Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34621

Post by KiwiInOz »

cunt wrote:Bit of early morning Pharyngula. Page 2 in the comment section seems to have gotten a bit interesting. As it generally tends to when noelplum99 posts.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

Particularly funny Nerd Of Redhead meltdown. Little guy just keeps squawking "citation needed", "OPINION IS NOT EVIDENCE". *sob* "fuckwitted loser" *sob*

http://i.imgur.com/vo62h.jpg

Oh yeah and that idiotic Tony guy turns up at the end to try and guilt-by-association Jim.
Fuck me sideways with a slow boiled porcupine. There is some serious je ne sais quoit there. For example:
634

Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
13 December 2012 at 11:37 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ezekiel:

From the outside, this pointless bickering is ridiculous and doesn’t serve any purpose other than to give well-established members a free rein to shout down anyone with a difference of opinion.

I don’t care if you’re on the inside, outside, or some combo of both:
the Slymepitters are in the wrong.
These are people that treat women like shit.
They don’t care about advancing feminism.
They treat so many people inhumanly.
They are the antithesis of what Phayrngula–and FtB at large–stands for.

The Slymepit is Lex Luthor to FreetThoughtBlogs’ Superman.

The bickering between the two is because the ‘Pit actively seeks to silence women and treat their concerns as insignificant. There is no equivalence to be drawn. There is no “both sides are just as bad” argument. If you think that, you seriously have a critical thinking malfunction.
To all of the women on this site, please accept my apologies for the way that we treat you and all other members of your gender.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34622

Post by KiwiInOz »

Pinker wrote:I'd already screencapped a few of Tony's brilliant moments. I'm glad i checked that far into the comments:

The Slymepit is Lex Luthor to FreeThoughtBlogs Superman! 8-)
You treat people inhumanly, you dirtbag piece of shit!

http://i.imgur.com/EhjM0.jpg
Damn you are quick. And yours looks far nicer than mine.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34623

Post by cunt »

Pinker wrote:
cunt wrote:franc if you need pics for "things baboons say" this thing is a goldmine.
#649 is a good one too, although that's not so funny. Tony really goes off the rails.
I only just started noticing that guy in the last few weeks. Dunno if he's was a regular before then. He strikes me as a n00b who just thinks this is what the baboons do. Like he has to that extreme to fit in with them.

Hilarious if that's it.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34624

Post by Steersman »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Well, it's like beating a dead horse, but here's one from Setar at A+ forum:
The victim-blamers are the harassers

Opening post, with link to http://www.livescience.com/13654-victim ... sment.html
....

One has to wonder, particularly as I didn’t see any link to the specific study, how statistically significant the results were – the averages of 6 versus 5. In addition one has to wonder how carefully the researchers compensated for any differences in the capabilities of the individuals in the first place.

Lies, damned lies and statistics …. Methinks there’s some possibility that some people have their thumbs on the scales ….
....
Anywho, there just isn't enough information on those reports to tell if the study (studies?) was legit or not. From the commentary given, it looks like a pile of shite but, who knows, maybe there are hidden depths in the published works. <Fails to hold breath.>

Seriously, how did that get past any competent supervisor/grant approval etc etc? I don't even know where to begin with that stuff. Oh, yes I do. How the hell do you know that (a) there is an effect (b) it has anything to do with your supposed independent variable and (c) it bears any veridical relationship to the real world? Must be the "my leanings as fixed effect fallacy".
Reminds of an interesting observation or claim from PZ recently to the effect that there is an awful lot of crap that is published these days, even in supposed “reputable journals”. More than a few have criticized that state of affairs – for example, Lee Smolin in his The Trouble with Physics – but it seems that there is somewhat of a consensus that a large portion of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the “publish or perish” “principle”. Reminds me of the case of “the African long-tailed widow bird” – discussed in some detail by Dawkins in his The Blind Watchmaker [pg 201] – the males of which are, supposedly, just barely able to get airborne before becoming lunch for predators because the females have selected for those decidedly unaerodynamic, but oh so fetching, long tails.
AnonymousCowherd wrote:Also:
Gervais and her colleagues trained research assistants to do a quick up-and-down look at a person's body and to train their gaze at the other person's chest for a consistent period of a few seconds during conversations. It was harder than it sounds, Gervais said.
...
After the assistants had undergone close to 30 hours of gaze-training apiece, the researchers asked 67 women and 83 men, all college students, to come to the lab.
You had to train people men to ogle and it took thirty hours!?
Job security if not actually fraud by the look of it. “It’s in my genes / jeans, man!”

Although the recent kerfuffle initiated by Watson’s specious criticisms of evolutionary psychology leads one to think that there are some quite problematic and questionable biases and assumptions in play in the discussion which leads to some rather bizarre arguments. For example, I find it quite curious and more than a little amusing to note that many seem to be quite happy to argue that “rape” is a “guy thing”, but get “their knickers in a twist” at the thought that it might be true that “needlepoint is a girl thing”.

Although the problem seems to be compounded by the fact that many seem to be unable to comprehend that those stereotypes are predicated on statistical distributions – that they are “descriptive”, not “prescriptive” even if some have a regrettable tendency to the latter while others – Ophelia Benson, for instance – seem not to know whereof they speak. I mean for her to assert, in effect, that “it’s a guy thing” is a sexist stereotype and to point out with some peevishness that Michael Shermer said just that, and then finally to argue that she didn’t call him a sexist is almost too rich for words.

However, for what I think is a rather cogent synopsis of that general problem you might be interested in this newspaper article which profiles Steve Pinker’s The Blank Slate and which makes this salient observation:
That’s why people don’t touch taboos; yet as Pinker argued in the book, the great taboo of today is that of human nature and the blank slate is a sacred doctrine. Despite the book's impact, 10 years later the blank-slate model of human nature is still routinely discussed as fact, rather than fantasy, and continues to have serious implications for society ….

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34625

Post by cunt »

http://i.imgur.com/d8ZHm.jpg

Oh okay, if you say so Peez.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34626

Post by Skep tickle »

Noelplum has a bunch of good comments in that thread, and there are other reasonable people weighing in (or trying to).

#571 caught my eye. NP gives stats on his Youtube viewers, including gender distribution, from google analytics. But how reliable is google analytics for this purpose? Anyone know if it uses the same info, or makes the same assumptions, as Google Ads Preferences? Because in that arena I have long been assumed to be male (wrong) and 25-34 (wrong), and those assumptions haven't changed since I first checked a year ago. And I'm not the only woman assumed to be male: Google thinks I'm a middle-aged man. What about you?

(I've figured that the default might be male, perhaps in part to avoid assuming men are women. Presumably "assumed-male-but-actually-female" is considered a generally more acceptable error than "assumed-female-but-actually-male".)

My preferences at Google Ad Preferences Manager include Science, Business, News, and Politics. I suspect that visiting so many atheist & skeptic sites probably also plays into its assumptions, but Atheism isn't listed as a separate category. It may be folded into on of the others.

So it seems possible (without my having looked to actually find out anything about how google analytics works, ha) that google analytics could be making a very basic error in both assuming that users who visit atheist/skeptic sites or watch atheist/skeptic videos can be reliably labeled as male, and then concluding that so-labeled users visiting atheist/skeptic sites or watching atheist/skeptic videos are indeed male. That seems like so basic and stupid an error...could it be happening?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34627

Post by rayshul »

Off topic: I've been looking at Everyday Sexism (twitter)'s feed of all these apparently sexist things that happen to women. The problem is that until these incidents I'd only heard of them directed at men.

Also: Congrats fascination!

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34628

Post by rayshul »

There's a link to Jeremy's post here somehwere right? http://www.jeremystyron.com/2012/12/the-neofeminists/

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34629

Post by rayshul »

I don't understand the kerfuffle over describing needlepoint as a "girl thing". You're talking about a stereotype, it appears to be in quotation marks, and needlepoint is seen as a "girl thing". Am I missing something? (I often am LOL.)

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34630

Post by Steersman »

cunt wrote:http://i.imgur.com/d8ZHm.jpg

Oh okay, if you say so Peez.
It might be true that one or two posting there are “passionate, focused and ferocious”, although the percentage drops precipitously when noelplum vacates the premises. The rest? Largely a bunch of fucking ignorant dickheads.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34631

Post by Skep tickle »

rayshul wrote:Off topic: I've been looking at Everyday Sexism (twitter)'s feed of all these apparently sexist things that happen to women. The problem is that until these incidents I'd only heard of them directed at men.
"Women Under Siege"? (twitter account, big fan of EverydaySexism)

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34632

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:Noelplum has a bunch of good comments in that thread, and there are other reasonable people weighing in (or trying to).
Indeed, he does, notably this one:
398. noelplum99
13 December 2012 at 12:48 pm (UTC -6)

@389
When we observe other mammals we see differences between the sexes in terms of behaviour that are not clouded by culture in the same way they are with humans. I am thinking off the top of my head and other than cetaceans I can’t think of another group of mammals that doesn’t observe some innate behavioural difference (and that, i presume, just shows my ignorance of cetaceans)

So your ‘null hypothesis’ is that homo sapiens are unlike other mammals? Have I got that right?
Why would this be your expectation?

Jim.
That seems to be the basic assumption over there, that we are, in effect, “God’s chosen species” and so have extra swag and none of our behaviours are anything other than culturally determined or intrinsic rationality bestowed by Jehovah Hisself. You might be interested in Stephanie Zvan’s latest and typically egregious sally into those regions, but which looks more like an exercise in intellectual dishonesty – being charitable.

But interesting observations about Google’s demographic statistics – bias and assumptions and their effects aren’t always easy to discern or compensate for.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34633

Post by rayshul »

Skep tickle wrote:
rayshul wrote:Off topic: I've been looking at Everyday Sexism (twitter)'s feed of all these apparently sexist things that happen to women. The problem is that until these incidents I'd only heard of them directed at men.
"Women Under Siege"? (twitter account, big fan of EverydaySexism)
I haven't seen that - ElevatorGate has just been on a retweeting binge (bless his heart).

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34634

Post by Skep tickle »

rayshul wrote:I don't understand the kerfuffle over describing needlepoint as a "girl thing". You're talking about a stereotype, it appears to be in quotation marks, and needlepoint is seen as a "girl thing". Am I missing something? (I often am LOL.)
Needlepointers seem to be camera-shy; hard to find a photo of a group of them (as a start at assessing diversity).

But here's a list of Officers in The National NeedleArts Association: http://www.tnna.org/members/group.asp?id=82876

Assuming gender from first names (which could be an invalid assumption), it looks like there are 7 men and 7 women in the list, with the Board President, Vice-President, and Immediate Past President likely male (Joel, Dale, and Matt), and with the Secretary likely female (Sharon). I guess I'm also assuming cis-gender because we haven't specified whether needlepoint being "a girl thing" might also include it being "a trans-girl thing".

So, there you go! Proof that needlepointers are 50:50 male:female and that needlepoint is not "a girl thing". :mrgreen:

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34635

Post by real horrorshow »

Mykeru wrote:I will donate a dollar to their future utopia in the exclusion zone.
http://i.imgur.com/paDWJ.jpg

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34636

Post by Trophy »

John Brown wrote: Just as a thought experiment, imagine this.

I decide to critique the beauty pageant world. I'm nearly a complete outsider to it, though I do have some cursory knowledge from popular culture and some hands on knowledge because my daughter participated briefly in a circuit when she was younger. ....

After a series of these videos, I start a Kickstarter campaign and to ask for money so I can continue my "research," which will entail traveling several beauty pageant circles, buying and watching every Miss America Pageant since its inception, etc, etc, etc...

I will then take the *ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE* invective I will get from the beauty pageant world and use it as proof that they all hate men. I will show every sexist comment (and believe me, there will be thousands of them) as proof as to why this "research" is needed. I will block and delete any reasonable disagreement made against my position so only the most egregious troll comments are shown.
Again, if the pegeant world begins a harrassment campaign by drawing pictures of you naked in various sexual positions and then emails them to you, yes, they are full of shit. However, if what they do is to respond back with critcism and arguments then there is no blame with them. This is a quite trivial statement and I doubt you would disagree with this. You might say that it's just too obvious doesn't need to be mentioned but when you are dealing with kids (i.e., FTB crowd) it's good to mention the obvious.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34637

Post by Steersman »

rayshul wrote:I don't understand the kerfuffle over describing needlepoint as a "girl thing". You're talking about a stereotype, it appears to be in quotation marks, and needlepoint is seen as a "girl thing". Am I missing something? (I often am LOL.)
I think it is basically that Ophelia’s perceptions, which she shares with many, are that some stereotypes are considered more valuable than others: Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing” and therefore at the top of the totem pole, whereas needlepoint is disparaged as a “girly” thing.

Yet she is apparently blind to other stereotypes where the shoe is on the other foot: rape, as I’ve mentioned, or that most of the people in jails are male, while, if I’m not mistaken, most nurses and grade-school teachers – suggestive of “our better natures” – happen to be female.

In similar situations, failing to note all of the applicable cases tends to be the mark of the fanatic or the demagogue or the willfully obtuse ….

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34638

Post by Trophy »

Altair wrote: So here we have a MAN that claims that scantily clad women and skimpy armor and outfits are viciously sexist and objectifying for WOMEN, and on the other side we have a WOMAN who enjoys having her characters dress like that and who raises some rather mild objections that have to do mainly with practicality (she also has some objections related to body image, in which she acknowledges that the issues affect both men and women).

PZ, Y U NO LISTEN TO WOMEN?
Back in the day when I was still commenting on pharyngula, I had an argument with one of those ideologues because she was claiming that "Women don't like it when guys do X" (I don't remember what exactly it was). When I told her I'm pretty sure I can find many women who say they like it when guys do X (and I gave her a few blogs where women said why they like it when guys do X). Then I mentioned that it is better to rephrase the beginning to "Most women don't like it" or the better "Some women don't like it" or even the best "I don't like it". I think she blinked a few times and then replied back "Women don't like it when guys do X!"

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34639

Post by rayshul »

Well I'm talking about the stereotype, not the reality - the idea of something being a "girl thing" in quotation marks I kinda assumed meant it was to ridicule the idea of something being a "girl thing". Like needlepoint, or wearing an apron, or being a good little wife-type. Like, the old fashioned stuff.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34640

Post by Steersman »

rayshul wrote:Well I'm talking about the stereotype, not the reality - the idea of something being a "girl thing" in quotation marks I kinda assumed meant it was to ridicule the idea of something being a "girl thing". Like needlepoint, or wearing an apron, or being a good little wife-type. Like, the old fashioned stuff.
But the argument seems to be that the stereotype, buying into it, tends to influence opportunities and rights. For instance, one of the definitions of sexism [not the Atheism Plus one in their Glossary which is totally fucked] is:
sexism: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Perfectly acceptable, I think, to be aware of those stereotypes which frequently have more than a little justification or truth to them - it is simply a matter of fact that there are more female grade-school teachers than males; that there are more males than females in the A/S cohort; that there are, apparently, more male than female Pharnygulites ("sexists!"). But not acceptable to be limiting civil rights or opportunities on the basis of them. Unfortunately many including Benson have a tendency to conflate those two aspects which is a problem in itself.

But the quoting of the various phrases is a little problematic - in some cases it is a literal quote of what someone said, at other times it seems to point to some questionable interpretations of them - both pro and con.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34641

Post by Skep tickle »

Steersman wrote:
398. noelplum99
13 December 2012 at 12:48 pm (UTC -6)

@389
When we observe other mammals we see differences between the sexes in terms of behaviour that are not clouded by culture in the same way they are with humans. I am thinking off the top of my head and other than cetaceans I can’t think of another group of mammals that doesn’t observe some innate behavioural difference (and that, i presume, just shows my ignorance of cetaceans)

So your ‘null hypothesis’ is that homo sapiens are unlike other mammals? Have I got that right?
Why would this be your expectation?

Jim.
That seems to be the basic assumption over there, that we are, in effect, “God’s chosen species” and so have extra swag and none of our behaviours are anything other than culturally determined or intrinsic rationality bestowed by Jehovah Hisself. You might be interested in Stephanie Zvan’s latest and typically egregious sally into those regions, but which looks more like an exercise in intellectual dishonesty – being charitable. ...
Zvan is pretty snarky in her comments to people who challenge her at her blog; that's not new. ("Challenge" as in, don't lap it up unquestioningly.)

At any rate, she links to a more detailed piece by Laden posted the same day. Her conclusion:
It means that, given just how flexible our brains are, the body of research produced so far has failed to prove that this particular behavior, at this particular level of granularity, is determined by our genes. The null hypothesis, that our genes are responsible more generally for the organization of our brains and behavior, still stands.
I find her comment on "just how flexible our brains are" to be interesting and IMO naive & deluded (in a common way). I don't see it that way, though of course there's no specifics given to described what she specifically means by brain flexibility. While our cognitive & language abilities shine among the animal kingdom, I'm amazed at how "hard-wired" we seem to be (consider cognitive errors & optical illusions, the effects of focal brain damage, and so on).

We humans are very impressed with ourselves, especially our brains, but our entire sensory experience and our consciousness, whatever the heck that is, is an illusion, and we're almost entirely unaware of the workings our brains (though we remain happy to convey the message to each other that our brains are hot shit, the best thing the universe has come up with).

Miss O Gynist
.
.
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: California

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34642

Post by Miss O Gynist »

Justalurker wrote:
He says in the original video that you should not talk this way to your students. Admits its a bad idea. Why is that, if they are over 18?
Huh? It's a bad idea because of power differential. Teacher:student. Age has nothing to do with it.
He knows that, he got busted and he is making every excuse possible.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34643

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

The kitchen is my eminent domain. Ali only cooks when we feel like having some Polish cuisine, like zurek or pierogi. I'm also in charge of the groceries and the house-cleaning (except when Ali is between jobs, in which case we share the cleaning chores).

When I was in high school, I took knitting classes, which both my parents forced me to quit because it was too "girly". I took chess club instead, which could have been a worse trade-off, but in the end I still don't know how to sew or knit. I have had, however, a "point de croix" periode and my rendition of one of the "Dame à la Licorne" panels still stands gloriously in some family attic somewhere.

Anyway, talk about gender stereotypes...

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34644

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote: @Andrew

As mentioned in a previous post, I would like to see something similar to that study by the US Department of Justice on the prevalence of rape. Maybe something based on a form sent out to all parties in various divorce cases or a significant subset of them along with some information on how many are “no-fault” and maybe follow-ups indicating whether the individuals were with happy with the outcomes.
Sorry Steers I do not have it (nothing that would satisfy me anyway). I did give you a link to what I do have, but if you ever get around to downloading a couple of the reports, I am confident you will see for yourself why they are problematic for me making a case.
Thanks for the links on the educational system which certainly look interesting, the one on the “Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Biases” in particular as its sample of 1200 students is of at least the same order of magnitude as those on rape. And while I haven’t read the entire report in detail, my impression is that the magnitude of the effect – some 3 or 6 percentage – isn’t all that significant: certainly not sufficient to give much credibility to any claims of a nefarious “gynocracy” or matriarchy working their ebil ways.

In addition, I note that both of those studies – the one in England and the other in Israel – dealt with grade-school students. And their findings seem to be somewhat at variance with this report from the AAUW [American Association of University Women] which argues, based on the prevalence of women in STEM fields – apparently post university graduation, that it is the women who get the shaft because of sexism when it should be the other way around if the effect described in the previous studies was particularly accurate or significant. Methinks that there's some relevance to Will Shetterley’s post which suggests that hormonal developments might have more of an influence than either of those studies apparently give credit for.

As for the statistics on divorce – I agree that what I was looking for doesn’t seem to be readily available and it is likely to be rather difficult to make a case that a substantial number of men are shafted by the divorce courts – at least using evidence rather than hear-say and anecdotes. Although I note that a Wikipedia article on the topic indicates the prevalence of “no-fault” divorces which seems likely to reduce the potential population of “shaftees”.

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34645

Post by Jonathan »

Today's A+ gem. So long, poorly-written and demented that even a moderator is bemused.

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34646

Post by real horrorshow »

Trophy wrote:Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever.
What has Sarkeesian done but shove her opinion in the face of gamers and the gaming industry? When you make videos and blog posts and give interviews and conference talks that you know, in advance, some people are going to vehemently disagree with. It is just stupid to be surprised when that disagreement is expressed.
But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment.
Really? People e-mail me random bullshit all the time. It's not harassment, it's spam. Ad breaks in TV shows, the torrent of glossy leaflets that fall out of every magazine all spam, but not harassment. If you mean the stuff that's sent to Sarkeesian specifically in response to the opinions she's expressed, I would estimate that it falls into two categories:
1. People expressing their views on the issues she has raised - which they are perfectly entitled to do.
2. The usual crap from the usual idiots that everyone who makes themselves conspicuous on-line gets - unfortunate but, like spam, inevitable.
So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman. Of course, it is possible her "sexist detector" is kind of biased and is giving her a lot of false positives.
I willingly concede that their are some people who hate women and some of Sarkeesian's critics may fall into that category. Also, as has been mentioned here several times, trolls use what they think will work. Guys get insults about their masculinity and potency. Girls get rape references and attacks on their appearance. So she's getting some kinds of hostile reaction because she's a woman, but the volume of reaction she's getting just reflects how unpopular her views are. A man would get different insults, but just as many, for saying the same things. Finally, some of the sexualised abuse she's getting, is probably because she's seen as being anti-sex.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34647

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I can't remember if it was here or on FB's Anti-A+ page that I was discussing my Bailey's hangover and subsequent aversion to the stuff, but, just sayin':

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 2593_n.jpg

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34648

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Steers, it seems you are effectively slipping into oolon territory here.

Oh, oh. Full speed astern, Mr. Sulu. :-)
We've had this talk before, many times.
And it came around on the gui-tar again because Rystefn restated “conventional wisdom” which I remain somewhat skeptical of. But sorry for the delay in responding to your post – I’ve had to rewrite it a couple of times and it’s still incomplete. However, it seems that the question – generally sexism versus racism – is a rather complex one which I don’t really have a particularly good handle on. And it is also one that is compounded by issues of human psychology and the mechanisms of language as well as by questions on the degree to which various epithets are justified in civil discourse and the degree to which any particular group and members thereof are “deserving” of public criticism or opprobrium.

For instance, relative to the last aspect, one might reasonably argue that all members of the class “rapists” are deserving of that opprobrium while it might arguably be less true for “NAMBLA-ists” or zoophilists or “incest-ists” [the family that lays together stays together; one should do everything in life at least once - with the possible exceptions of folk-dancing and incest ….]. However, when we get to the classes, “blacks”, “homosexuals”, “women” or “men”, for examples, claims that all members are somehow inferior or reprehensible simply for being members of those classes are quite justifiably met by shock and anger.

But targetting individuals in those classes, even by pointing or alluding to various attributes? That seems to be quite a bit more of a sticky wicket. For instance, several here have used words such as “spic”, “wop”, “kike”, “faggot” and the like to describe themselves and/or others without those in any way carrying pejorative connotations. Reminds me of a case here in Canada some time ago when a Ukrainian man – a group which had historically been targetted with the epithet “hunky” – wanted to open a restaurant named “Hunky Bill’s”. Which of course had the fainting-couch brigade out in full force.

But I think the point is that making words verboten – rather than some “principles” in whose service they might be used – tends to be counterproductive. I wonder what Hitchens might have had to say on the topic.

However, to briefly address some of your other comments or questions:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Rystefn is right: either they're full of shit (my personal choice) or they're misogynists. Why won't Benson condemn Minchin and Rhys if she trully believes what she preaches (that "cunt" and "twat" are always sexist, even though she seems to use these words more than any of us here)?
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:
Ophelia Benson wrote:Ah well now that really is blunt. Thank you. Now we know where we are. If you “can’t handle” being called a fucking cunt, then stop writing.
Although I will agree that many over there, Benson in particular, have a very problematic tendency to a “my country, my tribe: right or wrong” type of thinking. Although I’ve noted a few examples of that in this neck of the woods too.

But you also asked, “Are you really buying their bullshit? Do you really think they are being sincere?” And to answer them briefly I would say that I’m not buying all of it – less so these days, but think that generally many of them are being sincere – probably just as sincere as most here. But I think the problem, at least the superficial one, is that sincerity is no guarantee of being right even if it isn’t being feigned. As people like the biologist Robert Trivers and Richard Feynman have noted, people are remarkably adept at fooling themselves or misinterpreting facts, frequently in a flattering or self-aggrandizing way. Along which line you might be interested in Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34649

Post by Scented Nectar »

sacha wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
sacha wrote:There are already plenty of men who feel ashamed that being dominant and rough turns them on because they are made to feel ashamed by society, which has succeeded in convincing them that not only is something wrong with them for being sexually aroused by this, but that women, like children, cannot give consent
I'm just glad that I got to experience everything I wanted to try (at least twice) when I was younger, now I want less physical dominance, and more psychological, so I very rarely have any "evidence" left after a particularly enjoyable evening, and I'm very glad that my age preference in men is mid to late 50's, because elder men with more experience are able to read women a hell of a lot better, choose a hell of a lot better, and the men I'm attracted to, not only have a good idea of what sort of person I will be after, but know precisely what will interest me, long before our clothes are shed, and if they ever had any shame about what they like, they lost it years before they met me.
My bold etc. You realize don't you, that you just gave PZ a raging boner?

That is IF, in that video of PZ making poker sex jokes, he was overdoing it pretending the opposite, saying he would submit to having sex with the volunteer. Maybe his real inclinations are quite the opposite to "submitting", and he's all ashamed and extra feminist because of it?
PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.
I have lousy radar for other people's sexual leanings, so I'm going with your opinion. I suspect your radar works better than mine.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34650

Post by Scented Nectar »

BarnOwl wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:So, er, Physioprof pitches in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... -feminist/

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this guy? Why does he add extra letters to words? Why does he end most words with an e? :?:
Maybe he's trying to erase some of his elitist prep school arsewad privilege with regressive spelling. TBH, I find his motivations to be about as intriguing as those of the 2-cm cockroach that was hanging out on the wall of one of the stairwells at work this morning.
I don't think it's good that Greg is hanging out in your workplace stairwell, bothering you at work like that. I'll bet that once you weren't looking, he went straight to your boss tattle-taling in hopes they would give you shit for using bad words during your off-work time.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34651

Post by Scented Nectar »

Mykeru wrote:
fascination wrote:Hey everyone! It's been almost a week since I last posted. I had been feeling sick and I thought it was just the flu. Well, it turns out that I am pregnant. My husband is ecstatic.
Do you know whose it is?
I grew up with jokes about whether I looked more like the Sears delivery guy or the mailman.

Oh groaner joke warning!

A couple are expecting a baby. The doctor says he has new technology that, if they want, can transfer some of the labour pains to the father. They say yes, and as labour begins the father hooks himself up to the machine. The button is pressed and she feels a lot less pain. He says "this is nothing, doesn't hurt at all", so the doctor switches it all the way so that the father gets all the pain. She starts to feel no pain at all. He says "still nothing" and they go on to have a delivery totally free of pain for either of them. Coming home, on their front step, they discover their mailman, passed out from pain.

Well, I did warn you all that it was a groaner. :doh:

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34652

Post by Trophy »

real horrorshow wrote:Really? People e-mail me random bullshit all the time. It's not harassment, it's spam. Ad breaks in TV shows, the torrent of glossy leaflets that fall out of every magazine all spam, but not harassment. If you mean the stuff that's sent to Sarkeesian specifically in response to the opinions she's expressed, I would estimate that it falls into two categories:
1. People expressing their views on the issues she has raised - which they are perfectly entitled to do.
2. The usual crap from the usual idiots that everyone who makes themselves conspicuous on-line gets - unfortunate but, like spam, inevitable.
If you send me emails that contain offensive material directed at me, and the goal is to annoy me, or disturb me and it's obvious that there's no "good faith", then you are harrassing and in many places it is actually a criminal activity. Sending me photoshopped pornographics images of me clearly falls into that category and can be prosecuted by law. AGAIN THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS GODDAMNED IT.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34653

Post by Trophy »

On other news:
Jadehawk wrote:most of the women here [pharyngula] are not skepchicks, and have in fact on occasion been critical of that particular name, yes.
I really don't need to further comment on this, do I? But a certain individual wearing a T-shirt comes into mind hmmm :D.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34654

Post by cunt »

Miss O Gynist wrote:
Justalurker wrote:
He says in the original video that you should not talk this way to your students. Admits its a bad idea. Why is that, if they are over 18?
Huh? It's a bad idea because of power differential. Teacher:student. Age has nothing to do with it.
He knows that, he got busted and he is making every excuse possible.
Busted doing what? Making a bunch of shit jokes? Having zero comic timing? Sorry but that video was lame.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34655

Post by Mykeru »

Trophy wrote:
Back in the day when I was still commenting on pharyngula, I had an argument with one of those ideologues because she was claiming that "Women don't like it when guys do X" (I don't remember what exactly it was). When I told her I'm pretty sure I can find many women who say they like it when guys do X (and I gave her a few blogs where women said why they like it when guys do X). Then I mentioned that it is better to rephrase the beginning to "Most women don't like it" or the better "Some women don't like it" or even the best "I don't like it". I think she blinked a few times and then replied back "Women don't like it when guys do X!"
Yeah, well, the tendency for these sort of cranial-anal insertion types to universalize their own neurosis, from "we speak for all women" right down to "I speak for all women" is just moving from organisational to individual narcissism.

Which makes NAFALTing and NAWALTing just that much more funny when they pull it.

Keating

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34656

Post by Keating »

Trophy wrote:If you send me emails that contain offensive material directed at me, and the goal is to annoy me, or disturb me and it's obvious that there's no "good faith", then you are harrassing and in many places it is actually a criminal activity. Sending me photoshopped pornographics images of me clearly falls into that category and can be prosecuted by law. AGAIN THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS GODDAMNED IT.
I agree with you. I think the problem here is that the presence of such harassment also causes legitimate criticism to be easily dismissed. This annoys the people who went to the effort of thinking through their argument and writing up objections, as their efforts are ignored as "harassment" and "trolls". This creates an atmosphere where it appears that disagreeing with a woman is synonymous with misogyny.

I think there is certainly a group of people, probably largely men, who do actively engage in harassment of women, especially when those women happen to disagree with them. It should go without saying that this is a bad thing. It is somewhat a product of the nature of the way the Internet works.

I think that much legitimate criticism is unfairly dismissed because of this. I also think some feminists do somewhat deliberately play this up to avoid having to answer the legitimate criticism.

One of the differences of opinion in the Great Atheist Schism seem to be about how to handle this. Should bad ideas be given a pass because some people harass the people who say them?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34657

Post by sacha »

John Brown wrote:
Trophy wrote:
I guess on this point we can agree to disagree. And of course, there's really no way to test it. Even if we could rewind the time and have her video be made by a guy, probably just because of that difference the videol would not have been popular.

So basically, I still think some of the hostile reaction (and not the criticism) is because she is a woman but also because she is an outsider to the gaming community which is again, highly correlated with her being a woman.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine this.

I decide to critique the beauty pageant world. I'm nearly a complete outsider to it, though I do have some cursory knowledge from popular culture and some hands on knowledge because my daughter participated briefly in a circuit when she was younger.

I make a series of videos pointing out how sexist beauty pageants are to men. I do this by fitting every observation into a rubric of overall misandry towards men. Beauty pageants appeal to our basest desires. They teach men that they should desire the unobtainable. They teach men X. They teach men Y. Men are only used as props...as announcers or stylists, while the women get all the glory.

After a series of these videos, I start a Kickstarter campaign and to ask for money so I can continue my "research," which will entail traveling several beauty pageant circles, buying and watching every Miss America Pageant since its inception, etc, etc, etc...

I will then take the *ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE* invective I will get from the beauty pageant world and use it as proof that they all hate men. I will show every sexist comment (and believe me, there will be thousands of them) as proof as to why this "research" is needed. I will block and delete any reasonable disagreement made against my position so only the most egregious troll comments are shown.

Then, after a period of time, I will just ignore my backers as they continually ask what I'm doing with all the money they gave me. In fact, I will use that as *further evidence* of misandry, regardless if the invective is coming from women or men.

Yeah. That would TOTALLY go over well.
well done, John Brown

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34658

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

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:
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.

Feel free to disagree.

See if I care.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34659

Post by Scented Nectar »

cunt wrote:Busted doing what? Making a bunch of shit jokes? Having zero comic timing? Sorry but that video was lame.
Busted doing the very thing he preaches against.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34660

Post by rayshul »

Read that weird feminist ramble from A+ ... I'm glad the A+ers can scramble out of their safe holes for long enough to recognise pure nuttiness. Feminism eh.
Steersman wrote:Perfectly acceptable, I think, to be aware of those stereotypes which frequently have more than a little justification or truth to them - it is simply a matter of fact that there are more female grade-school teachers than males; that there are more males than females in the A/S cohort; that there are, apparently, more male than female Pharnygulites ("sexists!"). But not acceptable to be limiting civil rights or opportunities on the basis of them. Unfortunately many including Benson have a tendency to conflate those two aspects which is a problem in itself.

But the quoting of the various phrases is a little problematic - in some cases it is a literal quote of what someone said, at other times it seems to point to some questionable interpretations of them - both pro and con.
I think I'm with you on that.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34661

Post by franc »

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:
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.
Refer Project Prune Grep -

http://greylining.com/2012/11/20/project-prune-grep/

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34662

Post by sacha »

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.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34663

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Seems like Laden has deleted his ridiculous FB comments on Derek Colanduno's post. Shame about those screencaps from earlier, though...

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34664

Post by sacha »

Mykeru wrote:
sacha wrote:PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.
Speaking of which, how'd you like a ride on my bully pulpit, baby?
only if there is a crowd watching

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34665

Post by sacha »

HoneyWagon wrote:Too funny not to share. This just happened
http://i.imgur.com/kdcAB.png
brilliant

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

Trigger Warning!!! For Girl Things

#34666

Post by Scented Nectar »

Remember that symmetry feature that the old Amiga-ported-to-DOS Deluxe paint? Well, years ago, these two needlepoints (arrgh, run for the hills! girl thing!) resulted from using the symmetry feature. Never got around to stretching or framing them, so they are a bit askew.

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0 ... raphic.gif http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/00008-001-512.png

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0 ... raphic.gif http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/00008-002-512.png

I have over 1700 free needlepoint designs, including some like these (but better; these were my first few designs), but they are down right now. I'm trying to convert all the .doc versions of the patterns to html because not everyone has Microsoft Word. None of the batch conversion programs I've tried so far work right on them either screwing with the formatting (which is not a complex one), or totally trashing the results.

I use a unique system for my patterns; sequential form of counted stitching, where there is a separate page for each added colour. The pattern always looks like the stage you're working on, with no future colours getting in the way (that can be especially confusing if your colours are similar in color or shade), but with already done colours showing, just like on your canvas.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34667

Post by franc »

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:
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.
No wonder I didn't see who you were quoting. Steers-"hold my dick while I pee"-man, who has never made any kind of effort to verify anything for himself, ever, instead expecting nice guys like you to do it all for him. Now I remember why I have him on ignore. Fucking moron. LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF YOU CRIPPLE. Instead of derailing with the same lame questions that have been addressed a gazillion times before. Fucking dead weight loser.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34668

Post by Scented Nectar »

sacha wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
sacha wrote:PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.
Speaking of which, how'd you like a ride on my bully pulpit, baby?
only if there is a crowd watching
Oh why not, I'm in. I'll watch.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34669

Post by franc »

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.
Yes, I was too busy to logout and back in as myself.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34670

Post by sacha »

BarnOwl wrote:Meanwhile, over at Butthurt & Whingeing:
Isn’t that great? Needlepoint is a girl thing, atheism is a guy thing. Nothing sexist about that! Nothing to see here folks, go on home, take your needlepoint with you.

<snip quote from Justin Vacula>

Apparently Vacula is completely unaware of the many reports of vicious sexism in gaming, and just can’t imagine why WoW attracts a male population. Just one of those quirky things – guys like World of Warcraft, women don’t like being told “tits or GTFO” – isn’t life mysterious and fascinating.
One of the reasons – only one – what Shermer said was so wrongheaded is the fact that it treats the current situation as something that just happened, randomly, somehow, probably because guys do guy things and women do women things. The reality is that the current situation happened partly because women kept being ignored. Women didn’t get invited to speak at conferences, women didn’t get talked to or about, women didn’t get listened to. That situation is improving now, but it’s just clueless to look around vaguely and say “hmm, not many women around,” and conclude that that’s because “it’s a guy thing.”
I'll be the first to admit that I think the (over)reaction to Shermer's statement about the atheist community is ridiculous, and redolent of people who have too much privilege, self-absorption, and time to do anything and everything except actual productive work, but can we stop referring to "guy things" and "girl things" please? Whatever the intent, it has the flavor of oversimplified thinking, and the terminology is reminiscent of one of those annoying 1950s musicals set in some dead-boring US town.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a straight cis-gendered woman, my life cannot be categorized in terms of "guy things" and "girl things." Nothing I do works in those terms: not research, not teaching, none of my hobbies (knitting, spinning, art journaling, gardening), not my running club, not the equestrian activities, nothing that my students excel or fail at, none of the university committees, none of the community volunteering ... nothing. Nada. Nichts.
It's only the feminist SJWs that do derogatory stereotypical "girl things". They think the world revolves around them, think they can speak for all women, think every man wants them (which is why they are unable to leave the house without "harassment"), they get hysterical over perceived slights, create drama in order to get attention, play the "poor me" card...

I could go on and on

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34671

Post by Scented Nectar »

Actually, thinking it over, I should convert the .doc's to .pdf's, since everyone has free pdf reading software, and it's more compatible to printing separate pages than htms. Off I go to see if the programs can do that conversion right (not infected type of converted!).

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34672

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

franc wrote:
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:
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.
No wonder I didn't see who you were quoting. Steers-"hold my dick while I pee"-man, who has never made any kind of effort to verify anything for himself, ever, instead expecting nice guys like you to do it all for him. Now I remember why I have him on ignore. Fucking moron. LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF YOU CRIPPLE. Instead of derailing with the same lame questions that have been addressed a gazillion times before. Fucking dead weight loser.
Yeah, sorry for not indicating who I was quoting. My bad. Steerscunt (hey, it's Friday and lunchtime here, we had an agreement, Steers! Also, tomorrow is the Hitch's death first anniversary, so fuck off if you are vexed!)) did link to your article. Sadly he doesn't seem to have understood either the article or what I was talking about when refering to Benson and the instances of "cunt".

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34673

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Scented Nectar wrote:
cunt wrote:Busted doing what? Making a bunch of shit jokes? Having zero comic timing? Sorry but that video was lame.
Busted doing the very thing he preaches against.
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?
That question is rather subjective.
In terms of adult, sex positive humor, it's more a case of a lack of comedic ability that outright sexism.
On the other hand feminism has two major strands, the sex positives (for example Greta Christina) and the sex negavitives (Ophelia, Taslima, skeptifem, etc)
In terms of sex negative feminism what Peezus did was a huge error.
They will look on this video and see it in a completely different light than the sex positives.
Sex negatives, as the name implies, will view any assumption of sex (and in particular heterosexual sex) as being potentially violating towards the wishes and feelings of the woman (the 'victim' in this case) - even if it is done in jest. They do not have a sense of humor about this subject.
For example they will ask: "What if this woman was a survivor of sexual assault? Wouldn't joking about having sex with her (and without asking permission) be triggering of her memories of her prior assault?"
They will also ask: "Would Peezus have made the same joke if it was a man who volunteered rather than a woman?"
I would suggest that these are reasonable objections - it is potentially distressing for someone to be joked about in a sexual manner, and, despite his supposed liberal views, it's hard to imagine that Peezus would make the same jokes with a man on stage - even a man he knew, like Laden - because these types of jokes he was aiming for are pretty much the tropes of college sex-positive, fratty humor.
In fact one of the major objections of the sex negatives towards skeptical meetings has been the 'fratboy' atmosphere of the meetings - and whatever you thought of the sexist or not sexist aspect of Peezus 'jokes', there is a clear 'fratboy' element to them that will have disgusted the sex negatives.
In fact you can tell that Ophelia is annoyed by it because she is doing exactly what she always does whenever someone on her side is exposed as a hypocrite.
She is absolutely ignoring the entire matter.
She has time for Justin Vaculas stupid comments (sorry Justin, but you made an arse of yourself with that needlework comment) but no time for explaining why Peezus wasn't sexist.
Her habit of doing this (picking up on any minor borderline transgression and writing a series of posts about it, but sticking her fingers in her ears, closing her eyes and going la-la-la, whenever one of her own side fucks up) is such a feature of her writing these days that you can use it as a reliable test of whether any particular action is seen as sexist to the sex negatives. A prime example is in the Mark Zuckerberg "I'm CEO, Bitch." post. Someone in the comments posted a link to the Peezus "It works, bitches" post and asked it Ophelia would like to criticize the sexism there too.
What do you think happened?
Ophelia: "Yes, that's sexist too but thankfully PZ has changed since then.
or
Straight down the memory hole.

By the way, back to the question of whether the action of Peezuz was sexist, does anyone have any question what the pharyngula horde - who now see no problem whatsoever of that behavior- would be saying if it wasn't Peezus up there making sex jokes, but was, in fact, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris?

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34674

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Steersman wrote:
However, for what I think is a rather cogent synopsis of that general problem you might be interested in this newspaper article which profiles Steve Pinker’s The Blank Slate and which makes this salient observation:
That’s why people don’t touch taboos; yet as Pinker argued in the book, the great taboo of today is that of human nature and the blank slate is a sacred doctrine. Despite the book's impact, 10 years later the blank-slate model of human nature is still routinely discussed as fact, rather than fantasy, and continues to have serious implications for society ….
I gave up on Pinker after reading "The Language Instinct" and seeing a few interviews with him, partly because I took a personal dislike to him and partly because I thought he was overstating things re psycholinguistics. I may give the "Blank Slate" book a look, but if the article you link to is an accurate reflection of it's argument, I think Pinker is overstating, and oversimplifying, things again. For example, the idea of the "blank slate" doesn't have to have anything to to with nature/nuture - you can, in theory, be born "blank" and "grow" ability via developmental processes, "rational" (as distinct from empirical) sources, or divine bloody intervention.

Even back in the 70's the simplistic "nature vs nuture" distinction was seen as something of a furphy, at least by anybody that read stuff other than the Daily Worker. The Right wanted everyone to know their defined place and the Left wanted to think anybody could be made into anything. What they had in common was the belief that "changeability" was the issue - if everything was "socially" determined then everyone can be a revolutionary as soon as you create a revolution around them. Stalin even (supposedly) called writers the "engineers of human souls" - PZ wishes!The Right were worried that that might be correct, and were determined to keep the hoi polloi in line by emphasising "breeding", etc.

Any actual research and theory building going on at the time and during much of the 80's often incorporated a lot of the nuances in the debate, but the psych stuff tended to be unaware of much biology though, in fairness, this was mainly because there was less to be aware of - a lot of the advances in genetics hadn't taken place yet. Psych now seems to have done it's usual thing of glomming on to some idea that looks like a winner, and is now into "evolution" (or psych's version of it anyway). We'll have to wait to see how that works out, but I don't trust psychologists not to stuff it up, or not to trip gaily into the next intellectual fashion when they get bored with not solving any actual psych problems.

Still, I haven't paid much attention to this stuff for some years, and a lot of the hard heads I knew at universities up and left in disgust, so maybe academic debate has decline in the way Pinker claims. If so, shut to gates and shovel the lazy slackers into the nearest burger flipping palace - at least they'll be of some use there.

DW Adams
.
.
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Planet of pudding brains
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34675

Post by DW Adams »

Getting back to Gaming for a moment.

My internet connection and my video speed don't always see eye-to-eye when I'm playing Everquest. Sometimes I log in and my video takes a few seconds to catch up and render all the pixels.

slow rendering = nakedness!

http://atheiststoday.com/images/dw_adam ... player.jpg

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34676

Post by rayshul »

sacha wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but as a straight cis-gendered woman, my life cannot be categorized in terms of "guy things" and "girl things." Nothing I do works in those terms: not research, not teaching, none of my hobbies (knitting, spinning, art journaling, gardening), not my running club, not the equestrian activities, nothing that my students excel or fail at, none of the university committees, none of the community volunteering ... nothing. Nada. Nichts.
It's only the feminist SJWs that do derogatory stereotypical "girl things". They think the world revolves around them, think they can speak for all women, think every man wants them (which is why they are unable to leave the house without "harassment"), they get hysterical over perceived slights, create drama in order to get attention, play the "poor me" card...

I could go on and on
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.

I kinda think "girl things" is like "chick flicks" - they're stuff that either has been seen as "girl stuff" in the past or stuff that's marketed mainly to women. Which I don't have a problem with, it all feels kinda arbitrary generally at this point.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34677

Post by franc »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yeah, sorry for not indicating who I was quoting. My bad. Steerscunt (hey, it's Friday and lunchtime here, we had an agreement, Steers! Also, tomorrow is the Hitch's death first anniversary, so fuck off if you are vexed!)) did link to your article. Sadly he doesn't seem to have understood either the article or what I was talking about when refering to Benson and the instances of "cunt".
Your patience in dealing with him is amazing. Here's the stupid-proof graphic -

http://i.imgur.com/kmcxb.png

Of course, if Steersman had any dignity or self-respect, he could have found it himself in next to no time.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34678

Post by sacha »

KiwiInOz wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Git wrote: Incidentally, Justin, you fucking better be Horde. Just because.

Ahahahahaha!

Most of my toons were Alliance but I also had some Horde because some Alliance really just needed to be killed and their body camped.

For fun I would sometimes kill all the auctioneers in Stormwind on my Belf Pally. Then get on my Alliance Pally and do the same to the bankers in Orgrimmar. Good times!

Playing EQ2 now because I got tired to having to L2P every two years among other things (have to admit that I sometimes miss the PVP though).
Fuck knows what you wierdos are talking about.
hahaha! I haven't a clue either

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34679

Post by rayshul »

For some reason my post has made me want to look up men in kilts. I'm sure there was a reason for that - something about women and men having the wrong clothing shapes marketed to them and changing fads in what is male and what is female and how in the end it's all silly but it could also be because I dig men in skirts.

http://kiltme.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454 ... 970c-800wi

It's 1:41 am and I am not feeling bright.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34680

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Mykeru wrote:
fascination wrote:Hey everyone! It's been almost a week since I last posted. I had been feeling sick and I thought it was just the flu. Well, it turns out that I am pregnant. My husband is ecstatic.
Do you know whose it is?
No, but if you hum a few bars...


Congrats, fascination.

Locked