Periodic Table of Swearing

[Badger3k]

Emil Karlsson takes on Will's argument about qualtitative vs quantitative on his Debunking Denialism

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I am apathamyist.

I am confused. (no, seriously, I am)

[KiwiInOz]

Damn. Sorry. Was just playing with the apatheist discussion of the other day and created a crappy portmateau about how little I care about Amy (surly, whiney, or otherwise). I.e I certainly don't hate her, Just don't care.

[CommanderTuvok]

I am apathamyist.

I am confused. (no, seriously, I am)

Surly you're not being serious?

:D

[Badger3k]

Emil Karlsson takes on Will's argument about qualtitative vs quantitative on his Debunking Denialism

It's a good article, and has a nice conclusion which, IMO, describes the Skepchick/FftB clique:

Will does make some good points such as being a scientific skeptic does not imply that you are objective and so on, but those are outweighed by the intellectually unimpressive reasoning throughout the rest of the post.

[Steersman]

Have to say, I admire your patience in dealing with Sally Strange, Steersman.

As they say, tough job, but someone has to do it – or at least do their part. :-)

Blimmin heck, she's hard work - like trying to reason a doorstep JW out of creationism.

It is indeed. Although I have to give her at least some credit for admitting that there are some good MRA points and for having the “balls” – curious how some feminists are now deprecating that word – to engage the other side outside the echo chamber, the hypocritically “safe space”, of Pharyngula.

But I like your “doorstep JW” – rather descriptive …. :-)

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.

Good point. But illustrates the problematic nature of dogma in general and “femtheists ™” [ ;-) ] in particular – tends to get in the way of an honest assessment of the facts ....

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I am apathamyist.

I am confused. (no, seriously, I am)

Surly you're not being serious?

:D

[Steersman]

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.

While it certainly seems to me that more than a few MRAs are decidedly off-the-wall, I would say that your rather categorical “MRAs are just inverted RadFems” is a little wide of the mark: in spite of the extremists I think that some of them do have some very good points worth considering.

Although without some serious digging it’s not easy to decide whether all of the claims are more than just a bunch of “just-so” stories – seems to me that there’s some serious dogma in that movement too.

[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/

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.

It is pretty scary. But then again, I do wonder if we aren't all susceptible to these 'mass panics' in some way? I can imagine that the present concerns within the Skepchick brigades might come down to only one or two anecdotes, with the rest 'erring on the side of caution', and presuming that because such rampant sexism might exist, then it would be for the benefit of themselves and their movement as a whole to be on guard for it. From here, confirmation biases would certainly come into play - as would gossip, anecdote, and minor panics that contribute to the whole, as we saw with Dr Buzzo.

(This is not to say, of course, that there is no rampant sexism within the atheist/skeptic community. Could well be. Trouble is, there just isn't enough decent evidence to justify that asumption)

I guess we'd all err on the side of caution in this respect - say, for example, if we heard anecdotes relating to someone very much like the Halifax Slasher, who was terrorising our locale. 'Sure,' we might think to ourselves. 'There's probably nothing to it - but I'll be alert, in any case.' And from there, we get suspicious of a sound in a dark alleyway if we're out at night; we become more receptive to stories about the Slasher; we hear gossip and rumour, and it becomes so pervasive that we conclude that there's no smoke without fire, and just end up assuming there really is a slasher doing his evil work anyways.

I admit, the last time I can recall falling for a panic like this was as a kid at school, where occasional wild rumours would surface that a gang of skinheads would be waiting outside the school gates at leaving time, ready and prepared to duff up any of us kids they could get hold of. Never happened, of course; was still pretty bloody scary when the rumour was doing the rounds, though. One of the few times I didn't want school to actually end that day. :lol:

[Saint N.]

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?

No, because Martin is a hypocritical jackass. This is the same guy who back in July '11 reduced the whole elevatorgate crapfest to six words, "rebecca is right, dawkins is wrong" and said he doesn't need to hear or consider any further information (this was on the old TAE blogspot site). He also likened Abbie's hosting of the original slimepit to being aligned with stormfront. Not to mention the perpetually condescending tone in his voice whenever he addresses anybody with an opposing opinion on anything, makes it impossible to take the guy's unoriginal diatribes seriously, even on the rare occasion that I might agree with him.

He's a douche, is what I'm saying.

[sacha]

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.

That is why I cancelled my account, even though I used a fake surname. I'm not at all comfortable with that.

[Steersman]

Unfortunately, you did violate a fundamental and implicit rule although you may not have been aware of it ...

True. Although as with Pharyngulite “dogma”, I don’t see that as justification for pulling any punches. “I only regret that I have but one [avatar] to lose for my [skepticism]."

And I think I managed in the process to at least raise a few questions in the minds of a few there, among several topics, about the rather ridiculous and barbaric incongruity of Shia allowing representations of Muhammad [piss on his name] while Sunni go out and murder a hundred or more over cartoons of him. Some seriously twisted “logic” there.

Which is not to say that I do not enjoy devotional music.

Curious how the religious manage to develop that to a rather high pitch. Although that is probably a more spiritual aspect which, as you suggest with your reference to Sufism, may have more than a small amount of justification. I note that even Sam Harris is attempting to “redeem” the word “spiritual” from its somewhat sullied past association with religion.

I will put the book on my reading list.

Definitely a great book, I think; it’s even available on-line at Scribd. Interesting preface:

Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him. E. Renan

And another one you might enjoy is The Trouble with Islam Today by a Pakistani-Canadian woman, Irshad Manji. That one is also available on-line, although only in Arabic and a few other similar languages.

[sacha]

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 ….

he is hateful, and a bigot, yes, but MRA? I don't see where you draw that conclusion. That type is often anti-equality. I can't see someone like that standing up for single dads' rights, or supporting men who have been raped...

[justinvacula]

Watching the Al-Jazeera clip...

RW says that the abuse women face online is laced with an intent to "silence women." How can she possibly know this?

One of the show hosts talked about a chilling effect.
Women may feel intimidated by online trolls and such, but this is a different issue.

[windy]

"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?

Maybe Greta could also reprise her post about how inappropriate it is to compliment someone on their hair, when that person is working and not in a bar or other casual setting.

Twatson is on al-jazeera you peeps.

Dear Muslima...

[real horrorshow]

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!!

Bah, I'm not ploughing through all those comments. I know already that they'll be "Yes This;" "Yay" and "Awesome". (By the way, why is 'awesome' the only positive adjective in the Skepchick lexicon? Everything they approve of is 'awesome'. Children.)

Anyway, the point is not about quantitative versus qualitative data. It's about data and no bloody data. Where are the data of any kind about his supposedly vital issue?

Also, “the plural of anecdote is not data” is a true statement not because anecdotes are few and we nasty 'hyper-sceptics' demand many. It is true because no amount of anecdote is data. Dictionary atheist to the rescue:

an·ec·dote   [an-ik-doht]
noun, plural an·ec·dotes
1.
a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

Synonyms: story, yarn, reminiscence.

da·ta   [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
noun
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) individual facts, statistics, or items of information.

An anecdote is a story. A datum is a fact. Second or third hand accounts. 'Backchannel' gossip. E-mails no-one has ever seen (even in their hundreds). None of these things are data.

I noticed as well, in the comments I did read, that the Skepchicks are busy hunting for a handy label for arguments like mine: 'Hyper-scepticism' 'straw vulcan' 'selective skepticism' etc. Once it's been pigeon-holed and labelled, future occurrences can be bashed over the head with the term and dismissed. No thinking - sceptical or otherwise - required.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 720485.jpg

[EveryMan]

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!

Har dee har har.

Google's customers are the marketing companies they sell your personal information to. You are the product.

They want your real name because that info is valuable to spammers and telemarketers.

[Steersman]

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.

Amen to that – tends to call for a rejoinder of “Muhammad (piss on his name)” in response. The former really tends to promote or impose an unwarranted deference to and respect for the religion or the brigand who started it.

But, just out of curiosity I notice you’re in France where you seem to have much less tolerance than many countries for the shenanigans of various Muslim clerics and I was wondering how that is working out. Certainly seems to me that France has, commendably, a lot less tolerance for that than Britain has. I found it rather curious and not a little alarming to see how little respect the people on Islamic Awakening had for the laws of their host or new country. They don’t seem to realize or appreciate the fact that fractious or problematic groups have been deported in the past and can be so in the future:

Originally Posted by huehuecoyotl

... I really don't think you want to restart the Inquisition anywhere again. The depredation, conspiracy, and societal fear that went on during that time was horrendous. ...

Most certainly not, but I really don’t think the situations are at all analogous and it is alarmist at best to suggest that they are, although thanks for the book recommendation. But for example, I notice that the Wikipedia article on deportations describes a great many of them over the centuries, including that of over 3 million Mexicans from America in 1930 & 1954, along with the current deportation of some 30,000 Roma from France. And there seems to be some justification for that process in international law:

All countries reserve the right of deportation of foreigners, even those who are longtime residents. In general, foreigners who have committed serious crimes, entered the country illegally, overstayed their visa, or otherwise lost their legal status to remain in the country may be administratively removed or deported.

And while there is some question as to its applicability to citizens I would think that if push came to shove such questions might become academic as in the population transfer between Greece and Turkey in 1923.

But further to that aspect of losing one’s legal status the sine qua non of Western democracies is arguably the commitment to principles such as equality before the law, free speech and separation of church and state – all of which are entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the practice of Islam. In general if any group of immigrants wishes not to accept those principles then they are welcome to leave on their own steam. But if they wish to have their cake and eat it too then they should expect to have the Riot Act read to them with any further consequences being on their own heads. I would say that Muslims have just about worn out their welcome.

[sacha]

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

Perhaps you and Steerman should read the entire thread and catch up. It would be helpful.

Steerman, there was a long discussion in regards to Laden and the "men are just testosterone damaged women" video.

And to both of you, get over your issues with swearing and alcoholic beverages, or keep it to yourself. It's beginning to get quite tiresome.

[AndrewV69]

I assume you mean the Voice for Men site. That was largely due, I think, to arguing that feminism has had some significant benefits for society in general. The Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung argued that no nation rises higher than its women – something that more than a few have argued is the problem with Muslim societies. But that didn’t seem to go over very well there with more than a few of the regulars.

And it was probably due partly to some “testy” exchanges on the topic; interesting how many are willing and able to use “sharp” language, but aren’t quite so prepared to have it come back at them ... hypocrisy seems to be something else that is endemic ....

Depends on what you mean by benefits I guess. While feminism has provided escape valves for women who can and have made significant contributions to society as a whole, what has it done for the rest except condemn the majority of women to unhappy and unfulfilled lives?

Feminism may have freed women like Abbie Smith and Scented Nectar from traditional roles, but I am at this point dubious that it has been a net value for women and society overall, given the number of survey results that apparently show that women in general are unhappier than men, and the unhappiest are:

Female
42 years old
Unmarried
Have a household income under $100,000
Work in a professional position (i.e., as a doctor or a lawyer).

Which leads me to suspect that most women would be happier in more traditional roles, rather than the current ones that society appears bent of forcing them into.

I have not seen any surveys about men that have "dropped out" of their traditional roles but I am noticing increased reports of men who refuse to "man up" by going down the traditional route. A certain number are declining to participate. I know that having gone through one divorce, I am not going to marry again. My ex-wife was sobbing on the phone to me about she has been hard done by since the divorce. She is still a very beautiful and attractive woman (used to be a model) with a degree and employment in a professional position, but the guy she left me for dumped her after a year, and no other man wants anything to do with her. I almost feel sorry for her.

Mind you, I am also pretty dubious about the male/female surveys myself, I sense an agenda. Anyway, early days as far as I am concerned the jury is still out. We may see a verdict in a couple hundred years.

A fairly extensive and lengthy exchange over the justifications for the use of “cunt”. Futrelle eventually got “bored” with my argument even though a bunch of regulars continued to “pile-on” to me with bogus accusations of misogyny and questionable interpretations of the logic and psychology behind the word.

Ahhhh I see. Well I have a tendancy to not respond to the "trash", and if the only people responding are trash I shrug. There is no law that I have to respond.

But it is somewhat unfortunate as I think he does some good work in pointing out the more extreme segments of the MRM; and most unfortunate too that he isn’t able to see the same type of problems in the feminist one. Some very problematic polarization going on .... someone should do a Camp David thing for them the same way the White House has done for the Palestinians and the Israelis, hopefully with more success, so we can all get off the dime ....

I am going to disagree because:

a) I see him as a lightweight and I am under the impression is that he is not respected even by ordinary Feminists. My suspicion is that he is aware of that, and will not speak out beyond an approved script lest he be thrown under a bus.

b) Finding something to mock about the MRM is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Just go to Reddit. A lot of those characters though are just "duddebros" with a vague sense that they have been hung out to dry but barely comprehend why. At a minimum they have as much introspection as their female counterparts. Let us face it, most people are stupid. Yes I went there. You read it, I am not taking it back either. Go read any one of the baboon threads. A relatively high IQ will not save you from being stupid. Nor will education. PeeZuss is a good example.

[EveryMan]

While it certainly seems to me that more than a few MRAs are decidedly off-the-wall, I would say that your rather categorical “MRAs are just inverted RadFems” is a little wide of the mark: in spite of the extremists I think that some of them do have some very good points worth considering.

So do the RadFems. And the Black Panthers. And Al Queda. It's their methodology that is flawed.

We don't need any more victims and a "scorched earth" policy only alienates the moderates. And the sort of 'zero tolerance' approaches I'm hearing about have a huge potential for abuse. We've already seen the SkepChicks try to punish men they didn't like personally by labeling them "harassers".

[sacha]

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

Perhaps you and Steerman should read the entire thread and catch up. It would be helpful.

Steerman, there was a long discussion in regards to Laden and the "men are just testosterone damaged women" video.

And to both of you, get over your issues with swearing and alcoholic beverages, or keep it to yourself. It's beginning to get quite tiresome.

I did not mean to spell your name incorrectly, Steersman. My apologies.

[tachikoma]

Emil Karlsson takes on Will's argument about qualtitative vs quantitative on his Debunking Denialism

The article title "The Triumph of Modern Quantitative Science" and the first line "A cultural anthropologist named Will posted an attempt at rebutting the general argument I laid out in The Plural of Anecdote is not Scientific Evidence..." (underlining mine) made me immediately think of the Sociobiology Wars in the 70s, which cumulated with "a member of the International Committee Against Racism poured a pitcher of water on Wilson's head and chanted "Wilson, you're all wet" at an AAAS conference in November 1978" (Wikipedia). (I can't imagine E.O. Wilson moaning about how he's been "othered.")

[tachikoma]

Feminism may have freed women like Abbie Smith and Scented Nectar from traditional roles, but I am at this point dubious that it has been a net value for women and society overall, given the number of survey results that apparently show that women in general are unhappier than men, and the unhappiest are:

Female
42 years old
Unmarried
Have a household income under $100,000
Work in a professional position (i.e., as a doctor or a lawyer).

Do you happen to have links to these surveys?

a) I see him [Futrelle] as a lightweight and I am under the impression is that he is not respected even by ordinary Feminists.

Interesting! I was under the impression that online feminists (of the Marcotte, feministe variety) see him as doing a good job exposing the misogyny of the MRM. What makes you think otherwise?

[EveryMan]

It is pretty scary. But then again, I do wonder if we aren't all susceptible to these 'mass panics' in some way? I can imagine that the present concerns within the Skepchick brigades might come down to only one or two anecdotes, with the rest 'erring on the side of caution', and presuming that because such rampant sexism might exist, then it would be for the benefit of themselves and their movement as a whole to be on guard for it. From here, confirmation biases would certainly come into play - as would gossip, anecdote, and minor panics that contribute to the whole, as we saw with Dr Buzzo.

You are getting close to the root of the problem.

Men tend to think first and emote later (if at all).
Women tend to emote first and think later (if at all).

"Panic"(fear) is an emotional response. And while the object of the emotional response may be the imaginary, the emotions themselves are as real as anything.

Ever wonder why the very religious get so mad at skeptics? Its because for the vast majority of them, their relationship with God is an emotional one. So yeah, they get angry when you tell them there is nothing there. It's like saying a mother's love is imaginary.

I get pissed whenever I hear Bill Maher claim that a relationship with God is BS because a believer's brain must get some signal his doesn't. Well, that's exactly what it is (sorry Bill).

So re: "Rape-threat Rebecca", she obviously feels threatened. She gets hostile when you ask for evidence because for her its emotional knowledge. Same with SurlyAmy. She "feels" harassed; therefore she is. So they are not so much dishonest as deluded.

And fuck me if I know how to get through to people like that; or if it's even possible.

[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 ….

... he is hateful, and a bigot, yes, but MRA? I don't see where you draw that conclusion.

As I indicated in a subsequent response to Scented Nectar, I had agreed that that was not a valid inference. But I also pointed out that I hadn’t really said that he was, only that some MRAs were that way.

Although the term, somewhat like “Christian”, tends to be a nebulous target as I don’t think anyone is actually issuing membership cards in the movement. In which case one can really only go by the attributes exhibited by both the vocal and silent members of the putative group, a salient and fairly common one of which would seem to be some rather hateful bigotry.

Of course not all hateful bigots could be labelled as MRAs but, it seems to me, that the higher the percentage, the more credible or likely the inference ..... sort of a case of profiling, one might say ....

That type is often anti-equality. I can't see someone like that standing up for single dads' rights, or supporting men who have been raped.

No True Scotsman? A "Real Christian (tm)"? Seems to me that your definition, while quite credible and suggestive of sensible and worthwhile objectives, doesn't really cover those identifying as MRAs and yet who apparently hold opinions and values that are quite a bit less so, if not actually rather odious. For instance, Paul Elam whose arguments in some areas are quite credible but which in others are quite a bit less so if not actually little more than dogma and "just-so" stories.

[Steersman]

a) I see him [Futrelle] as a lightweight and I am under the impression is that he is not respected even by ordinary Feminists.

Interesting! I was under the impression that online feminists (of the Marcotte, feministe variety) see him as doing a good job exposing the misogyny of the MRM. What makes you think otherwise?

I noticed that he had a fund-drive here not too long ago and had indicated quite a solid level of monetary support. One would think that that would correlate to a fairly solid level of philosophical and psychological support as well.

[KiwiInOz]

Men tend to think first and emote later (if at all).

Unless they are in a mob.

[KiwiInOz]

So re: "Rape-threat Rebecca", she obviously feels threatened. She gets hostile when you ask for evidence because for her its emotional knowledge. Same with SurlyAmy. She "feels" harassed; therefore she is. So they are not so much dishonest as deluded.

And fuck me if I know how to get through to people like that; or if it's even possible.

They want to be listened to and validated, not have their problems solved.

I know, sacha, I know.

[Steersman]

I did not mean to spell your name incorrectly, Steersman. My apologies.

No problemo. Although I appreciate the follow-up and that at least you recognize that some things definitely are sacrosanct .... ;-)

[EveryMan]

Perhaps you and Steerman should read the entire thread and catch up. It would be helpful.

Steerman, there was a long discussion in regards to Laden and the "men are just testosterone damaged women" video.

And to both of you, get over your issues with swearing and alcoholic beverages, or keep it to yourself. It's beginning to get quite tiresome.

I have read it and have been contributing since the beginning.

I know BinLaden is crazy. The reason I got involved is because he doxxed me when I tried to get him to remove a comment on his blog naming the victim of the false "upskirt" accusation. His response was that he would leave it given "you can't libel a congressman". Given that this is not true and the victim is not a congressman, it's obvious he and reality are not well acquainted.

What I didn't appreciate was how many nitwits they had supporting them. I lost count how many unique commentators I saw slamming the JREF and DJ for what ultimately turned out to be an entirely fabricated charge.

Re: alcohol abuse. I've noted that of the three confirmed harassment incidents, two involved alcohol and the other was a false charge. And Boratina hinted to another involving booze this year. Sorry to tip your sacred cow, but this is an issue.

Re: swearing. Now that you mention it, I personally choose not to use "loaded words" (n-word, c-word) as they tend to provoke an irrational response amongst the feeble-minded. Note that I'm not judging those that chose to; rather I'm simply observing that the potential fallout simply isn't worth it. See **** **** for an example.

[EveryMan]

Men tend to think first and emote later (if at all).

Unless they are in a mob.

Not really. There is always some common idea that got the mob to organize in the first place. The mayhem comes later.

[tachikoma]

The legal definition of harassment in Nevada:

NRS 200.571 Harassment: Definition; penalties.
1. A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(1) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person;
(2) To cause physical damage to the property of another person;
(3) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(4) To do any act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or any other person with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person receiving the threat in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.

(found from the jref thread)

[real horrorshow]

My ex-wife was sobbing on the phone to me about she has been hard done by since the divorce. She is still a very beautiful and attractive woman (used to be a model) with a degree and employment in a professional position, but the guy she left me for dumped her after a year, and no other man wants anything to do with her. I almost feel sorry for her.

'Almost' eh?

[Steersman]

I get pissed whenever I hear Bill Maher claim that a relationship with God is BS because a believer's brain must get some signal his doesn't. Well, that's exactly what it is (sorry Bill).

Not quite sure what you’re getting at there. Surely you’re not saying that whatever signal a “believer’s brain” gets is an indication or proof of the existence of some god? That you’re only saying that the “signal” they are getting, the ghosts and the artefacts in their minds, is little more than a processing problem, a manifestation of aliasing? A consequence of having the cut-off frequency of their input filters set too low for the frequency of the signals they are trying to process? So to speak ....

[Steersman]

The legal definition of harassment in Nevada:

NRS 200.571 Harassment: Definition; penalties.
1. A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(4) To do any act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or any other person with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety ...

That one seems particularly problematic. How does one assess “substantial harm to mental health”? Looks like one very large can of worms; looks like it opens the door to religious anti-blasphemy laws ....

[EveryMan]

The legal definition of harassment in Nevada:

NRS 200.571 Harassment: Definition; penalties.
1. A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(1) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person;
(2) To cause physical damage to the property of another person;
(3) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(4) To do any act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or any other person with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person receiving the threat in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.

(found from the jref thread)

Here is a detailed description of one of the so-called "harassment" incidents at TAM:

http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=31

Both the accuser and the accused have posted comments.

So, obviously, what the guy did wasn't legally "harassment". He's basically socially retarded and kept trying to talk to women that didn't want to talk to him (which is annoying and rude of course).

But yeah its a bit of a gray area and I'm not really sympathetic to either party. I would be much happier if all parties involved never left their house.

I think the mistake the women made was talking to the guy at all, even if its to try and explain to him that what he is doing is rude. The socially retarded can misread cues like this and think they are joking or playing hard to get.

A better approach is to simply ignore them. Put your back to them. Don't give them any signals at all.

[EveryMan]

Not quite sure what you’re getting at there. Surely you’re not saying that whatever signal a “believer’s brain” gets is an indication or proof of the existence of some god? That you’re only saying that the “signal” they are getting, the ghosts and the artefacts in their minds, is little more than a processing problem, a manifestation of aliasing? A consequence of having the cut-off frequency of their input filters set too low for the frequency of the signals they are trying to process? So to speak ....

Absolutely not.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have someone or something in your life that you "love". It can be family, a friend, a SO, a pet, World of Warcraft, whatever.

What I'm saying is that specific feeling is both real and something unique to yourself that nobody else can ever experience. It is "emotional knowledge". That's the signal I'm talking about.

So, what I'm saying is that most "true believers" experience God via this same process. So while the feeling is real, the object may or may not be (taking the agnostic perspective).

Another analogy might be to consider someone with a phobia of spiders. You show them a box and tell them its full of spiders and they become fearful. Again, their fear is real regardless of whether there are spiders in the box or not. "Schrodinger's spiders" if you will.

[Steersman]

Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:52 pm

While it certainly seems to me that more than a few MRAs are decidedly off-the-wall, I would say that your rather categorical “MRAs are just inverted RadFems” is a little wide of the mark: in spite of the extremists I think that some of them do have some very good points worth considering.

So do the RadFems. And the Black Panthers. And Al Queda. It's their methodology that is flawed.

So, what are you saying then? That because their methodology is flawed therefore their premises and objectives are likewise? An interesting, if somewhat problematic, argument. Tends to lump them all together without making any effort to decide which parts of each are credible and which parts are not. “Kill them all; let God sort them out”?

In addition it seems tantamount to arguing that no movement is worth supporting or promoting for the same reason.

We don't need any more victims and a "scorched earth" policy only alienates the moderates. And the sort of 'zero tolerance' approaches I'm hearing about have a huge potential for abuse. We've already seen the SkepChicks try to punish men they didn't like personally by labelling them "harassers".

The problem of dogmatic political and religious systems and the consequent depredations of the “true believers”. The autobiography of the Hungarian-British author Arthur Koestler described his experiences with Communism and the title, Arrow in the Blue, suggested that sense of purpose and commitment – although it’s been awhile since I read it.

However, I don’t see how we can proceed at all without taking some things on faith; although I think the problems tend to multiply when we lose sight of that fact, that many of our premises are highly contingent. Dennett said something along that line, somewhat cumbrously, relative to science:

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

And that baggage is comprised of a whole raft of premises and assumptions: articles of faith.

[astrokid.nj]

Depends on what you mean by benefits I guess. While feminism has provided escape valves for women who can and have made significant contributions to society as a whole, what has it done for the rest except condemn the majority of women to unhappy and unfulfilled lives?
Feminism may have freed women like Abbie Smith and Scented Nectar from traditional roles ...

Andrew, are you seriously telling me that feminism is the first causal factor for "freeing women" from traditional roles (i.e basically the ability to work outside the home ). You know very well that even prior to the 60s women were working (although in restricted roles, but if we dig deeper there are logically consistent reasons for that). You know very well that older women like Phyllis Schlafly and Barbara Kay have seriously disagreed with that notion. You dont think its technological advancements that created the tertiary sector of the economy that freed people the most? Including freeing men like me who couldnt possibly survive for long as a plumber/fisherman/etc? In the 1900s, were there really jobs that women loved to do? The link below says that 44% of unmarried women were working (out of necessity I suspect), but they would drop out as soon as they got married.
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/2work8.htm

In 1900, only 6 percent of married women worked outside the home, usually when their blue-collar husbands were unemployed. Among wives with children at home, very few worked at all. Almost half of single women held jobs, but they usually stopped working when they married or, at the latest, when they got pregnant, and most never worked for pay again. About a third of widowed and divorced women worked, typically out of economic necessity. Never-married women with children were virtually unknown.

Look at the male occupations too.. in 1900s, 80% of male jobs were in the material extraction (primary sector) and material processing (secondary sector). Jobs that I as a male shudder to think of.
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/2work1.htm

[EveryMan]

So, what are you saying then? That because their methodology is flawed therefore their premises and objectives are likewise? An interesting, if somewhat problematic, argument. Tends to lump them all together without making any effort to decide which parts of each are credible and which parts are not. “Kill them all; let God sort them out”?

In addition it seems tantamount to arguing that no movement is worth supporting or promoting for the same reason.

My position is more subtle and nuanced than that.

There absolutely is a patriarchy. There absolutely is male privilege. There absolutely is rape culture.

RadFems are simply a byproduct of unhealthy behavior, like cancer.

My point is we should be trying to get beyond gendered conflict and be more concerned with human rights. This ties into my interest in "apatheism", in that the core tenet is an abandonment of dogma vs. simply reorganizing it.

[AndrewV69]

Do you happen to have links to these surveys?

The one I quoted from is this one, a pop psy puff piece:

Survey Reveals Unhappy Person Profile: She's 42, Single, and Working
Multiple conflicting roles may be root of unhappiness for many working women
Published on September 17, 2011 by Sherrie Bourg Carter, Psy.D. in High Octane Women
http://www.psychologytoday.com/collecti ... woman-woes

Here is a paper from Wharton:

Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Justin.
"The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness." The Wharton School. University of Pennsylvania. March 28, 2009. (May 28, 2009)
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/pa ... piness.pdf

Google "most women are unhappy" there is a ton of this stuff online. Remember what I said about "agendas" though. Also just for shit and giggles Google "most men are unhappy". I loved this one:

Women gain happiness from seeing their partner upset - because it 'shows their relationship is strong'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... trong.html

And this one:

Men Are Unhappy: Good News For Women?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-k ... 05669.html

It mentions the Wharton study I linked to above and:

This just in: Men are as miserable as women. At least that's what we learn from a new study by Arizona State professor Chris M. Herbst, who suggests that men's happiness has taken as big a dive as women's over the past several years.

We think that's good news.

The link they provided does not work. Try this one for all of his papers:
http://www.chrisherbst.net/Research.html


I just hope you have your own personal salt mine and the time to read all of this.

Interesting! I was under the impression that online feminists (of the Marcotte, feministe variety) see him as doing a good job exposing the misogyny of the MRM. What makes you think otherwise?

Just a feeling as I thought I had indicated. I have no proof or anything to cite whatsoever.

As for Marcotte, she disgraced and discredited herself so badly over the Duke Lacrosse business, I never read anything she had to say after that. Zero credibility.

I am not going to be surprised if she continues to commit more blunders, like the one with the "racist" illustrations in her book. Apparently she apologized and promised to change the images in subsequent editions.

This blog entry has some of the images in her book. Judge for yourself:
http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/update/

Another upset blogger:
http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/04/2 ... d-in-hand/

Because when a so-called feminist puts out a book where she shows the empowerment of white women involving rescuing a white man from the evil brown people? Yo, the boys and girls over at Stormfront have lost track of one of their members. When the editors from her press feel the need to try to silence WOC bloggers for saying a resounding Fuck You to a company that is willing to put out this shit while calling themselves welcoming to WOC writers? The sheer ridiculousness of it is choking me. Or is that just vomit?

[Steersman]

Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:39 pm

So, what I'm saying is that most "true believers" experience God via this same process. So while the feeling is real, the object may or may not be (taking the agnostic perspective).

Then I think we’re saying the same thing. Essentially the same process, by the look of it, as what takes place in various cognitive illusions, the spinning dancer for example.

However, in that case I still don’t see your objection to Bill Maher’s statement:

I get pissed whenever I hear Bill Maher claim that a relationship with God is BS because a believer's brain must get some signal his doesn't. Well, that's exactly what it is (sorry Bill).

If, as you said, the object is not real then you can’t very well then say that “the relationship with God” is real; what is real in that case then is a relationship with an abstraction, with the feeling itself: there is a difference between a set of equations – the abstraction – describing a hurricane and the hurricane itself.

Now, that, I would agree or argue, is something that both the religious and those who rely overly on “emotional knowledge” seem to have some difficulty with.

Although, relative to the issue of sexual harassment, I don’t think it is reasonable therefore to argue, as you seemed to doing or leaning towards, that all complaints of that are based on ephemeral “emotional knowledge”. For instance, that there are something like 200,000 cases of rape or sexual assault in America every year, and that there are innumerable anecdotal accounts of groping and the like, would, or should, lead even the most skeptical to think that there might be a serious and systemic problem of some sort in play. And that many women might reasonably be seriously bent out of shape at any efforts to discount and deprecate those reports – my impression from reading some of the comments at Man Boobz, among other locations ...

[Steersman]

Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:24 pm

My point is we should be trying to get beyond gendered conflict and be more concerned with human rights.

Agreed. Part of the reason for my support for equity feminism as opposed to gender feminism. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a need for the former. And once everyone’s consciousness has been raised sufficiently then the “Party” promoting that can, as did the Communist Party, simply fade away, allowing the proletariat to enter into the Promised Land of equitable relationships between the sexes ....

This ties into my interest in "apatheism", in that the core tenet is an abandonment of dogma vs. simply reorganizing it.

Rots of ruck with that. I think the evidence from the history of biological evolution is clear that species evolve and survive by adapting previously useful structures to new circumstances. Starting from scratch tends to be a very large crap-shoot; very long-odds against getting it all right .... one needs to be very careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater ....

[AndrewV69]

Andrew, are you seriously telling me that feminism is the first causal factor for "freeing women" from traditional roles (i.e basically the ability to work outside the home ).

I saw for myself when I was a small child when visiting Grandparents in the "old country" what running a household entailed without modern appliances.

One set of grandparents employed a small army consisting of two cooks, three maids, a laundress and helper, a chauffeur, two gardeners, and a stable boy. The nanny arrived and departed with me.

Washing clothes utilized a tub and hand cranked mangle, a coal fired iron and starch for shirt collars and cuffs. They were busy from dawn to dusk.

My other set of Grandparents managed just fine with a maid that came in every other day and a gardener. The difference was modern electric appliances.

<other points snipped>

My observations match yours to a large degree. The biggest staffing issues we had when I worked was that the women as a general rule, stopped working once they had a child.

Then they would drop in with the latest progeny in tow, and dammed if all of a sudden some of the other women would get the "baby rabies" themselves and bugger me if they did not manage to go off and do the same.

Over the course of twenty years Engineeering lost damm near all of it's women because they preferred to stay at home or they came back into a different position a few years later with reduced hours. Some of them said they felt that they "had" to go back to work, but then they left anyway to be a full time SAHM.

It started to percolate into my skull at that point that the majority of them did not enjoy working. They did it only because it was expected of them.

Society as a whole, with Feminism as the chief cheerleader managed to double the workforce more or less, and cut salaries in half for each worker.

So privileged women got to play at working and retire once they got preggers, but the not so lucky ones have to work, because today it takes two incomes to match a single one of the 50s.

Sounds good, especially if you are a nasty imperialistic neo-colonistic oppressor of the poor and downtrodden like me. Yes?

Not so good for the stressed out women who have to work because they can not afford to stay at home with their kids, which is where the majority apparently would rather be in the first place.

But hey! I could be wrong. This is all based on my experience with "privileged" women. I really do not have too much contact with the other classes.

[AndrewV69]

For instance, that there are something like 200,000 cases of rape or sexual assault in America every year.

Is that all? The USA has a bunch of slackers if you ask me. Here in Kanukistan:
http://www.bccf.ca/professionals/blog/2 ... inst-women

The terrible reality is that 1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually or physically abused in her lifetime. That’s 50% of all girls and women.

[youtube]Y86X8Ih2pxM[/youtube]

[rayshul]

This righteously shitted me off while at work from Wowbag https://twitter.com/WowbaggerOM/status/ ... 0145686528

That the response to 'the community has problems' has been countered with focus on individuals' appearance and gender is telling. #FTBullies

Like the old white man shit, ehhhh... very telling.

[TedDahlberg]

This keeps popping into my head…

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 735939.jpg

[rayshul]

I know a huge amount of women whose husbands stay at home to raise the kids (& lots of guys who are waiting for their wives businesses/careers to take off so they can be stay at home dads). I'm sure many of them want to stay home with their kids like you said but so do the dads!! So I guess in cases like that one parent has got to "take one for the team" and be the income provider.

On the other hand you couldn't make me stay home to look after a kid if you paid me...

[justinvacula]

This righteously shitted me off while at work from Wowbag https://twitter.com/WowbaggerOM/status/ ... 0145686528

That the response to 'the community has problems' has been countered with focus on individuals' appearance and gender is telling. #FTBullies

Like the old white man shit, ehhhh... very telling.

Isn't gender the issue that Watson and co. keep raising? ...that women are so disadvantaged in the a/s community and victims of, on some accounts, "literal threats of rape and murder?" ...that women feel so unwelcome in the a/s community?

Am I missing something here?

[TedDahlberg]

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]

Oh! I haven't heard that one in years. Thanks for reminding me, I think I might have to dig out my Best of Elvis Costello CD when I get home tonight.

[rayshul]

This righteously shitted me off while at work from Wowbag https://twitter.com/WowbaggerOM/status/ ... 0145686528

That the response to 'the community has problems' has been countered with focus on individuals' appearance and gender is telling. #FTBullies

Like the old white man shit, ehhhh... very telling.

Isn't gender the issue that Watson and co. keep raising? ...that women are so disadvantaged in the a/s community and victims of, on some accounts, "literal threats of rape and murder?" ...that women feel so unwelcome in the a/s community?

Am I missing something here?

Oh man, I didn't even think of that. No, I think the Wowbag is missing something.

A few somethings.

[justinvacula]

Commenter Setar on FTB:

This is war. There is no long and short about it, no “both sides”, no golden mean, no balance, no complexity. This is a war between those who would treat others as equals and rhetoric as a tool, and those who would treat others as subordinates and rhetoric as a weapon.

What was is that Thunderf00t said? You can't have a war on terror without a terrorist?

[rayshul]

Commenter Setar on FTB:

This is war. There is no long and short about it, no “both sides”, no golden mean, no balance, no complexity. This is a war between those who would treat others as equals and rhetoric as a tool, and those who would treat others as subordinates and rhetoric as a weapon.

What was is that Thunderf00t said? You can't have a war on terror without a terrorist?

I'm confused... which side si which?

[justinvacula]

Some what seem to be really serious allegations are being levied at Thunderf00t via Natalie Reed who is allegedly 'quitting' the a/s movement : http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... 10/all-in/

...partially because of Thunderf00t, the "Slaves Obey Your Masters" billboard, Staks Rosch (!), Dan Fincke, Paula Kirby, Mallorie N., libertarians, D.J. Grothe, Elevatorgate (!!), "The blatant misogynistic appraisals of female atheist’s worth by their appearance," because people are primarily concerned with atheism rather that social issues (?), trolls on Reddit, "and the “slime pit”, the “baboons” and “bullies” against the “REAL feminists, REAL women, REAL atheists, working for REAL goals”")

...and I get a special mention alongside Richard Dawkins and D.J. Grothe?
I'm honored!
Natalie writes, "The Movement doesn’t have a monopoly on skepticism. It barely practices it. Anyone can learn to value critical thought, doubt, hesitation, humility, honesty and questioning their perceptions and biases. And none of us need their permission. We don’t need DJ Grothe or Richard Dawkins or Justin Fucking Vacula’s seals of approval to do any of this."

Damn, what a post - I'll have to give her that!

[justinvacula]

Some what seem to be really serious allegations are being levied at Thunderf00t via Natalie Reed who is allegedly 'quitting' the a/s movement : http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed ... 10/all-in/

...partially because of Thunderf00t, the "Slaves Obey Your Masters" billboard, Staks Rosch (!), Dan Fincke, Paula Kirby, Mallorie N., libertarians, D.J. Grothe, Elevatorgate (!!), "The blatant misogynistic appraisals of female atheist’s worth by their appearance," because people are primarily concerned with atheism rather that social issues (?), trolls on Reddit, "and the “slime pit”, the “baboons” and “bullies” against the “REAL feminists, REAL women, REAL atheists, working for REAL goals”")

...and I get a special mention alongside Richard Dawkins and D.J. Grothe?
I'm honored!
Natalie writes, "The Movement doesn’t have a monopoly on skepticism. It barely practices it. Anyone can learn to value critical thought, doubt, hesitation, humility, honesty and questioning their perceptions and biases. And none of us need their permission. We don’t need DJ Grothe or Richard Dawkins or Justin Fucking Vacula’s seals of approval to do any of this."

Damn, what a post - I'll have to give her that!

All 5800+ words of it!

[AndrewV69]

Commenter Setar on FTB:

This is war. There is no long and short about it, no “both sides”, no golden mean, no balance, no complexity. This is a war between those who would treat others as equals and rhetoric as a tool, and those who would treat others as subordinates and rhetoric as a weapon.

What was is that Thunderf00t said? You can't have a war on terror without a terrorist?

I'm confused... which side si which?

LMAO. I for one am having too much fun watching drama after drama unfold!

[AndrewV69]

All 5800+ words of it!

Ahahaha! The lulz just keep coming and coming!

[Steersman]

For instance, that there are something like 200,000 cases of rape or sexual assault in America every year.

Is that all? The USA has a bunch of slackers if you ask me. Here in Kanukistan:
http://www.bccf.ca/professionals/blog/2 ... inst-women

The terrible reality is that 1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually or physically abused in her lifetime. That’s 50% of all girls and women.

Lies, damned lies and statistics ... I’d be interested in knowing where they get their numbers from as the Wikipedia article for reported rapes worldwide shows a different picture:

UN Statistics
This list indicates the number of, and per capita cases of recorded rape. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported, or which are not recorded. Nor does it specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. Nor does it take the different definition of rape around the world into account:

Country 2008 Count = 2009 Count = 2008 Rate/100,000 = 2009 Rate / 100,000
Belgium 3,111 2,786 29.5 26.3
Canada 528 491 1.6 1.5
Japan 8,693 8,090 6.9 6.4
United States 90,427 89,000 29.3 28.6