Jonathan wrote:The great McCreight has had an article published on Vice.com. Apparently Atheism+ doesn't try to silence people with really hateful things.
*hollow laughter*
Comments are on a 'tardbook page. You probably won't see them if you aren't logged into it.Scented Nectar wrote:The comments don't seem to be there anymore. It has the word "Comments" at the end, but it's not clickable, nor are there any comments below it.Tony Parsehole wrote:Good to see the comments pointing out the flaws of statements like "When I first started going to atheist conferences, I was warned to avoid certain speakers because they were known for going after younger women.".Jonathan wrote:The great McCreight has had an article published on Vice.com. Apparently Atheism+ doesn't try to silence people with really hateful things.
*hollow laughter*
The more people who are directed to the A+ forum the better. Nobody can believe how fucked up it is unless they see for themselves.
Maybe someone should screencap them for the non-FB users?franc wrote:
Comments are on a 'tardbook page. You probably won't see them if you aren't logged into it.
That chain of (il)logic was apparently spewed forth by someone unfamiliar with current admissions processes at many US universities. Classic egocentric thinking. I haven't seen quotas or "enforcement" of diversity at all - we don't consider race/ethnic background or LGBT categories at all in our admissions decisions. We do have socioeconomic status categories, but there aren't particular numbers of slots set aside for each category. The socioeconomic status is based on a number of criteria: highest level of education achieved by the parents, household income, suburban/urban/inner city/rural residence, contributing to family income or caring for younger siblings in high school, number of siblings, etc. A German-American male who grows up on an isolated, hardscrabble ranch in rural West Texas can end up in the same socioeconomic status category as a Vietnamese-American female who grows up in inner city Houston, with immigrant parents who scrape by on low-paying jobs.Tony Parsehole wrote:From the A+ Forum. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2115Re: Racist pranks and affirmative action
Postby ArgyleRoad » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:16 pm
How do people not understand this?
1 - There are a finite number of slots at universities, if we do not have minority representation correction systems you will have what we used to have which is higher education dominated by privilege completely, with minor exceptions.
2 - If you do not get in and a minority does, that does not mean you did not get in because you were not a minority, that means that you did not get in because you were not better than all the other non minority students applying.
3 - Arguing that you did not get in because you were not a minority, when the level of minority representation has to be enforced or privilege will dominate, means that you feel that privilege should dominate, and that minorities should gtfo of school.
4 - Schools enforce diversity, not only because minorities will be under-served otherwise, but also because students and parents want to go to schools with high diversity.
Entitlement objections like this are the death rattle of a (hopefully) dying area of privilege.
What? That comment made my brain split in twain. Not only is it utterly patronising to any "minorities" that the only way they can ever hope to be allowed into a university is not on their level of academic potential but in a pity-slot specially designated for those individuals who are suitably "diverse" but s/h/it is essentially saying discrimination is not only fine but THE RIGHT THING TO DO as long as it's directed at an arbitrarily decided majority of people with a certain skin colour or background. Are these people for fucking real?
Shee-it. McCreight ebegged $1500 to attend TAM in 2010, her first. It was the last one before the Not Safe for Women revisionism started and if you read her accounts, she couldn't stop gushing about how awesome, spectacular, wonderful it was. She even got a surprise hug from Phil Plait and melted, which couldn't happen under the new rules the gender warriors want imposed. Watson's recaps read the same way, TAM was faaaantastic.Tony Parsehole wrote:Good to see the comments pointing out the flaws of statements like "When I first started going to atheist conferences, I was warned to avoid certain speakers because they were known for going after younger women.".
Jen McCreight wrote:I think, though, it may have been a little too silly at times. For example, after each major serious topic, Rebecca inserted silly cat photos to lighten the mood. I'm all for silliness, but random lolcats after seriously discussing rape just didn't sit well with me. Make your serious point without undermining it, and then inject humor later. From the awkward half-laughter in the audience, I think others agreed with me. The lady sitting next to me even commented, "Great, who's going to take feminists seriously now?" after the first lolcat. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree that it was a bit in bad taste.
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/women-an ... -tam8.html
I am a Facilebookophobic¹, yet I can see the comments on my puny netbook.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Maybe someone should screencap them for the non-FB users?franc wrote: Comments are on a 'tardbook page. You probably won't see them if you aren't logged into it.
Done.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Maybe someone should screencap them for the non-FB users?
Its all about them carving out the most plausible (to them) career-path, given their limited skill-set, abilities and woeful grasp on adult concepts.Ape+lust wrote:Shee-it. McCreight ebegged $1500 to attend TAM in 2010, her first. It was the last one before the Not Safe for Women revisionism started and if you read her accounts, she couldn't stop gushing about how awesome, spectacular, wonderful it was. She even got a surprise hug from Phil Plait and melted, which couldn't happen under the new rules the gender warriors want imposed. Watson's recaps read the same way, TAM was faaaantastic.Tony Parsehole wrote:Good to see the comments pointing out the flaws of statements like "When I first started going to atheist conferences, I was warned to avoid certain speakers because they were known for going after younger women.".
Speaking of Watson, even McCreight has noticed the disconnect between her words and demeanor:
Jen McCreight wrote:I think, though, it may have been a little too silly at times. For example, after each major serious topic, Rebecca inserted silly cat photos to lighten the mood. I'm all for silliness, but random lolcats after seriously discussing rape just didn't sit well with me. Make your serious point without undermining it, and then inject humor later. From the awkward half-laughter in the audience, I think others agreed with me. The lady sitting next to me even commented, "Great, who's going to take feminists seriously now?" after the first lolcat. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree that it was a bit in bad taste.
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/women-an ... -tam8.html
They'll still dominate many of the conferences in the US and Canada, though - look at those organized by the CFI or the Atheist Alliance of America, for example. Same FTB-approved speakers turn up again and again. One minute they're claiming to be oppressed and marginalized, and the next minute they're talking about dominating conferences with speaking engagements and attendees.Gumby wrote:It's amazing these idiots still get invited to speak anywhere. No wonder they need to sell SurlyRamics to pay for women to go to conferences - they need to bring their own audiences. Somehow, I don't think this boring repetitive drama tripe will fly at major cons like TAM anymore. They can create their own little circuit and drone the same old butthurt speeches to the same slack-jawed, stunted FTB/A+ morons, and the atheist and skeptic communities will be purged of this malignant stupidity. One can dream, anyway.Tony Parsehole wrote:The same old shit over and over and over and over......Their speeches at conferences must be soul destroying.
And getting weak-kneed over Dawkins. She had such a good time (hottubbing with the boys, yow!), it took 3 other separate posts to hold it all:Tony Parsehole wrote:Good link Ape-Lust. I see Mcreight admits to falling in love with Harriet Hall at TAM8.
That was Jen in 2010.Tony Parsehole wrote:I bet that if anybody else (who is not on board with the baboons) mentioned the conflict between Watson's "rape thretz evry day ermahgerd" and her apparent lack of serious demeanor they would be labelled either Mysoginist, rape enabler, MRA, etc. etc.
Room 12B, more likely...Michael K Gray wrote:That was Jen in 2010.Tony Parsehole wrote:I bet that if anybody else (who is not on board with the baboons) mentioned the conflict between Watson's "rape thretz evry day ermahgerd" and her apparent lack of serious demeanor they would be labelled either Mysoginist, rape enabler, MRA, etc. etc.
She has been through an FfTB/Skepchunk re-education Gulag since then, and has emerged from room 101 as a valuable prole & obedient citizen.
Jen is so poor that her camera is held together by duct tape.Ape+lust wrote:And getting weak-kneed over Dawkins. She had such a good time (hottubbing with the boys, yow!), it took 3 other separate posts to hold it all:Tony Parsehole wrote:Good link Ape-Lust. I see Mcreight admits to falling in love with Harriet Hall at TAM8.
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/tam8-par ... rling.html
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/tam8-par ... rling.html
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/tam8-par ... rling.html
Not a word about Becky's grope gauntlets or letches run off the leash.
It'll be interesting to see how far Watson can run with this. She wants respect from the intelligentsia, but as you say, has meager abilities. Eventually they'll wonder if she can do anything more than just bang endlessly on one note. Unless she comes up with a clever dodge, like learning to spew po-mo bafflegab like Siviku Hutchinson, she'll sink back to being a minor attraction on the minor conference circuit.Michael K Gray wrote:Its all about them carving out the most plausible (to them) career-path, given their limited skill-set, abilities and woeful grasp on adult concepts.
They have struck a gusher with this fake fabricated concocted invented imagined crafted "universal" victim icon schtick. Mental infants and social retards and losers will pay them a fortune to commiserate with their pity party plight.
(Until someone even more pitiable and put-upon comes along.)
No it can't!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Room 12B, more likely...
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.â€
-The Hitch
Maybe it's something to do with the ad/popups/tracking blocking I'm doing.Tony Parsehole wrote:Does it take a while for the comments to load? They are invisible at first and then all pop on at once.
As is her ego. She's still anywhere but attending to her APlus invention.BarnOwl wrote:Jen is so poor that her camera is held together by duct tape.
If it blocks linked scripts from Facebook, you won't see the comments.Scented Nectar wrote:Maybe it's something to do with the ad/popups/tracking blocking I'm doing.
A+theism: taking personal responsibility to new lows.Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Here is another unknown bod someone banging on the 'one nate samba', to whom I'd much rather listen on an endless loop than endure another single repetition of Beccy's tedious mono-tonous giggling rape-squawks.Ape+lust wrote:Eventually they'll wonder if she can do anything more than just bang endlessly on one note.
You want me to take personal responsibility? Check your privilege!BarnOwl wrote:A+theism: taking personal responsibility to new lows.Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Because they don't want to. At this point, for all the people bobble heading along to Watson to stop, they have to admit, and publicly for quite a few, that they got suckered. No one likes that. But they also have to admit they got suckered for yearS. I have seen people put up with amazing shit to avoid admitting such things. So instead of spine-ing up and admitting they got suckered and changing their behavior, they let their egos talk for them. It's why they double- and triple-down on everything.Mykeru wrote:What you described, in flaunting an imaginary problem for gain, like the "liberal media" or voter fruad used as an excuse for widespread voter purging, is the very definition of the "gaming the ref" tactic. It's so fucking obvious that I go back to one of my original points: Why can't people who are supposedly skeptics spot this?welch wrote:Finally was able to listen to Reap's podcast with mykeru. Good job, had no desire to skip ahead at all, (i'm not a big podcast fan as a listener. I read fast, so waiting for people to talk is not a favorite thing of mind.)
One point that kind of jumped out at me from the podcast: one of the "reasons" of Watson et al hammering on the OMG MISOGYNY DANGER TO WOMEN is that they're slowly creating a problem that must then be solved.
The analogy is a somewhat paranoid look at the sudden spate of GOP - triggered voting fraud problems. One of the arguments against the whole OMG, WE MUST TRIPLE VERIFY IDENTITY FOR VOTING idiocy is that voter fraud is actually quite rare, if you look at the actual numbers.
But now, in 4 years, or two years, you can say "But look at 2012! There was a MASSIVE increase in voter fraud problems" and not be even slightly lying. There was. It's still not a lot, but it is, comparatively, a "massive" increase in incidents. So now you have supporting data of a sort for draconian voting requirements, so that you don't get "another" 2012.
Same thing with Watson et al. If they keep hammering and harping on their "problem", eventually, they can pull enough "real" incidents to create a similarly real problem, that MUST be solved. Of course, who's the lead on solving it? Why the person who's been at the center of so many attacks herself.
That's why Watson creeps me out, because if you view her current agenda over a longer period of time, it has a real danger of becoming, well, a real danger. When Mykeru started talking about ElevatorGate being their Reichstag fire, that just jumped out at me.
I may be a bit paranoid here, but in this case, I think assuming maliciousness over stupidity is the only sane way to take her actions.
Are you mocking post-partum depression?Ape+lust wrote:As is her ego. She's still anywhere but attending to her APlus invention.BarnOwl wrote:Jen is so poor that her camera is held together by duct tape.
Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Yes it can!Michael K Gray wrote:No it can't!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Room 12B, more likely...
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.â€
-The Hitch
Having lived a bit in mainland China (Qifu present!), I can tell you the Chinese are handling their minority status quite well.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Well, another one for UScentrism:Jonathan wrote:The great McCreight has had an article published on Vice.com. Apparently Atheism+ doesn't try to silence people with really hateful things.
*hollow laughter*
Jen sayzUnderline mine.I think, for some people, atheism is the one minority identity they have. They’re not gay, they’re not black, they live in the United States, and a lot of them are middle-class or higher.
That's quite nice. Like Sonny Rollins, who (in)famously recorded an extended one-note solo and made it work, they're holding chops in reserve, not decanting thimblefuls from the bottom of a dry well.Michael K Gray wrote:Here is another unknown bod someone banging on the 'one nate samba', to whom I'd much rather listen on an endless loop than endure another single repetition of Beccy's tedious mono-tonous giggling rape-squawks.
*snort*Michael K Gray wrote:Are you mocking post-partum depression?
Schröedinger's Gapist.
I check it at the same time that I check my oil & tyres.mikelf wrote:[Check your privilege!
I have one somewhere in the garage. I was strictly Amiga from 1987 until my first Wintel box in 1997. In a way, it was a relief after years of getting my hopes dashed by horribly inept Commodore. I use Linux now, so I'm back to the margins, but my fortunes aren't tied to clowns who can't manage their own properties.SenorBeagle wrote:Also, to Renee... I have my A1200 sitting on the old computer desk, not three feet away from me. :D
Brown’s Apocalypse TV show involves hoaxing a moron into believing in zombies as part of an experiment to find out how many cretins Britain currently has.
But reactions to the show have been so surprisingly idiotic that critics claim the audience must be actors.
Julian Cook, the Beadle Professor of TV Hoaxes at Roehampton University, said: “Viewers were either amazed, looking for ways to prove it was a fake, or cleverly pointing out that Brown is wearing a fancy little hat just like the man in The Truman Show.
“Meanwhile only two people pointed out that the programme was not about the victim, it was about the audience.â€
He added: “If Britain really is this stupid then why isn’t every square inch of it on fire?â€
Cook also believes the ‘two people’ who said it was ‘about the audience’ was probably just Derren Brown using fake names in order to confuse everyone.
But professional blogger Martin Bishop insisted the audience is genuinely dense but has been hand-picked by Brown, adding: “A quick Google search reveals most of them are trained fucknuts who are available to be stupid in a range of regional accents.â€
Brown has an impressive track record for uncovering mass stupidity but has aways been able to prove that his idiots were real. In a Twitter statement he said: “I NEVER EVER use a fake audience. That’s why my houses are so enormous.â€
Professor Cook said: “There is the possibility that it’s an experiment to see if Britain really believes that it’s that stupid. Or that it really believes that it believes that it’s that stupid.
“Why don’t we have anything better to do?â€
Did you come here for the 5 post argument, or the full Justicar?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yes it can!Michael K Gray wrote:No it can't!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Room 12B, more likely...
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.â€
-The Hitch
*checks watch*Michael K Gray wrote:Did you come here for the 5 post argument, or the full Justicar?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yes it can!Michael K Gray wrote:No it can't!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Room 12B, more likely...
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.â€
-The Hitch
Aye, I'd likely still be using whatever version of the Amiga existed today, were it not for Commodore being so monumentally useless at running an actual business.Ape+lust wrote:I have one somewhere in the garage. I was strictly Amiga from 1987 until my first Wintel box in 1997. In a way, it was a relief after years of getting my hopes dashed by horribly inept Commodore. I use Linux now, so I'm back to the margins, but my fortunes aren't tied to clowns who can't manage their own properties.SenorBeagle wrote:Also, to Renee... I have my A1200 sitting on the old computer desk, not three feet away from me. :D
I like that metaphor.Ape+lust wrote:That's quite nice. Like Sonny Rollins, who (in)famously recorded an extended one-note solo and made it work, they're holding chops in reserve, not decanting thimblefuls from the bottom of a dry well.Michael K Gray wrote:Here is another unknown bod someone banging on the 'one nate samba', to whom I'd much rather listen on an endless loop than endure another single repetition of Beccy's tedious mono-tonous giggling rape-squawks.
"Eowyn Entwife"? Says it all...Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Yes.Tony Parsehole wrote:Is there a list anywhere on the interwebz collating the most mental shite from the A+ forums?
If she's not eating, you have to wonder what else she's not doing. Maybe my image of them as strung out characters, blinking tears of conviction and occasionally yelling at the screen isn't too far off. When I saw Brownian in that videocast with PZ and Co, I thought: dude, this is going worldwide, you couldn't shave or comb your hair?Tony Parsehole wrote:You think you have seen it all. You think the parody-o-meter has been broken due to overuse. You think they cannot fail any harder and then they scrape the barrell and do something else that beggars belief.
Nicely done.Michael K Gray wrote:Yes.Tony Parsehole wrote:Is there a list anywhere on the interwebz collating the most mental shite from the A+ forums?
http://atheismplus.com/forums
Michael K Gray wrote:Yes.Tony Parsehole wrote:Is there a list anywhere on the interwebz collating the most mental shite from the A+ forums?
http://atheismplus.com/forums
real horrorshow wrote:Imagine what Ophelia would think of the Smith &Wesson Ladysmith. A good seller these many years.Lsuoma wrote:This is better:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8052/8146 ... 7292e1.jpg
You have woefully understated the problem here, Señor Welch. She’s not a con-artist, she is a true believer, and her followers aren't suckers, they are (to borrow Dawkins’ term) faith-heads.welch wrote:But these fuckers are neither mentally nor emotionally strong enough to say "fuck man, I got suckered. I wanted to believe her so bad, but she's just a fucking con artist, and she got me good. Sorry about that." So now, they HAVE to blindly support every fucking thing she says and does, along with the rest of her toadies.
Their lack of privilege brings tears to my eyes :violin:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Jen sayzUnderline mine.I think, for some people, atheism is the one minority identity they have. They’re not gay, they’re not black, they live in the United States, and a lot of them are middle-class or higher.
The fallacy of the excluded middle.d4m10n wrote:She’s not a con-artist, she is a true believer
You forgot about telling a rape victim that he would've been better of if he was murdered, and demanding an apology from Dillahunty for trying, but failing miserably, to show that their A+ forum was a fair and welcoming place, and oh, one really delicate little snowflake flouncing the whole A+ forum because of Dillahunty-gate...Tony Parsehole wrote:I could add a few but don't have the linkys:
1) How can you know this? Answer is mandatory for further consideration from me.decius wrote:Atkins would be (forced to) resort to philosophical musings to prove his case.
Do they have to get banned to use the toilet, or do they just buy depends while they're getting food.Tony Parsehole wrote:Is there a list anywhere on the interwebz collating the most mental shite from the A+ forums? It would be a good reference point for new folk.
I could add a few but don't have the linkys:
A bloke moaning about how his pedophilia makes him underprivileged.
Totalitarian restriction on free speech should be enforced as long as it shuts people up who disagree with them.
Talking about the economy is dehumanising.
Belief in the existence of an economy is the same as a belief in god.
Deciding which way to walk to your next lesson whilst in the company of a female classmate is stalking/harassment/creepy.
The polite inquiry by a new A+ member as to where the A+ Facebook page can be found being met with abuse and threats of banning and the subsequent realisation that the facebook page is hidden to uninvited members.
Flewellyn regaling the forum with the tale of how he and some female friends punished a sexist pig by ganging up on him in a board game of "Munchkin".
Everything Setar, Grimalkin and Cypher have ever written.
A brain dead member imploring the mods to ban them from the forum for 6 hours as they are hungry and need to go food shopping.
Lsuoma wrote:"Eowyn Entwife"? Says it all...Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Fuck you John! That's one more keyboard down the trash!welch wrote:Lsuoma wrote:"Eowyn Entwife"? Says it all...Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Clearly, she likes big, deep wood.
Pinocchiophile?welch wrote:Lsuoma wrote:"Eowyn Entwife"? Says it all...Jonathan wrote:Look at this. Good grief.
Clearly, she likes big, deep wood.
