Periodic Table of Swearing

[Jan Steen]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the obliviousness the FTB crowd is displaying by relegating John Stuart Mill into a joke, considering stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_of_Women .Then again we can't be too harsh on them since they're being consistent on at least two fronts: a) anything said by a white male can be ignored at convenience and b) FREEZE PEACH, which seems to be the doctrine that "since the government can't/won't regulate free expression, it's up to the right-thinking citizens to decide whose opinions may be heard and whose may not".

If they want to get genuinely upset over stuff written by white males, they should read Schopenhauer's essay 'On Women' (http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html), which is a kind of misogynist manifesto. It is so over the top that I think even most women will find it hilarious. However, given the utter lack of a sense of humour in most FTBers, I don't think any of them will find it funny.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’

It goes on like this for quite a while. Schopenhauer was a poe avant la lettre.*

*Did I just say "poe?" O dear, give PZ Myers a glass of water. To call something a poe is verboten at FTB by decree 254/45.7a by PeeZus, after all.

[Jan Steen]

Using a person’s physical characteristics against him may be somewhat below the belt, but this did not bother Arthur Schopenhauer when he aimed his venom at his bête noire Hegel:

Therefore, I should advise my sagacious countrymen that, if they ever again wish to trumpet about for thirty years a commonplace mind as a great genius, they should not choose such a beerhouse-keeper’s physiognomy to go with that as was possessed by Hegel, upon whose face nature had written, in her most legible handwriting, the words, "commonplace person."

(Translation modified from: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10833/10 ... 0833-h.htm)

Of course, it sounds better in German: ...

And Martin Luther was a raging anti-semite. While you only inferred this, that some famous individual is X is hardly justification for concluding that X is moral and ethical.

I did not infer this. Read my first line again and write it 50 times on a blackboard.

[d4m10n]

Now, are we appealing to third parties, lurkers and guests? Maybe you are. I write for me and for the people I can see and interact with.

Awhile back, I did a week's worth of tracking on the SlymePit's readership numbers, and then I did 12 hours straight, on the hour, every hour. The only pattern that most always held true was that registered users were outnumbered roughly 2:1 by guests and lurkers. Whether you are writing for them or not, they are reading what you write.

Presumably, many of them are afraid to openly register and post, because of the disinformation which has been spread about the SlymePit. Over time, that will change, and the truth will out. The Pit is more thoughtful than hateful, more dissent than bigotry, and eventually the lurkers will figure that out.

[LMU]

I think there has been too much emphasis on Descartes, what about the other philosophers? Perhaps our new expert could give his opinion.

Gandhi's not really a philosopher, but -

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

I disagree with that sentiment. An eye for an eye only makes you blind if you only had one eye to begin with. Everyone else gets to wear an eye patch and look like a pirate. Yarrr!

I always thought the eye for an eye rule is significant as a *limit* on what you are allowed to demand as retribution for a crime. It limits punishment to the damages that can be physically shown to have occurred. If I kill two of your sheep, you only get to kill two of my sheep, even if those two sheep were all you had and I had ten. That works in favor of the rich (not surprising), but at the same time keeps people from re-interpreting crimes to one up each other. (Yes you only had two sheep, but you also had eight goats, if you kill all my sheep in retribution, then I will see killing all of my livestock as unfair and kill all of your livestock in return, which you will see as unfair and you will want to further retribution from me.) Now imagine you are a king trying to rule over a bunch of violent tribes who are killing each other as well.

[oolon, slimy turd]

the life of a cowardly anonymous internet kook is a tough one, punctuated with the odd prostitute enabled hate fap to keep his pecker up...

Still can't think of sex without hate can you? Surprisingly (and comfortingly) this seems to be limited to the various baboon boards and dust religions. Hate breeds fear, which begets monomania which after umpteen iterations begets Skoptsy. Cut your cock off and be done with it you loser.

Always relevant and chuckleworthy -

<redacted>Video of franc drinking his own pee</redacted>

Sorry franc'y old boy I got into trouble on Pharyngula for not knowing the etymology of the 'Cupcake' put down. Seems I've gorn n put my foot in it again. I thought on your slimy stalker post you had a prostitute enabled 'hate-fap' about PZ and Rebecca (Feminists really should respect sex-workers more, I'm in awe at hir constitution). Assumed the references to 'hate-faping' = Hoggling came from that incident or you in general. Surely I've not found something disgusting that you are ashamed to admit to, I thought you were beyond that?

I'm a Brit so its a wank, five finger shuffle or a J Arthur.

[rayshul]

[quote="Mr Danksworth"If he was a complete asshole, I'd kick his chair over.

Actually... if it seemed funny to me, I'd crack a joke about talking though a computer, too. I'm sure there's a wealth of material there if the mood were to strike me.[/quote]

I feel like the best start would be, "Heeeeyyy... aren't you that Anonymous guy?"

[Rystefn]

I feel like the best start would be, "Heeeeyyy... aren't you that Anonymous guy?"

That would have been better a few years ago. It would be hard to top Nice Peter's "What’s with your voice? I can’t frickin' tell. You sound like WALL-E having sex with a Speak & Spell."

[franc]

Sorry franc'y old boy I got into trouble on Pharyngula for not knowing the etymology of the 'Cupcake' put down. Seems I've gorn n put my foot in it again. I thought on your slimy stalker post you had a prostitute enabled 'hate-fap' about PZ and Rebecca (Feminists really should respect sex-workers more, I'm in awe at hir constitution). Assumed the references to 'hate-faping' = Hoggling came from that incident or you in general. Surely I've not found something disgusting that you are ashamed to admit to, I thought you were beyond that?

Myers law in it's purest form. No matter how many times people point out that the connection between hate and sex is unhealthy and really predominant only amongst those already violently inclined or amongst religiously roboticised loons (bearing in mind I see no distinction between spook inspired or secular dogma), Oolon still returns to the same sex/hate/fear tapeloop he has playing in his brain. Quite monastic actually.

[Jan Steen]

I didn't realise that heretical.com, which I linked to for Schopenhauers essay, is such an unsavoury website, filled with Holocaust denial, etc. Apologies for that. It was just the first link that came up on Google.

Here is a more respectable host for the essay (in a different translation): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women.

[KiwiInOz]

Considering the quote I put out is from Red Dwarf, I find this whole conversation kinda funny now :D

I thought that you meant Richard Dawkins.

[Mykeru]

Awhile back, I did a week's worth of tracking on the SlymePit's readership numbers, and then I did 12 hours straight, on the hour, every hour. The only pattern that most always held true was that registered users were outnumbered roughly 2:1 by guests and lurkers. Whether you are writing for them or not, they are reading what you write.

Yes, and although you don't describe who "they" are, did you not read where I wrote that I don't think "they" are fucking idiots.

I think you could benefit greatly from trying to lose some of the condescension.

[Steersman]

Although, to be fair, it also seems to me that this whole discussion on insults revolves around that question of “how to properly express our thoughts”. You are certainly entitled to use insults – gratuitous or not – as is everyone else. But questions of the effectiveness of those insults and whether they add or detract from the arguments presented – at least presumably if we have any claim to being skeptics – should be things that can be addressed somewhat dispassionately. Most of your videos – at least the ones I’ve seen – seem to manage quite well without relying on such. And you certainly seem to have the intellectual background to present a case without them. So I’m somewhat at a loss to understand why you’re apparently unable to do the same on the question of insults themselves ….

Okay, this bit I will answer more or less seriously.

First, not every venue is one where you present your best case. Only clueless pedants do that.

I will give you a couple of examples. ….

Interesting examples and analysis. And this comment of yours seems central and a reasonable point of departure:

Now, in regards to all this, I think FTB and Atheism Plus are the very definition of arguing in bad faith. They have no interest in actual debating and to that extent they are very much like the Church of Scientology in ways that are pretty obvious: The meanness, the shutting down of debate, the maligning of critics and just making shit up.

Generally agree with you about the bad faith on the part of the various Churches – implicit and explicit. Although I do periodically wonder whether it is entirely intentional or whether it’s a case of being on autopilot or, even worse, simply being the nearest thing to zombies – a total lack of self-awareness, "godbots" being a remarkably apt term. But along that line you might be interested in, if you haven’t already seen or read it, this book from the sociobiologist Robert Trivers on the phenomenon of “fooling ourselves the better to fool others”. As with many religious fundamentalists one might argue that they’re less culpable of lying to others than with having lied to themselves to begin with. Or as P.B. Medawar said of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man:

Its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.

Very much consistent with Loyola’s “Rules for Thinking with the Church”, number 13 being:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

And starting from those types of premises it is not too hard to see how “the meanness … and just making shit up” naturally follows. However, the unfortunate or problematic kicker is that this place is not entirely immune to the same tendencies, cases in point being, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, assertions as to Lousy Canuck’s supposed homophobia, Sally Strange’s supposed sock puppetting and, not to put too fine a point on it, your own assertions or suggestions that Ophelia had made a “legally actionable claim” that you had made a threat against Rebecca Watson.

Not always easy to take the high road, but not making an effort to be scrupulously fair and honest tends to make it far too easy to fall off to the wayside: Caesar’s wife and all that ….

[real horrorshow]

I feel like the best start would be, "Heeeeyyy... aren't you that Anonymous guy?"

That would have been better a few years ago. It would be hard to top Nice Peter's "What’s with your voice? I can’t frickin' tell. You sound like WALL-E having sex with a Speak & Spell."

I remember a few years back I saw something which featured a disabled guy who had a voice synthesiser like Hawking's. He was disgusted with the bland pre-programmed phrases he was expected to use. He had re-programmed his replacing - for example - "My feelings are hurt" with "Fuck you!"

Meanwhile.
MC Hawking

[Rystefn]

I remember a few years back I saw something which featured a disabled guy who had a voice synthesiser like Hawking's. He was disgusted with the bland pre-programmed phrases he was expected to use. He had re-programmed his replacing - for example - "My feelings are hurt" with "Fuck you!"

Meanwhile.
MC Hawking

That's awesome. Sounds like the sort of thing I would do (or have someone do for me if reprogramming was too much of a hassle to do it quickly).

[real horrorshow]

That's awesome. Sounds like the sort of thing I would do (or have someone do for me if reprogramming was too much of a hassle to do it quickly).

I think it can be quite slow to try to do on the fly, but Hawking does a lot in advance for interviews. He asks for questions in advance and creates segments he can play at one keystroke and he has his own menus of course.

[CommanderTuvok]

Is Oolon actually trying to suggest Crommunist was trolling us? That's just Oolon trolling!!!

Retarded wankstain that he is.

:dance:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Natalie Reed: I quite like her writing. It's honest, clear (though can go on a bit) and interesting.

But this bullshit shows that for all their talk of intersectionality, and social justice, and fucking privilege...THEY THEMSELVES DO NOT FUCKING GET IT:

We have bills to pay, jobs to go to, alarms to set, dishes to wash, body parts to shave, netflix subscriptions to renew, dentist appointments to make, flights to catch, blogs to write, family to call, medication to take, friends to meet up with, rent to pay, dates to go on, sex lives to keep interesting, correspondence to keep, library books to return, weddings to attend, and so on and so on and so on. That’s what human lives are generally made out of.

Yes, Natlaie, all human lives are taken with thoughts of Netflix and dentist appointments and interesting sex lives.

You self-centered fucking cunt.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... 1/16/down/

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

The word issue is really getting boring, and actually a red herring. I think we mostly agree that intention is important, so my question would be why do so many exhibit so much ill intention so quickly? Is it really important to let fly with both barrels because you think someone's a little pretentious or they don't agree with you? A general question, not singling anyone out.

FTB turds are fond of this FREEZE PEACH strawman. Convenient for them to deflect attention away from the real complaint, which is selective banning and editing as a dishonest tactic. Has anybody ever argued that they have a right to post on FTB? The fuckers must know this.

[d4m10n]

The word issue is really getting boring, and actually a red herring. I think we mostly agree that intention is important, so my question would be why do so many exhibit so much ill intention so quickly?

Because you're a fucking slimy faggot magina cunt, that's why. Fuck off with a porcupine up your ass.

Seriously, though, I've no fecking clue.

[mutleyeng]

The word issue is really getting boring, and actually a red herring. I think we mostly agree that intention is important, so my question would be why do so many exhibit so much ill intention so quickly?

Because you're a fucking slimy faggot magina cunt, that's why. Fuck off with a porcupine up your ass.

Seriously, though, I've no fecking clue.

let yourself go - feel the power of the dark side

[tachikoma]

What happens in the atheism+ headquarters.
[youtube]tP7Ag3vqrJI[/youtube]

[acathode]

The word issue is really getting boring, and actually a red herring. I think we mostly agree that intention is important, so my question would be why do so many exhibit so much ill intention so quickly? Is it really important to let fly with both barrels because you think someone's a little pretentious or they don't agree with you? A general question, not singling anyone out.

Because most of the warmth you get during normal human interaction, ie. actually speaking IRL to someone, get lost in the written form, leaving only the cold text echoing in your own skull?
Playing amateur psychology with no actual facts to back me up, I'd also guess that we have subconscious inhibitors that makes us non-confrontational to some degree when dealing with other humans, which doesn't kick in the same way when we aren't in the actual present of the other person. Someone one a forum might not register as a real human on the same level as a real, living person in the same room, which makes it easier to get hostile. Then add the lost body language, tone of voice...

I think it's been said in various forms quite many times already, but this whole FTB/A+/Skepchick vs the rest rift would never have escalated this far, this quickly, if all the communication had been over a table in a cafe in meatspace.

I don't even think it would've gotten this bad and out of hand if the communication had been on a normal forum with some decent, fair moderators. The fact that the communication is very much 1-way communication with bloggers talking at people, not with them, and the lack of neutral ground (or rather, some people's careful avoidance of neutral ground) where all parties could discuss the issues in a honest fashion, has greatly speed this "conflict" up.

[sacha]

I don't use the word, 'cunt' because of how I was raised (for me, calling a woman a 'cunt' is like calling a black person a 'nigger'. Referring to a vagina as a cunt is acceptable, but generally for bedroom conversation.) I completely understand that you may have been raised with different norms, and especially depending on where you are from. I also completely understand that I don't get the right to demand you conform to my view of the word while on an internet message board.

I'm the exact opposite of you. I like the word in everyday use, be it joking or angry or insulty, but not at all in the bedroom. When insult words are used in a fashion that is supposed to be a turn on, it just distracts me away from being horny and switches everything to off. I'm weird that way.

For me, words of any kind switch everything off - shut the fuck up and fuck me, or get the fuck out

The reason you wouldn't use those words during sex, is that they are not taboo for you. For those who would never use them in conversation, the act of saying them out loud causes an adrenaline rush, which we all know can often be a turn on.

[welch]

If there are people out there who think I'm discredited by using "bad words," then I don't want any of their fucking bullshit credit anyway. Bunch of uptight cunts.

It's not really the words themselves, it's just harder to take someone's argument seriously when they are wearing their hate on their sleeves.

You keep pushing that meme, yet ignoring the idea that it's not about hate, or even serious arguing.

[sacha]

And there was me thinking, what??? Richard Dawkins doesn't talk like that at all!

hahaha! That is exactly what I was thinking! Are you channeling blond, Nectar?

[rayshul]

I would be interested to find out how not using swear words would enhance my life personally. I just can't see any reason not to.

[sacha]

And there was me thinking, what??? Richard Dawkins doesn't talk like that at all!

BWAHAHA! Exactly the same here. Damn, I need a better pop-culture education...

Phil is also channeling blond

[Steersman]

The word issue is really getting boring, and actually a red herring. I think we mostly agree that intention is important, so my question would be why do so many exhibit so much ill intention so quickly?

Because you're a fucking slimy faggot magina cunt, that's why. Fuck off with a porcupine up your ass.

Seriously, though, I've no fecking clue.

Good question from TFJ and I think this might shed some light for you. Although, in passing, I think that mutleyeng’s response (“let yourself go - feel the power of the dark side”) might be indicative as well. That response seems to imply that he (she?) thought you were being serious and not ironic – absent an emoticon or two it is rather difficult to determine intent and very easy to guess wrong – and so the conversation can go off the rails rather quickly.

Somewhat similar, arguably, to Ophelia’s claim that her “pricks” comment was an ironic joke. Sure Ophelia, but maybe not everyone has the luxury – the privilege, one might suggest – of the time to wade through all of the arguments presented before and after that one to be able to reach that conclusion. If people can’t be “arsed” to provide some further indication of their intent within each post then they have to accept some responsibility for the consequences. And that is entirely separate from her higly questionable claims about insults in general.

However, relative to that link, it is from a Christian Pastor and he argues we are all prone to, in St. Augustine’s phrasing, the Lust for Domination. While he, of course, couches his argument in terms of what many would call Christian metaphors, the psychology seems just as accurate – if the source and the metaphors seem unpalatable then consider them as chaff:

And, of course, it's not just a problem in local politics. Church politics are often unspeakably vicious. Workplace turf battles can be sneaky and underhanded. And crumbling marriages and divorces are often hotbeds of manipulation, meanness and vengeance.
….
This lust for domination doesn't just characterize politics in the City of Man, it characterizes each of us. The libido dominandi is that within each of us that plots and strives to have our own way and force others do as we say. As such, it is the controlling passion of our fallen nature and, thus, of our fallen world.
….
Second, we need to become sensitive to the lust for domination that is part of our fallen nature. It comes out in disguised and insidious ways. We are adept at using acts of service to manipulate others and get our way. Sometimes when making a strong point in a discussion with my wife, I feel an odd thrill. It's not the thrill of pursuing the good, true, and beautiful in partnership with someone I love. Instead it's the thrill of winning or, to put it more accurately, it's the thrill of her losing. I'm dominating. It feels good at home, on the job, in the Church, and in the Public Square. It's giving in to libido dominandi and is cause for repentance. Loving truth is good; loving being right and lording it over others is sin, plain and simple.

[sacha]

I don't get offended, but it will cause my horniness to disappear. Luckily in real life I don't come across that often. Quite rarely actually. On the other hand, their are many things I hate about the sounds and words that are more frequent in porn and can ruin it for me. I no longer even give the sound a chance now. Sound's off right from the start.

One of the reasons that I turn off all volume, is because sometimes there's that distracting annoying 'dirty' talk. The other reason is that any women in it over-exaggerate sounds to a level of badly timed phoniness sometimes. All of that is avoided if sound is turned off. Ridiculous plots and awful music are also avoided that way. It's just a win-win-win-win of visuals! :)

I am forced, FORCED I tell you, to turn off the sound when watching porn. That's because it's early morning most times and Ali sleeps in the bedroom very close to the livingroom.

It's a bloddy shame because I love dirty talk in porn, and IRL sex.

computer and headphones. She may just wake up and help you.
Was that TMI enough?

[tachikoma]

Skinny Puppy at RatSkep seems to have a handle on it:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1524890

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1538728
http://i.imgur.com/zvhrd.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/jSbPA.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/ETWbq.png

[John Greg]

franc said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 750#p29606):

Weenie. This is also why I detest smilies. Lay your linguistic traps, offer no helpful tips. Let the foolish walk into them. It is a great way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ah, bullshit franc. Total bullshit. And ethnocentric too.

Now, listen, you know I respect you and think you have a lot of very good stuff to say, but your statement reeks, I say, reeks, man, of arrogance, and a total and complete denial, and/or unawareness, of cultural, and or subcultural variance in knowledge, understanding, experience, and essential associated diction and narrative form.

And, however goofy they might be, smileys often serve a very useful purpose.

Franc, not all of us grew up in your neighbourhood, your clan, your tribe, your city, your state, your country, and so on, and therefore not all of us understand intuitively (and sarcasm and irony, more than any other form of communication, demand intuitive understanding of diction, grammar, and language) the culturally-specific sub-contexts of the endlessly variable forms of sarcasm, irony, and so on.

C'mon, man you are far too bright to not understand that point.

It is impossible to do in text, but a perfect example of my point is a narrative about telling jewish, and jewish-accented jokes to Newfies (people from Newfoundland), wherein not only is the accent meaningless, confusing, and incomprehensible, but the critically essential subtext, which both leads to and creates an unspoken punchline, of the phraseology is incomprehensible, renders those jokes not only unfunny, but quite literally meaningless.

[franc]

franc said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 750#p29606):

Weenie. This is also why I detest smilies. Lay your linguistic traps, offer no helpful tips. Let the foolish walk into them. It is a great way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ah, bullshit franc. Total bullshit. And ethnocentric too.

Now, listen, you know I respect you and think you have a lot of very good stuff to say, but your statement reeks, I say, reeks, man, of arrogance, and a total and complete denial, and/or unawareness, of cultural, and or subcultural variance in knowledge, understanding, experience, and essential associated diction and narrative form.

And, however goofy they might be, smileys often serve a very useful purpose.

Franc, not all of us grew up in your neighbourhood, your clan, your tribe, your city, your state, your country, and so on, and therefore not all of us understand intuitively (and sarcasm and irony, more than any other form of communication, demand intuitive understanding of diction, grammar, and language) the culturally-specific sub-contexts of the endlessly variable forms of sarcasm, irony, and so on.

C'mon, man you are far too bright to not understand that point.

It is impossible to do in text, but a perfect example of my point is a narrative about telling jewish, and jewish-accented jokes to Newfies (people from Newfoundland), wherein not only is the accent meaningless, confusing, and incomprehensible, but the critically essential subtext, which both leads to and creates an unspoken punchline, of the phraseology is incomprehensible, renders those jokes not only unfunny, but quite literally meaningless.

Leave my bigotry against smilie users be - it's all I have in life that gives it meaning.

Yes, I agree there are times when its necessary. I just get annoyed from the habitual reliance on textual/emotican hints at meaning. Really - it is the ultimate death of subtlety and nuance when everything has to be explained for you. It's sad - the reader has to do some work on their own. They shouldn't need their dicks held while they pee.

Case in point - Hitchens and working women discussion from some days back. How worthless would that be if Hitchens injected explanatory tips for the dull witted?

[John Greg]

Oh, ya, just because:

Freeze Peach.

Gotta love that.

[John Greg]

Franc said:

"Case in point - Hitchens and working women discussion from some days back. How worthless would that be if Hitchens injected explanatory tips for the dull witted?"

Yes, I quite agree.

I think.

Hmm, you know, I have to think about that.

I completely understood Hitchens's point, and was completely aware of how remarkabley obtuse the woman was who either intentionally, or by nature, missed Hitchens's critically important and essential "if", but, well, I don't know ... should not these things be made clearer, through whatever means available, for those who either do not have that grammatical, dictional, narrative, cultural understanding as an understood, be helped along so they at least have the tools to get the point?

[sacha]

I think using an individual's involuntary characteristics against them is absolutely fair if they do the same to others. For example RW calling someone fat as an insult opened her up to insults about her weight.

weight is almost never involuntary.

The interesting thing is that I can explain this a hundred times, and even try and teach someone how to do it convincingly, and the second they are confronted with a situation where someone is trying to get under their skin, they are simply unable to stop themselves from reacting. It absolutely amazes me.

I am quite good at not reacting to people who behave poorly - I will however hold a grudge forever and report every piece of poor behavior to the relevant people. :)[/quote]

This does not surprise me at all.

[John Greg]

As an aside, one of my enduring fantasies is that I, one grim and somewhat cloudy day hinting of dissatisfaction, ponder my way into a rather dark and stormy pub/bar/whathaveyou, and encounter Franc and the Beloved Sahsa, wherein we commence upon rigorous debate, explication, and lickerish delight of the grand and mundane problems of the greater world, leading to either a wondrous, if chthonic and gentian blue, invigoration, or blithe, yet animated, contretemps.

....

Ah, well, my fantasies in life, like my sexual expectations, have rarely, rarely been fulfilled.

:violin:

[John Greg]

Oooh! Bugger me! I mispelled sacha.

/blurgh

[rayshul]

The interesting thing is that I can explain this a hundred times, and even try and teach someone how to do it convincingly, and the second they are confronted with a situation where someone is trying to get under their skin, they are simply unable to stop themselves from reacting. It absolutely amazes me.

I am quite good at not reacting to people who behave poorly - I will however hold a grudge forever and report every piece of poor behavior to the relevant people. :)

This does not surprise me at all.

I used to simply fume or respond poorly or worse, COMPLAIN ON THE INTERNT - then I realised that doing this wasn't smart, it was just hurting me and the work I did.

[sacha]

Weenie. This is also why I detest smilies. Lay your linguistic traps, offer no helpful tips. Let the foolish walk into them. It is a great way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I agree. I'm also the type that uses sarcasm with a straight face when speaking to someone in person. Same thing.

[franc]

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

[mutleyeng]

Although, in passing, I think that mutleyeng’s response (“let yourself go - feel the power of the dark side”) might be indicative as well. That response seems to imply that he (she?) thought you were being serious and not ironic – absent an emoticon or two it is rather difficult to determine intent and very easy to guess wrong – and so the conversation can go off the rails rather quickly.

That response seems to imply you are trying far too hard and over thinking everything.
Dude, seeing as the second line quoted started with, "seriously, though" - I did kinda get it that he was joking

[John Greg]

sacha said:

I agree. I'm also the type that uses sarcasm with a straight face when speaking to someone in person. Same thing.

No, it is not the same thing at all. C'mon sacha you and franc are far too intelligent to fall for that kind of ethno-cultural-centric nonsense, for a variety of reasons, including that sarcasm/irony/satire in print, and sarcasm/irony/satire in face to face communications, especially when we are talking of communications with people who do not share our particular cultural venue, are completely, and comprehensively different.

For one thing (and only one of many), face-to-face communication involves that endless and almost bottomless myriad of physical/visual cues that are missing from plain textual content. But more important, as I spoke of before, you are making the rather ludicrous assumption that everyone you speak with/to understands, viscerally and intuitivley, and is comprehensively familiar with the language, in all its invariably complex subtle meanings, as you do.

And that is just foolish.

[franc]

For one thing (and only one of many), face-to-face communication involves that endless and almost bottomless myriad of physical/visual cues that are missing from plain textual content. But more important, as I spoke of before, you are making the rather ludicrous assumption that everyone you speak with/to understands, viscerally and intuitivley, and is comprehensively familiar with the language, in all its invariably complex subtle meanings, as you do.

And that is just foolish.

How did letter writers of decades past get by?

Emoticons and /sarcasm are not a shortcut for lazy and incoherent/illiterate writers, nor a substitute for quality. Nor for obtuse readers for that matter.

[John Greg]

How did letter writers of decades past get by?

Franc, with all due respect, and yes, I think that is a valid phrase, that is one of the most stupid things you have ever said.

Writers, of all kinds, be it letters, burgeoning novels, essays, et al, got by, to use your term, by knowing and writing to their audience, thereby, quite specifically writing to their contemporaries, and potental readers who understood the venacular, coloquialisms, etc, that, almost exclusively, came from the same background, generally speaking, both educationally, culturally, et al.

Are you trying to play funnys with me, franc, or are you, like me, just rather tired, perhaps skew-wiff, at the moment?

[Steersman]

Although, in passing, I think that mutleyeng’s response (“let yourself go - feel the power of the dark side”) might be indicative as well. That response seems to imply that he (she?) thought you were being serious and not ironic – absent an emoticon or two it is rather difficult to determine intent and very easy to guess wrong – and so the conversation can go off the rails rather quickly.

That response seems to imply you are trying far too hard and over thinking everything.
Dude, seeing as the second line quoted started with, "seriously, though" - I did kinda get it that he was joking

I’m glad to hear that you got that.

However, the point is that there was no indication that you had. Which leaves the question open whether you did or did not. And the plain reading of your statement makes it, in my view at least, more probable that you had not.

Maybe people who have followed your comments closely or who have read them from Day One or who are from your same geographical area would be comfortable or quick to reach the conclusion that you understood the intent there. But, given the number of blogs and message boards and the sheer number of posters out there, that seems rather an unwarranted assumption about everyone – including about me.

[sacha]

If there are people out there who think I'm discredited by using "bad words," then I don't want any of their fucking bullshit credit anyway. Bunch of uptight cunts.

It's not really the words themselves, it's just harder to take someone's argument seriously when they are wearing their hate on their sleeves.

You keep pushing that meme, yet ignoring the idea that it's not about hate, or even serious arguing.

He isn't listening absorbing all of the comments that clarify the intent of the speaker when using words like cunt.

Obviously, I would not use any of those expletives in a formal speech, or debate. Obvious to most people, anyway.

It is a strawman argument that Damon is baiting with. The pit is basically the local pub. I communicate here, the same way I speak to friends and informal acquaintances. Off-line I use the word cunt as a term of endearment, or as a description, and once in a while I use it when I've had it with someone's behaviour.

When I use it towards a specific person in the US, it is because they are being a cunt, and they handed me the ammunition to stop the behaviour. The message I want to convey is "you are a cunt, and I'm not your personal doormat" or "you are a cunt and they (the person who is on the receiving end of the cuntish behaviour) are not your personal doormat". That's it. I'm not debating with the person, I'm not attempting to convince others of my argument, I don't give a fuck what people think about my choice to call someone a cunt to their face, and usually the response from those who witnessed it is "I wish I had the balls to do that", which is meant to be a complement, but it's just annoying.

I don't comment here mindful of who may be reading it besides the regulars. I simply do not give a fuck if readers who support the Baboons, or are on the fence would be swayed to my position if I toned down the language. If one does not want to see that sort of language when reading a conversation (and that is basically what the thread is. A conversation mostly between the established regulars, with a few semi-regulars and a few recent regulars, and occasionally someone visiting - just the same as down the pub) then don't fucking read it. There are plenty of blogs where one can find a formal overview and explanation of the position the vast majority of Arnie's pit bulls have in regards to FfTB/ A+/Skepchick.

There are numerous, easy to find alternatives that are written as a formal dissection with visual proof of what we discuss without the language, images, and piss takes that one finds here. They serve a different purpose than the Slime Pit. Many of us comment on those blogs as well. All of them are far easier to consume than this 27830 response (since it moved here) thread .

If the atmosphere of the Slime Pit is not to one's liking, they can read and/or participate elsewhere. What they think about the regular commenters here (including myself) does not concern me at all. I don't give a fuck about what others think of me when I'm having an informal conversation. not here, and not in person.

The distinctive character of this place appeals to numerous people, and the tone trolls eventually give up trying to change the place, and they stay, or they silently disappear.

[sacha]

It is impossible to do in text, but a perfect example of my point is a narrative about telling jewish, and jewish-accented jokes to Newfies (people from Newfoundland), wherein not only is the accent meaningless, confusing, and incomprehensible, but the critically essential subtext, which both leads to and creates an unspoken punchline, of the phraseology is incomprehensible, renders those jokes not only unfunny, but quite literally meaningless.

That is different, John

[Badger3k]

Just took a skim of my feeds before bedtime, and noticed Ophelia has made her quote in my sig (assuming it is there - not sure what shows up in tapatalk, and I can't see any sigs in the app) into a "wallpaper" in the pit. Wow. She goes on some tldr, or maybe tljs - too long, just skimmed ? - about how it was meant to be ironic, completely ignoring her own "it is never ok" and "intent doesn't matter"...excepting that she always excludes herself and her tribe from that. As others noted here, her friends were not being ironic, which cancels her comments out, yet she will still ignore it. How can you live with that much hypocrisy, or maybe cognitive dissonance, without becoming a bitter, whackjob, cat-lady...oh....nevermind.

[sacha]

I completely understood Hitchens's point, and was completely aware of how remarkabley obtuse the woman was who either intentionally, or by nature, missed Hitchens's critically important and essential "if", but, well, I don't know ... should not these things be made clearer, through whatever means available, for those who either do not have that grammatical, dictional, narrative, cultural understanding as an understood, be helped along so they at least have the tools to get the point?

no

[franc]

How did letter writers of decades past get by?

Franc, with all due respect, and yes, I think that is a valid phrase, that is one of the most stupid things you have ever said.

Writers, of all kinds, be it letters, burgeoning novels, essays, et al, got by, to use your term, by knowing and writing to their audience, thereby, quite specifically writing to their contemporaries, and potental readers who understood the venacular, coloquialisms, etc, that, almost exclusively, came from the same background, generally speaking, both educationally, culturally, et al.

Are you trying to play funnys with me, franc, or are you, like me, just rather tired, perhaps skew-wiff, at the moment?

Not at all. I have managed to survive without smilies and other linguistic convenience store junk for two decades - I boycotted them from the first second I saw them on a stone age BBS. 95% of my readers have no problem gauging my meaning - the other 5% should go back to school instead of rotting what little brain mass they have by wasting time on 'tardbook. What a 'tard shorthand-free existence entails is spending thought constructing what you say as well as proof reading. In other words, time. I have nothing but contempt for those that are too busy or important to spend time on what they write - because if it's not worth time writing, why is it worth time reading? just because the medium is electronic is not an excuse in and of itself.

[sacha]

Oooh! Bugger me! I mispelled sacha.

/blurgh

I thought that was the way you were saying my name in your mind, and now you have gone and ruined it.

Unusual misspelling. It's almost always SASHA or SASCHA. but never SAHSA

[sacha]

The interesting thing is that I can explain this a hundred times, and even try and teach someone how to do it convincingly, and the second they are confronted with a situation where someone is trying to get under their skin, they are simply unable to stop themselves from reacting. It absolutely amazes me.

I am quite good at not reacting to people who behave poorly - I will however hold a grudge forever and report every piece of poor behavior to the relevant people. :)

This does not surprise me at all.

I used to simply fume or respond poorly or worse, COMPLAIN ON THE INTERNT - then I realised that doing this wasn't smart, it was just hurting me and the work I did.

that surprises me

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I don't know, I seem to be quite good at spotting sarcasm in others' comments, but seem quite unable to master it myself without the help of a smiley or /sarcasm.

I'll just put that on not being a native English speaker.

[mutleyeng]

Although, in passing, I think that mutleyeng’s response (“let yourself go - feel the power of the dark side”) might be indicative as well. That response seems to imply that he (she?) thought you were being serious and not ironic – absent an emoticon or two it is rather difficult to determine intent and very easy to guess wrong – and so the conversation can go off the rails rather quickly.

That response seems to imply you are trying far too hard and over thinking everything.
Dude, seeing as the second line quoted started with, "seriously, though" - I did kinda get it that he was joking

I’m glad to hear that you got that.

However, the point is that there was no indication that you had. Which leaves the question open whether you did or did not. And the plain reading of your statement makes it, in my view at least, more probable that you had not.

Maybe people who have followed your comments closely or who have read them from Day One or who are from your same geographical area would be comfortable or quick to reach the conclusion that you understood the intent there. But, given the number of blogs and message boards and the sheer number of posters out there, that seems rather an unwarranted assumption about everyone – including about me.

yeah I know that's your point - you've been making it for as long as I've been reading this forum (not meaning to be rude, but you are hung up on this).
I get it, I understand it - I reject it.
I make lots of comments that people dont get - my theoretical physics joke went completely unnoticed . But thats ok, cos it made me laugh.
I would just refer you to Mykeru's 'serious' response to you a page back - hes one them philosophy wankstains, so although he is full of shit, he excretes it more eloquently than I could

[John Greg]

Ah, fuck it.

....

I am unable to express/explain/explicate my opinion clearly or coherently, and my faves, sacha and franc, have both completely misunderstood me, which is MY fault (not theirs), so off I go to, well, somewhere else, or other ....

[sacha]

you are making the rather ludicrous assumption that everyone you speak with/to understands, viscerally and intuitivley, and is comprehensively familiar with the language, in all its invariably complex subtle meanings, as you do.

Quite the opposite, using sarcasm in person, I don't give any visual clues, and most people who do not know me well are completely unaware. This is enjoyable for me. Yet another culture difference - The majority of those who cannot detect the sarcasm are from the US (but again the working class from big east coast cities almost always know I'm being sarcastic.) and my friends from the UK don't even need to look at me to know. Usually someone else explains it to the sarcasm-impaired.

Online when one knows me, it's rather obvious. I would think that most of the regulars here including you can detect my sarcasm without any obvious indications.
Those who do not realise are usually Merkin and are not familiar with my comments. Not being sure when one does not know the person is fine, it is those who become defensive, or offensive in regards to my comment that amuse me. Sit back and read for a while before jumping to conclusions about a comment, or ask.

Reactionary people amuse me.

[real horrorshow]

Well here's a thing. Remember Josh's Blog from the other day? I was looking for background material to make up for his lack of research, and a handy post came up on Tim Skellet AKA Gurdur's blog. So I posted a link and a quote for Josh.

After a bit of reading around I thought I might as well register at Skellet's 'Heathen Hub' site and keep up on their take on matters. I just checked my e-mail.

Dear real horrorshow,

Unfortunately your registration at The Heathen Hub did not meet our membership requirements. Therefore your registration was deleted.

Sorry,
The Heathen Hub

Pre-banned at Crom's-pit, now spurned by this other lot! Eau de Slimepit just doesn't wash off it seems.

[sacha]

How did letter writers of decades past get by?

Franc, with all due respect, and yes, I think that is a valid phrase, that is one of the most stupid things you have ever said.

Writers, of all kinds, be it letters, burgeoning novels, essays, et al, got by, to use your term, by knowing and writing to their audience, thereby, quite specifically writing to their contemporaries, and potental readers who understood the venacular, coloquialisms, etc...

Precisely. Those are the people who get it. Those are the people I'm speaking to when using sarcasm. It is extremely rare that I use anything but the easiest sarcasm to detect when speaking with someone new.

[sacha]

Ah, fuck it.

....

I am unable to express/explain/explicate my opinion clearly or coherently, and my faves, sacha and franc, have both completely misunderstood me, which is MY fault (not theirs), so off I go to, well, somewhere else, or other ....

I still love you, John

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Well here's a thing. Remember Josh's Blog from the other day? I was looking for background material to make up for his lack of research, and a handy post came up on Tim Skellet AKA Gurdur's blog. So I posted a link and a quote for Josh.

After a bit of reading around I thought I might as well register at Skellet's 'Heathen Hub' site and keep up on their take on matters. I just checked my e-mail.

Dear real horrorshow,

Unfortunately your registration at The Heathen Hub did not meet our membership requirements. Therefore your registration was deleted.

Sorry,
The Heathen Hub

Pre-banned at Crom's-pit, now spurned by this other lot! Eau de Slimepit just doesn't wash off it seems.

Do you want me to PM Tim for your subscription? There must have been a glitch somewhere. Gurdur is not into heavy moderation.