Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:00 am
Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?Outwest wrote: Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?Outwest wrote: Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".
I use an anagram program to find these, but with Scrabble, I once read a book with some tips in it, and that made me win by miles, but then no one wanted to play it with me anymore. :cry:Tony Parsehole wrote:I bet you kick arse in Scrabble!Scented Nectar wrote:Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.
[youtube]iA800PmWUwU[/youtube]
Well, it's not like he's actually convicted, or even charged of third degree assault for either of the incidents yet? At this stage it seems it's just the police who've slapped some labels on the cases, I'm guessing it's then up to persecutor to make a judgment on what to actually charge him for? Very likely, the second case will not be deemed as any sort of assault, since he didn't even make any sort of threat, and thus be dropped, but what happened will still be used as evidence in the first case. Or at least that's what would happen in a sane world...Jonathan wrote:Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.
That's why they are "skeptics" (or septics (tanks) if you want), and not skeptics.Jonathan wrote:HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult. :doh:
Absolutely! Usually, though, the threat has to be made in person. Some states/countries may have the law written to include online threats as well. It seems to me, anecdotally, that I read/hear about those changes due to the internet age.Lsuoma wrote:Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?Outwest wrote: Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".
Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...Outwest wrote:Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".
I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.real horrorshow wrote: The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.
Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.
The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.
acathode wrote:Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...Outwest wrote:Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".
I'm pro-choice because I firmly believe that a woman should have that choice, whatever limits she does or does not put upon herself. Me? It's a personal line that has moved over the years.Altair wrote:I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.real horrorshow wrote: The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.
Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.
The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.
I would personally draw the line at the ability to survive outside of the womb, even if the pregnancy could continue after that (I think 6 months tends to be the viability limit?). At that point, I would find an abortion only defensible in cases of grave malformations or risk to the mother.
Imagination Theory's point seems to me to stem more from a desire to keep women from being "controlled" or held responsible rather than a serious consideration of the topic of abortion, though.
None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.d4m10n wrote:None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.
I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.d4m10n wrote:None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.
If I remember correctly, he remained eloquently silent, so to speak, over that one.Dick Strawkins wrote: Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.
Elevatorgate and the whole Rebecca Watson drama have nothing to do with this so I think it is a mistake to say his stance has changed.
decius wrote:I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.d4m10n wrote:None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.
There's no doubt that, over the years, Dawkins has improvidently endorsed a number of people who turned out to be more of a liability than an asset. I'm still puzzled at his handing over a prize for scientific distinction to a purveyor of quackery such as Maher, for instance. But we cannot ultimately hold him responsible for the actions of others.
decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
George BushPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And you did well to do so. WTF happened to the US since I last was there?!? (1996)Al Stefanelli wrote:So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:
http://alstefanelli.files.wordpress.com ... rigger.png
Yeah, but it bore its name and he handed it over in person. It's fair to expect that he has some influence over the process. My impression was that he didn't research the subject with due diligence and then it was too late to step back without causing a political commotion.Outwest wrote:
I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?
Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg
Only for men. We'd need a different one for women with "Chill Girl" in the center, already marked. Or "sister punisher".Reap wrote:Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg
I thought he did the smart thing by using that link as an excuse to remove himself from the brewing storm.Reap wrote:decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-ric ... versial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904
You're proabably right, but I've seen others say that Dawkins doesn't have a lot to do with the foundation on a day-to-day basis.decius wrote:Yeah, but it bore its name and he handed it over in person. It's fair to expect that he has some influence over the process. My impression was that he didn't research the subject with due diligence and then it was too late to step back without causing a political commotion.Outwest wrote:
I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?
I know, I'm pages behind (and a lurker, best ignored), but blergh.Mykeru wrote:The only way that could possibly be the case if you were the pinnacle of womanhood, that which all women aspire to be.
Dick Strawkins wrote:I thought he did the smart thing by using that link as an excuse to remove himself from the brewing storm.Reap wrote:decius wrote:What drama was he fomenting?d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.
Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-ric ... versial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904
I agree that the study was flawed, at least in relationship to the dynamics of FTB.
As I recall, the study indicated that having a blog drama does not lead to sustained increases in numbers of blog readers. The numbers spike for a week or so and then drop.
The argument was, therefore, that a manufactured drama would not be useful for generating money through increased ad revenue based on the increased traffic.
The rather obvious flaw with this argument is that it is based on a single drama.
If a single drama spikes the hit numbers for only a week then there is an easy solution.
Have a new drama every week!
Which, incidently, is exactly the pattern we see at FTB with their witch of the week campaigns.
Fuck, what kind of dementia are you suffering from?oolon, slimy turd wrote:.. Blast-off!Tony Parsehole wrote:Slimy Turd post detailing why Oolon wasn't trying to find out Mykeru's personal details AT ALL and how we have all got the wrong end of the stick in 5....4....3...2...
Don't want to worry Mykeru and Sacha... It started as a discussion as who 'franc' is and who here is a sockpuppet of his. I contended sacha is an independent entity from 'franc' but I got the distinct impression Aratina did not. I also noted on here there had been some discussion about sacha and 'franc' being one and the same --- but I thought that was just jocularly posed. I then got the impression that Ophelia thought Mykeru was also a sock! However as you showed she reckons she knows who he is, and actually 5 secs on his website makes it pretty obvious he has been around far too long to be a 'franc' sock... Unless he is as he says, Kaiser Soze.
Anyway comes down to some sad gossiping about the pitters and conspiracy theories - I'm also mortified that 'franc' will find this hilarious and get off on it increasing his status as the Pit Pimpernel. I'll defend myself as coming at it from the angle that these are not and were not 'franc' socks and they were giving him way too much credit! Although I notice a post by Towelie was bumped as being a 'franc' sock as well so pretty soon the whole pit will be written off as orchestrated by one lone Hoggler.
http://i.imgur.com/Tb5FY.jpglost control wrote:I know, I'm pages behind (and a lurker, best ignored), but blergh.Mykeru wrote:The only way that could possibly be the case if you were the pinnacle of womanhood, that which all women aspire to be.
Please, don't put such images in my head. (I don't want any trigger warnings, but that is so beyond even the most tasteless jokes.)
Yeah, black humour any day, but, please, not this.
Actually, if that were the case, I'd force myself to be gay (a hypothetical scenario I could never achieve, cause penises - sorry, male bodies - simply don't arouse me, but still... so, I guess I'd slump back into an involuntary asexual existence.). I'd swear off anything female (sorry womynly).
I'd blow any cock that approaches me, if o.b. would be the pinnacle of womanhood.
Seriously... fuck, that's a disturbing thought...
So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover, you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.
I’m envious. You’re making contributions I can’t. I’m also feeling a little guilty, because what I’ve been doing recently has been showy. It gets attention that the nuts-and-bolts work doesn’t. That’s very much not fair. Sometimes necessary for the changes that have to be made, but not fair.
You tried, idiot, but that's the most unfitting comment I ever had the pleasure to read. And type. And by now, you're so boring, I even forgot why, otherwise, I'd put it into appropriate code.oolon, slimy turd wrote:Cheers John, glad to see you can appreciate my talents. Also glad to see we are of one mind on each others worth, we must have more in common that we thought!welch wrote: Given how far you have your head up Ophelia's ass, you're like the best touch-typist ever. I mean, it's a shame you've no fucking thoughts worth typing, but the skills are impressive nonetheless.
So, again, it comes down to feminizing....There’s an irony here too, in that the people who can’t take public stands are typically making these movements more welcoming places for diverse populations in more direct ways than I can. I can suggest harassment policies, but someone needs to put them in place. I won’t be hiring more women into any positions, much less positions of leadership. I can’t set the tone of meetings or invite speakers or give awards.
I wonder how old LSP is... If she's over 18 I hope she's getting paid for these self-deprecating performances.
That's some privilege she's got there - immunity to getting Ladened (figuratively Ladened, of course).One thing that has been key to me in being able to effectively criticize movements I’m part of is my independence. A silly petition notwithstanding, other people and organizations I care about generally can’t be targeted in any attempts to shut me up. That leverage doesn’t exist.
Hmmm. Like Justin Vacula could have done more to help as a regional leader of the SCA, but...One type of conversation I had repeatedly this weekend is a discussion I’ve been having a lot these days. It generally starts like this:
I really appreciate what you’ve been doing the last few months. I feel like I should be doing more to help, but…
Methinks Steffalump has been listening to the Reap 'n' Mykeru Show...Outwest wrote:This is too good to pass up: From Stefunny: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... at-you-do/
She's discussing prople becoming involved in the "movements" (bowel?)
So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover, you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.
And she does indeed get the attention and recognition:precisely for being a lazy, fat-arsed, privileged, white, middle-class queen bee who wouldn't know how to "run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design" and would starve is someone asked her to do all that shit.I’m envious. You’re making contributions I can’t. I’m also feeling a little guilty, because what I’ve been doing recently has been showy. It gets attention that the nuts-and-bolts work doesn’t. That’s very much not fair. Sometimes necessary for the changes that have to be made, but not fair.
So, she's "showy".
Lol is right.justinvacula wrote:Lol.
[img]
Lsuoma wrote:Methinks Steffalump has been listening to the Reap 'n' Mykeru Show...Outwest wrote:This is too good to pass up: From Stefunny: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... at-you-do/
She's discussing prople becoming involved in the "movements" (bowel?)
So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover, you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.
And she does indeed get the attention and recognition:precisely for being a lazy, fat-arsed, privileged, white, middle-class queen bee who wouldn't know how to "run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design" and would starve is someone asked her to do all that shit.I’m envious. You’re making contributions I can’t. I’m also feeling a little guilty, because what I’ve been doing recently has been showy. It gets attention that the nuts-and-bolts work doesn’t. That’s very much not fair. Sometimes necessary for the changes that have to be made, but not fair.And her writing style reminds me of some books in my library from the late 19th, early 20th century.That’s very much not fair
So, she's "showy".
So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.
That's interesting. If writing something won't actually draw attention to Stephanie, she just can't do it.I can write.
One of the reasons I deposited this offering (irrespective of the merits of the case) is because I can see where the baboons are heading (arguably they are already there) with anything they do not want to hear.mikelf unplugged wrote:Battery requires contact. Assault can best be described as an attempt to commit battery.Jonathan wrote:Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.acathode wrote:This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:Jonathan wrote:That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article
Seems reasonable.justinvacula wrote: http://i.imgur.com/Fbghj.jpg
A sample response from the neckbeared ones:So the dysfunctional freaks with daddy issues from Atheism Plus did some cute little art project
Actually I'm not sure who's behind this, and I don't care enough to find out. It has something to do with Halloween costumes and stereotyping.
Yeah, the UAF is still kickin' on FB. Almost at 10,000 members. As far as FtB goes, well, it was a smaller crew there when we started. Things were different. There are still several writers there that I really like. I tried to make that point in one of my last posts, but it got lost among the accusations of misogyny, homophobia and racism.lost control wrote:BTW, Al, I stil remember your UAF stuff from Facebook. Sadly, I had to unsubscribe / unlike, cause I was looking for a new job. But, seriously, how did you end up at FfTB in the first place? I mean, why? What have you hoped to get from your presence there?
anyway, I liked your ass. It's butt-fucking-ugly, can you repost it. ;) :P
Please do. I want to know whether you become a successful assassin and what your role in the upcoming war is.cunt wrote:Post in this thread Arya Stark.
It's fair to say that parody is not Ophelia's strong point.Pitchguest wrote:So I read the latest blog post from bluharmony, and I couldn't help but notice it was balanced and not inflammatory at all.
So why is it that it's being misrepresented and its points parodied in this post?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -universe/
Mimicry, I get it, but the points raised in the parody is nothing like the points raised in the article by bluharmony. It's intended to ridicule, but bluharmony's article is an attempt to defuse, not justify. So do we have another case of Benson deliberately obfuscating to spark up drama, or is it that she just doesn't comprehend what was written? [Already presumptuous, but painstakingly sceptical.]
[The link to bluharmony's blog is linked at the bottom of the Prune's blog post.]
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-482530Reap wrote:PZ says-"Hey, residents of the east coast! Feeling down? Struggling with the aftermath of a small climate disaster? Let me cheer you up. It could be so much worse. You could be living in Alberta!"
HOW DARE YOU PZ are you saying the east coast isn't important and their loss doesn't matter? How cold....
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
30 October 2012 at 5:04 pm
Oh, you mean like being able to fly hither and thither every couple of weeks?There’s an oil industry that’s demanding the right to pour pollutants into the atmosphere for your personal convenience – PZ
Tigzy wrote:It's fair to say that parody is not Ophelia's strong point.Pitchguest wrote:So I read the latest blog post from bluharmony, and I couldn't help but notice it was balanced and not inflammatory at all.
So why is it that it's being misrepresented and its points parodied in this post?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -universe/
Mimicry, I get it, but the points raised in the parody is nothing like the points raised in the article by bluharmony. It's intended to ridicule, but bluharmony's article is an attempt to defuse, not justify. So do we have another case of Benson deliberately obfuscating to spark up drama, or is it that she just doesn't comprehend what was written? [Already presumptuous, but painstakingly sceptical.]
[The link to bluharmony's blog is linked at the bottom of the Prune's blog post.]
IT's also fair to say that Ohelia Benson has just jumped the STUPID again.
Unless it's self-parody, of course.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... WEt6i0A_VAOutwest wrote: IT's also fair to say that Ohelia Benson has just jumped the STUPID again.
KiwiInOz wrote:https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... WEt6i0A_VAOutwest wrote: IT's also fair to say that Ohelia Benson has just jumped the STUPID again.
My bold. Well, you cheeky cunt, Meyers! You, who continually boasts about your heavy travel schedule: Australia, Europe, trans-America. You, who relies upon airplane travel - and they don't run on fucking water, you imbecile - in order to maintain the illusion that you are an atheist Colossus. And not a week after telling the world that not only would you be flying to more conferences this year, but that at each one you would be giving the same goddam speech. As someone said: put the cunt on YouTube, and have the organizers play it on a big screen.There’s an oil industry that’s demanding the right to pour pollutants into the atmosphere for your personal convenience, and that’s contributing to the frequency and strength of storms, which lead to heavily publicized events when a major storm hits a hugely populated area.
You are not alone.rayshul wrote:I've seriously never been to their blogs in the past year except by accident, I don't follow any of them on twitter or anything like that, I don't read their articles and the only person I've googled as far as I recall is an image of Ophelia (to find out if she was a college teenager, as I first assumed).
I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect I'm not the only person who never visits the blogs but likes the discussions of crazy fucking social justice shit that go on here.