Periodic Table of Swearing

[CommanderTuvok]

Mabus, didn't I tell you that after channeling PZ Myers, Myers told you to "go fuck yourself with a rusty porcupine, without lube".

Well, what are you waiting for. Run along, now...

[Michael K Gray]

...Yes, a lot of people in the A/S movement HATE YOU.

I don't think that is even vaguely accurate.
Replace "HATE YOU" with:
* pity you
* feel desperately sorry for you
* wish that they could retroactively correct your profound social retardation
* want to open your eyes to the real world
...etc.
¿HATE YOU? ¡No way, José!

[DW Adams]

It's not Mabus

[decius]

Yes, a lot of people in the A/S movement HATE YOU.

I'd be worried if that were the case. Hate shouldn't be dispensed too cavalierly. She is someone with issues, who has joined a movement defined by critical thought methodology, of which she doesn't even understand the basic principles, and therefore can't cope with it. She isn't one of the conscious hijackers, to be sure.

[justinvacula]

New post by Massimo Pigliucci
"The Community of Reason, a self-assessment and a manifesto"
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com. ... sment.html

Massimo lists some 'bizarre beliefs' in the atheist/skeptic community including

Feminists are right by default and every attempt to question them is the result of oppressive male chauvinism (even when done by women). These are people who clearly are not up on readings in actual feminism (did you know that there have been several waves of it? With which do you best connect?).

He also lists 'positive models'

To begin with, are there positive models to look up to in this endeavor? Absolutely, and here I will name names, though the following list is grossly incomplete, both for reasons of space and because some names just happened not to come to mind at the moment I was typing these words. If you are not listed and you should be, forgive me and let’s amend the problem in the discussion thread. So here we go: Sean Carroll, Dan Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, D.J. Groethe, Tim Farley, Ken Frazier (and pretty much anyone else who writes for Skeptical Inquirer, really), Ron Lindsey, Hemant Metha, Chris Mooney, Phil Plaitt, Steve Novella (as well as the other Novellas), John Rennie, Genie Scott, Michael Shermer, Carl Zimmer, and many, many more.

...and suggestions to improve [discourse]:

Turn on moderation on all your blogs, this will raise the level of discourse immediately by several orders of magnitude, at the cost of a small inconvenience to you and your readers.

Engage your readers and your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster. Few people deserve to be put straight into insult mode (Hitler and Pat Robertson come to mind).

Remember what the objectives are: to learn from exposing your ideas to the cross-criticism of others and in turn help others learn to think better. Objectives do not include showing the world how right and cool you are.

He's just asking to be the Witch of the Week (again) :p
Go Massimo!

[Notung]

He didn't list the Skepchicks as positive role models? MISOGYNIST!

But yeah, good stuff from Pigliucci (anyone remember his debate with Kent Hovind on InfidelGuy?).

[Michael K Gray]

I have never been a 'fan' of Pigliucci.
Not by any stretch.
In fact the reverse.
Massimois the type-sample of the pointless philosopher who is marking time until his demise by pretending to think hard about irrelevant bullshit, and who KNOWS IT.
And thereby must ejaculate a deepity or seven, by which to sell books.
Far too prone to follow easy (short term) path for my liking.
Pigliucci is a waste of space.

And that he includes in his positive male rôle models that egregious viciously slimy lying turd cunt Chris Mooney is sufficient trigger for me to discount his diatribe, irrespective of how much of it with which I might agree.
Now, that is skepticism: Rejecting a confirming bias.

[Scented Nectar]

Exactly!
They have a mismatch between their target victims, their target income providers, and their stated policy.
A recipe for chronic bureaucratic mayhem.

Whoever pushed for their attempt to force a public real life name connection on internet users, must be an idiot. I expect there were target audience pseudo-analyses write-ups/presentations involved, filled with bullshitese rather than anything even closely related to what the target user/customer actually wants. Ugh!

[justinvacula]

I have never been a 'fan' of Pigliucci.
Not by any stretch.
In fact the reverse.
Massimois the type-sample of the pointless philosopher who is marking time until his demise by pretending to think hard about irrelevant bullshit, and who KNOWS IT.
And thereby must ejaculate a deepity or seven, by which to sell books.
Far too prone to follow easy (short term) path for my liking.
Pigliucci is a waste of space.

And that he includes in his positive male rôle models that egregious viciously slimy lying turd cunt Chris Mooney is sufficient trigger for me to discount his diatribe, irrespective of how much of it with which I might agree.
Now, that is skepticism: Rejecting a confirming bias.

Ah, you seem to have fallen victim to

Philosophy is useless armchair speculation.

:)

I've learned a great deal from Massimo and find his writings, podcasts, and debates to be very valuable. Unlike many other bloggers and podcasts out there, there is a large educational component to his work.

[Lsuoma]

Yes, a lot of people in the A/S movement HATE YOU.

I'd be worried if that were the case. Hate shouldn't be dispensed too cavalierly. She is someone with issues, who has joined a movement defined by critical thought methodology, of which she doesn't even understand the basic principles, and therefore can't cope with it. She isn't one of the conscious hijackers, to be sure.

I agree: she's just a boring, whiny fuck.

[Git]

My real name, and even my address and phone number, are things that many on the internet know about me already. But, those were all consensually given by me, and with an understanding that it's not what I go by publicly online. What pisses me off about G+ is that they demand that name, and demand that you be known as that name on G+. Fuck that. I already have an internet name that I've been well known as for many years (on that same internet where G+ exists). I can't use it on G+ because I don't happen to use it in real life (the non-internet real life where G+ doesn't exist). I don't consent to Google trying to change my online name to become what my offline name is.

I solved that problem by using a Gaelic translation of my name.

Other languages may be suitable for your needs.

[Guest - Bill the Cat]

1)

3) For anyone who is even vaguely 'into' the Marx Brothers, and their personal history, YOU MUST BUY the thick brick that is "HARPO SPEAKS".
Must!
The Groucho Letters are so thoroughly bowdlerised that they are only good for browsing whilst on the dunny.
HARPO SPEAKS lays it all bare, from go to whoa.
Utterly captivating.
I have had at least 4 copies, and lent them to various friends who refused point-blank to give them back, it is that good.
I do not have a copy any more, as last I enquired it is out of print, but I imagine that a copy might be part exchanged for one's soul on eBay these days...

4) Why does 'Surly Amy' wish to kick donkeys?

A quick search yields Amazon has it for $12.37

(Yeah yeah - I'll register....)

[real horrorshow]

From PZ's "Oh, I cheesed off Sam Harris post:"

Let’s complete the total sellout. Since I am now a notorious and unscrupulous opponent of all that is Sam, I will turn it over to you: there is currently a competition to raise money for Camp Quest. I’m falling far behind. If you think I’m on the side of Goodness and Righteousness, donate to Team PZ’s Revenge. If you think I’m full of it and adore Sam Harris, donate to Team Awful Re-defeat PZ, that gang of 13 bloggers (we’re all evil!) who have teamed up to conquer sad, lonely, isolated me.

Sam could really teach me a lesson by making a big donation to Team Awful. A good trouncing would show everyone how pathetic my influence actually is.

Did this strike anyone as really, really odd and perhaps inappropriate to the extent of "If you don't donate you're a bad person?"

It's a lot worse than "If you don't donate you're a bad person". It's PeeZus trying to hijack Camp Quest for another round of his argumentum ad populum. "Fly my pretty 'boons, fly to your wallets. Prove that I am the best sceptic on teh Interwebz with your money. Buy me the validation I crave."

[Tigzy]

More crass hypocrisy from Myers and his 'horde'. Really, I don't know why I'm still surprised to encounter this sort of thing when it comes to them; next up: I express surprise at finding I cast a shadow on a sunny day.

Anyways, here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments - Myers says this:

All the cool kids are going to Skepticon, so if you’re not, you’re not cool

At which another commentator responds:

rogiriverstone
8 August 2012 at 9:15 pm

I’m “NOT COOL???” I live in ABJECT POVERTY in rural New Mexico! Half my $700/mo income goes to live in a PARKING LOT in a 30 foot travel trailer, without running water IN THE DESERT! I’m NOT COOL????? What kind of elitist, snobbish bullshit is this??? You are offering full scholarships? Not to young, middle class people whose parents can afford to send them to college, but to disinfranchised & under-represented people like me?? NOT COOL??? Class snobbery is not cool! We’re not all affluent white dudes.

Oh dear. Someone didn't get PZs little joke. Still, it happens. After all, as the baboons frequently say, intent isn't mag- oh.

smhll
8 August 2012 at 9:24 pm

I think PZ was just trying to give a playful poke in the arm, not a punch to the gut. :)

Happiestsadist
8 August 2012 at 9:27 pm

Rogi, I see your cluelessness covers a variety of fields. The joke went whistling over your head.

Happiestsadist
8 August 2012 at 11:16 pm

Huh, I’m broke, in another country, and far away at that. And yet, somehow, I am not turning a joke into a whine about my plight.

And so on and so forth...to the point that PZ chimes in (emphasis mine):

PZ Myers
9 August 2012 at 8:42 am

When I promote a convention, I will say things like “you should go”. I’m not going to imply you shouldn’t.

The “not cool” remark was a joke. A 100,000 people will read that; only a few hundred will actually attend. The majority who know of the event will not attend for reasons of poverty, scheduling conflicts, or because they just aren’t interested. It does not imply that I think 99.9% of the readers here are uncool, or that I’ve singled out any one reader as not cool. Also, if you follow the link to the Reddit thread, it’s a bunch of nerds posting sans pants. I thought it would be obvious that this is a joking version of “cool”.

But...but...*consults baboon freethinking rulebook*...intent isn't magic, right PZ? Right guys? It's not Rogi's fault that she didn't see the humour in PZs little joke, right? Because if it was her fault, then that would be victim blaming, right...right...guys?

[tachikoma]

But...but...*consults baboon freethinking rulebook*...intent isn't magic, right PZ? Right guys? It's not Rogi's fault that she didn't see the humour in PZs little joke, right? Because if it was her fault, then that would be victim blaming, right...right...guys?

rofl

In other social justice "safe spaces" I can see this easily turn into one long drawn-out fight about classism...

[EveryMan]

Yes, a lot of people in the A/S movement HATE YOU.

I'd be worried if that were the case. Hate shouldn't be dispensed too cavalierly. She is someone with issues, who has joined a movement defined by critical thought methodology, of which she doesn't even understand the basic principles, and therefore can't cope with it. She isn't one of the conscious hijackers, to be sure.

I agree: she's just a boring, whiny fuck.

Hate implies there is or was some sort of emotional involvement.

[bhoytony]

Her complaining about "You should be embarrased is absolutely hilarious. Apparently, it's OK for her to tell that to Sharon Hill, but it's not OK for people to wear 'fake jewelry' with that phrase. I wonder if the 'fake jewelry' wearer, if this 'fake jewelry' existed*, intentionally parodied that tweet. Probably not, but that would be interesting if so.

* A JREF poster said a 'fake Surly-Ramic' with an elevator was worn. I haven't seen independent confirmation of others, though.

A lot of you have been implying that these fake copies of Amy's jewellery didn't exist and that the reason she won't post her evidence is because she doesn't have it. I think you'd all better get ready to eat some humble pie. Here's evidence of the counterfeit operation in action.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nuwTmRvCnms/T ... 00/G7a.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CT2YEQhChxc/T ... 400/G6.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dOVMKfFpE2M/T ... 400/G7.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7SiMbvNXeK4/T ... 400/G9.jpg

I think apologies are in order.

[bhoytony]

There is one instance of it happening literally that I count among The Best Things I Have Ever Heard. And that is that supposedly Groucho Marx danced the Charleston on Hitler's "grave" (the site of the bunker I believe), after finding out that the Nazis had destroyed the Jewish graves in his mother's home town. It's not so much that I find it funny, but rather an entirely appropriate reaction.

This brings to mind one of my favourite songs, Tramp The Dirt Down by Elvis Costello. Elvis sings about how he wants to live long enough to tramp the dirt down on Maggie Thatcher's grave. Personally I'd piss on it.

[youtube]K-BZIWSI5UQ[/youtube]

[sacha]

Yes, a lot of people in the A/S movement HATE YOU.

I'd be worried if that were the case. Hate shouldn't be dispensed too cavalierly. She is someone with issues, who has joined a movement defined by critical thought methodology, of which she doesn't even understand the basic principles, and therefore can't cope with it. She isn't one of the conscious hijackers, to be sure.

I agree: she's just a boring, whiny fuck.

Best description yet

[Steersman]

New post by Massimo Pigliucci ... Massimo lists some 'bizarre beliefs' in the atheist/skeptic community including

You may have seen this post by Massimo several years ago which probably explains why PZ Myers was not [that I saw] on his list of “positive models”:

PZ Myers is a witless wanker who peddles Pablum

No, not really, but I got your attention, yes? On the other hand, these are precisely the words used by PZ in a recent post, aimed at criticizing Michael De Dora’s observations about a recent debate in Knoxville, TN on the wording of a biology textbook.

Let me start with a full disclosure: Michael is a friend, and of course one of the contributors to this blog. But this post has little to do with that, it deals with the substance and the tone of PZ’s remarks, both of which are highly relevant to the quality of discourse within the atheist community (currently, pretty low), something I deeply care about.

First the form. PZ’s post reads like it was written by an intemperate teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage. Among other things, he calls De Dora “witless,” “wanker,” “wishy-washy,” and “sloppy-thinking”; he accuses Michael of engaging in “cowardly intellectual dishonesty” and of using a “quisling” approach. So that we are crystal clear on just how low these ad hominem (a logical fallacy!) attacks go, let me refresh your memory about the dictionary definitions of some of these terms: ….

If PZ thinks that this sort of language belongs within any thoughtful writing about rational discourse, he really needs to look up the dictionary definitions of rational, thoughtful and discourse. Then again, it is precisely this sort of theatrics that apparently makes him so popular, as nothing gets people’s attention on the internet so much as shouting as LOUDLY as possible, regardless of the vacuity of what one is actually saying.

Apart from the rather egregious hypocrisy of Myers’ use of wanker – which looks rather like a group insult to me – I think the passage underlines Massimo’s subsequent conclusion:

I am often told by my non-activist friends (pretty much all of whom are agnostics or atheists themselves) that the problem with the new atheism is that it looks a lot like the mirror image of the sort of fundamentalist rage that we all so justly abhor. I always shrugged at this accusation as being overblown and missing the point, after all we — unlike them — are on the side of reason and true human compassion. Now I’m not so sure.

[Tigzy]

Have to say, I feel bad for Natalie Reed here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... isgusting/ - the guy who did that to her is a pig. Vile, nasty pig.

[EveryMan]

Similarly with privilege: apart from the difficulty of pinning down who has more privilege than whom and in which circumstances, there is the fact that as those with various attributes – who might happen to be on the low end of the totem pole – organize they tend to wind up with additional privileges which tend to be open to further abuse. Capitalism and unions for example.

This is why in contemporary gender studies (it's not just for wymyn anymore!) the concept of social privilege is much more generic. What's happened amongst the more enlightened in academia is that they've realized that portraying women as disadvantaged and men as "privileged" actually reinforces the patriarchy. Which really isn't surprising when you think about it. A more academic/scientific approach is to view gender roles as influenced by biology, specifically sex hormones. Men and women are merely different, not better/worse.

Unsurprisingly, old-school gender feminists are fighting this tooth and nail. This is why old ladies like Orwellia and reGreta are so desperately recruiting the young and ignorant, like Becky, Amy and Boratina.

[Steersman]

Have to say, I feel bad for Natalie Reed here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... isgusting/ - the guy who did that to her is a pig. Vile, nasty pig.

Yea, definitely a bunch of dickheads and hateful bigots in the MRM, although the “disease” is no respecter of sex or philosophy or “ism” of one sort or another ….

Getting more and more difficult to tell the white hats from the black hats, the good guys from the bad ….

[EveryMan]

Have to say, I feel bad for Natalie Reed here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... isgusting/ - the guy who did that to her is a pig. Vile, nasty pig.

Right. I live in a LGBT neighborhood. Rainbows everywhere.

One of my best friends was murdered by a transexual that had fetish about murdering a 'cis' gendered couple and being sent to a women's prison (which he got, as he was legally female). While unquestionably I considered this a hate crime, given cis-gendered folk are not considered a privileged and protected social class, it was not prosecuted as such.

Nor did this make the news. It was barely reported at all, in fact.

Contrast with the case at Rutgers where a gay teen commits suicide after having an argument with his straight roommate and it's reported nation-wide.

I see young families badged and bullied with the epithet "breeders" constantly. I've seen "butch" lesbians physically assault "lipstick" lesbians. In fact, I've seen all manner of horrid infighting within the LGBT community. They aren't any different than anyone else.

It's a free country (for now). Part of that is while you have the freedom to dress like a girl, everyone else is just as free to be disgusted by it. I'm not personally, but that's my choice. And of course, you are free to call that guy a vile, nasty pig.

And btw, despite being heterosexual I've been called a "fag/queer" by ignorant rednecks more times than I can remember. Usually shouted out a window of a pickup truck with very big tires.

Who gives a shit. I'm not going to let my mental/emotional state be dictated by white trash.

[Scented Nectar]

Yea, definitely a bunch of dickheads and hateful bigots in the MRM, although the “disease” is no respecter of sex or philosophy or “ism” of one sort or another ….

Getting more and more difficult to tell the white hats from the black hats, the good guys from the bad ….

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

[Scented Nectar]

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming, to bring you the Latest YouTube Mix.

[Scented Nectar]

Git, I know I could fake a real name, but I won't on a matter of principle. They shouldn't be asking people for that.

[Steersman]

A more academic/scientific approach is to view gender roles as influenced by biology, specifically sex hormones. Men and women are merely different, not better/worse.

Makes a lot of sense to me, although many seem to think otherwise. For instance, there was a video posted here recently by Scented Nectar during which [at about 1:18 into it] the author pointed to some “blatant anti-male comments” and illustrated that with some “academic” saying something to the effect (to the best of my transcribing abilities) that:

... the human brain is a female brain that’s been damaged by testosterone at very early stages of life ....

... although in the case of some MRAs one is tempted to give some credibility to the argument ...

Unsurprisingly, old-school gender feminists are fighting this tooth and nail. This is why old ladies like Orwellia and reGreta are so desperately recruiting the young and ignorant, like Becky, Amy and Boratina.

Interesting, though disconcerting, phenomenon. Sort of reminds me, not that I ever really followed all of the byzantine intricacies, of the Stalinists versus the Trotskyites. Or the culmination in the Night of the Long Knives battle for power by the various factions of the Nazi Party.

For instance, I notice that one of the watersheds dividing feminism is the issue of pornography on which Greta Christina has, apparently, a very different perspective from Sally Strange as indicated in the latter’s rather strange sally:

SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant says:
22 February 2012 at 1:51 am

Shorter Steersman: Bitch was askin’ for it, cuz bitches be crazy.

Got any more idiotic sexist stereotypes to spew asshole? That was a rhetorical question.
I’m sure you do. Fuck off and spew them elsewhere.

Which was in response to my skepticism about the motivations of the woman who has two vaginas and was subsequently offered a “role” in a pornography film. While the issue is a decidedly complex one, a rather hasty and categorical characterization, and one based on diddly squat in the way of evidence, of one’s interlocutor as a “spewer of sexist stereotypes” – aka misogynist – looks to be more a part of the problem than part of the solution ….

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

@Steersman:

I've been webless for a few days and just brought meself up to date, hence the late response to something you said a few days ago about the use of language by Baboons n' Pitters. The difference is that terms like wankstain, cunt etc are just generalised insults and are not used (by us Slyme types) as anything other than an expression of dis-something-or-other. MRA is actually a label with a specific meaning (although many of is were quite surprised to be labeled as such as we didn't know what the fuck it meant) and was used as a precursor to banning, and/or to mark someone out as being a target not worthy of debating. If I were to call you a shithead it wouldn't be because I was marking you out as a target for a witch-hunt.

You are right that FfTB porcupine offers are not rape jokes/threats, but the point is that they are way worse than some of the things they were inflating into threats as an excuse to ban.

[Tigzy]

It's a free country (for now). Part of that is while you have the freedom to dress like a girl, everyone else is just as free to be disgusted by it. I'm not personally, but that's my choice. And of course, you are free to call that guy a vile, nasty pig.

If it comes down to being openly appalled at how someone else dresses, then yeah, I reckon vile, nasty pig is apt enough.

In this instance, I'm guessing the pig didn't make his feelings known through tears, however.

[Scented Nectar]

More vids of youtubers' reactions to Zomgitscriss' new FfTB style feminism:

[youtube]SjUnbT0yjE4[/youtube]

[youtube]Av11JVOxhMI[/youtube]

[Steersman]

Yea, definitely a bunch of dickheads and hateful bigots in the MRM, although the “disease” is no respecter of sex or philosophy or “ism” of one sort or another ….

Getting more and more difficult to tell the white hats from the black hats, the good guys from the bad ….

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

Sorry, I probably wasn’t as clear as I should have been. Wasn’t really saying that he was, only using the incident along with a bit of ellipsis – somewhat misplaced or unclear – to point out or argue that dickheads and bigots are regrettably rather common in that movement as is the case with feminism as well – as you and Everyman (recently) have also pointed out.

But, just out of curiosity and in passing, I recently read an article on your blog where you were, I think, characterizing some Skepchicks as “femitheists” which I remember thinking was somewhat incongruous given their supposed commitment to skepticism. Any particular reason for that synthesis?

[Scented Nectar]

Yea, definitely a bunch of dickheads and hateful bigots in the MRM, although the “disease” is no respecter of sex or philosophy or “ism” of one sort or another ….

Getting more and more difficult to tell the white hats from the black hats, the good guys from the bad ….

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

Sorry, I probably wasn’t as clear as I should have been. Wasn’t really saying that he was, only using the incident along with a bit of ellipsis – somewhat misplaced or unclear – to point out or argue that dickheads and bigots are regrettably rather common in that movement as is the case with feminism as well – as you and Everyman (recently) have also pointed out.

Both movements have some extremists at the fringe, although I've seen more misandry among feminists than misogyny from MRAs. The ones who post here are pretty decent people (=egalitarians rather than wanting unequal rights).

But, just out of curiosity and in passing, I recently read an article on your blog where you were, I think, characterizing some Skepchicks as “femitheists” which I remember thinking was somewhat incongruous given their supposed commitment to skepticism. Any particular reason for that synthesis?

The word I coined, 'femtheist', was over the last couple of months stolen by an extremely crazy youtube separatist radfem, who added an 'i' to the word and called herself FemitheistDivine. She was a nutter calling for male mass suicides, forceable castration, public male humiliation, and murder of most males. She pretended to be dead for a while, faked an obit and all, while pm'ing me as her fake best friend with what she hoped would prod me into making another vid of her. She publicly admits she loves all attention, bad is as good as good. When I wouldn't bite, she got pissed off, and then she flagged an old vid I did about her for privacy. I had to take the vid down in order to save my channel. Now she's once again flounced after her other real life name and the Arkansas town she lives in has become known. Proven with arrest pics and names from her local newspaper.

Anyways, did I mention that I am pissed off that she fucked with my new word 'femtheist' by adding an 'i' and conflating it with some religion she was starting with her as god. I kid you not. Most insane, over the top feminist I've ever seen. In her departing blogpost, before taking down her blog and youtube channel, she claimed that the whole thing had been a joke. I hope so, otherwise she should seriously be locked up for a psych eval at the least, or something.

[Scented Nectar]

Forgot to mention, this is the definition I have for femtheism. It explains what you asked about skepticism.
[youtube]RjXdfTqaJgk[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

Blimey O'Reilly! Daniel Fincke is still gassing on about his comments moderation policy. The cynic in me is beginning to wonder if he's realised he's getting a lot of hits out of this.

Cos really, it's simple, Dan. If you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, then simply say you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, and that you'll ban anyone who uses them. Simple as that. You really don't have to go to such lengths to explain it to your commentariat, you really don't. Those that disagree with your policy will either leave or get banned. Those that agree will stay and be happy. It'll work itself out, Dan. Really, it will.

[justinvacula]

Blimey O'Reilly! Daniel Fincke is still gassing on about his comments moderation policy. The cynic in me is beginning to wonder if he's realised he's getting a lot of hits out of this.

Cos really, it's simple, Dan. If you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, then simply say you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, and that you'll ban anyone who uses them. Simple as that. You really don't have to go to such lengths to explain it to your commentariat, you really don't. Those that disagree with your policy will either leave or get banned. Those that agree will stay and be happy. It'll work itself out, Dan. Really, it will.

I see a great deal of good coming from these posts. Dan is, although perhaps not intentionally, challenging a great deal of the horrid behavior that is common place in some sections of FTB which is fundamentally at odds with critical inquiry. Good for Dan.

[Tigzy]

Blimey O'Reilly! Daniel Fincke is still gassing on about his comments moderation policy. The cynic in me is beginning to wonder if he's realised he's getting a lot of hits out of this.

Cos really, it's simple, Dan. If you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, then simply say you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, and that you'll ban anyone who uses them. Simple as that. You really don't have to go to such lengths to explain it to your commentariat, you really don't. Those that disagree with your policy will either leave or get banned. Those that agree will stay and be happy. It'll work itself out, Dan. Really, it will.

I see a great deal of good coming from these posts. Dan is, although perhaps not intentionally, challenging a great deal of the horrid behavior that is common place in some sections of FTB which is fundamentally at odds with critical inquiry. Good for Dan.

To me, he's giving the impression that he's protesting just a little too much, which may lead certain of the Pharygulites et al to believe they might actually have a point. Many times I've seen a Pharygulite dismiss some hapless sap with a 'if you don't like the way PZ does things on his blog, then fuck off. Blogs aren't democracies, blah blah' - so it'd be nice to see 'em get a taste of their own spew for once. Still, it's Dan's blog, and if he wants to talk...and talk...and talk...and talk about it, I guess it's up to him.

[justinvacula]

Blimey O'Reilly! Daniel Fincke is still gassing on about his comments moderation policy. The cynic in me is beginning to wonder if he's realised he's getting a lot of hits out of this.

Cos really, it's simple, Dan. If you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, then simply say you don't like insulting epithets on your blog, and that you'll ban anyone who uses them. Simple as that. You really don't have to go to such lengths to explain it to your commentariat, you really don't. Those that disagree with your policy will either leave or get banned. Those that agree will stay and be happy. It'll work itself out, Dan. Really, it will.

Dan says,

Those participating in safe spaces can use harsh emotionally charged words against their enemies (words like “bigots” and “misogynists” and “homophobes” and “authoritarians” and “irrational”) or detail the moral or intellectual failings of their opponents in any of a number of highly specific and devastating ways capable of substantiation and rational evaluation by their opponents.

I am at a loss as to what is necessary about calling someone a “douchebag” or “stupid” or an “asshole” that adds anything more to those harsh words except hate and denigration and incivility. I can understand the need to not put up with the bullshit standards of an unjust majority. But why should that include jettisoning the standards of basic civility and not just what is homophobic, racist, religious, misogynistic, transphobic, classist, etc. within it? I will return to answer some reasons given for this in my reply to Objection 7.

This is commonplace at FTB. In fact, Ashley Miller recently authored a post in which she quite dogmatically asserted that all people who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots and maintained this in light of my posing a counter-example [defeater]. If you're not a bigot on FTB for merely disagreeing, you're a 'tone troll,' a 'JAQoff' (I was called this on Ashley's post), a 'derailer,' and questions of your honesty come into play. Deal with the objections and stop questioning the motives of a person. If we hope to progress in our thinking, we should deal with detractors and welcome worthy challenges. These terms of 'bigot,' 'sexist,' 'douchebag,' etc. are not conducive to a discussion and really have nothing to do with the arguments at hand.

There is a danger that any group bound by a shared moral, political, and personal identity becoming self-righteous and hateful. We see this with religions, which are strongly oriented around moral beliefs. I fear it is unhealthy to so demonize one’s opponents that one cannot adhere to any civil restraints in language and characterization of them or interpersonal verbal treatment of them.

...and this is the problem with PZ, Ophelia, Zvan, and Jason - they are very much self-righteous and hateful in many occasions. They demonize their opponents on many occasions rather than actually dealing with the objections at hand (and I have been a victim of it in many instances). Opehlia absolutely refuses to have a civil discussion with me concerning feminism and her 'threats' even though I have extended the opportunity to her multiple times and will still honor it. She just persist in name-calling and makes excuses...but she's quite happy to complain about my podcast and attack my integrity instead.

This blog is also different from a “safe space” in that I frequently raise questions about fundamental values for philosophical investigation and debate, rather than merely assume them. I often argue passionately in favor of progressive values and my own unique brand of moral realism. But in the comments section people are regularly going to raise fundamental questions that in normal spaces would be offensive or psychotic, but which in a philosophical context have a vital place.

People like Ophelia, PZ, Zvan, and Jason just can't deal with these fundamental objections. Instead of actually dealing with the arguments at hand, they often heap abuse on their detractors and ignore what's being said.

If in everyday life someone told you they didn’t see why slavery or murder were truly wrong, you would rightly be aghast and worry you were dealing with an evil person.

PZ and co. see their detractors as 'evil people' in many respects. They can't understand nuance in many cases or understand that their can be disagreement on issues. PZ even goes so far to make libertarians and republicans [even if they are in agreement with secular values] unwelcome and does not appreciate them in the secular movement (just look at the treatment of Edwina Rogers).

I am not a dogmatist who wants to bully people emotionally into agreement or an authoritarian who wants people to be forced by law into submitting to values that their consciences are never rationally persuaded of.

...this is how PZ and co. come off as.

I am wholeheartedly confident in my values and my beliefs about the world because I have developed and scrutinized them rationally. And I am wholeheartedly confident about the value of debate about these values and beliefs because I trust that fair debates, grounded in reason and evidence (including the evidence of harms and emotional effects) and conducted with genuine civility really do lead to a greater understanding of the truth and of justice. I am convinced that if I debate, any incorrect beliefs or values I have can be set straight.

...and this is how it should be. The intellectually virtuous person, I believe, should be able to defend ideas and should welcome dissent as an opportunity to progress.

You know, if people like Ophelia came over here and posted (which she can, of course do), I don't think fellow 'pitters would hurl abuse at her - but rather would actually respond to her ideas and have an honest discussion. While there is language in here and some people might not like that, I have 'faith' that many people here would be civil in a different context or otherwise with the people we constantly disagree with. This was demonstrated in the chat logs of my podcast. A caller, EllenBeth Wachs, spoke of how she saw 'bad people' or something similar in the chat room, but there was nothing but civility in the discussion I led and in the chat room.

I really enjoy posting here because people are willing to wrestle with commonly accepted ideas and challenge that which is often simply assumed to be true. While there is language here and there, there's good discussion and beliefs I hold are often challenged by a group of people I haven't engaged with before. It's too bad that the language seems to keep people away or otherwise leads them not to participate. Keep at it :)

[Steersman]

Forgot to mention, this is the definition I have for femtheism. It explains what you asked about skepticism.

Thanks.

But quite a reasonable argument, I think. Reminds me of various creationists who argue that people like Francis Collins can be both credible scientists and Biblical literalists. Which, of course, only proves that we all have our blind spots, some of us being more aware of that than others. Suggests some necessity there, if only for survival, for having some willingness to consider the perspectives of others ... tends to provide some additional depth, so to speak ....

But that femtheism of yours is, as you suggest, essentially a case of dogma, of “just-so” stories, something that at least the infamous Sally Strange, as a prototypical and self-identified “radical feminist”, seems to have some difficulty with:

SallyStrange July 16, 2012 11:55 PM

I've never seen a credible claim that "dogma" is a word that is remotely applicable to feminist theory and ideology. A single example will, of course, negate my judgment. Feel free to present your best example.

Though maybe not surprisingly she never did respond with a rebuttal of, much less a concession to, the examples that I subsequently provided ….

[CommanderTuvok]

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

I was going to suggest that perhaps the jerk knew she wrote on the FfTB network, and thought that was "disgusting". But I doubt it, he was probably just a complete bigot, and even Baboons don't deserve to get nasty, hurtful comments while walking down the street.

[Tigzy]

Have to say, I admire your patience in dealing with Sally Strange, Steersman. Blimmin heck, she's hard work - like trying to reason a doorstep JW out of creationism.

I like the fact that she accused you of hyperskepticism, despite being completely hyperskeptical herself as regards Dr Buzzo's motives in relation to his camera.

'He seemed creepy and I don't think he was there with the monopole camera just to take shots of himself with other people. No siree...'

[EveryMan]

Makes a lot of sense to me, although many seem to think otherwise. For instance, there was a video posted here recently by Scented Nectar during which [at about 1:18 into it] the author pointed to some “blatant anti-male comments” and illustrated that with some “academic” saying something to the effect (to the best of my transcribing abilities) that:

... the human brain is a female brain that’s been damaged by testosterone at very early stages of life ....

... although in the case of some MRAs one is tempted to give some credibility to the argument ...

MRAs are just inverted RadFems. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't have any numbers but my feeling is that the reasonable/rational is slowly gaining ground within the gender studies community. The problem is that the extremists are of course the most vocal. The moderates tend to mind their own business.

[AndrewV69]

Well then you’re one-up on me as phar as Pharyngula goes – I was only ever let out once, briefly, before being put back along with the rest of the reprobates where we are apparently destined to rot for ever .... :-)

Ahhh.. well I was never let out actually. I re-registered using a different IP address. I could repeat this almost infinitely except there would be no point, and I would be getting TOR ip ddresses banned to boot.

As for Islamic Awakening, my “crime” was not being properly deferential to Allah; one would have thought he would have been big enough not to have given much of a rat’s ass over my puny criticisms. Probably says more about the psychology of the believers than his existence. But, more specifically, FYI and as a point of reference for you during your commenting there:

You have been banned for the following reason:

You crossed the line between open debate and insulting Allah. We can handle debate but we're not prepared to host your snide remarks and open insults to Allah that you include in your posts. You might want to taper any future approach to Muslims.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

I have had a bit of exposure to the culture during my formative years, and while the majority were Christian Arabs and secular Muslims no one, as far as I was aware of, would ever say anything that could be construed as disrespectful. This was a secular mid-eastern society and the only person I knew in it who had actually read the Koran was a Portugese Jew.

Unfortunately, you did violate a fundemantal and implicit rule although you may not have been aware of it:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f21/ ... ions-1846/

1. Adhere to correct Islamic Adab (etiquette) while discussing or debating issues.

Although, to be fair they were probably glad that you did and justified the ban. And to be equally fair, under their rules, the ban really was justified, although if you were a Muslim you probably would have been rebuked and given a warning first. Or, if you were a woman several warnings, irrespective of being a Muslim or not.

Even in Islam, believe it or not, despite all else what is written, and what you may have heard, women frequently do get what is crudely termed a "pussy pass". The exceptions tend to make the news in Western society.

I doubt that I will ever be banned on the grounds of insulting Allah (swt) or Mohammed (saw) or the Companions (ra). This is a habit though, that may lead some Muslims to assume that I am one also (I recently had an email asking if I really was non-Muslim).

- SWT means Subhana wa t'ala: Glorified and Exalted is He.
- SAW means Sallalahu aleyhi wa sellim : Peace be upon him.
- RA means Radhiallahu 'anhu : May Allah be pleased with him.

But, just out of curiosity and based on a later comment or two of yours, are you a “true believer” yourself or are you some sort of apostate or secular Muslim? Part of the reason I ask is I had just finished reading Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not a Muslim – highly recommended, by the way – and had used that as the basis of several of my posts there which, you probably won’t be surprised to learn, did not cut a lot of ice. Have you heard of or read the book yourself?

I have never been a believer. I was raised Catholic and I remember at my 1st Holy communion, walking down the aisle at age seven, knowing I did not believe in any of it. I have been a natural Atheist my entire life. It has never been an intellectual choice on my part.

Which is not to say that I do not enjoy devotional music. For example, when I watched the movie Jodhaa Akbar the song Khwaja Mere Khwaja sent chills down my spine:

[youtube]Pam8tXa6pkM[/youtube]

(Incidentally this is Sufi music and as such is haram (forbidden) to many Muslims just on those grounds. This song may also be considered shirk (Polytheism) by the traditionalists because, while it praises and requests intercession by a Saint, it comes too close for comfort to rivalling Allah (swt) for them to be comfortable with it.

I will put the book on my reading list. It will have to wait as I have not finished re-reading the Qur'an (my 2nd copy. The Imam I discussed the 1st. version I had, did not like it and gave me one he preferred).

I am going to respond to the rest of your post in separate pieces because I do not want to make one huge one.

[Guest]

Jerry Coyne reports on "cool" heroes of the NASA Mars mission. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... asa-dudes/

One of them, "Mohawk Guy" even received this tweet from a woman:

"Marry me? You are my ideal man. i.e.: smarter than me with better hair."

This seems to me similar to the email that Tracy Harris of The Atheist Experience received from some fan asking if she is single. The question is: will Martin Wagner cry rage tears over this incident and subject everyone to a "girls don't do that" post?

[Steersman]

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

… and even Baboons don't deserve to get nasty, hurtful comments while walking down the street.

Quite agree and nice to hear you say that.

Although I wonder about your qualification of “while walking down the street”. Does that mean you think “disgusting” would be ok to use on blogs such as this but not in “meat-space”? And, just out of curiosity, would you not think that the former at least is equivalent to the use of, for example, “shitstain”?

But while I don’t think that “nasty, hurtful comments” are necessarily beyond the pale – being of the opinion that the “sticks and stones” aphorism has some utility even if Ophelia Benson herself is less than enamored of the idea – I tend to the view that they should be used more judiciously than many people are accustomed to – for one thing, overuse tends to wear-out their effectiveness.

However, I think the point in that incident, as indicated in Natalie’s blog post, is that those “nasty, hurtful comments” were accompanied by her being spat on. Which is definitely beyond the pale and which should be considered an assault for which that “vile, nasty pig” should have his ass nailed to the wall.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if the expression of it can be problematic for any number of reasons, to cross the Rubicon into overt physical attacks of one sort or another is something that needs to be anathematized in no uncertain terms.

[Tigzy]

Why are you assuming that the guy who sneered at Natalie was an MRA?

… and even Baboons don't deserve to get nasty, hurtful comments while walking down the street.

Quite agree and nice to hear you say that.

Although I wonder about your qualification of “while walking down the street”. Does that mean you think “disgusting” would be ok to use on blogs such as this but not in “meat-space”? And, just out of curiosity, would you not think that the former at least is equivalent to the use of, for example, “shitstain”?

But while I don’t think that “nasty, hurtful comments” are necessarily beyond the pale – being of the opinion that the “sticks and stones” aphorism has some utility even if Ophelia Benson herself is less than enamored of the idea – I tend to the view that they should be used more judiciously than many people are accustomed to – for one thing, overuse tends to wear-out their effectiveness.

However, I think the point in that incident, as indicated in Natalie’s blog post, is that those “nasty, hurtful comments” were accompanied by her being spat on. Which is definitely beyond the pale and which should be considered an assault for which that “vile, nasty pig” should have his ass nailed to the wall.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if the expression of it can be problematic for any number of reasons, to cross the Rubicon into overt physical attacks of one sort or another is something that needs to be anathematized in no uncertain terms.

It should be noted that 'shitstain' type epithets as regards people like Greg Laden, P Z Myers et al are often offered in response to the content of their character as it comes through in their own writings and - in the case of Laden - their nefarious real world dealings. The vile, nasty pig who hurled abuse at Natalie Reed did so simply on a brief appraisal of her physical appearance. As a racist might do, for example, when they see a black person.

[Tigzy]

Hmmm. Someone called Will has written a piece over at Skepchicks praising the value of qualitative data as opposed to quantative data: in other words - yes, your anecdotal claims to there being a sexual harassment problem in the skeptic/atheist community can indeed be classed as decent evidence for the fact that there is a serious sexual harassment problem in the skeptic/atheist community! Cool or what!!

http://skepchick.org/2012/08/a-cult-of-quantity/

But...I don't think he is aware of the strange incident of the Halifax Slasher

Nor even The London Monster - though to be fair, that was a while ago.

Nor even, perhaps, The Mad Gasser of Mattoon

[astrokid.nj]

Even in Islam, believe it or not, despite all else what is written, and what you may have heard, women frequently do get what is crudely termed a "pussy pass". The exceptions tend to make the news in Western society.
...
Which is not to say that I do not enjoy devotional music. For example, when I watched the movie Jodhaa Akbar the song Khwaja Mere Khwaja sent chills down my spine:

Impressive stuff Andrew. Having lived next to a muslim community for 10+ years in my younger days, and having grown with several muslim friends, I know exactly what you are talking about.
I know you left a reference to an interesting domestic blog for me several weeks ago.. Its on my TODO list. Never enough time.

MRAs are just inverted RadFems. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Damn.. you nailed it there, didnt you EveryMan. Keep up the good work.

Twatson is on al-jazeera you peeps. Take that you uppity James Onen.
[youtube]0LDK09vhtfI[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What happened to Natalie was wrong. Plain wrong, she didn't deserve that.

I don't "hate" Amy, she wasn't even on my radar before a couple months ago, at most. She's probably just angry her business is not working as planned. Tough luck!

Can we cut the crap with all that (swt) business? It pisses the shit out of me (for reasons). This is not a Muslim forum, and I don't give a shit about Allah or his pals.

And yes, my concern is noted, thanks!

;) <--- that's for ya, MKG, Sacha, Franc...

[CommanderTuvok]

Although I wonder about your qualification of “while walking down the street”.

Well, that's what Natalie was doing, wasn't she?

Does that mean you think “disgusting” would be ok to use on blogs such as this but not in “meat-space”?

Nope. Not in the conext used by that man.

And, just out of curiosity, would you not think that the former at least is equivalent to the use of, for example, “shitstain”?

No I wouldn't.

But while I don’t think that “nasty, hurtful comments” are necessarily beyond the pale – being of the opinion that the “sticks and stones” aphorism has some utility even if Ophelia Benson herself is less than enamored of the idea – I tend to the view that they should be used more judiciously than many people are accustomed to – for one thing, overuse tends to wear-out their effectiveness.

Again, Steerboy, your concern is noted. Don't go all Justicar on us, please.

However, I think the point in that incident, as indicated in Natalie’s blog post, is that those “nasty, hurtful comments” were accompanied by her being spat on. Which is definitely beyond the pale and which should be considered an assault for which that “vile, nasty pig” should have his ass nailed to the wall.

Exactly, the "disgusting" comment was part of a display of bigotry, and like most sensible people, I'm against bigotry. Calling people shitstains for Baboon-type behaviour and hypocrisy is not comparable.

[CommanderTuvok]

Twatson is on al-jazeera you peeps. Take that you uppity James Onen.
[youtube]0LDK09vhtfI[/youtube]

Ahhh, but has she got a badge!

More importantly, does she say anything contructive? Actually, don't bother to answer - the answer is she doesn't.

[EveryMan]

Nor even The London Monster - though to be fair, that was a while ago.

Well, to be fair a guy was just caught doing this.

http://gawker.com/5876170/serial-butt-s ... re-rejoice

[CommanderTuvok]

Let me just qualify the "hate" comment.

My own feeling is that I don't hate Amy personally, although I do "hate" the fuss and commotion caused by such trivial nonsense. Like many others, I find Amy to be rather unimportant, but her recent blabberings are just yet another example of the crazed hyperparanoia that the Baboons have induced into their followers.

[Tigzy]

Nor even The London Monster - though to be fair, that was a while ago.

Well, to be fair a guy was just caught doing this.

http://gawker.com/5876170/serial-butt-s ... re-rejoice

Indeed. But the point is not so much as to whether or not there was a genuine incident at the core of the widespread alarm, but that the alarm - as illustrated in my examples - can conflate the situation to the point of conflating a problem far in excess to the actual problem in hand (if indeed there really wass a problem in the first place). In the case of the Halifax Slasher, there very probably wasn't a slasher at all. In the case of the Mad Gasser, some researchers do believe that a small number of incidents were genuine. But in the end, the unfounded panic surrounding the situation actually had a detrimental effect to the investigation as a whole (from wiki):

By the September 12, local police had received so many false alarms (mostly from citizens believing that they smelled gas, or that they had seen a prowler) that they reduced the priority afforded to gasser reports and announced that the entire incident was likely the result of explainable occurrences exacerbated by public fears, and a sign of the anxiety felt by women while local men were on war service.

[EveryMan]

Hmmm. Someone called Will has written a piece over at Skepchicks praising the value of qualitative data as opposed to quantative data: in other words - yes, your anecdotal claims to there being a sexual harassment problem in the skeptic/atheist community can indeed be classed as decent evidence for the fact that there is a serious sexual harassment problem in the skeptic/atheist community! Cool or what!!

http://skepchick.org/2012/08/a-cult-of-quantity/

To support your point, I'll link to reGreta's now infamous expose' of upskirt photography at TAM:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... king-shit/

I hadn't read the comments until just now. Holy. Fucking. Shit. Indeed.

I had no idea how insane these people were. 300+ posts and only a handful of posters expressed any sort of proper critical thinking or ethics/morality. May favorite was the twerp that imagined four possible scenarios, all bad. I guess suggesting a fifth, "nothing happened" scenario would be "hyper-skepticism"?

Unbelievable. These people are dangerous. The thought of them on a jury terrifying.

[Badger3k]

What happened to Natalie was wrong. Plain wrong, she didn't deserve that.

I don't "hate" Amy, she wasn't even on my radar before a couple months ago, at most. She's probably just angry her business is not working as planned. Tough luck!

Can we cut the crap with all that (swt) business? It pisses the shit out of me (for reasons). This is not a Muslim forum, and I don't give a shit about Allah or his pals.

And yes, my concern is noted, thanks!

;) <--- that's for ya, MKG, Sacha, Franc...

She's not angry, she's surly

sur·ly   [sur-lee]
adjective, sur·li·er, sur·li·est.
1. churlishly rude or bad-tempered: a surly waiter. Synonyms: sullen, uncivil, brusque, irascible, splenetic, choleric, cross; grumpy, grouchy, crabby.
2. unfriendly or hostile; menacingly irritable: a surly old lion. Synonyms: threatening, malevolent.
3. dark or dismal; menacing; threatening: a surly sky. Synonyms: ominous.
4. Obsolete . lordly; arrogant.

Some of those definitely fit, but for now, Whiny is more appropriate (or Whingy for those overseas). I too don't hate her. Hate implies feelings that are a bit strong. I feel a bit of contempt, perhaps, but mostly just feel sorry for her. She's just a pathetic adolescent. Maybe if she matures, and then goes into some hateful stuff, then something stronger might be appropriate. Dislike is probably better than disgust - she's not worth even that effort, though.

[Tigzy]

'can conflate the situation to the point of conflating a problem far in excess to the actual problem in hand'

Ugh. No literary prizes for that one. Apologies. Hopefully, my meaning is clear anyways.

[KiwiInOz]

I am apathamyist.

[CommanderTuvok]

In case anybody didn't previously know, the Skepchicks and FC5 crew are such bastions of the skeptic movement that skepticism simply does not apply to them.

Hypocritical shitstains. Sorry, steerboy.

[KiwiInOz]

In case anybody didn't previously know, the Skepchicks and FC5 crew are such bastions of the skeptic movement that skepticism simply does not apply to them.

Hypocritical shitstains. Sorry, steerboy.

Skid marks on the underpants of skepticism?