Periodic Table of Swearing

[Badger3k]

PZ, instead of manufacturing controversy, how about discussing real life - a teen faces criminal charges for "naming names" of the kids who sexually assaulted her and posted pictures on the internet (she violated court confidentiality, but I think her reasons are good) here

I would have to know more before I could comment. So far all we have is the media "spin" and I am too jaundiced by the toxic agendas spewed out to try and tease out what happened based on this report.

I have had too many first and second hand experiences with the media misrepresentation and false rape reports to automaticaly believe any woman now when she claims that she has been raped.

Sorry, not going there again. I have been fooled too many times now.

Yeah - after doing some shopping and housework, I went back and followed the few links to see what I can find out. I have to agree with some of the commenters that my initial reaction is one of vengeance, but it did bring up a lot of questions. What was the initial incident - what were the facts, evidence, etc; what was the plea bargain - it seems like they pled guilty to sexual assault but not rape - why was the plea given? Was there enough evidence for conviction or was it a case of "it's easier to plea bargain" as some have suggested? Was it a case of "good-ol' boy network"/bribery?

I can see this emotionally - that was my gut talking. Ethically or rationally...I don't know enough. Is what she did illegal? Justified? It does seem odd that she wasn't notified of the plea bargain, or had any input in on that decision - maybe that isn't unusual, or maybe it is. I have no idea, but on the surface it seems underhanded...but it was a government case, not a civil one, so with her being the victim maybe she didn't have any involvement - it was strictly lawyer to lawyer. Plus we don't (at least as far as I can get, I didn't go looking for the tweets) know the reduced sentence - nor what effect this will have on the sentence or the case. Can it be thrown out because of what she did? If so, then that makes what she did stupid, albeit satisfying for her. Too many unknowns. I admit I haven't done a lot of checking yet - just finished replacing one bathroom faucet, one more to go, just taking a break now to make sure there are no leaks.

[Badger3k]

An amusing little sideshow on the first page of the Rationalia-rape-joke thread on Pharyngula:

#107 - scooterskutre : I guess I’m just a sucker for good conversation with bright people. That’s what I’d do with a skepchick, if I had my way with one.

Harmless and supportive? Apparently not.

#115 - Josh, Official SpokesGay: (quoting scooterskutre) Not funny. Why? Because it’s not even a little humorous to turn the subject, even abstractly, into what YOU would do if you “had your way” with a woman. Not funny, no matter your intent.
Don’t argue this, don’t double down. Seriously. DON’T.

And why is scooter's comment so offensive?

#153 - Soul_Biscuit: Scooter, what do either of those have to do with your joke? Do they somehow make up for your implication that Skepchicks have no agency or personhood?

Anyway, I was amused. It's a rainy day, and I can't work in the garden.

All you have to do is wait and they start to eat their own. Scooter was offensive in that he assumed that Skepchicks are bright or good conversationalists.

[tachikoma]

Luke Muehlhauser, on August 1, 2010 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10632

Yes, this kind of victimology has been building in the atheosphere for quite a while now, and IMO elevator-gate was just the catalyst that brought it to light for a lot more people. I started lurking at Pharyngula in 2005 and stopped around elevator-gate, and I remember a degradation of the quality of commenters from people who disagreed while giving their reasons to people who cannot disagree without snarking and demonizing, and an increase in the gynocentric feminist types. Still, even back in 2005 PZ did have I blame the patriarchy on his blogroll and there were a few radfem commentors who apprently came from there, but for some reason they never took over back then as they are doing now. (Not gonna link to it...the first thing I saw was Twisty's apparently infamous "fellatio is objectively disgusting and all women who like to suck dick are brainwashed sexbots" post and was immediately disgusted and I haven't been back since.)

I knew something was going wrong when in a thread in Pharyngula before e-gate (some time in 2008-2010?) someone approved Derailing for Dummies as a good guideline for (what not to do in) conversations, and IIRC only one person weakly complained about it. Seriously, Derailing for Dummies is like the antithesis of skeptical thought. It's "derailing" to ask someone to prove that their personal experience is actually widespread (ya know, anecdote!=data?)? It's "derailing" to point out that not everyone in OppressedGroup agrees with you? It's "derailing" to ask for clarification? Also, not in this version I've linked but in the version seen a few years ago, asking for scientific evidence was also considered "derailing" and one should instead wholeheartedly believe everything OppressedPerson says. Yeah. Sure. This kind of thing should set off the baloney detector in every skeptic, but what's sad is that it didn't in a significant number of them.

[LMU]

All you have to do is wait and they start to eat their own. Scooter was offensive in that he assumed that Skepchicks are bright or good conversationalists.

There are questions that are wrong, for example: "Do you still beat your wife?" They can't be answered directly without seeming like an abuser. "What would you do if you could have your way with a skepchick?" might be in a similar class.

Even if you say that you'd just ask the skepchick what she wanted you'd be in the wrong (that's what Elevator Guy did after all). You might be okay if you said you'd let her go, but someone might accuse you of abandonment. Are there more questions of this type? Maybe we could get them to answer more of them.

[Guest]

Brownian comes across as one of those dumb guys who desperately wants to appear intelligent, and affects a laconic manner and deploys arcane synonyms for everyday words to achieve this end.

Brownian, without apparent irony, once suspected me of 'stochasticity' on a thread partially concerned with Orwell's advice on clear writing.

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

That John Morales guy is even worse for that. From earlier today

Leaving aside that even had your claim any merit whatsoever, it would still represent a tu quoque

Because I directly called PZ Myers a fucking hypocrite over that twitter stuff.

reasonabel:
His point was that the jokes were not actually funny and were pretty inappropriate… so yeah I agree.

Yeah, but the thing is, you agree with a misperception: the actual quote is: “Another purportedly rational forum that thinks rape is a joke.”

(The clear implication is that the contention entails that rape is not a joke; the corollary is that it was no joke)

What? You agree with me. Let me re-phrase it so I sound extra-super-duper-smart.... see even if you agree with my point you're wrong!



Hmmm, just checked in and somebody dropped Pappa's docs and everyones mad. I don't know where they got the impression that people there hated that guy and wanted to harm him. Oh yeah, that fucking thread and their stupid posts.

[justinvacula]

If anyone cares to hop in, I'm having a discussion on Twitter with @sallystrange.
Here are some tweets:

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

[Tigzy]

That John Morales guy is even worse [than Brownian]

LOL - I could be getting Brownian mixed up with John Morales for that; because so many of the Baboons use the same off-the-peg opinion, it gets hard to keep track of who you were talking to. Skeptifem/Jadehawk/Daisy Cutter are the worst for that. I sometimes wonder if they're socks or grew in a vat.

Leaving aside that even had your claim any merit whatsoever, it would still represent a tu quoque

Because I directly called PZ Myers a fucking hypocrite over that twitter stuff.

General Baboon tactic: whenever they get called on their hypocrisy, they bring up the tu quoque regardless of context. When one is using an example of their hypocrisy when your argument is about their hypocrisy, that's not a tu quoque. Usually goes over their heads, though.

Hmmm, just checked in and somebody dropped Pappa's docs and everyones mad. I don't know where they got the impression that people there hated that guy and wanted to harm him. Oh yeah, that fucking thread and their stupid posts.

O rly? Curious. Might have to pop over and have a look.

[Guest]

Bin Laden is a Radfem? I thought only womyn-born womyn could be accepted into that circle? I was under the impression that a certain subsector might tolerate someone like Caine, but Laden would never be allowed in-group.

Caine is female. She's also a colossal cunt. :lol:

[Tigzy]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

[Za-zen]

Docs drop?!

Can somebody link please. Fucking wagner has went from an asshole to a fucking total tool. Was he not the one crying about internet shit going real. And him having to take out restraining orders and such.

[Guest]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

[Badger3k]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

Yeah - I skimmed the PZ thread (Gah, I feel soiled) and didn't see anything from where Pappa was in the conversation. I did see the typical baboon response (and really, Louis? WTF with the horrible "I punch you in the face = rape joke" analogy that is not good, despite what you say). In contrast, go to rationalia and you see some of that from visiting baboons (I imagine, as the ones posting seem clueless about the board) and some good responses. One of the better ones that explains it all: coito ergo sum

just a part of it:

Pappa made a joke that pushed the envelope in many people's minds, and crossed the line in others. For some, it's "meh" not a big deal. Folks chime in, and some tell Pappa they think he didn't do the right thing here. Everyone is allowed their say, and their argument to their hearts content.

He's not, however, banned, labeled, scorned, banished, and run out of town on a rail. That's the Skepchick way, not the Rationalia way.

What results is that in Rationalia, there is a true variety of opinion and personality. Folks from all along the political spectrum are here. Folks are allowed, here, for example to be vaccine doubters or deniers, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, Moon Hoaxers, Muslim extremists, and all sorts of folks that would get banned in a second over at Skepchick. Yes, and here, too, humor that may be distasteful and offensive is tolerated.

There are very few rules here about the content of what people write. For the most part, people have to refrain from getting personal with each other, so that conversation doesn't devolve into namecalling fests. And, in a very, very loose way, they try to keep topics pretty close to the topic in the OP, although a rule of reason is used on these things too.

They don't, here, rush to ban people and club them over the head like baby seals. They give polite taps on the shoulder, to say "hey, buddy, maybe cool it." First -- a few tries of that nature, and then maybe a board warning. The very rare suspension is given for seriously disruptive behavior. But, as far as the content of people's opinions -- people here can allow others to hold distasteful opinions and even say distasteful things. And, you know what most folks do here? Try to understand where others are coming from, and maybe learn from it -- not necessarily change their minds, of course -- but, people here seem to be able to coexist with those who don't fall into lock-step with the prevailing orthodoxy.

On Skepchick, they tell you "you've already been told!" And, "I'm sick of repeating these arguments! Once you've been shown the truth, then it's time to just Shut Up and Listen!" Anyone who questions the accuracy of a Skepchick statement is accused of "gaslighting." If you try to pursue debate on a topic, you're "derailing." They reserve for themselves the right to abuse those who post disagreements on their blog, but then they categorize mere disagreement with their views as "abuse."

Rationalia is true skepticsim. Rationalia proceeds bravely in any direction and will address any issue or topic fearlessly. All points of view are allowed. And, thinking here is truly free. Rationalia would never ban Thunderf00t for taking the position that the Skepchicks were wrong about the sexual harassment problem. Freethoughtblogs would. The Skepchicks would.

[Badger3k]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

Well, at least he didn't go all Michelle Malkin then (that's who did it, not Geller, as I mistakenly thought in a previous post).

[Guest]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

Well, at least he didn't go all Michelle Malkin then (that's who did it, not Geller, as I mistakenly thought in a previous post).

No, but he has deliberately started a hate-fest against one person and allowed to continue and reach fever pitch. He shouldn't be too surprised thats theres going to be people out there wanting to take to a new level.

[Tigzy]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

Did you get a screencapture?

[Guest]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

Did you get a screencapture?

Nah. Wasn't sure what i'd use it for. It contained the guys name and address, postcode. I would't have been able to share it really. The removal is at comment 199 on the second page.

[Badger3k]

Considering that a person stating they are a lawyer makes some interesting comments, I hope PZ would remove them.

cormac

I liked the whole thing, but this is especially good:

4. What happened here is that someone made a stupid joke. Everyone can make a mistake. PZ is a member here. If he felt so strongly about it, why didn't he simply post here, and deal with it man to man? The fact that he chose to do it on his very public blog, right beside a fund-raising advertisement, suggests to me that PZ is less interested in the issue to hand, and more interested in basking in the reflected glory of a good old manufactured controversy, along with the lynch mob hysteria in progress on his pestilential site.

[NotASkepDick]

Josh, Official SpokesGay
23 July 2012 at 10:42 am
I have an account over there and I just checked in. Jesus Christ. Jesus H. Christ. It actually made me start crying (yeah, weak stupid emotional effeminate faggotry-patheticz!!?/?1) so I left. But not before noticing two things:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[AndrewV69]

Brownian, without apparent irony, once suspected me of 'stochasticity' on a thread partially concerned with Orwell's advice on clear writing.

That is freaking hilarious!!

[Tigzy]

Guest - whereabouts on FfTB does it say that Pappa's docs have been dropped? Or is it over on Rationalia?

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

PZ removed them pretty quickly to be fair after a couple of them emailed him.

Did you get a screencapture?

Nah. Wasn't sure what i'd use it for. It contained the guys name and address, postcode. I would't have been able to share it really. The removal is at comment 199 on the second page.

Ah yeah. I see. No worries. A fair call by PZ and the baboon squad there - for once.

[Tigzy]

Let's just hope that slimy little cretin Martin over there behaves himself with that info...

[Badger3k]

Josh, Official SpokesGay
23 July 2012 at 10:42 am
I have an account over there and I just checked in. Jesus Christ. Jesus H. Christ. It actually made me start crying (yeah, weak stupid emotional effeminate faggotry-patheticz!!?/?1) so I left. But not before noticing two things:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Was one of them a t-shirt?

[AndrewV69]

Nah. Wasn't sure what i'd use it for. It contained the guys name and address, postcode. I would't have been able to share it really. The removal is at comment 199 on the second page.

The link to the comment is here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-407919

Good thing PZ removed it (never mind someone in that camp went after Abbie), because starting a "war" like that is something at least three of them are probably going to regret almost immediately.

I wonder if Cain for instance has removed all his personal information from the porn site servers he has access to?

And yes, Cain apparently was born with the dangly bits that identify someone as male, and up to last year worked in the porn industry. Cain, Ing and Erista would probably take damage first. So no, they do not want to go down that road.

[sacha]

I'm catching up, but before I do, this is precisely what I thought when I read Pappa's comments...

I remember Pappa from the Richard Dawkins forum. Good to see he's still bringing the funny.

I'm of the mind that jokes about any topic can be funny, like last week, Louis CK was making Holocaust and rape jokes on the Daily Show and Jon Stewart is Jewish. Jon didn't seem to mind, because Louis CK was never serious about Jew-murder and Pappa is not seriously advocating the rape of Skepchicks. Anyone with a mental age older than 5 could have figured that out, and if you did figure it, but you are still angry, well then, no one gives a fuck that you're offended.

In Amy's blog post, she says:

"...this morning I woke up to a tweet that recommended that I light myself on fire. "

here is the tweet, the image straight from Amy's blog (she named it):

light-yourself-on-fire.jpg

(56.44 KiB) Downloaded 228 times

I read it when first posted. To me, it says: Want to be a martyr, Amy? Here's how.
which is fucking humour! and funny!

[AndrewV69]

Here are a couple of tips for some of you who may have a server that spiders visit.

- never put personal information on such a server.
- robots.text is your friend but you have to keep it up to date!

[CommanderTuvok]

Just listened to the SGU live from TAM podcast. At the beginning Steve Novella just says that Queen Bee is not with them. The interesting bit comes at the end when he thanks DJ Grothe for having them there. I wonder how that will go down with certain people. Maybe Steve could be this week's witch.
There's also a lot of talk about sex and masturbation in it, so it's probably best that RW didn't show up, that could have been nasty.

Yes, the SGU is listenable when Queen Bee fucks off somewhere else (usually a jaunt to Europe). It was noticeable that the entire show seemed more relaxed and fun. Steve Novella even proclaims "science wins, bitches", or something very much like that. I wonder what Twitson would make of that. The audience really seemed to enjoy it as well.

[AndrewV69]

I'm catching up, but before I do, this is precisely what I thought when I read Pappa's comments...

I remember Pappa from the Richard Dawkins forum. Good to see he's still bringing the funny.

I'm of the mind that jokes about any topic can be funny, like last week, Louis CK was making Holocaust and rape jokes on the Daily Show and Jon Stewart is Jewish. Jon didn't seem to mind, because Louis CK was never serious about Jew-murder and Pappa is not seriously advocating the rape of Skepchicks. Anyone with a mental age older than 5 could have figured that out, and if you did figure it, but you are still angry, well then, no one gives a fuck that you're offended.

In Amy's blog post, she says:

"...this morning I woke up to a tweet that recommended that I light myself on fire. "

here is the tweet, the image straight from Amy's blog (she named it):

light-yourself-on-fire.jpg

I read it when first posted. To me, it says: Want to be a martyr, Amy? Here's how.
which is fucking humour! and funny!

Oh great job in establishing credibility! Wonderful, my faith is restored!

[justinvacula]

Probably one of the best examples of question-begging/circular reasoning I have seen:

http://i.imgur.com/mGNv1.jpg

[DW Adams]

The information that they "dropped" was the #whois info for the website.

It is possible that the person listed as a contact isn't even Pappa.

Now that could have been bad for whoever was listed.

[Tigzy]

I wonder if Cain for instance has removed all his personal information from the porn site servers he has access to?

If he/she can bear to stomach this place, you can bet he/she is removing it now!

:lol:

[DW Adams]

Justin, SallyStrange has been going round and round with Damion all weekend. You couldn't pay me to try to reason with her.

[tachikoma]

Is it just me or does "A hermit" (FfTB defender on the rationalia thread) sound like the person that was trolling this forum earlier? The usage of smilies in this post in particular seems similar.

[CommanderTuvok]

SallyStrange and Horse Pheathers are well known FfTB Baboon Twitter trolls. They are very friendly with Osama Greg Laden and InSvanity.

They are retards.

[tachikoma]

Justin: those Horse Pheathers tweets are a textbook example of Kafka-trapping

[AndrewV69]

Probably one of the best examples of question-begging/circular reasoning I have seen:

You have more patience than I do. that is all.

BTW, I have been watching the #ftbullies and IMO Sally Strange is heading for a meltdown.

[Tigzy]

Probably one of the best examples of question-begging/circular reasoning I have seen:

You have more patience than I do. that is all.

BTW, I have been watching the #ftbullies and IMO Sally Strange is heading for a meltdown.

Not bloody surprised, considering the state of her in that twitpic. Poor girl doesn't look like she's slept in month.

[DW Adams]

Is it just me or does "A hermit" (FfTB defender on the rationalia thread) sound like the person that was trolling this forum earlier? The usage of smilies in this post in particular seems similar.

Actually, I think 'A Hermit' is nigel_stupidcrapafterhisname, from PZ's thread.

[Guest]

PZ complaining that the guy emailed him to ask him to take his name and address down. But, but but you said you absolutely supported free speech. GOTCHA!

He's like a child.

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/hEV7g.jpg

:lol:

[tachikoma]

A little old, but a nice summary

From what I have gathered over the last year:

- Rebecca gets offered coffee in an elevator at a skeptic's convention that isn't TAM, and vlogs about it.
- Elyse gets offered a swinger's business card at a skeptic's convention that isn't TAM, and blogs about it.
- Therefore all skeptic's conventions, including TAM, are hostile towards women.

The solution is believed to be to have a code of conduct.
- TAM had a code of conduct before it was cool (i.e. pre-Elevatorgate).
- In fact, someone got kicked out of last year's TAM because of inappropriateness towards Ashley Miller and some other women.
- Unfortunately, DJ Grothe doesn't remember his involvement in that ejection.
- The information DJ has at his disposal is different than the information numerous women have at their disposal.
- Therefore DJ is The Debil and TAM 10 will go down in history as the lowest percentage of women attendees since Rebecca first asked herself "how can I get more women to go to TAM?"


Am I blaming the calling out of harassers on this result?
I wouldn't call it blame. Blame means that something has gone wrong.
I would call it a natural, and not unexpected or unpredictable, consequence of the particular method of calling-out.
Like I commented on one of the myriad of freethoughtblog articles on this, if you start pointing out that individual trees in an orchard bear bad fruit, then you can't really be surprised when people avoid the whole orchard.


What's the real solution?
- Have a Code of Conduct.
- Enforce it.
- If someone breaks the Code of Conduct, freaking quash it right there. Tell the guy "back off, creep." Tell one of the administrators "that guy's being way inappropriate." Fill out your freaking questionnaire.
- Do NOT run to your video camera or your blog and say "hey, I was at some conference, and some guy did something I didn't like", and leave it at that. Because when you do, what people hear is "hey, at EVERY conference, EVERY guy does something I didn't like."

Underlining mine.

[Dilurk]

The information that they "dropped" was the #whois info for the website.

It is possible that the person listed as a contact isn't even Pappa.

Now that could have been bad for whoever was listed.

Unless it was one of the locked whois registrars then you see something like this on a whois

Administrative Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer nnnnnnnnn, somedomain.com@@contactprivacy.com

etc.
Which reminds me, time to lock down my own whois and domain. I trust lsuoma but not those other retards PZ seems to attract.

[DW Adams]

Yeah, my website is completely covered.

DomainbyProxy...it's worth the annual fee.

[Dilurk]

Justin: those Horse Pheathers tweets are a textbook example of Kafka-trapping

Sounds exactly like the concept of Christian original sin doesn't it?

Christians claim we are all broken from birth because of original sin, but wait! We have a cure for it!

Same thing, different name.

[Dilurk]

Yeah, my website is completely covered.

DomainbyProxy...it's worth the annual fee.

Yes, time to go that route for me too.

[Za-zen]

Martin was the lityle twat who cried about internet shit going real, and him having to contact law enforcement etc. what a fucking hypocritical knob. Martin im freaked out by your appearance it reminds me of someone who ould possibly be a threat to my children, i hereby invoke pre emptive self defense claue 2.3 whereby i am entitled to fuck you up on sight.

[The Worst Guy]

Wait, did I read that correctly? Did Mr. Myers actually suggest that free speech advocates must surrender their right to privacy in order for their advocacy to be taken seriously? The buffoonery, it's limitless.

[Za-zen]

Yeah all those cowards in china should just shut up until they are willing to put their names to their freespeech

[Tigzy]

Looked to me like Myers was conflating free speech with the right to freely deliver other people's personal details. Dunno if he was trying to make a rhetorical point here - certainly didn't work, as it just makes him look even more of a twunt.

[NotASkepDick]

pappa: You don’t get to just bribe your way out of this one with nice-guy points. It wouldn’t matter if you single-handedly ended war and instituted universal health care; joking about corrective rape would STILL be reprehensible and you should STILL be called out for it. No special pleading allowed. ;)

We will still call you the scum of the earth and ask you to fuck off and die.

:lol:

[Evan]

Here are a couple of tips for some of you who may have a server that spiders visit.

- never put personal information on such a server.
- robots.text is your friend but you have to keep it up to date!

My robots.txt ought to block all the well-behaved bots. Since my domain has a Dynamic DNS IP address, a whois search for my domain returns a "no match for domain" message. As far as I can tell, nothing publicly accessible from my web server could be used to embarrass or "out" me.

I may need to implement further security measures just in case someone tries to attack the server remotely and potentially gain access to files outside my web server root directory. Besides these tips, I would appreciate any suggestions.

[Tigzy]

Justin: those Horse Pheathers tweets are a textbook example of Kafka-trapping

The 'you can't understand because you're privileged' thing that the baboons have taken to spouting off about is such a fallacy it amazes me that even they can't see it: it's basically trying to foist something that can only be applied to a plurality (whether evidentially backed or not) onto one individual - and in the case of the internet, it becomes even more untenable because they have no real knowledge of the person they are accusing.

To wit: men are generally more priviliged than women. Ergo, you as an individual male are more privileged than women. As you can see, it can only be tenable if the comparison is against another singular.

Men generally have a faster serve than women at tennis. Ergo, you as an individual male have a faster serve than women.

[Guest]

And yes, Cain apparently was born with the dangly bits that identify someone as male, and up to last year worked in the porn industry. Cain, Ing and Erista would probably take damage first. So no, they do not want to go down that road.

Is there more than one "Cain/Caine" at Pharyngula? If so, sorry, Andrew, I assumed you were referring to this odious specimen.

[tachikoma]

Quoting some more from the Kafkatrapping article

Directly related to the tweets Justin posted:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap.

-> "you cry victim when people call you out for [privilege]" -> "you have a huge heaping case of privilege"

The subject must be prevented from asserting his or her individuality and individual agency; better, the subject must be convinced that asserting individuality is yet another demonstration of denial and guilt.

So, Justin saying "Please, tell me what you know about my life and my experiences" is an example of PRIVILEGE!!!111

Model D: “The act of demanding a definition of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} that can be consequentially checked and falsified proves you are {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive}.”

Seen in the last tweet Justin posted, I'll bet they'll chastise you for asking for a definition

Relevant to elevatorgate, t-shirtgate, and charges of sexual harrassment in cons:

Consider the model S: “Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression,…}, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.”...The operator of the kafkatrap relies on the subject’s emotional revulsion against the crime to sweep away all questions of representativeness and the basic fact that the subject didn’t do it.

Skepticism about the existence of elevator guy? MISOGYNIST!!11

Why "gender traitors" and "chill girls" are continually dismissed:

Model T: Designated victims of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} who question any part of the theory of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrate by doing so that they are not authentic members of the victim class, so their experience can be discounted and their thoughts dismissed as internalized {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}.

Perhaps why you don't see much about female critics of Watson, as Gurdur nicely listed in his e-gate context post, when e-gate gets rehashed.

Kafkatraps are unfalsifiable and yes, very much like original sin:

Notably, if the model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people: (a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and (b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime. No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!

I've seen three kinds of reactions to this:
1. Ignore it as much as possible.
2. Claim that everyone is full of sin at least a little bit sexist/racist/whatever so we need constant vigilance and that justifies the over-the-top reaction to everything. Also somehow the accuser is also guilty of the ever prevalent sexism/racism and everybody should take the line "everyone is sexist and racist, including you" calmly but at the same time sexism/racism is like the worst thing evar
3. Everyone is full of sin trapped within the Patriarchy but some are holier more enlightened than others.

[Za-zen]

Tigzy

The privlege argument is such bullshit as applied because it is nothing more than an appeal to "poor me, nobody can understand how hard i have it". You simply can't have a reasonable discourse with someone who frames everything from a subjective bias that they are victimised by default of existence, without first them throwing out their presupp crap

[Tigzy]

@Zazen. Indeed. Also, tachikoma's post above deconstructs it quite nicely.

I don't believe I've been accused yet by a baboon of showing my privilege (oops!); should it ever be levelled at me, I'd be very tempted to simply say, 'so fuckin what? Get over it.' :lol: would blow a fuse or two, I'd wager.

[KiwiInOz]

https://twitter.com/#!/SallyStrange/med ... 2FYILltw2b

Oh noes. Next thing you know, she'll be on one of those Skepchick calenders and complaining about being objectified.

[Tigzy]

https://twitter.com/#!/SallyStrange/med ... 2FYILltw2b

Oh noes. Next thing you know, she'll be on one of those Skepchick calenders and complaining about being objectified.

I didn't think they could be captured on film.

[Za-zen]

Rpost from rationalia, as rape is the new blasphemy:

Okay, i object, i've been on this forum for more than five minutes, and it wasn't as advertised, i was promised rape and apologists, whats the deal? Is there like a hidden sub forum where we all get to rape, what do i have to do to get a key? Is there a pz doll there?

[CommanderTuvok]

https://twitter.com/#!/SallyStrange/med ... 2FYILltw2b

Oh noes. Next thing you know, she'll be on one of those Skepchick calenders and complaining about being objectified.

:o

[DownThunder]

https://twitter.com/#!/SallyStrange/med ... 2FYILltw2b

Oh noes. Next thing you know, she'll be on one of those Skepchick calenders and complaining about being objectified.

For some reason, "Faces of Meth" springs to mind. Would explain some of the mental attributes too.