Periodic Table of Swearing

[Steersman]

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

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

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

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

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

Yea, "I think I'm with you on that." ;-)

[katamari Damassi]

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

[Steersman]

In passing, I wonder if you have any evidence that she “uses those words more than any of us here”. If you’re referring to that post of franc’s, then I would say that doesn’t really hold a lot of water as at least his initial quotes of Ophelia aren’t cases of her calling someone those words but of her describing or paraphrasing other people directing those epithets towards third parties:

Feel free to disagree.

Thanks; don’t mind if I do.

See if I care.

Now, now, Phil; you’re a better man than that – Gunga Din. You wouldn’t be quoting Hitchens if you didn’t think that “the truth matters”, even if you and Hitchens, I expect like all of us at one time or another, periodically seem to lose or lost or have lost sight of that objective.

But to address the substance of your post, you also said:

I never said she was calling anyone those words, just that she seems to write them (in quotes or otherwise) a lot more than anyone here, which is to me a clear indication of her martyrdom syndrome.

Ok, I’ll concede, I'll stand corrected, that you didn’t actually say that “she was calling anyone those words”, although, in passing, she did call some people “pricks” which, in a triumph of rationalization if not in fooling oneself, she excused with “irony”. However, that seems rather evasive on your part – being charitable (it’s Friday, “you gleek plick”) – as using those words is not the issue – using them as insults is. And, from what I can see, Ophelia hasn’t used those types of words – with the notable exception of “pricks” – in that way.

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

[murtzuphlus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rystefn]

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

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

[Pinker]

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

It's going to get very ugly in that thread. The banning threshold will be lower than ever (Eris Caffee and andrewtyson are goners..)

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

[rayshul]

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

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

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

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

[murtzuphlus]

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

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

[Gumby]

It's a bit restricting when you're trying to moralise using all caps, 140 characters and beginning every tweet with "Y U NO".
What a weird limitation to impose on oneself.

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

[murtzuphlus]

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

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

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

Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.

[rayshul]

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

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Really? I do.

[Steersman]

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

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

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

Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

[rayshul]

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

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

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

Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.

I don't know where we're not and where we haven't either shit on each other for it, or where people haven't been talked round to having a different viewpoint after a discussion.

[Tigzy]

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Well, it depends: if someone is caught out being hypocritical over something they've only shown a mild to middling disdain for, then I'm pretty sure most people can let it pass. But when you have someone like Myers, whose disdain for misogyny is so deeply infused that he can liken critics of feminism to Marc Lepine, then he thoroughly needs to be called out when he doesn't live up to the ideals he is so vicious towards others about.

[Walter Ego]

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

[youtube]HHNeM9Ql3Mc[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

In passing, you might want to suggest to franc that he should update his signature, specifically the assertion that “smilies are for reetards". Possibly to “smilies are generally for reetards”. Or “only reetards overuse smilies” – although that sort of puts Andrew in the docket. But either of those – or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Or admit that, periodically at least, he acts like a “reetard" himself. Particularly as there seems to be plenty of evidence for the latter case, even apart from his own use of them ….

Sorry Steers :naughty: but I could care less, and I mean that in a good way. I also doubt that Franc really cares that much either.

:moon:

[Rystefn]

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

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Some people are substantially better at it than others. Some people, when caught in it, admit to what happened and try to be better. Some people are self-righteous, condescending douchnozzles who, in their own minds, can do no wrong.

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

[Gumby]

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

It's amazing they have figured all that out before the police have even released the shooter's name. *spit*

[Mykeru]

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

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?

[murtzuphlus]

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

I am amazed. Are you really pulling a Nerd of Redhead on me?

[Steersman]

In passing, you might want to suggest to franc that he should update his signature, specifically the assertion that “smilies are for reetards". Possibly to “smilies are generally for reetards”. Or “only reetards overuse smilies” – although that sort of puts Andrew in the docket. But either of those – or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Or admit that, periodically at least, he acts like a “reetard" himself. Particularly as there seems to be plenty of evidence for the latter case, even apart from his own use of them ….

Sorry Steers :naughty: but I could care less, and I mean that in a good way. I also doubt that Franc really cares that much either.

:moon:

I hardly thought that you would much care about “being in the docket” - I only brought it up as a case-in-point. Although I had thought you might at least raise an eyebrow over franc’s apparent hypocrisy – particularly since the concept seems to be the soup de jour …. People in glass houses and all that ….

[soldierwhy]

What. The. Fuck?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... apture.png

[Steersman]

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Citations needed .... "what can be asserted without proof …."

I am amazed. Are you really pulling a Nerd of Redhead on me?

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

[Gumby]

What. The. Fuck?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... apture.png

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

[murtzuphlus]

Well, it depends: if someone is caught out being hypocritical over something they've only shown a mild to middling disdain for, then I'm pretty sure most people can let it pass. But when you have someone like Myers, whose disdain for misogyny is so deeply infused that he can liken critics of feminism to Marc Lepine, then he thoroughly needs to be called out when he doesn't live up to the ideals he is so vicious towards others about.

Yes, I fully agree that was a particularly nasty move by PZ, which deserved all the ridicule it got. I could not believe the way he worded that piece. It was almost like he wanted to provoke a reaction.

[Mykeru]

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

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

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

Yes yes yes & yes. But I think (with respect and all that) that when you are demanding consistency of others you better be rather consistent yourself. People are not consistent.

For fuck's sake.

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

Example:

Someone who isn't gay and doesn't use illegal drugs who condemns homosexuality and drug use may be wrong on those issues, but is not necessarily a hypocrite.

Ted Haggerd, who made a career on publicly condemning homosexuality and drug use while smoking both meth and a male hooker's cock was a big goddamn hypocrite.

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

[Lsuoma]

In passing, you might want to suggest to franc that he should update his signature, specifically the assertion that “smilies are for reetards". Possibly to “smilies are generally for reetards”. Or “only reetards overuse smilies” – although that sort of puts Andrew in the docket. But either of those – or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Or admit that, periodically at least, he acts like a “reetard" himself. Particularly as there seems to be plenty of evidence for the latter case, even apart from his own use of them ….

Sorry Steers :naughty: but I could care less, and I mean that in a good way. I also doubt that Franc really cares that much either.

:moon:

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

[murtzuphlus]

Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?

No, it isn't. I think it is more like saying you can throw the first stone if you are innocent.

[Al Stefanelli]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

[rayshul]

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

[Gumby]

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


https://twitter.com/erichovind

[rayshul]

Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?

No, it isn't. I think it is more like saying you can throw the first stone if you are innocent.

Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.

[murtzuphlus]

For fuck's sake.

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

Example:

Someone who isn't gay and doesn't use illegal drugs who condemns homosexuality and drug use may be wrong on those issues, but is not necessarily a hypocrite.

Ted Haggerd, who made a career on publicly condemning homosexuality and drug use while smoking both meth and a male hooker's cock was a big goddamn hypocrite.

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

No, I think the point I was trying to make was that people say stupid things all the time, and that it doesn't make sense to draw all encompassing conclusions by what people may say just because they have stated an opinion on things (although it is fun). For fuck's sake.

[murtzuphlus]

Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.

Rayshul, I certainly don't think you are a hypocrite or are acting like one. Not that it matters to you what I think - just sayin'.

[Barael]

Phil Giordana:

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

[Steersman]

In passing, you might want to suggest to franc that he should update his signature, specifically the assertion that “smilies are for reetards". Possibly to “smilies are generally for reetards”. Or “only reetards overuse smilies” – although that sort of puts Andrew in the docket. But either of those – or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Or admit that, periodically at least, he acts like a “reetard" himself. Particularly as there seems to be plenty of evidence for the latter case, even apart from his own use of them ….

Sorry Steers :naughty: but I could care less, and I mean that in a good way. I also doubt that Franc really cares that much either.

:moon:

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

Chuck you Farley ….

But do what myself? Post something directly to Franc, the guy who has his head in the sand if not up his own ass as far as reading my posts is concerned - much less responding to them? ‘Tis to laugh … :laughing-rolling:

[Al Stefanelli]

http://wcoa.info/hovind8.jpg

[welch]

My wife on "nice guys" http://tmblr.co/ZjpNytZL9kEf

[Barael]

My wife on "nice guys" http://tmblr.co/ZjpNytZL9kEf

That's pretty righteous stuff, right there.

[Steersman]

Is that like saying because we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have any knowledge at all?

No, it isn't. I think it is more like saying you can throw the first stone if you are innocent.

Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.

"It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe."
Yes! :banana-rock: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-wavemulticolor:

But, for the more philosophically inclined, also known as reductio ad absurdum ….

[CommanderTuvok]

So, on viewing that hypocritical PZ Youtube clip, we can now class PZ as racist, a potential rapist, a sexist misogynist, and a fucking all round wankstain.

Is there any end to his talents.

[Cunning Punt]

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

I'm so glad they've worked it out for us. Where would we be without them!

[Lsuoma]

Phil Giordana:

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

Phil

Having spent some time in Joensuu, and knowing the price of beer in Finland, I just want to let you know that this is a phenomenally generous offer...

[Steersman]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

[murtzuphlus]

"It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe."
Yes! :banana-rock: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-wavemulticolor:

But, for the more philosophically inclined, also known as reductio ad absurdum ….

I will probably regret this, but Steerzo, can you please elaborate?

[welch]

What's hard to understand? Do you not know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

I think I do, but who is not (hypocritical)? I would like to meet a person who is able to live up to their expressed standards all the time.

Some people are substantially better at it than others. Some people, when caught in it, admit to what happened and try to be better. Some people are self-righteous, condescending douchnozzles who, in their own minds, can do no wrong.

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

I do not always meet the standards I set for myself. I fail more than I'd like. But every time, I try to learn from that failure and try to do better. If PZ had said, "you know, you're right. Stef has the same right to her feelings as Rebecca does to hers, even if I disagree. Her feelings are exactly as valid for her as Rebecca's are for Rebecca, and I should not have dismissed them, or said she was wrong to have them" I would have had FAR fewer issues with him over that incident. Were Ophelia to be as consistent in correcting her friends as her enemies over gendered profanity, same deal.

But not only are they blatantly hypocritical, they revel in it. I don't expect perfection, I expect honest effort and growth. When one of those fuckwits demonstrates that, I'll respond appropriately.

[Rawrsome]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

What does “glorification of violent masculinity” and shooting children have in common?

[Jan Steen]

http://wcoa.info/batshittery983.jpg

At a moment when hardly anything is known about the killer, apart from his name, these SJWs have their diagnosis ready, plastered with all the right labels. This does not only tell us something about the monumental stupidity of these commenters, it also devaluates those labels. When they get applied with such abandon, terms like 'privilege' and 'misogyny' lose all meaning.

[somedumbguy]

Are there any lawyers at the Pit?

I am curious about the legality of this program at "Hackbright Academy". http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/hackbright-academy/

For $7500, in the heart of San Francisco, for 10 weeks, this company will teach women, and women only, how to be "pro developers". In addition to learning various web development skills, they will be offered various forms of career placement and networking opportunities. They are doing this to counter the rampant sexism and discrimination against women in the IT industry, and the brogrammer culture.

I have a nephew that would benefit from these services. Hell, I would benefit from their services.

Hackbright has done this twice before, and each time, they have gotten good press for themselves (a group of a couple of up and coming developers themselves.) In the link TechCrunch lauds them.

But is it legal?

I would think it's not. Apart from women only gyms, I can't think of any other business that is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex. And google tells me that women only gyms is controversial too, and has often required legislatures pass special laws allowing them.

There is a current controversy over where wedding photographers can discriminate against gays and refuse to take pictures of gay weddings.

There is the Augusta Golf Club that is males only, and private clubs (as opposed to public accommodations) are allowed in specific circumstances to discriminate against people that would otherwise be in protected classes.

So is Hackbright Academy and their program legal or illegal?

Jason Thibeault discusses it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ten-weeks/ and of course he thinks it's a great idea, because of course, "It’s for women, to give them a place to learn without stereotype threat or brogrammer culture stifling them."

As expected many of his commenters cannot even begin to see how this is even discriminatory, though some that do, justify it because women are apparently treated so horribly in IT.

[sacha]

Can you imagine what response Shermer would have got if he offered a lousy excuse like that! :shock:

Yeah, that is pretty weak. Still don't think the poker segment was
anything worth kerfuffling over, except maybe to note that sex jokes
should shouldn't be considered verboten at skeptical events directed at
adults.

For fuck's sake, it was not said at the bar, it was not said among friends, it was not said as part of a stand-up routine, where at least one can expect to be embarrassed when the comedian calls you to the stage.

It was said to a stranger in front of an audience who attended to hear a professional talk (was there a charge to attend?)

She was probably nervous anyway, standing up in front of a group of people, and then to be bombarded with sexual references while the audience laughs.
It is something one would do to make another deliberately uncomfortable.

She may have been caught completely off guard, and wished she had said something to even the dynamic. Few people are able to think of a comeback quickly, and few are able to be anything but uncomfortable standing on a platform in front of an audience, even when they have a prepared speech. She looked uncomfortable. It may not have been from the inappropriate sexual attempt-at-humour, it may have been caused by being on stage, it may have been because she did not know what to expect when she was called up, it may have been that she thinks of him as "someone famous", and that made her nervous, regardless, PZ's behaviour was about power.
He wanted to seen as funny, and hip, and appear to be someone who is confident, and he attempted that at her expense.

How do you think he would feel if I were the one in the audience thathe called to the stage, as I can think quickly (at least when it comes to sex) and has no problem or hesitation using sexual language and innuendo, how do you think he would have felt if I turned the tables, had a fast retort about his masculinity to every mention of sex, caught him off-guard, uncomfortable, and without something to say to keep that power, or even keep it even, and then I turned to the audience with a wry smile while they laughed?

He used her to make himself look better, to make the audience laugh, to appear that he can get away with speaking to unknown person like that, because he's "well known" and people pay to see him, plus, since she did not protest, she must have enjoyed it.

what does that sound like?

Had he used self-depreciating sexual humour with her, it would still have been inappropriate, but at least he would have been attempting to make the interaction more equal, there is not such an obvious power grab when one gets the audience to laugh at how inexperienced, awkward, and inept they are. The laugh should beat you, not with you. It levels the playing field a bit, and makes one look more confident. What he said to her while she was on stage, makes is obvious he has self-esteem issues, and is not at all confident around women.

Also shouldn't these SJWs be concerned for his wife. "PZ! How can you disrespect her like that publicly!?"

If he had been in the bar with a group of people he knew well, and said that to a female friend who he knew would not be offended, nor embarrassed in front of the group, and where she had an equal opportunity to take the piss, and turn the tables, fine. (his content and delivery was dreadful, it would have been easy)

He also would not have been a coward in that situation, as he certainly was with the microphone and the podium, when neither she nor anyone else in the room had a platform to stand on, and a mic wired to a speaker.)

If I'm saying the sexual references were inappropriate where, when, and to whom he used them...

[murtzuphlus]

I do not always meet the standards I set for myself. I fail more than I'd like. But every time, I try to learn from that failure and try to do better. If PZ had said, "you know, you're right. Stef has the same right to her feelings as Rebecca does to hers, even if I disagree. Her feelings are exactly as valid for her as Rebecca's are for Rebecca, and I should not have dismissed them, or said she was wrong to have them" I would have had FAR fewer issues with him over that incident. Were Ophelia to be as consistent in correcting her friends as her enemies over gendered profanity, same deal.

But not only are they blatantly hypocritical, they revel in it. I don't expect perfection, I expect honest effort and growth. When one of those fuckwits demonstrates that, I'll respond appropriately.

I am curious as to why you expect "honest effort and growth". This is a political issue, isn't it? They will either fade away or prevail, no?

[sacha]

numerous typos in my last comment. "The laugh should beat you" should have been "The laugh should be at you.

with all the rest, it can be sorted out what I was attempting to say.

[papillon]

No, I think the point I was trying to make was that people say stupid things all the time, and that it doesn't make sense to draw all encompassing conclusions by what people may say just because they have stated an opinion on things (although it is fun). For fuck's sake.

We're not just talking about accepting someones petty foibles here though.
Condemning misogyny (real or imagined) is a huge part of Zac Myers' schtick. He puts himself out there in the public eye as a paragon of feminist etiquette.
If it were Shermer pulling the clumsy innuendos on stage, Myers would have a faux outraged post up within minutes.
If I happened to catch Dawkins prostrate,nose of floor in my local Mosque on a Friday afternoon, damn right I'd call him out on it too.

[Waterkant]

For some reason, I just want to hug them all. And I want to whisper this into their ears: Stop sobbing, cunts.

PS : ( : (: (: (: (: (: (

[rayshul]

So, what’s your take on the causes for that? How many more kids have to be gunned-down in cold blood before you think that there might be some flaw in the system?

Maybe “glorification of violent masculinity” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would say it's in the right ballpark ….

I don't think people who feel empowered or in control go on shooting rampages. May also be pretty simplisitic to suggest that every incident has a single root cause. I'd probably blame the accessibility of weapons and poor understanding of managing mental health issues, myself.

[rayshul]

Well, I think we're okay with pretty much anyone throwing the YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE stone. Whether it's FtB or ourselves. If I'm acting hypocritical, I'm sure y'all will shit on me. It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe.

Rayshul, I certainly don't think you are a hypocrite or are acting like one. Not that it matters to you what I think - just sayin'.

Thank ye. :) I do have standards on several issues and can be quite dogmatic about them but I don't think I'm morally inconsistent.

[rayshul]

Phil Giordana:

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

Phil

Having spent some time in Joensuu, and knowing the price of beer in Finland, I just want to let you know that this is a phenomenally generous offer...

Fuck me, the price of everything in Scandinavia is fucking ridiculous. I'd love to move to Tromso or somewhere up veeeery north but... fuuhhhk. My little New Zealand dollars wouldn't get me very far.

[Mykeru]

No, I think the point I was trying to make was that people say stupid things all the time, and that it doesn't make sense to draw all encompassing conclusions by what people may say just because they have stated an opinion on things (although it is fun). For fuck's sake.

We aren't talking about "saying stupid things".

We are talking about people saying one thing and doing another. Specifically people presenting a moral imperative people to act one way and then writing themselves an exemption.

We are talking at cross purposes because, willfully or otherwise, you remain ignorant of what hypocrisy means.

[Steersman]

"It's more like a public service, really... helping people think their way through their own logic, hehe."
Yes! :banana-rock: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-wavemulticolor:

But, for the more philosophically inclined, also known as reductio ad absurdum ….

I will probably regret this, but Steerzo, can you please elaborate?

Well, mertz-a-flertz, I might suggest that you actually attempt to read the indicated article. But since you seem to want to be spoon-fed, it offers this example:

There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

And since I offered it as an analogy to pointing out the hypocrisy of PZ and company – "helping people think through their own logic" – I might reiterate Mykeru’s cogent and topical example (although Rystefn provided one equally as good):

Someone who isn't gay and doesn't use illegal drugs who condemns homosexuality and drug use may be wrong on those issues, but is not necessarily a hypocrite.

Ted Haggerd, who made a career on publicly condemning homosexuality and drug use while smoking both meth and a male hooker's cock was a big goddamn hypocrite.

Stating a premise - for examples, “there is a smallest rational number, e.g., 51/1829”, “being gay and using illegal drugs is wrong”, “smilies are for reetards” – and then showing a case that contradicts the premise – for examples, the rational number 51/3658, Teg Haggerd using drugs and male prostitutes, Franc using smilies – proves that the claims are absurd on the face of them.

Enlightenment – in the first case (there is no smallest positive rational number) – or hilarity – in the latter two cases – ensues; Q.E.D ….

[ReneeHendricks]

(snipped)...women are apparently treated so horribly in IT.

Wait. We are? Where have I been the past 18 years while all this "horrible" stuff was happening to my gender in IT??