Periodic Table of Swearing

[Notung]

So is this Tumblr SJW stuff the thing that's spread to online atheism? I can't find any articles about it, and I'm wondering why it's mostly confined to Tumblr (what's special about Tumblr?). I might write a blog post about A+ being the same phenomenon, as it does seem to be...

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*snip*

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

Same here. That's when the head-scratching started.

[Git]

PS - smart phones make people stupid and cause brain cancer.

I remember back in 1975 when the highschool I just started at were practically handing out calculators for $5. I asked dad for $5 and after explaining what for he said "calculators are for stupid people it makes you stupid...you should be able to do these things in your head" and I said "ok what is the square root of 24579 divided by 4278 minus 12"

He gave me $5

And he instead should have said "a complex number, because there's no such thing as a real square root of a negative number". Because "24579 divided by 4278 minus 12" is ~-7.

And you would have been $5 worse off.

[Git]

fucking bbcode arsebiscuits!

Let me try again:

attempting to silence them = disagreeing with them, don't ya know?

Git, your new profile image frightens me.

Are you afraid of mah pussy, Sacha?

[Guessed]

VICTIM BLAMING!!!!!!!

“The suit said that Mr. Singleton [the second accuser, the original accuser having recanted] ‘did not become aware that he had suffered adverse psychological and emotional effects from Kevin Clash’s sexual acts and conduct until 2012.’”

Nine years later he realizes the damage he’s sustained and finds thereby he can file suit for $5 million? It’s just as easy to have grave suspicions and doubts of this person’s actions and motives as it is in Clash’s case. But guess where the vast number of fingers will point? There will be no justice had from this, regardless of courtroom findings.

god don't these ppl realise that this just makes ppl less likely to come forward becuz they won't b believed???? son, i am disgust.

[welch]

*snip*

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

Same here. That's when the head-scratching started.

I'd seen it, but more in an "encouraging folks to be self-aware, and understand that other folks may not have the same interactions with life you do with institutions because of race/sex/etc.", not "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANY OPINION WE DON'T APPROVE OF."

The latter is newish

[cunt]

I think its more popular on tumblr because that system allows users to link and re-blog each others stuff far easier than wordpress or blogger. Just makes it a better echo-chamber.

[Keating]

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

Actually, that's existed on many feminism blogs for years. Apparently the idea is over a decade old. I tend to read a large number of blogs that I agree and disagree with, so I had picked up a lot of the jargon well before it came to the atheism space. My suspicion is that atheism and sceptic circles were quick to pick it up because many of the leading blog feminists are also atheists, and therefore there is a large overlap in readerships.

[Dick Strawkins]

So is this Tumblr SJW stuff the thing that's spread to online atheism? I can't find any articles about it, and I'm wondering why it's mostly confined to Tumblr (what's special about Tumblr?). I might write a blog post about A+ being the same phenomenon, as it does seem to be...

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

I'd heard it but not in terms of skepticism/atheism.
It's very much associated with gender/queer/race politics and in particular the more post-modernistic friendly branches of these advocacy groups.
The skeptical/new atheist community has avoided this conflict because of our basic requirement for scientific evidence and rejection of relativistic worldviews.
I think the problem arose because atheism/nonbelief is not synonymous with a scientific worldview. There are many atheists who seem to have never picked up a religion to reject in the first place or who seem to be rejecting religion out of a kind of rebellion against authority.
Once these people reach a critical mass then they will demand their views be respected, or even acquiesced to- and not because there is any evidence behind the views. Just because (if you have to ask why then you just don't get it!)
The funny thing is that they do dress up their views as being 'skeptical' when its almost laughably obvious that real skepticism never gets in the door - it is, to paraphrase Feynman, cargo cult skepticism.

[Al Stefanelli]

Yeah, in case you don't give a fuck about a uboxing video, I'll also make an unboxing video. FFS...

I did one too!

Ha ha ha ha! Well done!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

VICTIM BLAMING!!!!!!!

“The suit said that Mr. Singleton [the second accuser, the original accuser having recanted] ‘did not become aware that he had suffered adverse psychological and emotional effects from Kevin Clash’s sexual acts and conduct until 2012.’”

Nine years later he realizes the damage he’s sustained and finds thereby he can file suit for $5 million? It’s just as easy to have grave suspicions and doubts of this person’s actions and motives as it is in Clash’s case. But guess where the vast number of fingers will point? There will be no justice had from this, regardless of courtroom findings.

god don't these ppl realise that this just makes ppl less likely to come forward becuz they won't b believed???? son, i am disgust.

Someone should go there and post some Marcotte "wisdom", see how it goes...

[katamari Damassi]

In fairness to Kevin Clash(Elmo) his first accuser who recanted and then changed his mind on recanting and is suing has a criminal background and sounds like an all around scumbag. The second accuser who claims he was 15 when he hooked up with Clash, met him cruising a gay chat line in the late 1990's.
Once when I was 35 I brought home a guy that I met in a bar whom I later learned was 17. I thought he was in his 20's. Luckily 17 is legal in my state, but it did make me feel creepy, and it probably ruined my chance at running for president.

[Dick Strawkins]

Someone should go there and post some Marcotte "wisdom", see how it goes...

To be fair there are a few people on the thread pointing out the obvious connection between this case and the famous child sex scandals involving the Catholic church etc, and how smearing accusers in such cases is probably not the best thing to do.

[welch]

I think its more popular on tumblr because that system allows users to link and re-blog each others stuff far easier than wordpress or blogger. Just makes it a better echo-chamber.

It can be, but I think that's allowing a minority to become the representatives. A lot of folks like it because it's easy to use and let's them share stuff. Artists and writers seem to enjoy it quite a bit.

[Guessed]

No, I actually agree with taking a measured approach (obviously), or at least not passing judgment until more facts become available. Indeed, I think being "skeptical" here is the only way to go, given the water is murky on both sides. An absurd notion I'm sure you all agree. I was just poking fun at the knee-jerk way in which any negative comments regarding alleged victims of crime (usually rape) are shouted down as shaming/blaming the victim by those at FtB, regardless of the actual content. But you know, parallel rules and all that shit.

[Lsuoma]

the reason I reject that SYG and Oolon are the same person is that Lsuoma asked SYG to explain to us who he "was" and who he "is now" when he re-registers. I don't know if that is why he has not created a new account, or commented since his apology, regardless I don't see why Lsuoma would ask that of SYG if he knew it was Oolon.

SYG is not colon, but will likely not be back for some time.

[Rystefn]

Here's a simpler anecdote - when Diogenes saw a child drink from its hand from a stream, he threw away his cup as redundant. I don't like junk, I don't like lingusitic short cuts, I don't like gibberish. It also follows that I am richer than you because I need less to be satisfied. You can burden yourself with all the useless crap you please - but it won't raise your IQ, bring contentment any closer, or make you any more worthy of respect. Just makes you more like Imelda Marcos or Liberace.

Yeah, I fucking hate those cup-using junk-havers, too. Bunch of lazy shits too good to drink out of their hands like all us rich people.

[real horrorshow]

Meanwhile, on the aTheism + forums:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8206 ... f2df17.jpg

[Tony Parsehole]

My morning dose of amusement from Atheism Plus: Civility is oppression!

There should be an equivalent 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things' site for this lot... SJWSTDT.

http://twitter.com/tumblrTXT

That's a gem.

I like this one:

Tumblr dot TXT ‏@TumblrTXT

I doubt any white person invented anything, except maybe perfecting the art of stealing and claiming shit.

[katamari Damassi]

I'd honestly never come across this stuff before elevatorgate. I'd never even heard "check your privilege".

Actually, that's existed on many feminism blogs for years. Apparently the idea is over a decade old. I tend to read a large number of blogs that I agree and disagree with, so I had picked up a lot of the jargon well before it came to the atheism space. My suspicion is that atheism and sceptic circles were quick to pick it up because many of the leading blog feminists are also atheists, and therefore there is a large overlap in readerships.

Yeah I was introduced to it years ago when I clicked a link to an "advanced" feminist site called Shakesville. I sometimes lurked there out of morbid fascination. It's a safe space for radfem jargon spewing, psychologically damaged people. Some are atheists but most are some sort of pagan, or people trying very hard to rationalize their christianity or judaism with their radfem ideology. It was because of my familiarity with that site that gave me a heads up on what was happening with FTB and A+theism.

I've seen some really interesting trolling there, but I'm not inclined to do it myself because I kind of feel sorry for them, also the moderation is heavy and troll posts don't last long once detected. Once someone posted about how they disagreed with their newborn's "assigned gender" and started her on hormone replacement therapy. Nobody commented on it, on the off chance that it was genuine and they didn't want to judge someone placing their baby on HRT. The post lasted almost 2 days before the moderator removed it without comment. It was like it never existed.

[Tigzy]

@Mykeru

I'll just leave this with you:

http://www.longparish.org.uk/l2sotm/res ... s_0709.jpg

The one on the right. I know - an impressive and striking figure. He came second, by the way.

His world is quite extraordinarily white. I think the poor, oppressed and non-white must hold a lot of novelty value for him.

[katamari Damassi]

Someone should go there and post some Marcotte "wisdom", see how it goes...

To be fair there are a few people on the thread pointing out the obvious connection between this case and the famous child sex scandals involving the Catholic church etc, and how smearing accusers in such cases is probably not the best thing to do.

Sorry but the credibility of the accuser is always relevant. Knowing what I know of this-which isn't much really-I'm inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until something credible turns up.

[welch]

@Mykeru

I'll just leave this with you:

http://www.longparish.org.uk/l2sotm/res ... s_0709.jpg

The one on the right. I know - an impressive and striking figure. He came second, by the way.

His world is quite extraordinarily white. I think the poor, oppressed and non-white must hold a lot of novelty value for him.

Apologies to Lewis black, but next to that lot, mitt Romney is the second coming of eazy-e

[Tony Parsehole]

Someone should go there and post some Marcotte "wisdom", see how it goes...

To be fair there are a few people on the thread pointing out the obvious connection between this case and the famous child sex scandals involving the Catholic church etc, and how smearing accusers in such cases is probably not the best thing to do.

Sorry but the credibility of the accuser is always relevant. Knowing what I know of this-which isn't much really-I'm inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until something credible turns up.

Bit of a dodgy area this. Although I agree with you up to a point bear in mind that sex offenders target people who won't be believed. The case of Jimmy Savile and his interest in care homes for vulnerable young girls springs to mind.

[Keating]

I clicked a link to an "advanced" feminist site called Shakesville. I sometimes lurked there out of morbid fascination. It's a safe space for radfem jargon spewing, psychologically damaged people.

While I would call Shakesville "advanced", I would actually say it's fairly moderate as far as feminism blogs go. This may be the case of my particular metre being misaligned, but there are plenty of places out there that are far more extreme. I tend to gauge the extreme sights by how viscous the comment wars get over transgendered people. Real extreme radical feminists tend to be the ones who talk about 'women at birth', and hate the idea of men transitioning to become women. Shakesville is fairly liberal on that front, which is why I don't really think of it as a radical feminist stronghold.

[Keating]

Oops: 'sites' not 'sights'.

[Pitchguest]

I'll just leave this here.

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/28 ... 757ef.jpeg

The thing that kills me is he looks so familiar, like I'm sure I've seen in a TV show or something.

[katamari Damassi]

Keating- the site describes itself as an "Advanced feminist website" when you go to the comment policy.

[Keating]

Um, I agreed with you that it was advanced? I said I didn't think it was 'radfem', McEwan is fairly moderate compared to many feminist bloggers.

[Pitchguest]

Yeah, except for this little morsel:

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape ... e-101.html

[Dilurk]

I clicked a link to an "advanced" feminist site called Shakesville. I sometimes lurked there out of morbid fascination. It's a safe space for radfem jargon spewing, psychologically damaged people.

While I would call Shakesville "advanced", I would actually say it's fairly moderate as far as feminism blogs go. This may be the case of my particular metre being misaligned, but there are plenty of places out there that are far more extreme. I tend to gauge the extreme sights by how viscous the comment wars get over transgendered people. Real extreme radical feminists tend to be the ones who talk about 'women at birth', and hate the idea of men transitioning to become women. Shakesville is fairly liberal on that front, which is why I don't really think of it as a radical feminist stronghold.

I've always thought of twisty as radfem myself but this article made me wonder.
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/201 ... at-sticks/

[Keating]

Yeah, except for this little morsel:

Regardless of what you think of "rape culture", I'd say it is fairly widely accepted by most feminist bloggers, hence I don't see how it can be used as part of a definition of "radical feminism". Either that, or most feminist are "radical feminists", in which case it doesn't have much use as a label.

I've always thought of twisty as radfem myself but this article made me wonder.

Well, I'd argue the fact that her blog attracted enough readers who are rabidly anti-transgendered people (or trans-critical, as that post put it), that the comment wars were spectacular, is the measure of a "radical feminist". Unless I'm very much mistaken, you wouldn't get that level of viciousness about transgendered people in the comments of Feministe, for example. She had to work hard to get those people to stop commenting on her blog, and it took many comment wars for that to happen.

[Tony Parsehole]

I'll just leave this here.

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/28 ... 757ef.jpeg

The thing that kills me is he looks so familiar, like I'm sure I've seen in a TV show or something.

http://www.e4.com/media/4B33BE8A-9F0F-4 ... _extra.jpg

The Inbetweeners?

[cunt]

@Mykeru

I'll just leave this with you:

[img]img-oolon.jpg[img]

The one on the right. I know - an impressive and striking figure. He came second, by the way.

His world is quite extraordinarily white. I think the poor, oppressed and non-white must hold a lot of novelty value for him.

Bit of guilt probably. Had to make sure the kids went to majority white rural comprehensive.

[Notung]

Yeah, except for this little morsel:

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape ... e-101.html

Gah! I hate any post that purports to be "101". It's a fricking opinion piece - they clearly think so much of their own opinion that they think it should be the starting point for that subject; and not subject to discussion.

I should have called my last post "Women Bishops 101", since it was so amazing that everybody must start there and base their own opinions off mine. The post before: "Ad Hominem 101" since it was perfectly correct in every way, and it should be used to educate everyone so they can be just as informed as me.

[Dick Strawkins]

Yeah, except for this little morsel:

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape ... e-101.html

Gah! I hate any post that purports to be "101". It's a fricking opinion piece - they clearly think so much of their own opinion that they think it should be the starting point for that subject; and not subject to discussion.

I should have called my last post "Women Bishops 101", since it was so amazing that everybody must start there and base their own opinions off mine. The post before: "Ad Hominem 101" since it was perfectly correct in every way, and it should be used to educate everyone so they can be just as informed as me.

I'd love to hear thecriticalG do a reading of that post in the same style as his Schrödingers Rapist one!

Rape culture is making rape a ubiquitous part of male-exclusive bonding.

Bollocks, I've been doing it wrong. In the past when I've been with my male friends I've tended to just go for a pint, talk about football or music, or even discuss hobbies like fishing or watching movies. Apparently I've been doing it all wrong!
Forget the beer or football, we should have been going out for a rape!

[Beau Guest]

Keating:

Regardless of what you think of "rape culture", I'd say it is fairly widely accepted by most feminist bloggers, hence I don't see how it can be used as part of a definition of "radical feminism". Either that, or most feminist are "radical feminists", in which case it doesn't have much use as a label

The proportion of feminists to which it can be applied says nothing about it's accuracy.

[Keating]

The proportion of feminists to which it can be applied says nothing about it's accuracy.

Which is why I carefully chose my words to not make that claim.

[Notung]

Bollocks, I've been doing it wrong. In the past when I've been with my male friends I've tended to just go for a pint, talk about football or music, or even discuss hobbies like fishing or watching movies. Apparently I've been doing it all wrong!
Forget the beer or football, we should have been going out for a rape!

And that might lead you to think that perhaps rape isn't so ubiquitous in male-exclusive bonding. However, in the '101' post it says it is, so it must be, or else the post wouldn't be '101'.

[Notung]

From Dawkins' official Facebook page - an anti-A+ (sort of) article:

[Guestapo]

Keating:
Regardless of what you think of "rape culture", I'd say it is fairly widely accepted by most feminist bloggers, hence I don't see how it can be used as part of a definition of "radical feminism". Either that, or most feminist are "radical feminists", in which case it doesn't have much use as a label


The proportion of feminists to which it can be applied says nothing about it's accuracy.

OK, I can see the point you were making. The feminist movement is historically an equality one. Radical feminism is so called because it is radical relative to equality feminism. The description is useful however many of todays mainstream feminists it applies to. It differentiates them from traditional feminists. A minor issue,anyway. Just labels.

[katamari Damassi]

Sorry Keating, I misinterpreted what you posted.

It's interesting that even some feminists find Twisty Faster to be irrational. I love this post:
http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... nsane.html

[Dilurk]

Yeah, except for this little morsel:

Regardless of what you think of "rape culture", I'd say it is fairly widely accepted by most feminist bloggers, hence I don't see how it can be used as part of a definition of "radical feminism". Either that, or most feminist are "radical feminists", in which case it doesn't have much use as a label.

I just find it sad that identity politics has diluted the term feminism to the point where it has become meaningless.
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/women ... ction4.php
There were some injustices up here in Canada notably in the government where I supported changes. I was supportive of simple equality between sexes when it was applicable. The radfems have destroyed the term feminism. I have not changed positions as I have repeatedly made myself clear on. If there is injustice against men, I am against that, if there is injustice against women, I am against that, if there is injustice against furry creatures from Arcturus, I'd be against that too.

That is why it is important to fight the ignorant changing of a term (atheist) to mean something more than the dictionary meaning. Of course, language change is going to happen anyway despite our best efforts but still what else is there to do?

I've always thought of twisty as radfem myself but this article made me wonder.

Well, I'd argue the fact that her blog attracted enough readers who are rabidly anti-transgendered people (or trans-critical, as that post put it), that the comment wars were spectacular, is the measure of a "radical feminist". Unless I'm very much mistaken, you wouldn't get that level of viciousness about transgendered people in the comments of Feministe, for example. She had to work hard to get those people to stop commenting on her blog, and it took many comment wars for that to happen.

I noticed that myself. It brought the nuttier radfems out of the woodwork it did.

[Dilurk]

Keating:
Regardless of what you think of "rape culture", I'd say it is fairly widely accepted by most feminist bloggers, hence I don't see how it can be used as part of a definition of "radical feminism". Either that, or most feminist are "radical feminists", in which case it doesn't have much use as a label


The proportion of feminists to which it can be applied says nothing about it's accuracy.

OK, I can see the point you were making. The feminist movement is historically an equality one. ...

Exactly. If perchance a female brick layer can lay the same amount of bricks as a male bricklayer then she should be paid the same per hour. Feminism originally was simply a short hand for saying "equal pay for equal work". For some feminists it has accrued the additional meanings of words such as "patriarchy", "privilege" and "rape culture". Note that the equity feminists disagree with the newer meanings (which is noted on the sparknotes chart), us old fogeys have been tilting at the windmill of language change fighting the gradual change of "feminism" into "feminism" as a short hand for rad-fem bats shit crazy. I note that a few MRAs have been fighting the gradual change of "misogyny" as well and we are now fighting the change of meaning of "atheism" into a social justice movement. Welcome to my world.

Radical feminism is so called because it is radical relative to equality feminism. The description is useful however many of todays mainstream feminists it applies to. It differentiates them from traditional feminists. A minor issue,anyway. Just labels.

You have summed it up well. It's now simply easier to not use short forms for ideas (such as MRA, feminist etc.), since the labels have become so diffused, but to simply evaluate proposals on their own merit and not by a label or dogma.

[Struth]

How does Amy know? Did she send someone to visit? Did she 'doc drop?'

The guy (I imagine a close associate of Scurvy Amy, or someone fully committed to FfTB, A+, Skepchick, etc.) who created that Homer-Vacula account must be feeling pretty stoopid. Not only did he make a horrible mistake, he exposed the fact that Amy doc-dropped, and was quite happy to doc-drop. At the same time she was complaining about Justin "doc-dropping" her, when he did no such thing, of course.

It beggars belief.

Quite.

More on the HomerVacula account: http://wp.me/p1N0NS-sz

[Struth]

Actively seeking out information about someone's professional life so they can interfere to seemingly get them reprimanded, just because this individual disagrees with their opinion and conduct = invasive behaviour (I wouldn't call it stalking, though it's a thoroughly reprehensible 'tactic' and shows Laden to be quite devoid of integrity imo).

What about going to someone's house to see if they live there?

[Dick Strawkins]

Has anyone seen todays post on ElevatorGates site?

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... s-misused/

He seems paranoid about legal action being taken against him by Surly Amy and may be closing down his blog and twitter account.
Reading between the lines it seems as if he may have given some false information (name, address?) when he replied to Surly Amy's original DMCA notice. Surly Amy seems to be pursuing things with the federal authorities and Elevatorgate is now worried that this may result in a jail term!
It does look like he is based in England so I'm not sure what this means for the overall situation
- can you really get extradited over such a piddling matter?
:shock:

[Dick Strawkins]

Has anyone seen todays post on ElevatorGates site?

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... s-misused/

He seems paranoid about legal action being taken against him by Surly Amy and may be closing down his blog and twitter account.
Reading between the lines it seems as if he may have given some false information (name, address?) when he replied to Surly Amy's original DMCA notice. Surly Amy seems to be pursuing things with the federal authorities and Elevatorgate is now worried that this may result in a jail term!
It does look like he is based in England so I'm not sure what this means for the overall situation
- can you really get extradited over such a piddling matter?
:shock:

Oops, looks like someone else has just posted about the same thing!

[Ape+lust]

Hat tip to the Rev Mykeru.

http://i.imgur.com/L0872.jpg

[Darren]

I should have called my last post "Women Bishops 101", since it was so amazing that everybody must start there and base their own opinions off mine. The post before: "Ad Hominem 101" since it was perfectly correct in every way, and it should be used to educate everyone so they can be just as informed as me.

So that makes your post above "101 101"?

[Tigzy]

Has anyone seen todays post on ElevatorGates site?

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... s-misused/

He seems paranoid about legal action being taken against him by Surly Amy and may be closing down his blog and twitter account.
Reading between the lines it seems as if he may have given some false information (name, address?) when he replied to Surly Amy's original DMCA notice. Surly Amy seems to be pursuing things with the federal authorities and Elevatorgate is now worried that this may result in a jail term!
It does look like he is based in England so I'm not sure what this means for the overall situation
- can you really get extradited over such a piddling matter?
:shock:

Doubtful he could get extradited - if the US couldn't extradite Gary McKinnon (and the crimes he was accused of were about a billion-zillion times more serious), then I expect few people are going to waste time over such a piddling matter.

[drolrev0]

If you'll recall its real history, suffragette whites threw their black allies and "sisters" under the bus for the sake of expediency (i.e., votes from Southern whites). Suffragettes also resorted to bombings, vandalism, and arson; things we like to call "acts of terrorism" in modern times.

Let's stop pretending like feminism was ever about anything more noble than power and politics, shall we?

[acathode]

You have summed it up well. It's now simply easier to not use short forms for ideas (such as MRA, feminist etc.), since the labels have become so diffused, but to simply evaluate proposals on their own merit and not by a label or dogma.

I wouldn't say that the term MRA is meaningless, yet. I'm not too read up on the MRA community or movement, but the overall impression I get is that they are quite coherrant as a movement, even though ofc there always exists individual disagreement, and there's always going to be some extremists and nutjobs in any given "movement". Still, if someone label themselves as MRA, you have a rough idea at least of what kind of values the person holds. At least that's the impression I got?

Feminism on the other hand, is all over the map, you have the "general population" feminism, which simply equate feminism with the fight for equality, then you have gender feminism with it's patriarchal theory, rape culture, Schrödinger's rapist, and all that, that is firmly rooted within most of the feminism intellectuals, then you have the truly crazy rad fems, who go on about instigating gender-revolutions and then killing all the males.

If someone say that they are a feminist, you have pretty much no idea at all what the person actually believes, and if you have a discussion about feminism with the person, the number of times you will hear "I'm not that kind of feminist" or "that's not what real feminists believe" will eventually make you feel as if you're talking to a Christian apologetic.

I've tried to point out to people who simply go around thinking that "feminism is just about everyone being equal", that the only real way to collectively describe all of what is currently seen as feminism, is to describe feminism as a women's right movement. Which usually results in the person getting very angry, since that prevents them from doing the ever so popular "feminism is for everyone, patriarchy hurts men to!" move when someone points to the things MRA fights for.

[ReneeHendricks]

You have summed it up well. It's now simply easier to not use short forms for ideas (such as MRA, feminist etc.), since the labels have become so diffused, but to simply evaluate proposals on their own merit and not by a label or dogma.

I wouldn't say that the term MRA is meaningless, yet. I'm not too read up on the MRA community or movement, but the overall impression I get is that they are quite coherrant as a movement, even though ofc there always exists individual disagreement, and there's always going to be some extremists and nutjobs in any given "movement". Still, if someone label themselves as MRA, you have a rough idea at least of what kind of values the person holds. At least that's the impression I got?

Feminism on the other hand, is all over the map, you have the "general population" feminism, which simply equate feminism with the fight for equality, then you have gender feminism with it's patriarchal theory, rape culture, Schrödinger's rapist, and all that, that is firmly rooted within most of the feminism intellectuals, then you have the truly crazy rad fems, who go on about instigating gender-revolutions and then killing all the males.

If someone say that they are a feminist, you have pretty much no idea at all what the person actually believes, and if you have a discussion about feminism with the person, the number of times you will hear "I'm not that kind of feminist" or "that's not what real feminists believe" will eventually make you feel as if you're talking to a Christian apologetic.

I've tried to point out to people who simply go around thinking that "feminism is just about everyone being equal", that the only real way to collectively describe all of what is currently seen as feminism, is to describe feminism as a women's right movement. Which usually results in the person getting very angry, since that prevents them from doing the ever so popular "feminism is for everyone, patriarchy hurts men to!" move when someone points to the things MRA fights for.

*All* of this is why I no longer call myself a feminist. I've been reading up quite a bit on the MRM and, while I'm still not ready to say I'm a MRA, I'm truly seeing a lot of the hypocrisy spewed by the feminist crowd with the intent of belittling the issues men face. So, perhaps, for now, I'm sans label.

[Struth]

Has anyone seen todays post on ElevatorGates site?

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... s-misused/

He seems paranoid about legal action being taken against him by Surly Amy and may be closing down his blog and twitter account.
Reading between the lines it seems as if he may have given some false information (name, address?) when he replied to Surly Amy's original DMCA notice. Surly Amy seems to be pursuing things with the federal authorities and Elevatorgate is now worried that this may result in a jail term!
It does look like he is based in England so I'm not sure what this means for the overall situation
- can you really get extradited over such a piddling matter?
:shock:

Doubtful he could get extradited - if the US couldn't extradite Gary McKinnon (and the crimes he was accused of were about a billion-zillion times more serious), then I expect few people are going to waste time over such a piddling matter.

If it transpires he's in England, they could sue him for libel, and bleed him dry. Even if none of his statements are libellous.

What if he's 15 years old? Could they still sue him?

If they try to shut the Wordpress down, will it not just draw more attention to them?

[welch]

Has anyone seen todays post on ElevatorGates site?

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... s-misused/

He seems paranoid about legal action being taken against him by Surly Amy and may be closing down his blog and twitter account.
Reading between the lines it seems as if he may have given some false information (name, address?) when he replied to Surly Amy's original DMCA notice. Surly Amy seems to be pursuing things with the federal authorities and Elevatorgate is now worried that this may result in a jail term!
It does look like he is based in England so I'm not sure what this means for the overall situation
- can you really get extradited over such a piddling matter?
:shock:

Doubtful he could get extradited - if the US couldn't extradite Gary McKinnon (and the crimes he was accused of were about a billion-zillion times more serious), then I expect few people are going to waste time over such a piddling matter.

If it transpires he's in England, they could sue him for libel, and bleed him dry. Even if none of his statements are libellous.

What if he's 15 years old? Could they still sue him?

If they try to shut the Wordpress down, will it not just draw more attention to them?

why should they bother? It's already worked, and cost them nothing.

[Tigzy]

@Struth

If it turns out to be a civil matter, then I'd wonder where the nondescript blue-veined cheese could get the money from to pursue it, considering she couldn't scrape together the $5000 retainer the lawyers demanded when she tried - if I remember correctly - to sue Justin Vacula over that DMCA business. (at least I think she tried to sue JV; I recall her saying that the lawyers wanted that dough before they would pursue it, anyway).

[Steersman]

My morning dose of amusement from Atheism Plus: Civility is oppression!

There should be an equivalent 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things' site for this lot... SJWSTDT.

That's a gem.

A whole bunch of them over there - and just in that thread.

But what a bunch of po-mo dickheads there at AtheismPlus. Interesting and probably not very surprising that it was the infamous Setar who first said:

"Civility" is the cry of the oppressor who doesn't like it when the oppressed display how oppression is affecting them. We will not make this place more civil, thank you very much.

Which, apart from the probably unintended irony of closing with a “thank you”, has to put him into the lead in the weekly contest for the “Four legs good; two legs bad” award: a remarkable manifestation of dogma and categorical thinking – if it can be called that. While it might be quite true that some oppressors might respond that way, although many are more likely to shoot the oppressed or run over them with tanks, it is also true that civility has some utility in greasing the gears of civilized discourse, virtually a sine qua non for civilization itself.

But in terms of being some decidedly and egregiously fuzzy and problematic thinking, it also has some similarities with HaifischGeweint’s perspectives on the word “minority”:

So in other words, after reading this post, you will continue to insist on using the word minority, knowing full well that makes you complicit with what happens to this population as a result of not being willing to do anything to challenge their status by something as simple as changing the way you talk about them as a collective?

While, as she suggests elsewhere in the post, that someone is a member of a minority might tend to cause others to at least discount, with or without justification, their claims and their civil rights, it is a decided stretch to suggest that that necessarily follows in all cases and circumstances.

Seems to me that both Setar and HG – among a great many others over there in the FfTB, AtheismPlus and Skepchick ghettos – need to reflect a little more on the principle that correlation is not necessarily causation.

[cunt]

Right, well if he put the wrong name down on the DMCA he'd be in breach of the DMCA.

[cunt]

Not sure where libel comes into it. Have I missed something?