Periodic Table of Swearing

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34776

Post by sacha »

Altair wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
sacha wrote:
only if there is a crowd watching
Randomly selected, or should it be unwashed neckbeards and chicks with day-glo hair?
Do members of the pit get front row seats?
yes, you are already on the guest list.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34777

Post by Scented Nectar »

d4m10n wrote:I suppose that schtick looked sort of looked and sounded like harassment, but it still strikes me as a bit of a stretch to call it that. If PZ was serious about the hotel keys and the sex, instead of obviously joking, then probably it would have been harassment. If Daniel Tosh had been serious about...never mind.

I tend to subscribe to the "intent is magic" school in such cases. If one means to proposition someone for sex (especially someone unable to easily flee the scene) that is very different than if one means only to jest about doing so.

Maybe PZ has roundly condemned someone for cracking lewd. If so, I'd love to read about it and call him out. Until then, though, I really don't see the problem here.
I agree that it was not harassment. It was awkward and maybe tacky, but not harassment.

What's funny though, is that by their new harassment policies they were all promoting recently, that would have counted as "uninvited sexual talk". So, it's against their own promoted policies, which I find kind of funny. :lol:

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34778

Post by John Brown »

Mykeru wrote:
Yes, the internet, where you can be defending Michael Shermer one day, and thinking he's not a very good libertarian the next. ...
I told him on Twitter to "hand in his skeptic card."

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34779

Post by sacha »

d4m10n wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
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.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34780

Post by rayshul »

sacha wrote:
rayshul wrote:SJW women I've noticed get mighty out of shape when you discover that in their view you do more "man things"... so are therefore in their heads a better feminist than them. It's a bit fucken mental.
A lot of their aggression has to do with an enormous amount of insecurity.
What I've found is that they don't have a point in their brains between I have a problem and I'm a victim and will never be able to change it. Instead of having that point that is like, Well I'm going to go and fix it. I had one of those escalating conversations with two women who hadn't changed their name when they married, and their husbands and them were always getting "prejudice" about it. I'm like, well, either you have to get over it and stop whining and tell people to fuck off, or you should just change your fucking name. My mother didn't change hers in the 70s and she never had a whine about it. You're not radical in fucking 2010, feminist sweetheart.
justinvacula wrote:Re:H2O

I am not backing down from my comment or excusing it away because it was posted on my phone. I think it's silly that a quick comment like that would warrant blog posts.
I think it's a special form of madness to bitch about that. Like, who in fuck cares. The only reason we shit on PZ et al for similar is because they're being repeatedly hypocritical. Ughhh.
welch wrote:wonder how'd they feel about a prospective or current employer reading their output on A+ and not hiring/firing them over it. Same principle, right?
I don't think many are career minded. Or want jobs tbh. Too much patriarchy and shit anyway.

That THIS CUNT GETTIN EATIN video was sent to me by a buddy because she saw it and immediately thought of the way I talk. XD.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34781

Post by murtzuphlus »

rayshul wrote:I think it's a special form of madness to bitch about that. Like, who in fuck cares. The only reason we shit on PZ et al for similar is because they're being repeatedly hypocritical. Ughhh.
I am not sure I understand that. Does it matter less when one of our "own" says something stupid?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34782

Post by Rystefn »

sacha wrote:
Altair wrote:
sacha wrote:
only if there is a crowd watching
Do members of the pit get front row seats?
yes, you are already on the guest list.
Due to illness, I will be unable to attend the performance at this time. If recordings will be made available, I would like to request one.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34783

Post by welch »

box brain wrote:
welch wrote:
Given how you are amplifying this to a ridiculous degree, I'd say if anyone is behaving as a child would, it is you. This kind of thing has existed, literally, as long as humans. The internet amplifies the reach, but it doesn't create shit. Instead of writing "mary is a slut" or "billy is a fag" on bathroom stall walls, they write it on facebook walls. It is not new, and nothing is served by pretending it is. As well, no, hate mail in and of itself is not a cause for concern. It's often a source of comedy mind you, but if you're going to get seriously upset because people you've NEVER MET are saying mean things about you, then I wonder how you survived the third grade. People saying mean shit is a cause for concern? My ass it is. What do I care if people say mean things about me? can it hurt me? No. Can it break my leg or pick my pocket? No. People want to talk shit about me, let them. I give shit, I take shit, seems to work out.

*threats* are a different matter, and i have had those, and I have dealt with them, swiftly and decisively, (i.e. not by whining on the internet), and the problem went away. Funny how solving your problems does more than complaining about them.
box brain wrote: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.
Sexist much? Nice assumption of gender there, sparky. If you think boys are meaner than girls, you clearly were raised in a box. I divide internet bullying into two parts: when kids are the targets, I think we should handle that differently than adults. Emotional maturity levels, self-esteem issues and that are much more of a concern for minors, and I do think that bullying should be taken seriously in those cases.

But, if you're a grown-assed adult and your biggest fucking problem is hate mail? Can I fucking have YOUR life? Mine sucks in comparison.
Because something has existed in one form or another for time eternal doesn't mean that it isn't of concern or that we shouldn't take steps to discourage such behavior. I know you can think of many such behaviors off the top of your head. Just as school bullying should be discouraged so should internet bullying/trolling. With every passing year our internet personas are becoming more important for our social and professional lives, again, as the witch-hunts towards certain individuals in the skeptic community has shown. Taking a stand against hateful behavior, be it internet "trolling" or threats, is important. To do otherwise is basically to encourage an atmosphere of juvenile bullying and popularity contests *cough* PZ Myers and Watson *cough* which is damaging to rational/skeptical discourse.
well, pick one. Do you want to spend time getting people to stop being people, ergo, mean, or do you want to stop rewarding people for being morons. The former is impossible, the latter attainable, but that means that when a local group is thinking about spending gobs of money to fly one of these tits in, ask them why they aren't using local talent. When you see people flipping out about stupid crap, don't get into shitfests on their blogs, but point out why what they're doing is bad on more neutral ground and link people to it. Ed CLint's response to Becky is a great example of this. You won't win over the loyalists, but vast majority might appreciate it.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34784

Post by Scented Nectar »

Rystefn wrote:
sacha wrote:
Altair wrote:Do members of the pit get front row seats?
yes, you are already on the guest list.
Due to illness, I will be unable to attend the performance at this time. If recordings will be made available, I would like to request one.
I can make it to the event, but I'd like a private booth to view the show from, in case, well, in case of, um. Never mind why, you perverts!

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34785

Post by Scented Nectar »

I wrote: "3. more women do needlepoint than do men", which could be seen two ways, so I should clarify.

I AM NOT comparing the numbers of women doing needlepoint, to the number of women doing men.

I AM comparing the numbers of women doing needlepoint, to the numbers of men doing needlepoint.

Just in case anyone was confused.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34786

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:
rayshul wrote:I think it's a special form of madness to bitch about that. Like, who in fuck cares. The only reason we shit on PZ et al for similar is because they're being repeatedly hypocritical. Ughhh.
I am not sure I understand that. Does it matter less when one of our "own" says something stupid?
ARGH.

Picking apart what people say like that? Fuck! This is how SJW act. This is the problem. Where they will pick on every motherfucking thing. And it's fucking stupid. This isn't saying something stupid. Saying something stupid would be to say, I don't know, do a speech about evo-psych being woo. This is just a random off the cuff comment and It Means Nothing.

Now I always assumed that the snickering at the FtB was because they'd take a ridiculous moral position and then two seconds later shit on it - so they'd say DONT USE GENDERED SLURS YOU BUNCH OF DICKS. That's fucking hilarious. If they didn't take that position, I wouldn't give a fucking shit what they said.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34787

Post by rayshul »

Do you think Justin thinks only women can do needlework? GENUINELY?

Or do you think it's a fucking whatever remark that means fuck all?

Or was he in a quick phone conversation LAYING DOWN HIS ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY AND VIEWS ON WOMEN!??!??!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

DO NOT BECOME LIKE THEM. THAT WAY LIES FUCKING MADNESS.

masakari2012
.
.
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34788

Post by masakari2012 »

womanticore ‏@fairyocarina
Toronto friends, please read this and help. MRA's have literally destroyed people's lives. http://toronto.livejournal.com/10032697.html

Justin Templer ‏@justintempler
@fairyocarina exposing the hypocrisy of Toronto's feminists http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/bi ... auves-net/ …

womanticore
‏@fairyocarina .@justintempler I will throw you off a cliff, you sociopathic piece of shit.


welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34789

Post by welch »

sacha wrote:
Altair wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Randomly selected, or should it be unwashed neckbeards and chicks with day-glo hair?
Do members of the pit get front row seats?
yes, you are already on the guest list.
w00t. Melissa and I may take notes. Never know when you can pick up a useful pointer or two.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34790

Post by welch »

sacha wrote:
d4m10n wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
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.
Exactly. By normal standards, the entire thing is meh. But, by PeeZus' This Is What A Proper Feminist Does standards, that was simply unacceptable. Once again showing he has the ethical consistency of souring milk, only without the pleasant smell.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34791

Post by welch »

rayshul wrote:Do you think Justin thinks only women can do needlework? GENUINELY?

Or do you think it's a fucking whatever remark that means fuck all?

Or was he in a quick phone conversation LAYING DOWN HIS ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY AND VIEWS ON WOMEN!??!??!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

DO NOT BECOME LIKE THEM. THAT WAY LIES FUCKING MADNESS.
yep. "That thing you said could be taken a number of ways, and I'm kind of unsure. How did YOU mean it?" works. It's non-threatening, not attacking, and shows you haven't decided what they meant and are now making them justify it. It's showing you see a number of fairly equal possibilities, and rather than assuming, you'd like them to help you understand their statement(s) better.

Not the most complicated concept.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34792

Post by murtzuphlus »

rayshul wrote:ARGH.

Picking apart what people say like that? Fuck! This is how SJW act. This is the problem. Where they will pick on every motherfucking thing. And it's fucking stupid. This isn't saying something stupid. Saying something stupid would be to say, I don't know, do a speech about evo-psych being woo. This is just a random off the cuff comment and It Means Nothing.

Now I always assumed that the snickering at the FtB was because they'd take a ridiculous moral position and then two seconds later shit on it - so they'd say DONT USE GENDERED SLURS YOU BUNCH OF DICKS. That's fucking hilarious. If they didn't take that position, I wouldn't give a fucking shit what they said.
I don't think I was quote mining (sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how I read it). If you are going to dedicate a website to dissecting what a different group of people are saying (which I think is fun and all that) then every motherfucking thing is going to get picked at. Is this controversial?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34793

Post by Steersman »

sacha wrote:
JAB wrote:franc, that's two recent posts where it could be argued that you've added a smilie... if we define it as one of those yellow balls with an emotive face. Are you changing your mind about them?
There are a few he likes as long as they are used sparingly, and there is something either dark humoured or sexual about them.

he's quite fond of the Goatse emoticon...

and yes, I thought I'd speak for Franc as if he was unable to read and respond.
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 ….

Barael
.
.
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34794

Post by Barael »

Justin et al, you might want to check the other sections of the forums before waving your White Dick of WoW around ;) With that said, the propotion of _actual_ hardcore players (which of I'm not no longer one) is probably around 10 to 1 in favor of males even if the overall player distribution is close to 50-50. In fact each of the top guilds (Paragon, Method and Blood Legion) serve as examples that female players can be just as good male one (since they have female players in their "top" roster) but the actual distribution points to the fact that they just aren't as interested in the competitive scene on the whole. This lends credence to Shermer's and Vacula's claim that INTEREST in these things just aren't currently the same and drawing conclusions about either a) capability b) sexism is not only stupid but mendacious.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34795

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:I don't think I was quote mining (sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how I read it). If you are going to dedicate a website to dissecting what a different group of people are saying (which I think is fun and all that) then every motherfucking thing is going to get picked at. Is this controversial?
No. You aren't quote mining. But you're doing what SJWs do. You're finding a piece of random conversation, and you're using it to suggest that X has taken a particular position and is therefore a bad person and should be called out for it and shamed into saying that they were wrong/apologising.

These things don't matter. No one gives a flying fuck except SJWs who want to police language and all thought so they can remove any chance of someone having a thought they dislike. And that's fucked up. They are the worst human beings for doing that. I despise them but they also scare the fuck out of me.

The reason we dissect the stupidity of FtB is because they are SJWs. They want to police language, and yet they can't even manage to follow their own stupid rules, despite being paragons of virtue or whatever. I'm trying to find an analogy, and this is the best I can do - it's like when a homophobic preacher gets caught out in a gay relationship, or an outspoken racist discovers they have heritage from the racial group they discriminate againt. If they weren't shouting about how much they hated gays or whatever race, no one would give a flying fuck.

Does that make more sense? We're kinda rational. We know that random shit people say doesn't mean they're teh ebil. (Although when it comes to rants about not telling people you have HIV... well YMMV.) But we also think it's fucking funny that people who are so obsessed with SJW shit can't stop themselves from being hypocritical.

And I say we because today I am speaking on behalf of the 'pit. HAHA.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34796

Post by Steersman »

welch wrote:
sacha wrote:
Altair wrote: Mykeru said:
Randomly selected, or should it be unwashed neckbeards and chicks with day-glo hair?"

Do members of the pit get front row seats?
yes, you are already on the guest list.
w00t. Melissa and I may take notes. Never know when you can pick up a useful pointer or two.
Exactly. I can see a Mykeru YouTube video in the offing – so to speak. Maybe something along this line:

[youtube]SNjcSF_OKFM[/youtube]

skepCHUD

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34797

Post by skepCHUD »

It turns out that some of the bright lights like Josh and Caine, Flower of Sickness(Evil?) over at Pharyngula have figured out the gun man's motives: entitlement, masculinity, toxic masculinity, privilege, and misogyny.
MRAs have been mentioned but so far not directly linked to the act.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34798

Post by rayshul »

So you have people like McRieght who is "for the underprivileged" but has a fit on the internet about a homeless man jerking off.

You have people like PZ who are perfect feminists who are forever respectful of women who then gets caught out making lewd remarks in a public situation or doing something rabidly anti-feminist, like, you know, having a pink bunny or something.

You have people like RW who supposedly support science but then get discovered they don't understand it or bother to research beyond wikipedia.

You have Ophelia who hates gendered slurs because they're evil, but is just fine with gendered slurs that involve male parts, and ignores when her friends use gendered slurs.

It's fucking ridiculous shit. That's what is funny.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34799

Post by murtzuphlus »

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.

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34800

Post by katamari Damassi »

skepCHUD wrote:It turns out that some of the bright lights like Josh and Caine, Flower of Sickness(Evil?) over at Pharyngula have figured out the gun man's motives: entitlement, masculinity, toxic masculinity, privilege, and misogyny.
MRAs have been mentioned but so far not directly linked to the act.
One of the SWJ lessons I learned at Shakesville was to never question the mental wellness of a mass murderer/spree killer, because to do so is to impugn ALL people with mental illness. It was really something to watch them talk around the forbidden elephant in the room. They almost always reach for the misogyny card, as if any sane man could just suddenly snap one day and decide to start killing random people. And it never matters if it is random people and a sexually mixed group of victims, to them it is always misogyny.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34801

Post by Steersman »

rayshul wrote:So you have people like McRieght who is "for the underprivileged" but has a fit on the internet about a homeless man jerking off.

You have people like PZ who are perfect feminists who are forever respectful of women who then gets caught out making lewd remarks in a public situation or doing something rabidly anti-feminist, like, you know, having a pink bunny or something.

You have people like RW who supposedly support science but then get discovered they don't understand it or bother to research beyond wikipedia.

You have Ophelia who hates gendered slurs because they're evil, but is just fine with gendered slurs that involve male parts, and ignores when her friends use gendered slurs.

It's fucking ridiculous shit. That's what is funny.
Yea, "I think I'm with you on that." ;-)

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34802

Post by katamari Damassi »

OOPS! That's supposed to be SJW not SWJ.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34803

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
In passing, I wonder if you have any evidence that she “uses those words more than any of us here”. If you’re referring to that post of franc’s, then I would say that doesn’t really hold a lot of water as at least his initial quotes of Ophelia aren’t cases of her calling someone those words but of her describing or paraphrasing other people directing those epithets towards third parties:
Feel free to disagree.
Thanks; don’t mind if I do.
See if I care.
Now, now, Phil; you’re a better man than that – Gunga Din. You wouldn’t be quoting Hitchens if you didn’t think that “the truth matters”, even if you and Hitchens, I expect like all of us at one time or another, periodically seem to lose or lost or have lost sight of that objective.

But to address the substance of your post, you also said:
I never said she was calling anyone those words, just that she seems to write them (in quotes or otherwise) a lot more than anyone here, which is to me a clear indication of her martyrdom syndrome.
Ok, I’ll concede, I'll stand corrected, that you didn’t actually say that “she was calling anyone those words”, although, in passing, she did call some people “pricks” which, in a triumph of rationalization if not in fooling oneself, she excused with “irony”. However, that seems rather evasive on your part – being charitable (it’s Friday, “you gleek plick”) – as using those words is not the issue – using them as insults is. And, from what I can see, Ophelia hasn’t used those types of words – with the notable exception of “pricks” – in that way.

So claiming that the simple use of those words, a use that does not include using them as insults, seems a rather specious basis to conclude that she has a “martyrdom syndrome”. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but one might reasonably argue, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” ….

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34804

Post by murtzuphlus »

rayshul wrote: No. You aren't quote mining. But you're doing what SJWs do. You're finding a piece of random conversation, and you're using it to suggest that X has taken a particular position and is therefore a bad person and should be called out for it and shamed into saying that they were wrong/apologising.

These things don't matter. No one gives a flying fuck except SJWs who want to police language and all thought so they can remove any chance of someone having a thought they dislike. And that's fucked up. They are the worst human beings for doing that. I despise them but they also scare the fuck out of me.

The reason we dissect the stupidity of FtB is because they are SJWs. They want to police language, and yet they can't even manage to follow their own stupid rules, despite being paragons of virtue or whatever. I'm trying to find an analogy, and this is the best I can do - it's like when a homophobic preacher gets caught out in a gay relationship, or an outspoken racist discovers they have heritage from the racial group they discriminate againt. If they weren't shouting about how much they hated gays or whatever race, no one would give a flying fuck.

Does that make more sense? We're kinda rational. We know that random shit people say doesn't mean they're teh ebil. (Although when it comes to rants about not telling people you have HIV... well YMMV.) But we also think it's fucking funny that people who are so obsessed with SJW shit can't stop themselves from being hypocritical.

And I say we because today I am speaking on behalf of the 'pit. HAHA.
Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34805

Post by Rystefn »

murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

Pinker
.
.
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34806

Post by Pinker »

skepCHUD wrote:It turns out that some of the bright lights like Josh and Caine, Flower of Sickness(Evil?) over at Pharyngula have figured out the gun man's motives: entitlement, masculinity, toxic masculinity, privilege, and misogyny.
MRAs have been mentioned but so far not directly linked to the act.
It's going to get very ugly in that thread. The banning threshold will be lower than ever (Eris Caffee and andrewtyson are goners..)

The Onion article on the shooting: "Fuck Everything, Nation Reports"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-e ... rts,30743/

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34807

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
I'm pretty sure being hypocritical means you don't live up to your own standards.

The 'pit is pretty diverse. Some people do have standards about these issues, others don't. When someone does make a huge moral point about things, though, they're poked at if they don't stand by them. You can see a recent example of Franc's hate of smilies while using smilies is getting snerked at by Steersman. ^_^

I personally believe that swearing is awesome, and so do it constantly.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34808

Post by murtzuphlus »

Rystefn wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34809

Post by Gumby »

Tony Parsehole wrote:It's a bit restricting when you're trying to moralise using all caps, 140 characters and beginning every tweet with "Y U NO".
What a weird limitation to impose on oneself.
He was funny at first, but really... the schtick gets old fast. Plus, he rarely has any material that he doesn't get from the pit, so there's no reason to make an effort to read him (same reason I usually don't bother to watch Justicar's videos anymore... for a guy who's thinks he's too good to post here, he sure gets a lot of ideas for videos from here...) I was happy to jump on Y U NO with amused contempt today when he tried to prudishly wag his twitterfinger at Mykeru. Mykeru had it right a few posts back: Don't tell people how to run their shit, especially when we're all supposed to be against a group of totalitarian fools trying to tell everyone else how to run their shit.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34810

Post by murtzuphlus »

rayshul wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote: I'm pretty sure being hypocritical means you don't live up to your own standards.

The 'pit is pretty diverse. Some people do have standards about these issues, others don't. When someone does make a huge moral point about things, though, they're poked at if they don't stand by them. You can see a recent example of Franc's hate of smilies while using smilies is getting snerked at by Steersman. ^_^

I personally believe that swearing is awesome, and so do it constantly.
Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34811

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:
Rystefn wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.
Really? I do.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34812

Post by Steersman »

murtzuphlus wrote:
rayshul wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote: I'm pretty sure being hypocritical means you don't live up to your own standards.

The 'pit is pretty diverse. Some people do have standards about these issues, others don't. When someone does make a huge moral point about things, though, they're poked at if they don't stand by them. You can see a recent example of Franc's hate of smilies while using smilies is getting snerked at by Steersman. ^_^

I personally believe that swearing is awesome, and so do it constantly.
Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.
Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34813

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:
rayshul wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote: I'm pretty sure being hypocritical means you don't live up to your own standards.

The 'pit is pretty diverse. Some people do have standards about these issues, others don't. When someone does make a huge moral point about things, though, they're poked at if they don't stand by them. You can see a recent example of Franc's hate of smilies while using smilies is getting snerked at by Steersman. ^_^

I personally believe that swearing is awesome, and so do it constantly.
Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.
I don't know where we're not and where we haven't either shit on each other for it, or where people haven't been talked round to having a different viewpoint after a discussion.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34814

Post by Tigzy »

murtzuphlus wrote: I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.
Well, it depends: if someone is caught out being hypocritical over something they've only shown a mild to middling disdain for, then I'm pretty sure most people can let it pass. But when you have someone like Myers, whose disdain for misogyny is so deeply infused that he can liken critics of feminism to Marc Lepine, then he thoroughly needs to be called out when he doesn't live up to the ideals he is so vicious towards others about.

Walter Ego
.
.
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: North Carolina

More Doc Dropping!

#34815

Post by Walter Ego »

Guess my address and more ramblings from an over-caffeinated egomaniac.

[youtube]HHNeM9Ql3Mc[/youtube]

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34816

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote: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:

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34817

Post by Rystefn »

murtzuphlus wrote:
Rystefn wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.
Some people are substantially better at it than others. Some people, when caught in it, admit to what happened and try to be better. Some people are self-righteous, condescending douchnozzles who, in their own minds, can do no wrong.

It's not like we only point out the hypocrisy of the "other side" here. That would be substantially hypocritical. We call that shit out among our own just as quick. If you doubt that, just ask around how people here would respond if I turned up crying about my girlfriend having sex with another man. See? Consistency.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34818

Post by Gumby »

skepCHUD wrote:It turns out that some of the bright lights like Josh and Caine, Flower of Sickness(Evil?) over at Pharyngula have figured out the gun man's motives: entitlement, masculinity, toxic masculinity, privilege, and misogyny.
MRAs have been mentioned but so far not directly linked to the act.
It's amazing they have figured all that out before the police have even released the shooter's name. *spit*

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34819

Post by Mykeru »

murtzuphlus wrote:
Rystefn wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote:Yes, it makes more sense, but I still don't understand this: THEY are hypocritical because they can't live up up to their own standards, but WE (not speaking on behalf of the 'pit) are not because we don't have any such standards (about policing language). I can see the rhetorical point about PZ's much talked about video, but really?
What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.
Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34820

Post by murtzuphlus »

Steersman wrote: 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?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34821

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote: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 ….

soldierwhy
.
.
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34822

Post by soldierwhy »


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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34823

Post by Steersman »

murtzuphlus wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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?
That “Nerd of Redhead” might be a whacko or not seems to be totally irrelevant to the question of supporting one’s claims and arguments with evidence. Stopped clocks and all that ….

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34824

Post by Gumby »

Makes perfect sense. Omitting "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is what caused this tragedy, donchaknow?

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34825

Post by murtzuphlus »

Tigzy wrote: Well, it depends: if someone is caught out being hypocritical over something they've only shown a mild to middling disdain for, then I'm pretty sure most people can let it pass. But when you have someone like Myers, whose disdain for misogyny is so deeply infused that he can liken critics of feminism to Marc Lepine, then he thoroughly needs to be called out when he doesn't live up to the ideals he is so vicious towards others about.
Yes, I fully agree that was a particularly nasty move by PZ, which deserved all the ridicule it got. I could not believe the way he worded that piece. It was almost like he wanted to provoke a reaction.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34826

Post by Mykeru »

murtzuphlus wrote:
rayshul wrote:
murtzuphlus wrote: I'm pretty sure being hypocritical means you don't live up to your own standards.

The 'pit is pretty diverse. Some people do have standards about these issues, others don't. When someone does make a huge moral point about things, though, they're poked at if they don't stand by them. You can see a recent example of Franc's hate of smilies while using smilies is getting snerked at by Steersman. ^_^

I personally believe that swearing is awesome, and so do it constantly.
Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.
For fuck's sake.

You continue to confuse the lack of absolute standards with absolute adherence with there being no standards at all.

Example:

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.

So, by way your way of thinking because there are not absolute standards that people have perfect adherence to, we can't judge the hypocrisy, or lack thereof, in the previous examples?

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34827

Post by Lsuoma »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote: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 didn't see this until Andrew posted it because I have Steerpike on ignore, but Peezus Christ, Steersboy, do it you fucking self, eh?

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34828

Post by murtzuphlus »

Mykeru wrote: Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?
No, it isn't. I think it is more like saying you can throw the first stone if you are innocent.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34829

Post by Al Stefanelli »


rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34830

Post by rayshul »

Politically and ethically I don't think there's a lot the 'pit agrees on, really.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34831

Post by Gumby »

Anyone who uses twitter, feel free to direct some ire toward that putrid scumbag con man @erichovind. He's happily standing on a pile of murdered schoolchildren to shill for his god and act all fucking pious. Thanks soldierwhy for pointing it out.


https://twitter.com/erichovind

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34832

Post by rayshul »

murtzuphlus wrote:
Mykeru wrote: Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?
No, it isn't. I think it is more like saying you can throw the first stone if you are innocent.
Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34833

Post by murtzuphlus »

Mykeru wrote: For fuck's sake.

You continue to confuse the lack of absolute standards with absolute adherence with there being no standards at all.

Example:

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.

So, by way your way of thinking because there are not absolute standards that people have perfect adherence to, we can't judge the hypocrisy, or lack thereof, in the previous examples?
No, I think the point I was trying to make was that people say stupid things all the time, and that it doesn't make sense to draw all encompassing conclusions by what people may say just because they have stated an opinion on things (although it is fun). For fuck's sake.

murtzuphlus
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34834

Post by murtzuphlus »

rayshul wrote: Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.
Rayshul, I certainly don't think you are a hypocrite or are acting like one. Not that it matters to you what I think - just sayin'.

Barael
.
.
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34835

Post by Barael »

Phil Giordana:

If you/your band happen to come to Finland anytime soon, I will both a) come to your gig, b) buy you a beer (and then some) afterwards.

Locked