Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[welch]

<snip>
*cough*

OK I will confess I was going to ask, but then I thought, "perhaps there are some things in this life that I would rather not see".

Do not do this. OK people? Please?

Quite right. As Lily Tomlin probably said, “not tasteful”. Not to mention shading over into ad hominems .... and certainly not much in the way of trenchant or relevant satire ....

I dunno. It captures the essence of the laden-svan relationship rather nicely.

And how is that supposed relationship relevant to Apples’ comment?

Besides which, have you actually seen or made any case that the two relationships are in anyway analogous? Or is that just your spleen talking?

No Steers, I have not in fact, seen that Laden is in fact, literally a yappy fucking dog with a hardon, nor zvan literally a reclining cow. But as far as I'm concerned, the graphic fits, and it makes me giggle.

I know that this is very, very hard for you to imagine, (in fact, I would hazard that the entire CONCEPT of "imagining" or "imagination" is one that makes you shart furiously), but, let us pretend, for a moment, that the rest of us are not hyper-pedantic twats.

It's okay if you break out in a sweat over this, I doubt you practiced anything but being "that guy" much even as a child. (Christ, can you imagine the nigh-interrogations that go on in Steer's house over innocuous comments?

"Hi honey, how was your day?"

"It was awesome!"

"I see nothing in that statement that would justify such a descriptor. I know we've talked about the importance of providing backing information with such terOW GODDAMNIT WOMAN, THAT FRYING PAN HURTS"

"Oh, I'm sorry honey, you're right, I didn't provide you with enough 'evidence' before. I trust you have enough evidence now to stop being a condescending tit, or do you need more evidence up the OTHER side of your head?"

"No, no, you have made your case clear enough. I am glad you had an awesome day."

"See how much easier things are when you're not a douche?")

I'm not going to explain something I find a humorous analogy to a tit whose demands I owe nothing other than a raised middle finger. I find the image amusing, and analogous. If that's not good enough for you,



Any OTHER explanations you'd care to demand of me?

[welch]

Quite right. As Lily Tomlin probably said, “not tasteful”. Not to mention shading over into ad hominems .... and certainly not much in the way of trenchant or relevant satire ....

I dunno. It captures the essence of the laden-svan relationship rather nicely.

And how is that supposed relationship relevant to Apples’ comment?

Besides which, have you actually seen or made any case that the two relationships are in anyway analogous? Or is that just your spleen talking?

How in the whole wild [world] would you think this is an accurate depiction of Laden/Svan? Parody, we talked about this before, right?

"Parody is making a new wine that tastes like the old but has a slightly lethal effect.”

Don’t see how that makes it less of an ad hominem which, according to the Wikipedia article on the topic, works by the “halo effect”:

Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

Lots to criticize Zvan and Laden over, and one might reasonably argue that Zvan’s stated friendship with Laden has somewhat corrupted her judgment in that and related circumstances, but trying to attack that relationship and thereby them, particularly in the absence of evidence, doesn’t look particularly credible or admirable to me.

I bet no one asks your opinion much, do they?

Oh, pedantic time: No you moron, it's not an "ad hominem" to liken a dog vainly trying to fuck a cow to Laden/Zvan. It would only be an ad hominem if that image was used as a reason to dismiss their arguments. It's rude, it's probably mean, and it is definitely immature, but in and of itself, it is not "ad hominem" you unctuous pain in the ass.

[Lost Moose]

I haven't seen any porn photoshops here at the slymepit but I think some troll posted something like that in the middle of the night on Nugent's blog.
So it's someone did something bad somewhere - therefore the slymepit is to blame!

I don't remember any of PZ but noblehawk2 posted one of Ophelia here, which Lsuoma later edited to only a link. And that requires viewing nudity itself as porn.

Noblehawk was a troll called out on it. He has form from from previous posts he did ages ago. It did not stop Nugent exploiting that on his second blog though. However things went more even handed after that but it was yet another example of valuable time wasted dealing with the rubbish thrown at us every day. They love their guilt by association. If someone posts a pic here we are ALL responsible. That is dishonest and foolish but try telling them that.

Fair enough, I was just tripped up by "...any...here..." and had a bit of SWIWOTI.

[Zenspace]

No, that IP really tracks back to a Baptist Church http://iplocation.truevue.org/98.89.26.128.html
He needs to quit blaming atheists for all his woes

We might want some other people in the USA to check if that geolocator service gives an accurate reading of their IP though.

I say this because when I used it (and 3 different services) none of them were accurate. None of them were actually closer than 30 kilometers to my actual address.

It isn't accurate. When I put in my IP it brought up a location in front of a dead-end bar about 7 miles from my house.

:lol:

Mine put me at an architects office at least fifty miles away. Then I checked my system IP, manually entered it (it was very different from the one automatically entered, and it could not locate it. My dongle must be forked but good. :whistle:

[16bitheretic]

incisive things

Excellent post - you'll be needed at the Great Debate.

I'll chime in with my thoughts in the discussions, but I notice that my posts on feminism, language and rifts tend to operate on a sort of meta level, where I tend to want to discuss the root ideas behind something while most others tend to want to talk about specific and minute instances and events. As such alot of times when I've been involved with back and forth between the other side I get ignored because it seems they'd rather squawk at one of the other commenters about "So and so said CUNTWHOREBITCH on this linked post on January 7th, which means you all hate women!"

I don't think anything I say will be of consequence to be honest, but I'll put in my .02 nonetheless.

Really sort of consistent with the demagoguery that Watson, in particular, exhibits quite frequently, the wrapping of oneself in the flag of feminism, the projection of her persona and identity onto the entire class of women, as if she, and many others, had said, in response to a personal criticism: “They can’t talk to us like that, Sisters! Onward! To the Bastille!”

In my opinion, the alleged support for women that I see from certain bloggers is akin to the support for "family values" that we see from religious right institutions that put the word family in their name to try and claim their detrimental activism is for the greater good of children and securing America's future and all the other shit they spew. I think if there's one criticism of certain people that I want to get out there today it's that if you are using the idea of defending or supporting women's equality to be your internet human shield to deflect attacks and statements aimed at yourself, then you are objectifying women or the idea of women just as much as any sexist or real misogynist does.

[Aneris]

Lots to criticize Zvan and Laden over, and one might reasonably argue that Zvan’s stated friendship with Laden has somewhat corrupted her judgment in that and related circumstances, but trying to attack that relationship and thereby them, particularly in the absence of evidence, doesn’t look particularly credible or admirable to me.

I bet no one asks your opinion much, do they?

Oh, pedantic time: No you moron, it's not an "ad hominem" to liken a dog vainly trying to fuck a cow to Laden/Zvan. It would only be an ad hominem if that image was used as a reason to dismiss their arguments. It's rude, it's probably mean, and it is definitely immature, but in and of itself, it is not "ad hominem" you unctuous pain in the ass.

A good source to understand Ad Hominems —you know Rhetorical Assasin level— is in Informal Logic on the SEP. Ad Hominems are not, contrary to popular internet belief, the same as insults. The key point is rhetorical approach, not logical approach (i.e. even the most flawed person can tell the truth or be logically correct, but rhetorically, a view can be undermined when the person stating it is flawed).

Rhetorical approaches to argument invite this approach to ad hominem, which can be understood in terms of Aristotle's suggestion that the ethos of a speaker plays a crucial role in determining whether an argument is persuasive or not. In keeping with this, an ad hominem argument may be understood as an attack on the ethos of an arguer which is in principle acceptable. This does not mean that every ad hominem is acceptable, but only those which convincingly undermine the credibility of the arguer who is criticized. In the extreme cases, where ad hominem attacks tend to be ad hoc insults (as in EXAMPLE 10 above), the intemperate and arbitrary nature of such attacks is likely to undermine, not the ethos of the person attacked, but the ethos of the arguer who launches the attack.

[Slither]

I was just looking at Mark Chu-Carroll's blog post about the Adria Richards incident (donglegate): http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/20 ... ds-fiasco/ and, boy, does Mark lose it in the comments.

The post itself uses rather odd logic. After a long preamble about how hard women have it, he makes the following argument about donglegate:

• He doesn't know what the jokes that the men told were, and it doesn't matter.
• No matter what actions Richards took, the ensuing fuss would have been the same. ('cause that's how men behave.)
• Richards therefore didn't deserve to be fired, because no matter what she did, the results would have been the same.

Quite a set of bizzare assumptions, there, I'd say!

But the comments get even better! One commenter states that "None of the remarks were sexist, or racial, or discriminatory." Mark's response is furious, and he posts, at 8:30 am:

We don't know what was really said

You simply cannot make a serious argument that she had no right to be offended if you don't know what was said, and you don't.

(Bold in original!)
But then, just 5 minutes later, at 8:35 am he writes:

I don't think that any reasonable person in her situation would have believed that complaining about a nasty sexist joke would turn into a "national incident".

Yes, in just 5 minutes Mark goes from not knowing what was being said, to knowing that it was a "nasty sexist joke"! The guy can't keep himself consistent within the space of 5 minutes! Sheesh!

(And pitchguest makes a lot of really good posts in that thread!)

[Apples]

[quote="16bitheretic]I'll chime in with my thoughts in the discussions, but I notice that my posts on feminism, language and rifts tend to operate on a sort of meta level, where I tend to want to discuss the root ideas behind something while most others tend to want to talk about specific and minute instances and events.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but it's possible your style will be favored in these discussions, unless the format and moderation are more loosey-goosey than I anticipate.

[DW Adams]

Oolon's block bot hast nothing on the new Firefox pluggin, Trollscreen. Do you think they are using it over at FTB?

[youtube]Ko1Cd5epmho[/youtube]

Mzone

meta

[Submariner]

I love reading your posts 16bit.

[justinvacula]

The skeptic’s sky isn’t falling either - Sharon Hill

http://idoubtit.wordpress.com/2013/03/3 ... ng-either/

[16bitheretic]

you know Rhetorical Assasin level

This "rhetorical assassin" stuff I've seen makes me giggle. I couldn't resist:
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... e56cc2.png

[Aneris]

Lousy Canuck:

Why don’t these assholes try finding a thing that I’ve said about feminism, about rape, about anything else, and actually arguing against the points presented, instead of trying to defame my character in order to fragment FtB and poison the well against women speaking up about harassment? Why is the idea of more than one feminist leader posting to a blog network so scary to them that they have to attack a blogger on said network by attacking another blogger on said network and trying to play the one against the other?

Oh yes, you get criticized or someone quoting you in a non-flattering fashion is totally the time for you to just randomly toss out the "why do you hate women" meme or one of it's variants.

Because that totally doesn't come across as you using women as pawns to make yourself look good, like the noble protector who is under attack when he defends us fragile things, and that by proxy any criticism aimed your way is criticism aimed at all the possessors of the XX chromosone. Please bear the weight that us poor womenfolk cannot Jason :roll:

Ugh, I'm soooo sick of this shit. I've ranted about this sort of thing before, but I'm tired of people who are more about self promotion and/or preservation trying to parade as noble defenders of women while portraying any criticism that they personally receive as misogyny or promotion of harassment. It's the rhetorical equivalent of using women as a human shield to deflect criticizing opinions, and it's just as demeaning IMO as someone promoting a genuinely misogynist viewpoint. This sort of thing, along with outrage over dongle jokes or how Princess Zelda is used in a videogame from 15 years ago is making instances of real oppression of women in the world go unnoticed because the attention is being diverted to noisy non-issues and frivolous complaints that make women's equality movements into a running joke.

But I guess if women are nothing more than a human shield to block internet criticisms to you and your blogging friends, then whatever I have to say is irrelevant.

!!! Bold emphasis mine. Whats more, by monopolizing certain views while being assholes, they make it less likely that people adopt reasonable and good ideas, or worse, feel they must subvert the assholes for what they are, thereby indirectly subverting the good ideas.

[Steersman]

Do not do this. OK people? Please?

Quite right. As Lily Tomlin probably said, “not tasteful”. Not to mention shading over into ad hominems .... and certainly not much in the way of trenchant or relevant satire ....

I believe Andrew was objecting to the idea of a "PZ gay porn photoshop," which AFAIK has never, ever been posted at the 'Pit. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Probably; my mistake.

And the reason I reposted the silly dog-cow gif was that there was chatter, at Zvan's, I believe, in the wake of her "NSFW" post, about "sex tapes" posted at the 'Pit. Again - AFAIK - nothing of the sort has ever been done.

That was something that Mykeru posted sometime ago and called it the “Laden-Svan sex tape”:

Meanwhile: the newly leaked Laden-Svan sex tape:

[Note: the above link takes you to the next page (#464 instead of #463) – at least it does on my machine and browser]

[Aneris]

you know Rhetorical Assasin level

This "rhetorical assassin" stuff I've seen makes me giggle. I couldn't resist:
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... e56cc2.png

Let's face it. The FTB Commentariat are all Rhetorical Assassins. Their ninja-like abilities are so good, they are invisible.

[SurpriseGuest]

Justin claims it is an attempt to turn PZ on him and that it poisons the well for female rape victims. Why did he publish the comment?

[Zenspace]

BTW, I have just got back from urgent care - I was using a mandoline to slice potatoes for a dinner party this evening, and fuck me if I didn't slice a pad of flesh about 7mm in diameter off my right thumb. Only the second time I've ever had to have detached parts of my body sewn back on. First time was a bone and skin graft about four years ago, and that was planned.

This one bled like a fucking motherfucker! Needless to say, we had to get some new potatoes on the way home, and I'm off cooking duty and on booze duty.

Fair trade?

[Skep tickle]

Justin claims it is an attempt to turn PZ on him and that it poisons the well for female rape victims. Why did he publish the comment?

Hmm, let's guess. For hits?

______

I submitted this at Lousy Canuck; presumably it's now in his mod queue:

Hi, everyone.

@PZ #1

Wait…she [Skep tickle] listened, & all she took from it was 1 or 2 sentences which she then misinterprets to mean I’m forever denying the possibility that a woman might make a false accusation? Nonsense. I’ve been threatened with a false rape accusation, one that could have totally destroyed my career. I took it very seriously and moved quickly to provide evidence that it was false. But of course we have to accept the personal testimony of women’s experiences. In that case, it would have been totally injust to simply say, “oh, she’s a woman, therefore she’s lying”.

If you go to the post that was linked in the OP here, you'll see my full quote, which included:

He [PZ] imparted, in a very serious tone, the edict that we all have to accept, and I quote, "the personal testimony of women" when they say they are harassed or raped. (It sounded to me like he was equating harassment with rape, but perhaps I misunderstood his intent or his words in those 1-2 sentences.)

I was tempted to ask during Q&A whether he thought that we should also accept other "personal testimony", for example that of theists, but that seemed low priority in the scheme of things. (Besides, did you think he'd say, "Oh, right! Good point.")

To clarify, I'm happy to accept anyone's "personal testimony" - but only as their report about their personal experience, obviously not as a reliable way to make a factual determination, including regarding any other person's intent (which "harassment" pretty much implies).

I expanded a bit on this in a subsequent post:

…A person's "personal testimony" reflects the relayed event as the person experienced it, or more accurately as he/she remembers having experienced it, including the emotions associated with that experience. It is THE way we find out what someone feels about an event.

"Personal testimony" could definitely POINT TO evidence that might exist about the event that others might look for (& possibly find). But "personal testimony" does not prove that an event happened, or that it happened the way the person remembers it, especially what another person's intent or thinking was.

In particular, everyone should be cautious about taking "personal testimony" as evidence of 'harassment". It could be that observers might have seen miscommunication, misunderstanding, difference in assumptions on the part of the 2 people. ...

I was not the one who initiated mention of harassment or "the personal testimony of women" onstage at PZ's talk. That was completely his choice. He sort of tossed it in during his talk or the Q&A, but it wasn't in response to an audience question about harassment. I don't remember exactly how it did come up, but it was clear that it was something PZ felt important to initiate advice to us (to atheists, with us being the audience at that moment) about. …

I may have "misinterpreted"; obviously that's always a risk. But I was relaying my experience as someone listening in the audience, and of course the listener can only take away what the listener takes away, not what the speaker intended to convey.

"Imparted" and "edict" and "tossed it in" were the terms I chose to use; "said" would have been more neutral.

"Very serious" and "it was clear that..." reflect my impressions as a listener.

Clearly, others who were there (including PZ), or those who later watch the video, might disagree with any or all of those characterizations.

But I never said one should "simply say, 'oh, she’s a woman, therefore she’s lying'" - in fact, I think we can all agree that "oh, [that person] is a [identifying characteristic other than "liar"], therefore [that person] is lying" is blatantly erroneous and unjust, AND that women seem to have been more likely to face that assumption than men or other specific groups.

And I did not say that PZ meant that investigation might not turn up evidence that the claim of harassment was false - however, he did not follow up his statement on stage that 'we all need to accept the personal testimony of women' with any indication about what role investigation and evidence might play, or with any indication as to a limit to this acceptance.

Particularly on an issue that has at times resembled dynamite in the A/S community, leaving the 200 people listening in the audience to each come to their own conclusions about where the speaker draws a line about something about which he has just made a broad exhortation, can't effectively leave listeners with accurate information about the speaker's position (and with a fuller sense of the advice he's giving).

[CommanderTuvok]

That squabble over at Thieb's place has the whiff of Baboon manufacturing victimhood, again.

I bet it is someone who is a Baboon, or a close follower of the Baboons, hoping that they can use this to tar Arnie and the Pit Crew.

[bovarchist]

BTW, I have just got back from urgent care - I was using a mandoline to slice potatoes for a dinner party this evening, and fuck me if I didn't slice a pad of flesh about 7mm in diameter off my right thumb. Only the second time I've ever had to have detached parts of my body sewn back on. First time was a bone and skin graft about four years ago, and that was planned.

This one bled like a fucking motherfucker!

Sort of a 'mandoline rain' as it were.

[Steersman]

you know Rhetorical Assasin level

This "rhetorical assassin" stuff I've seen makes me giggle. I couldn't resist:
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... e56cc2.png

Let's face it. The FTB Commentariat are all Rhetorical Assassins. Their ninja-like abilities are so good, they are invisible.

They certainly haven’t been in much evidence in that “Structure and dedicated website” thread of Nugent’s .... and the leader of the guild – Brony – has been conspicuous by his absence; maybe he was unhorsed – so to speak – when someone provided evidence, as he asked for, that PZ bans people simply for posting here ...

[Skep tickle]

Lousy Canuck:

Why don’t these assholes try finding a thing that I’ve said about feminism, about rape, about anything else, and actually arguing against the points presented, instead of trying to defame my character in order to fragment FtB and poison the well against women speaking up about harassment? Why is the idea of more than one feminist leader posting to a blog network so scary to them that they have to attack a blogger on said network by attacking another blogger on said network and trying to play the one against the other?

Oh yes, you get criticized or someone quoting you in a non-flattering fashion is totally the time for you to just randomly toss out the "why do you hate women" meme or one of it's variants.

Because that totally doesn't come across as you using women as pawns to make yourself look good, like the noble protector who is under attack when he defends us fragile things, and that by proxy any criticism aimed your way is criticism aimed at all the possessors of the XX chromosone. Please bear the weight that us poor womenfolk cannot Jason :roll:

Ugh, I'm soooo sick of this shit. I've ranted about this sort of thing before, but I'm tired of people who are more about self promotion and/or preservation trying to parade as noble defenders of women while portraying any criticism that they personally receive as misogyny or promotion of harassment. It's the rhetorical equivalent of using women as a human shield to deflect criticizing opinions, and it's just as demeaning IMO as someone promoting a genuinely misogynist viewpoint. This sort of thing, along with outrage over dongle jokes or how Princess Zelda is used in a videogame from 15 years ago is making instances of real oppression of women in the world go unnoticed because the attention is being diverted to noisy non-issues and frivolous complaints that make women's equality movements into a running joke.

But I guess if women are nothing more than a human shield to block internet criticisms to you and your blogging friends, then whatever I have to say is irrelevant.

!!! Bold emphasis mine. Whats more, by monopolizing certain views while being assholes, they make it less likely that people adopt reasonable and good ideas, or worse, feel they must subvert the assholes for what they are, thereby indirectly subverting the good ideas.

I, too, really enjoy your posts, 16bitheretic & Aneris.

Totally agree w/ above, esp with bolded line. There are very real issues that are receiving short shrift while all this energy goes into minor slights in the first world.

FWIW, I see physical suffering and premature death around the world as a much more pressing issue than women's rights even in fundamentalist societies, not that that's not a horrible situation (and of course in some cases it includes physical suffering & premature death for women, or women & children). I'm outraged at how many people lack clean water, enough food to prevent starvation much less have adequate nutrition, and have access (on multiple axes: cost, availability, acceptability, etc) to basic health care including preventive services such as vaccines and condoms. I've done only a little personally to work on this issue (one trip to Guatemala, where I concluded that the money it had cost to ferry a bunch of Americans there could have been better used to improve the local infrastructure & hire local people to do the work we did for 10 days). But it's where I focus my donations, through a payroll deduction donation to several international organizations.

I used to consider physical suffering and premature death due to socioeconomic iniquities, political corruption, and war to be a "social justice" issue. Silly me. Like 'feminism' my understanding of that term has been forever tainted.

[Skep tickle]

(should be "lack access" not "have access")

[SurpriseGuest]

Is anyone else skeptical of PZ's claim that he was threatened with a rape accusation? I need more details such as who they were to him. Maybe he's just trying to put himself on Thibeault's level because of what he said about the person posting on his blog. Neither of them really act someone who was threatened first hand with a false rape accusation, especially Jason. If he only brought it up in a situation that would give him "Look at me! I was accused and I still support assuming a female is telling the truth!" points, I'll give his claim a second thought too. That, combined with how he thinks and acts on the subject of false rape accusations, would make him even more likely than PZ to be bullshitting. What sort of person is accused of it themselves and is still chill on the subject, going "Naw. That doesn't really happen. It's an MRA trope that MRAs are deliberately pushing with ill intent. It can't be due to people actually being accused of rapes they never did."

[welch]

Is anyone else skeptical of PZ's claim that he was threatened with a rape accusation? I need more details such as who they were to him. Maybe he's just trying to put himself on Thibeault's level because of what he said about the person posting on his blog. Neither of them really act someone who was threatened first hand with a false rape accusation, especially Jason. If he only brought it up in a situation that would give him "Look at me! I was accused and I still support assuming a female is telling the truth!" points, I'll give his claim a second thought too. That, combined with how he thinks and acts on the subject of false rape accusations, would make him even more likely than PZ to be bullshitting. What sort of person is accused of it themselves and is still chill on the subject, going "Naw. That doesn't really happen. It's an MRA trope that MRAs are deliberately pushing with ill intent. It can't be due to people actually being accused of rapes they never did."

Given the high rate of occurrence of such things at FTB, it's kind of hard for him to claim it doesn't happen.

[Parody Accountant]

ERV wrote:
They dont have friends. They have tools. You throw away a tool when it 'breaks'. EBW 'broke' so she got tossed, like everyone else who confused our relationship as their 'friends'.

They are so brutal to their 'friends and allies'. Their tactics are simply not sustainable.

John Brown wrote:
The revolution always eats itself.

John was referring to the Shakesville vs PZ dustup, but I think the theme works as a general description of how they operate. I slapped it on this gem from deviant art.

http://i.imgur.com/Ro62Pvl.png

Ouroboros is hungry. Who's the next Witch of the Week? They're running low on witch candidates friends.

(I've used a few nyms here before, can't remember all of them but I didn't stay long. No link baskets or off-fuckings necessary.)

[ERV]

ERV wrote:
They dont have friends. They have tools. You throw away a tool when it 'breaks'. EBW 'broke' so she got tossed, like everyone else who confused our relationship as their 'friends'.

They are so brutal to their 'friends and allies'. Their tactics are simply not sustainable.

Rewatched 'Waynes World'--

"PZ is no ones friend. If PZ were an ice cream flavor, hed be pralines and dick."

[Submariner]

Welcome Parody. I saw/chatted with you on Brave hero/Atheist Experience.

Now fuck off.

[Aneris]

Seems legit to post them here...
[youtube]h9DkK06zZ_o[/youtube]

[sacha]

update to this post: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 158#p80157

[attachment=0]love a senior.jpg[/attachment]

we now have an official Slymepit fundraiser link:

Slymepit fundraiser for Muttville Senior Dog Rescue


[youtube]7OLQnKr_sh8[/youtube]


any amount will make a difference. please help them

[sacha]

Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Not helping. We know that false positives exist and that any system will be abused. However, there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around.

When you say there is a large number of unreported cases, are you referring to female victims of rape?

If so, where is your evidence for that?

[sacha]

I guess, since we don't live in a perfect world, the presumption of innocence for rape should be the standard, like for every other fucking crime, ever.

QFT

[Michael K Gray]

Slymepit fundraiser for Muttville Senior Dog Rescue
any amount will make a difference. please help them[/b]

Done.
I hope you lot feel guilty now.
You know how to assuage that feeling.
1) Get Drunk
2) Donate

[sacha]

BTW, I have just got back from urgent care - I was using a mandoline to slice potatoes for a dinner party this evening, and fuck me if I didn't slice a pad of flesh about 7mm in diameter off my right thumb. Only the second time I've ever had to have detached parts of my body sewn back on. First time was a bone and skin graft about four years ago, and that was planned.

This one bled like a fucking motherfucker! Needless to say, we had to get some new potatoes on the way home, and I'm off cooking duty and on booze duty.

did the party continue as planned with a blood-spattered kitchen, and bits of flesh hanging off of the mandoline?

[Steersman]

<snip>
I dunno. It captures the essence of the laden-svan relationship rather nicely.

And how is that supposed relationship relevant to Apples’ comment?

Besides which, have you actually seen or made any case that the two relationships are in anyway analogous? Or is that just your spleen talking?

How in the whole wild [world] would you think this is an accurate depiction of Laden/Svan? Parody, we talked about this before, right?

"Parody is making a new wine that tastes like the old but has a slightly lethal effect.”

Don’t see how that makes it less of an ad hominem which, according to the Wikipedia article on the topic, works by the “halo effect”:

Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

Lots to criticize Zvan and Laden over, and one might reasonably argue that Zvan’s stated friendship with Laden has somewhat corrupted her judgment in that and related circumstances, but trying to attack that relationship and thereby them, particularly in the absence of evidence, doesn’t look particularly credible or admirable to me.

I bet no one asks your opinion much, do they?

Oh, pedantic time: No you moron, it's not an "ad hominem" to liken a dog vainly trying to fuck a cow to Laden/Zvan. It would only be an ad hominem if that image was used as a reason to dismiss their arguments. It's rude, it's probably mean, and it is definitely immature, but in and of itself, it is not "ad hominem" you unctuous pain in the ass.

Oh, oh. Seems I’ve pissed in Welch’s corn-flakes (i.e., guilty of not thinking he’s infallible); batten down the hatches everyone (incoming DDoS) – nothing like wounded pride to trigger empty bluster if not hurricanes ....

I will readily concede that, as you said, “in and of itself it is not ad hominem”, but I did say “shading over into ad hominems” for a reason. Which is that while arguments here rarely take the classic “ad hominem” form of, for example, “You should not listen to my opponent. He wants to sever the Danish church from the state for his own personal sake”, the effect of many is the same.

And in the context of the many quite justifiable and credible criticisms, I think, of Zvan and Laden presented here, those “sex-tapes” seem to rather pointedly suggest that any arguments either of them present in support of each other should be deprecated because of that implied relationship. In a word or two, “poisoning the well” – aka, “a special case of argumentum ad hominem”. Rather much along the same line as my earlier comments about the supposed mechanism of “ad hominems”, i.e., the “halo effect”.

In any case, it is curious and somewhat amusing that you didn’t actually do much to address that argument, but instead relied heavily on various insults – “moron”, “unctuous pain in the ass”, “hyper-pedantic twats” (my personal favourite; that’s a keeper) – in an apparent attempt to “poison the well”, i.e., present an ad hominem argument.

YMMV ....

[sacha]

Slymepit fundraiser for Muttville Senior Dog Rescue
any amount will make a difference. please help them[/b]

Done.
I hope you lot feel guilty now.
You know how to assuage that feeling.
1) Get Drunk
2) Donate

love you, MKG

[Aneris]

Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Not helping. We know that false positives exist and that any system will be abused. However, there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around.

When you say there is a large number of unreported cases, are you referring to female victims of rape?

If so, where is your evidence for that?

There is already a reply and a reply to that, linking to the dedicated thread. Go there and present your case, if you have one. Regarding statistics, here you go.

[bovarchist]

update to this post: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 158#p80157


[youtube]7OLQnKr_sh8[/youtube]


any amount will make a difference. please help them

[youtube]1rPJtxuz8cU[/youtube]

[cunt]

Stephanie Svan has posted at Thibby's:

It’s very sweet. The reaction to this post in the pit has been great indignation that someone would ever try to smear a fellow human being this way. The immediate response was, “Unholy fuck! Whoever did that is a complete and utter asshole!”

Oh, wait. My bad. That was the reaction from various people to Rebecca tweeting a link to the post.

What happened in the pit is that someone said they couldn’t understand the post. Someone else got indignant that Jason would post the IP. Someone else said that the commenter wasn’t an atheist because when they looked up the IP and zoomed in, they found a church at that intersection (as opposed to the plumbing business you find using this IP-lookup service). Someone else reassured everyone that no actual responsibility accrued to the pit because everyone there is an individual. They didn’t assign any responsibility to the person who was trying to use Jason as a talking point there, of course.

Um .... we didn't "assign any responsibility" to Strawkins for what? For mentioning something that Jason had published that was relevant to the subject at hand that may have been picked up by some yahoo troll in Alabama? Fuck off, Stephanie.

As for "great indignation that someone would ever try to smear a fellow human being this way" -- the whole fucking point of the conversation here was that you have to use skepticism in order to tell the difference between smears and the truth (as opposed to believing things simply because they are said by a woman because feminism and rape culture) -- because everyone with a pulse knows smears are pretty fucking bad -- something that you and your buddies might consider keeping in mind the next time you accuse someone of being a "harasser" or a misogynist.

What you really hoped -- because you are at least as ruthless as anyone who has ever posted at the 'Pit -- is that you'd find someone celebrating the troll's accusation or suggesting it was true. Not finding that, you were forced to pretend it's the 'Pit's fault people all over the world think Jason is a douche. Most laughably stupid is the notion that you'd expect people here to say "oh, poor Jason - he had to look at his moderation queue and deal with a nasty troll" after the hostile post he wrote.

But thank you Stephanie (and Jason) -- by "monitoring and harassing" the 'Pit this way you prove just how self-serving and dishonest your (and Ophelia's) conception of "harassment" really is and just how willing you are to smear people you don't like. Good luck in the coming discussions, Steffy -- you're going to need it.

Oh, to be fair Steph. I still haven't fully read it. I was watching this documentary about people living in the sewers of Bogota. My eyes just automatically glaze over when trying to read through Lousy Canucks complaint.

[Badger3k]

Oh, to be fair Steph. I still haven't fully read it. I was watching this documentary about people living in the sewers of Bogota. My eyes just automatically glaze over when trying to read through Lousy Canucks complaint.

You could always read some of the classics. I hear "Mobye Dickke" is being serialized over at FftB. I just realized today that he does Ophelia one better. He has whole posts that are nothing but copypasta - he doesn't even add a "this". I guess Ophie still has things to learn.

But I agree with you on Canuck (and quite a few others there). My brain goes to sleep when trying to read them, so I usually skim until my neck hurts from all my head shaking. Generally no more than a few sentences.

[rayshul]

Sasha, they don't do paypal. :/

[rayshul]

Oh fuck sorry Sacha. C for cunt, I know I know.

[cunt]

Oh, to be fair Steph. I still haven't fully read it. I was watching this documentary about people living in the sewers of Bogota. My eyes just automatically glaze over when trying to read through Lousy Canucks complaint.

You could always read some of the classics. I hear "Mobye Dickke" is being serialized over at FftB. I just realized today that he does Ophelia one better. He has whole posts that are nothing but copypasta - he doesn't even add a "this". I guess Ophie still has things to learn.

But I agree with you on Canuck (and quite a few others there). My brain goes to sleep when trying to read them, so I usually skim until my neck hurts from all my head shaking. Generally no more than a few sentences.

Oh, i'm sure it's serious though. I'm making my serious face right now. I also watched a vice documentary about Liberian warlords who used to kill and eat children before going into battle. It's pretty good.

[youtube]ZRuSS0iiFyo[/youtube]

[sacha]

Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Not helping. We know that false positives exist and that any system will be abused. However, there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around.

When you say there is a large number of unreported cases, are you referring to female victims of rape?

If so, where is your evidence for that?

There is already a reply and a reply to that, linking to the dedicated thread. Go there and present your case, if you have one. Regarding statistics, here you go.

that's your answer? Google "rape statistics".

You stated there were a large number of unreported cases, and far fewer false accusations. I asked you if you were referring to female victims, and asked you to provide evidence for that assertion. If this has "already been discussed" and has it's "own thread" then I would think you could provide me with a link to your evidence. should be quite easy for you.

every single non-specific-incident discussion here has already been discussed, and was most likely covered two years ago and nearly identical discussions and arguments posted numerous times since then. I've been following the drama since 2009.

When you have been part of the anti-Baboon brigade as long as I have, you may also find dismissive hand waving from someone who joined 26 days ago splendidly amusing.

[Dick Strawkins]

Is anyone else skeptical of PZ's claim that he was threatened with a rape accusation? I need more details such as who they were to him. Maybe he's just trying to put himself on Thibeault's level because of what he said about the person posting on his blog. Neither of them really act someone who was threatened first hand with a false rape accusation, especially Jason. If he only brought it up in a situation that would give him "Look at me! I was accused and I still support assuming a female is telling the truth!" points, I'll give his claim a second thought too. That, combined with how he thinks and acts on the subject of false rape accusations, would make him even more likely than PZ to be bullshitting. What sort of person is accused of it themselves and is still chill on the subject, going "Naw. That doesn't really happen. It's an MRA trope that MRAs are deliberately pushing with ill intent. It can't be due to people actually being accused of rapes they never did."

I have a hazy recollection of PZ writing something along those lines on Pharyngula in the distant past, pre-elevatorgate (PE).
In those days such a statement would not have been anything out of the ordinary - a simple data point regarding a rare instance of false accusation (the inference that the accusation was false coming from the fact that: A, No indictment occurred, and, B, someone who actually did commit a rape is probably unlikely to bring up the incident in conversation without very good reason.
I am certainly not a fan of the kind of presumtive dismissal of rape accusitions as being a priori false, that is becoming common in MRA activism.
In response to Sacha's question about evidence for the levels of false claims compared to unreported rapes, I think it is reasonable to use anonymous surveys and police data to try to get a handle on this. It is a difficult question and probably impossible to answer completely correctly but it should be possible to get some kind of generalized figure for the prevalence of each type of incident.
What was surprising for me is that both Lousy and Peezus have admitted to being falsely accused. As I said, I'm taking their word for it (and it almost goes without saying that they would not afford me the same assumption, it would be "Rapist!" - as Peezus proved with his kneejerk accusation regarding Ed Clint)
Perhaps this is just a statistical blip, but doesn't it strike anyone else as weird, that despite claims that false accusations of rape are so rare, two prominent FTB male feminists have been falsely accused?
I've never been accused of rape. I don't even know anyone who's ever been accused of rape. Perhaps it's something that men tend to keep quiet about,for valid reasons; someone may maliciously claim the accusation was not in fact false.
The reason why the whole situation is bizarre to me is that Lousy and Peezus are inadvertently providing evidence that false accusations are more prevalent than I previously assumed!

[sacha]

Sasha, they don't do paypal. :/

what!? for fuck's sake!

I'll sort that out by tomorrow.

Thank you for attempting to donate, and for making me aware of the bloody fucked up system. I'll contact the donations director tomorrow morning, and have it sorted by the evening (PST time)


I appreciate the realisation of the C as in cunt... you get a pass, luv... but just one pass.

[Guestheist]

I agree with Dick Strawkins, both thing happen, way too frequently, the false accusations and the rape dismissal. But from my research, the conviction rate for rape is similar to other crimes, but I could be wrong. It's been a long time.

[Guestheist]

I agree with Dick Strawkins, both thing happen, way too frequently, the false accusations and the rape dismissal. But from my research, the conviction rate for rape is similar to other crimes, but I could be wrong. It's been a long time.

[sacha]

In response to Sacha's question about evidence for the levels of false claims compared to unreported rapes, I think it is reasonable to use anonymous surveys and police data to try to get a handle on this. It is a difficult question and probably impossible to answer completely correctly but it should be possible to get some kind of generalized figure for the prevalence of each type of incident.

I agree that may be the only way to even begin to have any idea of unreported cases, although I find it significantly flawed, and certainly not evidence

my questions were in regard to the declaration that "there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around." stated as fact.

Anything I state as fact can easily be backed up with evidence, and if it turns out my evidence is flawed, I will be more than happy to withdraw my statement and give reasons for the withdrawal.

This is a sceptic/skeptic website and thread, after all.

[Guest666]

The skeptic’s sky isn’t falling either - Sharon Hill

http://idoubtit.wordpress.com/2013/03/3 ... ng-either/

Good read. Sharon (and Ed Clint which Sharon references) both make good points. I think it's very true that most people who don't get all their skepticism (or atheism for that matter) from blogs really know about all the drama. As well as the majority of people outside the US and UK don't seem to know much about it.

[Dick Strawkins]

In response to Sacha's question about evidence for the levels of false claims compared to unreported rapes, I think it is reasonable to use anonymous surveys and police data to try to get a handle on this. It is a difficult question and probably impossible to answer completely correctly but it should be possible to get some kind of generalized figure for the prevalence of each type of incident.

I agree that may be the only way to even begin to have any idea of unreported cases, although I find it significantly flawed, and certainly not evidence

my questions were in regard to the declaration that "there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around." stated as fact.

Anything I state as fact can easily be backed up with evidence, and if it turns out my evidence is flawed, I will be more than happy to withdraw my statement and give reasons for the withdrawal.

This is a sceptic/skeptic website and thread, after all.

I agree.
If anyone has a good data source, paper, survey result etc, that answers this question, could you link it here please.

[Aneris]

Another one taken from the Undead Thread.

Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Not helping. We know that false positives exist and that any system will be abused. However, there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around.

When you say there is a large number of unreported cases, are you referring to female victims of rape?

If so, where is your evidence for that?

There is already a reply and a reply to that, linking to the dedicated thread. Go there and present your case, if you have one. Regarding statistics, here you go.

that's your answer? Google "rape statistics".

You stated there were a large number of unreported cases, and far fewer false accusations. I asked you if you were referring to female victims, and asked you to provide evidence for that assertion. If this has "already been discussed" and has it's "own thread" then I would think you could provide me with a link to your evidence. should be quite easy for you.

every single non-specific-incident discussion here has already been discussed, and was most likely covered two years ago and nearly identical discussions and arguments posted numerous times since then. I've been following the drama since 2009.

When you have been part of the anti-Baboon brigade as long as I have, you may also find dismissive hand waving from someone who joined 26 days ago splendidly amusing.

There you go.

http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4594
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/st ... ting-rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accu ... .281994.29

The range of false reports is considered in the 5—8%, the larger sample sizes go as high as ~20%, but see Rumney's comment below. The ten year study puts it near 6%. Unreported is 50% (conservative est.) and above! You have a hard time to close that gap.

Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies

According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.

Your reply can go here — viewtopic.php?f=29&t=273&p=80611#p80611

[Steersman]

Another one taken from the Undead Thread.

<snip>
that's your answer? Google "rape statistics".

You stated there were a large number of unreported cases, and far fewer false accusations. I asked you if you were referring to female victims, and asked you to provide evidence for that assertion. If this has "already been discussed" and has it's "own thread" then I would think you could provide me with a link to your evidence. should be quite easy for you.

every single non-specific-incident discussion here has already been discussed, and was most likely covered two years ago and nearly identical discussions and arguments posted numerous times since then. I've been following the drama since 2009.

When you have been part of the anti-Baboon brigade as long as I have, you may also find dismissive hand waving from someone who joined 26 days ago splendidly amusing.

"When you have been part of the anti-Baboon brigade as long as I have, you may also find dismissive hand waving from someone who joined 26 days ago splendidly amusing."

Ad hominem? ;-)

[Submariner]

Op-ed video I made. Transcript on my blog (see sig)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXOLbh3soIg

[Skep tickle]

Watch this space? http://www.skepticink.com/humesapprenti ... interview/

"Richard Carrier Interview" at Hume's Apprentice (at SIN) - dated March 30 - maybe just about to be posted? I see the title, and comments are open, but I'm not seeing the interview.

(Course the topic could be anything, but might include A+)

[Michael K Gray]

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/st ... ting-rates

This amateur site wrongly conflates assaults with rape only, and makes bogus conclusions based on that fundamental error.
It is worth less than a sheet of used dunny paper.
It cites this report as "evidence" http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf
Which not once cites a rape-only figure, but combines rape and "sexual assault".
Which as the survey was self-reported renders the data utterly meaningless when determining unreported rape rates.
(The rest of the cites are egregiously worse as "evidence". I ceased analysis at this point, given the irrelavence of the supplied references versus the clear claims. This is wholly bollox "evidence", yet likely the best that you have, as you presented it on request. If it not the best, then why, pray tell, did you not present the cryptic evidence with a flourish? Or have you not yet finished desperately Googling "stuff" that appears to support your sweeping absolute claim?)

[Steersman]

In response to Sacha's question about evidence for the levels of false claims compared to unreported rapes, I think it is reasonable to use anonymous surveys and police data to try to get a handle on this. It is a difficult question and probably impossible to answer completely correctly but it should be possible to get some kind of generalized figure for the prevalence of each type of incident.

I agree that may be the only way to even begin to have any idea of unreported cases, although I find it significantly flawed, and certainly not evidence

my questions were in regard to the declaration that "there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around." stated as fact.

Anything I state as fact can easily be backed up with evidence, and if it turns out my evidence is flawed, I will be more than happy to withdraw my statement and give reasons for the withdrawal.

This is a sceptic/skeptic website and thread, after all.

I agree.
If anyone has a good data source, paper, survey result etc, that answers this question, could you link it here please.

Not quite sure what explicit evidence there can be for the precise number of “unreported cases” – by definition they are unknown. Seems the only thing that is going to be available are the results of a survey asking some sample how many have been raped and have not reported it. Which seems to be what Aneris has provided.

[Michael K Gray]

Ad hominem? ;-)

No.
Now kindly fuck off.

[Aneris]

Ad hominem? ;-)

No.
Now kindly fuck off.

Technically an Argument from authority. But it's okay. :D

[Steersman]

incisive things

Excellent post - you'll be needed at the Great Debate.

I'll chime in with my thoughts in the discussions, but I notice that my posts on feminism, language and rifts tend to operate on a sort of meta level, where I tend to want to discuss the root ideas behind something while most others tend to want to talk about specific and minute instances and events.

The preferable approach I think: trying to treat the symptoms of a disease tends to be less effective than addressing its causes.

Really sort of consistent with the demagoguery that Watson, in particular, exhibits quite frequently, the wrapping of oneself in the flag of feminism, the projection of her persona and identity onto the entire class of women, as if she, and many others, had said, in response to a personal criticism: “They can’t talk to us like that, Sisters! Onward! To the Bastille!”

In my opinion, the alleged support for women that I see from certain bloggers is akin to the support for "family values" that we see from religious right institutions that put the word family in their name to try and claim their detrimental activism is for the greater good of children and securing America's future and all the other shit they spew.

Indeed. “Politics is the last refuge of a scoundrel” covers a large part of that, I think.

I think if there's one criticism of certain people that I want to get out there today it's that if you are using the idea of defending or supporting women's equality to be your internet human shield to deflect attacks and statements aimed at yourself, then you are objectifying women or the idea of women just as much as any sexist or real misogynist does.

Don’t know if you saw this before, but it was, apparently, something that Paula Kirby did last August. It is a photoshop of an apparently well-known painting of the Crucifixion with the “usual suspects” – various FfTB / Skepchick / AtheismPlus bloggers and luminaries – surrounding some transmogrification of Christ. I had been wondering who or what might be the analogous theme or principle to Jesus there, but it seems that one might reasonably argue that it is the reification of “woman” – the ultimate in “objectification”, with the implication being that that abstraction has, in effect, thrown the baby out with the bath water, that it has elided some important aspects of women and, by extension, men as well.

And it seems to me that a significant feature or principle of the more dogmatic, and problematic, if not virulent, forms of feminism is the belief that “gender is entirely a social construct”, and that those “important aspects” are our genetic inheritances, our natures. Steven Pinker in his The Blank Slate – highly recommended – develops that theme in some detail – there’s an on-line version here of Chapter 18 on Gender which is particularly apropos. But I think the book’s subtitle – The Modern Denial of Human Nature – is rather suggestive of the implications and consequences of that highly problematic elision.