Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

A place to discuss the foibles of our favourite bloggers
John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#61

Post by John Greg »

Oh, ya, you probably mean deprecate.

link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deprecate

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#62

Post by piginthecity »

Those of us who've come across him don't call him 'Multithread Jim' for nothing !!!

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#63

Post by Badger3k »

piginthecity wrote:Those of us who've come across him don't call him 'Multithread Jim' for nothing !!!

After the last concern troll post I responded to, I said F-this and just set him to ignore. The next time I was an tapatalk I saw him post 7 or 8 comments in a row on this thread alone. Waste of time. If he ever says anything other than his broken-record concern trolling, someone can let me know.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#64

Post by jimhabegger »

piginthecity, nice to see you again!

Matt and John, when I wrote "depreciate," I meant "depreciate," in the sense of promoting disdainful feelings.

Matt, you asked me for evidence that what you're doing here does more harm than good to the community. So far I haven't seen any explanation of how it does the community any good at all. If it does any harm at all, and no good, then it does more harm than good.

I think everyone already has all the evidence they need, to see the harmfulness to the community, and to all of society, of promoting contempt and ill will towards some person or towards some group or category of people. They just make excuses for themselves, to do it anyway. For example "They started it," "What they're doing is worse than what we're doing," and "We have a right and a duty to publicly malign them because they're such bad people." All of which are appeals to emotion, and logically irrelevant or fallacious, which adds to the harmfulness.

I'm glad you thought those were good questions. They weren't rhetorical. I was really hoping for some answers. I really would like to know what beneficial results people might be aiming for, and whether they've seen any signs that it's working.

I'm not against satire in principle. I'm against using it to promote contempt and ill will towards some person, or towards some group or category of people.

I can see why you would call what I'm doing "scolding," but that isn't my main purpose. My main purpose in what I'm saying about promoting contempt and ill will, is to try to undermine its popularity.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#65

Post by Lsuoma »

piginthecity wrote:Those of us who've come across him don't call him 'Multithread Jim' for nothing !!!
Yep, he's kind of like Jesse Powell, but all OVER the fucking place...

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#66

Post by jimhabegger »

I only have three threads going now, and I don't see the community welfare and progress thread confusing anyone. The only possible confusion I see is between this thread and the thread about bullying, and that even confuses me! I'm trying to reserve that exclusively for the question in the title, and do all my other self-righteous preaching and self-promotion here.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#67

Post by jimhabegger »

Anyway, I'm finished with the bullying thread.

John Greg might be able to find some cheese for you, to go with your whine!

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#68

Post by Lsuoma »


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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#69

Post by Skep tickle »

Jim,

In your introduction thread at the atheism+ forum, you seemed to invite people to look you up online by saying: "Anyone who searches the Internet with my name will soon discover that, outside of atheist spaces, I'm shamelessly and enthusiastically promoting a religion, and my association with A+ might be used against [A+]".

What I see is that you seem to have a pattern of coming onto strong to a discussion site then being warned or advised to back off, including at Atheism+ forum for example in 1 thread here and here, and at other forums in the past.

In one of your threads at A+ forum, you wrote:
I'm thinking of commenting in the blogs of some of the more moderate critics of the Atheism Plus forum, to try to persuade them to help promote a more friendly attitude towards the forum, and towards efforts to improve the environment at atheism conferences. I'm posting here about what I might say in my comments to those blogs. I'm looking for comments about it from people here. Also I would welcome any ideas about which blogs to include in this.

If any of those bloggers sees Atheism Plus as divisive, or censorious, or poorly named or described, or whatever, I won't try to change their minds. I will say that I personally have not felt the least bit censored, and that in fact I've been treated very kindly. I will ask them to consider promoting whatever good Atheism Plus might be doing, in spite of their objections to whatever else it is doing, or not doing. I will say that part of the good I see it doing is providing a forum for some atheists who don't feel safe at atheist conferences, or in other atheist forums. I will ask them, is that a good thing, or not? If they see it as a good thing, I will ask them to please say so clearly in a blog post, and continue saying so whenever they write about it, whatever else they might say about it.

If they counter with blame-the-victim arguments, I won't debate about that. I will persist with the question, is it a good thing, or not, to provide a forum for atheists who do not feel safe at atheist conferences, or in other atheist forums, regardless of anyone's views about what some of those people say and do?
First, it's interesting that you seem to give the A+ forum such a pass (and in fact seem to fawn over it/them in your posts there, IMO).

They've treated some people horribly, in the opinion of quite a few people here, while referring to themselves as a safe space.

(Oh, and re your suggestion about a public forum and a safe forum, it looks like they didn't tell you they have tried to do that, with an invitation-only forum that was quite a bone of contention for a while when one member heard she was being bad-mouthed in it, but its existence was being denied by mods & other members alike.)

There are plenty of threads there in which some core members of A+ savage other people, including the one in which a man who says he was raped is told it would have been better to have been killed, then is banned when he objects. Those pile-ons aren't happening as frequently, probably because they've whittled the forum down to people who can pretty much get along with those core members who Shall Not be Crossed.

Now, your post quoted above was from 3-4 weeks ago; maybe your purpose has morphed and is as you have described it in your threads here ('cuz that hasn't been quite the same the plan you laid out in the quote above).

As others have asked in your threads here several times: have you gone over to freethoughtblogs.com to ask the same questions you're asking here?

...ah, a site search of FtB does turn up your name. Great, so then you'll be able to answer that question quite easily, right? Thanks!

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#70

Post by Lsuoma »

Skep tickle wrote:<snip>
Nice work Skeppers. It's just the same old thing again. Maybe Jim Wowbagger will turn nasty or maybe he won't, but his professed motives don't gybe well with his previous postings on other forums.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#71

Post by jimhabegger »

Skep tickle, thank you for that post! I'll ponder it, and respond to it later.

Lsuoma, I guess what I've been doing here does look a little unfriendly. Sorry.

I don't like stages 2 and 3, so I'll skip to stage 4: "God loves you and you're all going to that bad place down below with all the flames."

Oh, wait ...

Okay, I think I'm over it now.

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#72

Post by Skep tickle »

Alright. So, Jim, you have 8 comments after Stephanie Zvan's blogpost Women in Secularism Speakers Letter to CFI Board:

After your 4th comment, one of the other commenters tells you to "Fuck off".

After your 6th comment, Stephanie Zvan tells you: "jimhabegger, if you’d like to keep suggesting that everyone asking for an apology is just being insincere and money-minded, take your fucking opinion elsewhere."

Your 8th comment consists of: "Also, for information, for whatever it might be worth, I deplore the defamation campaigns against you and other FtB bloggers, including the trumped-up doxxing allegation against Ophelia." (Way to suck up, Jim.)

After that 8th comment of yours, another commenter tells you: "Okay, Jim, you’ve said your piece; given that seven of the past ten comments on this thread are yours, it might be a good idea to take a break" and another says to you (in part):
You know one of the things Ron whined about–men being told to shut up and listen?

Try it out.
Read more.
Listen to what women are saying.
Use what you’ve learned to formulate an educated opinion so that you can be more confidant in what you’re saying.

I won’t apologize for being condescending to you, because that was a deliberate choice on my part because I find what you’ve said to be ignorant and offensive**.

Only YOU can correct that.
Jim, maybe it was elsewhere at Freethought Blogs that you raised with the bloggers and commenters there the same questions you have raised here, because I'm just not seeing it. I did see your comment at Lousy Canuck about the email you sent to Melody Hensley. I didn't see you in the threads in which I was compared to a serial killer, asking why, but maybe I just missed that part.

I didn't find your username in a site search of Skepchick.org; perhaps they're next on your list of sites to take on.

Jim, I'm starting to get the sense that you're not here asking the same questions you're asking at other sites involved in "the rift". It's starting to look like you have a bias coming into this, and one which you did not disclose.

Oh, and that thread in which you have 8 comments at Almost Diamonds? My one comment from 11 days ago, which would have appeared between current #16 and #17, is still being held in moderation. That's no accident; it's a technique that several of the bloggers there use.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#73

Post by jimhabegger »

Skep tickle, I had very little experience with the A+ forum when I wrote that post you quoted, and my understanding of it was based only on its misleading description. My view of that forum, and of the feuding around the FtBfem faction, has changed quite a bit since then, as you can see if you read my posts at http://www.secularsocialjustice.com. Briefly, it looks to me now like the A+ forum is trying to be a support group for a few people who have been deeply traumatized. It doesn't look to me like it's really a very safe place for anyone, even for its privileged members. It was definitely not a safe place for me! After some discussion with some people at the Secular Social Justice forum, and reading some more atheist blogs, I didn't see any need any more to try to promote a more friendly attitude towards the A+ forum, and I abandoned the idea.

I haven't asked those questions at Freethought Blogs. I was shown the door when I commented that the open letter letter from Women in Secularism to CFI might have been grandstanding to gratify donors, just as much as what Dr. Lindsay did.

Patty (my wife) and I are going out now. I'll respond later to your post #72.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#74

Post by Lsuoma »

Jim, you are transparently here with undeclared motives.

You have very rapidly become one of the most ignored people here, as evidenced by the number of people who have set you as a foe (which means they have set you as a "foe" and don't see your posts). Quicker even than colon, which is some achievement.

Your motives and bona fides appear to be more distrusted than the assertion of a president that he did not have sex with that woman.

Unless you can do some very quick remediation you are a busted flush here at the Pit - BS detectors are on overdrive, and your trollsplaining will not help.

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#75

Post by Skep tickle »

Jim might be ignored here, but at least he won't be banned.

Lsuoma, maybe you could merge his threads with those of Jesse TWRA, and let them just talk to each other? ;)

Jim, thanks for the link to secularsocialjustice.com; I had posted there a bit >6 months ago, when it had a different name and was a new offshoot of A+ (started by the guy who was told at A+ forum that it would have been better if he'd been killed). I do see there that your observations at A+ became (later in May) not dissimilar to mine, as were the advice you sought to give them, or considered giving them. I've said several times that if they'd take down the blurb on their welcome page (or, even better, rewrite it), they would have less traffic of one major type they don't want.

There are a couple of places we differ, and one is "anti-harassment policy for conferences", which you seem to see as unequivocally positive.

When you say you were "shown the door" in (or after) that CFI letter thread, what do you mean? Were you told you were banned, or did your posts end up stuck in moderation, or are you referring to people telling you to stop posting & listen instead? And do you mean only at Almost Diamonds, or at other FtB blogs too?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#76

Post by jimhabegger »

Skep tickle wrote:It's starting to look like you have a bias coming into this
You mean, in favor of the FtBfem faction? You think that I like them better, or that I approve of what they're doing? Right now I'm feeling more friendly towards some people here than towards any of them, and I can't think of anything they're doing now that I approve of, or ever have approved of, as long as I've been posting here. I approve of promoting social justice among atheists, but I don't see the FtBfem faction doing anything to help with that. I approve of trying to make conferences more friendly for more people, and trying to reduce online harassment and counteracting its effects, but all I've seen them doing is making things worse. For a while after I first read about the feuding, I approved of them speaking out about the hostility of the environment for some people. I still approve of speaking out about that, but not they way I've seen them doing it.
There are a couple of places we differ, and one is "anti-harassment policy for conferences", which you seem to see as unequivocally positive.
I don't remember ever thinking that I approved of the anti-harassment policies. All I remember is thinking that I didn't want people to be stigmatized for promoting them. I don't know enough about the anti-harassment policies to approve or disapprove. I suspect that they're nothing but PR, and that they do more harm than good. What I think is needed is training for volunteers who want to help make the conferences more friendly for more people, if anyone is volunteering.
When you say you were "shown the door" in (or after) that CFI letter thread, what do you mean?
I meant, when Ophelia told me to take my opinion elsewhere, and later, the invitation by other commenters to shut up and listen, and to lurk moar.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#77

Post by jimhabegger »

Lsuoma wrote:Maybe Jim Wowbagger will turn nasty or maybe he won't
That surprises me. I thought I already was being nasty!

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#78

Post by LMU »

jimhabegger wrote:Skep tickle, thank you for that post! I'll ponder it, and respond to it later.

Lsuoma, I guess what I've been doing here does look a little unfriendly. Sorry.

I don't like stages 2 and 3, so I'll skip to stage 4: "God loves you and you're all going to that bad place down below with all the flames."

Oh, wait ...

Okay, I think I'm over it now.
You haven't seemed unfriendly to me. Maybe some posts appear passive aggressive, but it seems more like someone trying to maintain a cheerful attitude in the face of snark. If you are concerned about being ignored (you haven't said that you are, but Lsuoma suggested that you were being ignored), then I'd again suggest posting in the undead thread. Many posters don't look anywhere else.

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#79

Post by Skep tickle »

jimhabegger wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Maybe Jim Wowbagger will turn nasty or maybe he won't
That surprises me. I thought I already was being nasty!
Errr....no. Even with "nasty" being to some extent in the eye of the beholder. You'll have to try MUCH harder if that's your goal. ;)

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#80

Post by Skep tickle »

jimhabegger wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:It's starting to look like you have a bias coming into this
You mean, in favor of the FtBfem faction? You think that I like them better, or that I approve of what they're doing? Right now I'm feeling more friendly towards some people here than towards any of them, and I can't think of anything they're doing now that I approve of, or ever have approved of, as long as I've been posting here. I approve of promoting social justice among atheists, but I don't see the FtBfem faction doing anything to help with that. I approve of trying to make conferences more friendly for more people, and trying to reduce online harassment and counteracting its effects, but all I've seen them doing is making things worse. For a while after I first read about the feuding, I approved of them speaking out about the hostility of the environment for some people. I still approve of speaking out about that, but not they way I've seen them doing it.
There are a couple of places we differ, and one is "anti-harassment policy for conferences", which you seem to see as unequivocally positive.
I don't remember ever thinking that I approved of the anti-harassment policies. All I remember is thinking that I didn't want people to be stigmatized for promoting them. I don't know enough about the anti-harassment policies to approve or disapprove. I suspect that they're nothing but PR, and that they do more harm than good. What I think is needed is training for volunteers who want to help make the conferences more friendly for more people, if anyone is volunteering.
When you say you were "shown the door" in (or after) that CFI letter thread, what do you mean?
I meant, when Ophelia told me to take my opinion elsewhere, and later, the invitation by other commenters to shut up and listen, and to lurk moar.
Jim, you're relatively new to all this (at least to this PARTICULAR spat between people, not - it sounds - to the basic pattern that gets repeated in so many places); you've written a fair amount at several sites about all this; and your views have evolved as you've seen & experienced some of the interactions & comments and as you've reflected on it all. So when I mentioned something from what you wrote 4, 3, or even 2 weeks ago, I now know that that doesn't necessarily reflect your current thoughts.

Re anti-harassment policies, here's why I said that you seemed to "approve" (I agree with much of your May 30th post linked here, BTW): http://www.secularsocialjustice.com/t19 ... tives#2100 :
...I've decided to post some of my own views of Atheism Plus, after reviewing those criticisms.

I'll just describe what I've seen...

* What I've seen: ...<most of list snipped here>...
- Some more fire and smoke.
- An anti-harassment policy for conferences.
- Some more fire and smoke.

* What I'm hypothesizing: ...
- Harassment policies might do a little bit of good.
So I probably overstated your position, and your position might have changed. IMO such a policy should be very broad and general, leaving lots of leeway to conference organizers, rather than spelling out lots of specifics and (a) potentially being used to keep some people from participating, and/or (b) not being followed except for an attendee felt to be undesirable/creepy/etc.

Example of a very broad policy, see halfway down the FAQ page for the American Humanist Association's recent annual conference, click on "What's the AHA's Prohibited Conduct Policy":
In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference. Additionally, any clear violation of the law will be immediately referred to local police.
Leaves lots of leeway to the conference staff, which is IMO quite reasonable, including leeway to advise individuals on how their behavior may be problematic without interfering with people who mutually agree (whether explicitly or not) that they want to interact in a way that others might not feel is acceptable.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#81

Post by Metalogic42 »

jimhabegger wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Maybe Jim Wowbagger will turn nasty or maybe he won't
That surprises me. I thought I already was being nasty!
http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#82

Post by jimhabegger »

LMU, Skep tickle, thank you for the encouragement. Metalogic, thank you for the entertainment. I really have enjoyed all the slapstick.

LMU, Skep, what I meant by "unfriendly" was that a lot of what I've been doing here has been self-serving, and disrespectful of people here. A lot of what I've been doing on the Internet has been strictly for my own benefit, exploring and experimenting, trying to improve my understanding and capacities. Yesterday I realized that I've been doing all that with little concern, even some scornfulness, for all the trouble I've been making for some people in every forum I've been in. Actually, I've been aware of that for some time, but it came into focus more clearly yesterday.

Some things I've said here were the nastiest things I've ever said in any forum, and in my last few threads about promoting contempt and animosity, I was pushing the envelope, testing the waters, to see how people would react, and how I would react to their reactions.

All that was very unfriendly, and it makes perfect sense to me if some people dislike and distrust me.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#83

Post by Metalogic42 »

jimhabegger wrote:LMU, Skep tickle, thank you for the encouragement. Metalogic, thank you for the entertainment. I really have enjoyed all the slapstick.

LMU, Skep, what I meant by "unfriendly" was that a lot of what I've been doing here has been self-serving, and disrespectful of people here. A lot of what I've been doing on the Internet has been strictly for my own benefit, exploring and experimenting, trying to improve my understanding and capacities. Yesterday I realized that I've been doing all that with little concern, even some scornfulness, for all the trouble I've been making for some people in every forum I've been in. Actually, I've been aware of that for some time, but it came into focus more clearly yesterday.

Some things I've said here were the nastiest things I've ever said in any forum, and in my last few threads about promoting contempt and animosity, I was pushing the envelope, testing the waters, to see how people would react, and how I would react to their reactions.

All that was very unfriendly, and it makes perfect sense to me if some people dislike and distrust me.
http://www.ballsgohere.com/uploads/6114fe62a4.jpg

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#84

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jimhabegger wrote: Matt, you asked me for evidence that what you're doing here does more harm than good to the community. So far I haven't seen any explanation of how it does the community any good at all. If it does any harm at all, and no good, then it does more harm than good.
Verily, a lot of it's just for shits & giggles. Still, it's you who put forth the proposition that The Undead Thread is harmful. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support that proposition.


I think everyone already has all the evidence they need, to see the harmfulness to the community, and to all of society, of promoting contempt and ill will towards some person or towards some group or category of people.... All of which are appeals to emotion, and logically irrelevant or fallacious, which adds to the harmfulness.
This sounds like the answer begging the question. You've yet to establish -- either as a whole or with specific examples -- that the Undead Thread does any harm.


I'm not against satire in principle. I'm against using it to promote contempt and ill will towards some person, or towards some group or category of people.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Myers, Watson, Christina, Benson, et al. -- I bear ill will toward them. McEwan, Faster, Jezebel; -- I bear ill will toward them. Anyone who promotes gen fem, PoMo, identity politics, woo, etc., I find contemptible.

I can see why you would call what I'm doing "scolding," but that isn't my main purpose. My main purpose in what I'm saying about promoting contempt and ill will, is to try to undermine its popularity.
Yet you arrive here assuming your Weltanschauung is a given. You seek to enlighten us as to the error of our ways, but neglect to first persuade us that our ways are in error.


NB: Not a single person here has told you to go away, to shut up and listen, or to drop dead -- only to be more specific.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#85

Post by jimhabegger »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Not a single person here has told you to go away, to shut up and listen, or to drop dead
This has been the safest forum for me, that I've ever seen.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#86

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jimhabegger wrote: This has been the safest forum for me, that I've ever seen.
Maybe that's your answer right there: The Pit leads by example.

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#87

Post by Skep tickle »

Jim, if you do post in the main thread here (the Periodic Table of Swearing, current thread is "Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It", all just labels), be aware that you are very likely to be greeted by some people saying "Fuck off!"

However, unlike at Freethought blogs, that's actually a traditional welcome in the Slyme pit. I *think* it arose as a means of weeding out people who couldn't take the sometimes rough & tumble of the Pit, but seems lately to be offered in a fairly friendly manner by most who utter it to newcomers. (Still, if "curse words" bother you, you may not find that thread to be a good fit, and not only because of that greeting.)

That's really where the action is, and where you could try asking questions if you still have them (maybe 1 at a time, see what responses you get before posing the next question).

Also, as I think I offered before, if you're interested in pointers to places in the latest (now ~418-page) thread Pitters have discussed-and-argued-about the use of insults etc, say the word. I've found those discussions to be quite interesting, particularly the arguments by people whose position isn't the one I would have said I shared.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#88

Post by jimhabegger »

Skep tickle, I've done everything I want to do here for now, except possibly for any apologies or explanations anyone might want to see.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#89

Post by jet_lagg »

Interesting bit of history from Jim's first attempt to bore everyone to death at the pit.
Skep tickle wrote:Jim, if you do post in the main thread here (the Periodic Table of Swearing, current thread is "Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It", all just labels), be aware that you are very likely to be greeted by some people saying "Fuck off!"

However, unlike at Freethought blogs, that's actually a traditional welcome in the Slyme pit. I *think* it arose as a means of weeding out people who couldn't take the sometimes rough & tumble of the Pit, but seems lately to be offered in a fairly friendly manner by most who utter it to newcomers.
I'd thought the greeting was mockery of the A+ and Pharyngula crowds that claimed to be welcoming, but would non ironically tell you to fuck off if even a single post was made questioning their dogma.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#90

Post by jimhabegger »

I have a question, and I hope I can get an answer from some other people here besides old white men. Incidentally, I'll be 70 in July.

A while ago I was wondering why campaigning against counterfeit feminism and counterfeit social justice is such a priority for some people. I do see a lot of harm being done under those banners, and I get up in arms about it too, sometimes, but not enough that I would want to talk about it every day.

Since old white men have been explicitly targeted, it's easy to understand why that would appeal to us, but I'm wondering what the attraction is for other people here. I've had a few glimpses into how some people's safe spaces, careers and income, have been adversely affected, but are there other reasons for people to be so interested in all this, that you want to talk about it every day?

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

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#91

Post by Skep tickle »

jimhabegger wrote:I have a question, and I hope I can get an answer from some other people here besides old white men. Incidentally, I'll be 70 in July.

A while ago I was wondering why campaigning against counterfeit feminism and counterfeit social justice is such a priority for some people. I do see a lot of harm being done under those banners, and I get up in arms about it too, sometimes, but not enough that I would want to talk about it every day.

Since old white men have been explicitly targeted, it's easy to understand why that would appeal to us, but I'm wondering what the attraction is for other people here. I've had a few glimpses into how some people's safe spaces, careers and income, have been adversely affected, but are there other reasons for people to be so interested in all this, that you want to talk about it every day?
I have posted a reply in the "Jim's closet" thread.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#92

Post by jimhabegger »

I'm curious if anyone here ever sees any need for improvement in your own attitudes and behavior, and makes systematic and sustained efforts to improve them.

Also, if anyone here ever sees anything wrong with attitudes and behavior that are popular here, and does anything to try to help change that.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#93

Post by Kirbmarc »

jimhabegger wrote:I'm curious if anyone here ever sees any need for improvement in your own attitudes and behavior, and makes systematic and sustained efforts to improve them.

Also, if anyone here ever sees anything wrong with attitudes and behavior that are popular here, and does anything to try to help change that.
This is a bit vague. Do you have any specific suggestions?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#94

Post by jimhabegger »

You might have misunderstood the question, or else the answer is no.

I'm asking if anyone here ever seen anything in your own attitudes and behavior, or in attitudes and behavior that are popular in the Pit, that looks wrong to you, and if so, have you tried to change it?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Comments and questions from the peanut gallery

#95

Post by jimhabegger »

In case you're wondering how the question came up, I was thinking that it looks wrong to me for people to be denouncing other people's failure to correct their harmful attitudes and behavior, or to try correct the harmful behavior of people they associate with, if they aren't doing the same, themselves. Then I thought I might be wrong in thinking that no one here is trying to correct any of their own harmful attitudes and behavior, and harmful attitudes and behavior that are popular here, so I'm asking.

I've rarely seen or heard of anyone doing that, in any Internet discussions anywhere, so it's no surprise to me if no here is doing that, and it wouldn't make the Pit look any worse to me than any other online discussions including Baha'i ones. I'm just curious to know if anyone here is doing it.

Locked