REAP!Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
Never did watch much of that series, although it seems to be, maybe regrettably, a common theme. I developed my sense of that from other sources, one of which is Poe’s The Conqueror Worm which concludes with:Tony Parsehole wrote:I became a dedicated misanthrope after David Tennant's portrayal of the Tenth Doctor.Steersman wrote: Almost enough to turn a person into a dedicated misanthrope ....
Not at all easy, though not impossible I think, to find redeeming qualities in the face of that ...And the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm.
Ha ha nice! had everyone in the house rollingrocko2466 wrote:REAP!Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
Did you see this one? You get a mention lol
[youtube]bmbL7Cwtksc[/youtube]
I couldn't really say. We don't seem to have an equivalent in France. Which makes Myers' characterization even more absurd.FrankGrimes wrote:So... errrr.... ummm... what's an MRA?
I've been trying to work it out based on context.
Is it a Male Rights Association (member)?
A Male Rights Associate?
A Male Rights Advocate?
Am I at least on the right track?
Totally blood awesome... I just wish Rocko could sing in tune :)Reap wrote:Ha ha nice! had everyone in the house rollingrocko2466 wrote:REAP!Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
Did you see this one? You get a mention lol
[youtube]bmbL7Cwtksc[/youtube]
I kept waiting for Nerd of Redhead to say "Citation needed, you idjit" to Myers's assertions, or Wowbagger's assertion that the only reason any Pitters spoke out against Astrokid's repulsive tweet was that "people were watching". Sadly, I was disappointed...EdwardGemmer wrote:Oh hey,PZ Myers making broad generalizations about a diverse population based on spurious evidence? But PZ is definitely not a racist, right?
Are you competing with Wowbagger for the title of Mr. Die in a Fire, Southern?Southern wrote:Dear PZ The Fatso:Maximus wrote:I wonder why MRA's have an image problem?Dick Strawkins wrote:Astrokid is one of the AVFM contingent. I think he was the one that wrote that stupid article over there after the Indian gang rape and murder case, saying that the big problem there was sexism against men!Gumby wrote:Yeah, from where I'm sitting too. I barely go on Twitter anymore and didn't know about it until I read your post. Astrokid has apparently decided to become a douche.Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
He seems to barely conceal a hate for women - which is probably the reason he rarely posts here.
Desperate measures by Peezus if he's forced to trawl through AVFM writers and try to paint them as representitive of the Slymepit.
What next? Johntheother? Paul Elam?
I speak only for myself. Also, I do not give anyone authorization to represent me on any means, unless specifically noted.
Now go fuck yourself with a porcupine, then die in a fire, you fat prick.
Love,
Southern
PS: Shave that ridiculous beard of yours, your insuferable dick.
If he could sing in tune, those videos would lose a lot of their fun imo.DeepInsideYourMind wrote: Totally blood awesome... I just wish Rocko could sing in tune :)
Gumby wrote:I kept waiting for Nerd of Redhead to say "Citation needed, you idjit" to Myers's assertions, or Wowbagger's assertion that the only reason any Pitters spoke out against Astrokid's repulsive tweet was that "people were watching". Sadly, I was disappointed...EdwardGemmer wrote:Oh hey,PZ Myers making broad generalizations about a diverse population based on spurious evidence? But PZ is definitely not a racist, right?
Not dense. It means that if he convinces people that it is a collective then he can (and does) ignore any more thoughtful responses from Pit people.Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
That tweet (and many others from Astrokid) is completely douchey and sexist. Of course there is this statement:Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
Lol, so Myers can't even get this fact right. Maybe we should start referencing Fred Phelps as an FtB blogger.Apples wrote:That tweet (and many others from Astrokid) is completely douchey and sexist. Of course there is this statement:Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
http://i.imgur.com/IFvEpCq.jpg
The fact is that his kind of bullshit has not been, and would not be, welcome at the 'Pit. I vaguely remember his being here, but I doubt he ever spouted this kind of crap. I am quite sure it would not have been welcome, and it seems evident that he sensed that.
If the worthless cunt Myers slapped a demonstrably false sticker of that sort on me, I'd demand a public retraction and threaten legal action.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: And no, I am not a MRA.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xn-XSKk8Zfs/S ... 8_9038.JPGSteersman wrote:While the average height for the population of men is slightly larger than that for women, there can be significant discrepancies at the tails – and probably for just about any attribute you care to name.
Yep. Same as we are all MRA's, all MRA's hate women, we are all racists, blah blah and therefore should be shunned and ignored. That way he does not have to address any points we raise at all. It's predictable, boring and against everything a scientist should stand for.MichaelJ wrote:Not dense. It means that if he convinces people that it is a collective then he can (and does) ignore any more thoughtful responses from Pit people.Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
To be fair, 0.87%Michael K Gray wrote:Benson's latest post on this topic may have hit a record low for % originality:
8:917
≅0.8%!
Less than one percent original!
And... not a single link to the press release.
Alert the Pulitzer committee.
So the proof is not always in the pudding, then? To misquote a sage, "To suggest and argue that being 'reasonable' can cover all the bases or lead to all “truths†is, arguably, to manifest an article of faith."Steersman wrote:Yes, I agree. Although my impression, based on very limited knowledge, is that “logically incoherent†is somewhat problematic and dependent on “a priori†definitions of and assumptions about “logic†and “coherentâ€.AnonymousCowherd wrote: But that an idea is "bad" depends on your notion of "bad". That it may not work vs it is physically impossible vs it is logically incoherent (and so on). Whole slews of ideas can be ignored safely without making any puddings if they fail the last test and a good number of others can be ignored if they fail the second (or even the first). We may not know exactly which ones fail withut the pudding, but we can predict pretty well and, in many cases, we will be able to tell that something fails a priori.
Perhaps, but the metaphor adds nothing then, it's just a re-statement that there are several points of view. You don't need it to see there are some misunderstandings and, indeed, it doesn't cover that issue at all. There was no justification, therefore, for your claims about the limits of reason (though such limits do exist).Steersman wrote:I’m definitely “winging it†– it is a metaphor, as he mentions, to provide a framework for discussion, rather than a hypothesis to be proven or falsified. But, speaking of “gradient†and “rational discourse spaceâ€, I sort of brought it up as a way of clarifying and describing what I think is happening with what I think is a “paradigmatic†case, that being the discussion over “gendered†insults: two groups starting in the saddle area of the graph from slightly different definitions, connotations or interpretations and winding up on the two very different yellowish peaks in the forground – while missing the larger, and “better†red one in the background. One of the points I tried to make on one of Nugent’s threads: seems to be some justification for thinking that there is at least some honest misunderstandings in that issue, and that it is of some value to try to understand how that divergent conclusion comes about.AnonymousCowherd wrote:Pigliucci's argument (as you state it) relies greatly on a very loose definition of "truth", and much of it just seems a complicated re-statement of what we already know ("in evolution, things evolve in various ways"). There is no sense of what the "gradient" in his diagram would be in his "rational discourse space", nor even what the axes are, if he is talking about mapping "truth" rather than mapping human argumentation (which is a very different thing).
That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. There may be limits to how much "reasonableness" can be achieved by given participants, and how far that reasonableness can take a debate, but that's not the same as the limits to reason itself. If two parties start from the same statements and process them logically (just agree on which logic if that's a problem), and they arrive at different conclusions, then one or both of them are "doing it wrong", or they didn't start from the same statements. Systems with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are still deterministic, we just have difficulty in making sure that the systems start with the same conditions each time. If we are going to continue the metaphor, assuming differnt starting points will always diverge is making assumtions about the shape of the "discourse space". If it is studded with one or more attractors, all arguments end up in the same place no matter where you start. And frankly, I think that's what happens with the FTBers, but that has much more to do with psychology than truth or logic.Steersman wrote:While I think those are good questions and of some relevance, in the context of that discussion, I think the point that Pigliucci raises about the limitations of reason is the one likely to give “the biggest bang for the buckâ€. Seems virtually everyone thinks they’re using impeccable logic which might well be the case. But starting from even slightly different starting points can lead to very different end points: “sensitive dependency on intial conditionsâ€, and all that ....AnonymousCowherd wrote:If you want to reference Hume, his "you cannot derive ought from is" should be enough, but what then has "ought" got to do with "truth"? Unless truth now means something other than "what is the case". Rabbit hole, meet blue pill.
I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
PS: Fucking iPad typos here. Sorry. A kingdom for an edit button...Guest wrote:I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
I remember coming across a decent anti-creationist post of his back around 2006 or 2007 or so? I'm. Of sure of the time frame. Around the same time however he used to post about "VenomFangX", who was a rabid creationist teen on YouTube. I remember at the time thinking it was weird that this latter middle aged academic would be writing about some kid on YouTube. [Aside: To be honest, I thought ThunderF00t's preoccupation with the kid was a little weird also, though it was the catalyst of some good videos regarding the fallacies creationists depend on.]
Some time later I noticed that he seemed to talk about feminism a lot, which I thought was odd in a blog supposedly about biology, with a special interest in debunking the claims of creationists. I'm outside what his actual interest in feminism is, but he's definitely "trying too hard" with it and it makes me wonder what is real motivation is.
In any event, I never really found his blog interesting enough to read with any frequency, and certainly never regarded him as 'famous'. It's only after this whole elevator gate and associated A Plus fad emerged and grabbed my morbid curiosity that his is a name I have come to see more often.
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
Not a complete list, but here you go.AnonymousCowherd wrote:Has anyone got a handy list of all the things I'm supposed to denounce today? Wouldn't want to upset Those Who Only Stand and Watch.
I hope that the irony of telling PZ Fucking Myers to go and die in a fire after being raped by a porcupine (and only him, BTW) is not lost on you.Pitchguest wrote:Are you competing with Wowbagger for the title of Mr. Die in a Fire, Southern?Southern wrote:
Dear PZ The Fatso:
I speak only for myself. Also, I do not give anyone authorization to represent me on any means, unless specifically noted.
Now go fuck yourself with a porcupine, then die in a fire, you fat prick.
Love,
Southern
PS: Shave that ridiculous beard of yours, your insuferable dick.
ftfyMichaelJ wrote:Not dense. It means that if he convinces people that it is a collective then he can (and does) ignore any more thoughtful responses fromReap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:Pit peopleanyone, for any reason whatsoever.
There does seem some desperation, but I doubt he'll "go away" if ignored. If we tried that, he'd declare "victory" and ramp up the rhetoric to get us to notice him again. Otherwise he'd only have Nerd's & Co.'s comments to read, and that's got to be less fun than putting holes in your head with an electric drill. (Or tweezers, if you're going the full Rystefn.)lurking coward wrote:
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
Done.TheMudbrooker wrote:Not a complete list, but here you go.AnonymousCowherd wrote:Has anyone got a handy list of all the things I'm supposed to denounce today? Wouldn't want to upset Those Who Only Stand and Watch.
1. Privilege puppies
2. Chocolate playboy rape bunnies
3. Black Bush Racist Hat Whiskey
4. F-f-f-f-f-fah-fah-fah-fahking facist fundimentalism (except as practiced by social justice warriors)
5. Mansplaining Custard
6. Snowmenpersons
You may now proceed.
Before you leap, just keep in mind that saying "male and female" when referring to humans is apparently now verboten at Pharyngula, and in addition to "homosexual" it looks like "stupid" may be upgraded to the status of slur at A+theism.AnonymousCowherd wrote:Has anyone got a handy list of all the things I'm supposed to denounce today? Wouldn't want to upset Those Who Only Stand and Watch.
LMU wrote:That's a good point. I agree, I don't think RW wants the responsibility of control, but I think she does want the benefits (status, attention, free booze). In the biblical story, the woman didn't really want all of what control entails either, that's why she favored cutting the baby in half. In contrast, the mother who yielded recognized that responsibility comes first.Gefan wrote:That seems true of many, perhaps most, of the Baboons but I don't think Watson wants to control anything as that would require responsibility and work. I've never been able to discern an actual Watson agenda besides self promotion in the cause of avoiding getting a real job.LMU wrote:
To me people like that seem like the woman in the Judgement of Solomon. They'd rather see something split in half or destroyed (boycotts, exclusion, silencing) than see it grow outside of their control.
Eheheh...ReneeHendricks wrote:if you read Fox News, you must be a RW nutjob.
Until I decided a few weeks ago to check out what's happening in activism on which I had no previous interest (I prefer discussions with theists etc) I had hardly heard of him. I had heard of many others on the margin and was a vociferous consumer of youtube videos, formal debates, call in programmes and the like. But PZ rarely came up even in creationist material. That was mainly Thunderfoot, AronRa and a few others.Guest wrote:I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
I remember coming across a decent anti-creationist post of his back around 2006 or 2007 or so? I'm. Of sure of the time frame. Around the same time however he used to post about "VenomFangX", who was a rabid creationist teen on YouTube. I remember at the time thinking it was weird that this latter middle aged academic would be writing about some kid on YouTube. [Aside: To be honest, I thought ThunderF00t's preoccupation with the kid was a little weird also, though it was the catalyst of some good videos regarding the fallacies creationists depend on.]
Some time later I noticed that he seemed to talk about feminism a lot, which I thought was odd in a blog supposedly about biology, with a special interest in debunking the claims of creationists. I'm outside what his actual interest in feminism is, but he's definitely "trying too hard" with it and it makes me wonder what is real motivation is.
In any event, I never really found his blog interesting enough to read with any frequency, and certainly never regarded him as 'famous'. It's only after this whole elevator gate and associated A Plus fad emerged and grabbed my morbid curiosity that his is a name I have come to see more often.
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
Welcome.SkepularCharlie wrote:Another Aussie tweeter already acquainted with many on here.
Been watching from the shadows for some time. It's about time to get more involved.
http://i.imgur.com/L24o80y.jpg
New character avatar.
He's into pooping on irrational ppl, tormenting kitteh's, eating truffle and rational thought. Dislikes crab juice, A+ and oversized meal deals.
Hello there, a hearty "fuck off!" to you good sir!SkepularCharlie wrote:Another Aussie tweeter already acquainted with many on here.
Been watching from the shadows for some time. It's about time to get more involved.
http://i.imgur.com/L24o80y.jpg
New character avatar.
He's into pooping on irrational ppl, tormenting kitteh's, eating truffle and rational thought. Dislikes crab juice, A+ and oversized meal deals.
My recollection for what its worth:Guest wrote:I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
I remember coming across a decent anti-creationist post of his back around 2006 or 2007 or so? I'm. Of sure of the time frame. Around the same time however he used to post about "VenomFangX", who was a rabid creationist teen on YouTube. I remember at the time thinking it was weird that this latter middle aged academic would be writing about some kid on YouTube. [Aside: To be honest, I thought ThunderF00t's preoccupation with the kid was a little weird also, though it was the catalyst of some good videos regarding the fallacies creationists depend on.]
Some time later I noticed that he seemed to talk about feminism a lot, which I thought was odd in a blog supposedly about biology, with a special interest in debunking the claims of creationists. I'm outside what his actual interest in feminism is, but he's definitely "trying too hard" with it and it makes me wonder what is real motivation is.
In any event, I never really found his blog interesting enough to read with any frequency, and certainly never regarded him as 'famous'. It's only after this whole elevator gate and associated A Plus fad emerged and grabbed my morbid curiosity that his is a name I have come to see more often.
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
He has been a longtime foe of creationists, going back to the early usenet days, through talkorigins and onto his own pharyngula blog.Jack wrote:Until I decided a few weeks ago to check out what's happening in activism on which I had no previous interest (I prefer discussions with theists etc) I had hardly heard of him. I had heard of many others on the margin and was a vociferous consumer of youtube videos, formal debates, call in programmes and the like. But PZ rarely came up even in creationist material. That was mainly Thunderfoot, AronRa and a few others.Guest wrote:I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
I remember coming across a decent anti-creationist post of his back around 2006 or 2007 or so? I'm. Of sure of the time frame. Around the same time however he used to post about "VenomFangX", who was a rabid creationist teen on YouTube. I remember at the time thinking it was weird that this latter middle aged academic would be writing about some kid on YouTube. [Aside: To be honest, I thought ThunderF00t's preoccupation with the kid was a little weird also, though it was the catalyst of some good videos regarding the fallacies creationists depend on.]
Some time later I noticed that he seemed to talk about feminism a lot, which I thought was odd in a blog supposedly about biology, with a special interest in debunking the claims of creationists. I'm outside what his actual interest in feminism is, but he's definitely "trying too hard" with it and it makes me wonder what is real motivation is.
In any event, I never really found his blog interesting enough to read with any frequency, and certainly never regarded him as 'famous'. It's only after this whole elevator gate and associated A Plus fad emerged and grabbed my morbid curiosity that his is a name I have come to see more often.
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
My only interest in him now is his clear attempt to bring an unscientific or proven ideology into the community which is not subject to scrutiny. It is also attempting to shut down dissent and control the narrative. I know they will bait and switch where they can, such as Atheism Plus has nothing to do with Atheism or Humanism which they claim. Some Free Thought bloggers have no interest in free thought. They will misrepresent data and people and for them the ends justify the means. Many larger groups have experienced this in the past and many have it now. You always get a small unelected, unrepresentative group of extremists trying to control the whole. Now it is the turn of the rationalist community to suffer and we can't sit back and let it happen.
From my knowledge of people like that they have to be resisted or they will eventually control much more than a few blogs and conferences (such as AI coming up) They bully and harass as a matter of course with no conscience or care for the effects on others. Resisting is hard for prominent members of the community to do as they will be attacked viciously, as we see all the time. For me I do not care as I have no reputation at stake. I have no living to lose. I don't giver a toss if people don't like me just because of what they think I believe. That is why I am here, to try and help where I can in a very small way. I want a bit of sanity back in the movement and the ability to criticise and comment without censure.
Do you think Chester (I mean oolon) will call them out on their bullshit, seeing as he's 'all about the facts'?Altair wrote:Since Edward Gemmer is online now, I thought I'd let him now that he has become famous, being now the proud creator of an argument that bears his name:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4096/gemmerohk.png
From what I can gather, the "thread" is one of Nugent's posts, although I'm not sure which one. The funny part is that after reading Edward's posts here, that doesn't sound like an argument he would make.
As an aside, I agree that calling someone a misogynist is worse than calling them a cunt. Being a misogynist implies being a hateful, bigoted, angry person, and that can have a bad effect on someone's reputation. Being called a cunt, IMO, sounds more like being called an asshole or a jerk, a generic insult that can be dismissed since everyone gets a few of those during their lives.
Oh, and welcome, SkepularCharlie.
hahahaha Me too. :)DeepInsideYourMind wrote:Totally blood awesome... I just wish Rocko could sing in tune :)Reap wrote:Ha ha nice! had everyone in the house rollingrocko2466 wrote:REAP!Reap wrote:When is that twit PZ gonna learn that #ftbullies is not the slymepit? That is a twitter hashtag, not a forum. Fuck that dude is dense as hellPitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... omens-day/
PZ has a blog post up, still thinking the Slymepit is a collective. Honestly, though, I don't really "get" the tweet at all. Actually it's pretty bad from where I'm sitting.
:confusion-shrug:
Did you see this one? You get a mention lol
[youtube]bmbL7Cwtksc[/youtube]
I try to make up for the lack of ability by just going a little bit weird.Gumby wrote:If he could sing in tune, those videos would lose a lot of their fun imo.DeepInsideYourMind wrote: Totally blood awesome... I just wish Rocko could sing in tune :)
I'd never put those things in my twat. What a waste of money.rocko2466 wrote:Sigh.decius wrote:
dickheads photoshopped onto images of dildos
Who's your twat?skepandsprinkles wrote:I'd never put those things in my twat. What a waste of money.rocko2466 wrote:Sigh.decius wrote:
dickheads photoshopped onto images of dildos
so Myers is Glenn Beck basically.Guest wrote:I've been wondering the same thing for a long time; since long before I was aware of him a 'SJW'.Percentage wrote:You know, I was sort of wondering, does anyone know how PZ became so prominent in the first place? Was it really just Crackergate? I mean, I was browsing his blog today and I sort of just realized how boring Pharyngula is. He very rarely posts anything of interest, unless you count his Social Justice Warrioring, and then only because it feeds this dumb little schism he's manufactured. Unlike other prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or John Scalzi, he's not a good writer. So what's the deal here?
I remember coming across a decent anti-creationist post of his back around 2006 or 2007 or so? I'm. Of sure of the time frame. Around the same time however he used to post about "VenomFangX", who was a rabid creationist teen on YouTube. I remember at the time thinking it was weird that this latter middle aged academic would be writing about some kid on YouTube. [Aside: To be honest, I thought ThunderF00t's preoccupation with the kid was a little weird also, though it was the catalyst of some good videos regarding the fallacies creationists depend on.]
Some time later I noticed that he seemed to talk about feminism a lot, which I thought was odd in a blog supposedly about biology, with a special interest in debunking the claims of creationists. I'm outside what his actual interest in feminism is, but he's definitely "trying too hard" with it and it makes me wonder what is real motivation is.
In any event, I never really found his blog interesting enough to read with any frequency, and certainly never regarded him as 'famous'. It's only after this whole elevator gate and associated A Plus fad emerged and grabbed my morbid curiosity that his is a name I have come to see more often.
He basically strikes me as a person desperate for attention and genuine fame, not just this "well kniwn in some circles blogger" thing, and he probably has seen that SJW posts generate the biggest interest. If he could get a big following, maybe a seat on Bill Mahr's show etc., by playing a right winger, he'd probably do it. He doesn't really warrant all this attention. Like mommies all over the world say; "ignore him and he'll go away".
Heh - you mean the "insightful commenters" are long gone, leaving the "inciteful" ones. :) I think you've made a revealing statement about his evolution -- he was so used to his "dissenters" being rightwing creationists and having the facts on his side that he started believing in the infallibility of his own half-baked ideology. So if people started questioning him on a political post, he'd treat them just like a fundy -- mock them, encourage his commenters to dogpile them ... but since "facts" are often pretty difficult to agree on in most political debates, it becomes necessary to trash people and then ban them fairly quickly if you want to be able to shut them up and declare victory.Dick Strawkins wrote:He has always been rude and insulting, however he has been able, in the past, to have the luxury of having the facts on his side. When he clashed with fundies or accomodationists he was able to allow them to have their say in the comments, without censorship or banning, knowing that their arguments would not stand up to the evidence brought forwards by the commenters he had at that time (almost every one of the inciteful commenters are long since gone, leaving behind the pharyngulanhas).
but it insults all women in the world automatically, so obviously what's meant is that all women are playtoysrocko2466 wrote:Who's your twat?skepandsprinkles wrote:I'd never put those things in my twat. What a waste of money.rocko2466 wrote:Sigh.decius wrote:
dickheads photoshopped onto images of dildos
We only use that word to insult people, so you must be referring to someone.
Isn't it funny that this was okay, and yet what thunderf00t did was so wrong.Dick Strawkins wrote: 1. Expelled (where he allowed himself to be included in a creationist movie by mistake, but redeemed himself by crashing their party and getting himself expelled from the press showing of the film - while Dawkins was allowed in. Soon after he managed to hack into a private phone conversation between the films producers and broadcast it on the internet.
Cracked wrote:Cracked's all about handing out tips for success, so here's a free one: People aren't really that keen on feeling like they don't have freedom of choice. When they feel this way, they actually become more inclined to resent the people you're trying to protect, seeing them as the source of their problems.
Welcome dear brother of mine. You're gonna take that crab juice and you're gonna enjoy it, otherwise fuck you!SkepularCharlie wrote:Another Aussie tweeter already acquainted with many on here.
Been watching from the shadows for some time. It's about time to get more involved.
http://i.imgur.com/L24o80y.jpg
New character avatar.
He's into pooping on irrational ppl, tormenting kitteh's, eating truffle and rational thought. Dislikes crab juice, A+ and oversized meal deals.
One thing I think it's easy to forget about PZ is that he is not a skeptic when it comes to anything other than religion. (I'm not even certain he's ever explicitly claimed otherwise.) He is a "godless liberal" and little else, and due to the overlap between skepticism and atheism it's natural for the average skeptic to make the mistake of imagining that he has any skeptical cred at all. But all one needs to do is review his boneheaded posts promoting satirical articles as sincere, his stupid pronouncements about gravity lamps or whatever, his indifference to accuracy about data when it serves his political prejudices, his willingness to lie about and defame opponents while embracing halfwits like Rebecca Watson -- these are not the actions of someone who has a general commitment to critical thinking, evaluating all claims impartially, and examining his own assumptions rigorously.Remick wrote:so Myers is Glenn Beck basically.
I hadn't heard about this before, so I Googled it. From PZ's own description it seems like he used an access code he overheard in order to be able to speak on a call where he was supposed to be muted. Thunderf00t accessed a mailing list that the owners didn't want him reading.welch wrote:Isn't it funny that this was okay, and yet what thunderf00t did was so wrong.Dick Strawkins wrote: 1. Expelled (where he allowed himself to be included in a creationist movie by mistake, but redeemed himself by crashing their party and getting himself expelled from the press showing of the film - while Dawkins was allowed in. Soon after he managed to hack into a private phone conversation between the films producers and broadcast it on the internet.
(I still am on the side that what Tf00t did with regard to the mailing list was a dick move, but PeeZus' hypocrisy here is amusing.)
Led to these comments:Dennis Strubbe wrote:Problem is that the definition implies that the consent is static. I mean, when my gf isn't in the mood, I still go for it and try to get her in the mood. Strictly speaking, she doesn't want it but I still go for it. So this is rape? If this means that I should stop, then that's idiotic, since I know she will get in the mood if I keep going.
So yes, according to that definition, I raped her (countlessly). But she's fine, so it's all good.
Giliell wrote:Just go away you xenophobic, misogynist proud rapist. ... I don’t think that people here should have to deal with somebody who doesn’t only admit that he’s a rapist but who’s also proud of it.
Nick Gotts wrote:Your behaviour towards your girlfriend certainly sounds most unpleasant, and may well constitute some form of sexual assault, so you are unwise to boast about it: someone might actually report you to the police, and although a prosecution is most unlikely without your girlfriend’s participation, it would probably not be a pleasant experience for you.
So here's my question - if Dennis is a rapist, what are PZ and the Pharyngulites going to do about it? I mean, presumably, they have an opportunity to stop a rapist in his tracks. PZ could report his IP-address and email to the authorities. Etc. Why wouldn't they do this? I mean, several commenters have just had a conversation with someone whom they have unambiguously accused of being a dangerous, felonious predator. Why would they just berate him and ban him from the blog instead of trying to track him down and have him apprehended before he rapes again?Ogvorbis wrote:You are a perfect example of a rapist, a rape apologist, and a supporter of rape culture. You have decided that you know what is best for women (keep them close so you can rape them). You have decided rape isn’t so bad (so you enjoy being a rapist. does that mean your victim enjoyed it?). You really need to just fucking leave. ... You are a rapist. All that matters is what you want and what your girlfriend wants DOES NOT MATTER! You are a rapist. ... Your victim said no. You coerced her into agreeing. Yes, that is rape.
