If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

decius wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Actually, free speech doesn't cover incitement to commit crimes.

I'm not going to be afraid of language on forums that says someone should get fucked merely because Stefunny or whomeever demands it. Especially when 99.9999% of it is a venting of anger.

Fuck Benson, fuck PZ, fuck them all. Their shaming tactics mean shit compared to the evil they espouse.

Plenty of classic humor is of the form: Fuck Off And DIE.

"May you grow like an onion, with your head in the ground!"

decius wrote:Somedumbguy, you are an idiot of supreme magnitude.

LSuoma, I recommend some clean up. Another major line has been crossed.

First the whole Rape/Torture/Murder things is dumb anyway - rape and torture are equivalent and for almost all purposes equally horrific, disgusting, etc etc

Rape is a commonly used form of torture, rape is also about power and control, exactly the same as torture. There's some differences in the male/female equivalence, but ultimately rape as a form of torture against men and women is prevalent and equally disgusting.

Somedumbguy is merely falling into a moral equivalence problem. He (like many) thinks that a punishment should be morally equivalent to the "crime" committed - in his case rape denial is the crime, his view of the consequences of that are more than enough to justify that "the punishment should fit the crime"

Frequently people would suggest that men who rape little boys should have their balls cut off, or be buggered to death inside a jail cell - men, women, liberals, conservatives, even the most mild mannered and compassionate of us fall foul of wanting to see "justice" to be done. So, the issue really comes down to how far you think punishment should go, and what level of crime deserves which punishment

Interestingly, we tend (as a society) to think that men raping little boys should be punished with horrific punishment, but would see less justification for extreme punishment for a man raping a prostitute, and even less for a woman raping a man.

Our social conditioning is a hard thing to overlay on our instinct for justice and retribution.

Fair enough. Have it your way.

The rest of you, good bye.

decius wrote:Somedumbguy, you are an idiot of supreme magnitude.

LSuoma, I recommend some clean up. Another major line has been crossed.

I was thinking that, but no, I'm not going to. I think Somedumbguy is living up to his name wonderfully, and he may actually be a plant, but being a stupid cunt is not reason enough to ban. If people don't like what he's saying, reply to him to let him know, and then ignore him so he fucks off. That works with trolls and people who are here to get a reaction.

Just don't reply. I find his sentiments disgusting, but there is no censorship here apart from stuff that is legally questionable (not illegal, note).

Somedumbguy, you are a massive arsehole, and I would love it if you fucked off right now. Anyone with any sense of honesty can understand you're an enormous prick, but the people who want to tar the Pit have repeatedly shown themselves to be dishonest, and of bad faith. Your presence here is not appreciated. Please go away.

decius wrote:Somedumbguy, you are an idiot of supreme magnitude.

LSuoma, I recommend some clean up. Another major line has been crossed.

You're still moaning that I pwned you that time?

decius wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Actually, free speech doesn't cover incitement to commit crimes.

Well, I may have not worded something very well when I said "calls for rape or torture", because (I'm not any sort of lawyer here) I don't believe anything somedumbguy posted is a qualified direct threat, as in that's what he is threatening to carry out or directly comission someone else to do. Looking at how it was worded, he seems to be clear of direct incitement in the same way the person who emailed Richard Dawkins and said "I hope you get hit b a church van" wouldn't be prosecuted for making a death threat.

masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.

It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

decius wrote:Somedumbguy, you are an idiot of supreme magnitude.

LSuoma, I recommend some clean up. Another major line has been crossed.

First the whole Rape/Torture/Murder things is dumb anyway - rape and torture are equivalent and for almost all purposes equally horrific, disgusting, etc etc

Rape is a commonly used form of torture, rape is also about power and control, exactly the same as torture. There's some differences in the male/female equivalence, but ultimately rape as a form of torture against men and women is prevalent and equally disgusting.

Somedumbguy is merely falling into a moral equivalence problem. He (like many) thinks that a punishment should be morally equivalent to the "crime" committed - in his case rape denial is the crime, his view of the consequences of that are more than enough to justify that "the punishment should fit the crime"

FWIW, I don't I am appalled when I visit reddit, FARK, etc., and I frequently hear in response to articles about women making false claims of rape that they should be raped.

But when I see people in positions of responsibility that know better taking advantage of society's known bugs (quacks, doctors saying men can't be raped, pundits inciting race and gender war), then yeah, the worse that society can toss at them the better.

But mainly, the rape/torture/death thing IS just speech. And banning it or forcing people to self-censor themselves from it is asinine and a mug's game.

It's on the same level as Zvan demanding that Vacula denounce the pit.

Accept that demand from outsiders and you've ceded moral ground.

The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

somedumbguy wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.

Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.

clownshoe wrote:

jimthepleb wrote: Aha, I've been waiting a while to see you clownshoe...
I was wondering if you do requests for your excellent fairytale series?
If so, could you do a version of 'brere rabbit' regarding Watson's ridiculous 'Pleez don't say sexist stuff to me' crap?

That would definitely work, but I'm of the opinion that the less that particular individual is mentioned, the better, even if it is poking fun. "Their hate makes me stronger gives me a bigger media presence".

Bah you make a very fair point. It would just add to her victim cred. She is a loathsome turd.
:hankey:

Steersman wrote: <SNIP>

Now while I will concede that far too many on the “other” side insist on labelling any egregious comment as coming from the SlymePit, one can’t help but think that many actual comments of that nature from here could lead the weaker-of-mind – of which there seems to be a rather large number – to that conclusion. And while I didn’t see any credible threats in that “Page of Hate”, that page does note that such “have been reported to authorities” so that seems quite plausible given the vituperative and venomous nature of the comments there. However, in any case, those comments seem to provide some credible evidence of some egregious harassment if not outright sexism or misogyny which might reasonably be construed to be a problem in itself. The solution to which isn’t likely to be found if people – such as Lsuoma – insist on dismissing those complaints as coming just from a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”. Nor does it help much to read comments from the “other” side in the least charitable or most careless fashion.

Yep, read it the first time it was published ... terrible article in oh so many ways, not least of which is the complete lack of any facts backing it up.

The original comment:
a) didn't link to a source linking the Slymepit to the comment "quoted"
b) as a general statement it stood up to no scrutiny
c) Rebecca's page of hate, as you correctly identify, has no examples of real threats, just hate speech, trolling, abuse, etc
d) the intent of the original comment and the indirect links to nothing in particular are clearly intended as a smear, rather than a justifiable claim - hence vague links to "the internet as a whole"
e) similar quotes have been repeatedly cited, but again, nothing that would actually constitute evidence of the things claimed

If you are going to claim rape threats, report them to the police, don't publish them on your blog with jokes around them - that loses you all credibility.

If you are going to claim harassment, yep you have a much better case, except that again, these things were all (as far as I can tell) posted in public forums, met the standards of those public forums, or were dealt with by those organisations when they were reported.

Thanks for the advice on editing. I wanted to quickly release this piece, so this is why there are likely errors. I used to have people editing prior to releasing something, but they stopped doing it. I'll be more careful and give this recent piece another read.

decius wrote:Actually, free speech doesn't cover incitement to commit crimes.

Right. And FS refers to our right to not be arrested/forcibly prevented from voicing our opinions, etc by the state. It doesn't decree that whatever we say must be considered big and clever.

SDG are you in your cups?

As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

And so then if I am to be honest with myself and you, if I think people deserve death, then let's discuss torture and rape, the other legs in the people don't deserve torture, rape, and death.

I conceded that the majority of the world doesn't deserve torture, but hell, maybe some people do. Quacks that prey on the sick. Tobacco executives that suppressed medical research. Maybe they do deserve a bit of torture.

So then, what makes rape so special? If people can deserve death and torture, why don't they deserve rape?

As I said, don't make me your judge and jury.

Support democratic forms of law because we are a society of laws not men. And why is that? Because my sentiments as abhorrent as they are, are all too common.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

And if Decius thinks that's incitement it only shows what a pinhead he is.

Lsuoma wrote:

decius wrote:Somedumbguy, you are an idiot of supreme magnitude.

LSuoma, I recommend some clean up. Another major line has been crossed.

I was thinking that, but no, I'm not going to. I think Somedumbguy is living up to his name wonderfully, and he may actually be a plant, but being a stupid cunt is not reason enough to ban. If people don't like what he's saying, reply to him to let him know, and then ignore him so he fucks off. That works with trolls and people who are here to get a reaction.

Just don't reply. I find his sentiments disgusting, but there is no censorship here apart from stuff that is legally questionable (not illegal, note).

Somedumbguy, you are a massive arsehole, and I would love it if you fucked off right now. Anyone with any sense of honesty can understand you're an enormous prick, but the people who want to tar the Pit have repeatedly shown themselves to be dishonest, and of bad faith. Your presence here is not appreciated. Please go away.

You know better than to feed a troll. Let him flounder all he wants. Ignore him and he goes away.

jimthepleb wrote:SDG are you in your cups?

That was what I was thinking. There's a lot of what seems like stream of consciousness stuff in the posts. He ought to go to Twatson for advice on drunk posting, if that's the case. Maybe discuss it over a cup of coffee?

nippletwister wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.

Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.

I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.

Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.

Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.

Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.

justinvacula wrote:Thanks for the advice on editing. I wanted to quickly release this piece, so this is why there are likely errors. I used to have people editing prior to releasing something, but they stopped doing it. I'll be more careful and give this recent piece another read.

I hope nothing I said seemed discouraging.

I see no functional difference between one violently rhetorical whine about injustice and another. Extremism makes a lot of noise but it is the problem, even if only impassioned rhetoric.

I see no functional difference between one violently rhetorical whine about injustice and another. Extremism makes a lot of noise but it is the problem, even if only impassioned rhetoric.

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

somedumbguy wrote: Marcotte is a cunt that after the Duke Students are declared innocent, not not guilty, but innocent, moves to post statements inciting racial and gender warfare. Moves to declare the innocent as guilty. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on her cheeks.

This is the limit. Any more posts of this sort which could be construed by a reasonable person as a threat (there is no attempt at humour that I can detect) and I will ban you permanently.

This is your last warning.

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?

Hell, I'm in MY cups......uh, ok, cans.......and I think he's an asshole. Been reading a month or two, never caught the flavor until now. I never read his stuff closely maybe?

Anyway, let people quote-mine. Those who want to know will see the result.

Which, apparently, is a handful of grown adults on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than denounce an asshole for making not-really-threatening but violent and ugly comments.

Cheers!

And have fun cleaning that iron maiden. A few weeks????

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

To clarify, I'm actually not saying YOU or Lsuoma or anyone here don't police my speech. I am saying SlymePit don't let PZ et. al. police your/our speech. Don't let SJW police our speech or society's speech. You guys are free to nail me to the wall on anything stupid I have said and I trust that you will.

(Also, I am not sure Taliban at Bamiyan was acts of war. and the statement was an absolute, no one deserves war, and further it goes to various policies long debated over the years as to if assassinations of other government or military leaders is every appropriate).

nippletwister wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Thanks for the advice on editing. I wanted to quickly release this piece, so this is why there are likely errors. I used to have people editing prior to releasing something, but they stopped doing it. I'll be more careful and give this recent piece another read.

I hope nothing I said seemed discouraging.

Aye me too, my offer to proofread was made in good faith. Often just a fresh pair of eyes can help eliminate fossilised errors.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?

:whistle:

Lsuoma wrote:

somedumbguy wrote: Marcotte is a cunt that after the Duke Students are declared innocent, not not guilty, but innocent, moves to post statements inciting racial and gender warfare. Moves to declare the innocent as guilty. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on her cheeks.

This is the limit. Any more posts of this sort which could be construed by a reasonable person as a threat (there is no attempt at humour that I can detect) and I will ban you permanently.

This is your last warning.

You're right Lsuoma, that statement should be condemned and you are right to do so.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?

I said "generally" and "most". Also, not all of the US has the death penalty and the very existence of the death penalty has come under fire as it tends to be applied unfairly across various socioeconomic demographics and various cases of wrongly convicted or suspect convictions leading to death sentences have been revealed. I'm not sure about other countries, but changing long established things the death penalty in the US requires long periods of effort. Nothing in this country happens quickly, our social progress is measured over decades, and over time I expect the death penalty to continue to become less relevant.

somedumbguy wrote: So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

And if Decius thinks that's incitement it only shows what a pinhead he is.

Well you are probably familiar with the concept of not shouting fire in a crowded theatre so I will not bring it up other than this mention in passing.

However,

I would like to make a suggestion concerning a piece of advise I have also seen quite a few times. Basically, you should never post in anger. By all means write it up in some editor, not on the form you submit. Let it all hang out then wait till the anger passes, reread and then ask yourself if you really want to post this.

YMMV

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

somedumbguy wrote: To clarify, I'm actually not saying YOU or Lsuoma or anyone here don't police my speech. I am saying SlymePit don't let PZ et. al. police your/our speech. Don't let SJW police our speech or society's speech. You guys are free to nail me to the wall on anything stupid I have said and I trust that you will.

(Also, I am not sure Taliban at Bamiyan was acts of war. and the statement was an absolute, no one deserves war, and further it goes to various policies long debated over the years as to if assassinations of other government or military leaders is every appropriate).

This is fine. But don't say on this board that specific individuals deserve to be raped, killed, dumped in a ditch. Marcotte may be a vicious and unprincipled humourless bitch, but she has free speech rights as good as yours, and unless we're at war with her or she has been sentenced by due process, back off with the nasty prescriptions of illegal acts against her.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)

Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.

So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.

Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.

America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?

It seems 90% of the world doesn't condone killing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_cap ... by_country

nippletwister wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

I like that Deadwood quote.

Re: jimthepleb, it's like most stuff. Since I am not Paul Elam, and I am not Dean Esmay and I am not Warren Farrell, and I am not Glenn Sacks, then poor old jim the pleb's problem whereby up until tonight he was almost leaning towards MRAs but now after he perceives a stupid statement he thinks I made well it discredits all of them including Andrew --

Well come on, that says more about jimthepleb than it does about Mens Rights.

I still think of myself as a feminist regardless of all the shit that Marcotte and so many other feminists spew. Their stupid idiocy says nothing about whether women and men should be treated equally.

So poor jim the pleb.

nippletwister wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote:Circular referencing. A hallmark of the pseudosciences.

I prefer to call it a circle jerk.

Oh, and no-one deserves to be raped.
Some folk deserve to be tortured.
Many folk in history have deserved to be killed.

Nuance, folks.

You often seem to be a big blowhard to me...

That may well be because I am a big blowhard.

Lsuoma wrote:

somedumbguy wrote: To clarify, I'm actually not saying YOU or Lsuoma or anyone here don't police my speech. I am saying SlymePit don't let PZ et. al. police your/our speech. Don't let SJW police our speech or society's speech. You guys are free to nail me to the wall on anything stupid I have said and I trust that you will.

(Also, I am not sure Taliban at Bamiyan was acts of war. and the statement was an absolute, no one deserves war, and further it goes to various policies long debated over the years as to if assassinations of other government or military leaders is every appropriate).

This is fine. But don't say on this board that specific individuals deserve to be raped, killed, dumped in a ditch. Marcotte may be a vicious and unprincipled humourless bitch, but she has free speech rights as good as yours, and unless we're at war with her or she has been sentenced by due process, back off with the nasty prescriptions of illegal acts against her.

Agreed. What I thought was venting about Marcotte could be misconstrued as threat and though that was never intended was a stupid error on my part. Sincere apologies to any forum administrator that has to deal with the idiocy of his commenters.

LSuoma, when I exhorted you to do some clean up, I had already reached the last post you quoted.

Even if incitement to commit serious crime is admissible under US law under free-speech provisions (which I seriously doubt) , it violates the laws of the country I'm in, but also of the British Commonwealth. Look at the phrasing - it isn't a simple wish, it sounds more like an exhortation.
I don't buy into the guilt by association, but posts like the last few by SDG are bound to cause serious embarrassment at least to the international readership. They will also likely cause the Pit to be categorised as a hate site.

So, until this is resolved in some way, I will have to abstain from further posting. Sorry for being a pain on your royally nice arse.

somedumbguy wrote:

nippletwister wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.

Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.

I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.

Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.

Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.

Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.

That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.

However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.

Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.

Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Well I am sure no one wants to see decius go, he is a constant font of insight. and I don't want to put Lsuoma in that spot, and I certainly don't want the pit to be seen as a hate sight, so bye all.

nippletwister wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

Oh christ I agree. Whilst there are some disturbing outliers, as in any nascent movement, within the MRM, on the whole I have been won over by the considered and rational way they deal with the viciousness of the feminists. Which is why it is so disappointing to see someone who usually articulates these ideas so well, screwing himself with two or three poorly written polemics i suspect he will regret in the morning.
...and more personally the wanker just made me feel i need to moralfag for arseholes like Marcotte and Watson. :evil:
Anyway I'm going to follow Andrew's advice and step away from the keyboard for tonight. I have other crap going on that may be causing me to behave intemperately. SDG might I gently suggest you do the same?

Somedumbguy, what about we all agree to remove those posts and you refrain from posting in anger in the future?

somedumbguy wrote:Taslima is a doctor who in 2013 spouts off that men can't be raped.

She has somehow reached her current age without the realisation that there exist these "penal" institutions that we call "gaols", "prisons", or even "jails", where males being raped is at least an hourly occurrence.
Precious flower. It must be all butterflies, flowers, perfume & candy to be that naïve!

Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.

However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.

Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.

Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.

All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.

Huge difference between thinking hell, I would gladly torture that SOB that did X, versus voting time and again, against the death penalty and for strong rape laws.

HTH

Lsuoma wrote:
The Slyme Pit : where everyone gets the ban hammer

They should be optional as I do like them so why not have them as a smiley instead
That way they will not be messing up my nice clean posts man : I am serious now
Too much clutter and one can get distracted from what someone has to actually say

masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.

Quite.
One gets the feeling that they are continually applying the brakes on what they really want to say, in order to appear to be "true" skeptics to lurkers.
It is as much a form of self-censorship as the A-pussers exercise.
It is "skeptically correct" language, applied to a tedious extent.

I find that there is only so much of JREF sooper-careful oh-so-skeptical language that I can stomach at one sitting.
Whilst I find it marginally more digestible than the A✞ ipecac, it is not by very much.

This place seems to be the only place on the interwebs where one can cogently state one's mind, and expect to be rationally understood.

somedumbguy wrote:

nippletwister wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

I like that Deadwood quote.

Re: jimthepleb, it's like most stuff. Since I am not Paul Elam, and I am not Dean Esmay and I am not Warren Farrell, and I am not Glenn Sacks, then poor old jim the pleb's problem whereby up until tonight he was almost leaning towards MRAs but now after he perceives a stupid statement he thinks I made well it discredits all of them including Andrew --

Well come on, that says more about jimthepleb than it does about Mens Rights.

I still think of myself as a feminist regardless of all the shit that Marcotte and so many other feminists spew. Their stupid idiocy says nothing about whether women and men should be treated equally.

So poor jim the pleb.

Ah fuck you, you self-righteous prig. You have merely chilled my continuing exploration of a subject that is new to me. I did not dismiss anyone, even you, for your idiotic, semi-literate ramblings. You're too pissed to read with any comprehension or write with any coherence.
'Poor jimthepleb' ...pity from a condescending twat like you is worthless.

What i actually said was: 'Fuck off and sober up.'

somedumbguy said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 276#p59276):

You're right Lsuoma, that statement should be condemned and you are right to do so.

Hey, somedumbguy, thanks for that. You were making me nervous. My faith is, tentatively, restored.

decius said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 285#p59285):

So, until this is resolved in some way, I will have to abstain from further posting.

Fuckin hell, another Aunt Liz! Did you miss the retraction? Or have you no empathy, understanding, or awareness that we are all fallible; we all make mistakes; we all say things we do not truly intend and wish we had never said?

decius, if, as it seems, you have helped to drive someone from this forum simply because of your fucking prudish holier-than-thou self-assumed inerrantcy, just fuck off; dry up.

Michael K Gray wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!

Lsuoma wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!

http://humanfacebook.files.wordpress.co ... maiden.jpg


:popcorn:

AndrewV69 wrote:Well you are probably familiar with the concept of not shouting fire in a crowded theatre...

[youtube]X3Hg-Y7MugU[/youtube]

I'll leave this for the capricious one:
[youtube]4PBjhM-OlOg[/youtube]

somedumbguy wrote:

Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.

However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.

Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.

Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.

All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.

Huge difference between thinking hell, I would gladly torture that SOB that did X, versus voting time and again, against the death penalty and for strong rape laws.

HTH

While I sympathize, methinks the problem, at least in part, is that “the thought is party to the deed”. One thing to entertain the thought – rather problematic when that shades into setting up house-keeping with it. Although one might argue – as you may have suggested – that there is only some relatively small degree of difference between what passes for justice in Western societies, at least in some cases, and that in some Islamic ones ….

I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:

a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.

You were kidding about Eddie, right?

Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?

:popcorn:

Metalogic42 wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.

You were kidding about Eddie, right?

"From ze day he was born,
He was trouble.
He was ze thorn
In his mutter's side."