Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Metalogic42]

The moniker "setard" has never been more apt:

Also, this from yesterday: I was biking in Langley without helmet (as I tend to do, cause, it's fun)

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 561#p79865

[AbsurdWalls]

I ride sans helmet all the time and have not once been hassled by a cop.

Well, I guess one of the main motivations for the law stating that cyclists need to wear a helmet is because of concern about brain damage...

[Dick Strawkins]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

[Eskarina]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

Errrr, I'm a wimp, so, NO!

I'm so wishy-washy I don't even have "enemies".

Sorry.

[Gefan]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

This seems like something a fourteen year old would write.
I don't know much about Taslima but her emotional maturity seems to be about SJW standard.

[Pitchguest]

...while I thought the pronoun "female" was out of order for transforming women into mere animals or pieces of meat, it appears it's, how should I put it? "Back on the menu." If, according to your own rules, you don't want to be seen as a hypocrite (heaven forbid!), you might want to change that to something a bit less dehumanizing. It's not wrong per se, and technically it's not incorrect in its use, but in true SJW standard ... "female" is considered faux pas. ...

Two things about "female":

"...the pronoun 'female'..."? Check your part of speech privilege, dude; maybe that's true in Swedish but here in good ol' English it's a noun or adjective.

Does "Intent is not Magic (except when it is)" translate to etymology? This may be a horrible character flaw, but I do like to find out where a word came from & what it used to mean. The main objection to "female" seems to be that it's considered to be an adjective that could modify any type of animal, and even the word "animal", whereas it appears to have started off as a noun referring to humans:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=female

female (n.)
early 14c., from Old French femelle (12c.) "woman, female," from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman" (see feminine).

Sense extended in Vulgar Latin from humans to female of other animals. Spelling altered late 14c. on mistaken parallel of male. As an adjective, from early 14c. Reference to sockets, etc., is from 1660s.

No, you're right. Damn! "Female" isn't a pronoun, not even in my own Swedish tongue; what the hell was I thinking? [no sarcasm intended]

Anyway, the "female" thing has to do with a thread on Blag Hag's old blog, where a woman objected to being called a "female" during an American Atheists meeting.

http://johannthecabbie.blogspot.se/2011 ... egate.html

[AbsurdWalls]

Interesting opportunity for a before/after case study the next time she undertakes any international air travel though.

[BarnOwl]

Ophie again. *sigh*

This time, she's attempting to draw parallels between the dimwit kid who threatened to kill 200 people at a US school, and the kind of 'trolling' she and her coven gets.

Maureen mentioned that England actually prosecutes internet harassment, and linked to a current example.

A self-confessed British internet “troll” has admitted threatening to kill 200 people at a US school by posting menacing comments on a memorial Facebook page.

Thousands of pupils stayed away from the school in Warren county, Tennessee, after Reece Elliott, 24, of Fossway, South Shields, South Tyneside, left terrifying messages under an assumed name.

Oh yes? Whiners. Divas*. Professional Victims. Sisterhood of the Oppressed. Don’t they know trolling is just trolling and all you have to do about trolling is Not Feed It?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7838

I can't even express surprise at this kind of lunacy anymore. All I can really do is say...well, that's Ophelia for ya.

She might be the most self-involved and paranoid of the remaining FtB bunch. Yesterday she was being harassed by a helicopter flying over her house:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 4909b0.png

"Stop it! Go away! I have important tweets to tweet and articles to quote and blags to blog! I can't concentrate on my important wooorrrrkkkk!"

She'd hate having to live in my city: some neighborhoods surround the airport, other neighborhoods are near the medical center (i.e. lots of helicopters), and most of the rest are under flight paths for Air Force bases. Mine is under an AFB flight path. Beats the heck outta living next to a fertilizer plant though. :-(

[Dick Strawkins]

Well Taslima's latest tweets seem almost exactly the sort of thing that Ophelia has been warning us about.
She'll be right onto these any second now to denounce clear online threats of violence and death.
...any second now...

[BarnOwl]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

No, Taslima. Stop projecting your personality disorder traits onto everyone else. Nutjob.

Isn't she the "face" of the Empowering Women through Secularism" conference? Yeah, I want to attend. Not.

[Tigzy]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

[BarnOwl]

I keep waiting for Greta to write a fashion and clothing post about abuse of workers and unsafe workplace environments in the garment industry.

It would be a timely social justice issue to address, in the wake of the tragic factory building collapse in Bangladesh.

::cue noises from insects of family Gryllidae::

[bhoytony]

wanna be terrorists

[Dick Strawkins]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

All her posts that mention aspects of biology show her to be either uneducated in the subject, or holding very strange woo-like beliefs about lots of subjects.
What have tails got to do with raping?
There's plenty of tailed animals that have been shown to engage in rape - mallard ducks are a famous example.

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

Of course the most famous example of a rapey non-human animal is, of course, the hentai tentacle raper.
Perhaps Taslima should ask her local expert on that subject?

[Pitchguest]

Always wonder why they willfully ignore the fact that the Slymepit was created by a woman, and is filled with people who supported that woman. And they supported her because THAT woman stood up for ANOTHER, younger woman, who had no agency to defend herself in a public situation.

The Slymepit is a fucking cunt fest.

Ah, BUT... you see, you don't support Abbie BECAUSE she's a woman - and that's the problem. I think. All that other stuff she did and does is irrelevant, the part that's important is where she happens to be a wom- female. Obviously.

I also suspect Taslima's latest lunacy will be given a miss, as always. But what's *really* confusing is how Simon Davis keeps insisting that Melody didn't tell Sharon Hill she has/runs a hate site, because apparently "you have" meant *about* her, not hers. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Doubtful blog and Doubtful News run and owned by Sharon Hill? So isn't that just a semantic dodge? Not to mention Simon saying it's *absurd* that we would interpret Melody's words that way, when if I'm not mistaken various FtB commenters (and bloggers) have said the same thing about ERV?

"You have a hate site" regarding Doubtful News would mean that Sharon Hill runs a site filled with hate. Wouldn't it?

[Pitchguest]

And on the bigger question, wouldn't that definition hold for FtB as well? If "other people" on a site you run happens to be engaged in hateful behaviour and that, according to SJWs, turns your site into a hate site, wouldn't that mean that FtB is also a hate site?

[Pitchguest]

The thing that's funny about Ophelia's banter about Internet threats is that, despite this guy threatening to kill 200 people, nothing happened. It wasn't substantiated in any way. In fact, when he turned himself in, he admitted he was a troll and said he was merely interested in how the people might react. Which is exactly what a troll is.

He didn't arrive on the scene with guns with the intention to murder innocent children. He didn't make good on his "threat", and neither have millions of other trolls with similar (but less severe sounding) "threats." He's a dumb fuck starved for attention, with a sick sense of humour. That is all.

[BarnOwl]

Greta is clearly too busy flying around the country giving talks and promoting her latest book, to be bothered with writing about garment workers in Bangladesh:

Here’s a collection of some nice things people said this week about my erotic fiction collection, Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More. Now for sale on Kindle, Nook, and Smashwords!

On Amazon:
Paul Z. Myers, Literate erotica for the discerningly horny reader:

Bending is excellently written — and it’s not the usual one-dimensional porn I’ve encountered on the internet (you know what I mean: the “Tab A goes into Slot B” kind of porn that reads like an Ikea manual, with lube). It’s the kind of porn that explores what people are actually thinking and feeling, and it’s stronger for it.
My only reservation, and it’s not a criticism, is that it’s got a focused theme. This is a book of stories about dom/sub relations and spanking, and it doesn’t match up well with my personal kinks (which I will not discuss, except to note that the word “tentacle” only appears ONCE in the entire book, and then as a metaphor). But if it does align with your interests, expect quality arousal.

[Submariner]

Just dropping this off:

[youtube]50m0JtQJ42M[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

All her posts that mention aspects of biology show her to be either uneducated in the subject, or holding very strange woo-like beliefs about lots of subjects.
What have tails got to do with raping?
There's plenty of tailed animals that have been shown to engage in rape - mallard ducks are a famous example.

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

Of course the most famous example of a rapey non-human animal is, of course, the hentai tentacle raper.
Perhaps Taslima should ask her local expert on that subject?

[youtube]EmyZoFChDOQ[/youtube]
40 seconds in.

[Tony Parsehole]

Can I just take this opportunity to say that Stewart Lee is "TEH FUUNEISTEST BLOKE EVAH!"

[Skep tickle]

Great catch there Skep tickle – the post by Ariel on Zvan’s blog. Some interesting reading, along with all sorts of amusing contradictions, and evidence of highly questionable arguments. But, in passing and relative to the question of “female”, y’all might be interested in this statement by LeftSidePositive herself:

LeftSidePositive said (#188)
September 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Patrick, I appreciate your overall sentiments, but

I’m a bit startled by your response to his post.

WHAT?!?!?!? I think you mean HER post! I think I’m generally fairly open about being female? And if you don’t know someone’s gender, the polite thing to do is use a gender-neutral term like “zir” (or if you’re really down on new words, I suppose you could go with the gramatically-atrocious “their,” which I must confess I do in real life sometimes). But either way, the assumption that the default is male is a harmful one, and it can be very insidious.

Just a friendly heads-up.

Perhaps I should clarify, for those who haven't read through that thread or aren't otherwise acquainted with the set of rules that LSP seems to feel determine which words are appropriate & which aren't: LSP is not one of those who find "female" to be derogatory, even though others among her brethren and sistern do.

(As an aside, I advise medical students I work with not to use "female" to refer to a woman while in her presence, for example while "presenting" a patient's "case" at the bedside, simply because a fair # of women do find "female" off-putting, whether because it sounds clinical/scientific or because it is also used to refer to other animals. If the student feels the need to refer to gender, I advise them to use "woman" - but, on the other hand, there's usually no reason to mention gender while we're face-to-face with the patient, unless there is something the patient would like us to know about his/her/otherpronoun gender identity. I have no idea whether some men are, in a similar manner, bothered by the use of "male" to refer to themselves.)

However, while I don’t think she is a stupid woman by any manner of means, although I think she has a great many highly questionable premises running around in her cranium, ...

FWIW, it sets my teeth on edge to see "woman" used in this context - modified by an adjective that presumably has nothing to do with the noun it modifes - instead of a noun or noun phrase that's either broader (like "person") or more specific in a relevant area (like "FTB commenter" of "SJW"). Obviously, YMMV.

(Another aside, I did a search of YMMV at Atheism+; it's been used relatively little there, with one non-mod tending to use it more than other members there. I muse; is it assumed that YM probably does V thus this qualifier is not needed, or could it be assumed that YM may not V - or at least you shouldn't talk about it in a "safe space" if it does?)

...I also think that she’s in danger if not the process of losing it. Ran across an interesting quote by Queen Elizabeth I:

Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor.

Attributed to Queen Elizabeth I: from Wikiquote, "Francis Bacon, Apophthegms (1679); first published in the Remains, No, IV (stated to have been made by Queen Elizabeth to a Sir Edward, last name not reported)." [/pedant mode] ;) :D

And I'm missing the wit in her comments, or it's been awfully diluted by her wall-o'-text and YELLING VIA CAPITAL LETTERS and fuck fuck fucks. But YMMV.

And while I tend to agree with both her and MKG that there have been some cheap shots here – some gratuitous insults (I tend to not make them myself unless they’ve been paid for first … ;-) ), I think she tends to categorical statements – a common failing – notably in refusing to concede the many cases where the satire from this quarter tends to be quite telling and quite incisive.

Yes, I quite agree.

Also, while I try not to engage in the stuff that seems gratuitous (biting my tongue, or my fingers as it were, a few times to avoid posting it), and tend to wince when I see it posted by others, it seems to me that the targets of the gratuitous insults are too readily distracted by it, if they really want to accomplish what they say they do. And also that there are, IMO, much bigger problems in the world - suffering far worse, in quantity and quality - than whether or not "the A/S community" reflects some demographic ideals that don't match those of people who identify in surveys as atheists and/or skeptics. Dear Muslima indeed.

And it seems to me that much of the gratuitous insult stuff occurs because they will not participate in reasonable discussion with those they have identified, for paltry reasons, as being enemies. It's one way

I don't know who they consider to be their role models, but history is full of people who saw and/or experienced an injustice, stood up & spoke up about it, were ridiculed (or worse), and persisted as long as they could, until eventually through their efforts (and those of other people) the sociopolitical change they'd sought came to pass. And those who tried to tell other people what to think, say, and do, until eventually through the efforts of other people (including satire and, yes, ridicule and violence, not that I'm suggesting that) the sociopolitical measures they'd imposed on others were lifted. And then of course there are people who never made it into the history books who stood up & made fools of themselves and were ridiculed for it.

Which side of history will they fall on - the woefully misunderstood saviors whose righteousness is finally recognized, the word-policing control freaks who are eventually overthrown or ignored, or simply speedbumps along the path most people take? :popcorn:

There are currently 713 upvotes and 5503 downvotes for one particular video from American Atheists...

[Skep tickle]

(Meh, ignore the sentence fragment "It's one way" - who knows what I meant to say there.)

[Bourne Skeptic]

So, for fun I sometimes troll the comments on MRA videos, making fun of people who have apparently never thought before writing and say some laughable bullshit. Anyway, while I was there, one of my brilliant deconstructions of a comment that went something like this "patriarchy doesn't exist because hearing the word gives me a headache" (evidence!! ) met with a reply that I was falling for the Apex Fallacy.

Apparently, the Apex Fallacy goes like this: it's fallacious to think that because some group (in this case, men, or more specifically white men) are over-represented in positions of power that this indicates that that group holds any advantages over others. Don't worry, I had to check it out. Utter bullshit, made up apparently by some right wing blogger trying to invent reality by naming it. It had a Wikipedia page that got deleted for lack of credible sources.

Anyway, I thought, why not make up our own fallacies? They can be anything you want.

I'll start. The Lonely Fisherman Fallacy. You're sitting on a boat by yourself long enough that you start to think that your flights of fancy and meandering whimsies about life and physical reality are reality itself. I think most of the internet falls for this fallacy.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 550#p79585

They already have fallacies, "the patriarchy" and "rape culture"

[Nim_Chimpsky]

So, for fun I sometimes troll the comments on MRA videos, making fun of people who have apparently never thought before writing and say some laughable bullshit. Anyway, while I was there, one of my brilliant deconstructions of a comment that went something like this "patriarchy doesn't exist because hearing the word gives me a headache" (evidence!! ) met with a reply that I was falling for the Apex Fallacy.

Apparently, the Apex Fallacy goes like this: it's fallacious to think that because some group (in this case, men, or more specifically white men) are over-represented in positions of power that this indicates that that group holds any advantages over others. Don't worry, I had to check it out. Utter bullshit, made up apparently by some right wing blogger trying to invent reality by naming it. It had a Wikipedia page that got deleted for lack of credible sources.

Anyway, I thought, why not make up our own fallacies? They can be anything you want.

I'll start. The Lonely Fisherman Fallacy. You're sitting on a boat by yourself long enough that you start to think that your flights of fancy and meandering whimsies about life and physical reality are reality itself. I think most of the internet falls for this fallacy.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 550#p79585

They already have fallacies, "the patriarchy" and "rape culture"

They have misrepresented the Apex Fallacy from what I can tell. According to the site:
'Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group. This fallacy has a particularly damning effect on the feminist construct of patriarchy.'

Essentially the idea seems to be that feminists look at the privileges held by certain white men in society and extrapolate that all men are in a similar position of advantage. Ignoring the fact that this simply not the case. For instance there are clearly women who come from social backgrounds and families that give them significant advantages over many men.

Anyway to show that a certain group being in powerful positions was evidence of this group having advantages over the general population, one would have to show they didn't have the ability or skill set to merit holding such positions. Some groups of people are over represented but this doesn't mean the over representation is illegitimate.

[John Greg]

I feel I should make a comment on the issue of satirizing unchangeable physical elements.

I think we need to allow some soft leeway here. For example, one of the most common (and effective) elements of skilled political cartoonists is to satirize such physical elements as noses, and general body shape, size, and other characteristics. Should they stop doing that? Absolutely not! It is funny, effective, and quite often quite relevant.

Perhaps the issue should be more tightly focused on how the satirization is carried out? Is it intentionally hurtful? Well, who's to judge that thorny wicket? Like any humour anywhere, any time, someone is going to be offended and/or hurt. So, how can we, or anyone, make any sort of hard and fast rules about what is/is not allowable when it comes to satire?

While I have gone on record as supporting Phil and MKG on their stance regarding not making fun of unchangeable physical elements, I have recently decided to recant a bit, as in support of my argument above.

Phil and MKG, I would be most interested to hear/read your arguments in more detail, especially with a focus on the phenomona of political cartoonists and that form of satirizing unchanegeable physical elements.

[John Greg]

So, has the BIG DIALOGUE simply shut down now? The last comment was entered on April 17. That's ten days ago. Ten days! Even Stefunny is no longer blathering about it on her blog.

And I really think Nugent is, I don't know, lost at sea, or something? He says:

We have got off to a good start, with people discussing important issues, including areas of agreement and disagreement, in a reasonable way that can gradually build trust.

And:

The moderating team has been working effectively, and with a good working relationship, in ensuring that the process operates according to the agreed principles published on the website.

Eh? That's certainly not my opinion at all. Nugent and I must be living in different realities.

And spell binding it ain't.

[Bourne Skeptic]

I feel I should make a comment on the issue of satirizing unchangeable physical elements.

I think we need to allow some soft leeway here. For example, one of the most common (and effective) elements of skilled political cartoonists is to satirize such physical elements as noses, and general body shape, size, and other characteristics. Should they stop doing that? Absolutely not! It is funny, effective, and quite often quite relevant.

Perhaps the issue should be more tightly focused on how the satirization is carried out? Is it intentionally hurtful? Well, who's to judge that thorny wicket? Like any humour anywhere, any time, someone is going to be offended and/or hurt. So, how can we, or anyone, make any sort of hard and fast rules about what is/is not allowable when it comes to satire?

While I have gone on record as supporting Phil and MKG on their stance regarding not making fun of unchangeable physical elements, I have recently decided to recant a bit, as in support of my argument above.

Phil and MKG, I would be most interested to hear/read your arguments in more detail, especially with a focus on the phenomona of political cartoonists and that form of satirizing unchanegeable physical elements.

An interesting analysis of political cartoons.
http://www.lincolnlogcabin.org/educatio ... sson-5.pdf

[John Greg]

Um, not to quibble, particularily, but that's not an analysis, as such, it's a test, or more accurately, an essay assignment to create an analysis of political cartoons.

[windy]

I also suspect Taslima's latest lunacy will be given a miss, as always. But what's *really* confusing is how Simon Davis keeps insisting that Melody didn't tell Sharon Hill she has/runs a hate site, because apparently "you have" meant *about* her, not hers. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Doubtful blog and Doubtful News run and owned by Sharon Hill? So isn't that just a semantic dodge? Not to mention Simon saying it's *absurd* that we would interpret Melody's words that way, when if I'm not mistaken various FtB commenters (and bloggers) have said the same thing about ERV?

"You have a hate site" regarding Doubtful News would mean that Sharon Hill runs a site filled with hate. Wouldn't it?

Unless she meant that some other "hate site" is saying that about Sharon? Her tweet is so vague, though, it's hard to say (/gregladen)

And Nim Chimpsky is here! That chimp had such a sad fate. :cry:

[Bourne Skeptic]

Um, not to quibble, particularily, but that's not an analysis, as such, it's a test, or more accurately, an essay assignment to create an analysis of political cartoons.

Um? Is that you Setar?

I was just going by the title. Describe it however you wish.

[John Greg]

No, it is not Setar here. Just someone clarifying for accuracy.

And no, it is not an analysis, regardless of the title. Although, the introductory paragraph does touch, lightly, on describing, but not analysing, political cartoons.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

To be frank, I don't care much about political cartoons. I never found them funny, even in Mad Magazine. I don't like caricatures either. I do, however, like the moking of stupid ideas and deeds.

Someone having a big nose, or big ears, or being overweight is of no concern to me. Someone acting like an arse, on the other hand...

[Percentage]

I mean, I'll give Taslima a break on the atrocious sentence structure because I know English isn't her first language. But the elementary-grade namecalling? How old is she, 12?

[Steersman]

<snip>

However, while I don’t think she is a stupid woman by any manner of means, although I think she has a great many highly questionable premises running around in her cranium, ...

FWIW, it sets my teeth on edge to see "woman" used in this context - modified by an adjective that presumably has nothing to do with the noun it modifes - instead of a noun or noun phrase that's either broader (like "person") or more specific in a relevant area (like "FTB commenter" of "SJW"). Obviously, YMMV.

Yea, I was mulling that over later myself and wondering about the connotations and echoes of that phrase, although I did use it after giving some thought to those aspects. However, not to defend it overmuch, I might point to the following definition of the word which includes meanings other than “congenital” with its supposed implication of “characteristic of the class”:

stu•pid (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu•pid•er, stu•pid•est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.

Further, the context – at least as suggested by my later references to Zvan, Jadehawk, and Sally Strange and “others in that rather benighted neck of the woods” – was that there are some rather problematic aspects to several schools of sociological thought, and which seem to undergird much of radfem “theology”, that might reasonably be construed to cause its devotees to become rather “dazed, stunned, or stupified”. And as a case in point, I might direct your attention to a comment and discussion on one Nugent’s threads that sort of attempts to defend Zvan’s “Dear Dick” letter. This subsequent comment in response provides a rather succinct summary:

When you use gendered insults its harassment and threats. When I use gendered insults it’s perfectly justified, because reasons.

Now I don’t know whether Zvan herself tried to defend the use of that phrase, but I would have say that she would have to have been rather stupid – “obtuse; tending to make poor decisions” – to not realize the implications of her phrasing. And for her and/or others to continue to defend that use implies, to my way of thinking, that they are doubly stupid to think that everyone else is so stupid as to not “get” that it was a pointed gendered insult. People in glass houses and all that.

As for the others, I might also point you to Jadehawk’s blog discussion of Michael’s dialog – which features a highly questionable comment by Sally Strange as a bonus – where she also attempts to defend several of those same rather problematic sociological concepts I referred to above. And while I agreed with her broaching the subject of emergence and its application to the discussion, I also argued that her understanding of the concept and use of related phrases was highly questionable. Her response? More or less along the lines of the creationist’s “Nyah! Nyah! Can’t hear you!” Stupid is as stupid does.

And I'm missing the wit in her comments, or it's been awfully diluted by her wall-o'-text and YELLING VIA CAPITAL LETTERS and fuck fuck fucks. But YMMV.

I was sort of thinking along the line of a broader definition to the word, rather than just the humourous one you apparently had in mind, to wit, wit:

wit 1 (wt)
n.
1. The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.
2.
a. Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
b. wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.
3.
a. The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.

As mentioned, I think she makes some quite reasonable arguments that at least seem to hang together except that many of them seem to be predicated on some highly questionable premises – which Zvan is apparently too “obtuse” to recognize. Or the consequences of allowing them to stand. Although I note with some amusement that she did a little bit of “tone policing” relative to LSP’s comments. [/pedant/Steersman-mode ;-) :-) ]

… it seems to me that the targets of the gratuitous insults are too readily distracted by it, if they really want to accomplish what they say they do.

Indeed. That whole scenario reminds me of having watched some women’s roller-blading contests – many moons ago – in which one contestant had just finished putting an opponent into the upper bleachers with a well-timed, but highly illegal, hip-check for which she was duly penalized. And her response was simply classic, in effect: “Who, me? Surely, you jest! Moi?” Maybe charming in six-year olds, but in adults it is highly questionable – if not actually stupid. And while I generally don’t give a rat’s ass about insults, I get quite peeved at the hypocrisy of allowing some but anathematizing others as it is, I think, self-serving in the extreme. Not to mention seriously constraining and limiting the scope of public discussions on important issues.

[Jan Steen]

…I enjoy Jan Steen's photoshops because they are smart, to the point, and usually don't make use of one's physical characteristic. Maybe some of his works did and I missed it, but overall it's good humour. Like Peezus and O.

Likewise.
Mr Steen is a shining example of "how to do satire maturely, and in a targeted fashion that might make William Tell envious."
Accurate. Adult. Admirable. … Splendid. … Wicked.

Gratifying to hear this, much obliged, etc., but I have to note that as far as I can tell my work has never been mentioned at the FTBorg. I do try to avoid using involuntary characteristics of my ‘targets’ (and sometimes I just target generic crypto-marxist-post-modern-radfem ideologues and hypocrites anyway), but the downside of this seems to be that the optimal strategy to deal with my ‘shops is simply to ignore them. They don’t fit in the narrative that the Slymepit routinely produces photoshops of famous SJ warriors in pornographic poses. I would say that some of the more tasteless ‘shops produced by some of the pitters, while being tasteless (but hardly pornographic), are more effective than mine in that they draw a response. Sometimes bad publicity is better than no publicity. It may cause at least a few people who are capable of independent thought to take a look at the Pit. Some of those may then discover for themselves that the common lies about the Pit (that it is a den of misogynist or racist MRAs who issue rape threats when they are not photoshopping bestiality) are just that -- lies. It worked like that in my case.

By the way, I have tried to make some satire out of PZ Myer’s admiration for radfem Twisty Faster, but so far I have to report utter failure. Satire is ineffective when the crackpottery on display is simply too outlandish. Twisty is beyond parody. If you don’t see that she lives in a crazy parallel universe inhabited by ‘dudes’ (she calls all men ‘dudes’) who use their wives as a toilet (meaning they have sex without a condom), and where the Patriarchy is at least as important and pervasive as gravity, then I don’t know what kind of satire can open your eyes. I really don’t.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

[Lsuoma]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

I just had a MASSIVE dump. Didn't get any pics, though...

[Michael K Gray]

1) What is your working definition of Christianity? If it was when disciples were palling around with Jesus, then it was definitely first century, unless you ascribe to Mythical Jesus Theory. Or do you consider the origin with the Gospels, in which case, Mark was probably written around 70 AD. Or what?

There is precisely zero extant contemporary evidence for Christianity in the first century, and a single literal scrap of 'evidence' that has been attributed to the second century. "Dated" by means of wishful thinking alone.
(The regularly touted "Josephus" is a clear fraudulent addition by later Christians, and Mara bar Serapion when touted as "evidence" is a newbies mistranslation of "slave".)
I subscribe to the notion that Jesus most likely is a fiction.
The Jesus of the bible is an impossibility, but Yeshua that some claim the super-hero is based on, also likely did not exist.
Richard Carrier actually gets this pretty much correct, as it happens.

As it happens, I do not have a single "working definition of Christianity". Reduction of a worldwide 1600+ year phenomenon to a simplistic definition would not do it justice.

Mark was probably written around 70 AD

On what evidential basis do you make that claim?

[rayshul]

So, has the BIG DIALOGUE simply shut down now? The last comment was entered on April 17. That's ten days ago. Ten days! Even Stefunny is no longer blathering about it on her blog.

I'ma be honest here, I don't think this the "debate" part is going to work because there is no common ground on this issue. Sides on the issue have already been sorted. The rest is just personality shit.

I wouldn't accept the way they treat women or anyone else and their ideologies - and I don't think I'm the most hardline of the 'pitters, I just think it's fucking embarrassing and unacceptable. There's nothing anyone is going to say that will make me agree with their views.

But the point of it is I think for people to talk civilly. At least in that it succeeded.

[rayshul]

I don't know how much I contribute every time I bring this up, but I'm certainly okay with all the 'shops, and I've yet to see one I found "questionable". Of course, that comes with bias. The harshest of them have always been directed at PZ - as well as the harshest comments on his looks and personality - and given the dumb cunt started all this in the first place I've got zero sympathy.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

I just had a MASSIVE dump. Didn't get any pics, though...

Kinda glad you didn't :D

[rayshul]

Al had a chat to Taslima before about the fact she was steering into motherfucking nutfuck territory. I wonder if there's anyone else out there (while Al is on hiatus) who may want to have "that talk" with her. Because woah, I don't think she's doing anyone any favours by spouting shit on twitter.

[Jan Steen]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

Richard Carrier making a hilarious propaganda speech about Atheism Plus, posting it on Youtube and almost begging for upvotes, with the result that it got more than 5000 downvotes and less then 800 upvotes. PZ going further down the rabbit hole by commending wackaloon radfem Twisty Faster for being a "ferociously passionate writer, and simply brilliant in her insights." For the rest, the Pit seems to have slowed down a bit.

Nothing more important than focussing on your guy. All the best to you two.

[Turglemeister]

Carrier gives the three basic moral values of Atheism+

"Compassion, Integrity and reasonableness"

With FtB in mind I still haven't stopped laughing at that one.

I don't post that often , but I very much enjoy the playful banter here.Thanks and keep it coming.

[Michael K Gray]

For example, one of the most common (and effective) elements of skilled political cartoonists is to satirize such physical elements as noses, and general body shape, size, and other characteristics.

...Phil and MKG, I would be most interested to hear/read your arguments in more detail, especially with a focus on the phenomona of political cartoonists and that form of satirizing unchanegeable physical elements.

You refer to caricature, not satire.
Caricature is, in my opinion, intended to immediately & viscerally identify the target of related satire, and when done properly is a powerful emotional amplifier to the satire, (but not a substitute).
If a caricature appears without good satire, it is just dumb mockery designed to give offense alone, and I find this kind of 4th grade political cartoon groaningly unfunny.
Our local rag (The Advertiser) has an example of this pointless puerile jeering masquerading as a humorous cartoon on a daily basis.
The 'artist' thinks that if he draws our PM with a big nose and steatopygous arse, and no dialogue, then his work is done.

Repellent.

[Jan Steen]

Carrier gives the three basic moral values of Atheism+

"Compassion, Integrity and reasonableness"

And Carrier can't even remember his own stupid slogan, because he also gives it as "Compassion, honesty and reasonableness."

Kind of reminds me of the three chief weapons of the Spanish Inquisition: "Compassion, integrity and reasonableness. And honesty. No, make that four weapons: Compassion, integrity, honesty and reasonableness." :lol:

[BarnOwl]

Carrier gives the three basic moral values of Atheism+

"Compassion, Integrity and reasonableness"

And Carrier can't even remember his own stupid slogan, because he also gives it as "Compassion, honesty and reasonableness."

Kind of reminds me of the three chief weapons of the Spanish Inquisition: "Compassion, integrity and reasonableness. And honesty. No, make that four weapons: Compassion, integrity, honesty and reasonableness." :lol:

NOBODY expects the Carrierquisition!

[John Greg]

MKG said:

You refer to caricature, not satire.

Yes, good point. Thanks for mentioning that.

[justinvacula]

Brave Hero Radio live with TheCriticalG in about 20 minutes -

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... ecriticalg

Join the chat and consider calling!

[sacha]

Always wonder why they willfully ignore the fact that the Slymepit was created by a woman, and is filled with people who supported that woman. And they supported her because THAT woman stood up for ANOTHER, younger woman, who had no agency to defend herself in a public situation.

The Slymepit is a fucking cunt fest.

hahaha!

and love your rant as well, Pitchguest

[Lsuoma]

I LOLed.

[youtube]10UTeOV6PzI[/youtube]

[Hunt]

As it happens, I do not have a single "working definition of Christianity". Reduction of a worldwide 1600+ year phenomenon to a simplistic definition would not do it justice.

What I meant was what do you mean by "Christianity did not exist." You've made it clear, but it could have meant that you don't think Christianity was a formal religion until later than the first century. What you mean is you think Jesus didn't exist.

Mark was probably written around 70 AD

On what evidential basis do you make that claim?

First of all, I'm not a historian, but getting that out of the way...the best evidence seems to be that Mark records the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (CE) but doesn't seem to have details, which indicates it might have been written early in the Roman persecution. If it was before 70, it was someone's guess about what was about to go down.

That of course doesn't exclude the possibility of Mythical Jesus Theory, even if it was as early as 65, that would have been at least three decades after the supposed death of Jesus and a lot of storytelling can happen in that time.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/uJjWYS2.jpg

[Mykeru]

Dear ZenBabe,

No need to lurk. No one here bites.

I'm sure people would give a different version of the Great Atheist and Skeptical Schism, the Clown Circus of Social Justice Warriors, why King Jong Un is probably saner and more tolerant than P.Z. Meyers, the obvious parallels between Ophelia Benson and Alyce LaViolette beside the obligatory and true references to bad clams. What a Rebecca Watson is and the link between heavy-metal arsenic laden hair dye and going Drama Queen on a whole community and why Melody Hensley of CFI decided to model herself on a Kids in the Hall character. NO, not the "I'm squeezing your head" one.

And you don't even have to register. You can post as a guest, but registration is easy and fun.

Adult themes, snark, disparaging remarks and going for The Lulz is encouraged.

And as a bonus we have only one moderator, some panty-sniffer named Lousoma, Loosummer, or some such shit.

[sacha]

My favorite 'toshop of all time was this one, By Dick Strawkins, maybe? (please correct misatributtion):

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... 29a836.png[/URL]

I'm still in stiches at that one. (yeah, re-watching The Avengers right now)

aesthetics only - RDjr is sexy as fuck. delicious. I've had fantasies, and fantastic sex dreams about him since the 1980's, and he's just getting more and more attractive. That man could make me orgasm with a look from across the room... pity he's so annoying when not in character.

robert-downey-jr-as-sherlock-holmes-in-sherlock.jpg

(17.57 KiB) Downloaded 313 times

yes, I have a type:

Billy.jpg

(17.51 KiB) Downloaded 312 times

add a few years until they are mid 50's to early 60's and that is visual perfection for sacha.

[Al Stefanelli]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

I just had a MASSIVE dump. Didn't get any pics, though...

No pics, it didn't happen...

[Mykeru]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

I just had a MASSIVE dump. Didn't get any pics, though...

Yeah, that's our one and only moderator right there.

[Mykeru]

Hey all. So, what have I missed? Been concentrating on my guy and little else lately. Miss you all!

I just had a MASSIVE dump. Didn't get any pics, though...

No pics, it didn't happen...

How long have you been channeling Kenny Rogers?

[Mykeru]

add a few years until they are mid 50's to early 60's and that is visual perfection for sacha.

You need to roll in duct tape, get off some of the pet hair and go out for a good schtupping.