Periodic Table of Swearing

[Mykeru]

And more heads explode...

[franc]

Whenever I see someone making a point of how they don't subscribe to societal norms, I can't help but think they see themselves as some latter day James Dean. Unfortunately, this is how I see them>

I guess the breakdown is like this -

* social libertarian perspective: I won't screw you while your back is turned and I expect you to not screw me while my back is turned.

* neo-Sadean libertine perspective: I won't screw you while you're back is turned (when there's a fair chance I'll get caught) and I expect you won't screw me while while my back is turned (when there's a fair chance you'll get caught).

For the life of me I cannot see how you can exist in the second world and still claim you are interested in the common good, humanism and helping where help's needed. My head would explode.

[welch]

Thank you! I'm physically 46, look about 36, and feel about 26

I'll be joining the 46 Club next month. I look 36 in a dim light, through a misty lens. I feel 106 this morning (deadlines, late nights, and early mornings don't help).

Well, my avatar pic is me just a few days ago (with bronchitis and no makeup). My daughters are all excited as they know genes in our family are freaking awesome THANK YOU, MOM!

Sorry I'm late on this, (worked 20 hrs on Monday, then 36 across tues/wed, 12-hour nap after, so not real sure what day it is)

HAPPY FUCKING BIRTHDAY.

[welch]

Well, suck on this, then: You can trust me when I tell you that if it comes up, I will fuck your girlfriend. Honestly, at this point, I'd do it if she wanted to even if I didn't find her attractive if I knew she was with you. That's a promise.

Sigh. See you never see a stupid "Wonka" graphic with "Please tell me again how your pussy is tighter than mine". That's just so fucking telling.

I will put myself forward to judge that contest. Purely for scientific purposes mind.

Ugh. Sorry. Just more than a bit tired of the "Wonka please tell me..." stuff. Chalk it up to a few shots of vodka and feeling more than a bit spry

It'd help if the writing in those didn't suck as much as it does

[welch]

OH FOR GOODNESS SAKE SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RYSTEFN. HE CAN FUCK WHO HE WANTS WHEN THEY WANT HIM TO AND THAT'S ALL HIS OWN BUSINESS!!!! OH GOSH WHY HAS THIS CONVERSATION NOT GROWN STALE YET AND WHY DOES EVERYONE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT HIS PENIS HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS.

Also happy birthday Renee, hope you have a wonderful day. Donated to SmileTrain, yey. More smiling babies!!!

That is an incredibly odd house now you point it out.

*taps foot*

Still waiting for your creepy jokes, or were you just teasing?

What's the difference between a Cadillac and a pile of dead bodies?

I don't have a Cadillac in my garage.

Why are their dead whores nailed to the walls?

They kept correcting my grammar.

[franc]

I just opened an old box of books in the basement. On top was...

Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

Go on, be more embarrassed than thou...

[franc]

Go on, be more embarrassed than thou...

edit: moi

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I just opened an old box of books in the basement. On top was...

Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

Go on, be more embarrassed than thou...

My brother used to be into Castadena to a point where it was becoming really unhealthy.

What a load of bollocks!

[Michael K Gray]

Social contracts are what bind us together in what we call communities

Quite.
And promises to others constitute an example of these contracts.
Express, and yes: even implied!
It boils down to:
Do what you say you are going to do.
Should you fail to perform as per promise, don't lie about the reasons for your failure.
Don't try to weasel out.

See: (Be an) Adult 101.
(Irony intended)

Distilled into one word?
Scrupulous HONESTY

[franc]

My brother used to be into Castadena to a point where it was becoming really unhealthy.

What a load of bollocks!

I fucking remember buying that shit too. Prolly 17, first pay check. Sends a chill down my spine the atmosphere virgin minds face. I was in a world that told me buying that was a good idea.

[Michael K Gray]

Anyone else notice that new little meme they've cooked up in that B&W thread? Apparently putting forward a reasoned argument based on logic, facts and really basic common sense is now "soft trolling".

Soft Trolling (vt)
Comes between "Sockpuppet" and "Sorry"

Soft Trolling (vt) - Innocent questions from atheist Furries.

_____________________
Honestly, this dictionary project has overwhelmed me with new additions!
Now I know EXACTLY how Samuel Johnson felt.

[Scented Nectar]

For, (as it comes with the Asperger's territory), I am sarcasm impaired.

Yet, others are able to convey intent to me (with clarity) sans the requirement for smilies:- franc, Sacha, SN etc amongst them.
Is it because they are reflexively familiar with, and at ease with, Aspies?

Well, my doctor will only go so far as to say I have "traits", and an online test gave me a "most likely", and 3 of the surveys I've taken at 23andme (while I'm waiting to get my genes looked at) said that a score like mine is commonly seen in aspergers. As for sarcasm, I like sarcasm but often others don't realize that I'm being sarcastic. I sometimes have to make an effort to enhance those parts more so that they're visible enough that more people get it.

[Scented Nectar]

I think staying relevant as a "youtube atheist" means you've got to display a high degree of reason as well as a thick skin. [Things the FC5 clearly lack.] Christina Rad going RadFem [play on words, I don't quite think she's at the level of wanting to wipe out 90-99% of the male population] pretty much meant the end of that. Might as well quit...

She used to (maybe still does) hang out with the antinatalists on youtube, like Inmendham. So maybe she'd go for 100% reduction of the entire population? They are a really morose bunch who believe the only way to stop suffering is to self exterminate as a species, and other crazy shit. Nihilistic whiners. Inmendham's kind of like their cult leader on youtube. His latest sums up the mindset. Do not watch this if prone to depression. Some good points, but what a downer!:

[Scented Nectar]

Following in the first world problems footstep of those other videos:

[Michael K Gray]

I just opened an old box of books in the basement. On top was...

Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

Go on, be more embarrassed than thou...

Sucked in, big time.

[Michael K Gray]

For, (as it comes with the Asperger's territory), I am sarcasm impaired.

Yet, others are able to convey intent to me (with clarity) sans the requirement for smilies:- franc, Sacha, SN etc amongst them.
Is it because they are reflexively familiar with, and at ease with, Aspies?

Well, my doctor will only go so far as to say I have "traits", and an online test gave me a "most likely", and 3 of the surveys I've taken at 23andme (while I'm waiting to get my genes looked at) said that a score like mine is commonly seen in aspergers. As for sarcasm, I like sarcasm but often others don't realize that I'm being sarcastic. I sometimes have to make an effort to enhance those parts more so that they're visible enough that more people get it.

As someone above expressed, I tend to assume that others will "get" the bizarre connections that I make to link the concepts whilst jumping between disparate topics.
My family now know to look for 'hidden' connections, as do my smarter friends, but as for your average Josephine? Forget it!

[Dick Strawkins]

It's interesting to test assertions against the available evidence.

From RW's Slate article:

In June of 2011, I was on a panel at an atheist conference in Dublin. The topic was “Communicating Atheism,” and I was excited to join Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists in the world, with several documentaries and bestselling books to his name. Dawkins used his time to criticize Phil Plait, an astronomer who the year prior had given a talk in which he argued for skeptics to be kinder.

I used my time to talk about what it’s like for me to communicate atheism online, and how being a woman might affect the response I receive, as in rape threats and other sexual comments.

[Dick Strawkins]

Oooops!

Apoligies everyone.

TRIGGER WARNING!

[Dick Strawkins]

and sorry for the bad spelign

[Scented Nectar]

For, (as it comes with the Asperger's territory), I am sarcasm impaired.

Yet, others are able to convey intent to me (with clarity) sans the requirement for smilies:- franc, Sacha, SN etc amongst them.
Is it because they are reflexively familiar with, and at ease with, Aspies?

Well, my doctor will only go so far as to say I have "traits", and an online test gave me a "most likely", and 3 of the surveys I've taken at 23andme (while I'm waiting to get my genes looked at) said that a score like mine is commonly seen in aspergers. As for sarcasm, I like sarcasm but often others don't realize that I'm being sarcastic. I sometimes have to make an effort to enhance those parts more so that they're visible enough that more people get it.

As someone above expressed, I tend to assume that others will "get" the bizarre connections that I make to link the concepts whilst jumping between disparate topics.
My family now know to look for 'hidden' connections, as do my smarter friends, but as for your average Josephine? Forget it!

It helps seeing your stuff written out rather than spoken. I can stop and take a moment to get it if needed, unlike spoken words which are long gone and replaced by others.

[AnonymousCowherd]

If it makes you feel better, I 100% agree that Poms do not count as dogs. Frankly, anything smaller than a Labrador is suspect.

I'm sure the good folk of England will be pleased to hear that. Not that there's anything wrong with dogs you understand, some of my best friends...etc etc.

Mind you Otto von Bismark disagreed. Didn't think the whole of the Balkans were worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Genadier. Though what a Pomeranian would be doing with a grenade, I have no idea. Protecting his bones (and the rest of his dinner) I suppose.

[Michael K Gray]

Mind you Otto von Bismark disagreed. Didn't think the whole of the Balkans were worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Genadier.

Perhaps he meant to say "Genderqueer"?
You know, those who have no Balkans, and hence no boners.

[Lsuoma]

I've put this out there before, but bears repeating:
Rebecca Watson: College student. Receives rape threats, too scared to go to TAM (a 3 day event).

Jessica Ahlquist: High school student. Receives CONFIRMED rape threats, attends school every fucking day.

How soon can we have Jessica replace Rebecca at all the meetings?

Important to point that out.

[Lsuoma]

I guess Oolon still thinks he's one step ahead...

I guess Oolon still thinks anyone gives a shit about his crap...

[AnonymousCowherd]

Mind you Otto von Bismark disagreed. Didn't think the whole of the Balkans were worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Genadier.

Perhaps he meant to say "Genderqueer"?
You know, those who have no Balkans, and hence no boners.

You may be right. I believe that in German the words are identical.

(At least it's not bad French, Phil! The Boche are fair game, noch).

[Jonathan]

Meanwhile on Atheism+ the furore over someone daring to set up an A+ FB group continues. Now the scope has shifted to how that poster was treated. It continues to bemuse me, but the poster I have linked to acknowledges the OP's treatment was out of order; unusual by A+ standards.

[Michael K Gray]

A partial taster of the entries so far, an entrée, should you prefer:
(Constructive comments welcome, of coarse!)
Bare in mind that speeling eros have yet to be proofred.

1984 - A+Theism's Operations Manual
A+Scribe - A covert group of Intellectual Property Rights vandals & theives.
Aardvaark - Rape
Abuse - I didn't report my criminal abuse, but instead made a public blog post about it because...??
Academic - Anyone who has completed more than one colouring book. Excludes those who have Academic Qualifications in the hard sciences.
Activism - Typing whiny mis-spelt grammar-free incoherent faith-based infantile truculent rants that only your equally socially-damaged fellow inmates partly agree with because they experienced a mass-delusion that you MUST have typed something of great intellgence, but assume that they must have been too dumb to garner your 8yr old internet brilliance.
Not "Doing" anything in the real world, at all, (of course)
Amerocentrism - You mean there are places other than the mighty USA??
I must learn to read one day. But not now. I just got another AWESOME Tweet from someone who is slightly famous! Swoon!
Anything and Everything - A few dogma-limited things & a lot of nothing at all. We Lied again.
Atheism - Lack of a belief in Equity Feminism
Atheism Plus - No one knows what the fuck it is. Nor what it isn't. But we are working on it. At least we have the logo. Which we stupidly stole, but won't admit to that crime. Or *any* crime for that matter. And as for the first logo that clearly stated that we were A+Theism well, even as the only thing that we had at the start of our cult was a complete ovaries-up, not bad for a bunch of retards in their step-mother's basements, eh?
Assault - Attacking someone with photons
B - A buzzing thing.
Bad Words - See Curse Words
Backchannel - A no-holds-barred ragged Grade-4 playground gossip-club.
BDSM - Something that my uncle wants me to try. Erm: Bacon, Dill, Salad & Mayonnaise perhaps? His mouth *was* watering when he discussed it.
Bigotry - A convenient all-purpose cudgel.
Book-Burning - What we do to the utterly Inhuman Richard Dawkins after his "Dear Muslima" heart-breaking crime against humanity. But would never burn the amazing non-sexist nudie-calendars sold by Skepchick for profit.
Buzzphrases (meaningless) - social justice discourse; check your privilege; Your concern is noted, okay?; the money shot; Protip; 'splainy; Lie; we need to figure out exactly what we're going to do;
C - Big blue wobbly thing that mermaids live in.
Cats - Official Gods of Social Justice Warriors
Cats+ - Official Gods of Social Justice Warriors + Smelly Basements
Ceepolk - Speshul Skilz: Self-Pity Power, with Whiny machine-gun formulaic posting abilities. Avatar: Eggshells, walking on. Bullshit Catchphrase so beloved of faceless cowardly anonymous internet warriors: "I have to put myself in danger!!". Favourite Number: Elebenty!!11+IV! Favourite Colour: Brown, with tongue spots.
Censorship - What other people do. We call it "free speech", by banning unspeak.
Check your Privilege - I do not have an answer to your reasonable enquiry.
Chill-girl - Adult Female
Citation Needed - The A+Theism Squawk
Clue - WTF is one of those?
Coherent - When a flat-mate listens to your private Skype calls
Consistency - Returned Error 101: Not in A+Theism vocabulary. Check your speeling, then check your privilege
Debate - We tell you what to think. But in deliberately confused terms so that we can always say that you just don't get it, even when you repeat verbatim what we have told you.
Dictionary - An evil rape manual written by the Elders of the Patriarchy. All of its entries are wrong, except where we agree with them, but we won't tell you what they are because they change like a whore's knickers, depending on what lie we are trying push at any time.
Diversity - people from all walks of life agreeing about exactly the same things
Double Down - Doubling down means "you didn't back down to my bullying you. Please back down soon as I have no substantive arguments"
Dungeon - The "Naughty Step" for adults.
E - An ejaculation.
Edited - [Edited to remove swears so it doesn't look like I'm yelling at people in the Education forum. Sorry, I naturally swear a lot.]
Education - Soviet Gulag. Room 101 with 1000V testicle electrodes and Celine Dion on an endless loop until you agree to konform with the A+Theism dogma.
Ego - Is a dirty word. All of us have had our Egos surgically resected by male Alien anal probes.
F - Off
Fatwa - A+Theism Fatwas are like, totally DIFFERNET from Islam Fatwas because, erm because... Well! They just ARE, so there! (See rhetoric)
Fault - An attribute that belongs to everyone else but us
Females - Helpless neotonous human beings who need to be told what to do, how to think, how to dress, how to behave, and how to speak by the Feminarchy of A+Theism immoderators.
First world problems! - Dear Muslima was a specific case of this. In short: "This more severe problem exists, therefore we should ignore your problems!" Which is foolish: Murder is a more severe crime than assault, but you don't see our justice system exclusively punishing murderers and letting those who assault people walk free, do you? It's the same here. We can work to solve less serious problems at the same time as we work on more serious ones.
Free Speech - Free speech means you can say what you want without facing government censorship. It means you can yell on a street corner until your vocal cords give out. It does not mean I have to give you a soapbox to stand on and a megaphone to ampliphy your voice, nor does it mean that I have to let you into my living room to yell for as long as you feel like yelling. If you want to yell about something, get your own soap box and yell about it. Or yell about it in your own living rom.
Gender - We get to decide.
Gossip - See Backchannel
Grammar - Youse parent's' mothe'rs wot is it is.
Greg Laden - Totally awesome Feminist, and top rank Scientist!
Greta Christina - Two-faced traitorous bitch.
Group-think - We are ALL individuals! (THIS!!! Sooo much!!)
Harassment - reading a blog and disagreeing with it
Hopefully - An adverb that we insist on using as a "sentence adverb". See Grammar
I - It is all about ME!!!!
Intent - Indistinguishable from Magic, unless A+ pronounce it to be otherwise. (See Fatwa, and see every other fucking entry here)
Intersectional - A meningless Feminista all-purpose put-down. Designed to frighten weak intellects into assuming that one's raving-mad vacuous interlocutor actually has a valid argument.
K - Mmm'?
KNOWSPLAINING!!! - When someone shows their privilege by actually knowing something and fails to check that privileged.
LGBT - Lettuce, Gherkin, Bacon & Tomato.
Literature - Some fucking things called books in an offensive patirachal building called a Libratary or something. I hear that most of their Libertarians are females taken as work slaves.
M - A non male name
Matt Dillahunty - From Hero to Xero
Membership Criteria
Must be a citizen of the USA (Aka the WORLD!)
Must be mentally unstable, preferably clinically insane.
Must subsrcibe to our Jacobean mishumanist and misandronist dogma without question for eternity.
Must claim to be a potential rapist (But only if a male)
(See Free Speech)
Metaphor - A big word. It has a real meaning, but that escapes those A+Theister imbeciles who employ it.
NateHevens - A+Theism's pet SOOPER-GENIUS, with a greater soaring scientific intellect than Einstein, superior oratory than Christopher Hitchens, wittier than Oscar Wilde, and with bigger tits than Dolly Parton.
operationalize - I have no idea, and neither does the author. See Poseur.
Oppression - Is everywhere. Poor poor pitiful me.
Patriarchy Hurts Men Too - See You Just Don't Get It
People of color - Weasel words that we think will excuse us from distinguishing we, (privileged & exclusively White Members of A+Theism), from dividning the globe into two categories: White & Non-White, because we have not actually said "Black" or "Yellow". Not patronsing at all.
Pharyngula - 1) The miraculous and holy birthplace of our Lord & Saviour!
2) Preferred hangout of the most awesome intellectual & knowledgable calm mass-debaters on the planet.
Philosophy - Mental Masturbation. No wonder it is our second favourite hobby!
Plagiarism - Worshipping the Black Death.
Poseur - A Night of the round table who has been court lying.
Privilege - having a penis
PZ Myers - Big Bother
Quote-mining - Repeating the fuck-ups that we say, verbatim, in full and in context. With date-stamped references, links and screen-shots. Totally unfair!
Rational Thoughts - Caused by a bizarre lack of insanity. Sanity is a clear sign of an oppressive rapist!
Real World/Real Life - An illusion caused by a lack of alcohol.
Rebecca Watson - The Goddess of Sociopathy, Princess of Psychopathy, Sultana of Slack!
[b]Rhetoric[/b] - Any old shit that dribbles out of the corners of our mouths.
Rhys - Once not a cunt for saying cunt, but now a cunt for being a total cunt about us. (See suppressive person)
Robust - What? To the fainting couch!
Rule Zero - Do not try to cleverly interpret rules listed here for your own benefit. These rules are general guidelines and are very flexible.
Religion - What we truly are.
S&M - Sam and Max
Safe Word - "Misogyny"
Safe Space - In Safe Space, no-one can hear the mockery
Science - Like cool, and stuff. I is a REEL scientist 'cos I skimmed the first paragraph of an online article wot quoted Scientific Merkin, or Naychure, or summink. Dinnt understand the werdz, like. But hey:- is that a bird out the window?
Social Justice - Whinging, but in writing!
Sockpuppet - Any poster who does not power-genuflect to the idles of the mighty A+Theism Moderators.
Soft-trolling (vt) - Innocent questions from atheist Furries.
Sorry! - Eh?
Stalker - A casual viewer of web sites.
Stalking - reading a blog, disagreeing with it and blogging about it
Statistics - Numbers-n-stuff that support our dogma
Stuffed Toys - Happy Armies of Social Warriors for Truth, Freedom, and the Mexican Wave.
Strategy - An afterthought.
Stupid Names - A Shibboleth of those allowed into our special Tree-Fort! Must be infantile, agressive, and bizarrely self-aggrandising, in a comic-book fantasy style.
Stupid Sigs - A tediously repeated bland page-and-half worth of unoriginal quoted bollocks, the size of which ALWAYS exceeds the actual post content. See Mandatory.
Supportive - Agreeing with the current fashion of the hour.
Suppressive Person - Those evil baby-buggerers who even mention the Slymepit, let alone those depraved enough to actually post there!
Tone - An abbreviation for Anthony.
University - Google/Yahoo/Bing/Pub mates/Gossip
USA - See World, the
Violence - A T-Shirt
World, the - Continental North America, (obviously excluding Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. But including Israel and the State of Ceepolk's Mum's basement)
Yay!!! - See "THIS^^!!, So MUCH!!" childish AOLer pantywetting tree-house mindless groupthink. That the commenter was not able to come up with the previous load of vacuous tripe is nothing to be proud of, in the brain-box department.

[Jan Steen]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

[ReneeHendricks]

Anyone else notice that new little meme they've cooked up in that B&W thread? Apparently putting forward a reasoned argument based on logic, facts and really basic common sense is now "soft trolling".

Kinda like soft porn?

[Michael K Gray]

Kinda like soft porn?

Yes.
Yes, I do.

[Michael K Gray]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

I imagine that Playdough Lee Roth is of such an histrionic nature that she would purposefully move her residence simply to 'make a point', as infantile as that tantrum might be.
She is not a socially mature person, from all indications.
When I expect her to behave in the manner of a spoiled 6 year-old, I have never been disappointed.

I would not put it past her.

[Jonathan]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

[ReneeHendricks]

Thank you! I'm physically 46, look about 36, and feel about 26

I'll be joining the 46 Club next month. I look 36 in a dim light, through a misty lens. I feel 106 this morning (deadlines, late nights, and early mornings don't help).

Well, my avatar pic is me just a few days ago (with bronchitis and no makeup). My daughters are all excited as they know genes in our family are freaking awesome THANK YOU, MOM!

Sorry I'm late on this, (worked 20 hrs on Monday, then 36 across tues/wed, 12-hour nap after, so not real sure what day it is)

HAPPY FUCKING BIRTHDAY.

Thank you!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

Could also be that her Ramics sells plummeted after her "crying over a shirt" fiasco, and she can't afford the rent anymore. Doesn't look like a cheap place to live...

[AnonymousCowherd]

A partial taster of the entries so far, an entrée, should you prefer:
(Constructive comments welcome, of coarse!)
Bare in mind that speeling eros have yet to be proofred.


Assault - Attacking someone with photons

Don't laugh. Some may recall poor PZ having to face the hideous terror of the unknown that might be put in his pocket at any moment while he was in the jurisdiction that has the following definition of assault (one of several, mind you);

(2) In subsection (1), assault means the direct or indirect application of
force by a person to the body of, or to clothing or equipment worn by, another
person where the application of force is-

(a) without lawful excuse; and
(b) with intent to inflict or being reckless as to the infliction of
bodily injury, pain, discomfort, damage, insult or deprivation of
liberty-

and results in the infliction of any such consequence (whether or not the
consequence inflicted is the consequence intended or foreseen).

(3) In subsection (2)-

application of force includes-

(a) application of heat, light, electric current or any other form of
energy; and

(b) application of matter in solid, liquid or gaseous form.

So in Victoria, OZ, you can (in theory) be charged for shining a light on someone's clothes (even when they aren't wearing them, if you believe Justicar's argument about this back at ERV).

Even better, you can assault someone's clothes by farting at them. Your victim's pants probably make a poor witness though (even if your own are confessing the sin to anyone with a nose), so maybe difficult to get plod to wheel you before the beak on that one.

[Jonathan]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

Could also be that her Ramics sells plummeted after her "crying over a shirt" fiasco, and she can't afford the rent anymore. Doesn't look like a cheap place to live...

Credit where it's due, I'm impressed she made enough from home-made jewellery to be able to afford a home like that in the first place. Her work can be charitably described as average at best, yet she must have been selling a fair quantity of it.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*snip*

Credit where it's due, I'm impressed she made enough from home-made jewellery to be able to afford a home like that in the first place. Her work can be charitably described as average at best, yet she must have been selling a fair quantity of it.

Could also be that she's privileged in the "daddy's money" department. Nothing wrong with that, but please don't scream "oppressed" when you live in such a place.

[CommanderTuvok]

That is going to give me nightmares.

[Michael K Gray]

So in Victoria, OZ, you can (in theory) be charged for shining a light on someone's clothes

Quite understandable, if one is directing synchrotron radiation in the gamma-ray spectrum at their Skepchick T-Shirt!
Well spotted.

(even when they aren't wearing them, if you believe Justicar's argument about this back at ERV).

I do not believe his propositions.
Not for one moment.
He was so full of excreta that a Saint Hitchens' quote is applicable:

If you gave him an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox

Justicar is full of it, even when he is between meth binges.

Even better, you can assault someone's clothes by farting at them. Your victim's pants probably make a poor witness though (even if your own are confessing the sin to anyone with a nose), so maybe difficult to get plod to wheel you before the beak on that one.

But that is the long-standing existing tort of "noisome trade".
That is like, well prosecutable, bro!

[Jan Steen]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

But that won't fly, because RW was clearly using Surly Amy as an example of a woman who was bullied out of her home. And then extrapolated from there that multiple women were being bullied out of their homes, which would indeed be shocking if true.

[Jan Steen]

...multiple skeptical women, I should have written. 'Normal' people, without internet personalities, are being bullied out of their homes by neighbours and stalkers all the time, of course.

[Jonathan]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

But that won't fly, because RW was clearly using Surly Amy as an example of a woman who was bullied out of her home. And then extrapolated from there that multiple women were being bullied out of their homes, which would indeed be shocking if true.

Has consistency ever been her strong point?

/cynicism

[d4m10n]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

[d4m10n]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim.

Correcting quote fail above.

[d4m10n]

Fucking hell, the RW quote won't show up. Maybe the forum server has become self-aware and somewhat editorial to boot.

[Lsuoma]

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

Not hate, laughter. It's not easy to hate when their ridiculous baheviour makes the tears pour down one's cheeks...

[Notung]

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

That was one of the big falsehoods in the article. It claims that the hate is one-way, when in fact it has been going both ways.

Actually, I'd say that the worst hate has come from her 'side'. I've seen far more death threats, abuse, etc. from them. Most of the 'abuse' that she manages to quote largely just seems like people joking around, such as that tweet about 'copping a feel'. Their side seems genuinely hateful.

[Jonathan]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

Well maybe you should have spent some time LURKING, then you would understand how things work around here, instead of vomiting your privilege all over our safe space! You are worse than men who stab kittens in the throat!

[Jan Steen]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

Well maybe you should have spent some time LURKING, then you would understand how things work around here, instead of vomiting your privilege all over our safe space! You are worse than men who stab kittens in the throat!

d4m10n needs to be re-educated. Suitable accommodation is being contructed as we speak.

[Jonathan]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

Shit, I didn't know you guys are so dedicated to hate. Now I feel guilty just for being here. I'll go back to posting at A+ forums, where no one ever expresses hate for those with whom they disagree.

Well maybe you should have spent some time LURKING, then you would understand how things work around here, instead of vomiting your privilege all over our safe space! You are worse than men who stab kittens in the throat!

d4m10n needs to be re-educated. Suitable accommodation is being contructed as we speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYDkGJmSfy0

(The secret of embedding videos eludes me.

[Dilurk]

In her Slate article Rebecca Watson writes:

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Is Amy Roth really that stupid? Did she actually move because her home address, which anyone could have found easily with Google, was posted on a forum? If so, why? Did she make surlyramics of the prophet Mohammed?

This dubious example of a woman bullied out of her home is then turned into "skeptical women are being bullied out (...) of their homes." That looks like an application of propaganda 101: how to turn an unverifiable anecdote into a definite case with multiple instances. Call me hyperskepchickal.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is later amended. "Well, yes, it's true that she was already looking for a new place when the horrific incident with Vacula took place. But that's irrelevant, because since she moved out after that occurred, what I said is technically correct."

I'd laugh and laugh if she was moving back in with mummy.

Seems like the kind of thing she would do.

[Scented Nectar]

Jonathan, here is the secret handshake, I mean the secret YouTube Embedding Tutorial.

A youtube video url will come in two different types. The kind with the video code at the end, and the kind with the code in the middle. You need to strip off this extra stuff before putting the code (alone) between the youtube tags.

Here are two different urls going to the same video:

Code: Select all

code at the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM

and code in the middle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM&feature=my_favorites&list=FLGfAOgQRByLDu5xejATsjDw

Always get rid of everything up to and including, the first (or only) equal sign "=".
The stuff after it is the code, but note in the second example, there is extra stuff after the code.
The extra stuff after always begins with an "&" followed by whatever extra stuff.
Strip off the &'s and the extra stuff following at the end.

To sum it up, just keep the part between the first "=" and the first "&" (if there is one).

We are left with just the code: e1IxOS4VzKM so...

Code: Select all

Now put that inside youtube tags:
[youtube]e1IxOS4VzKM[/youtube]

The above tag and code will become this when posted:

[justinvacula]

Stephanie is such a trip - apparently, since Rebecca didn't tell ftb that she was out to destroy TAM, she wasn't...

Wait a sec, I thought intent didn't matter? When I had posted Amy's address here and had said that my intentions were not malicious, I was utterly dismissed by ftb bloggers. Apparently now, because Rebecca had no intent -- as Stephanie says -- she's clear of any charges regardless of what happened as a result of what she wrote. Also, Rebecca didn't intend to boycott Dawkins as she said (regardless of what was written) so she's clear there.

More double standards/different standards for different people. That's skepticism there...

...and lol at Rebecca not complaining much. Never mind the speeches she hijacks to talk about her alleged 'rape threats' and whatever else which has nothing to do with the title of the speech. Why in the world are people still inviting her to speak?

"They told you not to yield to temptation, but offered you only hypocrisy and ruin."

[Jonathan]

Thank you Scented!

[virtual joe]

Just popped in to alert y'all to a post today by Ed Brayton- http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... -thinking/ (apologies if this is already discussed up thread).

Here's a snippet;

I would submit that we do much the same thing when evaluating ideas, claims and arguments. If we hear those ideas expressed by someone we have already determined that we agree with, we are much more likely to agree with them without actually thinking about it. Conversely, if we hear those ideas expressed by someone we disagree with, we are much more likely to reject them out of hand, without giving them any due consideration. This is why what I often call the argumentum ad labelum is so common — it’s a means of dismissing a claim or argument rather than engaging it.

He then goes on to say

...being relatively more rational than someone who is highly irrational does not mean that we are avoiding the kinds of easy, tribalistic thinking noted above that undermine our ability to think critically, especially on issues that we are passionate about. None of us can avoid them entirely, I imagine, but as rationalists and skeptics we should try our best to cultivate habits of thinking that help us avoid them as much as possible. And when someone points them out to us, we should react reasonably rather than defensively.

So Ed is lamenting (other) people rejecting the arguments of others simply because of who the arguer is. Coming as it does from a FTB, can anyone here spot the hypocrisy?

[Dilurk]

Jonathan, here is the secret handshake, I mean the secret YouTube Embedding Tutorial.
...

I remember this one well. Ray Bradbury watched the video before he died.


http://www.gearfuse.com/ray-bradbury-watches-fuck-me-ray-bradbury-video-photo/

[Scented Nectar]

Jonathan, here is the secret handshake, I mean the secret YouTube Embedding Tutorial.
...

I remember this one well. Ray Bradbury watched the video before he died.


http://www.gearfuse.com/ray-bradbury-watches-fuck-me-ray-bradbury-video-photo/

I'm glad he got to see it before he died. Probably at least one of the best and most unique fan tribute's he's gotten. Very catchy tune, too (in a good way).

[ray cumfart]

:lol: Priceless work here from Mr Plum:



http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/10/rebeccas-article-at-slate/#comment-319113

^^
Ophelia Benson writes"But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events"

???????? this shocks me. i thought the problem was misogyny and sexism, when its obvious that the sceptic community has a problem with a bunch of raving lunatics running around degrading themselfs by hitting on old dried up spinsters. this need to be adressed. these poor people needs psychological help if they are so batshit crazy that they are having sexual fantasys about Ophelia Benson.

[comslave]

Could also be that her Ramics sells plummeted after her "crying over a shirt" fiasco, and she can't afford the rent anymore. Doesn't look like a cheap place to live...

Let's see... if 80% of skeptic conference attendees are male, and you spend all your free time whining about how sexist and misogynist all these men are, yeah, I could see how that could hurt sales.

Go find a real job, Amy.

[Scented Nectar]

???????? this shocks me. i thought the problem was misogyny and sexism, when its obvious that the sceptic community has a problem with a bunch of raving lunatics running around degrading themselfs by hitting on old dried up spinsters. this need to be adressed. these poor people needs psychological help if they are so batshit crazy that they are having sexual fantasys about Ophelia Benson.

As a woman who is getting long in the tooth (turning 50 next month), what you say alarms me. I no longer feel safe at conferences. Uncontrolled grannyphiles everywhere. Stop looking at my grey hair, damn you raving lunatics!!!!! I need to go blog or vlog now, and tell guys not to do that, to stop sexualificobjectializationing me. Now for a pretend flounce cuz I'm. just. that. upset.

*sniff, and peek to see I've gotten any sympathy yet*

[comslave]

^^
Ophelia Benson writes"But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events"

???????? this shocks me. i thought the problem was misogyny and sexism, when its obvious that the sceptic community has a problem with a bunch of raving lunatics running around degrading themselfs by hitting on old dried up spinsters. this need to be adressed. these poor people needs psychological help if they are so batshit crazy that they are having sexual fantasys about Ophelia Benson.

I think Ophi is having problems telling her twisted sex fantasies from reality.

Come to think of it, when Rebecca tells us she gets thousands of rape threats, isn't she really saying that if she does get raped, there will be a huge list of suspects? And so the real rapist might be all that much harder to find? So THAT's her game. She's trying to throw herself on the rape-cross and become a martyr for the movement. She's trying to arrange for her own rape fantasies to come true. Sorry Rebecca, but it's not going to happen. No one really wants to rape you. Although a ball gag for your mouth might be in order.

[ReneeHendricks]

...and lol at Rebecca not complaining much. Never mind the speeches she hijacks to talk about her alleged 'rape threats' and whatever else which has nothing to do with the title of the speech. Why in the world are people still inviting her to speak?

That's what I'm wondering as well. It's the same schtick over and again. Personally, I think they simply need the token pissed off victim chick and she's their "man", so to speak.

[Mykeru]

Well, maybe now they will start giving me some love. I know I am hindered by my refusal to engage them on their own turf, but Jesus Fucking Christ, I felt like they were ignoring me.

I actually thrive on turning their kind of humorless, mean-spirited horseshit into life-affirming Lulz.

C'mon baboolies, think of the lulz. And the baby otters.

Hell, I'm actually quite surprised when I get mentioned in passing - you know, when they start talking about MRA lovers and chill girls I think one person even said that I'm "despicable" (https://twitter.com/aratina/status/259360017893953536 only found out due to Ophie being "confused" about a video I did not make).

Well, of course they don't get that I'm "MRA" only to the extent that I'm a skeptic. If some truly bullshit claim came out of some MRA source, I would criticize that too.

You might check out the debate with Paul Elam – of A Voice for Men – where he argues or strongly suggests, I think, that some jurists should vote for acquital in rape cases regardless of the evidence – jury nullification. That looks a little off the wall to me – and to a number of others here.

I'm not distancing myself from the "MRA" label, just the presumption that they have that the opposition must be the ideological mirror image of them, knee-jerk group-think and all.

Groups of all kinds – from the McCarthyists to the Stalinists; from the Elks to the Boy Scouts – are prone to that. I don’t think it takes much effort to find evidence of that on either side of just about any line creating two subgroups out of one.

But my experience so far with MRAs is that they would be far more receptive to criticism than these clowns because the MRM is essentially a skeptical reaction to a pernicious form of woo.

While you didn’t actually argue that all MRAs are like the ones you’ve seen so far, my experience is that there seems to be a not insignificant percentage of those who self-identify as MRAs who are just as off the wall and into woo just as deep as the most radical radfem. Woo – as evidenced by all of the different religions, secular and otherwise – seems to come in a great many varieties.

Not to mention they are ugly as shit. I took a gnarled crap this morning that would be more likely to be hit on than The Beaver.

Apart from the questions of whether that is true and whether you’re any better in that department, I wonder what either has to do with the credibility of all of their arguments, whether they hold any water or not.

Yeah, Paul Elam's argument seemed off the wall too. And that's the one thing everyone points to, that Paul Elam likes his rapety-rape. But the point he was making wouldn't really raise an eyebrow if the crime discussed didn't have the emotional weight that rape does.

The Innocence project found that of the almost 300 exonerations for men ( who were 99% of exonerations) who had spent decades in prison for crimes they certainly didn't commit, a significant percentage were for rape, or rape and murder. I can't find the exact number. Normally the rate of "unfounded" in rape investigations is conservatively 8 to 15%.

Many things account for the false convictions. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, yet is treated as "best evidence". However, aside from error without malice, other disturbing trends emerge. Many rape convictions occurred through false confessions, the victim being led to identify a certain suspect and then her false identification becoming concrete over time. Forensic analysis is flawed and, in some cases involving bogus lab reports. Radly Balko did a series on now discredited forensic odontologist Michael West, who send many men to Death Row based on entirely spurious bite mark analysis.

Then there's outright prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutor actually suppresses exculpatory evidence. And, really, often that isn't necessary, As the West Memphis Three case showed, when you the authority of the state behind a charge, you can get people convicted on the basis of pure wind.

Thing is, we'd be more open to looking at the broken system applied to murder. Many states are already reviewing their death penalty laws based on the Innocence Project, the lab scandals and the like. Not that they now have a moral objection to the death penalty, but because you can't apply it in a broken system.

However, in the case of rape we have laws, social norms and just plain shaming that coerces into "believing the victim" and really continuing flawed prosecutions as a kind of security theater. Also, the prosecutor's office in the U.S. is a highly political position where the sacrifice of innocents is seen as a small price to pay for looking good. That many of these innocents are often minorities makes it that much easier.

In the Ronald Cotton case, the victim Jennifer Thompson who was, of course, vulnerable to coercion herself, was manipulated into identifying Cotton and believed he was the assailant for years. She was able eventually able to make peace with her coerced identification and later with Cotton himself. You could say she was victimized twice. And the man who actually raped her was running around all that time.

If you look at it that way, with the errors and misconduct where "the evidence" presented to the jury can't be considered the truth, and with a strong stigma against reviewing the process by which we can send a man to prison forever based on a "said so", then Elam's idea of nullification isn't "out there". You have to fix the system.

In fact, there's a place for skeptics there. So many researchers, notably Dr. Elizabeth Loftus has shown that eyewitness testimony is inaccurate, biased, often reconstructions and can be manipulated, we should seriously be questioning the prominent place we give it in our legal system and culture.

As far as MRAs steeped in woo, some are, I guess. Depends on who you are talking about, or if "MRAs" are being conflated with Pick Up Artists, Male Separatists, Iron John drum bangers and the like. I take it case by case. I don't anticipate, I just deal with people as they come up because, after all, groups are just made of people. I have yet to find that being a recalcitrant ideological douche is a requirement to join that club like it is for The Baboon Happy Fun Troop.

I have seen guys come into the A Voice for Men chat and other social media all pissed off as hell and bitter, but you have to keep in mind that some of these guys have been totally screwed over in a way that an amicably divorced guy who still has nothing bad to say about his ex wife wouldn't understand. Although, for months after my divorce I dreamed about her, usually in the context of her being lost and looking for her, and spent an inordinate amount of time on a bar stoll trying to get my liver to hate me. Maybe it's the first time anyone has listened to them. You let people like that vent and then try to steer them to something less personally destructive than being bitter.

No doubt I will come across some "men's rights" total woo and I will treat it like I do other woo.

One good thing about aligning with the MRM is that It give me the perspective to be as constructively a jerk as any woman. I mean in the sense of being a jerk out of a sense of self preservation.

Example. A few months ago saw the fizzle-out end of a relationship. At first, seemed good. She promised me she wasn't high maintenance and I believed her for a while. She was an army sergeant for years, was on board for my biking and hiking and camping liked baseball and was a fan of the Richmond Flying Squirrels (no, really).

However, as the relationship got serious she started asking for me to change this and that and whatever about me. You know, for any future children. I thought that was forward thinking, but you know, with a ticking clock I guess she should think about those things. After a point, I just told her that I appreciate the concern she has for future generations, but if I have to change this and that and the other thing, maybe she should be seeing someone else.

So, she decided to "friend-zone" me until she figured it out. I let her know that if were were going to be friends, we'd be friends. And I stuck to it. Of course, there were things that gave me pause about her previously, such as her need to have relationship critical conversations via text messaging (damn, that's frustrating) and, the real killer here, going through my phone and asking who was this and that person I was texting. Which I explained that this contact was my sister, another a lawyer, and I work with this person...and duly noted that she was the sort who would go through one's phone. I kept it on the up and up, but then she'd text me about what she wished she was doing with me...Uh, yeah. Just show me the hoop to jump through, why don't you?

Remember: It's not that men don't want to commit to women, ladies. We may just not want to commit to you.

And, mercifully, I think the last communication we had was two months ago. Which is great, really because out of nowhere pops up another woman who I had seen briefly and let her platonically crash with me for a few days while she was on a bender. I was buying her wine at 6:00 am so she didn't go through withdrawal and she drank my mouthwash. Then she scampered off only to reappear via text saying she was now really, really straight and hadn't gotten laid in 5.5 months (her exactness). I messaged back "1. Good for you, keep it up and 2. Can't help you there".

Now, I don't think that's too dickish. I can't see a woman being blamed for having that level of self-preservation. There was a time when I would have gone around the Maypole a couple of times over this horseshit.

The baboons would call that "woman hating", I guess. The PUAs would chide me for passing up an opportunity to get some. The Buddha would say the cause of pain is desire and I would say there aren't enough hours in the day to do what I want to do and put up with that.

[LouFCD]

Could also be that her Ramics sells plummeted after her "crying over a shirt" fiasco, and she can't afford the rent anymore. Doesn't look like a cheap place to live...

Let's see... if 80% of skeptic conference attendees are male, and you spend all your free time whining about how sexist and misogynist all these men are, yeah, I could see how that could hurt sales.

Go find a real job, Amy.

I'm sure there's an If You Seek Amy joke in there somewhere, but I imagine that's been overdone at this point in this long, long thread, yes?

[Jonathan]

Just popped in to alert y'all to a post today by Ed Brayton- http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... -thinking/ (apologies if this is already discussed up thread).

Here's a snippet;

I would submit that we do much the same thing when evaluating ideas, claims and arguments. If we hear those ideas expressed by someone we have already determined that we agree with, we are much more likely to agree with them without actually thinking about it. Conversely, if we hear those ideas expressed by someone we disagree with, we are much more likely to reject them out of hand, without giving them any due consideration. This is why what I often call the argumentum ad labelum is so common — it’s a means of dismissing a claim or argument rather than engaging it.

He then goes on to say

...being relatively more rational than someone who is highly irrational does not mean that we are avoiding the kinds of easy, tribalistic thinking noted above that undermine our ability to think critically, especially on issues that we are passionate about. None of us can avoid them entirely, I imagine, but as rationalists and skeptics we should try our best to cultivate habits of thinking that help us avoid them as much as possible. And when someone points them out to us, we should react reasonably rather than defensively.

So Ed is lamenting (other) people rejecting the arguments of others simply because of who the arguer is. Coming as it does from a FTB, can anyone here spot the hypocrisy?

I tend to view this as a positive. Perhaps he is realising just how counterproductive the argumentum ad labelum engaged in by FTB and A+ commenters, not to mention a few Slyme Pitters now and again, is when it comes to trying to have a rational discussion. Of course he can't come right out and say "check your prejudices and listen, not everyone who disagrees is a misogynist", or the rabid beast that is the FTB comment-collective will turn on him and things could get ugly. If people listen, it could be a step forward. And a few of those are certainly needed.

Of course, I'm applying my own filters to it. He could simply be talking in general and still believe that anyone who posts here is a cunt-kicking breast-chewing misogynist.

[Mokoma]

I must say, noelplum99 is one of my favourite commentators on all of this. He has a kind of 'from the outside looking in' feel to his expressions and opinions and it's quite refreshing. It's like picking an intelligent person in a British street and saying 'what do you think of all this?'. I say British because I get the feeling that a lot of this 'privilege', SJW, etc. stuff comes from other continents. I've literally never come across it in real life over here.

As an european outsider who has been following this ongoing petty (but often hilarious and entertaining) drama for some time, I have always felt that this Elevatorgate kerfuffle might be "only in America" kind of thing. I don't know why but maybe it spawned from the same mentality that made Janet Jackson's Nipplegate such a calamity.

[Mykeru]

:lol: Priceless work here from Mr Plum:



http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/10/rebeccas-article-at-slate/#comment-319113

^^
Ophelia Benson writes"But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events"

Translation: OH, LOOK AT ME. I'M HIGH-VALUE TOO!

Horseshit.

[Mykeru]

I must say, noelplum99 is one of my favourite commentators on all of this. He has a kind of 'from the outside looking in' feel to his expressions and opinions and it's quite refreshing. It's like picking an intelligent person in a British street and saying 'what do you think of all this?'. I say British because I get the feeling that a lot of this 'privilege', SJW, etc. stuff comes from other continents. I've literally never come across it in real life over here.

As an european outsider who has been following this ongoing petty (but often hilarious and entertaining) drama for some time, I have always felt that this Elevatorgate kerfuffle might be "only in America" kind of thing. I don't know why but maybe it spawned from the same mentality that made Janet Jackson's Nipplegate such a calamity.

A handy drawing which I'm posting not because it actually illuminates the issue in a meaningful way, but just to piss off some baboon.

[JackRayner]

I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

So you consider being hurt by having trust violated a hangup rather than a useful and productive social emotion, interesting. Remind me which school of sociopathy that comes from?

Precisely it. Inability to empathise with the other, therefore the other is irrelevant. Must be hanging around Skepchick too long. Like Becky Watson sending her well meaning handler out into the night for vegetarian cashew chicken just for lulz. Not Becky's fault they were that stupid haha.

Social contracts are what bind us together in what we call communities. To piss on these social contracts and then claim to want to help your fellow man whenever possible is just... It leaves me speechless. I do not see any difference between that and the sociopathy of SulkyAmy easing her soul by making trivial donations from her retard jewellery to whatever pop cause of the day. "Cognitive dissonance" doesn't even scratch the surface.

If you wish to continue moralizing and/or trying your hand at armchair psychoanalysis around this subject, there's a designated place for that now.

[Rystefn]

I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

So you consider being hurt by having trust violated a hangup rather than a useful and productive social emotion, interesting. Remind me which school of sociopathy that comes from?

Precisely it. Inability to empathise with the other, therefore the other is irrelevant. Must be hanging around Skepchick too long. Like Becky Watson sending her well meaning handler out into the night for vegetarian cashew chicken just for lulz. Not Becky's fault they were that stupid haha.

Social contracts are what bind us together in what we call communities. To piss on these social contracts and then claim to want to help your fellow man whenever possible is just... It leaves me speechless. I do not see any difference between that and the sociopathy of SulkyAmy easing her soul by making trivial donations from her retard jewellery to whatever pop cause of the day. "Cognitive dissonance" doesn't even scratch the surface.

You guys love tossing around talk of sociopathy. I'm trying to figure out if you're using a mental illness as a broad-spectrum insult or if you actually think you're in any way qualified to discuss the mental illness in question. If it's the first, rock on, it's fertile ground. If it's the second... Maybe you should look it up in the DSM- no, wait, that won't work. You can't do that, because it isn't there. Huh. Funny, that.

[Joe]

The line-up for the QED conference (UK's largest skeptic conference, qedcon.org) next year wouldn't go down well with the FfTB lot. This year it had Ophelia Benson. No-one from FfTB in 2013, but there's Dawkins, Krauss and Brooke Magnanti.

[JackRayner]

Ophelia Benson writes"But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events"

???????? this shocks me. i thought the problem was misogyny and sexism, when its obvious that the sceptic community has a problem with a bunch of raving lunatics running around degrading themselfs by hitting on old dried up spinsters. this need to be adressed. these poor people needs psychological help if they are so batshit crazy that they are having sexual fantasys about Ophelia Benson.

Gross.

If Benson [ever] looked any like Nina Hartley, maybe...

*shudder*

[Rystefn]

I guess the breakdown is like this -

* social libertarian perspective: I won't screw you while your back is turned and I expect you to not screw me while my back is turned.

* neo-Sadean libertine perspective: I won't screw you while you're back is turned (when there's a fair chance I'll get caught) and I expect you won't screw me while while my back is turned (when there's a fair chance you'll get caught).

For the life of me I cannot see how you can exist in the second world and still claim you are interested in the common good, humanism and helping where help's needed. My head would explode.

You left out quite a lot of perspectives, notably, the perspective of the person you're talking about:

I won't screw you* whether your back is turned or not, so long as you don't try to screw me**, whether my back is turned or not. I expect that rather a lot of people will try to screw me whether my back is turned or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I'd prefer do the same for me (but I don't expect it).

*I do not include hurting your feelings under the category of screwing you.
** I do not include hurting my feelings under the category of screwing me.

[AndrewV69]

As a woman who is getting long in the tooth (turning 50 next month), what you say alarms me. I no longer feel safe at conferences. Uncontrolled grannyphiles everywhere. Stop looking at my grey hair, damn you raving lunatics!!!!! I need to go blog or vlog now, and tell guys not to do that, to stop sexualificobjectializationing me. Now for a pretend flounce cuz I'm. just. that. upset.

*sniff, and peek to see I've gotten any sympathy yet*

I am going to point out the obvious. You are far more likely to get objectified and sexualized by the likes of me than the walking prune or Watson.

I will expand this a bit further. If I drop a pen in front of the three of you and while picking it up I get goosed, depending on who did it, it is either flirting or sexual harassment and criminal assault.

Same act by different people has different outcomes.

*shrug* Hypocrisy I know, but life can be so unfair.

I am willing to bet that if Twatson had been groped by Dawkins, Elevatorgate would never have happened. Instead, she made up a story about being still being sexually attractive, and her hero mocked her.

Well, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. etc. etc. and the rest is history.

[ReneeHendricks]

Ok, I can't stand it. I was just going to leave this alone because I have the feeling that not many will agree with me. But Asshat-Szvan's latest bit has a line in it (actually, twice but stated differently) that is bothering the shit out of me:

An unwanted pregnancy is not rape, but it is like a rape in many ways.

No. No, it's not. It is not a violent sexual assault upon your body and mental well-being. It's simply unwanted. To me, it's like night and day. Or perhaps I'm just letting my extreme distaste of Szvan color my perception. Either way, that line just bothers the shit out of me.