Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Skep tickle]

[youtube]xClbasRu2oI[/youtube]

Weis Apple on mistaking sexuality for sexism.

[sacha]

Aneris,

I was not trying to have a go here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 125#p87128

I'm honestly interested in your perspective on this.

I'm often a cunt, but not always.

Having a go? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question on the scope and implications of “nature” versus “nurture”. And quite topical too as it seems that many “radical feminists” – including people like Zvan and LeftSidePositive – are death on any suggestion that the former has any bearing on different behavioural tendencies by sex/gender. Which seems to have any number of problematic consequences.

Let me preface that none of my views (generally) are particularly cherished. I'll defend what I consider plausible and accept what seems likely, even if I'm not fully sold into an idea. The most cherished view in this matter is the idea that the universe doesn't really feature discrete states but on quantum level (so it appears). The reality ("out there") should be thought more as a continuum that is merely cut up into discrete entities by our cognition.

Therefore, I believe nature vs. nurture is a false dichotomy. It is difficult to overcome as the nature/culture dualism is nearly omnipresent since the age of romanticism and related to the body/soul dualism. As we consider it two different things, we might place culture on one end and nature on the other end of the continuum. This is a model view and also not to be confused with actual reality. The fancy things between (where the interesting things happen) are neither one, nor the other.

To understand the further argumentation it is helpful to know some of semiotics and linguistics. The continuous reality ("out there") is cut up into discrete entities by our cognition, in a way that was useful for survival. The mental objects created that way are "suggested" by our cognition, thus are more "natural" but still some part "cultural". After all, humans have many properties that are suitable to create sets. For example, you could divide the human tribe by earlobes, free vs. attached (which is in reality also more of a continuum). Though, of course it is apparent why it was sex that created gender.

We know from other cultures and from history that what is considered masculine or feminine isn't fixed. Again, we find some elements that are "suggested" by our biology. It is accepted knowledge that hunter-gatherer societies where still rather egalitarian. Presumably when societies started to specialize, women ended up being relegated to being pregnant and raising children but men in older societies weren't exactly free to pursue any career they wanted.

There is some reason to believe that what constitute gender is created in a similar way as words get defined. The concepts get filled with ideas by people who "perform" the identities. In other words, as those who consider themselves "men" do "manly" things, the whole category begins to emerge and people who want to identify with it, try to conform to it (and thereby perpetuate it). But it is wrong to assume that there are fixed links between sex and a particular gender. It seems more the case that someone who is born with a particular sex has a (more or less strong) urge to conform to the category that is currently and most commonly associated with his sex (because sex apparently is an "obvious" way to provide identities). From there it should be clear the idea that people "are" an identity is a fiction.

What is happening to Raimer (in the link provided above), seems to me that he is surrounded by culture that takes sex as a way to constitute gender identities. He was born A, but declared B, and he grew up in a world where As conform to identity-1, and Bs are expected to conform to identity-2. This, his urge to conform will push him to identity-1. This "urge" is, I think again neither entirely biological, nor entirely cultural. Perhaps comparable to the concept of reciprocal altruism, which is the flip-side of "selfish genes" (i.e. there is some biological reason why people act socially or culturally in some way, which then gets shaped by culture. Perhaps think biology as a form, and culture as a content).

My take on it, so far.

I agree that nature vs nuture is a false dichotomy, and also that masculinity and femininity are not fixed. Nature and culture are inexorably linked. I don't think being masculine is doing "manly things", or being feminine is doing "girly things" I think it is the way one's brain operates, and there are plenty of exceptions. I have been told that I think like a man, often throughout my life, also I am not at all "girly", nor do I have the slightest interest in the superficial culture and accoutrements of being "girly", but I am very much a woman, and quite feminine.

I also was going to speak of CAH, but Dilurk has already mentioned it. This topic is far too much to address here, I just wanted you to clarify your views about gender as a social construct.

[sacha]

not only the way one's brain operates, but I do think biology has a lot to do with it. There are men who ooze masculinity, no matter what they are doing, and many women who do not lose any femininity when performing stereotypical "manly" tasks (myself included)

[d4m10n]

Do you reject the skeptical practice of dismissing out-of-hand any proposition that cannot be proved false?

Not out of hand, no. Some scientific propositions cannot be proved false merely because we haven't thought up a good test yet. As I recall, Michelson and Morley made their bones coming up with a novel test for the hypothetical luminiferous æther. Other propositions are untestable for historical reasons, for example, the claim that I've never wanked to any porn stars born in Dubuque or that a first century rabbi named Jesus never made up a parable about a rich man and Lazarus. Other apparent propositions are untestable because they aren't actually propositional at all, on account of internal incoherence, e.g. “God is love.”

Sometimes we have to analyse these sorts of claims carefully to see if they are testable or not, and if not, why not. Do we lack the necessary information because we lack the technology? Because it is lost to history? Because there is no conceivable information which would actually solve the problem?

Here's a proposition which might be particularly difficult to falsify: “One ought never believe that which cannot be falsified.”

How can we go about testing that one? Is there any state of affairs that would make it demonstrably untrue? Or it is somehow exempt from itself, sort of like God is exempt from first cause arguments?

[Metalogic42]

and many women who do not lose any femininity when performing stereotypical "manly" tasks (myself included)

Like this?

[youtube]er1GYJJLjxs[/youtube]

I <3 Lita.

[sacha]

and many women who do not lose any femininity when performing stereotypical "manly" tasks (myself included)

Like this?

[youtube]er1GYJJLjxs[/youtube]

I <3 Lita.

uh, yeah. I can see why you like her.

if you notice the way the two women move, one's movements and walk are stereotypically feminine, but the other (Lita) isn't any less feminine without the affectation of "girlyness". Even with her height and build, no one would mistake her for a man.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Sometimes we have to analyse these sorts of claims carefully to see if they are testable or not, and if not, why not....

Here's a proposition which might be particularly difficult to falsify: “One ought never believe that which cannot be falsified.”

How can we go about testing that one? Is there any state of affairs that would make it demonstrably untrue? Or it is somehow exempt from itself, sort of like God is exempt from first cause arguments?

Thanks for the detailed response. A lot to chew on here. I'm gonna give it a wild swing now, then pack it in for the night (but will continue to mull over your stimulating queries.)

1) Is cogito, ergo sum falsifiable?

2) Does the "ought" in "one ought never believe that which cannot be falsified” imply it's not a proposition, merely a practice or rule? Russell thought it correct with his teapot; Sagan with his garage dragon. I'm truly ignorant: how does one properly classify such a maxim?

3) Further, I'd refine it as "one ought by default assume as non-existent that which cannot be falsified";

4) The presence of the ether was always theoretically testable, even before a feasible experiment was possible. Not so with God;

5) "God is Love" -- LOL. Whenever anyone tells me that, I ask, 'so, is Love God?' And if in an especially capricious mood, 'are you telling me I had a threesome last night?'

Anyway, good stuff here. Looking forward to learning more.

[Steersman]

Aneris,

I was not trying to have a go here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 125#p87128

I'm honestly interested in your perspective on this.

I'm often a cunt, but not always.

Having a go? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question on the scope and implications of “nature” versus “nurture”. And quite topical too as it seems that many “radical feminists” – including people like Zvan and LeftSidePositive – are death on any suggestion that the former has any bearing on different behavioural tendencies by sex/gender. Which seems to have any number of problematic consequences.

Let me preface that none of my views (generally) are particularly cherished. I'll defend what I consider plausible and accept what seems likely, even if I'm not fully sold into an idea.

A sensible position to take, one which I tend to support or advance myself; rather bad karma, I think, to become overly identified with or invested in a particular position or philosophy as if it turns out to be untenable – as frequently happens – then one can wind up losing more than is necessary. Seems that all we’ve got are various models, something that Michael Shermer elaborated on in some detail in his The Believing Brain:

[Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow] approach the problem from what they call “model-dependent realism”, based on the assumption that our brains form models of the world from sensory input, that we use the model most successful at explaining events and assume that the models match reality (even if they do not), and that when more than one model makes accurate predictions, “we are free to use whichever model is most convenient.” Employing this method, the authors explain, “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation”. [pg 333]

Some reason for trepidation, if not “fear and trembling”, to realize that our models – on which we base our whole lives – might have only the barest correspondence to what is really “real”.

The most cherished view in this matter is the idea that the universe doesn't really feature discrete states but on quantum level (so it appears). The reality ("out there") should be thought more as a continuum that is merely cut up into discrete entities by our cognition.

The “most cherished view” of yours or of “conventional wisdom”? Interesting speculations with maybe some justifications – David Deutsch’s The Fabric of Reality maybe being a case in point – but hard evidence and proven predictions seem to be a little thin on the ground.

Therefore, I believe nature vs. nurture is a false dichotomy. It is difficult to overcome as the nature/culture dualism is nearly omnipresent since the age of romanticism and related to the body/soul dualism. As we consider it two different things, we might place culture on one end and nature on the other end of the continuum. This is a model view and also not to be confused with actual reality. The fancy things between (where the interesting things happen) are neither one, nor the other.

While I’ll agree that making nature and nurture an either-or scenario or choice is not particularly tenable, although Sally Strange has a tendency to do so – at least when she’s trying to peddle some strawman, it seems that most people are prepared to consider it a spectrum or a continuum. And while I’ll agree that it might be an imperfect conceptual model, it seems to be of some utility and value. For instance, I would hope if not expect that you would consider that biology and chemistry, with their genes and chromosomes and molecules and elements, deal with things that are substantially more tangible if not real than what most sociologists deal with.

And while computers might be, probably are, an imperfect analogy to that, it seems to me that one might argue that “nature” – the genes and chromosomes that code for the recipes to create the biological “hardware” – provides the memory, the central processor, the graphics display units, the “bootstrap” routines in ROM – whereas “nurture” provides the software, the programming that causes or allows the hardware to do useful “stuff”. But in a sense both the hardware and the software is together the whole environment which we inhabit if not have some control over – genuflecting to the “ghost in the machine”. However, each of us are, presumably or hopefully, something more than just our genetic hardware and cultural programming.

This, [Reimer’s] urge to conform will push him to identity-1. This "urge" is, I think again neither entirely biological, nor entirely cultural.

Agreed. Although if one subscribes to “physicalism” then it seems that both those have to be underwritten or undergirded by physiological processes of one sort or another. In which case the model of synchronizing metronomes may be of some applicability.

My take on it, so far.

Indeed. “Through a glass, darkly ….”

[sacha]

I'll bet Welch knows a lot of women from the derby who would fit the description.

http://img0109.popscreencdn.com/1580520 ... ng-hot.jpg

http://misslaracroftweb.weebly.com/uplo ... 7_orig.jpg

[Steersman]

Do you reject the skeptical practice of dismissing out-of-hand any proposition that cannot be proved false?

Not out of hand, no. Some scientific propositions cannot be proved false merely because we haven't thought up a good test yet. As I recall, Michelson and Morley made their bones coming up with a novel test for the hypothetical luminiferous æther. ….

I wonder what you would think of the argument that Matt’s position is unnecessarily restrictive because it discounts or rejects the idea that some position might be “probably false” or “probably true”. For instance, while it seems that the “proposition” that “there is an anthropomorphic god of the Allah or Jehovah variety” cannot at all be proven false, the evidence of literally thousands of such “gods” who have come a cropper, plus evidence about the physiology of belief, makes it seem highly probable that it is false. Although that does raise the question as to how we assess probabilities in those circumstances.

But it seems that there are a great many other similar cases which are not at all provable one way or the other yet which we accept as either true or false, largely on gut feel if not faith. Why I think there’s some degree of dogmaticism in that particular “skeptical practice” even if the alternative has some problematic dimensions to it.

[surreptitious57]

In the US atheism seems to be particularly associated with educated middle class individuals . Working class atheists seem to be a tiny fraction of the over all atheist community in the US . This results in a distinct lack of knowledge and experience of working class culture amongst the US atheist set . In the
UK and Ireland at least there is a higher use of expletives used in working class conversation compared
to middle class and I tend to see any requirement to cut out the use of expletives as simply a means (
and probably an unconscious action ) of filtering out working class people from the community . While I
do not use cunt or bitch as expletives in my conversation am very wary of calls to ban or restrict others

On the last point you are absolutely right : But what is interesting reading this is that America is supposed to be a classless society while over here it still exists though not as much as it used to though our leaders are drawn from a very narrow demographic indeed : I would suggest that the reason why most atheists in America are middle class is because it is a very Christian nation so questioning it requires some degree of intellectual capability and the lower classes are less likely to do that : Whereas over here no one cares what you believe in and besides many are atheist because their parents were : In other words they did not have to think about it : This of course is unlikely to be the position in America though it is gradually changing

[Wonky Donkey]

In the
UK and Ireland at least there is a higher use of expletives used in working class conversation compared
to middle class and I tend to see any requirement to cut out the use of expletives as simply a means (
and probably an unconscious action ) of filtering out working class people from the community .

Is that really true? It does not chime with my experiences mixing with the two classes you cite. The upwardly mobile seem even more inclined to swear, albeit in a faux plummy accent.

It would be interesting to see results from an empirical study.

[acathode]

PZ seems to be 1 of 2 confirmed "name" speakers for SkepchickCON 2013, which was planning on relying on skeptics & skepticism to fill in some of its 4 days of offerings.

From http://events.skepchick.org/event/skepchickcon-2013/ (bolding added by me, also pointing out the family-friendly drinking 'cuz it made me laugh):

So - what is PZ going to do, having officially divorced himself from the skeptics movement? Bow out of SkepchickCON, or get RW to remove mentions of skepticism (at least for any event he has any involvement with), or seek visitation rights just for the 4 days?

What would PZ do? PZ does what PZ usually do, try to create a schism by declaring that his friends are the true, grassroot skeptics and the future of the "movement" and the other bad, "bigfoot skeptics" are old (white) men that will be left behind.
http://i.imgur.com/bftduGz.png

[Wonky Donkey]

This was fun a month back:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

When I took it, we came out Established Middle Class, when my fiance took it we came out as Elite.

We aren't Elite.

In any case if you swear in a professional setting people think less of you and your argument. In other contexts with varying levels and means of intoxication your mileage will vary.

Context.

[surreptitious57]

I came out as lower class but I already knew that so no real surprise

It said we socialise with our own though I avoid ground apes of every type

Interesting though how we still cling to the notion of class in a liberal democracy

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm an emergent sevice worker.

Ah, "worker"! At least this test has a sense of humour...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

description of emergent social workers:

This class group is financially insecure, scoring low for savings and house value, but high for social and cultural factors. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:

-Are young
-Enjoy a cultured social life
-Rent their home - almost 90%

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

"service worker", not "social worker".

[Dick Strawkins]

In the
UK and Ireland at least there is a higher use of expletives used in working class conversation compared
to middle class and I tend to see any requirement to cut out the use of expletives as simply a means (
and probably an unconscious action ) of filtering out working class people from the community .

Is that really true? It does not chime with my experiences mixing with the two classes you cite. The upwardly mobile seem even more inclined to swear, albeit in a faux plummy accent.

It would be interesting to see results from an empirical study.

I've worked in both contexts, as a building laborer and factory worker, and later as an academic scientist. In my experience it is incredibly rare to hear people swear in an academic work environment - IF people do not know each other well.
In a factory/building environment there was no such restrictions.
As well as that, even amongst people who know each other well I noticed a difference in the particular swear words used. For example using a pub greeting like "what are you cunts having to drink", is noticeably more common as a working class rather than middle class way of swearing.
Yes, middle class people do swear, but, as you mentioned, the context is important and I think this is what we are seeing with the online debates.

[Dick Strawkins]

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

[AbsurdWalls]

[youtube]UOzSLJmF9FY[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

Just the complete the story of the previous image, it was a twitter conversation between two people.
The first blames 'Teh Patriarchy' for transphobia amongst a certain section of radfems - a WTF verdict if ever there was one - clearly positioning herself amongst the batshit brigade.

The second person finds her very interesting and invites her for coffee.

Cue explosion?

http://i.imgur.com/EA9KZ07.jpg

Apparently she is not THAT batshit crazy (or, more likely, dishonestly manipulative.)

[Keating]

http://3eanuts.com/post/49513993324

[DownThunder]

If feminism can be patriarchy, how do feminists know when they aren't part of "the patriarchy"?

Serious question. By what criteria are they using?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I suddenly feel compelled to point out that the slang term for the liquid that goes into e-cigarettes is "juice".

Also this: http://tasteyourjuice.com/wordpress/ - Phil, can I taste your juice? :whistle:

No you can't! and thanks for the link. I've watched the whole Vapor zeus review, and am starting to save up right now. Looks pretty smooth.

Haven't touched a cigarette since friday evening. No urge to do so either.

And the appartment doesn't smell like smoke anymore. And the bank account is feeling better already.

If feminism can be patriarchy, how do feminists know when they aren't part of "the patriarchy"?

Serious question. By what criteria are they using?

Feminism is a product of the patriarchy. If there wasn't any patriarchy, there wouldn't be any feminism. Or something...

[Dick Strawkins]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

[youtube]wbE5Kub3b5k[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

If feminism can be patriarchy, how do feminists know when they aren't part of "the patriarchy"?

Serious question. By what criteria are they using?

The simple answer is that the kind of feminism that relies on patriarchy theory is, in effect, a pseudoscientific ideology. There can be no falsification because it is instantly malleable to cover every option. And besides that, no two feminists believe in the same exact thing, and that is probably essential for its success because they can all claim to be feminists even while believing in completely different ideas.

[Hunt]

By the way, Windows 8 sucks.

[AbsurdWalls]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

[youtube]wbE5Kub3b5k[/youtube]

Most relevant part is probably from 32:10.

[Gefan]

If feminism can be patriarchy, how do feminists know when they aren't part of "the patriarchy"?

Serious question. By what criteria are they using?

The simple answer is that the kind of feminism that relies on patriarchy theory is, in effect, a pseudoscientific ideology. There can be no falsification because it is instantly malleable to cover every option. And besides that, no two feminists believe in the same exact thing, and that is probably essential for its success because they can all claim to be feminists even while believing in completely different ideas.

This is why I don't (as addicted to futility as I may seem on occasion) spend time arguing with feminists. Once you engage with an ideology that includes both Christina Hof Sommers and Twisty Faster, you're boxing fog.
This level of semantic meltdown extends in the US to conservatism. Once you've watched a primary debate where Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both drape themselves in the mantle of conservatism you know the term has lost any meaning.

[Hunt]

PZ seems to be 1 of 2 confirmed "name" speakers for SkepchickCON 2013, which was planning on relying on skeptics & skepticism to fill in some of its 4 days of offerings.

From http://events.skepchick.org/event/skepchickcon-2013/ (bolding added by me, also pointing out the family-friendly drinking 'cuz it made me laugh):

So - what is PZ going to do, having officially divorced himself from the skeptics movement? Bow out of SkepchickCON, or get RW to remove mentions of skepticism (at least for any event he has any involvement with), or seek visitation rights just for the 4 days?

What would PZ do? PZ does what PZ usually do, try to create a schism by declaring that his friends are the true, grassroot skeptics and the future of the "movement" and the other bad, "bigfoot skeptics" are old (white) men that will be left behind.
http://i.imgur.com/bftduGz.png

"Tired old guy" isn't exactly the descriptor Jamy Ian Swiss calls forth. He's more like "Has more energy than most people half his age and will blow your socks off...guy".

[Apples]

Other propositions are untestable for historical reasons, for example, the claim that I've never wanked to any porn stars born in Dubuque

Not sure whether we'd want to incorporate the Infinite Monkey Theorem or Chebyshev's inequality and the Law of Large Numbers, but I'm sure with a little statistical elbow grease we could come up with a model.

[AbsurdWalls]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

[youtube]wbE5Kub3b5k[/youtube]

Most relevant part is probably from 32:10.

Bit that pertains directly to PZ is from 40:25.

[TedDahlberg]

Oh, of course. The reason Sally Strange insists on being in an abusive relationship is because she's suffered the "gender role mind virus." Duh!

Christopher Hitchens:

Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/20 ... tchens.jpg

Hmm..?

http://www.alternatecover.com/wp-conten ... antine.jpg

[AbsurdWalls]

Oh, of course. The reason Sally Strange insists on being in an abusive relationship is because she's suffered the "gender role mind virus." Duh!

Christopher Hitchens:

Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/20 ... tchens.jpg

Hmm..?

http://www.alternatecover.com/wp-conten ... antine.jpg

http://www.zettelfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-c ... /Camus.jpg

[acathode]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

wbE5Kub3b5k

Thanks for the fixed version.
52:30 to 53:00 - seems Swiss have a very good understanding of PZ.

[Dick Strawkins]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

[youtube]wbE5Kub3b5k[/youtube]

Most relevant part is probably from 32:10.

Bit that pertains directly to PZ is from 40:25.

I think the bit that pissed off PZ comes between the 36th and 37th minute

"Anyone who continues to insist to you that skeptics are afraid of religionists, afraid of calling out organized religion, or that skeptics as a movement are anti-atheist, anyone who makes these claims to you, is either stupid, or if you rule out stupidity as a possible explanation, a liar. Read my lips; skeptics are not anti-atheist, nor afraid of confronting the claims of religious believers."

In other words Swiss is simply rejecting PZs strawmanning of the official skeptic position.

[cunt]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

[Jonathan]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

[cunt]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... p-trouble/

[jjbinx007]

http://kwout.com/cutout/s/n8/k7/gyj_bor.jpg

[mikelf]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

Here's the original:



See it while it is still there.

[Dick Strawkins]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

Ophelia found a tweet from a few months ago where Karla Porter asked Shirley Phelps if they were planning to go to the WISC.

http://www.freezepage.com/1367923706JBXQKBFKGN

PZ is, naturally, blaming the slymepit. :hankey:

It does seem a rather silly thing to do from Karla Porter.
What exactly is the possible upside of such a stupid tweet?
If the WBC go then you just have a few religious clowns standing down the road from the conference hotel.
They are called a hate group but nobody in their right mind is actually scared of them, they are regarded by everyone as idiots.
If I was running an event like the WISC I might even WANT them there, just to give a little publicity to the event but I'd never go to the trouble of trying to encourage them to attend, that just seems dishonest and manipulative.

What were you doing Karla? :doh:

[jjbinx007]

Some interesting tweets at the mo: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23killallmen&src=hash

[Jonathan]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

Here's the original:



See it while it is still there.

Cheers, all.

Very stupid thing to do. Karla, what were you hoping to gain from that? It just makes you look petty.

[jjbinx007]

Ophelia found a tweet from a few months ago where Karla Porter asked Shirley Phelps if they were planning to go to the WISC.

Was she "monitoring" KP?

It does seem a rather silly thing to do from Karla Porter.

Agreed.

[Jonathan]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

Ophelia found a tweet from a few months ago where Karla Porter asked Shirley Phelps if they were planning to go to the WISC.

http://www.freezepage.com/1367923706JBXQKBFKGN

PZ is, naturally, blaming the slymepit. :hankey:

It does seem a rather silly thing to do from Karla Porter.
What exactly is the possible upside of such a stupid tweet?
If the WBC go then you just have a few religious clowns standing down the road from the conference hotel.
They are called a hate group but nobody in their right mind is actually scared of them, they are regarded by everyone as idiots.
If I was running an event like the WISC I might even WANT them there, just to give a little publicity to the event but I'd never go to the trouble of trying to encourage them to attend, that just seems dishonest and manipulative.

What were you doing Karla? :doh:

Ah good old collective responsibility. Got to love that.

Presumably the next time an FTB commented does something stupid the whole comment pool will be responsible. Right? Right, PZ?

[Jonathan]

Commenter, not commented. Arrgh.

[rpguest]

OK, I tried the previous Jamy Ian Swiss video but the audio was terrible.
I've tried to fix it by boosting the levels on both channels and have now reuploaded the talk.

[youtube]wbE5Kub3b5k[/youtube]

Most relevant part is probably from 32:10.

Bit that pertains directly to PZ is from 40:25.

I think the bit that pissed off PZ comes between the 36th and 37th minute

"Anyone who continues to insist to you that skeptics are afraid of religionists, afraid of calling out organized religion, or that skeptics as a movement are anti-atheist, anyone who makes these claims to you, is either stupid, or if you rule out stupidity as a possible explanation, a liar. Read my lips; skeptics are not anti-atheist, nor afraid of confronting the claims of religious believers."

In other words Swiss is simply rejecting PZs strawmanning of the official skeptic position.

"Claiming that it is the McGraw/Dawkins lynching that has raised hackles is simply a lie, a barefaced, dishonest revision of history."

do any of these people have even the smallest iota of self-awareness?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... p-trouble/

Err...yep, that's not cool at all. Karla, WTF was going through your head at the time? What was the point of that?

[Gefan]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... p-trouble/

Err...yep, that's not cool at all. Karla, WTF was going through your head at the time? What was the point of that?

Meh, moderately amusing from Karla.
More amusing is thinking about how much time Nanny Benson likely spent dredging up the thing.

[Hunt]

Uh oh, the Pharyngula attack squad has tasted blood:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-615039

Also note Louis's high dudgeon.

[Hunt]

Ah, an angel, playing a harp appears:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-615045

Well, that makes it all better. Now I can rest easy.

[Gefan]

Uh oh, the Pharyngula attack squad has tasted blood:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-615039

Also note Louis's high dudgeon.

Oh, the baboons are offended about something?

*John Gielgud voice* I'll alert the media.

[Dick Strawkins]

Uh oh, the Pharyngula attack squad has tasted blood:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-615039

Also note Louis's high dudgeon.

Ah yes, Louis, who has previously threatened someone, with whom he disagreed, with porcupine rape of a particularly nasty type (not that there is any other!)

This person is not invited to receive the dead porcupine of their choice for anal insertion. I am going to personally see to it that an especially rotten and dribbly dead porcupine is rammed so far up their rectum that they are picking bits of it out of their teeth for the foreseeable future.

When you can disgust someone like Louis, you must be particularly evil.
Bad Karla!

What Karla Porter did was stupid, not because it would have resulted in harrassment of the attendees (I guess Shirley Phelps gets tons of these types of requests for her family to picket this or that event so they will have to avoid all but the ones most likely to generate publicity - and that's not going to be Melody's event) but because it gives the FTB crowd another stupid thing to whine about.

"Woe is us, Karla's sicc-ed a hate group on us" they wail, conveniently forgetting that they themselves ever so bravely released the real life name of Thunderf00t after he was expelled - someone whose life was threatened by real hate groups, not the piddling clowns of the WBC.

[Guest]

pudding clowns?

[Southern]

we..outed...ourselves?

da fuck?

The Secret Forum outed itself over Fogg's blog, of course. It MUST be it.

[Southern]

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

PICS! PICS! PICS!

[Southern]

So, I can't be the only person whose noticed the Karla Porter/Westboro Baptist Church thing going on at FTB. Where she contacted the Phelps and alerted them to the Women In Secularism conference.

Real fucking classy Karla.

I certainly haven't seen this, have you got a link?

Ophelia found a tweet from a few months ago where Karla Porter asked Shirley Phelps if they were planning to go to the WISC.

http://www.freezepage.com/1367923706JBXQKBFKGN

PZ is, naturally, blaming the slymepit. :hankey:

It does seem a rather silly thing to do from Karla Porter.
What exactly is the possible upside of such a stupid tweet?
If the WBC go then you just have a few religious clowns standing down the road from the conference hotel.
They are called a hate group but nobody in their right mind is actually scared of them, they are regarded by everyone as idiots.
If I was running an event like the WISC I might even WANT them there, just to give a little publicity to the event but I'd never go to the trouble of trying to encourage them to attend, that just seems dishonest and manipulative.

What were you doing Karla? :doh:

Trolling, of course. And for all that what's worth (about nothing), "I'm Southern, and I approve this attempt to troll those fuckers".

(Because humourless twats like Melodramatic Mellody and Cobweb Cunt won't be able to cop with WBC, unlike those nerds some time ago who mae them look ridiculous).

[cunt]

What Karla Porter did was stupid, not because it would have resulted in harrassment of the attendees (I guess Shirley Phelps gets tons of these types of requests for her family to picket this or that event so they will have to avoid all but the ones most likely to generate publicity - and that's not going to be Melody's event) but because it gives the FTB crowd another stupid thing to whine about.

"Woe is us, Karla's sicc-ed a hate group on us" they wail, conveniently forgetting that they themselves ever so bravely released the real life name of Thunderf00t after he was expelled - someone whose life was threatened by real hate groups, not the piddling clowns of the WBC.

It's stupid on every level for multiple reasons. Too numerous and obvious to actually list.

As for TF00t. The FTB'ers did childishly and pointedly over-use his name once they'd decided he was enemy number 1, but they didn't "release" it.

More amusing is thinking about how much time Nanny Benson likely spent dredging up the thing.

Probably zero, somebody else apparently alerted her to it.