Periodic Table of Swearing

[ReneeHendricks]

For clarification, I should point out that in the past (in a magazine article interview), I've stated that it's a male dominated field (IT). But never that I or any other woman I have been acquainted with in the IT field have been treated horribly.

Just thought I should put that out there since FTB asshats tend to take what I say and twist the fuck out of it.

[John Brown]

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

I don't think people who feel empowered or in control go on shooting rampages. May also be pretty simplisitic to suggest that every incident has a single root cause. I'd probably blame the accessibility of weapons and poor understanding of managing mental health issues, myself.

What the fuck does "glorification of violent masculinity" even mean? Is that like "glorification of heavy metal music?" or, "glorification of violent video games?" or "glorification of pornography?" or "glorification of atheism?" or "glorification of homosexuality?" or "glorification of (insert catchy phrase here because I'm confused like everyone else and want a simple answer that will fit my pre-conceived notions about the world?)"

I mean, come on! The phrase "glorification of violent masculinity" in relation to a school shooting if fucking meaningless. It's jibber-jabber. It's fucking woo. This is complete emotionalism run rampent.

[AndrewV69]

In passing, you might want to suggest to franc that he should update his signature, specifically the assertion that “smilies are for reetards". Possibly to “smilies are generally for reetards”. Or “only reetards overuse smilies” – although that sort of puts Andrew in the docket. But either of those – or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Or admit that, periodically at least, he acts like a “reetard" himself. Particularly as there seems to be plenty of evidence for the latter case, even apart from his own use of them ….

Sorry Steers :naughty: but I could care less, and I mean that in a good way. I also doubt that Franc really cares that much either.

:moon:

I hardly thought that you would much care about “being in the docket” - I only brought it up as a case-in-point. Although I had thought you might at least raise an eyebrow over franc’s apparent hypocrisy – particularly since the concept seems to be the soup de jour …. People in glass houses and all that ….

Now now Steers... when Franc does it I take it as him having a bit of fun seeing as what is in his sig and all. Kind of hard to miss the humour even for an aspie like me.

But! Somone could ask him! Novel concept I know, but I would imagine he is the expert when the subject is himself.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Is this a stealth attempt by franc to get Ophelia to kick herself in the cunt?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 08/b3ta-21

[Al Stefanelli]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

Few things, Steers...

First, am I to understand that you agree owning a gun or being in favor of owning firearms somehow correlates to misogyny, military fetishization, toxic levels of entitlement that are bizarrely out of step with reality, etc.? Just clear this up, because Josh, Official Spokes Asshole is pretty much batshit crazy, himself. Or, for that matter, do you believe owning a gun or being in favor of owning firearms to be a form of entitlement and privilege?

Second, when, exactly, did I say there were no flaws in the system? I've spoken out about this many times. It is in my blogs, in my books and in videos I've made, one of which is still up on my YT Channel. I've stated there are problems with the system and that some regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional.

As well...

The issues that should be addressed are complicated, such as the ease of which illegal modifiers can be purchased and most of all, the inadequacy within our society for trained professionals to identify AND sequester for treatment those who exhibit sociopathic and psychotic behavior that could lead to situations like this. However, this can be problematic because it involves where the line is drawn with respect to a person's right to live unmolested because they are eccentric and being taken into custody for being mentally unstable enough to warrant being pegged as a threat to society.

Was the death toll higher in Connecticut because a gun was used and not, say, a knife, like the attacks in China today? Well, yes, that much is obvious. You can kill more people with a gun than a knife, and you can kill demonstrably more people with automatic weapons. You can kill even more people with a car, and even more with high-end explosives, and still even more with an airplane.

Do I have the answer? No, I don't. Obviously, this is a very complicated issue that touches on the right to privacy, the right to own firearms, the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, and, of course, the right for a parent to expect their children will get through the school day without being murdered.

Point of fact, the shooter was one fucked up individual who had been marked as 'troubled.' So, while situations like the tragedy today should give anyone who favors gun ownership and is a student of critical thought some pause to reflect, reconsider and re-evaluate their positions (whether or not they change their mind is irrelevant), the issue is not with the majority of gun owners who are sane and quite responsible.

Yes, there needs to be viable solutions presented. I totally understand that it might seem logical in these times of extreme emotional duress to call out for guns to be banned for a variety of reasons presented by those who oppose them. Some of those who oppose gun ownership have very good arguments, and they deserve consideration when they are presented in clear, concise and statistical way. If we dismiss their arguments simply because we don't agree, then perhaps we are not being skeptical.

However, the utterly nonsensical and moronic bullshit that is contained in the image I posted is not one of those arguments. It's all kinds of fucked up and exhibits the type of mentality that is typical of extremists of any kind. Batshit crazy.

[AndrewV69]

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

I am amazed. Are you really pulling a Nerd of Redhead on me?

ROFLMAO! Steers! Humor mutherfuckuer! Do you not grock it!

[somedumbguy]

(snipped)...women are apparently treated so horribly in IT.

Wait. We are? Where have I been the past 18 years while all this "horrible" stuff was happening to my gender in IT??

Apparently so. It's not my experience either in a couple of decades of software development where I've had many women bosses, women lead programmers, women co-workers, but apparently it is so in all the hot startup towns, and especially in San Francisco and the Bay Area of all places.

So much so that women need the white knights at HackBright to offer their services (for $7,500 per student) exclusively to women. And so much so that journalists at TechCrunch and other SJW think this is a swell idea.

My guess is if we offered those classes only to men, suddenly like a 16 ton weight dropped on their heads, they would figure out this might not be legal.

[rayshul]

Jason Thibeault discusses it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ten-weeks/ and of course he thinks it's a great idea, because of course, "It’s for women, to give them a place to learn without stereotype threat or brogrammer culture stifling them."

As expected many of his commenters cannot even begin to see how this is even discriminatory, though some that do, justify it because women are apparently treated so horribly in IT.

That's pretty fucked up. I hate these kinds of women-only programmes. And shouldn't they learn with men to teach them how to deal with this whole broculture? You're not going to get women-only companies, for fuck's sake. (That said, and to avoid future accusations of hypocrisy, I am for discrimination when it comes to class/finances - if you make under 50k or so a year, you should get programs and assistance like that to give you more opportunities. But that's kinda where I draw a line. HEH.)

Oddly I've worked in IT for about 14 years and have never encountered brogrammer culture or whatever. IT definitely has its own culture but I've always found it pretty welcoming of everyone... your expertise is valued. (Was just discussing that actually at our work Xmas party.) Of course and I'm saying this a lot lately, YMMV. If you have a fucked up work environment, I think that might be a problem with your company, not the sector in general. Or maybe I'm just completely immune to that kind of thing? I don't know. Maybe I am. Lots of IT women here, I'm sure you can tell me different. That is afterall pure ANECDOTE.

[cunt]

Fuck it. Why the fuck do I know about this school shooting in america? Hey psychos, did you know that you can achieve international fame instantly by gunning down a few dozen innocent children.

[BarnOwl]

Latest reports indicate that the shooter had an (as yet) unspecified personality disorder.

Also:

The weapons used in Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman, Adam Lanza, two law enforcement officials told NBC News.

Under Connecticut law, the shooter was too young to purchase firearms.

[Brain Box]

I am assuming this means they should of been locked away in a gun safe where he shouldn't of been able to get them?

Latest reports indicate that the shooter had an (as yet) unspecified personality disorder.

Also:

The weapons used in Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman, Adam Lanza, two law enforcement officials told NBC News.

Under Connecticut law, the shooter was too young to purchase firearms.

[murtzuphlus]

Steersman,

There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

And since I offered it as an analogy to pointing out the hypocrisy of PZ and company – "helping people think through their own logic" – I might reiterate Mykeru’s cogent and topical example (although Rystefn provided one equally as good):

Someone who isn't gay and doesn't use illegal drugs who condemns homosexuality and drug use may be wrong on those issues, but is not necessarily a hypocrite.

Ted Haggerd, who made a career on publicly condemning homosexuality and drug use while smoking both meth and a male hooker's cock was a big goddamn hypocrite.

Stating a premise - for examples, “there is a smallest rational number, e.g., 51/1829”, “being gay and using illegal drugs is wrong”, “smilies are for reetards” – and then showing a case that contradicts the premise – for examples, the rational number 51/3658, Teg Haggerd using drugs and male prostitutes, Franc using smilies – proves that the claims are absurd on the face of them.

Enlightenment – in the first case (there is no smallest positive rational number) – or hilarity – in the latter two cases – ensues; Q.E.D ….

Thank you for the spoonfeeding, but this is absolute bollocks. Not very nice of you. But then again, perhaps well deserved..

[Barael]

Really. The rest of the world is just chafing under the tyranny of not being able to gun down a dozen bystanders at will. It's like we've never heard of proper democracy at all.

[rayshul]

Reminds me of Martin Bryant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

I've seen very few spree killers who were considered mentally competent before their spree. Well Brenda Ann Spencer I think was the first who became pop-culture famous - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer - and while she wasn't diagnosed with any mental issues beforehand, I think in retrospect she was clearly fucked in the head.

[BarnOwl]

I am assuming this means they should of been locked away in a gun safe where he shouldn't of been able to get them?

Doesn't seem like that strategy would work very well to prevent a 20-year-old with average intelligence from getting their hands on the guns.

As rayshul mentioned earlier in a different context, the Pit is pretty diverse. In case it's not apparent, I'm a melt the guns variety of Merkin.

[d4m10n]

I almpst feel sorry for Peezus with this one.
That video was shot in late 2010. It wasn't until 8 months later at Elevatorgate that he became a lifelong feminist.

Was it sexist behavior?

I was in the live audience during that one, didn't think it was anything other than very mildly transgressive sexual humour. If I recall correctly, PZ also made a point of his vanilla monogamous sex life during the same talk, which made the whole poker hand thing seem like even more of a harmless joke.

However, I also sort of assumed that the 'volunteer' was a plant, one of the sk3 student organisers, perhaps. Cannot now recall why I thought that at the time. May have to go through the old photo albums to figure it out.

It was in poor taste, especially in that venue, him doing a talk at the podium, and with a stranger in the audience. Inappropriate even by my standards, however, That isn't the point. The point is he would be shouting MISOGYNY and furiously writing blog posts and comments if he saw another man do exactly the same thing.

How can you claim to know what he would do?

Has something like this happened before, and PZ laid into someone for joking about sex in a similar context? Or are you just extrapolating from the other SJW's and what they've said on other issues?

[Brain Box]

Haha well, I didn't make the comment because I support excessive gun rights. I am just curious where series of errors lead to this tragedy. I suppose it is a way for me to deal with such a horrific event.

Two obvious errors have occurred in this case:

1. That a mentally unstable young man didn't receive the mental health treatment he required. This is a common trend with recent mass killings. The Batman theater murderer had obvious signs of mental illness that seem to have not been taken seriously by anyone close to him, and subsequently allowed him to legally purchase several firearms.

2. That he was able to illegally acquire legally purchased firearms. I imagine that most illegally acquired firearms were legally acquired at some point.

I am assuming this means they should of been locked away in a gun safe where he shouldn't of been able to get them?

Doesn't seem like that strategy would work very well to prevent a 20-year-old with average intelligence from getting their hands on the guns.

As rayshul mentioned earlier in a different context, the Pit is pretty diverse. In case it's not apparent, I'm a melt the guns variety of Merkin.

[Steersman]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

Few things, Steers...

First, am I to understand that you agree owning a gun or being in favor of owning firearms somehow correlates to misogyny, military fetishization, toxic levels of entitlement that are bizarrely out of step with reality, etc.? Just clear this up, because Josh, Official Spokes Asshole is pretty much batshit crazy, himself. Or, for that matter, do you believe owning a gun or being in favor of owning firearms to be a form of entitlement and privilege?

Second, when, exactly, did I say there were no flaws in the system? I've spoken out about this many times. It is in my blogs, in my books and in videos I've made, one of which is still up on my YT Channel. I've stated there are problems with the system and that some regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional.
....

However, the utterly nonsensical and moronic bullshit that is contained in the image I posted is not one of those arguments. It's all kinds of fucked up and exhibits the type of mentality that is typical of extremists of any kind. Batshit crazy.

All good arguments with which I largely sympathize. But asserting that there are some justifications for owning a gun hardly detracts from the assertion that the “glorification of violent masculinity” exists – which I sort of doubt that you would dispute – or that it contributed in some way to today’s incident in Newtown, the recent one in Aurora, or the one 23 years ago in Montreal.

But I find there are some interesting though problematic similarities here with the arguments about feminism, quite succinctly phrased by Steven Pinker in a passage in his The Blank Slate on the topic of gender:

FEMINISM IS OFTEN derided because of the arguments of its lunatic fringe—for example, that all intercourse is rape, that all women should be lesbians, or that only 10 percent of the population should be allowed to be male. Feminists reply that proponents of women's rights do not speak with one voice, and that feminist thought comprises many positions, which have to be evaluated independently. That is completely legitimate, but it cuts both ways. To criticize a particular feminist proposal is not to attack feminism in general.

To criticize a particular aspect or concomitant of gun ownership is not to attack gun ownership in general; the “principle” is just as problematic – and as wrong – in the second case as it is in the first. As with feminism some aspects or quoted statements from that blog post might be, as you say, "batshit crazy" - but all of them?

But if you had handy some links to some of your videos and posts on the topic I’d appreciate them. However, while “haste makes waste”, there comes a time when further yaking about the problem seems more like an exercise in obstructionism ….

[d4m10n]

Seems to me that PZ has done and said enough worth criticizing that there is no need to also make things up that he might well do in some possible world and criticize those as well. Why not take him to task for things that he has really done?

[Cunning Punt]

I am assuming this means they should of been locked away in a gun safe where he shouldn't of been able to get them?

Doesn't seem like that strategy would work very well to prevent a 20-year-old with average intelligence from getting their hands on the guns.

As rayshul mentioned earlier in a different context, the Pit is pretty diverse. In case it's not apparent, I'm a melt the guns variety of Merkin.

Well, if the gun safe had a key and the only key was in the possession of the adult who owned it .... not that I am against melting the guns, but the chances of the latter happening in the USA is zero. Lets face it, most people in this country are willing to put up with the occasional gun massacre as the price to pay for the 2nd Amendment (as it's currently interpreted). They just hope it never visits them or anyone near them. And why not? There's >300 million people here, chances are it will be someone else. Ugh, I'm feeling cynical tonight.

[franc]

I hardly thought that you would much care about “being in the docket” - I only brought it up as a case-in-point. Although I had thought you might at least raise an eyebrow over franc’s apparent hypocrisy – particularly since the concept seems to be the soup de jour …. People in glass houses and all that ….

Now now Steers... when Franc does it I take it as him having a bit of fun seeing as what is in his sig and all. Kind of hard to miss the humour even for an aspie like me.

I stick it to smilies the way grumpy old men do. Superfluous nonsense that some can't live without, which I can't do anything about and which I am under no obligation to not occasionally mumble crotchety disdain about. It's also known as "pissing into the wind" - I do it for my own amusement even if I get wet. Funny how Steerscripple has plenty of time to ruminate about the theoretical, but has zero time to fire up google and look stuff up for himself. At least I now fully understand what the jargon term "jaqing off" means. Needs Steerscripple's avatar in the various 'netspeak dictionaries out there.

[Barael]

But I can totally stop a military coup if I just have an automatic rifle against a A-10 Thunderbolt.

[franc]

RationalWiki at it again -

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Athei ... ting_views

I have now attempted to add the AntiAtheismPlus-reddit as well as a comprehensive list of resources of dissenting views about Atheism Plus. Both were removed by User:EVDebs. In no way do I wish to edit war. I disagree with these removals.

The reason for the removal of the reddit link was listed as:

Dissent is one thing, but Reddit has a nasty tendency to be nothing more than vomit on a web page. Come up with something that's at least civilized.

however, despite my second conciliation, the removal of the second link was given as

Not a fan of that either -- outright lying about the aims of the movement plus links to hatemongers like Franc Hoggle

This is plainly based in personal bias. Resources of dissenting views and outside perceptions of Atheism Plus should most definitely be included, particularly when a bulk of the article in question includes many points of view which question Atheism Plus' legitimacy and value. Removal of resources of dissenting views should not be based on being a "fan" (or not) of any particular site or author, nor should one's opinion of Atheism Plus prevent a dissenting view be linked, especially when presented specifically as such.

Further down, this choice response -

Actually, no, "balance" and "evenly weighted" are anathema here. This is NOT Wikipedia, and no groups have a monopoly on discussion. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 16:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just read that line back to yourself a few times.

[Mykeru]

Latest reports indicate that the shooter had an (as yet) unspecified personality disorder.

Also:

The weapons used in Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman, Adam Lanza, two law enforcement officials told NBC News.

Under Connecticut law, the shooter was too young to purchase firearms.

Well, in the United States, we are so advanced that we have no mental health infrastructure anymore. Reagan dumped people out of halfway houses into the street. And we don't address mental health issues because we figure it's cheaper to let people go until they gain the attention of the criminal justice system.

I'm not even being facetious. We have traded mental institutions for prisons.

[Badger3k]

I am assuming this means they should of been locked away in a gun safe where he shouldn't of been able to get them?

Doesn't seem like that strategy would work very well to prevent a 20-year-old with average intelligence from getting their hands on the guns.

As rayshul mentioned earlier in a different context, the Pit is pretty diverse. In case it's not apparent, I'm a melt the guns variety of Merkin.

Well, if the gun safe had a key and the only key was in the possession of the adult who owned it .... not that I am against melting the guns, but the chances of the latter happening in the USA is zero. Lets face it, most people in this country are willing to put up with the occasional gun massacre as the price to pay for the 2nd Amendment (as it's currently interpreted). They just hope it never visits them or anyone near them. And why not? There's >300 million people here, chances are it will be someone else. Ugh, I'm feeling cynical tonight.

Too busy teaching to hear much about this, but from what I understand he killed his mother first, so if she had the key...he had it then. About the only safe way is if it was a combination safe with only her knowing the combination (other than the company that made it, perhaps).

[BarnOwl]

Warning: sickening and depressing news story about the motivations of the killer-

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -possible/

Mother of the shooter owned the guns, and shooter "sought to kill as many children as possible" - it's going to be a stretch to pin this one on straightforward misogyny and patriarchal oppression, I think. Though I don't possess the special logic skillz of some of the Baboons, so I could be totally wrong about this.

CBS correspondent John Miller reports that Adam had the bigger personality of the two brothers. Ryan, 24, was the quiet one, went to business school and lived in New Jersey. Investigators believe that this shooting was the result of a conflict between he and his mother that was developing for a long time -- killing her and then killing what she loved most -- her students.

[Steersman]

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

I am amazed. Are you really pulling a Nerd of Redhead on me?

ROFLMAO! Steers! Humor mutherfuckuer! Do you not grock it!

If murtzuphlus had included a smiley then I could have seen that as a shot at “Nerd of Redhead” and a chagrined acceptance that Nerd might have had a point in that regard, even if a narrow one. In passing, one might argue the problematic nature of allowing such absurdities as franc’s statement to stand – people with a tendency to let others do their thinking for them frequently follow those others over the same cliff to nobody's benefit.

But the impression I got was that he was implying that since only dickheads like “Nerd of Redhead” asked for evidence then he shouldn’t be obliged to comply either. Which is fine with me – if he wants to be similarly characterized.

[peterb]

Are there any lawyers at the Pit?

I am curious about the legality of this program at "Hackbright Academy". http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/hackbright-academy/

For $7500, in the heart of San Francisco, for 10 weeks, this company will teach women, and women only, how to be "pro developers". In addition to learning various web development skills, they will be offered various forms of career placement and networking opportunities. They are doing this to counter the rampant sexism and discrimination against women in the IT industry, and the brogrammer culture.

But is it legal?



So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

IAAL (even a California lawyer). Yes, it is entirely legal. Not even close. And it should be legal. Private enterprise

[Lsuoma]

Well, in the United States, we are so advanced that we have no mental health infrastructure anymore. Reagan dumped people out of halfway houses into the street. And we don't address mental health issues because we figure it's cheaper to let people go until they gain the attention of the criminal justice system.

I'm not even being facetious. We have traded mental institutions for prisons.

Thatch did the same - "care" in the community...

[peterb]

Latest reports indicate that the shooter had an (as yet) unspecified personality disorder.

Also:

The weapons used in Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman, Adam Lanza, two law enforcement officials told NBC News.

Under Connecticut law, the shooter was too young to purchase firearms.

I remember from Criminal law class...what's the best possible evidence that an individual has a mental health issue?? shooting children.

It would be virtually impossible that he *didn't* have a "personality disorder"

[somedumbguy]

Are there any lawyers at the Pit?

I am curious about the legality of this program at "Hackbright Academy". http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/hackbright-academy/

For $7500, in the heart of San Francisco, for 10 weeks, this company will teach women, and women only, how to be "pro developers". In addition to learning various web development skills, they will be offered various forms of career placement and networking opportunities. They are doing this to counter the rampant sexism and discrimination against women in the IT industry, and the brogrammer culture.

But is it legal?



So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

IAAL (even a California lawyer). Yes, it is entirely legal. Not even close. And it should be legal. Private enterprise

Thank you, with your unverified, totally useless answer that gives no further explanation, I have identified you are in fact a lawyer.

A douchebag and a lawyer, but then I repeat myself.

[BarnOwl]

Reagan dumped people out of halfway houses into the street. And we don't address mental health issues because we figure it's cheaper to let people go until they gain the attention of the criminal justice system.

I'm not even being facetious. We have traded mental institutions for prisons.

Recently I saw the !968 Exhibit at Oakland Museum with some friends, and of course a section was devoted to the RFK assassination. We were discussing how different things would have been, and would be now, if RFK had not been killed. Likely he would have won the Democratic Party nomination and the presidential election, and one of the (many) probable fallouts of that would have been a much less politically successful Reagan.

[rayshul]

IAAL (even a California lawyer). Yes, it is entirely legal. Not even close. And it should be legal. Private enterprise

Thank you, with your unverified, totally useless answer that gives no further explanation, I have identified you are in fact a lawyer.

A douchebag and a lawyer, but then I repeat myself.

Peter gave an explanation - it's a private enterprise and therefore you can discriminate over who you do courses for. (Or did I miss something?) I hate to use the term slippery slope but does that then mean that if you are a private enterprise you can discriminate over who you sell to/allow in your shop/etc though? Where is the line drawn (legally)? Genuine question because I don't see much difference in someone offering services to a particular clientel and someone not letting certain people into their shop.

[somedumbguy]

IAAL (even a California lawyer). Yes, it is entirely legal. Not even close. And it should be legal. Private enterprise

Thank you, with your unverified, totally useless answer that gives no further explanation, I have identified you are in fact a lawyer.

A douchebag and a lawyer, but then I repeat myself.

Peter gave an explanation - it's a private enterprise and therefore you can discriminate over who you do courses for. (Or did I miss something?) I hate to use the term slippery slope but does that then mean that if you are a private enterprise you can discriminate over who you sell to/allow in your shop/etc though? Where is the line drawn (legally)? Genuine question because I don't see much difference in someone offering services to a particular clientel and someone not letting certain people into their shop.

Saying it's private enterprise is clearly not an explanation. It is not sufficient, witness any public accommodation, witness hotels that cannot discriminate against men or women, black or white, witness taxi cabs, etc., private enterprises all of them.

It was an unhelpful and clearly so comment to make. If lawyer Peter wanted to be helpful he might clarify WHY certain businesses, this one in particular are allowed to discriminate against one sex.

So far Lawyer Peter seems to be damage, I think I will route around him.

[somedumbguy]

I introduced the question and gave a far better explanation that Lawyer Peter did.

But is it legal?

I would think it's not. Apart from women only gyms, I can't think of any other business that is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex. And google tells me that women only gyms is controversial too, and has often required legislatures pass special laws allowing them.

There is a current controversy over where wedding photographers can discriminate against gays and refuse to take pictures of gay weddings.

There is the Augusta Golf Club that is males only, and private clubs (as opposed to public accommodations) are allowed in specific circumstances to discriminate against people that would otherwise be in protected classes.

So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

Jason Thibeault discusses it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ten-weeks/ and of course he thinks it's a great idea, because of course, "It’s for women, to give them a place to learn without stereotype threat or brogrammer culture stifling them."

Peter, the lawyer, gave a terribly unhelpful, vacuous, arrogant, insulting answer.

Typical lawyer jerk.

[rayshul]

Saying it's private enterprise is clearly not an explanation. It is not sufficient, witness any public accommodation, witness hotels that cannot discriminate against men or women, black or white, witness taxi cabs, etc., private enterprises all of them.

It was an unhelpful and clearly so comment to make. If lawyer Peter wanted to be helpful he might clarify WHY certain businesses, this one in particular are allowed to discriminate against one sex.

So far Lawyer Peter seems to be damage, I think I will route around him.

Why not just ask for clarification?

[John Brown]

I introduced the question and gave a far better explanation that Lawyer Peter did.

But is it legal?

I would think it's not. Apart from women only gyms, I can't think of any other business that is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex. And google tells me that women only gyms is controversial too, and has often required legislatures pass special laws allowing them.

There is a current controversy over where wedding photographers can discriminate against gays and refuse to take pictures of gay weddings.

There is the Augusta Golf Club that is males only, and private clubs (as opposed to public accommodations) are allowed in specific circumstances to discriminate against people that would otherwise be in protected classes.

So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

Jason Thibeault discusses it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ten-weeks/ and of course he thinks it's a great idea, because of course, "It’s for women, to give them a place to learn without stereotype threat or brogrammer culture stifling them."

Peter, the lawyer, gave a terribly unhelpful, vacuous, arrogant, insulting answer.

Typical lawyer jerk.

Dude, I think you're abusing the English language a bit.

[Gumby]

I introduced the question and gave a far better explanation that Lawyer Peter did.

But is it legal?

I would think it's not. Apart from women only gyms, I can't think of any other business that is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex. And google tells me that women only gyms is controversial too, and has often required legislatures pass special laws allowing them.

There is a current controversy over where wedding photographers can discriminate against gays and refuse to take pictures of gay weddings.

There is the Augusta Golf Club that is males only, and private clubs (as opposed to public accommodations) are allowed in specific circumstances to discriminate against people that would otherwise be in protected classes.

So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

Jason Thibeault discusses it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ten-weeks/ and of course he thinks it's a great idea, because of course, "It’s for women, to give them a place to learn without stereotype threat or brogrammer culture stifling them."

Peter, the lawyer, gave a terribly unhelpful, vacuous, arrogant, insulting answer.

Typical lawyer jerk.

You are completely hyperventilating. Settle down, Francis. FFS.

[Mykeru]

You are completely hyperventilating. Settle down, Francis. FFS.

Obviously they have a history and, unless I am wrong on getting my s/h/it straight, it's man-love gone bad.

[Mykeru]

oh how I miss you...

hitch shave.jpg

*swoon*

The Hitch...

Does this mean I don't have to be careful of my carbs?

[Gumby]

You are completely hyperventilating. Settle down, Francis. FFS.

Obviously they have a history and, unless I am wrong on getting my s/h/it straight, it's man-love gone bad.

Maybe they just need a little musical heart-to-heart.

[youtube]lL4L4Uv5rf0[/youtube]

[Walter Ego]

There is the Augusta Golf Club that is males only, and private clubs (as opposed to public accommodations) are allowed in specific circumstances to discriminate against people that would otherwise be in protected classes

The Augusta National Golf Club inducted it's first two female members, one of whom is Condoleezza Rice, this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/sport ... d=all&_r=0

Feminist Martha Burk made a national issue of the lack of female membership a few years ago which became a brief media event and raised some ire with conservative locals in Augusta.

I was in town and made a video about the "protests." ("Hootie" was Hootie Johnson, president of the Augusta National Golf Club.)

[youtube]FNZmQLbpYLQ[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

The Augusta National Golf Club inducted it's first two female members, one of whom is Condoleezza Rice, this year.

Thus ending the long golfing tradition of publicly washing your balls.

[welch]

(snipped)...women are apparently treated so horribly in IT.

Wait. We are? Where have I been the past 18 years while all this "horrible" stuff was happening to my gender in IT??

It's beiber. He's just trying to get lucky in the router closet

[JAB]

Are there any lawyers at the Pit?

I am curious about the legality of this program at "Hackbright Academy". http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/hackbright-academy/

For $7500, in the heart of San Francisco, for 10 weeks, this company will teach women, and women only, how to be "pro developers". In addition to learning various web development skills, they will be offered various forms of career placement and networking opportunities. They are doing this to counter the rampant sexism and discrimination against women in the IT industry, and the brogrammer culture.

But is it legal?



So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

IAAL (even a California lawyer). Yes, it is entirely legal. Not even close. And it should be legal. Private enterprise

Thank you, with your unverified, totally useless answer that gives no further explanation, I have identified you are in fact a lawyer.

A douchebag and a lawyer, but then I repeat myself.

You asked a yes or no question, and got a yes. So are you upset at what the answer is? Why be mad at the answerer, he didn't make the law, although he seems to agree with it. You didn't ask for an explaination in your original question. Don't blame the lawyer for you asking the wrong question.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Barael:

But I can totally stop a military coup if I just have an automatic rifle against a A-10 Thunderbolt.

Absurd, isn't it. How do people not understand the unlikeliness of political situation in a modern democracy where the military stands united against a united citizenry. If government breaks down you obviously want as many people as possible toting assault rifles, don't you? That'll really work out well.

[John Brown]

Barael:

But I can totally stop a military coup if I just have an automatic rifle against a A-10 Thunderbolt.

Absurd, isn't it. How do people not understand the unlikeliness of political situation in a modern democracy where the military stands united against a united citizenry. If government breaks down you obviously want as many people as possible toting assault rifles, don't you? That'll really work out well.

If the government breaks down, then there would be no standards or regulations barring people from toting assault rifles, so this is a rather silly argument to make, in my estimation.

[JackRayner]

It doesn't make them Ok, but it also doesn't make them "sexism/misogyny", or a cause for serious concern. Anyone approaching the internet with an overly sensitive attitude should refrain from doing anything that will leave them open to public criticism, whether it is legitimate or just trolling. Bottom line! Anyone with an overly sensitive attitude, but who also spews nonsense that offends the most internet frequenting/internet savvy people? Ha. Hahaha!

[No necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]To anyone that would reply to this with "Oh, but person X committed suicide because of internet trolling!", I have this much to say: People are stupid. People have committed suicide over things as stupid as hearing their favorite T.V. show is being cancelled. "But it was a kid/teenager!", you say? Kids and teenagers are stupider. [/Not necessarily directed at Trophy, unless Trophy holds this view]

You are seriously bringing up victim blaming? That uncivilized backlash and hate mail isn't a cause for concern? You sound like a child.

The rise of the 4chan generation is pretty pathetic. Basically a place for immature boys to amplify each others idiocy. While acknowledging this type of culture exists and taking steps to prevent being the focus of its idiocy is important, I wouldn't say that such culture isn't a cause for concern. Internet bullying is a serious problem.

Victim blaming? Is that what I'm doing? LOL, Okay. I'm a "victim blamer" then, because I believe certain things aren't worth killing yourself over, and that includes backlash for incredibly stupid behavior in "public". Just like I'll blame anyone that ends up getting stung several times after fucking with a bee hive. I've been on the internet for a long time, and have never felt the need to go cry to anyone about abuse. I get into arguments on almost every website I've ever been allowed to post on, on sensitive subjects, and with little fluff or preemptive apologizing, and I've never felt like the response was too much to handle. Have I been trolled? For sure. I got over it.

I'm not sure where "4chan" came into the conversation, but your common internet troll is definitely not on the level that "anonymous" and their ilk take things. Hit-and-run insults are not comparable to obtaining your personal information and then having a bunch of your crew call you and leave all types of threats, or hacking your shit. Hive-mind-like internet vigilantism is a bit different from what we're talking about. Do no conflate the two.

[Cunning Punt]

Doesn't seem like that strategy would work very well to prevent a 20-year-old with average intelligence from getting their hands on the guns.

As rayshul mentioned earlier in a different context, the Pit is pretty diverse. In case it's not apparent, I'm a melt the guns variety of Merkin.

Well, if the gun safe had a key and the only key was in the possession of the adult who owned it .... not that I am against melting the guns, but the chances of the latter happening in the USA is zero. Lets face it, most people in this country are willing to put up with the occasional gun massacre as the price to pay for the 2nd Amendment (as it's currently interpreted). They just hope it never visits them or anyone near them. And why not? There's >300 million people here, chances are it will be someone else. Ugh, I'm feeling cynical tonight.

Too busy teaching to hear much about this, but from what I understand he killed his mother first, so if she had the key...he had it then. About the only safe way is if it was a combination safe with only her knowing the combination (other than the company that made it, perhaps).

Yeah, you're right, a truly determined killer could get around that. He could even torture the person so he would give them the combination too if he/she was that determined. A gun safe would provide a level of safety against a slightly less determined person though, and certainly for curious children or teenagers.

[cunt]

Barael:

But I can totally stop a military coup if I just have an automatic rifle against a A-10 Thunderbolt.

Absurd, isn't it. How do people not understand the unlikeliness of political situation in a modern democracy where the military stands united against a united citizenry. If government breaks down you obviously want as many people as possible toting assault rifles, don't you? That'll really work out well.

If the government breaks down, then there would be no standards or regulations barring people from toting assault rifles, so this is a rather silly argument to make, in my estimation.

The citizenry would simply manufacture new semi-automatic rifles in their garden sheds or something.

[ERV]

Someone just posted the pic of Dawkins giving a huge hug to Hitchens at the TX Freethought convention on FB. Im going to go cry for a while and go to sleep. This day sucked.

[cunt]

I think its wicked cool that americans live in a place where they can just go buy some shit solely designed to murder people with. I think their wig wearing forefathers who they have literally no connection in any way intellectually and who used to shit in pots that they then tossed in the street and blamed an imbalance between pus, blood and cum in the body for cancer intended this. To defend against nigger overlords, government tyranny, and 4 foot tall beings named Colin who like clone wars and construction paper.

[CommanderTuvok]

Knowing the fucked-up illogical wankstains at FTB/A+/Skepchick, they will probably blame ARNIE, our mascot, for the shootings.

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpre ... =500&h=375

[JackRayner]

You are seriously bringing up victim blaming?

Where, specifically, is the victim blaming? I see dismissiveness, and rationalisation, but I missed the victim blaming. Where is it?

Did he not say that those who commit suicide due to internet trolling are stupid? His entire argument is that internet trolling is "of no concern." I think those who have been the target of FTB/Atheism+ attacks would argue otherwise.

What we've got here is...failure to communicate. If you are comparing trolling to the way that the baboons go on smearing campaigns, then we're CLEARLY no talking about the same thing.

In rebut to: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 750#p36689

Did he not say that those who commit suicide due to internet trolling are stupid?

No, not precisely that. He said that people commit suicide for a lot of stupid reasons. And they do. Sure, we can sympathise, and in each individual instance try to determine if the preceding supposed causal was in fact blameworthy, or if the suicide was a ridiculous over-reaction. Each instance must stand on its own merits.

His entire argument is that internet trolling is "of no concern."

That is something of a simplification and misrepresentation of the argument. I think.

I think those who have been the target of FTB/Atheism+ attacks would argue otherwise.

Sure, but that is not trolling.

I think you are splitting hairs here a little. He didn't say that some suicides were stupid, he said that those trolled into suicide were stupid (i.e. that all those who commit suicide due to trolling are stupid).

I said both that people are stupid, and that people commit suicide over stupid shit. As John said, suicide is sometimes a bit of an over-reaction. :) And no, seeing a distinction between one of the baboon's smear campaigns and trolling is not "splitting hairs". Dawkins getting a message that says "I will laugh when you die" is a [failed] troll attempt. An organized campaign to paint Dawkins as a racists/misogynist/whateverTheFuckElse by the baboons? Not trolling.

His argument was contradictory. First he said that the behavior was not "OK" but in the same sentence says that it is of "no concern," and then ends with those who commit suicide due to trolling are "stupid." At all levels I'd say his argument is pretty immature and not well thought out. Children are much more sensitive to bullying, in real life or otherwise, than adults. Those who are targeted for being different, internet bullying can be the straw to break the camel's back. Hateful behavior on the internet should never be tolerated when targeting youth.

Oooh. A "contradiction"! I'm almost intrigued. How can I break this down for you, so you don't get lost?

That was written in agreement to Trophy's "it doesn't make [the statements made by trolls] okay", with "okay" being [taken by me, at the least, as] a positive moral judgement on the behavior. Me agreeing that trolling shouldn't have a positive moral value does not mean that I apply a negative moral value to it, either. I hate to sound like one of those loony SJW's, but I don't recognize this binary that it seems you may think I should. I will neither denounce nor promote trolling [things done to get a rise out of people for the sake of amusement], because as I said, I don't see it as a reason for serious concern. It's really not as contradictory as you may think.

And bullying? I got bullied some as a kid until I got a little bigger. This was pre-internet, which sometimes meant public humiliation mixed with physical pain. So excuse me if I don't think internet trolling is a cause serious concern. Possibly blame my mom for teaching me that "sticks and stones" nonsense. People die over stupid shit, every single day. If you have a problem with my stating this so plainly, then too bad. I don't care. [You can call this my "Dear Muslima...".]

I agree that adults on the other hand should be able to withstand attacks better, but I still don't see such attacks as par for the course. Simply put I think anyone who feels the need to send hateful emails to someone over a topic of a little importance as video games is displaying symptoms of a psychological problem. Of course when I say hateful I am not talking about strongly worded emails rejecting ones argument, but emails full of vindictive and threats. I think most would feel such behavior is of concern, unless they are an anti-social nitwit.

Playing arm-chair psychologist now, are we? And show me Sarkeesian's death/rape/whatever threats, please. If they're anything like Watson's "threats", it should be a fun read.
:hankey:

[Pinker]

http://i.imgur.com/89YCW.jpg

[JackRayner]

I have a question. I am one of those who like to read pop-evolution books. I am currently in the middle of Sex at Dawn, and I was wondering if anyone had an opinion as to whether it is crap or something to consider. Someone said earlier that this book is one single counter-argument, and I think I am starting to understand what they meant. But then again, the evidence for the "standard narrative" of sexual selection doesn't sound too convincing either.

I think you might be thinking of me, and what I actually said was that Sex at Dusk is a counter argument to the stuff presented in Sex at Dawn. I will admit that I drank much of the Dawn kool-aid, and that was partly because of the optimistic view of things that it presented.

"Women are from Venus, men are from Mars? Nonsense! If men and women evolved together, there is no reason why our sexuality should be antagonistic!" [my summary of one of the central arguments]

The reality is that I believed this because I wanted to. I hoped that it was true. "Women are just like men when it comes to sexual desire [but they don't behave that way because of 'social conditioning']? AWESOME!"

Christopher Ryan argues this while totally ignoring countless examples in nature that show just how antagonistic reproduction can be. Literally reproductive behavior that negatively affects the other directly. Like that species of duck that reproduce almost exclusively through rape, or this type of fly with males that have evolved to totally ignore the females' reproductive tract and instead stab the sperm in right through their dorsal side. (I think some of you may know the name of the duck, by the way, I just can't remember at this point and I won't be able to recall it until I've read the whole book one or two extra times. I wanna say Mallard, but I'm not certain. It's supposed to have a huge cock, is all I can remember. [<- someone play armchair psychologist with that one. ;) ])

There's a lot of other nasty stuff that Christopher Ryan did. LOTS of quote mining and lying through omission, some misattributing of quotes, and sometimes straight up fabricating quotes. Let me just say that I read Dawn about four times over before even hearing about Dusk, and was into it quite a bit, but as I started to adopt a more skeptical mindset, I did start to see discrepancies with Dawn that made me quite eager to read Dusk as soon as I found out it existed.

Go ahead and finish Sex at Dawn, then go hit the little Amazon link below and buy Sex at Dusk. It will be a little bit drier than Sex at Dawn, but if you care about reality, you will appreciate it.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://i.imgur.com/NeE0f.jpg

[box brain]

What we've got here is...failure to communicate. If you are comparing trolling to the way that the baboons go on smearing campaigns, then we're CLEARLY no talking about the same thing.

There isn't a failure to communicate. There is a failure of you to commit to an actual position. You are attempting to not condone a behavior but also not condemn it. You are giving implicit support while attempting to distance yourself. It is noncommittal cuntish behavior.

I said both that people are stupid, and that people commit suicide over stupid shit. As John said, suicide is sometimes a bit of an over-reaction. :) And no, seeing a distinction between one of the baboon's smear campaigns and trolling is not "splitting hairs". Dawkins getting a message that says "I will laugh when you die" is a [failed] troll attempt. An organized campaign to paint Dawkins as a racists/misogynist/whateverTheFuckElse by the baboons? Not trolling.

Suicide is almost always an overreaction, just as are streams of hate filled text directed at an individual simply because they voiced an opinion on the internet the childish horde found threatening.

Receiving hate speech in your inbox and being blacklisted serve the same purpose, and that is to damage your ability to have your voice heard. The strategy one takes to silence another depends on the target's position of authority and their level of exposure. What will work for an simple blogger won't work for a titan such as Dawkins.

Oooh. A "contradiction"! I'm almost intrigued. How can I break this down for you, so you don't get lost?

That was written in agreement to Trophy's "it doesn't make [the statements made by trolls] okay", with "okay" being [taken by me, at the least, as] a positive moral judgement on the behavior. Me agreeing that trolling shouldn't have a positive moral value does not mean that I apply a negative moral value to it, either. I hate to sound like one of those loony SJW's, but I don't recognize this binary that it seems you may think I should. I will neither denounce nor promote trolling [things done to get a rise out of people for the sake of amusement], because as I said, I don't see it as a reason for serious concern. It's really not as contradictory as you may think.

And bullying? I got bullied some as a kid until I got a little bigger. This was pre-internet, which sometimes meant public humiliation mixed with physical pain. So excuse me if I don't think internet trolling is a cause serious concern. Possibly blame my mom for teaching me that "sticks and stones" nonsense. People die over stupid shit, every single day. If you have a problem with my stating this so plainly, then too bad. I don't care. [You can call this my "Dear Muslima...".]

We aren't simply talking about "innocent" trolling on an internet forum, but someone being on the receiving end of quite a bit of hate speech. The first is simply meant to make someone look foolish, the other is more personal and is meant to damage them psychologically to the extent that they stop whatever activity they were carrying out that the attacker(s) disliked. If you don't consider trying to terrorize someone into silence inappropriate than you have never been the actual focus of such attacks.

Playing arm-chair psychologist now, are we? And show me Sarkeesian's death/rape/whatever threats, please. If they're anything like Watson's "threats", it should be a fun read.
:hankey:

I haven't seen examples of the threats, but I generally will take someone's claim at face value unless I find reason otherwise, and there was plenty of vitrol out in the open in places such as reddit. I am sure most here find some of the emails sent to Watson inappropriate. However, what is more inappropriate was her conflating the "trolling/bullying/etc" with legitimate criticism of her positions, and her subsequent vicious attacks on innocent skeptics in the community. You can condemn uncivilized behavior against someone (hate speech directed against an internet personality) and still disagree with their views.

[Steersman]

http://i.imgur.com/89YCW.jpg

Succinctly put, Mr. Shermer. And with an edge to it.

Not to belabour the point excessively, the chapter on Gender in Pinker’s The Blank Slate points to some other notable differences:

But of course the minds of men and women are not identical, and recent reviews of sex differences have converged on some reliable differences. Sometimes the differences are large, with only slight overlap in the bell curves. Men have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in the almost all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography. Men are far more likely to compete violently, sometimes lethally, with one another over stakes great and small …. The ability to manipulate three-dimensional objects and space in the mind also shows a large difference in favor of men.

With some other traits the differences are small on average but can be large at the extremes. That happens for two reasons. When two bell curves partly overlap, the farther out along the tail you go, the larger the discrepancies between the groups. For example, men on average are taller than women, and the discrepancy is greater for more extreme values. At a height of five foot ten, men outnumber women by a ratio of thirty to one; at a height of six feet, men outnumber women by a ratio of two thousand to one. Also, confirming an expectation from evolutionary psychology, for many traits the bell curve for males is flatter and wider than the curve for females. That is, there are proportionally more males at the extremes. Along the left tail of the curve, one finds that boys are far more likely to be dyslexic, learning disabled, attention deficient, emotionally disturbed, and mentally retarded (at least for some types of retardation). At the right tail, one finds that in a sample of talented students who score above 700 (out of 800) on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Assessment Test, boys outnumber girls by thirteen to one, even though the scores of boys and girls are similar within the bulk of the curve.

But I suppose that people like Zvan and Benson would like to see such information suppressed because, Gawd knows, even asserting the existence of such facts, particularly those that contradict dogma, are by definition sexist. And in spite of the fact that one can’t fix a problem until one knows the causes for it.

[sacha]

The existence of internet trolls makes the kind of responses that she get predictable. It doesn't make them okay. For example, if I go to Ophelia's blog and criticise her, I'm expected to get banned but it doens't make it right.

Anyone approaching the internet with an overly sensitive attitude should refrain from doing anything that will leave them open to public criticism, whether it is legitimate or just trolling. Bottom line! Anyone with an overly sensitive attitude, but who also spews nonsense that offends the most internet frequenting/internet savvy people? Ha. Hahaha!

To anyone that would reply to this with "Oh, but person X committed suicide because of internet trolling!", I have this much to say: People are stupid. People have committed suicide over things as stupid as hearing their favorite T.V. show is being cancelled. "But it was a kid/teenager!", you say? Kids and teenagers are stupider.

bravo!

The faster one learns that they are nothing but an insignificant bit of carbon, that the world does not revolve around them, the majority of people won't cater to them, or lie to make them feel better, no one will protect them from their mistakes, that no one where they work gives a toss about their excuses, only that the job gets done, that they are responsible for themselves, they won't get awards and adulation just for participating, there will always be someone better at everything, throwing a tantrum will not get them what they want, they can't change other people, to be grateful for the little things, and that life isn't easy, the better off they are. Consider it a "gift".

toughen the fuck up.

"Dear Muslima" indeed