Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Lsuoma]

BTW, how IS that dialogue going?

http://cdn4.pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/f ... edium.jpeg

My roflcopter went soi soi soi

[LMU]

Am I the only one who felt a little weird about that Sleepingwytch thing? I mean she's clearly got problems and for the most part spent that thread apologizing... and if you read that pastebin shit, it's so absurd as to be almost funny.

I feel like, if there were ever time to cut someone a break, that would have been it. But she got piled on as if she was a slymepitter.

Sleepingwytch is simpleflower (they signed the pastebin letter as such). Simpleflower was an A+ poster for a while, participated in some interesting conversations, and eventually left. Some time later, dudewheresmyhat posted here at the slymepit that they knew simpleflower personally, and said that simpleflower was a poe.

[Kareem]

It's scary that so many of the FTB crowd think history will look down on them as ahead of their time. Logically, if the future is egalitarian, then the #killallmen and only minorities can be racist talk will seem silly in a world where race and sex doesn't matter.

Even as early as the 90's, an issue of Static Shock (co-created by the late Dwayne McDuffie) pointed out the flaw in the idea that minorities can't be racist by displaying a member of one minority attacking a members of another.

I'm all for social justice, but a lot of this theory is just their version of debating how many angels can dance of the head of a pin.

[Jan Steen]

Am I the only one who felt a little weird about that Sleepingwytch thing? I mean she's clearly got problems and for the most part spent that thread apologizing... and if you read that pastebin shit, it's so absurd as to be almost funny.

I feel like, if there were ever time to cut someone a break, that would have been it. But she got piled on as if she was a slymepitter.

Sleepingwytch is simpleflower (they signed the pastebin letter as such). Simpleflower was an A+ poster for a while, participated in some interesting conversations, and eventually left. Some time later, dudewheresmyhat posted here at the slymepit that they knew simpleflower personally, and said that simpleflower was a poe.

Simpleflower posted as "Marianne" on the Slymepit last month:

viewtopic.php?p=85433#p85433

[LMU]

Simpleflower posted as "Marianne" on the Slymepit last month:

viewtopic.php?p=85433#p85433

Thanks I'd forgotten! Also: Thank you for the pharyngulanhas!

[bovarchist]

It's scary that so many of the FTB crowd think history will look down on them as ahead of their time. Logically, if the future is egalitarian, then the #killallmen and only minorities can be racist talk will seem silly in a world where race and sex doesn't matter.

Even as early as the 90's, an issue of Static Shock (co-created by the late Dwayne McDuffie) pointed out the flaw in the idea that minorities can't be racist by displaying a member of one minority attacking a members of another.

I'm all for social justice, but a lot of this theory is just their version of debating how many angels can dance of the head of a pin.

History will look down on them as an embarrassingly blatant example of how left-wing idealogues can become repressive once they start devaluing Freeze Peach. It's demagoguery, nothing more.

[Tigzy]

Sleepingwytch is currently quite active on the latest Pharyngula threads, and is quite busy dishing out some invective towards them. Have to admit, it's quite amusing to see how the presence of this loon is leaving the babs in quite a kerfuffle: on the one hand, she advocates exterminating half the human population (totes bad, even if it is the more privileged half), but she does have mental health issues - so it would, er, be totes ableist to come down too hard on her. Awkward.

Also, presuming Sleepingwytch is indeed Simpleflower, she's pretty inconsistent:

sleepingwytch

25 May 2013 at 6:53 am (UTC -5)

I guess in today’s privileged Western world, where the cruelty of middle-ages style torture is largely absent and smacking a kid is considered abuse (things I’m quite glad about), it’s very easy to find a decline in violence irrelevant. It’s not.

You’re really fucking sick, I hope the first time you viciously lay a hand on a child, your ass gets thrown in jail for child abuse.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-624627

Now contrast this with what Simpleflower said on the A+ forum:

I'm all for a society where kids (and adults too) who do that sort of thing get confronted by the state and have their heads kicked in ruthlessly and thrown in juvvie or jail if need be where they can whine about free speech in the dungeon with all the other assholes.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... =25#p38935

So yeah...it's either having a poorly thought-out stance, or Sleepingwytch/Simpleflower (again, presuming they're the same) reckons child abuse should only be reserved for those kids who deserve it.

Or maybe it's just down to being mental. Who knows.

[Gumby]

I think you give her too much credit. It's not the actions that she thinks is harassing. It's the person itself. She's objecting to the existence of "creepy" people. If it was someone who she didn't find personally "creepy" she wouldn't have two problems with that behavior.

It's her own privilege and entitlement at play here.

I think that also describes rather well a certain incident involving Rebecca Watson, an unknown male, and an Irish elevator (assuming that incident actually took place, which I have always doubted.) Actually, I've had a 'shop in mind about that very mindset you describe.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f7c05b.png

[Sulaco]

It's okay when they advocate genocide, not okay when we use the word cunt. Only one is a bannable offense!

I don't think there's a better demonstration of how stupid this shit is.

That's because the word "cunt" is much, much worse than genocide, didn't you know that?

Like the line in Apocalypse Now: "We teach them to drop fire on people, but won't them write the word fuck on their helmet."

[AndrewV69]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f7c05b.png

That is a pretty common trope in the Manosphere and is pretty much taken as a given. Christian bloggers such as Laura Grace Robinson and Dalrock mention it all the time. Not to mention Susan Walsh (Girl Game) and Chateau Heartiste (PUA).

Laura Grace Robinson: http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.ca
Dalrock: http://dalrock.wordpress.com
Susan Walsh: http://www.hookingupsmart.com
Heartiste: http://heartiste.wordpress.com

[windy]

TBH Franc can sometimes piss me off with his scorched earth stirring. Some of the writing on his blog is genius, though. He has an uncanny ability to distill things down to their essence with clarity. Guess you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Agreed. FTR I thought franc's most recent eruption went over the line- too close to the FTB-type, wishing death on people, "die in a fire" rhetoric for my taste :snooty:

[agarybuseychristmas]

So, anyone have some choice quotes for a dramatic reading? I'm bored. Feel free to suggest the accent etc., as well.

[bovarchist]

Who is this Sastra filling in for PZ? I only ask because WAY BACK IN OLDEN DAYS, I knew a Sastra who hung out in the #atheism channel of DALnet. It brings back memories; mIRC was the very first time I became aware of an online atheist community.

[Percentage]

Dawkins just posted on Hazel's blog. This should be interesting.

[Apples]

Dawkins just posted on Hazel's blog. This should be interesting.

Link?

[AndrewV69]

Ally Fogg has another article up:

In defence of freedom of speech
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1284

So I don’t have much in the way of informed opinions about misogyny in video games, I’ll leave that to others. Nonetheless I couldn’t help but be sucked in by the debate surrounding Kickstarter Anita Sarkeesian, as good an illustration as we’ll ever need of the vitriol of the new gender wars. An intense storm of hatred was roused by her modest idea to crowd-fund research into sexism in the games industry. The many thousands of hostile comments posted on Sarkeesian’s YouTube video were of course heavily gendered and sexualised, but so too was some of the retaliation – notably Charlie Brooker’s description of the mob as “idiotic pebbledicks” who are terrified of women.

My comment (I enabled the links here)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1284

5
AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

May 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm (UTC 0)

Reply

Your basic premise is wrong.

Anita Sarkeesian has an Encyclopedia Dramatica(1) entry, and that is a clear indication that she was targeted by 4chan(2) for the “lulz”.

It was also pretty clear there was overlap with “Gamer culture”. As a gamer myself I can tell you that insults are par for the course and are designed to rattle you so that your opponent can score and laugh at you. The more over the top the better.

One common argument is that Anita knew exactly what she was doing by not allowing comments elsewhere but only where any prospective backer could see them. And that is all there is to it. You have all been had. Except for Anita.

YMMV

1). http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Feminis ... Chan_Drama
2). http://boards.4chan.org/b/

[Percentage]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

[Apples]

In the Google Hangout Vacula posted earlier Sara Mayhew talked about this exchange among Melody, Josh the Spokesgay, and a few others about Melody's accommodation-fail at WIS and Chris Hofstader's damning blog-post about it:



Mayhew pointed out that 1) Melody's first reaction is to say she hopes Chris will update his blog-post, saying that it is misleading ("a lot of things left out/inaccurate") and 2) that both Melody and Josh make it sound like Chris's complaints were somehow subtle or esoteric -- The experience got Melody to "think about things she'd never thought about"; Josh would "never have thought about these things" in Melody's place and is "glad to be woken up."

Incredible - on the one hand you have Ophelia talking about how you need plants in offices because the lack of them may have a disparate impact on women, and on the other you have Josh and Melody making basic empathy/accommodation for the visually-impaired sound like a newly invented technique in sociological rocket surgery.

[bovarchist]

In the Google Hangout Vacula posted earlier Sara Mayhew talked about this exchange among Melody, Josh the Spokesgay, and a few others about Melody's accommodation-fail at WIS and Chris Hofstader's damning blog-post about it:



Mayhew pointed out that 1) Melody's first reaction is to say she hopes Chris will update his blog-post, saying that it is misleading ("a lot of things left out/inaccurate") and 2) that both Melody and Josh make it sound like Chris's complaints were somehow subtle or esoteric -- The experience got Melody to "think about things she'd never thought about"; Josh would "never have thought about these things" in Melody's place and is "glad to be woken up."

Incredible - on the one hand you have Ophelia talking about how you need plants in offices because the lack of them may have a disparate impact on women, and on the other you have Josh and Melody making basic empathy/accommodation for the visually-impaired sound like a newly invented technique in sociological rocket surgery.

Whoa...that was an incredibly insensitive tweet from SpokesGay. Did anybody else catch it? He says he wouldn't have thought of that "in ur place". Does he really not understand that the phrase "in your place" is triggering to a lot of women who have been told what their place is for centuries?
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:violin:

[windy]

Mayhew pointed out that 1) Melody's first reaction is to say she hopes Chris will update his blog-post, saying that it is misleading ("a lot of things left out/inaccurate")

Questioning the lived experience of a marginalised person? Isn't that a big no-no? Expecting a condemnation of Melody "DJ Grothe" Hensley from the usual quarters...

[ERV]

Blindsplaining.

[bovarchist]

Aaaaaand...banned by Gay in under ten minutes. Hard to believe I hadn't been already.

[Gumby]

Agreed. FTR I thought franc's most recent eruption went over the line- too close to the FTB-type, wishing death on people, "die in a fire" rhetoric for my taste :snooty:

franc is tough and uncompromising, but he's also fucking smart as hell and he's almost always fair when dishing out criticism. Sometimes though, it's easy to see that he forgot to take his morning laxative. :lol:

[Apples]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

Ugh - Miri's post is utterly sophomoric and fiskable (I plead regretavirus), but Dawkins is wresting with pigs and could have put his case more strongly/concisely. His point (with a hat-tip to Stangroom) is spot-on that she and others have the usage principles involved exactly backwards -- suggesting that everyone must use a definition of "racism" invented and prescribed by a fringe of academic sociologists is like objecting to the colloquial use of "energy" to mean pep or fuel-resources simply because physicists have a more rarefied definition (although this simile actually gives SJW-style sociology rather more credit than it deserves).

The SJW attempt to re-define racism in this way may be "well-intentioned," but in practice it is used to foist an essentially marxist ideology on people and sanctify "marginalized" individuals by illegitimately immunizing them from any and all charges of bigotry, no matter how obviously justified.

This little Chomsky clip seems relevant:

[youtube]j-FVctaW3j0[/youtube]

[Apples]

Blindsplaining.

:lol:

[AndrewV69]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

The response from LSP was standard nutjob. I used to be entertained by these people now they are just boring. I do still perk up when they up the ante into batshit crazy though.

2) Yes, it IS impossible for white people to suffer from racist abuse. I’m sorry that you don’t like that fact, but please learn to deal with it. You may be the victim of individual prejudice, but there won’t be an entire cultural narrative of your racial inferiority. The person who doesn’t like you will have vastly fewer avenues to power than you do. Racism is systemic, not mere personal prejudice. If you want to talk about prejudice, then just use the word “prejudice.” It’s a perfectly good word–why don’t you learn from the fact that you’re being unclear and misleading when you use “racist” when you don’t have to, unless you’re actually trying to claim false equivalence here?

This is just "mine eyes glaze over and I fall asleep" stuff.

[AndrewV69]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

...

The SJW attempt to re-define racism in this way may be "well-intentioned," but in practice it is used to foist an essentially marxist ideology on people and sanctify "marginalized" individuals by illegitimately immunizing them from any and all charges of bigotry, no matter how obviously justified.

I doubt it is "well-intentioned" myself (yes I noted the scare quotes). Critical Theory comes to mind actually so I tick off the intentional checkbox myself.

This little Chomsky clip seems relevant:

j-FVctaW3j0

Indeed. That too.

[AndrewV69]

Blindsplaining.

:lol:

Me too. /AOL

[Apples]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

The response from LSP was standard nutjob. I used to be entertained by these people now they are just boring. I do still perk up when they up the ante into batshit crazy though.

2) Yes, it IS impossible for white people to suffer from racist abuse. I’m sorry that you don’t like that fact, but please learn to deal with it. You may be the victim of individual prejudice, but there won’t be an entire cultural narrative of your racial inferiority. The person who doesn’t like you will have vastly fewer avenues to power than you do. Racism is systemic, not mere personal prejudice. If you want to talk about prejudice, then just use the word “prejudice.” It’s a perfectly good word–why don’t you learn from the fact that you’re being unclear and misleading when you use “racist” when you don’t have to, unless you’re actually trying to claim false equivalence here?

This is just "mine eyes glaze over and I fall asleep" stuff.

Right - so because Professor Kyriarchy and SallyStrange and LSP said so, I'm supposed to say that Mr. Honky-Mc-Wrong-Neighborhood got that bootprint on his face due to "abuse motivated by racial prejudice," and that's fine, but if I say it was due to "racist abuse" I'm an ignorant sociology-denier who is being unclear and misleading. Riiiiight. Fuck off, LeftSidePositive - you're a useless and offensive prat.

[BarnOwl]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... mment-8792

The response from LSP was standard nutjob. I used to be entertained by these people now they are just boring. I do still perk up when they up the ante into batshit crazy though.

2) Yes, it IS impossible for white people to suffer from racist abuse. I’m sorry that you don’t like that fact, but please learn to deal with it. You may be the victim of individual prejudice, but there won’t be an entire cultural narrative of your racial inferiority. The person who doesn’t like you will have vastly fewer avenues to power than you do. Racism is systemic, not mere personal prejudice. If you want to talk about prejudice, then just use the word “prejudice.” It’s a perfectly good word–why don’t you learn from the fact that you’re being unclear and misleading when you use “racist” when you don’t have to, unless you’re actually trying to claim false equivalence here?

This is just "mine eyes glaze over and I fall asleep" stuff.

I thought the entire LSP wall o' text response was completely batshit. Here it is, for the intellectual masochist:

LeftSidePositive
May 25, 2013 at 12:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Reply
Richard:

1) But wouldn’t it annoy you if someone spoke of “energy” improperly when trying to talk about physics? It is impossible to divorce “racism” from its context in sociology–because that’s what it MEANS. That’s ALL it means. There is no metaphorical or colloquial use of the term that doesn’t refer to how humans interact socially with each other.

2) Yes, it IS impossible for white people to suffer from racist abuse. I’m sorry that you don’t like that fact, but please learn to deal with it. You may be the victim of individual prejudice, but there won’t be an entire cultural narrative of your racial inferiority. The person who doesn’t like you will have vastly fewer avenues to power than you do. Racism is systemic, not mere personal prejudice. If you want to talk about prejudice, then just use the word “prejudice.” It’s a perfectly good word–why don’t you learn from the fact that you’re being unclear and misleading when you use “racist” when you don’t have to, unless you’re actually trying to claim false equivalence here?

3) Dictionaries are generally the most brief and simplistic ways to define things. Therefore it’s insulting to counter people who have advanced knowledge in a field by dragging the level down to the understanding of just a few sentences (written by people who generally don’t have specialized knowledge in every topic available, and, no, AREN’T a randomly-drawn sample from the entire population and this colors how these academics define and prioritize things!). Furthermore, there is extensive understanding in cognitive science that redefining a word on the fly doesn’t eliminate all the connotations the listener has of it (this is why politicians redefine things like “life,” “compassion,” “clean air and water,” etc.), so it’s actually highly irresponsible and dishonest to redefine a term so cavalierly, because you’re exploiting the connotations that your listener holds without having to logically defend how they apply. If someone were to try to define prejudice against redheads as racist, the responsible thing to do would be to challenge the inaccuracy of the definition, because words mean things and connotations are powerful.

4) I strongly suggest you learn what privilege means (seriously–it’s been years. You’re sadly, embarrassingly overdue). When someone points out you’re behaving like a “smug, white male,” she is criticizing the PRIVILEGE our society has given you, and the way you are oblivious to it, not an inherent/biological state of your being white and/or male. In contrast, when someone uses slurs against a marginalized person, they are asserting that their social inferiority is justified. Also, what Alex Gabriel said below.

5) This isn’t difficult. If my relative is dying of cancer, and you spout off about what you think it’s like to have a relative dying from cancer, and what you say is wrong, hurtful, or presumptuous, you would understand that the kind and reasonable thing to do is to step back and listen to the person actually going through the experience at hand. Maybe you could be saying something brilliant and touching about losing someone from cancer…in which case no one is going to stop you to remind you that you haven’t had that personal experience! Therefore, when someone points out that you that you haven’t had that experience, you should take that as an indication that you have ALREADY said something very stupid about the matter at hand. Moreover, I think the vast majority of human beings understand that when approaching someone whose family member is dying of cancer, the important thing is to be deferential and err on the side of caution and kindness. People intuitively grasp this. Why does your empathy center shut off when we’re dealing with people who are experiencing gender or race-based marginalization? By the way, I suggest you reconsider what exactly it means to be “objective” when discussing subjective experiences. How it feels to be harassed, how it feels to lose a loved one, how it feels to be denied justice because of race or sex are inherently subjective experiences. Moreover, when someone points out you haven’t been in a marginalized group, they are telling you that you lack information about what forms discrimination may take, and what effects it has. If you really wanted to denounce sexism, shouldn’t you first listen to women to understand what they’re going through? Is that really too much to ask? Wouldn’t you want to make sure you’re aware of the latest in critical theory and social understanding of these phenomena before you talk about them? Isn’t that just due diligence? Wouldn’t that make you most likely to be effective? Moreover, nobody criticizes Jay Smooth, PZ Myers, Rhys Morgan, Jason Thiebault, Adam Lee, and the ENTIRE group of men who actually contributed to a “Speaking Out Against Hate Directed At Women” series put on by the most prominent feminist skeptic group for the very PURPOSE of giving men a chance to speak up about sexism, simply for being men. Therefore, your naive, simplistic, and shockingly ignorant belief that you are being discounted simply because of your gender doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. You are being criticized because you are getting basic facts astoundingly wrong, due to a lack of firsthand experience in these topics and your failure to realize that you lack basic information, largely because your culture has reflected to you that your experience is the default and the objective one–and, unlike other men that I have previously mentioned, you have neither the intellect nor the sense of ethics to realize your cultural biases. As such, you are reflecting a “male” cultural bias and are being criticized appropriately, but it is far from impossible to actually learn and move past the cultural biases that you enjoy as a male…you just haven’t done it yet.

6) I strongly suggest you read everything Crommunist has ever written about how incredibly stupid it is to assume all criticisms of your racial politics or understanding automatically make you “A Racist.” People are not entirely racist or entirely not. People can generally mean well but still have certain ingrained biases or make assumptions, and it’s fair to educate them and it’s not writing them off as a person. Really, I can’t believe you don’t know this. It’s 2013. You are seriously (i.e., DECADES) behind the curve here.

I think my "favorite" is #6.

[windy]

The response from LSP was standard nutjob. I used to be entertained by these people now they are just boring. I do still perk up when they up the ante into batshit crazy though.

2) Yes, it IS impossible for white people to suffer from racist abuse. I’m sorry that you don’t like that fact, but please learn to deal with it. You may be the victim of individual prejudice, but there won’t be an entire cultural narrative of your racial inferiority. The person who doesn’t like you will have vastly fewer avenues to power than you do. Racism is systemic, not mere personal prejudice. ...

Fuck, then how do you talk about different grades and types of racism, if all that is baked into the definition already?

"In apartheid South Africa, racism was institutional, the same as racism everywhere always is. Because that's what racism is. Systemic. And institutional. The end."

[AndrewV69]

Aaaaaand...banned by Gay in under ten minutes. Hard to believe I hadn't been already.

Congratz!! :happy-cheerleaderkid:

[DW Adams]

LSP really thinks Dawkins can learn something by reading Crommunist posts? ROFL

JesusFuck.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I like Franc, but he's not the end-all to the end-all that he pretends to be.

PZ Myers is proud to announce that the FTB school of mind-reading has acquired another A+ graduate.

MKG is a Nerd of Redhead sockpuppet, AICMFP.

[Tony Parsehole]

LSP really thinks Dawkins can learn something by reading Crommunist posts? ROFL

JesusFuck.

Now, now....be fair. We can all learn something by reading Crommunist's posts.
I learned he's an ignorant, fuckwitted arsehole who thinks he can never be wrong.

[Gumby]

SKEEVE -

Check your IM's.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

So there quite a shitstorm going on in the comments:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... an-rights/

Simpleflower hath returned!

Wow and with a vengeance, so to speak.

Xanthe does say "I cannot support the repugnant ideas in her pastebin, but neither will I support the comment thread here at Pharyngula becoming another example of transphobic, ableist mockery of someone who has severe problems to deal with in their life." (That's what I get for having read from the bottom upwards.)

They can't know how many of the people they've attacked have some form of physical disability or mental illness. It's been my experience that the self-respecting mentally ill don't like to define themselves by their illness and don't publicise their problems. It's not a nice thing to feel fundamentally 'damaged' or to feel stigmatised. It can make you feel excluded from normal life. This business of wearing disadvantages on the sleeve makes me suspect that some of these victims are not quite as advertised. It's a little disturbing that people are being encouraged to effectively render themselves dysfunctional in some way when it would be more beneficial for them to see themselves as able and accountable. The unburdening is best done in the presence of therapists or a support network.

[Percentage]

Ugh - Miri's post is utterly sophomoric and fiskable (I plead regretavirus), but Dawkins is wresting with pigs and could have put his case more strongly/concisely. His point (with a hat-tip to Stangroom) is spot-on that she and others have the usage principles involved exactly backwards -- suggesting that everyone must use a definition of "racism" invented and prescribed by a fringe of academic sociologists is like objecting to the colloquial use of "energy" to mean pep or fuel-resources simply because physicists have a more rarefied definition (although this simile actually gives SJW-style sociology rather more credit than it deserves).

Miri's blog is sort of like a repository where she exhaustively lays out all the FfTB/SJW talking points; it's a good referent if you want to understand exactly where these guys are coming from.

I'm still generally impressed with her given her age; she explains the concepts (dumb as they may be) more clearly and concisely than Peezus or Crommunist.

[nippletwister]

http://i.imgur.com/zTX3Roj.jpg

You are the :hankey: , Jan Steen, that you are.

Love it!

[Tigzy]

Re: Dawkins/Miri's blog

So the SJWs are going by a strict sociological definition of 'racism'. Well fuck me, but as if that counts as anything. Any so-called discipline which is as vulnerable to an ideology as sociology is about as useful a genuine measure of society as quantum woo is to science. From wiki:

Irving Louis Horowitz, in his The Decomposition of Sociology (1994), has argued that the discipline, whilst arriving from a "distinguished lineage and tradition", is in decline due to deeply ideological theory and a lack of relevance to policy making: "The decomposition of sociology began when this great tradition became subject to ideological thinking, and an inferior tradition surfaced in the wake of totalitarian triumphs."[136] Furthermore: "A problem yet unmentioned is that sociology's malaise has left all the social sciences vulnerable to pure positivism—to an empiricism lacking any theoretical basis. Talented individuals who might, in an earlier time, have gone into sociology are seeking intellectual stimulation in business, law, the natural sciences, and even creative writing; this drains sociology of much needed potential."[136] Horowitz cites the lack of a 'core discipline' as exacerbating the problem. Randall Collins, the Dorothy Swaine Thomas Professor in Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History journal, has voiced similar sentiments: "we have lost all coherence as a discipline, we are breaking up into a conglomerate of specialities, each going on its own way and with none too high regard for each other."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology# ... isciplines

Still, sociology at least proved a damn easy GCSE, given that I correctly figured one need only parrot fashionable, left-leaning theory to pass. Though I admit this is despite the fact that one of my sociology teachers at school told us, outright, that homosexual sex was like 'sticking your penis into a toilet'. Hmmm. Quite.

[AndrewV69]

Breaking News:

Julianne Moore reveals she was completely oblivious to 'toe-mageddon' on Cannes red carpet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... arpet.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/ ... 06x423.jpg

We can now resume our regularly scheduled programme.

(OK my addiction to the Daily Mail may be becoming a problem)

[Apples]

Shitballs ... another innocent A+ thread turns problematic -- this time it's a "Recipe Thread for Cautious [i.e., timid to the point of incompetent - ed.] Food-makers."

Emptyell makes the mistake of recommending Egg in a Hole (Nest, Basket. whatever), which she apparently calls Egyptian Eggs or One-Eyed Egyptian eggs (I say apparently because moderator ischemgeek took the liberty of editing the post: "Reason: Removing racially charged food name").

MODERATOR NOTICE: Emptyell, I know you probably don't associate that food name with anything disparaging, but I'd stay away from such food names because they are microagressive.

That's right - even though it has nothing to do with race and refers to ancient Egyptian painting style, it's a "racially charged food name" and a "microaggression."

So Emptyell apologizes for being blind to her microaggressiveness -- d'oh!!! Kassiane pounces:

Sooo associating blindness with a bad thing (like not noticing something you are saying or doing is microaggressive) is also microaggressive...

Classic. Dear A-plussers - you deserve each other:

:moon:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 739#p83303

[John Greg]

Apples: Unfuckingbelievable. HAHAHAHAHA. Lunacy runs rampant.

[John Greg]

Cripes, would those retards do with linguini puttanesca? Have a force-ten metldown?

[John Greg]

ahem: ... what would those retards ... meltdown.

[Guest]

Regarding the Dawkins drama, I'm reminded of these words, which a wise man once wrote long ago.

The ability to wield weapons and attack someone with impunity is power. It is, indeed, quintessential power, power in its most basic form.

Thus, it is false to say racial minorities completely lack power. They have less power, not none. And making it all about institutional power is fallacious. Power is power. Whether it is a mob or a posse or a government doesn’t matter in any relevant way. The KKK wasn’t a government, lynch mobs were not part of the state. And a lynch mob chasing a white man because he’s white is no different from a lynch mob chasing a black man because he’s black.

This is a semantic confusion over two different definitions of racism, one highly esoteric and of use in certain contexts, and another, the one used and known to almost all English speaking people.

[Lsuoma]

Shitballs ... another innocent A+ thread turns problematic -- this time it's a "Recipe Thread for Cautious [i.e., timid to the point of incompetent - ed.] Food-makers."

Emptyell makes the mistake of recommending Egg in a Hole (Nest, Basket. whatever), which she apparently calls Egyptian Eggs or One-Eyed Egyptian eggs (I say apparently because moderator ischemgeek took the liberty of editing the post: "Reason: Removing racially charged food name").

MODERATOR NOTICE: Emptyell, I know you probably don't associate that food name with anything disparaging, but I'd stay away from such food names because they are microagressive.

That's right - even though it has nothing to do with race and refers to ancient Egyptian painting style, it's a "racially charged food name" and a "microaggression."

So Emptyell apologizes for being blind to her microaggressiveness -- d'oh!!! Kassiane pounces:

Sooo associating blindness with a bad thing (like not noticing something you are saying or doing is microaggressive) is also microaggressive...

Classic. Dear A-plussers - you deserve each other:

:moon:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 739#p83303

Jeebus Tittyfucking Christ!!!

Plus, I don't think anyone has noticed emptyell's avatar yet - from The Residents. Watch the shit hit the fan when someone spots that!

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/7ZLngLA.jpg

[John Greg]

Hmm. I posted a comment on Ally Foggs Defence of Free Speech post (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... of-speech/). I thought my comment was a reasonable set of possible reasons, beyond supposed hateful sexism, for the hostile reactions against Sarkeesian and her research project. Ally, responding most angrily, and as far as I can tell, really missed all of my points (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1306).

Anyone care to take a gander and tell me, with explication, where I went wrong, and how I misstated my position so badly as to be so strongly misunderstood?

Thanks.

[free thoughtpolice]

Best episode ever Jan!!

[Gumby]

LOL @ Oolon the Candiru.

:clap:

[Zenspace]

LOL @ Oolon the Candiru.

:clap:

Amazingly appropriate match, sir!

(And, yes, I had to look it up.)

[AndrewV69]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1313

11
AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

May 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm (UTC 0)

Reply

5.4
LeftSidePositive

May 25, 2013 at 7:02 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

Soo, Andrew–you’re saying Anita is so evil and manipulative because she showed people the harassment she was getting?!

You just reframed my words into something I never said.

Floosh! Dismissed.

[Barael]

Sometime back Elam said if I remember correctly he was going to Fuck Their Shit Up. Sounds like war to me. I suspect that other aspects of the MRM are going to join in if they have not taken this stance already.

We already know that there are lots of pissed off men out there. What will happen in the next few years? Your guess is a good as mine. But I am not expecting it to be pretty.

Yes, I'm sure it will be ugly.

http://www.toodlepip.co.uk/files-toodle ... yboard.jpg

Come on! Trigger warning this stuff! I just destroyed a 160 euro mechanical keyboard last Friday by spilling half a Fosters on it (and then going to sleep without bothering to clean it up).

[AndrewV69]

Hmm. I posted a comment on Ally Foggs Defence of Free Speech post (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... of-speech/). I thought my comment was a reasonable set of possible reasons, beyond supposed hateful sexism, for the hostile reactions against Sarkeesian and her research project. Ally, responding most angrily, and as far as I can tell, really missed all of my points (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1306).

Anyone care to take a gander and tell me, with explication, where I went wrong, and how I misstated my position so badly as to be so strongly misunderstood?

Thanks.

Not what you are asking but I suspect you hit a nerve somewhere. No I do not know exactly where either. I do not know him well enough to make a guess either.

I might have started it with the speculation that everyone except Anita has been "had" but I really can not say with any degree of confidence.

[JackSkeptic]

Hmm. I posted a comment on Ally Foggs Defence of Free Speech post (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... of-speech/). I thought my comment was a reasonable set of possible reasons, beyond supposed hateful sexism, for the hostile reactions against Sarkeesian and her research project. Ally, responding most angrily, and as far as I can tell, really missed all of my points (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1306).

Anyone care to take a gander and tell me, with explication, where I went wrong, and how I misstated my position so badly as to be so strongly misunderstood?

Thanks.

You used the word 'fraud' twice, a serious accusation even though you said it was a perception and reason for some of the kick back against her. Ally seems to have missed that point as if you were excusing it when clearly you were not.

I do feel from both Ally and even yourself your lack of familiarity with online games is showing through though. I have played literally thousands of hours of online games and they are one of the least sexist places going when you ignore the imagery. Women are routinely heads or officers of guilds and heavily involved in the more complex aspects of gaming, such as hard core raiding. As you state people abuse each other and women are not given a free pass but neither are they especially singled out.

Also by European standards Avatars are very mild in the US. Women have covered breasts and men bulges and large pecks. Of course they are sometimes accentuated as sex sells but both men and women are objectified in that way by the person who created the avatar as they are usually bespoke on creation. A feature of online games is avatar bodies can be altered and unless we want to go into the territory of religious extremists that means freedom to design a body you wish.

In addition there can be thousands of 'clothes' avatars can wear and sexy outfits are just one choice of many. In fact usually the detail, rarity and colouring is far more important.

I just get the feeling, based on my experience, there is a lot of ignorance and confirmation bias flying around about games. That is one of the main reasons Sarkeesian got a lot of push back, she is exploiting that and not providing context or counter factuals when presenting her views. To put it simply, she is talking uninformed rubbish. The money would have been much better spent on someone with more experience and integrity. Then if any sexism exists it would have been correctly identified and taken more seriously.

[surreptitious57]

The twitterers they are complaining about have no connection to the slymepit

This may be true but is also academic as any one from this side who references misogyny gets labelled
as being from here whether or not they are : So the issue is not about the forum : And your suggestion
about reminding them of this will be of no use : It shall not even register for you are on two completely different wavelengths : I hope you do try : I do not know why you are banned but post it if you can then
see their reaction : States of mind are a tad more important than membership of clubs though we think
you know that : The same incidentally applies to them and those on the third side so you are not unique

[AndrewV69]

Come on! Trigger warning this stuff! I just destroyed a 160 euro mechanical keyboard last Friday by spilling half a Fosters on it (and then going to sleep without bothering to clean it up).

I had to give up eating and drinking while perusing the pit my man. Although, I had a lapse recently at a fast food joint the other day, managed to turn my head and sprayed the table beside me instead.

(fortunately it was unoccupied at the time).

[Apples]

Hmm. I posted a comment on Ally Foggs Defence of Free Speech post (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... of-speech/). I thought my comment was a reasonable set of possible reasons, beyond supposed hateful sexism, for the hostile reactions against Sarkeesian and her research project. Ally, responding most angrily, and as far as I can tell, really missed all of my points (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1306).

Anyone care to take a gander and tell me, with explication, where I went wrong, and how I misstated my position so badly as to be so strongly misunderstood?

Thanks.

Off the top of my head - I think Woo_Monster and LSP put him back on his heels, and so he's unwilling to admit any nuance on the major theme in his post that is in line with their talking points. He does stick his neck out in the OP by essentially saying exactly what Lindsay said at WIS --

"Anyone who dares to raise a sceptical voice in many feminist blog spaces can expect more aggression and abuse than reasoned debate. The urge to silence opponents is probably a human one, and for that reason it is all the more important we are conscious of it in ourselves and wary of it in others."

So I'd guess he's trying to avoid budging an inch on zero-tolerance for "aggression and abuse" and is thus being impatient with your points.

I'm bothered by his facile use of "misogyny." Misogyny (and other forms of bigotry/hatred) are all about intent. If your motivation is to intimidate or demoralize someone because you want to win a specific battle, then it's not about prejudice and bigotry -- though it is about aggression, which raises independent ethical questions. Ally actually concedes Andrew's (and your) point: "The misogyny wasn’t necessarily driven by deep underlying personal prejudice and was instrumental – designed to produce a particular effect."

Well, in that case, it's not really about misogyny. As you point out, John, even if trollish and adolescent abuse and insult designed to exploit any possible vulnerability is "gender-based," it's not really misogyny unless the perpetrator is actually motivated by a general hatred of/hostility toward women. So I think you're right that this is not as simple as Ally portrays it to be -- but he's a professional fence-sitter in the gender wars and is pulling a bit of a Silverman: You must denounce - without qualification!

[Dick Strawkins]

Hmm. I posted a comment on Ally Foggs Defence of Free Speech post (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... of-speech/). I thought my comment was a reasonable set of possible reasons, beyond supposed hateful sexism, for the hostile reactions against Sarkeesian and her research project. Ally, responding most angrily, and as far as I can tell, really missed all of my points (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-1306).

Anyone care to take a gander and tell me, with explication, where I went wrong, and how I misstated my position so badly as to be so strongly misunderstood?

Thanks.

Any negative criticism of Anita Sarkeesian is going to get you viewed as a butthurt sexist gamer by progressives.
Reading between the lines I get the feeling that she is viewed as providing a feminist critique of video gaming culture, and as such is not expected to be rigorous about her research.
Essentially she has asked for (and received) a lot of money to make videos giving her personal views on computer games.
If you criticise her for doing this you will be viewed as someone trying to silence and slander her.

It is best to avoid discussion of AS in discussions with progressives.