Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

Old subthreads
Locked
Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3381

Post by Tigzy »

Oh, I forgot option D, as regards my last post: that Greta herself might have been...a tad disingenuous about how much she gets from speaking gigs, let's say.

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: hijibberjabber

#3382

Post by somedumbguy »

Git wrote:
Apples wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_Girl.jpg
I guess Ophelia still has Nazi Germany on the brain, because, after her post saying, again, that she never made an analogy between TAM and Nazi Germany (she was just comparing Grothe to Goebbels -- it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT ;)) ..... she has a new post up.

In her current post, "When is World Yellow Star Day?" she complains about something called "World Hijab Day" and quotes two ex-muslim girls who still feel family pressure to wear the hijab.

According to the BBC -
BBC wrote:Originated by New York woman Nazma Khan, the movement has been organised almost solely over social networking sites. It has attracted interest from Muslims and non-Muslims in more than 50 countries across the world.

For many people, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and divisiveness. It's a visible target that often bears the brunt of a larger debate about Islam in the West.

World Hijab Day is designed to counteract these controversies. It encourages non-Muslim women (or even Muslim women who do not ordinarily wear one) to don the hijab and experience what it's like to do so, as part of a bid to foster better understanding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21283301
Now, the hijab may be stupid and oppressive and patriarchal and religious -- but, especially in this context, it is really not comparable to the yellow star. Good job Ophie -- way to beat that reputation as a knee-jerk godwinner.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -star-day/
Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
It's not in the same continuum, it's in a completely different universe.

The yellow star is to designate Jews -- so we can identify them. So we can kill them. Jews did not want to wear that star.

The hijab in the context of world hijab day is a voluntarily worn garment that the wearer believes is empowering and liberating and expresses her commitment to Allah. The wearers want to wear that garment. http://worldhijabday.com/page3/page1.html

Hijab is in fact celebrated in those terms by many feminists AS WELL AS THE ACLU who will tell you what a rapist pedophile wifebeating child abusing MRA you are if you say it is a sign of oppression.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hijab+s ... isting.com

In fact, world hijab day, in context, is not at all like yellow star day but more like kippah day.

And that you and I and many others see it as a sign of oppression to women still does not make it like yellow star day because world hijab day is clearly not about women that are wearing a hijab due to external demands.

Benson is being dismissive and condescending and patronizing and "I know what's best for you ladies" (otherwise known as patriarchal) by equating the two.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3383

Post by Git »

Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Re:Adam Lee's 'terms'

#3384

Post by nippletwister »

justinvacula wrote:My response to Adam Lee's 'terms'

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ktlald

Reasonable and honest, and you didn't even get mean or mad at all the ridiculous shit he implied.

I'm sure he'll shit all over you for it, if he mentions it at all. You obviously "just don't get" how badly women are oppressed in a free society. You seem to think they are equals or something, you must need re-education.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: hijibberjabber

#3385

Post by Cunning Punt »

bhoytony wrote:
Git wrote:[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?
Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3386

Post by Notung »

katamari Damassi wrote: My post was a reaction to your remark about skipping over all of the insults and because of that, not even realizing how much of that there is here. That sounded pretty condescending to me.
Well that's just what I do - it's not moral, it's just because I don't find them interesting. I do sometimes find the *jokes* funny - but only the funny ones! I like AngrySkepchick, for instance.
And to be clear; I wasn't being sarcastic. I acknowledge you as my moral superior, so feel free to take a victory lap and really enjoy it. I'm not in any competition to be the most morally upstanding, or even nicest guy around. I simply do not care about the pwecious fee-fees of the professional victims, or the just plain thin skinned special snowflakes, I do not care what they or their disciples, or you, or most other people think of me. Give no quarter and ask no quarter.
Now if you were genuinely talking tactics, then I still have to disagree. There are no moderates at Almost Diamonds. If there were, and they had an IQ above room temperature(celsius scale),then they would've seen through the Cowntess' schtick and moved on already.
Well I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here. Even if they 'deserve it', I don't insult people online because it isn't productive. I usually keep all that inside my head. Regarding tactics: there are moderates who might see a retweet of Zvan's post, or they might have only a passing interest in the 'drama'. Unless they look fairly deeply (which is time-consuming) I can see how an intelligent person who doesn't know any better might think this fight is between feminists fighting for women's rights and evil internet misogynists who hate women.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3387

Post by Git »

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3388

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Git wrote:Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.
Completely orthogonal to the actual repression they may be facing? Yes.

Oh, wait...

Yes.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3389

Post by Submariner »

Zenspace wrote:
Loose CK wrote:Zenspace,

Although I agree that parts of Time Enough for Love are great, Heinlein saw sexual liberation fairly narrowly. He positively portrays liberated sexuality for heterosexual sex, female bisexuality, and incest. In the passage you reference about the two doctors it turns out that they are of the opposite sex and the man expresses a sense of relief about that fact. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a defect in his works.

But back to my main point - would you agree, then, that quoting Lazarus Long is pretty meaningless wrt real world sexual equality?
A good question. Heinlein wrote of a highly idealized future nearly 2000 years from now which, even then exhibited some old cultural baggage as demonstrated in our mutual example of the two doctors meeting. Also, while I agree with Heinlein's overall observations regarding sexual taboos, and would hope that society moved in that direction, there is no way in hell you could make that model work in modern society. There would be literal rioting in the streets.

With that caveat, I would be loath to completely discount the possibility of references to specific narrow examples to make a specific point for the purposes of illustration, assuming the point would also be backed by an a academic source.

The Heinlein quote referenced at the start of this is a good example. I think it makes a valid point for discussion. In some respects I agree with it. But there are many areas surrounding the main point that could be discussed endlessly in an attempt to define what feminine equality actually is (for starters).
THANK YOU.

Someone who gets it.

BTW I preferred "I Will Fear No Evil" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" .

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: hijibberjabber

#3390

Post by Git »

Cunning Punt wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Git wrote:[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?
Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538
Exactly. Those medieval savages can fuck off and fuck themselves.

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3391

Post by somedumbguy »

Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3392

Post by Git »

somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?
Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3393

Post by Michael J »

nippletwister wrote:
windy wrote:
EdwardGemmer wrote:
Submariner wrote: Your bias is showing a bit. In your post you used "attacking a person and forcing HER to have sex" when in all other statements you used neutral pronouns.

I'm not attacking you, I'm JAQing off.
I'm a huge fan of JAQing off! But as far as your questions - how drunk is too drunk? I don't know - it's difficult to say. If someone is unconscious, she is too drunk. Not reaching that, I'm not sure, though I am of the strong opinion that if someone is sloppy drunk they shouldn't be a target for sex. If they are both too drunk to consent, well, things have gone wrong.
"Sloppy drunk"= stumbling, slurring speech and so on? There's probably some individual variation, but I've never had the sense of not doing things out of my own volition even when physically impaired.

I have to agree that you're showing a bit of a bias here by assuming that the drunk person is the "target for sex". What if the drunk person is doing the "targeting" as in that Big Bang theory scenario?
I have seen that scenario, a drunk woman more or less demanding sex from drunk guys, many times in my life. I have never seen a man doing the same thing. Somehow, nobody ever thinks that the woman is exhibiting predatory behavior.
I was pretty shy so if I hadn't drunk I'd still be a virgin. I think that it is a tough question. It is a fine line between you and your date drinking to relax you inhibitions and being to drunk to consent.

I've also seen girls target particular guys to get them drunk and into the sack. They mistakenly think that the guy will magically fall in love with them. Usually it just ends up with the same long conversation in the morning.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3394

Post by windy »

Notung wrote: TBH I knew people didn't care after the last time I tried saying this. I actually had a lot more support back then, but it only takes one or two. You have to convince absolutely everyone and, of course, I can't force them to agree - this isn't Pharyngula after all.
No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Re:Adam Lee's 'terms'

#3395

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

nippletwister wrote:
justinvacula wrote:My response to Adam Lee's 'terms'

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ktlald

Reasonable and honest, and you didn't even get mean or mad at all the ridiculous shit he implied.

I'm sure he'll shit all over you for it, if he mentions it at all. You obviously "just don't get" how badly women are oppressed in a free society. You seem to think they are equals or something, you must need re-education.
Any preconditions to a conversation, beyond generally accepted terms of debate and general civility within that conversation, are a complete show-stopper for reasoned argument or discourse

If you prescribe that you will not discuss unless XYZ - then you may as well just decline.

As soon as you put XYZ up as things your opponent must concede before you will even talk - you have lost the debate.

Lurky McLurk
.
.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:44 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3396

Post by Lurky McLurk »

Metalogic42 wrote:No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.
Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3397

Post by somedumbguy »

Git wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?
Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.
In other words, you've got no reason to justify your statement about kippah wearers except your own desire to spread atheism.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: hijibberjabber

#3398

Post by AndrewV69 »

Git wrote:And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I am reasonably certain I can find lots of examples (for example such as forums such as Islam Awakening) where the women would violently disagree and insist that it is their right to wear one, and in fact you are attempting to oppress them by taking away their right to do just that.

Can you cite anything from a fairly credible source that agrees with the position you just made?

Just to clarify, I am reasonably certain you can find women who object to wearing the hijab, but I believe you blunder with your blanket statement about the choice to do so.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3399

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Git wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?
Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.
So call that action out when it happens - until then they (the individual) can decide to wear whatever silly hats they like, or even to delegate their decision of which silly hat to wear to an organisation, religion or church ... it's their head, they can wear exactly what they like on it.

When they tell *me* which silly hat I have to wear, or tell others that they are immoral or evil for not wearing a silly hat - then I'll call them out on it.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3400

Post by nippletwister »

Git wrote:Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.

You know, I agree with you that having ANY kind of clothes requirements for everyday use is at least somewhat oppressive, and would be oppressive no matter who was required to wear it. Orthodox Jew Curls on men is stupid and oppressive too, if somewhat less so.

But you just repeating stupid shit you've already said doesn't make it true. While I view head coverings as oppressive, saying it's in the same league with a leg iron is just stupid beyond belief. That's no better than when feminists claim that cat-calling is the same thing as rape, just slightly lower on the scale, or that saying "you look nice" is "claiming ownership" of a woman's body.

There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".

But then, I've already determined that you are a dishonest and hysterical sort who likes to uncharitably over-interpret things to make your dubious points, so I don't know why I'm bothering here....just bored, I guess.

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3401

Post by katamari Damassi »

Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Well in the Slymepit they punish you if you don't wear a racist hat. At least that's what I heard over at FTB.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3402

Post by Git »

somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?
Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.
In other words, you've got no reason to justify your statement about kippah wearers except your own desire to spread atheism.
Yes indeed, I am a giant non-fluffy uncompromising arsehole (one might say an utter git) when it comes to religion. I'm not so much a atheist as an anti-theist.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3403

Post by sacha »

lost control wrote:...So, here's the thing why I get so annoyed about victim blaming: I was so stupid to create / get myself into a situation in which I was vulnerable. Totally my fault. Yet, not my fault that I was psychologically scarred due to the actions of someone else. Yep, there's a fucking difference. At least to my feeble mind.
I agree. depending on age.

how is your girl?

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: hijibberjabber

#3404

Post by VickyCaramel »

Cunning Punt wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Git wrote:[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?
Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538
I was expecting that to be orthodox Jews throwing stones at Palestinian girls on their way to school in Jerusalem. But I guess as thats an every-day thing, that wouldn't be newsworthy.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3405

Post by sacha »

Lsuoma wrote:Notice: Eucliwood is now permanently banned due to s/h/it almost certainly being the same person as doing what looks like some really unpleasant, stupid and dangerous shit on another online medium. I want s/h/it to have nothing to do with the Pit whatsoever.

ooh interesting drama

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3406

Post by Zenspace »

Submariner wrote:
Zenspace wrote:
Loose CK wrote:Zenspace,

Although I agree that parts of Time Enough for Love are great, Heinlein saw sexual liberation fairly narrowly. He positively portrays liberated sexuality for heterosexual sex, female bisexuality, and incest. In the passage you reference about the two doctors it turns out that they are of the opposite sex and the man expresses a sense of relief about that fact. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a defect in his works.

But back to my main point - would you agree, then, that quoting Lazarus Long is pretty meaningless wrt real world sexual equality?
A good question. Heinlein wrote of a highly idealized future nearly 2000 years from now which, even then exhibited some old cultural baggage as demonstrated in our mutual example of the two doctors meeting. Also, while I agree with Heinlein's overall observations regarding sexual taboos, and would hope that society moved in that direction, there is no way in hell you could make that model work in modern society. There would be literal rioting in the streets.

With that caveat, I would be loath to completely discount the possibility of references to specific narrow examples to make a specific point for the purposes of illustration, assuming the point would also be backed by an a academic source.

The Heinlein quote referenced at the start of this is a good example. I think it makes a valid point for discussion. In some respects I agree with it. But there are many areas surrounding the main point that could be discussed endlessly in an attempt to define what feminine equality actually is (for starters).
THANK YOU.

Someone who gets it.

BTW I preferred "I Will Fear No Evil" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" .
You say the sweetest things! :)

I've read both of those as well, but my memory fails me regarding 'No Evil'. I read it too long ago. 'Stranger' I've read several times and is a remarkable book, most notable in my mind for the scene in which Smith finally groks humans in front of the monkey cage. That scene should be made a central part of every social studies class on the planet.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3407

Post by Git »

nippletwister wrote:There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".
Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the Damane from the Wheel of Time books). Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are brainwashed.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3408

Post by sacha »

Lsuoma wrote:
I still don't think s/h/it is a 12-year-old girl: I think an adult male troll, and capable of creating legal liability if engaged with. I really don't want this discussed further on the Pit either in public or PMs, please.
okay, one less point of contention. moving on...

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3409

Post by katamari Damassi »

somedumbguy wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?
I see hijab and kipah wearers the way I see surlyramic wearers. They're groupthink identity badges. "Look at my kipah! That means I'm part of an elite group. Hey you're also wearing a kipah! We should be friends." That sort of thing.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3410

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Tigzy wrote:So - Peez pops up on Steffy's 'look at these people bein meanz to me' post, in order to point out that certain commentators at t'pit are incorrect to suggest that 'they' (the FTB crowd) get a good living out of the conference circuit:
PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)
maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.
So Peez would have us believe that his speaking gigs are largely in support of his cause rather than his pocket. And, presumably, nothing to do with partying with the skepchicks - but I digress. Anyways, were this statement made in isolation, then maybe I could believe it. Peezus is, after all, about as fanatical enough.

But...well, remember what Greta said? When she had her cancer scare? here, let's look at it again:
I’ve had to cancel my appearance at Skepticon, as well as all my other speaking gigs for the next couple of months — and I already had to cancel several speaking gigs when my dad died. Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... -for-help/

Well, in fairness to Peez, his book isn't out yet, and hasn't been out yet for a long time - so we have no way of knowing how much the speaking gigs are likely to affect his book sales. Nevertheless, Greta still feels that the speaking gigs remain a significant part of her income - which leads me to believe that:

A: Greta must really enjoy abject poverty. 'Splains the Fluevogs I suppose; must feel like a step up from scabby rags. Just.
B: Greta does indeed make a fair bit of cash from the speaking gigs, and Peez is being...disingenuous.
C: Peez deliberately avoids asking for too much cash for his speaking gigs, because it's for the cause. Which does lead one to wonder why he says it's not a great way to make a living, if he's only taken it upon himself not to charge much for his speaking gigs.

In any case, something doesn't add up here; and I'm not talking about Greta's accounts, either.
So Peezus admits $4000-$5000 last year.
So who is lying, him or Ophelia

According to her, they get paid nothing!
They have a delusion that she gets paid big bucks for speaking, and that we all do. We get paid ZILCH, just as Ron says. That idea gets recycled a lot, and I suspect that’s why Russell echoed it. That’s odd, in a way, since he would know, as the organized haters don’t, that speakers don’t get paid.
And 'academic conferences'?
What academic conference would want PZ Myers.
Any scientific conference that I've been to would only get speakers who were either actively researching, or who had made huge progress in the field in the past. Myers is neither of these. He's a teacher at a small backwater university. He'd be unlikely to even get a poster accepted, never mind be asked to give a keynote!)

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3411

Post by nippletwister »

Lurky McLurk wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.
Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

Meat Logic

Meat Clog I

A Clog Emit

Clam Tie Go

Cat Gem Oil

A Clog Met I

Or as the FTB'ers might tell you:

Male Tic Go

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3412

Post by Git »

katamari Damassi wrote:I see hijab and kipah wearers the way I see surlyramic wearers. They're groupthink identity badges. "Look at my kipah! That means I'm part of an elite group. Hey you're also wearing a kipah! We should be friends." That sort of thing.
Similar levels of brainwashing involved too.

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3413

Post by Notung »

windy wrote:No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.
I'm not sure that's right - IIRC on Justin Griffith's now infamous thread, people like Justicar and a few of the newbies (at the time) were saying we're 'cleaning it up' (referring especially to a certain kick, which was being 'insult mined' to high heaven). Then, naturally that plan went out of the window pretty quickly and pissed a few people off.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: men are bad, mmmkay?

#3414

Post by sacha »

another lurker wrote:at this point in my life, I don't want random men knowing that I live alone, out in the woods.
honestly, luv, no one should know that. male or female

Casual Nemesis
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3415

Post by Casual Nemesis »

another lurker wrote:
Casual Nemesis wrote:
She was probably prettier when she was young. But, the key to being a successful stripper is purely in one's skill to manipulate. I met plenty of unattractive girls who could keep guys spending money in the bar all night.

If you are at all interested, see if you can watch 'G-string divas' - an old HBO documentary about a group of strippers in Florida. The most successful stripper was average verging on homely - but she knew how to manipulate.

I used to manage an adult club. The girls who made the good money just had to make eye contact, smile, and flirt a little. The others had an attitude where they thought customers owed them something, or wanted to do stupid shit that risked getting us shut down.

I'm glad I'm out of the business; it's overrated.
I was too shy and self-conscious to succeed in the business.
I'm as glad that you're out of it as I am that I'm out of it. It's the only job I've ever had where I've had to calm down a drunk while looking down the barrel of a pistol.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3416

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)
maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.
Other explanation ... PZ just isn't worth paying ... capitalism does sort of dictate people get paid what they are worth

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]Moustaches[/spoiler]

#3417

Post by Michael K Gray »

d4m10n wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
acathode wrote:
d4m10n wrote:
incognito wrote:I really, really don't like conflating atheism and skepticism.
Same here. I'm active in a local atheist group, but take the view that atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good. If you're atheist because you hero-worship Marx or Rand or Dawkins or Myers, because you watched Zeitgeist, or because of your parents, there is a damn good chance that you don't give a toss about thinking things through for yourself. Such people are potential skeptics and allies, but they have a ways to go.
I think my take on this is very different than yours, considering I live in Sweden and have first hand experience in what it means to live in a country where most are atheist or irreligious, but not skeptics. I can say for sure that even without skepticism, atheism is still a couple of thousand times more preferable than theism.

Even though we might have plenty of people buying into woo-woo and conspiracy theories, we don't have any crazy creationists with actual, real, political power trying to put God and the Bible into our legislation and classrooms.
Yeah.
Damion is spouting out of his arse here, I agree.
Atheism is not dependent on skepticism any way shape, nor form.
d4m10n wrote:atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good
Cites?
Maoism, Kimism, Stalinism, and on the other side, Objectivism. All atheist ideologies freed from the rational constraints of skepticism and the moral constraints of humanism.
Not this tired bullshit "argument" again?
The above ideologies were not based on a lack of belief in a deity at all!
In fact, they are all superb examples of the leaders setting themselves up as a deity!
With the additional bonus bogus that all of them DID practise forms of scientific skepticism!

Bzzt! FAIL.

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3418

Post by Michael J »

Couldn't both be true? Could PZ get nothing because he demands nothing and OB demands a price. Or it could simply be the $5 pa and the extra books she sells make a difference. Not to forget that spending a big portion of the year being fed by other people is worth a lot.

On another point. The only conferences I've been to are the GAC conferences in Melbourne. The thing I found surprising about PZ is that he pretty much wanders around alone. People (me included) stop to say hi and chat for awhile but you don't see him with a phalanx of followers.
Tigzy wrote:So - Peez pops up on Steffy's 'look at these people bein meanz to me' post, in order to point out that certain commentators at t'pit are incorrect to suggest that 'they' (the FTB crowd) get a good living out of the conference circuit:
PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)
maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.
So Peez would have us believe that his speaking gigs are largely in support of his cause rather than his pocket. And, presumably, nothing to do with partying with the skepchicks - but I digress. Anyways, were this statement made in isolation, then maybe I could believe it. Peezus is, after all, about as fanatical enough.

But...well, remember what Greta said? When she had her cancer scare? here, let's look at it again:
I’ve had to cancel my appearance at Skepticon, as well as all my other speaking gigs for the next couple of months — and I already had to cancel several speaking gigs when my dad died. Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... -for-help/

Well, in fairness to Peez, his book isn't out yet, and hasn't been out yet for a long time - so we have no way of knowing how much the speaking gigs are likely to affect his book sales. Nevertheless, Greta still feels that the speaking gigs remain a significant part of her income - which leads me to believe that:

A: Greta must really enjoy abject poverty. 'Splains the Fluevogs I suppose; must feel like a step up from scabby rags. Just.
B: Greta does indeed make a fair bit of cash from the speaking gigs, and Peez is being...disingenuous.
C: Peez deliberately avoids asking for too much cash for his speaking gigs, because it's for the cause. Which does lead one to wonder why he says it's not a great way to make a living, if he's only taken it upon himself not to charge much for his speaking gigs.

In any case, something doesn't add up here; and I'm not talking about Greta's accounts, either.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]Moustaches[/spoiler]

#3419

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Michael K Gray wrote: Not this tired bullshit "argument" again?
The above ideologies were not based on a lack of belief in a deity at all!
In fact, they are all superb examples of the leaders setting themselves up as a deity!
With the additional bonus bogus that all of them DID practise forms of scientific skepticism!

Bzzt! FAIL.
Totally agree - even 100% perfect scepticism would not prevent you from just being an evil cunt - you would just be a very reasoned, cold, calculating, dispassionate and probably highly effective evil cunt.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3420

Post by Michael K Gray »

incognito wrote:I'm thinking submariner's explanation makes more since, because the decreasing incidence with age would apply roughly equally to both genders.
It likely does not, for sampling reasons that are too complex to go into in this blog.
In any case Leonard explains why it does not, very clearly, in case you are interested in the detailed reasoning.
The submariner might be a good seaman, but his statistical expertise is at below cadet level, I'm afraid.
I know that this comes across as an argument from authority, but both he and I are qualified to make that call.
Sorry, but that is reality.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3421

Post by Tigzy »

Dick Strawkins wrote: According to her, they get paid nothing!
They have a delusion that she gets paid big bucks for speaking, and that we all do. We get paid ZILCH, just as Ron says. That idea gets recycled a lot, and I suspect that’s why Russell echoed it. That’s odd, in a way, since he would know, as the organized haters don’t, that speakers don’t get paid.
And 'academic conferences'?
What academic conference would want PZ Myers.
Any scientific conference that I've been to would only get speakers who were either actively researching, or who had made huge progress in the field in the past. Myers is neither of these. He's a teacher at a small backwater university. He'd be unlikely to even get a poster accepted, never mind be asked to give a keynote!)
And yet, both Greta and Rebecca Watson claim to get paid for their speaking gigs (and in the case of Becky-Boos, it sure as shit ain't speaking at academic conferences):
Hi JT, thanks for writing!

I'd be happy to come speak, depending on the timing of it (I suspect I'll be in London for TAM in early October). Ordinarily, I ask for the roundtrip flight from Boston, a night in a non-roachy hotel if a stay is required, and a $1,000 fee. Depending on the budget, though, the fee is negotiable.

Thanks so much for thinking of me!

Ramen,

Rebecca
http://zerowing21.xanga.com/692559832/e ... ca-watson/
http://www.freezepage.com/1359850657DTBJZMQVKW

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3422

Post by nippletwister »

Git wrote:
nippletwister wrote:There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".
Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the Damane from the Wheel of Time books). Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are brainwashed.

And those examples have shit-all to do with slaves, in masse, celebrating slavery and leg irons as a way of life, which is what your dishonest comparison would require. The first example, black owned slaves, were often bought by family and eventually turned free, sort of a halfway-house concept. The second group is that tiny percentage of escapees that just couldn't make it living in fear and uncertainty and returned to their sadly safer existence as slave workers instead.

Sad and all, but fuck-all to do with your comparison to large numbers of women embracing and even celebrating a slightly oppressive cultural norm. You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-head-covering women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?

It's like every time you give an example of something to support your exaggerated bullshit claims, it turns out to be a really bad comparison that you have over-interpreted. You ignore facts and differences to benefit your exaggerated claims. You probably wouldn't have to do this obvious truth-stretching, if you actually thought about what you were saying(instead of just "feeling" about it) and quit talking out your ass so much, don't you think?

Loose CK
.
.
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:45 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3423

Post by Loose CK »

Submariner wrote: Someone who gets it.
Well as a dumbass who doesn't get it could you please give some historical references that backup the proclamation that “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick."

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3424

Post by ERV »

I have gotten paid to speak at every appearance I have been in, except the debate with Charles Jackson. I have even gotten paid when folks opted for the 'Skype only' talk (ironically, my best paid gig). I have not asked for anything, sometimes I have tried to turn the $$ down, but the organizers insist it is in their budget.

The thing that I took away from ReGretas 'ME WANTS MONIES!!!' episode was this number-- After contemplating laying in bed masturbating all day, she says 'Also, I remember that the conference organizers are paying me to be there, and if I don’t show up they’ll want their money back.'

Ive never gotten paid up-front.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3425

Post by rayshul »

If PZ makes $60k from his dayjob, then getting a bonus of $5k would be (I believe) a fairly significant part of his income - which the 'pit has informed me is a decent wage in that part of America. Greta does not, I believe, have a day job, and relies on freelance work and (presumably?) her wife. $5k is a different amount to different people, really. And if you make under $30k a year, I'd say $5k was a bloody wad of cash. I don't see why both can't be telling the truth here but looking at it from different contexts/frames.
Notung wrote:
windy wrote:No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.
I'm not sure that's right - IIRC on Justin Griffith's now infamous thread, people like Justicar and a few of the newbies (at the time) were saying we're 'cleaning it up' (referring especially to a certain kick, which was being 'insult mined' to high heaven). Then, naturally that plan went out of the window pretty quickly and pissed a few people off.
I don't think I insult people for voluntary physical traits (well, Crommunist, but that's *contextual*), but I have certainly come out in support of people who did on the 'pit. The whole free speech thing is I think more important than keeping things "nice" here - the 'pit should reject all attempts to clean it up. Part of it's strength is the multiple views on goshdarnfuckingeverything.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3426

Post by Git »

nippletwister wrote:
Git wrote:
nippletwister wrote:There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".
Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the Damane from the Wheel of Time books). Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are brainwashed.

And those examples have shit-all to do with slaves, in masse, celebrating slavery and leg irons as a way of life, which is what your dishonest comparison would require. The first example, black owned slaves, were often bought by family and eventually turned free, sort of a halfway-house concept. The second group is that tiny percentage of escapees that just couldn't make it living in fear and uncertainty and returned to their sadly safer existence as slave workers instead.
They *still* wanted to wear leg-irons (physically or indeed metaphorically). They *still* wanted to be *owned*. They *still* wanted to be considered *property*.
nippletwister wrote: Sad and all, but fuck-all to do with your comparison to large numbers of women embracing and even celebrating a slightly oppressive cultural norm. You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-head-covering women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?
"You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-FGM women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?"

See what I did there?

There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.
nippletwister wrote: It's like every time you give an example of something to support your exaggerated bullshit claims, it turns out to be a really bad comparison that you have over-interpreted. You ignore facts and differences to benefit your exaggerated claims. You probably wouldn't have to do this obvious truth-stretching, if you actually thought about what you were saying(instead of just "feeling" about it) and quit talking out your ass so much, don't you think?
Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men is a bad thing. There is some shit that is objectively bad and should never be defended.

In fact, there is, at the base level, no difference between you defending the veil and Greg Laden defending men crossing over the road to avoid "scaring" women walking past them.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3427

Post by Git »

In this regard, Rebecca Twatson is like the typical Muslim male. Both expect an entire gender to bow down to their special snowflake status.

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3428

Post by Lsuoma »

Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Don't forget temple garments, either! That Moroni can be a mean mofo!

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3429

Post by Lsuoma »

Lurky McLurk wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.
Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.
You mean Camelto, GI?

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3430

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Git wrote:There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.

<SNIP>

Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men is a bad thing. There is some shit that is objectively bad and should never be defended.
You are totally incorrect. This "shit" is not objectively bad. It is entirely subjective. Even oppression of others is subjectively bad. You don't really understand the terms objective and subjective, so best not to throw them around with so much gay abandon

And back to the point. If a woman wants to wear a veil - then it is her choice.

If her choice is only by virtue of oppression from another, then feel free to deal with the oppressing factor, but don't claim you know this for certain, or you have evidence for this - as your only evidence is entirely hearsay. While the woman herself claims it is her wish, then you are the one oppressing her.

I know plenty of people who wear silly clothing or "signs of oppression" out of total free and personal choice.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3431

Post by ERV »

Tigzy wrote:And yet, both Greta and Rebecca Watson claim to get paid for their speaking gigs (and in the case of Becky-Boos, it sure as shit ain't speaking at academic conferences):
Hi JT, thanks for writing!

I'd be happy to come speak, depending on the timing of it (I suspect I'll be in London for TAM in early October). Ordinarily, I ask for the roundtrip flight from Boston, a night in a non-roachy hotel if a stay is required, and a $1,000 fee. Depending on the budget, though, the fee is negotiable.

Thanks so much for thinking of me!

Ramen,

Rebecca
http://zerowing21.xanga.com/692559832/e ... ca-watson/
http://www.freezepage.com/1359850657DTBJZMQVKW
You can get Abbie 10 times for the price of Watson once. Seems reasonable. ROFL!!!!!!!

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: hijibberjabber

#3432

Post by Michael J »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Git wrote:And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.
I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I am reasonably certain I can find lots of examples (for example such as forums such as Islam Awakening) where the women would violently disagree and insist that it is their right to wear one, and in fact you are attempting to oppress them by taking away their right to do just that.

Can you cite anything from a fairly credible source that agrees with the position you just made?

Just to clarify, I am reasonably certain you can find women who object to wearing the hijab, but I believe you blunder with your blanket statement about the choice to do so.
I agree it is as bad as feminists saying that women who wear high heels and tight clothes are all victims of the patriarchy.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3433

Post by Git »

Lsuoma wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Don't forget temple garments, either! That Moroni can be a mean mofo!
Isn't Minnesota mean't to be the promised land for Mormons or something?

Shouldn't it be Peezus Moroni then?

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3434

Post by Lsuoma »

ERV wrote:
Tigzy wrote:And yet, both Greta and Rebecca Watson claim to get paid for their speaking gigs (and in the case of Becky-Boos, it sure as shit ain't speaking at academic conferences):
Hi JT, thanks for writing!

I'd be happy to come speak, depending on the timing of it (I suspect I'll be in London for TAM in early October). Ordinarily, I ask for the roundtrip flight from Boston, a night in a non-roachy hotel if a stay is required, and a $1,000 fee. Depending on the budget, though, the fee is negotiable.

Thanks so much for thinking of me!

Ramen,

Rebecca
http://zerowing21.xanga.com/692559832/e ... ca-watson/
http://www.freezepage.com/1359850657DTBJZMQVKW
You can get Abbie 10 times for the price of Watson once. Seems reasonable. ROFL!!!!!!!
"Sir! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
"Madam, we've already established that. Now we're merely haggling about the price."

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3435

Post by Lsuoma »

Git wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
Git wrote:And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]
Don't forget temple garments, either! That Moroni can be a mean mofo!
Isn't Minnesota mean't to be the promised land for Mormons or something?

Shouldn't it be Peezus Moroni then?
Too many "i"s.

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3436

Post by 16bitheretic »

So, reading the comments section at Pharyngula in the thread about PZ's appearance in the Google Hangout:


Aerik on 2 February 2013 at 5:31 pm wrote:Ah, c0nc0rdance. Isn’t he the one that vehemently insisted on twitter that people don’t have the right to not listen to others? That plugging your ears or going somewhere else is oppressing the poor bullies? That people have a right to come into your private property and rant in your face? Yeah, I remember that.

Seriously, these anti-A+ morons actually argue that A+ is oppressing people, silencing them in fact, by not inviting them to a club.

PZ, this should be just like debating creationists. Don’t do it. People who haven’t reasoned themselves into positions don’t deserve debate. Especially when their position is defense of bigotry and harassment, things fundamentally antithetical to debate.
So you think that because C0nc0rdance made a video questioning the idea of A+ (and since SkepticalHeretic made that "A+ you get an F" vid he might be part of this point too) that he's in favor of bigotry and harassment? I suppose the fact that the two guys who opposed PZ's position in that roundtable both posted debunking vids of race realist claims has no bearing if they are gonna be called bigots just because they oppose A+. :roll:

But about the plugging your ears part is oppressing the bullies, go read the A+ forums, where the moderation staff themselves said that a person ignoring the abusive language of people like Ceepolk and Setar was itself a form of abuse in that it silenced the person being ignored. In the own words of the people running the only viable avenue that A+ operates in we have the condoning of this idea that you are criticizing. Congrats for consistency!

Then we have the user Pteryxx quote another user from Svan's blog complaining about the posting here at Slymepit:
Pteryxx 2 February 2013 at 1:09 pm (UTC -6) wrote:
From commenter Ham at Zvan’s: (emphasis mine)
To add on to Oolon’s post at 26, here are a few more searches:

site:sl*mepit.com [my edit; it's unedited in the original]
“myers” -> 110K hits
“benson” -> 65K hits

“skepticism” -> 70K hits
“atheism” -> 93K hits (Hmm, I’m noticing a trend with the results this brings up. Let’s try…)
“atheism” -”atheism plus” -> 57K hits

The funniest part of this: They have a forum called “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” and this forum title shows up at the top of every message posted there so every single post on this forum shows up in the search results. Despite this, “Skepchick” and “Myers” still manage to score more hits. How? Because the “ranting about FTB and Skepchick” thread has over fifty times the number of posts as the entire “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” board. This board has had four posts in the last two days. The rant thread has had 670.
I'm gonna take it then that both Pteryxx and Ham are too lazy to bother really paying attention to the content posted here, as they don;t seem to understand that Slymepit doesn't operate like a normal forum. The section they call the "ranting about FTB and Skepchick thread" features more content than just discussion of the stuff happening in the atheist and skeptic blogospheres. Alot of the content that would be ideal in a normally structured forum to go to the atheism, science and skepticism board ends up in the main PToS thread. In fact it;s often the case that PToS has multiple simultaneous discussions that range of course from having fun at the expense of FTB/A+/Skepchick, but also goes into various other topics surrounding atheism, skepticism, daily life stuff, forum administration matters and completely offtopic subject matter. Anyone who puts forth an honest effort to read and understand what Slymepit is would know this.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3437

Post by Git »

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:
Git wrote:There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.

<SNIP>

Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men is a bad thing. There is some shit that is objectively bad and should never be defended.
You are totally incorrect. This "shit" is not objectively bad. It is entirely subjective. Even oppression of others is subjectively bad. You don't really understand the terms objective and subjective, so best not to throw them around with so much gay abandon

And back to the point. If a woman wants to wear a veil - then it is her choice.

If her choice is only by virtue of oppression from another, then feel free to deal with the oppressing factor, but don't claim you know this for certain, or you have evidence for this - as your only evidence is entirely hearsay. While the woman herself claims it is her wish, then you are the one oppressing her.

I know plenty of people who wear silly clothing or "signs of oppression" out of total free and personal choice.
They've been brainwashed and have not made a free choice. The opposite in fact.

Maryam Namazie sums it up for me - http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamaz ... maryam.jpg (nudity, NSFW)

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

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3438

Post by Metalogic42 »

nippletwister wrote:Meat Logic
http://bacontoday.com/wp-content/upload ... wchart.jpg

I also quite like "Meat Clog I" (with the I as a roman numeral rather than a letter).

I threw it into an anagram generator with and without the "42" converted into 1337 (AZ), and got some pretty good ones:


With:
A Male Cog Zit
Cat Maize Log
Coal Mega Zit
Atomic Glaze
Magic Zealot

Without:
Team Logic
Atomic Gel


And here's some great ones for...other names:
Pensionable Ho
Ascertain Girth
Antichrist Rage
Lowlife Sperm
Ye Murk
La Sumo
Cetacean Brows (someone PLEASE photoshop this!)
Densely Homely

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3439

Post by somedumbguy »

Git wrote:
DeepInsideYourMind wrote:
Git wrote:There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.

<SNIP>

Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men is a bad thing. There is some shit that is objectively bad and should never be defended.
You are totally incorrect. This "shit" is not objectively bad. It is entirely subjective. Even oppression of others is subjectively bad. You don't really understand the terms objective and subjective, so best not to throw them around with so much gay abandon

And back to the point. If a woman wants to wear a veil - then it is her choice.

If her choice is only by virtue of oppression from another, then feel free to deal with the oppressing factor, but don't claim you know this for certain, or you have evidence for this - as your only evidence is entirely hearsay. While the woman herself claims it is her wish, then you are the one oppressing her.

I know plenty of people who wear silly clothing or "signs of oppression" out of total free and personal choice.
They've been brainwashed and have not made a free choice. The opposite in fact.

Maryam Namazie sums it up for me - http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamaz ... maryam.jpg (nudity, NSFW)
I see no evidence these adult women, including some who are feminists, are any more, or any less brainwashed than anyone else in society.

I assume of these people that they are rational adults with agency. I do not arrogantly, patronize and condescend to them patriarchally to demand they be considered to have been brainwashed with no other evidence.
'
If by definition believing in god is a sign a person holds irrational beliefs, does it mean that being an atheist must be a sign a person holds rational beliefs? Cause I don't see that either.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3440

Post by Submariner »

Michael K Gray wrote:
incognito wrote:I'm thinking submariner's explanation makes more since, because the decreasing incidence with age would apply roughly equally to both genders.
It likely does not, for sampling reasons that are too complex to go into in this blog.
In any case Leonard explains why it does not, very clearly, in case you are interested in the detailed reasoning.
The submariner might be a good seaman, but his statistical expertise is at below cadet level, I'm afraid.
I know that this comes across as an argument from authority, but both he and I are qualified to make that call.
Sorry, but that is reality.
I never said I was a expert on statistics. I suggested a possible cause for the difference in data. I suspect it is a combination of my suggestion and the others pointed out by Leonard. The truth of the matter is that humans are very complex creatures and any one reason for apparently inconsistent data probably won't fully account for the phenomenon.

Locked