Periodic Table of Swearing

#1141

I'm very suspicious. Of all the women there, it is a young lady with associations to Skepchick, at the centre of things.

:?

#1142

ERV wrote: The TAM organizers should have written a comprehensive list of rules for all attendees. And then, if any attendees were breaking the rules, TAM should have instituted this universal telephone number any conference attendee could call if anything bad happened. An organizer/volunteer wouldnt even have to present. But when you called the number, you could tell them what was wrong, and then TAM could send out special organizers who went to a special rule enforcement school and learned rules and learned how to shoot a gun and mediate conflicts and stuff.

GAWD TAM DIDNT PLAN AT ALL!

The Snark is strong with this one!

:D

#1143

Re: Sarah Moglia - sounds like she enjoyed the event.

https://twitter.com/Mowgli3/status/224665116233318400

Even more confused now. :? :? :?

#1144

CommanderTuvok wrote:Re: Sarah Moglia - sounds like she enjoyed the event.

https://twitter.com/Mowgli3/status/224665116233318400

Even more confused now. :? :? :?

Ah, maybe she means that she feels good that she acquitted herself admirably on the mission allocated to her?

#1145

Just researching the foul odour that wafts around the WashPo article. Found this comment from the big baboon at the prune's place -

Aww, Kimberly Winston asked me for a quote, and then she didnâ€™t use it. So hereâ€™s what I told her:

I donâ€™t think atheism has a woman problem: I think the whole culture does. Itâ€™s just that now atheism has grown large enough that we have to confront it.

The only real problem right now is that some individuals are so blinded by their own privilege that they resent that atheist organizations are, in effect, telling them to grow up.

"Asked"? Or "offered"? The timing of this article is exquisite - Winston has zero track record of interest in FfTB hysteria, outside of her USAToday article which was manufactured for her by Myers and Watson. She has written more stuff on black atheists. It is a bit naive to assume the gruesome twosome had no hand in all this. Unfortunately, Winston has no contact information anywhere to place a polite enquiry. But as a propaganda exercise to generate fear-n-loathing, it's right up Watson's alley. GC's too come to think of it.

#1146

BTW - are any of you lot single? http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/07 ... ment-63865

I'm not, so don't bother harassing me.

#1147

KiwiInOz wrote:BTW - are any of you lot single? http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/07 ... ment-63865

I'm not, so don't bother harassing me.

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. Don't sexualize me in that way, you harasser! I don't know you so any attempt at humor like that falls flat. Say, I want to be Tom Jones' lawyer. All those women throwing panties on stage...we can sue the...er...pants off them! I wonder if some of these people are either very insecure, or so prudish that they really want us to go back to the Victorian days. Personally, if anyone wants to ask if I am single, go ahead - I won't take offense, and may even ignore it. Amazing concept, that. I can...ignore...something that is supposed to cause offense. Although I'm not a woman, and we men don't take offense at being complimented on our, well, selves here - no pics, so it can't be looks (and yer all lucky!) :lol:

You know, that reminds me...have any of the FC5/6 (or 7 if we include widdle Becky and Laden) commented on the inherent sexism in Magic Mike? I hear a lot of women are going to see that movie. It apparently has full, er, sidle - not quite frontal apparently from what my partner says. She said a lot of the women where she works are going to see that. Should I get a fainting couch ready? :roll:

On the other hand, I do think this is choke-worthy:

"julian says:
July 15, 2012 at 10:02 pm
meh

Iâ€™ve never been able to empathize with people who go out of their way to mistreat, harass and trigger people. Which does lead me to do things comparable if not worse then them but

meh

Character failing."

Julian, the one who also told Justin G to kill himself? Is this the same one?

#1148

I agree with John Greg, I've heard the "she's young" excuse a lot for Watson. If you do not have the self-control and maturity by 30, it's no longer age-related. Wisdom, is another thing entirely but one should certainly have more wisdom at 30 than they did at 20. She's a narcissist without empathy, and has been from the very beginning.

Here is a timeline:

Skepchick began as a website consisting of a forum, and a monthly online magazine, Skepchick Magazine, which was launched January 15, 2006.
A few months later, also in 2006, Watson released The Skepchick Calendar, a pin-up calendar featuring nude or nearly nude women skeptics.
(Let me make it clear that I have zero issue with that. I would pose in order to raise money for a good cause in a second. Nothing could even be seen. More is reveled on an average beach in the US. It was an illusion of more, I think it was tastefully done.)
Her "I have to be the center of attention - LOOK AT MEEEE" personality was obvious the moment she became known for it. Between the fact that it was a pin-up calendar, and the proceeds, provided the attendance fee for several female applicants to attend the James Randi Educational Foundation's The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM), she was interviewed by sceptic websites, podcasts, and print media. When the SGU interviewed her on the podcast, and then almost overnight, invited her to be a panel member, I just shook my head in disbelief. At that time there were not enough women skeptics in the spotlight, and most of the scientists were far too busy to devote a lot of time to promoting scepticism. I know the SGU had good intentions. They wanted the panel to be more of a balanced perspective, and they knew that having a woman who was a sceptic, had an affinity for science, had a sense of humour, especially for geek references, would be an incredible asset. It would attract far more men, as most geek, skeptic, science-based men had never met a woman they could relate to, especially one that seemed to be down-to-earth and interested in talking about the same topics that they were interested in. (Yes, of course there have always been women who fit that description, but compared to the amount of men, they were extremely rare - it's getting better, though).

I think the point that Paula Kirby makes here about the difficulty getting women to be a part of the conversation, let alone agree to speak at a conference, is key. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ent-116920

Becci saw a opening where she could be Queen Bee and reign over a large group of men, with almost no competition whatsoever.
She played the Queen Bee role from day one. She was being asked to represent the woman's perspective in skepticism with every question asked of her.

From the first week on the SGU she started receiving marriage proposals, and "you are a goddess" emails. She spoke of them on the show often. It fueled her narcissism, and made her even more of a monster. She became extremely arrogant, and quickly began speaking for other women. I think the novelty of having a woman speak on a sceptic podcast, who seemed to be "one of them" was blinding to the listeners.

I know that personality quite well, and I can spot it within seconds of meeting someone. I don't think most male skeptics had much, if any experience with that. Those women were never a part of their world, and so they were not familiar with the MO.
She became rather untouchable, no one dared question anything she said, or disagree with any of her views, and the off hand misandrist quotes and anti-male jokes from her became more and more commonplace.

Around the time that more women in skepticism were becoming popular, it was extremely obvious that most of them had backgrounds in science, they had a much better understanding of how science and skepticism worked, and they used it every day in their professions. Suddenly these women were the ones interviewed, not only about scepticism, but asked about their chosen field, and were able to add far more to the discussion.

Once that came about, it became a lot easier to see what what important to Becci, compared to what was important to the women who were actually out there, either working to promote more science taught in schools, or fighting against creationists sneaking their religion into textbooks, working to increase funding for scientific discovery, working to change the laws to be in favour of science, hunting down the promoters of psuedo-science, exposing those who want people to believe they have supernatural powers, showing how understanding science can explain all sorts of things that seem to have no explaination, teaching the public how to spot a scam, or hoax (or something similar) or they are an actual scientist, all of them making a difference.

That's when Becci started to create drama in order to get the focus back on her. Right when the emails of marriage proposals were being replaced by criticism, and call for her to be replaced as a panel member on the podcast began to spread, She got married at TAM 11 July 2009. I was forced to attend the wedding without my knowledge or consent - It was theatre, unannounced, and right in the middle of a taping of the podcast. Once it was finally over, of course no one could talk about anything else, and Becci was back to being the centre of attention for months.

She began to give little hints about "misogyny in skepticism" on the podcast, and then in 2009 when Carrie Iwan was interviewed (Podcast 211- 4 August 2009) http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive ... =1&pid=211
Watson and Iwan took the opportunity to speak about the widespread misogyny in skepticism. I recommend listening to the episode. I was so infuriated with what they portrayed the community to be, without any evidence at all, I posted on the SGU Forum for the first time. I said the exact same thing I say now, that I'm a woman, I've been to TAM. I go to sceptic gatherings and events, and I have never been treated better by any group of people, ever. That I did not think it was at all appropriate for Carrie Iwan and Rebecca Watson to speak for the experiences of other women, and to insinuate that a good portion of the men were misogynists, and that I knew of no other women who felt anything but welcomed and respected. (By everyone except for the Skepchicks, but that is another story) Anecdotes are not evidence, and after all of Watson's sexism against men on the show from the very beginning, right then and there on that podcast, someone should have used skepticism to analyse their claims, but no one dared. If women mention misogyny, then everyone better agree, or be silent.

Then Elevatorgate... and that is when she began to be known for her "strong stance against misogyny" and her being thought of as the "skeptic warrior for feminism", and even more the centre of attention, now with hordes of women with torches behind her, and pussy-whipped, self-hating men pulling her chariot.

Meanwhile, she is interviewed with Peezus about the rampant misogyny in the atheist and skeptic communities by USA Today, then the topic is picked up by numerous other major US newspapers.

and this year: Attacks on the JREF and DJ Grothe, and then "I don't feel safe at TAM, so I'm not going"

Narcissist?

Age related? At 32? I don't think so.

side note:
When Watson's qualifications are questioned by those who criticise her, she comes back with the fact that the only person on the SGU who has a science background is Steven Novella, and the rest of the guys are just amateurs who are passionate about science and skepticism. She is absolutely correct, but they are not attempting to speak for the community, they are not giving talks at conferences, they are not acting like they are special and should be put on a pedestal and never questioned, and they are not trying to destroy the community with a topic that has no evidence to support it, and most importantly they do not use their influence to get ahead, nor do they step on those who helped them get where they are.

The SGU "Rogues" are bright, humble, kind, funny men, who are the first to admit they are amateurs. They all have full time jobs, they spend their free time on skepticism, because it is what they are passionate about, and that is the only reason. That is the draw. Most of the listeners, including myself, are like them, we work in other fields, and although we may use science and scepticism to be better at what we do, for most of us, it is just a passion and a way to understand the world around us, and listening to those guys have a conversation among friends about these topics, with Steven Novella at the helm, makes people feel at home with them. I learn something every time I listen to the podcast, and they do too (and admit it). Their enthusiasm is contagious.

Even in person, they are really nice guys, not doormat-nice, just good guys. They take the time to talk to everyone who wants to have a conversation with them, they never act as if they are sceptic celebrities, in fact, they still seem astounded that what started as a weekly get together with family and friends where they talk about what interests them, became a weekly recorded podcast that has over 100,000 listeners all over the world, is the most popular podcast about science and sceptism ever, and they have fans who are excited to meet them, and want to thank them for all they have done. They act like they still don't believe it, they see themselves as no different than anyone else. They are truly lovely people.
Watson is not worthy of being a part of what they created.

cesspit of lies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepchick
The Skeptics Guide To The Universe: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
The James Randi Educational Foundation: http://www.randi.org/site/

John Greg wrote:Dilurk said:

I don't know that this is deliberate, she is very young from my perspective, younger than my daughter I believe.
Watson's 32 year's old. She's an adult. She is supposedly a professional something or other. She should act like a 32-year-old adult professional something or other, not like a whiney 15 year old with some self-willed variation of NPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissist ... y_disorder).

#1149

sacha wrote:I agree with John Greg, I've heard the "she's young" excuse a lot for Watson. If you do not have the self-control and maturity by 30, it's no longer age-related. Wisdom, is another thing entirely but one should certainly have more wisdom at 30 than they did at 20. She's a narcissist without empathy, and has been from the very beginning.

Excuses for Twatson and praise for Ahlquist - MUCH younger.

Disconnect somewhere...

#1150

Julian, the one who also told Justin G to kill himself? Is this the same one?

No, no. For the record, julian most certainly did not tell Justin Griffith to kill himself. julian's gun-in-mouth comment was directed to the small group of Slyme People that posted in that thread.

As at Phawrongula, we really owe it to ourselves to be accurate here.

#1151

sacha: golf clap!

A cogent analysis.

I have this fantasy that starts with "SGU needs Perry! I imagine that if he were still around, he would not have tolerated Becca's behaviour for an instant, and would mercilessly torn her bullshit to sobbing cringing shreds."
Oh well, it was not to be, and look at the monster that Dr ~~Frankenstein~~ Novella has created in his soundproofed laboratory!
Beware the Beccastein Monster!

#1152

AndrewV69 wrote:Well OB apparently does have a consensual S/M relationship with Franc. So there is that in her favour?

hahaha! You could not pay him to even sit in a room with her and sadistically abuse her emotionally while he wears a blindfold so he does not have to look at her.

#1153

MKG
I've always said that. They were both on the podcast at the same time for a short while, but they never met in person. I have no doubt what-so-ever that if Perry was still alive, he would have said long ago "It's her, or me" to Steven Novella

I loved Perry

Michael K Gray wrote:sacha: golf clap!

A cogent analysis.

I have this fantasy that starts with "SGU needs Perry! I imagine that if he were still around, he would not have tolerated Becca's behaviour for an instant, and would mercilessly torn her bullshit to sobbing cringing shreds."
Oh well, it was not to be, and look at the monster that Dr ~~Frankenstein~~ Novella has created in his soundproofed laboratory!
Beware the Beccastein Monster!

#1154

This whole Novella thing has me bound by the twine of conflict. I mean, seriously, Novella is a bright guy. He posts some really valid and important science stuff, and for that I really respect him. And yet, like PeeZus the God, he seems bound and gagged by Watson.

No, I don't get it.

#1155

sacha wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:Well OB apparently does have a consensual S/M relationship with Franc. So there is that in her favour?
hahaha! You could not pay him to even sit in a room with her and sadistically abuse her emotionally while he wears a blindfold so he does not have to look at her.

But I'm sure that MK "Fifty Shades of" Gray would be more than willing.

#1156

before these disappear as well:

skepticism1.jpg: (45.59 KiB) Downloaded 204 times

skepticism2.jpg: (54.51 KiB) Downloaded 203 times

Skeeve wrote:
John Greg wrote:Skeeve, what are you referring to?
The latest link to Butterflies and Wheels.

A couple of comments have been deleted. The latest self-identified as a Slime Pit member.

Ophelia Benson says:
July 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Iâ€™m not looking at it at all, and I donâ€™t really want to get into conversations about it here. Iâ€™m happy to be able to ignore it.

Skeeve says:
July 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Well, someone should look and see that hyperdeath is not being honest, which is leading others to take it as fact without evidence.

smh

Ophelia Benson says:
July 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Oh for fuckâ€™s sake â€“ not being â€œhonestâ€ about a bunch of lying sexist thugs on a site set up to cyberstalk me and a few other people? Give me a break.
I'm not a lying sexist thug nor have I ever cyberstalked her and anyone else...

#1157

KiwiInOz wrote:
sacha wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:Well OB apparently does have a consensual S/M relationship with Franc. So there is that in her favour?
hahaha! You could not pay him to even sit in a room with her and sadistically abuse her emotionally while he wears a blindfold so he does not have to look at her.
But I'm sure that MK "Fifty Shades of" Gray would be more than willing.

Yeah. I'd be more than willing to sit in the same room as franc.
Blindfold or no.

#1158

ERV wrote:Pamala Gay put her speech up, and I am going to take issue with the portion I was afraid I was going to have to take issue with:
As an astronomer, at professional conferences, Iâ€™ve randomly had my tits and ass grabbed and slapped by men in positions of power and by creeps who drank too much. This is part of what it means to be a woman in science.
No, its not. It is part of Gays experience as a woman in science. It is not part of what it means to be a woman in science. I am a woman in science and have experienced nothing even vaguely resembling anything Gay wrote about.

I have no idea why these people cannot separate their personal experiences from everyones experience or what someone else should expect to experience.

Where else would this make sense?

I adopted a pit bull, therefore, adopting a pit bull is part of what it means to drive a Chevy.

I had a stalker, therefore, dealing with a real life stalker is a part of what it means to live in Oklahoma.

What the fuck?

let me emphasize this sentence from Abbie:
I have no idea why these people cannot separate their personal experiences from everyones experience or what someone else should expect to experience.

I have no fucking idea, but it infuriates me to no end.
Not only do they speak for other women, they attack any woman who says they feel differently, or have had a different experience.

Agree, or be prepared for war.

Why doesn't anyone call them on it? It's fucking anecdotes! Every sceptic knows anecdotes are not evidence. Everyone is so frightened of being a skeptic around these women. I want to be called out when I use a logical fallacy, or don't back up my claims, or whatever. I want to be corrected when I say something, or do something that isn't skeptical!

Since you already accused us of slimeing Paula Gay, here you go, O'Feelia:

This is one of the fucking things that directly affects me. If men are afraid of correcting women, or asking them for evidence, or disagreeing, or even speaking to women for that matter, because of the drama from these fucking idiots. Then they have effectively made skepticism a boys club, because what true woman skeptic wants to be around people who cannot possibly take them seriously because they are forced to be "yes men"?
The Baboons are creating real misogyny! god damn fucking cunts!

#1159

I have complete disinterest in whether chicks want to get shot at or not, nor any inclination to stop them if they do, but this is peripherally interesting -

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ne-officer

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/arti ... ated-equal

This sound familiar? The unrepresentative drone of a loudmouth special interest minority with no idea or contact with reality -

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality.

Anyway, takes guts to speak up like this.

#1160

Michael K Gray wrote: Yeah. I'd be more than willing to sit in the same room as franc.
Blindfold or no.

Same, also if I can face down a Mama Bear with two cubs (where I live bears & cougars and deer are common) I am sure I can face down OB.

Bear from last year, not Mama bear earlier this month
Deer doing what bears do in the woods

No pictures of Cougars yet alas!

BTW to you Urban dwellers, do not do what I do/did to get pictures. You risk serious injury if you attempt to interact with wild life. A deer is not Bambi and can land a kick on you that you will not forget in a hurry. I also speak Bear, so I was able to defuse the situation and let Mama Bear know that she could safely leave with her cubs. Cougars are a different story altogether!

#1161

That is so cool Andrew. We only have drop bears and koala bears here in Australia. Mind you, you have to look out for the drop bears. Koalas are pretty slow all in all.

#1162

AndrewV69 wrote:Same, also if I can face down a Mama Bear with two cubs (where I live bears & cougars and deer are common) I am sure I can face down OB.

You can keep yer feckin' barrz.
It is safe here in Oz.
No predators bigger than a dingo.
Ya just have ta keep an eye out for the deadly venomous: snakes, spiders, octopodes, lizards, politicians, platypodes, etc.
Oh, and drop-bears.

#1163

sacha wrote: let me emphasize this sentence from Abbie:
I have no idea why these people cannot separate their personal experiences from everyones experience or what someone else should expect to experience.
I have no fucking idea, but it infuriates me to no end.
Not only do they speak for other women, they attack any woman who says they feel differently, or have had a different experience.
Agree, or be prepared for war.

Sacha,
Have you read typhonblue's article on V-Leaks 2.0: Women in Groupsâ€“Wonderful or Warlords?'? It explains why they attack you. Basically, you are taking away their source of power (i.e their victim cred)

Feminists have talked about (some kind of) Toxic masculinity for many decades now. But there are aspects of femininity thats toxic for modern civilization as well, and it doesnt get talked about. Take a look and see if it helps explain whats going on here.
MISOGYNY â€“Toxic Femininity

NinniTokan says that to free women, women have to dare to â€œmake femininity problematicâ€ and to shift the focus from demonizing men to womenâ€™s real gender problems â€“ collectivism, moral guardianism and social punishments. She related (above) her own experiences of being slut-shamed by an older woman as an example of the damage gender role policing does to women. She insists it is mostly women who enforce gender roles on other women.
She says the problem is not so much gender roles as the pressure to conform to them, and that to a large extent exerting that pressure is a part of the feminine gender role itself.

#1164

Drop Bears! Aye!

Although I heard that all you need a bit of toothpaste spread behind the ears to deter the creatures.

All the other wee beasties I am certainly afraid of.

#1165

AndrewV69 wrote:Drop Bears! Aye!
Although I heard that all you need a bit of toothpaste spread behind the ears to deter the creatures.

Na, mate!
That's just bullshit to scare the Pommy bastard tourists.
It's Vegemite that you really smear behind the ears to put them off.
Toothpaste! Lotta good that'll do youse!

#1166

hmmm

emotions.jpg: (43.84 KiB) Downloaded 202 times

franc wrote:via Sacha -

http://i.imgur.com/U3FtA.png

#1167

KiwiInOz wrote:That is so cool Andrew. We only have drop bears and koala bears here in Australia. Mind you, you have to look out for the drop bears. Koalas are pretty slow all in all.

To much cuddly crap about koalas, the things are lethal. The reason why koalas are not used for meat (unlike 'roos and emus) is not namby pamby too-cute-to-eat and they-keep-japanese-tourists-coming reasons, but the very real risk of kuru disease, caused by prions accumulated from the koala's natural diet of human brains.

#1168

You put toothpaste behind your ears for these beggars.

http://www.animalsspecies.com/wp-conten ... 00x225.jpg

Particularly in Western Australia.

#1169

Both of these vicious toxic venomous killers were photographed on my sister's property, not 10 miles from the Adelaide GPO.

20100409-EchidnaLisasDriveWay.jpg: (215.43 KiB) Downloaded 184 times

An Echidna Grenade. Touch one of those tigger spines, and watch out!

KoalaZombie.JPG: Killer Koala; (147.02 KiB) Downloaded 181 times

The Koala from hell. It wanted to get in and eat our brains.
Look at those eyes!
(We kept the door locked overnight.)

#1170

And don't mistake these for fluffy bunnies. They're the size of a Sherman tank and have been known to walk straight through an outdoor dunny, scaring fifty shades of hell into the occupant.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... pcc8xQBTHg

#1171

Here's a photo of a local dealing with one of these annoying dunny-kicking buggers:
http://coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.co ... otodon.jpg

#1172

Meanwhile, back on the farm, OBs crowd are hilariously still trying to pick the response of all you misogynists to Pamela Gay's speech.

And not a single photo of the local fauna.

I say that we have won this battle.

#1173

TAM.jpg: (63.29 KiB) Downloaded 199 times

#1174

Michael K Gray wrote:
Neil Armstrong â€“ First Man in Space.
â€” Dr. Pamela Gay
Awesome mistake for an astronomer!
Wait for her to say:
"Neil Armstrong â€“ Killed by the Inquisition!"

Here's a bit more 'trashing': Why did she mention William Herschel's discovery of Uranus without at least a nod to the vital role his sister Caroline played in the work? She was awarded the Royal Astronomical Society Gold medal for her own work in (goes to look it up) 1828. The next time a woman got that was in 1996! Pamela Gay gender-traitor!

#1175

Could only watch things happening on Twitter while at work. Agh!

Have to say that the "fauna" I most remember from living in Australia for about 15 years is this one...

#1176

Bugger.

#1177

rayshul wrote:Bugger.

No quotes around links dummy. Use thy preview button. Your html powers mean nothing here. Look at this.

#1178

franc wrote:via Sacha -
http://i.imgur.com/U3FtA.png

This twitter comment has had me scratching my head since it was first posted here. Was this part of a speech? What was it about?

#1179

franc wrote:
rayshul wrote:Bugger.
No quotes around links dummy. Use thy preview button. Your html powers mean nothing here. Look at this.

I hoped I could kinda sorta wing it fingers-crossed-like. Alas, it appears I've got to read the manual. Ta for the link, Franc.

#1180

Emily -

"If skepticism is really going to be a valuable tool, this community is going to have to appeal to emotion as well as mind."

It is an exhortation to be an emotional tool.
Something the Skepchix have in spades.

#1181

rayshul wrote:I hoped I could kinda sorta wing it fingers-crossed-like. Alas, it appears I've got to read the manual. Ta for the link, Franc.

You'll take to it in no time and maybe even learn to like it. It's more or less the same as HTML - just minor details like square brackets and no quotes.

#1182

DownThunder/DT wrote: While Im sure one can draw parallels, I think "white knighting" is something more primal and deep seated than modern ideas surrounding racism.

It is the worship of the feminine, present anywhere, anywhen, any culture. It is a warped hyper-philogyny, a belief where feminine is beyond reproach, fallibility, accountability, or even facts or reasoning and explanation - a flawed position.

There is a massive elephant in the room when people who are supposed to exercise clear mental faculties in their daily lives, people of science and reality based thought, are able to jettison that immediately when dealing with the feminine, or anything or anyone that embodies that concept.

There is also the question as to why sycophants latch onto certain kinds of women, those who display helplessness, distress, a never ending list of demands for appeasement, general mental immaturity. Then, why the same males will deny and ignore other women do not fit that pattern, ie "gender traitors".

Its a behaviour that is present in everybody to greater and lesser extents, myself and people on this board included, its just that compared to to what you might find on fftb, anything else looks misogyny.

Misogyny - another word that is thrown around like confetti in strange and perplexing ways. It is not the hatred of women, but any affront to the feminine or those who embody it - accountability, responsibility, scrutiny and criticism.

Interesting observation. I am inclined to agree.

#1183

The axp guys are knee deep in the crazy, there's an empty spot on the fc6 and they are trying to fill it, though there actual numbers would take the total over 6.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/07 ... t-do-this/

My response to Martin is; so the fuck what? Seriously don't do this. It doesn't matter one iota whether the sender meant it as a joke, or a genuine question as to the marital status of the recipient. It's a fucking question, that can be answered or ignored, with zero consequence, oh the power of it all. Oh i forgot according to the radfem manifesto there is consequence to asking about a wymyn's marital status, there is always an emotional cost..... What a lot of bollocks, oh how we miss Hitch, i would have loved to have seen hitch discuss this with the axpers, and tear their non arguments a new asshole. Hitchslap for wagner and dillahunty anyone?

In the comments Anna declares herself to be apathetic, she's fucked now, she might have well put an "i am the enemy" tag onto her name.Â

Enter the muppet show: suido
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/07 ... ment-63864

Comparing Anna's apathy about the fucking question to being apathetic to racism, and evil dictatorships!!!

Suido you are a crazy, anna is of course a gender traitor/chill girl, and her anecdotal not giving a fuck about being asked about her marital status must be dismissed as not representative of "how wymyn want to be treated" (tm) if you want to discover "how wymyn want to be treated" (tm) feminism 101 is required reading. If you have any questions about "how wymyn want to be treated" ask wagner, or approved wymyn whose anecodtes have been declared proof of the proposition.

This is the underlying rift, it isn't about genuine harassment, it's about the conflation from those with a political agenda, and any time their agenda is called out they run behind the curtain of genuine harassment for protection.

#1184

Michael K Gray wrote:Here's a photo of a local dealing with one of these annoying dunny-kicking buggers:
http://coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.co ... otodon.jpg

MKG, are you fucking with us non-Aussies? That's a badly photoshopped diprotodon in that photo.

#1185

Za-zen:
Yep. As I have previously said â€” Matt "Facts Don't Matter" Dillahunty; out of one cult, dragged into another cult[1] by Watson, his new wife, and the curiously named "Godless Bitches".
Out of the frying pan into a smaller frying pan.

"Skepchick"
"Godless Bitches"
"Blag Hag"
Are these not gendered slurs?

Oh, I plum forgot! It is only vicious criminal hypocrisy when those outside of their toxic Jonestown cult do it.

And I'm not sure that (in the case of Mr FDM Dillahunty) that franc's observation about it being a 'business model' really applies.
I am convinced that Matt FDM D. actually fucking believes what he is spouting and dribbling, like the Electric Monk in Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently books.
He has the propensity to be suckered in by shysters.

Martin is acting the role of Laden at this stage. He, too, has supped from the Flavor-Aid, and is on the path of no-return.

__________________
[1] A cult who enthusiastically and proudly take their primary medical gynecological health-advice from the medically unqualified & bonkers misandronist Amanda Marcotte!

#1186

fenton fomite wrote:MKG, are you fucking with us non-Aussies? That's a badly photoshopped diprotodon in that photo.

I didn't say that it was a recent image.

#1187

Quick question: am I really obliged to give a flying fuck about this US-centered perceived misogyny in the US Atheist/Skeptic movement, or can I just continue pointing and laughing at the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the FC5 (6)?

I'd really prefer the latter, or wombats and diprotodons (any chance of a Megatherium?)

someone · #1188

Natalie Reed (who is a transgender person like Zinnia Jones-- not that it matters-- but she was being discussed earlier) is having a fight with Thunderfoot:
https://twitter.com/thunderf00t

#1189

Phil we need new leaders i nominate this guy

(for those incapable of picking up on humour, this is also a nod to the python "individuals" sketch).

MKG. You got to love the "all i said was guy's don't do this, and all the mysoginists turn it into something it isn't" bs that wagner is pulling. Wagner fuck off and build your commune somewhere in the hills, then you get to tell people to do what you want all day long, they even call you "guru" or other such non deistic titles.

#1190

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Quick question: am I really obliged to give a flying fuck about this US-centered perceived misogyny in the US Atheist/Skeptic movement, or can I just continue pointing and laughing at the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the FC5 (6)?

A few years back I got whined at by a bunch of US-progressives because I "dared" to use the term "lynching" to refer to the murders of Corporals Howe and Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings), i.e. a fucking lynching by its fucking everyday and fucking dictionary definition.

Apparently it is deeply racist to use the term to apply to anything outside of the Deep South circa 1860 to 1930 don't ya know.

Fuck the lot of them. I know many good American eggs, but whiny white self-loathing middle-class "progressives" can go fuck themselves. Complete Cunts, the lot of them. They don't own the fucking internet, as much as they'd pretend they like to.

I may have linked to Normblog before, but he's the typical reaction from a non-USian (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/20 ... hands.html)

Having recently returned from two academic conferences at both of which participants seemed able to conduct themselves towards one another in a straightforward and unstressful way, I am surprised to learn that from now on academic theologians attending conferences in Sweden will be obliged to seek formal permission before talking directly to one another. The Director of Theology Sweden explains:

Not everyone enjoys being personally addressed without their prior consent. Some might feel it is an invasion of their space; it is as though they were being accosted or, worse, harrassed and intimidated. The simple procedure of seeking permission first will avoid all problems.

But how to seek anyone's permission without speaking to him or her in order to get it? Simple: there will be a Permissions Desk at each conference, to which participants can submit a Permission Form naming the individual they wish to talk to. This form will be passed on to the individual in question, who can then assent by returning a tear-off 'yes' slip to the desk. Theology Denmark is considering going one better and prohibiting participants in their conferences from looking one another in the face without prior consent. Everyone would have to wear a baseball cap and keep their eyes on the floor while going about - until they'd sought and obtained looking-in-the-face permission.

'Not really?' you exclaim. No, not really. Prompted by this post by Jean Kazez.

How long before you can't tell the difference anymore between PC Lyers, Ofeelia and the Watsonistas and the Sharia-nutters?

#1191

As I've stated here before (IIRC), I have lots of US friends. Not only internet friends, but IRL friends that I've interracted with, have had a beer with, have had lunch with... I'm working with a band from NY right now (inRed, I recommand them), and they are incredibly nice and professional people. I will refuse to paint all USAians as assholes or some such (especially wonderful people like Abbie), but this problem we're dealing with is really US-centric.

Thankfuly we have non-US people such as MKG, Franc, James Onen, and many more... to give us another perspective. I'll take this opportunity to restate how I love James' inputs. Brilliant, skeptical, and cogent. Boy, am I sucking some serious ass here...

Anyway, France doesn't qualify for foreign charity (such as the RDF), so there's not much I can do beside internet slacktivism at the moment. And I'm not even ashamed of that. I could just turn of my browser and go play some Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Actually, now that I think of it, it has a certain appeal (until Masakari walks me through the steps to re-install MechWarrior 3 on my Windows 7 CPU...)

Sorry MKG and all, Wolfenstein is one of the reasons I don't run Boing so much these days...

#1192

I can't help it........

#1193

CommanderTuvok wrote:Bluharmony has decided to pop her head above the paraphet at Opheliar's.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... d-purpose/

Meanwhile, on that thread, Stacy says:
Russell Blackford has been tweeting:

The bullies and bully-enablers should have realised a year ago that many of us care deeply about bullying and will not simply accept it.

To which I replied:

What did RW do that deserved months of scorn and sexual slurs and when did u speak out against that bullying?
What is it with these Baboons and their logical fallacies? That is a non-sequitur. Just because Queen Bee has received months of scorn (justified actually!) and sexual slurs (the "bad werdz"!!!) it doesn't mitigate Queen Bee's bullying and nasty behaviour.

Stacy is a fucking dimwit.

It's called reframing the narrative

To reframe, step back from what is being said and done and consider the frame, or 'lens' through which this reality is being created. Understand the unspoken assumptions, including beliefs and schema that are being used.
Then consider alternative lenses, effectively saying 'Let's look at it another way.' Challenge the beliefs or other aspects of the frame. Stand in another frame and describe what you see. Change attributes of the frame to reverse meaning. Select and ignore aspects of words, actions and frame to emphasise and downplay various elements.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/gen ... raming.htm

It may be a deliberate attempt or more likely, an attempt to find something to defend the honour of their heroes. I don't know, don't really care. What is important from a sceptics viewpoint is that all sides of a story, as much as possible be examined and acknowledged. Jean Kazez is very good at this and is very good at conveying this in her writing. (Yes, it's pretty obvious I respect her eh?) For an example of what I mean http://kazez.blogspot.ca/2011/08/femini ... heism.html

I would suggest acknowledging the abuse Watson has received and agreeing no one deserves this. I would then point out many atheists in the public eye receives abuse Jessica Ahlquist comes to mind, but this does not give someone the right to cyber bully others. It's the classic sympathy card. You people all hurt me so I am going to lash out and hurt everyone else. It does not help the cause to have people attacking each other like this at all folks.

#1194

I would suggest acknowledging the abuse Watson has received and agreeing no one deserves this.

I do acknowledge it and agree with your assesment. However, I do it in limited ways. Nothing waranted Rebecca to dismiss and publicly insult Stef McGraw. As far as RW goes, this is my only contention, I think.

I will admit I have personal griefs mostly with PZ and Ophelia, in general for their double standards and hypocrisy. They do not paint a good image of Atheism/skepticism. Other offenders are so under the radar I don't even notice them these days.

Maybe one day, I'll even be able to post without making everything about myself, although it might be a while...

And a very happy birthday to Blu (Maria)!

#1195

My first post on this forum. W00t.

Regarding this:

Git wrote: I may have linked to Normblog before, but he's the typical reaction from a non-USian (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/20 ... hands.html)

Having recently returned from two academic conferences at both of which participants seemed able to conduct themselves towards one another in a straightforward and unstressful way, I am surprised to learn that from now on academic theologians attending conferences in Sweden will be obliged to seek formal permission before talking directly to one another. The Director of Theology Sweden explains:

As the resident Swede I would just like to say that not all of us are insane. In fact I could go so far as to say that most of us are reasonably sane, depending on how you define the term. We do have our share of nuttery like this, of course, but it is by no means as widespread as one might get the impression of. I can't think of anyone I know or work with who would not splutter with incomprehension if they learned of this story.

#1196

And I forgot to add that Stef never took big umbrage about RW's call out. She stated she was proud in some way of being called out for what she thinks. Classy, I'd say!

#1197

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And I forgot to add that Stef never took big umbrage about RW's call out. She stated she was proud in some way of being called out for what she thinks. Classy, I'd say!

Indeed. I think that might be the only way to "win". At some point, the argument becomes more or less pointless. (In this case probably about a year agoâ€¦ and yes, I'm aware that I'm not heeding my own advice here.) Incidentally:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/argument_victory.png

#1198

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And I forgot to add that Stef never took big umbrage about RW's call out. She stated she was proud in some way of being called out for what she thinks. Classy, I'd say!

I remember that. Furthermore, she has let it go as they say and gone on to produce some good stuff. In fact, I was reading a recent article she wrote the other day http://www.unifreethought.com/index.php ... st&id=1178 I have been thinking that her article should be mentioned here anyway, I wanted to suggest some of her ideas conveyed in this article are ones we should be using here. *ahem* I think many of us have already.

Gumby not signed in · #1199

Via Woody Bumblebee on Twitter:

FreethoughtBLAHgs
http://t.co/BQrzfKhY

#1200

Gumby not signed in wrote:Via Woody Bumblebee on Twitter:

FreethoughtBLAHgs
http://t.co/BQrzfKhY

Immature. Funny but immature.