Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44161

Post by Steersman »

Lsuoma wrote:[Post 44103]
Post numbers now available, and they are hot links, so you can cut and paste to your heart's content.
Great idea – now, why didn’t I think of that one?

But, for a really awesome addition, it might be nice if the post number and link were included - somewhat like the above - automatically if one quoted a post to respond to it ….

Tkmlac
.
.
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:13 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44162

Post by Tkmlac »

decius wrote:
AnimalAndy wrote:This seems to go viral as we speak...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... see-today/

While I don't want to downplay the numbers... I really hate sloppy data analysis. If you look at how they came to this graphic, there is a lot to question...

http://theenlivenproject.com/the-challenge-of-data/

The falsely-accused data is consistent with my finds. Wrongful convictions are way lower still, not only in the US but in most Western democracies. In direct contradiction with the MRM propaganda we're seeing here, incidentally.

I don't know about the rest, I never looked into that part.
How do they get such an overwhelmingly huge number of "unreported" cases? If they're not reported, how are they getting their info? Also, I know it's harsh, but rape needs to be treated like any other crime. A claim should be supported with evidence. What we need to be doing is teaching women to get to a doctor right away, get forensic evidence and go to the police right away.

BrianAllenAptJ
.
.
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44163

Post by BrianAllenAptJ »

Reap wrote:#1 SEARCH THREAD ON MY BLOG TODAY ?

PZ MYERS IS AN IDIOT

ha ha ha what a great day!

http://reapsowradio.com/wp-content/uplo ... ation2.gif
HAHAHA Awesome you should just tag everything with that so the tag cloud entry becomes huge.

aweraw
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44164

Post by aweraw »

Al Stefanelli wrote:About a month ago I noticed nothing I posted under that account was being published. Anywhere on Reddit. Not even in the Slymepit subreddit. I've sent a gazillion PM's to various mods, but still have not gotten any reply.
I've just added you to the list of approved submitters for /r/slymepit. Give me a yell if your submissions still end up in moderation for some reason.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44165

Post by SPACKlick »

Eucliwood wrote:
SPACKlick wrote:
Now that assumption is flawed for several reasons. First, it takes a lot more proof to get a rape conviction past a jury than to get a police officer or data inspector to find a claim determined false. But even so, of the 82% of reported rapes some will be false and some will be true so graphs like the above are meaningless.
SPACKlick, trying to use the "rules" of court - "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc is pretty unfair. If that was enough, there wouldn't be people being released from prison after it turns out - surprise - they are innocent. If it can't be proven beyond a doubt, the jury simply votes on it. With the appeals the prosecution gets to abuse, I'm not surprised... first, I watched cases, read about them, and simply thought "ugh, prosecution system can play dirty!" but now I get it... sometimes all it takes is jury vote.
Not sure what the bit you quoted had to do with your response. But still the 10% convicted are significantly more likely than not to be guilty (bear in mind many of them will have been convicted based on a deal with the DA without ever seeing a court room). Those determined as fabrications are significantly more likely to have been falsely accused. This gives us a range limit of 5% - 45% of rape claims being false.

If you meant to respond the my discussion of a fair legal system, design a better one, I can certainly think of some improvements.

This is a good illustration of some of the issues

BrianAllenAptJ
.
.
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44166

Post by BrianAllenAptJ »

http://a-news.apartmentj.com/?p=832

Imma just leave this here It's the newest episode of A-News with ME, Lee Moore, Reap Paden and a smart scientist named David Orenstein.

Outwest
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44167

Post by Outwest »

BrianAllenAptJ wrote:http://a-news.apartmentj.com/?p=832

Imma just leave this here It's the newest episode of A-News with ME, Lee Moore, Reap Paden and a smart scientist named David Orenstein.
What?! No "Becky Einstein"?

codelette
.
.
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44168

Post by codelette »

windy wrote:
welch wrote:
Eucliwood wrote: You didn't strike me as such a jerk. You're acting like you have an Attack Eucliwood switch. First, you insult me, pretending like my diss is a literal question. Then you twist my last post into "accusing you of being a woman to be insulting," so that you can call me stupid again. You're a guy. Got it.
"diss"? wait, did you just really use that term? Holy fuck could you be any whiter? Do you like Bryan Adams? I bet you do.
No matter how eccentric someone is, do we really need to be using something out of ceepolk's playbook against her... :doh:
Robitussin is Eucliwood?
If that her I do how she fit better with the A+ crowd than here. She's too sensitive for this world it seems.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44169

Post by decius »

Eucliwood wrote:
SPACKlick, trying to use the "rules" of court - "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc is pretty unfair. If that was enough, there wouldn't be people being released from prison after it turns out - surprise - they are innocent. If it can't be proven beyond a doubt, the jury simply votes on it. With the appeals the prosecution gets to abuse, I'm not surprised... first, I watched cases, read about them, and simply thought "ugh, prosecution system can play dirty!" but now I get it... sometimes all it takes is jury vote.
The cases you're likely to have watched on TV are murders, aren't they?
It is perfectly possible to be convicted for murder on strong circumstancial evidence alone and occasionally in the absence of a corpse. Rape is completely different. It doesn't even make it to court without signs of violence and DNA evidence.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44170

Post by Darren »

Steersman wrote:But, for a really awesome addition, it might be nice if the post number and link were included - somewhat like the above - automatically if one quoted a post to respond to it ….
I'd also like it if the forum could make us coffee while we post. Real coffee, not the instant crap. No Mountain Dew or Crab Juice tho... I hate that stuff.

Hemisphere
.
.
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44171

Post by Hemisphere »

Turglemeister wrote:I'm imagining someone would find a way to make the bouncing seem oppressive.
Tigger warning: Talk about Tigger.

[spoiler]I am actually unable to bounce on my tail. I find that seeing images of Tigger reminds me strongly of my inability to bounce. Very upsetting for me to see his ability glorified, Tigger warnings are a necessity and should be included in convention policies.[/spoiler]

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44172

Post by Tigzy »

Darren wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, for a really awesome addition, it might be nice if the post number and link were included - somewhat like the above - automatically if one quoted a post to respond to it ….
I'd also like it if the forum could make us coffee while we post. Real coffee, not the instant crap. No Mountain Dew or Crab Juice tho... I hate that stuff.
And porn. In fact, Lsuoma could link a porn feed to replace any posts made by someone you've ignored.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44173

Post by Gefan »

ReneeHendricks wrote:For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)
Donation made.
I'd like to think that every dollar given makes Grifter Christina's shoes a little more uncomfortable.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44174

Post by Steersman »

Eucliwood wrote:[Post 43939]
mordacious1 wrote:Re: Ophelia being the barmaid. Would you drink in that bar? I personally prefer throwing up after I drink, not before or during.
sick. I wouldn't drink anything prepared by her nor hold a cup that she touched.
Yea, you would probably get cooties too. But just one more turd to fling there Eucliwood and your passage to the dark side will be complete. /sarcasm

I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive. You might want to reflect on this earlier post.

Outwest
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44175

Post by Outwest »

Darren wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, for a really awesome addition, it might be nice if the post number and link were included - somewhat like the above - automatically if one quoted a post to respond to it ….
I'd also like it if the forum could make us coffee while we post. Real coffee, not the instant crap. No Mountain Dew or Crab Juice tho... I hate that stuff.
I was thinking beer and popcorn. :)

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44176

Post by Eucliwood »

[quote="Tkmlac"
How do they get such an overwhelmingly huge number of "unreported" cases? If they're not reported, how are they getting their info? Also, I know it's harsh, but rape needs to be treated like any other crime. A claim should be supported with evidence. What we need to be doing is teaching women to get to a doctor right away, get forensic evidence and go to the police right away.[/quote]

Or anyone, really. I totally agree... there should be evidence up before it goes through.. saved money from that (and hell, as well as cutting down on other bullshit) could go to programs for counseling and goodies like that. some people don't even want to report (not talking about because they think they'll be dismissed) because they don't want to go through the court and stuff. That's what helps actual victims without throwing people in who didn't do anything. I would also prefer both of their names (well, are people's names released if they don't even want it reported? hmm) being hidden until someone is actually pronounced Guilty.

Oo... someone should invent mini recorder buttons for dangerous areas. Record everything, all day :D
SPACKlick wrote:
If you meant to respond the my discussion of a fair legal system, design a better one, I can certainly think of some improvements.

This is a good illustration of some of the issues
I don't really trust jackshit officially until I get some info on what they've gathered or the court case because of the alarming cases I've seen. One thing I can think of is to limit the appeals that're used in court... some are strong on unfair bullshit and manipulative to the witnesses (children, that mentally retarded guy that singlehandedly got the west memphis three cconvicted - people that many think are innocent.). I don't know why they're allowed. Mostly, each side should only be able to make statements based off of logic - someone can say things like, "the victim would've gone through a lot of pain," etc,...that's simple fact and logic too, but all that hyped up crap I see... hate it. If you don't know what I'm on about, I can't think of an example right now.
decius wrote:
The cases you're likely to have watched on TV are murders, aren't they?
It is perfectly possible to be convicted for murder on strong circumstancial evidence alone and occasionally in the absence of a corpse. Rape is completely different. It doesn't even make it to court without signs of violence and DNA evidence.

I'm not talking about murders, decius. I'm talking about rapes - although I've also seen bs and suspicious activity in murder cases too.. like that woman who was put on "probation" for murder cos they know they fucked up and don't want to throw her in jail.
But no, I'm talking about those cases where someone was released from prison after a decade or two of being in there.. sometimes it was because some woman pointed to them. Some people say that in those cases a lot are race prejudice - the one I'm thinking of right now involved a black guy, so perhaps so. Perhaps there was DNA evidence in those cases, but certainly not the guy they locked up.

God, I wonder how much they get in compensation?
Steersman wrote:
I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive. You might want to reflect on this earlier post.
Steersman, if that's how I feel, that's how I feel. I should be allowed to express that, as long as I've got a reason to feel that way.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44177

Post by Steersman »

Darren wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, for a really awesome addition, it might be nice if the post number and link were included - somewhat like the above - automatically if one quoted a post to respond to it ….
I'd also like it if the forum could make us coffee while we post. Real coffee, not the instant crap. No Mountain Dew or Crab Juice tho... I hate that stuff.
Post numbers & links were available in each header [Re: Periodic Table of Swearing] before too. You happen to notice whether many people used them? ….

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44178

Post by Oneiros666 »

Aaaaahahah! So, I see the "Center for Inquiry" are holding their very own A+theism conference: The "Women in secularism" conference/seminar 2013! How fun. Let's take a look at what they offer:

- Cover charge is $210. That kinda makes them shit all over poor people, doesn't it? I see they offer a reduced charge for students, but what about actual poor people? No? What's that word they use...oh yeah; they should check their privilege!

- Spakers: Ophelia Benson (*gag*), Greta Christina (remember to bring her money for shoes, people!), Melody Hensley (hm, but she won't allow anyone to hear her speak; will she? I mean, what if someone there follows Tf00t on Twitter??) Amy Roth (remember, NO fake jewellery!) aaaaand of course Rebecca Watson. It's a full house!

And what will these ladies be speaking about? The threat of religion? The need for continued focus on keeping god(s) out of government? The history of 'in God we trust' on the money? Atheist activism? What separation of church and state actually means? A judicial review of the constitution with special emphasis on the wording regarding freedom of religion? The South's continued struggle to put creationism in schoolbooks? No, no, no, no, no. None of those things. Actually, there will be no talk about atheism. Well, except nasty atheist men of course.

Here is the main topic for this $210 conference:

"Which is the best path forward? How can we best advance both women’s rights and secularism? How do we set priorities? What changes can be made to the secular movement to ensure true gender equality?"

- So...what about trans- issues? I see there are no transgendered speakers on the rooster.
- What about gay- issues? I see the only known lesbian is Greta Christina (and she's just bi-sexual).
- Any working class people represented? Just middle- class women you say? Right.
- Any senior citizens that might shed a light on how America and the West has progressed the last 50 years? Just relatively young social media users, you say? Right.
- And finally; any goddamn men? I mean, I get that a conference dedicated to equality with an emphasis on women participation might have a majority of women speakers; but 0 % men? Wow. That's arrogance on a grand scale, ladies. Not to mention hypocrisy on an unprecedented level.

I wonder how many will actually show up. Anyone want to bet?

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44179

Post by Rystefn »

Eucliwood wrote:But no, I'm talking about those cases where someone was released from prison after a decade or two of being in there.. sometimes it was because some woman pointed to them. Some people say that in those cases a lot are race prejudice - the one I'm thinking of right now involved a black guy, so perhaps so. Perhaps there was DNA evidence in those cases, but certainly not the guy they locked up.

God, I wonder how much they get in compensation?.
Nothing. They get exactly nothing in compensation.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44180

Post by SPACKlick »

Eucliwood wrote:[spoiler]I don't really trust jackshit officially until I get some info on what they've gathered or the court case because of the alarming cases I've seen. One thing I can think of is to limit the appeals that're used in court... some are strong on unfair bullshit and manipulative to the witnesses (children, that mentally retarded guy that singlehandedly got the west memphis three cconvicted - people that many think are innocent.). I don't know why they're allowed. Mostly, each side should only be able to make statements based off of logic - someone can say things like, "the victim would've gone through a lot of pain," etc,...that's simple fact and logic too, but all that hyped up crap I see... hate it. If you don't know what I'm on about, I can't think of an example right now.

I'm not talking about murders, decius. I'm talking about rapes - although I've also seen bs and suspicious activity in murder cases too.. like that woman who was put on "probation" for murder cos they know they fucked up and don't want to throw her in jail.
But no, I'm talking about those cases where someone was released from prison after a decade or two of being in there.. sometimes it was because some woman pointed to them. Some people say that in those cases a lot are race prejudice - the one I'm thinking of right now involved a black guy, so perhaps so. Perhaps there was DNA evidence in those cases, but certainly not the guy they locked up.

God, I wonder how much they get in compensation?

Steersman, if that's how I feel, that's how I feel. I should be allowed to express that, as long as I've got a reason to feel that way.[/spoiler]
Ok, I've tried, I'm now going to charitably assume that english is your second language, but could you please try to make a coherent response, reply in context of what you quote or use a sentence structure that's coherent?

I'm really struggling.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44181

Post by Karmakin »

Remember that the whole A+ thing really started with the idea that the conferences that they fly across the country (and sometimes the world) for didn't cater to them enough.

Now, I'm actually a pro-harassment policy person, (but I favor something involving laying out what toxic behaviors are and not just going by if someone "feels" harassed) but at the end of the day, the entire A+ movement is baked around a whole lot of class privilege. None of this should really be surprising.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44182

Post by Tigzy »

Steersman wrote: I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.
You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44183

Post by decius »

Eucliwood wrote:

I'm not talking about murders, decius. I'm talking about rapes - although I've also seen bs and suspicious activity in murder cases too.. like that woman who was put on "probation" for murder cos they know they fucked up and don't want to throw her in jail.
But no, I'm talking about those cases where someone was released from prison after a decade or two of being in there.. sometimes it was because some woman pointed to them. Some people say that in those cases a lot are race prejudice - the one I'm thinking of right now involved a black guy, so perhaps so. Perhaps there was DNA evidence in those cases, but certainly not the guy they locked up.
Well, a long time ago it was possible to just point fingers, not any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit#I ... ted_States

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44184

Post by Darren »

Tigzy wrote: And porn. In fact, Lsuoma could link a porn feed to replace any posts made by someone you've ignored.
I wouldn't want to have to put everyone on ignore...

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44185

Post by windy »

Darren wrote:
* Some reports suggest that only 5-25% of rapes are reported to authorities. Other suggest that close to half are reported. We assumed 10%, which is dramatic, but possible.
* Of the rapes that are reported, approximately 9 are prosecuted.
* Of the prosecuted, 5 result in felony convictions. This is across the board for all felony prosecutions, not just rape.
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
Synopsis: We pulled most of the numbers out of our arse.
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44186

Post by windy »

Darren wrote:
* Some reports suggest that only 5-25% of rapes are reported to authorities. Other suggest that close to half are reported. We assumed 10%, which is dramatic, but possible.
* Of the rapes that are reported, approximately 9 are prosecuted.
* Of the prosecuted, 5 result in felony convictions. This is across the board for all felony prosecutions, not just rape.
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
Synopsis: We pulled most of the numbers out of our arse.
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44187

Post by Darren »

Steersman wrote:Post numbers & links were available in each header [Re: Periodic Table of Swearing] before too. You happen to notice whether many people used them? ….
That wasn't a dig at your idea... I just feel bad for all the demands we put on Lsuoma ;)

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44188

Post by SPACKlick »

windy wrote:
Darren wrote:
* Some reports suggest that only 5-25% of rapes are reported to authorities. Other suggest that close to half are reported. We assumed 10%, which is dramatic, but possible.
* Of the rapes that are reported, approximately 9 are prosecuted.
* Of the prosecuted, 5 result in felony convictions. This is across the board for all felony prosecutions, not just rape.
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
Synopsis: We pulled most of the numbers out of our arse.
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.
No, 9 accused rapists, and only 5 of them are convicted felons. That's the problem only 5 people have ever been convicted of felony rape.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44189

Post by Eucliwood »

decius, this wasn't from "a long time ago." Please stop blindly trusting the system. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what the rules are.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44190

Post by Darren »

windy wrote:
Darren wrote: * Of the rapes that are reported, approximately 9 are prosecuted.
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.
That had me baffled, too. I didn't see the 9% figure, though.

It's just a really horribly "researched" chart. Crap like this only muddies the waters.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44191

Post by Eucliwood »

SPACKlick wrote:
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.
No, 9 accused rapists, and only 5 of them are convicted felons. That's the problem only 5 people have ever been convicted of felony rape.[/quote]

*lowers sunglasses*

*taps foot*

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Disappointed

#44192

Post by Mykeru »

Well, now I'm mad.

I bought a wardrobe valet so I can hang up my bike gear for a quick morning change and to have a place to hang my helmet while the light system and camcorder charges.

Didn't go so well putting it together, you can gauge my disappointment:

[spoiler]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8359 ... a206_b.jpg[/spoiler]

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44193

Post by somedumbguy »

AnimalAndy wrote:This seems to go viral as we speak...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... see-today/

While I don't want to downplay the numbers... I really hate sloppy data analysis. If you look at how they came to this graphic, there is a lot to question...

http://theenlivenproject.com/the-challenge-of-data/
That graphic is a complete lie as it purports to show a 0.2% rate of false accusations, and not the (STILL COMPLETELY WRONG) 2% rate that they claim to base their graph on.

The 2% claim is wrong and discussed in many places, including here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ape.2.html

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44194

Post by SPACKlick »

Eucliwood wrote:
SPACKlick wrote:
"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.
No, 9 accused rapists, and only 5 of them are convicted felons. That's the problem only 5 people have ever been convicted of felony rape.
*lowers sunglasses*

*taps foot*[/quote]

I guess my joke had you

*Lowers Sunglasses*

Be-foot-led

[youtube]Y5NQlpZp238[/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44195

Post by Steersman »

Eucliwood wrote:[Post 44176]
Steersman wrote:
I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive. You might want to reflect on this earlier post.
Steersman, if that's how I feel, that's how I feel. I should be allowed to express that, as long as I've got a reason to feel that way.
Yes, you are certainly entitled to feel, and express, the way you feel. Pretty much the same way Simple Flower, if I’m not mistaken, is entitled to feel the way she does about cannibalism. And the way HaifischGeweint is entitled to feel about sexual ethics.

The questions are whether those feelings are fucked and how badly.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44196

Post by sacha »

welch wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:...it creates the suspicion that donated money - which some people probably imagined would go towards essential medical treatment - is going towards fashion and in so doing she makes it less likely that people will donate the next time a real emergency occurs - to her or someone else.
Bingo. How clueless do you have to be to not assume this would happen and take steps to mitigate it?
It's all crying wolf. Everything they do is crying wolf.

Those who cry wolf have no empathy for the truly victimised.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44197

Post by Darren »

Since we're discussing it:
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
I'm not trying to be facetious, and ignoring that the 2% and 10% figures are just plucked out of thin air, but wouldn't it be proper to take into account falsely unreported rape? If they conceed that 2% of people are willing to make a false allegation to law-enforcement, you can not assume that no-one would falsely report to a non law-enforcement body (which is where I assume the unreported stats come from)...

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44198

Post by decius »

Eucliwood wrote:
decius, this wasn't from "a long time ago." Please stop blindly trusting the system. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what the rules are.

I don't blindly trust the system, nor you for that matter, but there exist procedures.

Do you have any evidence of recent rape convictions where the following was foregone and the pointing of finger deemed sufficient?
The Importance of DNA in a Sexual Assault Case
11
Preserving DNA evidence is a key tool for law enforcement’s investigation and prosecution of a sexual assault case. It is used to prove that a sexual assault occurred and to show that the defendant is the source of biological material left on the victim’s body.

Victims should make every effort to save anything that might contain the perpetrator’s DNA, therefore a victim should not:1

Bathe or shower
Use the restroom
Change clothes
Comb hair
Clean up the crime scene
Move anything the offender may have touched
Even if the victim has not yet decided to report the crime, receiving a forensic medical exam and keeping the evidence safe from damage will improve the chances that the police can access and test the stored evidence at a later date.

Learn more about the process of preserving and collecting forensic evidence.

What exactly is DNA?1

DNA is present in all the cells in our body, which determine our individual physical characteristics such as eye, hair, and skin color. DNA evidence is found in material such as blood, saliva, sweat, urine, skin tissue, and semen. DNA could potentially be found on a victim’s body (including under the fingernails), clothing, drinking glass, furniture, weapons, etc. Anything a perpetrator touches could potentially have DNA evidence on it.

DNA evidence is usually collected at a crime scene by trained investigators who make sure the evidence is not damaged. It’s important that law enforcement and investigators receive special training on the handling of DNA evidence to avoid contamination or destruction. DNA evidence can be contaminated, for instance, if it comes into contact with another person’s DNA, or is exposed to heat, humidity, bacteria, and other environmental conditions.

DNA may also be collected from anyone who was known to have been at the crime scene (the victim, responding officer, family member, or witness), as well as anyone the victim had consensual sex with in the 72 hours before the assault.

DNA evidence from the victim’s body and/or clothing is often collected at a hospital or other healthcare facility by a trained professional known as a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE). If a SANE is not available, another medical professional will collect the evidence. This forensic medical exam (“rape kit exam”) consists of collecting evidence and photographing injuries.

Medical attention will also be paid to treating injuries, testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Medications to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy and protect against HIV transmission may also be offered.
NOTE: To find a local hospital or healthcare facility that is equipped to collect forensic evidence, contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE). The hotline will connect callers to their local rape crisis center, which can provide information on the nearest medical facility, and in some instances, send an advocate to accompany victims through the evidence collection process.

What happens to the DNA?1

Once the DNA evidence is collected from the crime scene and forensic medical exam, it is either stored away or sent to the crime lab if the victim chooses to pursue a case. The crime lab will use the DNA evidence to develop a DNA profile, which will contain a certain set of identifiers or characteristics specific to this particular DNA strand. Much like fingerprints, DNA profiles are used in criminal investigations to identify individuals who might be involved in a particular crime.

Crime labs and law enforcement officials will compare DNA profiles collected from crime scenes to DNA profiles of potential suspects to see if they match. The main resource of potential suspect DNA profiles is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s nationwide DNA database system known as CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System)– a system of federal, state, and local databases that contains DNA profiles from known criminal offenders and DNA evidence from past crime scenes. A search will take place for matches between DNA profiles and the DNA found in the current case, hoping to uncover a suspect. While CODIS has a strict privacy policy (protecting information such as names, dates of birth, social security numbers of criminals to be identified), the DNA profile itself is available to examine.

Victims should be aware that even if DNA testing does identify a suspect, it does not solely prove guilt by that criminal. DNA is only part of the investigation; most crimes need other evidence to prove the case. Along those same lines, law enforcement may not be able to locate the suspect to arrest him or her, or the legal time limit for pressing charges (called the “Statute of Limitations”) may have passed.

Each person who handles the evidence (i.e., the SANE, police officer, lab technician) must keep a detailed record of what he or she did with the evidence and the precautions used to prevent its contamination. If you choose to report the crime, this documentation will prove to be very important if the case goes to court. The “Chain of Custody” shows that the evidence was handled carefully and has not been tampered with in any way.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44199

Post by Steersman »

Tigzy wrote:
Steersman wrote: I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.
You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?
I’m a strong proponent of never being the first to use nuclear weapons ….

You might want to note that that insult of mine was a “second use”, if not in response to a provocation other than a first one. In which case, I figure the insult isn't "gratuitous", but bought and paid for well before delivery ….

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44200

Post by Eucliwood »

decius wrote:
Eucliwood wrote:
decius, this wasn't from "a long time ago." Please stop blindly trusting the system. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what the rules are.

I don't blindly trust the system, nor you for that matter, but there exist procedures.

Do you have any evidence of recent rape convictions where the following was foregone and the pointing of finger deemed sufficient?

decius, no, i do not kept files of everything I read. You're free to look it up if you're actually interested in the possibility that sometimes courts don't exactly go by the rules you're speaking of. The way you replied with what procedures they *must* follow shows me you think it's fine & dandy in the rape section & there's no corruption or bullshit. Sort of like how institutionalized racism is "illegal" so it's not there anymore.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44201

Post by Steersman »

Darren wrote:
Steersman wrote:Post numbers & links were available in each header [Re: Periodic Table of Swearing] before too. You happen to notice whether many people used them? ….
That wasn't a dig at your idea... I just feel bad for all the demands we put on Lsuoma ;)
Ah, sorry about that chief. Rather difficult to read intent or who a “dig” is directed at without some hints. Although I expect I’m somewhat guilty of that at times myself ….

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44202

Post by Eucliwood »

Steersman wrote:
The questions are whether those feelings are fucked and how badly.
Steersman, you could've saved time by telling me just how MY Feelings are fucked, like theirs.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44203

Post by Tigzy »

Steersman wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
Steersman wrote: I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.
You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?
I’m a strong proponent of never being the first to use nuclear weapons ….

You might want to note that that insult of mine was a “second use”, if not in response to a provocation other than a first one. In which case, I figure the insult isn't "gratuitous", but bought and paid for well before delivery ….
Ah right. So if you didn't start it, then it's not counterproductive - right?

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44204

Post by BarnOwl »

Gumby wrote:
franc wrote: Love us or loathe us - we did good. Though we may not get much public credit for undoing the baboon empire, we would not be where we are today were it not for the sustained efforts of the entire 'pit. I think you can all buy yourselves a well earned beer and have a few moments self-satisfied of smugness.

Once that's done, it's back to the grindstone. The job's only half done.
Deserves a repost.
Definitely. Maybe there's hope.

And Undoing the Baboon Empire would be a good name for a Best of the Slymepit compilation. Or for the next thread.

Just donated to Renee's Operation Smile fund. One video of a smiling child after she or he has had the cleft lip corrective surgery is worth the entire Fluevog stock and then some. Here's one:

[youtube]odxzGDCQA9U[/youtube]

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44205

Post by SPACKlick »

Darren wrote:Since we're discussing it:
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
I'm not trying to be facetious, and ignoring that the 2% and 10% figures are just plucked out of thin air
These figures tend to come from studies where a cop/ex cop/investigator looks into rape claims made to police and sees how many are determinably false from the evidence. As I say, I've seen numbers from 1/369 to about 15%.
but wouldn't it be proper to take into account falsely unreported rape? If they conceed that 2% of people are willing to make a false allegation to law-enforcement, you can not assume that no-one would falsely report to a non law-enforcement body (which is where I assume the unreported stats come from)...
Absolutely. I know people who claim rape to their friends about cases which at the time they said "Uh Oh, really shouldn't have taken HIM home." and passed it off as errors of youth. I'm sure if you asked one of them now, they'd be sure it WAS a rape even though it was never like that at the time.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44206

Post by justinvacula »

Quick response to Zvan's blog post responding to my "Professional Victim Melody Hensley" video:

(her post, frozen to prevent tampering)
http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW

The main point of my video -- much unlike what Zvan mentions -- is the problem surrounding Melody Hensley claiming people harass her online while she continues to directly engage with the alleged harassers. Hensley, additionally, says that she blocks people and seems to assert that she wants people to leave her alone but continues to directly engage with these people. If Melody believes people are harassing her and blocks these people, why does she continue to directly engage with these people?

Zvan doesn't even bother to address this, but rather focuses on who the blocked persons are/what they do and consider them "stalkers" and "abusers" while then moving on to say that it's reasonable to distance from "abusers" ...

but doesn't address the discrepancy between Melody's complaints of harassement and seeming assertion of wanting to be left alone and directly engaging the alleged harassers.

Then she makes what seems to be an appeal to pity and continues to not address what I have to say:
It’s that “professional victim” trope again. You know, those of us who dare to say we deserve something other than abuse and say it out loud–we only do it for…money, I guess. It’s how we make our livings, of course.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't respond, but rather am posing what I see to be a contradiction between Melody's words and behavior. She can talk all she wants, but it doesn't appear to make sense for her to continue to directly engage with the people she claims to be harassing her.

Do rational people behave like this in real life? Do people who have actual stalkers or harassers continue to directly engage with them...or do they remove themselves from the situation and stop subjecting themselves to distress?

Zvan then talks about Melody's contributions to the secular community (seemingly continuing the appeal to pity) and seemingly implying that I am dismissing her contributions to the community. I'm not. That's not even something being discussed and has nothing to do with Hensley claiming people are harassing her on Twitter. Zvan, as it seems, is equivocating and ridiculously ignoring the common usage of 'professional victim' - playing word games.

Zvan then engages in personal attacks on me (nothing to do with my video or what I present) and then frames the issue as me attempting to "convince the world that a woman is overracting to sexist abuse" denying her professional contributions (a lie - I never denied her professional contributions; failure to mention something unrelated to what I am presenting is not denial).

The appeal to pity continues coupled with fantastic claims (emphasis mine): "It isn’t a game, though. Melody is being harassed and abused, not moving a ball down a field. There are people who consider this a sport, including Michael Cortese/Mykeru, whom Vacula mentions in the video, but they’re playing with Melody’s professional reputation and emotional health."

Oh, yes, the "harassement" and "abuse" against Melody is so bad that Melody continues to directly engage with people who are allegedly abusing her.... Again, there's a huge inconsistency here. Melody is under no influence whatsoever to respond to Mykeru. She can block him, move on, and never have to read what he has to write on Twitter again. Instead of this, Melody reads what Mykeru types and directly engages with him.

Finally, she says:
“Professional victim” my ass. Melody is one of the people making these movements get things done. Somebody who claims to be an activist could take some lessons. Instead, Vacula is making ad-supported videos dismissing all her important work, work from which he should be learning.
Someone who claims to be an activist? It seems like Zvan, to use her own words, and properly in this case, is denying my contributions. We can compare the activism of Hensley next to mine if she wants. Hensley, though, has a much larger platform and has, as it seems, been involved with activism much longer than me. Check your privilege!

Some old tactics from Zvan and another massive fail of a blog post.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44207

Post by decius »

Eucliwood, it's up to you to back up your extraordinary assertions, not the other way around.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44208

Post by Steersman »

Tigzy wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
Steersman wrote: I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.
You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?
I’m a strong proponent of never being the first to use nuclear weapons ….

You might want to note that that insult of mine was a “second use”, if not in response to a provocation other than a first one. In which case, I figure the insult isn't "gratuitous", but bought and paid for well before delivery ….
Ah right. So if you didn't start it, then it's not counterproductive - right?
So you would say that England declaring war on Germany following the latter’s invasion of Poland was “counterproductive”? I mean, look at all of the devastation that followed which could have been obviated if Neville – “peace in our time” – Chamberlain had had his way.

Turn and turn-about, I’ve found, tends to be far more effective; ounce of prevention and all that.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44209

Post by sacha »

codelette wrote:
Mykeru wrote:I just came from the gym, 26 minutes late, in fact.

A couple years ago we had a woman complain about how "hostile" we guys were to each other, when we were just doing the guy ribbing thing.

I can see how, in the absence of that social dynamic, someone may possibly grow up to be thin-skinned and under the mistaken impression that criticism is harassment.

And, not coincidentally, grow a big fat ass.
I think that's an AngloWorld thing. In PuertoRicoLand, both males and females make comments about your body weight and we don't roll into fetal position about the comments. People here (specially females) get all worked up because someone told them the obvious.
definitely a white US woman phenomenon, at least to that extent

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44210

Post by Eucliwood »

decius wrote:Eucliwood, it's up to you to back up your extraordinary assertions, not the other way around.
Extraordinary?! Are you serious? And no, I didn't tell you to back it up. I just told you that I don't file everything. You don't have to assume it's true, but i would appreciate it if you dropped the "rapists in jail are guilty, courts can't be corrupted" attitude. It's really scary that some people think someone being released from jail who was convicted with a total lack of evidence is "extraordinary." With the "rules" you posted, that should be really the only way to be released, in your eyes. I hate that some people think the court system is so solid.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44211

Post by Steersman »

Eucliwood wrote:
Steersman wrote:
The questions are whether those feelings are fucked and how badly.
Steersman, you could've saved time by telling me just how MY Feelings are fucked, like theirs.
I suggested a “how” in my first post which you seem not to have spent any time thinking about. Except to react by claiming some “privilege” due to having some feelings. Which I followed up by pointing out that feelings don’t necessarily mean squat.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44212

Post by Eucliwood »

Steersman wrote: I suggested a “how” in my first post which you seem not to have spent any time thinking about. Except to react by claiming some “privilege” due to having some feelings. Which I followed up by pointing out that feelings don’t necessarily mean squat.
You left a part out. - as long as there's a reason for them. Please do not leave parts out again. That was deliberate.

You had no reason to object to the insult to poor Ophelia in the first place. Shitty people get insulted. Shitty people invoke feelings of dislike in people. And sometimes, those people voice it. I have no reason to refrain from doing so.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44213

Post by decius »

"Corrupted courts" are a pretty extraordinary claim. I know of overzealous investigation agencies and prosecutors, sometimes keen on pinning unsolved murders or high-profile cases on someone. Rape isn't the type of crime that gets sheriffs or prosecutors elected, not by any stretch of the imaginations.
This doesn't mean that every convicted rapist in your country is guilty. But what you're alleging makes very little sense.

Outwest
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 am

Re: Disappointed

#44214

Post by Outwest »

Mykeru wrote:Well, now I'm mad.

I bought a wardrobe valet so I can hang up my bike gear for a quick morning change and to have a place to hang my helmet while the light system and camcorder charges.

Didn't go so well putting it together, you can gauge my disappointment:

[spoiler]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8359 ... a206_b.jpg[/spoiler]
Did you really say that about Laden's book in a product review? :lol:

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44215

Post by Tigzy »

Steersman wrote: So you would say that England declaring war on Germany following the latter’s invasion of Poland was “counterproductive”? I mean, look at all of the devastation that followed which could have been obviated if Neville – “peace in our time” – Chamberlain had had his way.

Turn and turn-about, I’ve found, tends to be far more effective; ounce of prevention and all that.
Last time I checked, there was a world of difference between, uh, declaring war on another country and throwing an insult at CommanderTuvok.

Really Steers, you do make me larf.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44216

Post by sacha »

codelette wrote:
welch wrote:
codelette wrote:
Eucliwood wrote:
They talked to him with the assumption he was a white male? How rood and racist. As for dissimilar opinions, I just can't believe codelette's opinions period, but my father might have them (ew?). He's not very good at talking my ear off though, always says general things, keeps being ambiguous then later on reveals what he meant.

Are you twelve?
"Are you high" is my usual thought, but yeah, 12 works too.
That was one of my options, the other were:
"Are you a retard?"
"Are you a magnificent troll?"
I asked the most charitable of my questions ...although, being a troll beats being a pre-pubescent child.
I asked if she had a significant learning disability the first day, but now she's occasionally spot on. If she could continue with that and get rid of the rest, she would be tolerable... of course she's a child, hasn't that been obvious since the first day?

Outwest
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44217

Post by Outwest »

justinvacula wrote:Quick response to Zvan's blog post responding to my "Professional Victim Melody Hensley" video:

(her post, frozen to prevent tampering)
http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW

The main point of my video -- much unlike what Zvan mentions -- is the problem surrounding Melody Hensley claiming people harass her online while she continues to directly engage with the alleged harassers. Hensley, additionally, says that she blocks people and seems to assert that she wants people to leave her alone but continues to directly engage with these people. If Melody believes people are harassing her and blocks these people, why does she continue to directly engage with these people?

Zvan doesn't even bother to address this, but rather focuses on who the blocked persons are/what they do and consider them "stalkers" and "abusers" while then moving on to say that it's reasonable to distance from "abusers" ...

but doesn't address the discrepancy between Melody's complaints of harassement and seeming assertion of wanting to be left alone and directly engaging the alleged harassers.

Then she makes what seems to be an appeal to pity and continues to not address what I have to say:
It’s that “professional victim” trope again. You know, those of us who dare to say we deserve something other than abuse and say it out loud–we only do it for…money, I guess. It’s how we make our livings, of course.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't respond, but rather am posing what I see to be a contradiction between Melody's words and behavior. She can talk all she wants, but it doesn't appear to make sense for her to continue to directly engage with the people she claims to be harassing her.

Do rational people behave like this in real life? Do people who have actual stalkers or harassers continue to directly engage with them...or do they remove themselves from the situation and stop subjecting themselves to distress?

Zvan then talks about Melody's contributions to the secular community (seemingly continuing the appeal to pity) and seemingly implying that I am dismissing her contributions to the community. I'm not. That's not even something being discussed and has nothing to do with Hensley claiming people are harassing her on Twitter. Zvan, as it seems, is equivocating and ridiculously ignoring the common usage of 'professional victim' - playing word games.

Zvan then engages in personal attacks on me (nothing to do with my video or what I present) and then frames the issue as me attempting to "convince the world that a woman is overracting to sexist abuse" denying her professional contributions (a lie - I never denied her professional contributions; failure to mention something unrelated to what I am presenting is not denial).

The appeal to pity continues coupled with fantastic claims (emphasis mine): "It isn’t a game, though. Melody is being harassed and abused, not moving a ball down a field. There are people who consider this a sport, including Michael Cortese/Mykeru, whom Vacula mentions in the video, but they’re playing with Melody’s professional reputation and emotional health."

Oh, yes, the "harassement" and "abuse" against Melody is so bad that Melody continues to directly engage with people who are allegedly abusing her.... Again, there's a huge inconsistency here. Melody is under no influence whatsoever to respond to Mykeru. She can block him, move on, and never have to read what he has to write on Twitter again. Instead of this, Melody reads what Mykeru types and directly engages with him.

Finally, she says:
“Professional victim” my ass. Melody is one of the people making these movements get things done. Somebody who claims to be an activist could take some lessons. Instead, Vacula is making ad-supported videos dismissing all her important work, work from which he should be learning.
Someone who claims to be an activist? It seems like Zvan, to use her own words, and properly in this case, is denying my contributions. We can compare the activism of Hensley next to mine if she wants. Hensley, though, has a much larger platform and has, as it seems, been involved with activism much longer than me. Check your privilege!

Some old tactics from Zvan and another massive fail of a blog post.
You didn't actually expect a fair assessment of your video, did you? She, like some of the others, write in an echo chamber and those that refuse participate are denigrated and dismissed, the evidence presented ignored.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44218

Post by sacha »

welch wrote:
Eucliwood wrote:
welch wrote:

I'd ask if you're naturally that stupid, but I don't care. I'm not here to explain everything to you. Use your head. you know what that is, it's that lump of shit approximately three feet above your ass.
Looks like welch has joined the bandwagon. Well, Ms. Welch, it was a diss, and with that, a rhetorical question. I didn't expect you to respond with a literal answer, and definitely not with an attitude. Lose the attitude, and read between the lines.
Why wasn't your mother more into anal and facials.
hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44219

Post by AndrewV69 »

Turglemeister wrote: All good points, although I don't think the WHO see poverty as relative. I imagine there is a methodology to determine whether someone is poor. Lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter etc. You were not poor my friend, not by a long shot. This is akin to the first world problems mewled about by the femtards.
Of course I was not poor. I did not feel poor for one second. As a matter of fact, I was very amused that a school boy of 15 who owned eight horses and had several adult employees (stable hands, cabbie) at age 15 considered himself poor.

Especially as his net private income in a single term exceeded the annual income of three masters combined. Did I mention I was amused? Well I certainly was. Never stopped him from moaning about how unfair it all was though.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#44220

Post by Eucliwood »

decius wrote:"Corrupted courts" are a pretty extraordinary claim. I know of overzealous investigation agencies and prosecutors, sometimes keen on pinning unsolved murders or high-profile cases on someone. Rape isn't the type of crime that gets sheriffs or prosecutors elected, not by any stretch of the imaginations.
This doesn't mean that every convicted rapist in your country is guilty. But what you're alleging makes very little sense.
Oh my god, are you serious? Since when is corruption in courts an extraordinary claim? How ignorant can you get? You'd probably choke if you actually paid attention to cases. Don't eat food if you ever start considering the possibility and paying attention. "Oh my god, they unjustly imprisoned X? *chokes* That's CRAZY" "Oh my goood, someone tampered with something? what the hell!" "Oh my god, they are bullshitting with 'psychological tests' and using children as Easier Conviction tools? *spittake*"

I don't have time to read shit I've already read or know in scholarly journals, which is probably what you'd need to even begin the possibility of an "extraordinary" reality. You need a dose of it first hand. I'm not wishing a LONG imprisonment on you.. maybe a few days or something. You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

Locked