Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Mykeru]

Came across this video where some Three Stooges looking guy gets a nice talking to by a person in Cambridge. Curly is one of Alex Jones' half-bright minions bleating one of the damn tired right-wing conspiracy dumpster handjobs that Jones makes bank on with people too stupid to figure out how to use escalators.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f01_1366974826

What's notable is that some lady who knows jack-shit interrupts to ask the guy giving conspiracy nut-boy a talking to why he is being insulting.

Fuck civility. And people should realize that not knowing what's at issue doesn't make them "objective" or polite. It just makes them uninformed.

[Mykeru]

Did you see that recent Dillahunty vid about how he's actually too smart to get distracted?

No, but I've seen the still photos.

http://www.cjblog.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... g-fish.jpg

[cunt]

What's notable is that some lady who knows jack-shit interrupts to ask the guy giving conspiracy nut-boy a talking to why he is being insulting.

Fuck civility. And people should realize that not knowing what's at issue doesn't make them "objective" or polite. It just makes them uninformed.

She seems just curious about it. Fuck being civil to the conspiracy nuts, but after 5 minutes of berating the potato headed simpleton what else is there to say.

[Mykeru]

What's notable is that some lady who knows jack-shit interrupts to ask the guy giving conspiracy nut-boy a talking to why he is being insulting.

Fuck civility. And people should realize that not knowing what's at issue doesn't make them "objective" or polite. It just makes them uninformed.

She seems just curious about it. Fuck being civil to the conspiracy nuts, but after 5 minutes of berating the potato headed simpleton what else is there to say.

Another five minutes. I consider getting through to people that dense to be a deep drilling operation.

Also, fuck you.

[cunt]

He was never going to get through to that guy. At the end she just gave the boston guy an easy out - potato head wasn't worth it.

[BarnOwl]

Way ahead of you. I've been posting in that shithole for months now. Eventually they will make me a Global Moderator.

I always knew ceepolk was a poe.

Naahhh, ceepolk has a presence on Ravelry that is entirely consistent with her Atheism+ phenotype ... that is to say, it is not consistent with her boasts and imperiousness, or with reality in general. Spends a lot of time talking about her bras. Older than I expected, and like many "prominent" members of the Atheism+/FtB/Skepchicks axis, has no apparent source of regular income.

I think she's a student.

I saw her pic. Of all places NOT to put a trigger warning!

A mature student, then. She says she's in her 40s. Also claims to have very curly hair, but then must iron the shit out of it to get it straight. Oppression!!! I'm a blue-eyed white girl (my dermatologist's phrase, as in "blue-eyed white girls should not live in South Texas") with very curly hair, and I've never even considered ironing it. Sure, it's a pain in the ass to deal with sometimes, but I'm not going to fry it to make it look like something it's not.

Surely that's my privilege talking, right?

[nippletwister]

Fuck you whoever made me google "pewdiepie".

Lols.

My old lady loves his vids. She's not really into the big social/political debates and such, crazy Swedes doing gaming vids for teens is more her thing.

[Guest]

the true battle of the sexes

[youtube]FJeuK1Pl2bQ[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

Way ahead of you. I've been posting in that shithole for months now. Eventually they will make me a Global Moderator.

I always knew ceepolk was a poe.

Naahhh, ceepolk has a presence on Ravelry that is entirely consistent with her Atheism+ phenotype ... that is to say, it is not consistent with her boasts and imperiousness, or with reality in general. Spends a lot of time talking about her bras. Older than I expected, and like many "prominent" members of the Atheism+/FtB/Skepchicks axis, has no apparent source of regular income.

Moderation at the A+ forum now seems to be all about what ceepolk wants. But that's par for the course, so this is barely more than yawn-worthy:

From the "are the mods capricious..." thread there, today (actually, tomorrow from where I am, based on the time stamp):
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 150#p79905

... Very poor mod-decision imo, with a classic bully remark at end. I did not ignore every single thing you said, I even noted on what you said in one of my replies, and as for silent treament? That's nonsense, I responded to (within hours or a day at most) to the replies from others. And I continously and specifically stated that I was not dismissing or clamping down on anyone's personal/anecdotal experiences at all. Or... I'm at fault for disagreeing about a specific extreme sentiment and not accepting it at face value? *sigh* We simply can't achieve anything with treating each other like this, putting ourselves at edge like mentally unstable patients, always at odds what to do or say as to not set the other one off into a fit. This is the same typical stalinistic methodology I observe, only mirror-imaged, at every darn extremist forum. I just didn't think this was such a forum.

Ban me, please ceepolk. There is no purpose for me to invest any time in future dialogue here if I'm to be bullied and harassed like so for simply holding a minority opinion here against over-generalised condemnation and prejudice.

Entirely possible I missed it. Can you do me a favor and quote the part where you answered me?

Entirely possible I missed it. Can you do me a favor and quote the part where you answered me?

In my reply to Zeitgueist, I added:

Again, as Ceepolk noted on, I might not fully understand at all the atmosphere and/or intensity of these problems in, for example, the US. So please, everyone, we're all talking from our pwn personal stations and I'm not saying that mine is the superior one.

I bolded your nick and the connecting words, just so that you wouldn't think I had not read it. But in any case it matters little. Being burned for behaving like an 'ass' for allegedly ignoring replies, while simultaneosly burned for continuing to answer to replies, just gets too typical on the internet these days where everyone creates mind-ghost images of the other poster (instead of simply not enganging in character-assassination of each other). This just isn't working, and I have enough integrity not to accept to being whipped and bullied like a dog just so that I may stay a little while longer. That'd be a sad joke. So, I'm going to continue my search elsewhere.

Take care folks and stay safe!

...so you didn't answer me? okay cool.

[Southern]

Way ahead of you. I've been posting in that shithole for months now. Eventually they will make me a Global Moderator.

I always knew ceepolk was a poe.

Naahhh, ceepolk has a presence on Ravelry that is entirely consistent with her Atheism+ phenotype ... that is to say, it is not consistent with her boasts and imperiousness, or with reality in general. Spends a lot of time talking about her bras. Older than I expected, and like many "prominent" members of the Atheism+/FtB/Skepchicks axis, has no apparent source of regular income.

Moderation at the A+ forum now seems to be all about what ceepolk wants. But that's par for the course, so this is barely more than yawn-worthy:

From the "are the mods capricious..." thread there, today (actually, tomorrow from where I am, based on the time stamp):
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 150#p79905

... Very poor mod-decision imo, with a classic bully remark at end. I did not ignore every single thing you said, I even noted on what you said in one of my replies, and as for silent treament? That's nonsense, I responded to (within hours or a day at most) to the replies from others. And I continously and specifically stated that I was not dismissing or clamping down on anyone's personal/anecdotal experiences at all. Or... I'm at fault for disagreeing about a specific extreme sentiment and not accepting it at face value? *sigh* We simply can't achieve anything with treating each other like this, putting ourselves at edge like mentally unstable patients, always at odds what to do or say as to not set the other one off into a fit. This is the same typical stalinistic methodology I observe, only mirror-imaged, at every darn extremist forum. I just didn't think this was such a forum.

Ban me, please ceepolk. There is no purpose for me to invest any time in future dialogue here if I'm to be bullied and harassed like so for simply holding a minority opinion here against over-generalised condemnation and prejudice.

Entirely possible I missed it. Can you do me a favor and quote the part where you answered me?

Entirely possible I missed it. Can you do me a favor and quote the part where you answered me?

In my reply to Zeitgueist, I added:

Again, as Ceepolk noted on, I might not fully understand at all the atmosphere and/or intensity of these problems in, for example, the US. So please, everyone, we're all talking from our pwn personal stations and I'm not saying that mine is the superior one.

I bolded your nick and the connecting words, just so that you wouldn't think I had not read it. But in any case it matters little. Being burned for behaving like an 'ass' for allegedly ignoring replies, while simultaneosly burned for continuing to answer to replies, just gets too typical on the internet these days where everyone creates mind-ghost images of the other poster (instead of simply not enganging in character-assassination of each other). This just isn't working, and I have enough integrity not to accept to being whipped and bullied like a dog just so that I may stay a little while longer. That'd be a sad joke. So, I'm going to continue my search elsewhere.

Take care folks and stay safe!

...so you didn't answer me? okay cool.

They locked all the sane people, and now the mad ones are in charge of the asylum.

[Darth Cynic]

Fuck you whoever made me google "pewdiepie".

And for mentioning that mawkish name, tacking an 's' on at the beginning and it sounds how it makes me feel, blech.

Too many times have I seen this on dA, I actually first thought it was a character from some weak piss manga / anime that the cosplay nuts were mooning over currently. Alas no, the dim little twerps were actually cosplaying a living person; I do swear, how divorced from reality must one become to pretend you're someone else and take photos of it?

I wonder if anyone from the clown show has cosplayed as PZ, Carrier or another of the many heroes of the Ftb Social Justice League of America? A costume parade would really make one of those cons I think.

[Skep tickle]

I'm bored so poking around to see what I can come up with.

PZ posted the take-home exam he gave his evo-devo students to do this weekend. Three essay questions (they pick 2 to answer). See if you can spot, in question #1, (a) the gendered term and (b) the shared gender of the 2 named people who are presented presumably for lulz about their cluelessness about science:

Question 1: One of Sarah Palin’s notorious gaffes was her dismissal of “fruit fly research” — she thought it was absurd that the government actually funded science on flies. How would you explain to a congressman that basic research is important? I’m going to put two constraints on your answer: 1) It has to be comprehensible to Michele Bachmann, and 2) don’t take the shortcut of promising that which you may not deliver. That is, no “maybe it will cure cancer!” claims, but focus instead on why we should appreciate deeper knowledge of biology.

For extra credit, guess which one his commenters pointed out and which one they didn't (in agreeing with his assessment of at least one of the people but apparently missing, or giving him a pass on, the potential gender-theme-of-stupidity).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -exam-day/

[Darth Cynic]

And the WebSleuths administrators were accessories in making sure no one said anything "disparaging" about her, apparently due to her (albeit dry and crusty) vagina.

*spit*

Is that so it won't be dry and crusty?

[ERV]

I'm bored so poking around to see what I can come up with.

PZ posted the take-home exam he gave his evo-devo students to do this weekend. Three essay questions (they pick 2 to answer). See if you can spot, in question #1, (a) the gendered term and (b) the shared gender of the 2 named people who are presented presumably for lulz about their cluelessness about science:

Question 1: One of Sarah Palin’s notorious gaffes was her dismissal of “fruit fly research” — she thought it was absurd that the government actually funded science on flies. How would you explain to a congressman that basic research is important? I’m going to put two constraints on your answer: 1) It has to be comprehensible to Michele Bachmann, and 2) don’t take the shortcut of promising that which you may not deliver. That is, no “maybe it will cure cancer!” claims, but focus instead on why we should appreciate deeper knowledge of biology.

For extra credit, guess which one his commenters pointed out and which one they didn't (in agreeing with his assessment of at least one of the people but apparently missing, or giving him a pass on, the potential gender-theme-of-stupidity).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -exam-day/

What an odd, inappropriate question.

[ERV]

I mean those kids are what, 20 years old, at most? They were 13-16 years old when Palin was running. So, the students have to Google info not taught or required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out what 'gaffe' Myers is talking about to start answering the question. Then, all the kids who are not from Michele Bachmanns district (or the state of Minnesota) have to research more information not taught required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out how to word their answers. Are they doing to get points taken off for writing it for a JD + advanced degrees from William and Mary elected official (reality) vs a first grader (PZs interpretation of Bachmann)? What if they write it for a fourth grader? A high schooler? What does Michelle Bachmann have to do with anything? And why not 'maybe it will cure cancer'? Maybe it will. I absolutely study 'deeper knowledge of biology' but I damn well think my research will help make an HIV vaccine. Im not just saying that for grant money.

Again, entirely inappropriate question.

[Skep tickle]

I mean those kids are what, 20 years old, at most? They were 13-16 years old when Palin was running. So, the students have to Google info not taught or required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out what 'gaffe' Myers is talking about to start answering the question. Then, all the kids who are not from Michele Bachmanns district (or the state of Minnesota) have to research more information not taught required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out how to word their answers. Are they doing to get points taken off for writing it for a JD + advanced degrees from William and Mary elected official (reality) vs a first grader (PZs interpretation of Bachmann)? What if they write it for a fourth grader? A high schooler? What does Michelle Bachmann have to do with anything? And why not 'maybe it will cure cancer'? Maybe it will. I absolutely study 'deeper knowledge of biology' but I damn well think my research will help make an HIV vaccine. Im not just saying that for grant money.

Again, entirely inappropriate question.

Excellent points. I missed all that about it!

[Skep tickle]

For shame! Shamefully shaming Greta's shame-porn shame!

Sigh.
Okay. Let me spell this out, as patiently as I possibly can.
I am entirely happy to consensually eroticize shame in my sexual fantasies and my sex life. It is a central part of my sexuality, it makes me happy, and I am at peace with it.
But I don’t appreciate being non-consensually shamed about my sexuality.
Consensual SM — including the consensual eroticization of shame — is just as psychologically healthy as any other consensual sexuality. There’s a significant body of evidence backing this up, and a large community of happy, healthy kinksters who will testify to it. Again: I don’t consider it “unlucky” to be kinky, or to have the particular kinks that I have. A lot of people eroticize shame: I’m not the only one. And I find it troubling that people would not only consider themselves “lucky” to not find shame sexually appealing… but would say this to kinky people, to their faces, in a space dedicated to talking about their kink.
These are people who would almost certainly not tell gay people that they consider themselves “lucky” not to be gay, or that they are “concerned” about their gayness. But kinky people, apparently, can’t expect get the same kind of respect.
This sort of “concern” for the people who practice it, however well-meaning, is part of what stigmatizes us and marginalizes us. It makes it harder to live our lives. Please stop it. Thank you.

It would be a shame if you didn't stop shaming the shame of oppressed shame-porn-lovers so shamefully! Shame on your shame-blame and shame-hate! Shamist!

I think I've mentioned before that there is a huge schism in waiting in the middle of the united front of FTB feminists.
Greta Christina has far more in common with the likes of sex positive individuals (both male and female) than she does with the Shakesville loonies. She, as a porn producer, is a textbook example of a rape enabler - so long as you are reading a radfem approved textbook.

This next schism will be hilarious. Greta Christina, porn writer extraordinaire and rape eneabler, versus Ophelia Benson, guardian of purity and high moral standards of women. Place your bets and grab the popcorn.

I don't think Ophelia will be the one who sparks schism+
She has had many opportunities to do so in the past (for example Peezus' misogynistic behavior onstage at Skepticon3) but has never done so. I guess she values the appearance of a united front more highly than she does of sticking to her principles.
In my opinion the schism will occur when an external party decides to take them on - most likely someone like McEwan at Shakesville.
So far McEwan has only picked on piddlingly small stuff but at some stage she's going to find out about the "lets do the sex thing later" Skepticon performance and PZs love of hentai rape pictures and whenever that happens, I'm right there with you, popcorn in hand.

Not a schism, but perhaps some falling out between Greta & some of her usual commenters.

(1) The comment thread for her post "An Open Letter To People Concerned about Kink" has Ariel (who was showing glimpses of reasonableness over at Almost Diamonds a couple of weeks ago, as I recall) disagreeing with Greta.

One of Greta's comments includes:

Most of the world is a place where kinky people get judged and (non-consensually) shamed: we don’t have much space of our own to discuss and explore and celebrate our sexuality, free from that judgment. Coming into one of those spaces and bringing that judgment is invasive.

She then makes analogy to judgment about gays, and people being bigoted.

Ariel tries to ask some questions & (apparently) to understand, while expressing some disagreement. Greta replies in a way that's interpreted as lecturing.

Ariel @ #11:

Sigh.

How many times does this have to be explained?

I am not advocating “silencing,” or making public discussion not “admissible.” I am saying: This opinion is wrong, and it is harmful. I am responding to the expression of false and harmful ideas with education. I am responding to speech with my own speech.

People have the right to do things that are nevertheless not right to do. People have the right to say that black people are intellectually inferior to white people; that gay people lead amoral and miserable lives; that women’s brains are inherently incapable of coping with abstract thought. And they have the right to say that kink is unhealthy, and that people who are kinky are unlucky. It is nevertheless not right to say these things. ...

Oh my.

Please, don’t do this to me. ... think that the plea “stop saying it” should appear after a long discussion with such a person, not at the start. I think that it’s dangerous and wrong to start with such a plea, as only too often it can be used as an excuse for dog piling.

Greta, I’m one of you. ... However, if I meet you in a public place, seeing you starting with high moral ground and all this “that’s messed up, stop saying it”, I will not support you.

Couple of people support Greta. Ariel replies,

... What I don’t accept (and here perhaps a real disagreement enters) is creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to say anything. If a given approach has such consequences, I’m opposed to it. The assumption “we are talking to bigots and we are going to treat them like bigots” (see #14) has such consequences. Don’t ask questions because it’s JAQ-ing off; don’t tell us what you really think because it’s bigoted and offensive. If you have to ask a question, start with “Excuse me, I know this isn’t right, but…”, even if you clearly don’t know that it isn’t right. Sorry again, but if I was one of them, I simply wouldn’t want to speak. ...

(2) Following that post w/ 27 comments, she has 4 posts that are excerpts of her new e-book, interspersed with a couple of other topics.

The book excerpts are about kink, particularly about nonconsensual stuff. Those have 0-1 comments each.

Among the interspersed comments, there's one w/ 16 comments (on starting a secular meditation practice), one w/ 8 comments (in praise of frivolity), then it's starting to sound like crickets with 4 comments to a guest post on "Grief beyond belief", 2 comments on the new Godless Perverts meetup in SF, and 0 comments so far to her post (from today) of her talks at 6 upcoming conferences, and the award she'll be getting at AHA.

[franc]

http://parallel-logic.tk/

[Lsuoma]

I'm just off to have a tug: if any of the ladies here want to star in my fantasy, let me know, and it'll be your face I shoot my load onto.

Lsu - drunk - oma

[Submariner]

Another non-theism video:

[Skep tickle]

Hahaha, Hi Ariel, welcome to the 'pit (at least as a lurker, but you might as well join, having pretty much identified as a fence-sitter at Almost Diamonds and having pissed off both Greta Christina and LeftSidePositive).

To explain to everyone else: Stephanie Zvan had invited guest posts from her commenters, to fill a gap while she's away. Ariel wrote one, "Satire or Some Gun Control, Please".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ol-please/

Starts with a short bit from Wikipedia on satire, then her commentary starts:

Let me add: satire can be a formidable weapon, effective in achieving its aims, but also deadly.

When I was young, we were using it constantly. The communist regime in my country, although economically bankrupt, was still in power. ... There was, however, an unofficial weapon: informal everyday joking and laughter, not exactly satire as a genre of literature, not an art perhaps, but to a large degree playing a similar social role. It permitted us to see the regime as not only economically, but also morally bankrupt. It helped us to view the communists not just as dangerous oppressors (which they were, to be sure), but at the same time as ridiculous figures, as parrots whose official mumbo-jumbo was not worth taking seriously. It promoted change. It gave us fresh air, so much needed and desired!

Not only ideas were ridiculed. No, we laughed at people as well. In many jokes the party dignitaries were mentioned by names. In effect the concrete persons were made looking grotesque, inadequate and silly. Yeah, I guess it could hurt them a lot. But it brought also a lot of relief to us, who had to watch and hear these very people without being able to do anything to oppose them. (For balance I should add perhaps that we laughed at ourselves as well. One of my favorite examples from this category is: “Q. Why does the cat have four legs? A. To be able to reach the garbage heap quicker than you, asshole!”)

My aim in the above remarks was to give you an idea of where I come from. In short: my background predisposes me to see humor and satire as old friends. I have an instinctive sympathy for satire and laughter. I’m not in principle opposed to satirizing real people. And let me stress that this goes beyond politics and public affairs. Imagine a kid who feels deeply in his soul that he has been mistreated by a stern teacher. Imagine (not a far stretch of imagination, I hope) that the kid is not the teacher’s intellectual equal and he is unable to produce good, convincing arguments favoring his position. So … with the tongue stuck out, he spends a lot of time meticulously drawing a caricature of the teacher on a school desk. My instincts tell me to defend the kid, to rush with arguments supporting him. Hell, it’s not only politicians and public figures that can be satirized! I have a lot of sympathy and understanding for this schoolboy. Too many times the kid was me.

This said, the time has come for “yes, but”, dear Greta Christina, hasn’t it? ...

Later in her OP she puts a limit on her support for satire:

... Satire can be a deadly weapon. It’s not just that the satirized person will not like it (obviously she will not). The point is rather that it may bring a lot of humiliation, confusion, pain and demeaning of the person’s very identity. I’ve already said that in principle I’m not against satirizing concrete people. I’m also not convinced that satire should be restricted to high profile public figures (sometimes we use it successfully in more restricted contexts and I can see no reason to reject such applications). But there is a price to be paid, and only too often I’m not ready to pay it. ...

She hit a nerve. The first 12 comments are LeftSidePositive foaming at the mouth and Ariel replying; maybe someone can freezepage it, it's amusing to read. Then mythbri weighs in, there's a little back & forth, then LSP's back, in fine form, in several posts. Stephanie finally pops in at #17 to lightly rap LSP on the knuckles (while not commenting on Ariel's OP or the argument in the comment thread):

You should be fucking thanking me on your fucking knees for clarifying so many points of your embarrassing ignorance.

Um, no. If you want thanks for educating, do it in a way that doesn’t encourage resistance to your points. You can try to educate (or win an argument or whatever your goal is here) by browbeating, but don’t ask/tell anyone to thank you for it while you’re doing it here.

At one point, Ariel comments to LSP:

On the slymepit you can find tons of graphic and verbal material ridiculing various people. From my point of view, the primary question is whether producing and propagating this material was justified, or harmful, or ill willed, or desirable – that sort of issues. The question how we name this material is secondary. The pitters are saying that the material should be called “satire”; they are adding that satire is human traditional activity, that it is noble, just, … whatever. What do you do? Basically, there are two options.

First: Check the dictionaries and textbooks! Let’s see whether what they do is really Satire™, as defined!
Second: let’s look at what they are actually doing and let’s try to assess it, under whatever name. It may be even shmatire or ghrhfhehre if it suits us.

You chose the first way....

I prefer the second option. Instead of checking the dictionaries, I will want to know the effects, intentions and motives of their actions. If these effects, intentions and motives turn out to be wrong (or right), that’s the end of my search. On this second way dictionaries are of no help. If they said that it’s justified because it’s a satire, I would simply ask them “you mean, because of what exactly?”; and then I would start considering the detailed justifications they provided, thinking whether they justify their actions. That’s it. ...

LSP's replies include, in walls of text between things like "you willfully obtuse fucking idiot" and "don’t be a passive-aggressive wankstain", that she agrees with a quote that it can only be satire if there is "objective truth" or "vice", which OBVIOUSLY there isn't when the Slymepit is doing it:

I have already told you at great length that those who use satire incorrectly (from the Slymepit to Rush Limbaugh) do so with a vested interest to try to claim moral high ground.

and

The Slymepit is ridiculing people for being female, for being unattractive, for being fat, for being old. These are not vices, and thus cannot be satire, no matter how much they are defended as such.

Furthermore, when they are claiming to be satirizing actual vices–they are lying through their teeth and misrepresenting (or outright making up!). There is no truth to the claim that those vices apply to that person, so it’s useless to call it satire. Call it lying. It’s not that difficult. It’s faster, easier, and strips away their main strategy of defense.

Well, okay then! Come on over to the dark side, Ariel, and ask whoever you want, whatever you want...and be prepared for a lively discussion on topics such as, say, justification: who determines it, and how. :)

[rayshul]

Ugh, #blackprivilege trend on twitter...

The whining, it does not stop...

[Metalogic42]

Jeez, LSP needs therapy. Pure psycho.

[Pitchguest]

The Slymepit is ridiculing people for being female, for being unattractive, for being fat, for being old. These are not vices, and thus cannot be satire, no matter how much they are defended as such.

Furthermore, when they are claiming to be satirizing actual vices–they are lying through their teeth and misrepresenting (or outright making up!). There is no truth to the claim that those vices apply to that person, so it’s useless to call it satire. Call it lying. It’s not that difficult. It’s faster, easier, and strips away their main strategy of defense.

Yes, LSP; women. Not specific women, or a woman, but women. Plural. Which is, in fact, true that there are ridicule of women here at the Slymepit, in that the ridicule has surpassed the number of one. Much like how your precious PZ Myers ridicules women, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann to mention but a few. Already the numbers has exceeded past one to two, thus making it women and not a woman. [whispers] What's that? [whispers] For being women? [whispers] Sorry. For being female?

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Slight reading error. In that case, in that we ridicule people for being female, I'd say you're spot on, LSP. Except ... except for one tiny detail: all those women posting here. See, I know you know there's women posting here, with names, with agency, with free will of their own, but you still insist that this place doesn't accept women -- pardon me; "females" -- and I know you're not ignorant about that fact. And I know the rest on FtB are not ignorant of that fact. However, you still decide to remove the agency of these women (and frankly I'm not comfortable speaking for them as in your eyes it's "mansplaining" and I know they're more than capable of speaking for and defending their own damn selves) least of all Abbie Smith, the woman -- begging your pardon; "female" -- responsible for all your ills, and using them for your own ends. :snooty: By the way, I love the irony of you owning up to your own lies. Classy.

And second of all, 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.

That is, unless you don't want to be called a "willfully obtuse fucking idiot" and a "passive-aggressive wankstain." Oh, and I know you read the Slymepit. All my love.

[Dick Strawkins]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

She/He/It is practically certifiable.

LSPs argument seems to boil down to

1. 'Satire is the use of humor to point out hypocrisy and wrong-doing of others'
2. Our side hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't engage in hypocrisy.
3. Therefore any criticism or mockery is invalid and cannot be called satire.
4. If it is not satire then it is harrassment.

Come on in Ariel!
The slyme is warm and the company charming!

[rayshul]

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.

[rayshul]

OH GOSH

I just realised that WE'RE THE FEMINISTS

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 30/3a0.jpg

[Eskarina]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

Yay, we don't have a thesis.

And why has no one told me that we get to viciously harass people here. And I also ain't never photoshopped heads onto animals and I ain't never threatened to rape people.

Yet.

What did I do wrong? *sob*

Or something.

[didymos]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

Wait, who threatens to rape people? I remember one dude doing that and it didn't exactly win him any friends. In fact, that dude is gone. Now cunt punt threats on the other hand... :twisted:

[rayshul]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

Wait, who threatens to rape people? I remember one dude doing that and it didn't exactly win him any friends. In fact, that dude is gone. Now cunt punt threats on the other hand... :twisted:

We're all Schroedinger's rape-threatists.

[Skep tickle]

...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.

[Skep tickle]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

Wait, who threatens to rape people? I remember one dude doing that and it didn't exactly win him any friends. In fact, that dude is gone. Now cunt punt threats on the other hand... :twisted:

We're all Schroedinger's rape-threatists.

Well, we do force people who come here of their own volition to see pictures and words that are absolutely horrifying and shocking to them.

And since those awful awful things can, for some lurkers, include seeing words such as "female", I guess even those of us who chose not to type "cunt" or "twat" are just as guilty as those who post pictures of children starving to death.

...Oh, wait, my mistake, there's something much worse than children starving to death so that "pictures of children starving to death" are (typically) real rather than being hoaxes: it's being a semi-celebrity whose photo is in the public domain and has been used to create an altered image in which your head has been merged onto various & sundry ridiculous objects including other peoples' bodies or body parts, to create a possibly rude & crude, but obviously fake, picture, which you must necessarily take offense rather than simply ignore it or laugh at the stupidity and banality of it.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

...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.

The word "Femelle" is only used these days to describe animals and plants. When it comes to humans, we use "masculin" and "féminin" or "féminine". When asked about your sex on a form, you usually have two choices: M or F. I think it's the same in the US, but I might be wrong (again). Anyway, I find "female", and "male" for that matter, to be perfectly neutral terms, even, shall I say, scientific. You know, science, that stuff that seems ,to be prime and center to skeptics.

Ok, I don't even know what point I wanted to make. Too late for coffee, too early for beer...

[Michael K Gray]

Hahaha, Hi Ariel, welcome to the 'pit

On the slymepit you can find tons of graphic and verbal material ridiculing various people.

The Slymepit is ridiculing people for being female, for being unattractive, for being fat, for being old. These are not vices, and thus cannot be satire, no matter how much they are defended as such.

Well, okay then! Come on over to the dark side, Ariel, and ask whoever you want, whatever you want...and be prepared for a lively discussion on topics such as, say, justification: who determines it, and how. :)

1) The Slymepit is ridiculing people for being female[1], for being unattractive[2], for being fat[3], for being old[4].
I actually agree with points 2 through 4, with the proviso that "The Slymepit" is reasonable shorthand for "some posters to the Slymepit", and can point to numerous examples of same.
[1] is more problematic.
"For being female".
I cannot think of anyone but "David" something-or-other, who may have placed his misogynistic remarks in the old ERV PToS thread to proffer examples of this ilk.

Examples of [2],[3], and [4] abound.
[4] (Old) is most definitely outside of any bounds of personal choice, and ridicule on that basis is an indication of a stunted intellect on behalf of the "joker".
[2] (Unattractive, whatever that may mean) Is somewhat within personal control, or at least bordering on it, but also mainly in the eye of the accuser, and thereby out-of-bounds.
[3] (Fat) Is almost always an indication of personal choice, given the genetic range that one has been dealt, and thereby a dodgy proposition by which to judge someone's behaviour.

The OP is essentially correct.
Some folk at the Slymepit have lazily and unimaginatively tried to raise giggles through unnecessary cheap jibes, (mainly visual), where: if they had rudimentary wit, could have skewered their target with observations about their interlocutor's BEHAVIOUR, HYPOCRISY, LIES, and even fraud in some cases, rather than cheap shots at involuntarily acquired characteristics.

(franc sockpuppet #32767)

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I agree with MKG there. 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.

Really not a big fan of attacking people for their age/race/sexual orientation/gender/size...etc

And I don't do rape threats.

(franc sockpuppet #623231)

[Tony Parsehole]

http://unicornbutterwomen.com/wp-conten ... _vomit.jpg

[Michael K Gray]

Some folk at the Slymepit have lazily and unimaginatively tried to raise giggles through unnecessary cheap jibes...

Oh, and I should have added the frissoned rider that these unimaginative cowards invariably present their crude images under the infantile security-blanket of a puerile pseudonym.

[Tony Parsehole]

Michael K Gray.
Brave hero of the Australian desert.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

To be clear, what was the point of that picture?

[Michael K Gray]

…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.

…(franc sockpuppet #623231)

Ha! That'll fool 'em!
You are really #62368, but moonlighting as a lost sock.
Lost in the vortex of the space-time anti-continuum, rattling between the TARDIS and the drum of the tumble-dryer.

[Tony Parsehole]

Absolutely none at all.

[Michael K Gray]

To be clear, what was the point of that picture?

To accurately prove my point, I expect.

[Steersman]

...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.

<snip>

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.

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, 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.

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.

But I think her biggest fault, as with Zvan, Jadehawk, and Sally Strange, along with a great many others in that rather benighted neck of the woods, is their tendency to put too much reliance of “gender as a social construct” and all of the baggage that comes along with it as well. And I think this following quote from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate is suggestive of the problematical nature of the sociological principles they seem to subscribe to, a case in point probably being Zvan’s statement in Nugent’s dialog and that Phil questioned:

These two ideas – the denial of human nature, and the autonomy of culture from individual minds – were also articulated by the founder of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who had foreshadowed Kroeber’s doctrine of the superorganic mind:

Every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false …. The group thinks, feels, and acts quite differently from the way in which members would were they isolated …. If we begin with the individual in seeking to explain phenomena, we shall be able to understand nothing of what takes place in the group …. Individual natures are merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms. Their contribution consists exclusively in very general attitudes, in vague and consequently plastic predispositions.

[pgs 23-24]

They seem to give more autonomy and causal influence to the group than is, I think, entirely justified. Certainly without going over the arguments with a fine-toothed comb.

[rayshul]

http://unicornbutterwomen.com/wp-conten ... _vomit.jpg

Every time I see that photo I flashback to my teens and the night I discovered what my alcohol limits were.

[Mykeru]

And the WebSleuths administrators were accessories in making sure no one said anything "disparaging" about her, apparently due to her (albeit dry and crusty) vagina.

*spit*

Is that so it won't be dry and crusty?

That's disgusting. It would be like a bad clam with a bonus loogie.

[Mykeru]

I mean those kids are what, 20 years old, at most? They were 13-16 years old when Palin was running. So, the students have to Google info not taught or required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out what 'gaffe' Myers is talking about to start answering the question. Then, all the kids who are not from Michele Bachmanns district (or the state of Minnesota) have to research more information not taught required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out how to word their answers. Are they doing to get points taken off for writing it for a JD + advanced degrees from William and Mary elected official (reality) vs a first grader (PZs interpretation of Bachmann)? What if they write it for a fourth grader? A high schooler? What does Michelle Bachmann have to do with anything? And why not 'maybe it will cure cancer'? Maybe it will. I absolutely study 'deeper knowledge of biology' but I damn well think my research will help make an HIV vaccine. Im not just saying that for grant money.

Again, entirely inappropriate question.

I can just see P.Z. Meyers going into full snark mode should one of the students ask him what, as he understands it, is Michelle Bachmann's level of comprehension and how he arrived at that level.

Then again, he's a very inappropriate kind of guy.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... _Myers.jpg

[rayshul]

AmbrosiaX is currently doing the twitter-win equivalent of kicking Simon Melody in the dick. Over and over again.



CITATION PLEASE

oh noes you have a citation oh fuck...

[Hunt]

Another non-theism video:

The history of the mind-virus is one of repeated mutation and propogation. That's the whole "purpose" (to put a teleological spin on it) of denominations. Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews, but it still needed to evolve and refine itself down through the centuries to remain virulent, which is has done, in spades. The present day memes that seek to prevent adulterating heresy are the result of centuries of mind-virus evolution.

I once tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to a fundamentalist the peril of a belief system that incorporates active measures to prevent questioning its own doctrines, but of course attempts like that can simply be rejected by the same process. Once a mind virus closes off any recourse to question its veracity, there is no longer any real hope a person infected by it is going to recover.

[Michael K Gray]

...Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews...

Incorrect on every count.
1) "Christianity" did not exist in the first century. Guaranteed beyond doubt.
2) When it eventually did arrive, it was a crude rehashing of Jewish, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, (etc), prophecies.
But mainly Jewish prophecies.
3) The Essenses were quite the most impressionable Jews at the fake time of Yeshua, yet knew nothing of him, nor Christinsanty.

Literally NONE of Christianity arrived "de novo".
It is all recycled mythology.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

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)

[Tony Parsehole]

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)

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

[Tony Parsehole]

AmbrosiaX is currently doing the twitter-win equivalent of kicking Simon Melody in the dick. Over and over again.



CITATION PLEASE

oh noes you have a citation oh fuck...

I love how when they do get the citation they asked for it's all cries of "misrepresentation!".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Oh, ok, Tigzy it is then. And a bloody hat tip to him. I had to take a few minutes to explain to Ali why I was crying with laughter.

[Dick Strawkins]

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)

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Not me.
I think it was Tigzy.
My favorite was one of Gumby's efforts:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 18bdde.jpg

He also did the epic Steersman-Eucliwoo shop.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 979f40.jpg

Hy Gumby, please return, we miss you.
USA! USA! Wooohooo!
;)

[Hunt]

...Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews...

Incorrect on every count.
1) "Christianity" did not exist in the first century. Guaranteed beyond doubt.
2) When it eventually did arrive, it was a crude rehashing of Jewish, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, (etc), prophecies.
But mainly Jewish prophecies.
3) The Essenses were quite the most impressionable Jews at the fake time of Yeshua, yet knew nothing of him, nor Christinsanty.

Literally NONE of Christianity arrived "de novo".
It is all recycled mythology.

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?

[Tony Parsehole]

@Dick
I can't believe I missed that first one by Gumby. That's brilliant.

And yeah Gumby, come back you twat.

[Cliché Guevara]

I wonder how many of the usual suspects took to heart Jon Stewart's interview with Bassem Youssef the other night. Speaking of the Egyptian government's efforts to prosecute Youssef and how absurd they look being threatened by a comedian's jokes:

Youssef: And they would tell you, "Oh yeah, it's a democracy, you can say what you want, but...be polite. Be nice. Be presentable. It's like, what is that?

Stewart: Is it the idea, too, that they don't understand, that by going after someone who is teasing them -- that is not a projection of power and strength...

Youssef: Great weakness...

Stewart: Great weakness and insecurity! Very surprising move.

Youssef: They are insecure. They are locked up into their teenage years. They still have pimples, and they have to deal with their, I don't know, bodily hair...

[AnonymousCowherd]

OH GOSH

I just realised that WE'RE THE FEMINISTS

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 30/3a0.jpg

Who are the feminists?

i-b4bef44cec3173834fff0e113209296a-ballooning.jpeg

(41.43 KiB) Downloaded 303 times

[AnonymousCowherd]

@Dick
I can't believe I missed that first one by Gumby. That's brilliant.

And yeah Gumby, come back you twat.

Yeah Gumby, 'bout time you were back here.

It's your fekkin' shout.

[Tigzy]

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Oh, ok, Tigzy it is then. And a bloody hat tip to him. I had to take a few minutes to explain to Ali why I was crying with laughter.

Aw, thanks.

Where is Brony the Rhetorical Assassin anyway? I haven't seen him about for a while. Still, that could be down to him being an assassin, I suppose - they strike unexpectedly, and all that.

Either that, or he's gone back to concentrating on his brain models and toy horsies.