do better than that. I'll quote that fucking shitstain Breitbart himself:jugheadnaut wrote: So lets go to the belly of the beast, the actual social arch-conservatives. Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz, Palin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh. Can you find a single thing that they have said or policy they have proposed or supported that could be remotely interpreted as trying to "bully [you] into conforming with that lifestyle"?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/andrew-b ... -the-guns/
That was a direct fucking threat to me and anyone not like him. To me that qualifies as bullying. One of things that Breitbart and I agreed on was the Second Amendment. I have guns too.
Fuck him.
You're the one with the straw man problem here, sunshine, because you automatically assume I'm on the Left. I'm not. I'm anti-authoritarian and I don't give a shit whether it comes from the "right" or "left".
I didn't automatically assume you were on the left, and made nothing resembling a straw man argument. Quite the contrary, I only went after your statements, which I can't even give the credit of calling arguments. If you're trying to say these statements weren't right wing or left wing but were anti-authoritarian, that's unadulterated hogwash. Find me a left wing authoritarian who wants to bully you into playing golf, going to church and watching Fox News, or really anything in your litany. Pretty much the entirety of your post is painting Breitbart and "Neocons" as extreme right wing caricatures, and you don't have one bit of evidence to support that.
