Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[comhcinc]

Completely unrelated wrestling twitter update.

[tina]

ugh.jpg

A FB friend posted this...WTF? I can't even... I just.... I don't grok this level of stoopid. Arrghhh! *gasp* *faints*

Page 666 eh? The Page of the Beast

Hahahaha. Indeed. Patriarchy, a concept invented by feminists, in which feminists contend that patriarchy says this about men. Brilliant.

Also, check the source. Nirmukta?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nirmukta/

What a coincidence!

Couldn't be feminism that tells women that PIV sex is raep, how a woman is wasting her time bringing up a family is wasting good sisterly time, that women have no agency and are perpetual victims? Not possible. Must be the patriarchy. Must be.

[austin]

And I also noted that Sam Harris (#7 on the list) has 77% more scientific citations than Peezer, even though he only got his PhD in 2009 and his scientific career has had to share time with being a multiple-time best selling author and busy public intellectual. And Dawkins? Over 3500% more citations.

When Peezus does once in a while post some interesting actual science stuff on things, practically the only things he does have background in, evo-devo, even if he grotesquely thinks it explains all of evolution, he gets about 20 comments or so if he is lucky, and most of them don't know what the fuck he's talking about. That is the extent that his scientific readership has shrunk.

[Scented Nectar]

Any comments from the usual suspects yet about Yazidi women kidnapped by the Islamic State and turned into sex slaves?

Just curious.

What? You mean focus on an actual legit feminist issue? Hahahahah, surely you jest. The current party line considers any mention of wrong-doing by islamicists to be islamophobia and racism. Feminists ignore theocratic sexism these days, even though theocracies are where the bulk of actual real live sexism exists.

[jugheadnaut]

And I also noted that Sam Harris (#7 on the list) has 77% more scientific citations than Peezer, even though he only got his PhD in 2009 and his scientific career has had to share time with being a multiple-time best selling author and busy public intellectual. And Dawkins? Over 3500% more citations.

When Peezus does once in a while post some interesting actual science stuff on things, practically the only things he does have background in, evo-devo, even if he grotesquely thinks it explains all of evolution, he gets about 20 comments or so if he is lucky, and most of them don't know what the fuck he's talking about. That is the extent that his scientific readership has shrunk.

And he sneeringly dismisses Dawkins charge of click baiting. Granted, it's possible that he much prefers doing drama posts and those posts just independently happen to get hugely more attention. But I'll go with the less coincidental hypothesis that he writes drama posts much more often than science posts in large part because he knows those posts get orders of magnitude more clicks.

[comhcinc]

Oh, remember last week when Myers was crowing at the demise of Skepticblog? I pointed out then that if you actually read the 'goodbye post' instead of leaping to conclusions the blog was being retired and that it was going to continue on in a different way.

Today is the new announcement. It's now at the Skeptic Society (the sponsors of the original blog) and is called Insight: http://www.skeptic.com/insight/

And it has a far larger blogging staff than before. (It was pretty much down to one regular and one part-timer as Skeptiblog.)

Now its:

Ani Aharonian, a cognitive psychologist and PhD student at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and an institutional researcher at Santa Monica College;

Barbara Drescher, a long-time former university instructor of quantitative and cognitive psychology, blogger at ICBS Everywhere, regular contributor to the podcast Skepticality and the weekly streaming video program The Virtual Skeptics;

Tim Farley, a computer security analyst, creator of the What’s the Harm? website and the Skeptical Software Tools blog, and co-host of The Virtual Skeptics;

Jim Lippard, a skeptical writer for decades who works in the information security field, blogger, and founder of the Phoenix Skeptics in 1985;

Robynn “Swoopy” McCarthy, the founding co-host of the pioneering, original skeptics podcast, Skepticality—The Official Podcast of Skeptic Magazine;

Mike McRae, an Australian educator, science writer, and author of Tribal Science;

Dr. Donald Prothero, a paleontologist who has taught college geology and paleontology for decades at schools including Caltech and Columbia, and author of over 35 science books (and over 300 scientific papers);

Dr. Michael Shermer, a Scientific American columnist, historian, author of numerous books, and Editor and founding publisher of Skeptic magazine;

Dr. Eve Siebert, a blogger at Skeptical Humanities and co-host of The Virtual Skeptics;
Blake Smith, the producer and host of MonsterTalk, an official podcast of Skeptic magazine;

Laurie Tarr, a technical writer and co-founder of the Louisville Area Skeptics;
and finally, yours truly (Daniel Loxton)

Which is a major step-up from Skeptiblog in its stable of quality writers.

They have thought ahead too about keeping the FtBullies in line.

There are few things so central to the projects of scholarly, journalistic, and scientific truth-seeking than conversation. Talking things out is humanity’s greatest superpower. It is the true telepathy—a way for one mind to reach out and attempt to understand another.

With the fruitful alchemy of conversation in mind, we’re pleased to allow comments on most posts at INSIGHT at Skeptic.com. We invite and encourage civil discussion, scholarly debate, and open exchanges of ideas.

To that end, comments on blog posts at Skeptic.com are moderated, and should be considered a privilege. If you choose to submit comments, please remember:

Comments should be polite, charitable, on-topic, and reasonable.
Comments should not be abusive, disruptive, libelous, annoying, or spam.
Comments judged to be inappropriate will be deleted. Commenters who abuse the comments policy in any manner may be banned.
Commenters are encouraged (though not required) to engage in discussion under their own names.

From time to time we may tweak our Comment Policy, posted here.

I hope all commenters will keep these useful principles of “Proper Criticism” articulated in 1987 by pioneering skeptic Ray Hyman firmly in mind. Please be courteous toward readers and authors, and please (especially) be generous in your use of the principle of charity when responding to others.

We all know comments sections can be problematic—there are reasons for some popular science portals to move away from them altogether—but they can also be very special, and very encouraging for writers.

Perhaps unwisely, I’ve always read the comments on everything I write. Generally, at the scale I work at, the good far outweighs the bad. I’m grateful when eagle-eyed readers spot errors, happy when people mount civil, good faith challenges to my arguments, and excited when people put themselves out there and share their own ideas (sometimes a nerve-wracking choice on the internet, I know).

I look forward to reading your thoughts on future posts!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

PAGE 666 !!!!!!!!!!! lml

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

erm...sorry, carry on...

[ERV]

More fun:

Speaking of which, where are my petri dishes, Abbie? Get busy, woman! Then make me a sammich.

I am... BELOVED!

Also, no one 'cleans Petri dishes'. No one. That's not a thing. Wtf lol!

Also, when I was an undergrad, I did research on serial killers. People faking nursing/physician credentials, working as a fraud for years, however, is absolutely a thing.

[Gumby]

And I also noted that Sam Harris (#7 on the list) has 77% more scientific citations than Peezer, even though he only got his PhD in 2009 and his scientific career has had to share time with being a multiple-time best selling author and busy public intellectual. And Dawkins? Over 3500% more citations.

When Peezus does once in a while post some interesting actual science stuff on things, practically the only things he does have background in, evo-devo, even if he grotesquely thinks it explains all of evolution, he gets about 20 comments or so if he is lucky, and most of them don't know what the fuck he's talking about. That is the extent that his scientific readership has shrunk.

It may be that his SciBlogs Pharyngula gets slightly more science literate commenter, but I haven't checked in over there in over a year. In any case, his posts over there were only attracting a few comments each at that time. He's positioned himself out of science blogging and into fax-social-justice rage-click blogging, and it's doubtful he'll emphasize science ever again in his FtB Pharyngula. Game over, man! Game over!

[Gefan]

Completely unrelated wrestling twitter update.

You want a female wrestler ready for the zombie apocalypse?
I give you, the incomparable Jessicka Havok.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 9534_n.jpg

Alas, she just debuted with the "Titanic as clowncar" of wrestling promotions, TNA.
If Greg Laden were a wrestling organization he would be TNA.

Bonus pic:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/2ded17f04189 ... o1_500.jpg

At 6' tall and (in reality as opposed to official listings) close to 200lbs, if I need a woman who "kicks ass on a daily basis" to back me up in a bar fight, call me crazy, but I'm picky her over Amy Roth.

[jimthepleb]

Even Michael Nugent is condemning PZ Myers now:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

I hope he has fire proof underwear. 'Cause you know they're going to try and burn him at the stake.

Given the things that he's actually accomplished as part of Atheist Ireland, good luck to them. That would backfire catastrophically.

Backfire in what way?
Cause irreparable damage to a nascent A/S community? Already accomplished.
Stop him doing his vital work in what is still a proto-theocracy? Collateral damage to a cis-het white male ain't no big deal.
The consequences of their actions are immaterial, as long as their voices are heard.
Nugent was one of the few who made a legitimate attempt to reach across the deep rift. It appears that he has finally realised that those on the other side are not reaching out to help you across but rather beckoning you over only to slap your hand away as it reaches theirs.

[Sulman]

fax-social-justice rage-click blogging

Dude could at least graduate to 'electronic mail'.

[comhcinc]

At 6' tall and (in reality as opposed to official listings) close to 200lbs, if I need a woman who "kicks ass on a daily basis" to back me up in a bar fight, call me crazy, but I'm picky her over Amy Roth.

If we are going there (and why the hell not?) I have a thing for Charlotte Flair

http://dailywrestlingnews.com/wp-conten ... lotte1.jpg

If I am honest with myself I can not say that it doesn't have to do with fulfilling a sexual fantasy with her father.

And TNA might be getting better.....maybe........yeah but hey Jeff Jarrett has a new thing going and it looks like it might be interesting
http://globalforcewrestling.com/

[Ericb]

And I also noted that Sam Harris (#7 on the list) has 77% more scientific citations than Peezer, even though he only got his PhD in 2009 and his scientific career has had to share time with being a multiple-time best selling author and busy public intellectual. And Dawkins? Over 3500% more citations.

When Peezus does once in a while post some interesting actual science stuff on things, practically the only things he does have background in, evo-devo, even if he grotesquely thinks it explains all of evolution, he gets about 20 comments or so if he is lucky, and most of them don't know what the fuck he's talking about. That is the extent that his scientific readership has shrunk.

It may be that his SciBlogs Pharyngula gets slightly more science literate commenter, but I haven't checked in over there in over a year. In any case, his posts over there were only attracting a few comments each at that time. He's positioned himself out of science blogging and into fax-social-justice rage-click blogging, and it's doubtful he'll emphasize science ever again in his FtB Pharyngula. Game over, man! Game over!

Faux social justice rage posts are also a lot easier to write. Less effort more pennies.

[Gumby]

fax-social-justice rage-click blogging

Dude could at least graduate to 'electronic mail'.

Fucking autocorrect.

[zenbabe]

Last month he described Robin Williams’ suicide as the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people, said that a white lady who made racist comments looks like the kind of person who would have laughed at nanu-nanu, then added that he should have been more rude, because asking him to have been nicer about the dead famous guy is missing the point.

I believe and hope that he has now passed the apex of this approach. Some of his recent posts have been informative and science-based, he has written a sensitive account of his first kiss as a teenager, he has argued that people are complex rather than good or bad, and some of his recent criticisms of those he disagrees with have been more balanced and nuanced.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

Yeah, no. You can hope that Peezus will become a reasonable person, but that isn't likely given that his excesses are the only thing keeping him relevant. He has built a cult around his irresponsible tirades, and if he suddenly gets reasonable he is going to lose his claque of braying imbeciles, and his status in the movement. He doesn't bring anything to atheism so unique that we can't find it in someone else who hasn't already shit on most of the major players in the community.

If the organizations who run conferences and fly speakers around the world all reach the conclusion that he's worthless as a skeptic, is a thug instead of an advocate for atheism, and in fact does nothing except work very hard at destroying the skeptic/atheist community from within so he can have control over it, and the invites and free tickets dry up, all he'll have is his sorry blog with his insane, vitriolic, pathetic regulars. His trap is that he can't become reasonable, because his horde will flay him alive and then where will he be? How will he be able to consider himself as important, as a part of the "we" who get to wield power? The only hope he has of maintaining his position as a speaker at the cons is to use intimidation and threats against the careers of those who actually do have the power to shut all that down.

Well, to amend, it seems he will always have CFI.

Nugent says: "I have no idea what PZ thinks he will gain by continuing to publicly attack named people in this personalised way."

.... really. No idea?
I guess PZ and the rest of the FTBullies (the all-seeing, all-powerful "we") already have their tickets for the next con in Dublin.

Feh!

[comhcinc]

So everyone should check out Maddox's latest podcast. It is talking a lot about clickbait and outrage porn.

http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/

[zenbabe]

More fun:

Speaking of which, where are my petri dishes, Abbie? Get busy, woman! Then make me a sammich.

I am... BELOVED!

Also, no one 'cleans Petri dishes'. No one. That's not a thing. Wtf lol!

Perhaps it's a technique he read about in the book about lab practices written in the roaring twenties? That he found in a pile of debris when he was rescuing (and photographing) suicidal patients from the hurricane tornado which was waging war upon and raping Greenland? I think that's when he says he got PTSD? Before he got engaged to the Tibetan princess he met after he flew to the Moon?

[another lurker]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it, but I don't think that I would like to know that. You can always go back to your own farm animals and then click on a few of them to make sure they have a good weekend. I'll try to avoid any confusion about your own personal experience with that.

[Ericb]

More fun:

Speaking of which, where are my petri dishes, Abbie? Get busy, woman! Then make me a sammich.

I am... BELOVED!

Also, no one 'cleans Petri dishes'. No one. That's not a thing. Wtf lol!

Perhaps it's a technique he read about in the book about lab practices written in the roaring twenties? That he found in a pile of debris when he was rescuing (and photographing) suicidal patients from the hurricane tornado which was waging war upon and raping Greenland? I think that's when he says he got PTSD? Before he got engaged to the Tibetan princess he met after he flew to the Moon?

http://i43.tinypic.com/2cfd00j.jpg

[Gefan]

...And TNA might be getting better.....maybe...]

Nothing can rescue TNA. Nothing.
I've been watching an archive of Bryan and Vinny reviews of TNA and Russo's boundless stupidity over the years and I've been both laughing, and awestruck at the level of dumb-fuckery.

Here's a great place to start:

[youtube]opM6eyjIYH0[/youtube]

[JacquesCuze]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... rongering/

http://i.imgur.com/pTf61Ep.jpg
...
I couldn’t be more shocked if Dawkins had endorsed a creationist. Sommers is not credible. She is a contrarian beloved by anti-feminists (just look at the people thrilled by Dawkins’ statement) with a reputation for dishonesty and twisting the facts.

Some time ago, I asked Hornbeck about his ideas, specifically

+ what his field was in
+ what papers has he written, where have they been published.

I did this because while I have a STEM background, my knowledge of biology and recent events in genetics is 30 years old, and so yes indeed, my heuristic is to look for degrees, scientific training, papers and scientific acceptance of those papers to help me vet the cranks.

I was told I was appealing to authority.

But here is Sommers who has

+ a ph.d in philosophy from 1979, the thick of the second wave feminist revolution in academia
+ taught in philosophy departments
+ has been writing about feminism since at least 1995 when she wrote "Who stole feminism?"
+ has identified herself as a feminist
+ has written papers about the history of feminism from its very earliest 19th Century Mary Shelley days

Whose message is clearly echoed by other feminists, feminist professors, and scholars of feminism like

+ Camille Paglia
+ Wendy Kaminer, ACLU, FIRE
+ Noretta Koertege, Ph.D Philosophy of Science, co-author
"Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies"
+ Daphne Patai, Ph.D feminist scholar, joint appointment in women's studies and in Portuguese, co-author
"Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies"
+ Cathy Young
+ Carol Tavris, Ph.D social psychology, instructor of women's studies (wiki)

And wiki tells me apparently also by

+ Donna Laframboise, journalist, degreed in women's studies (wiki)
+ Jean Bethke Elshtain, feminist scholar (wiki)
+ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, PhD, founding director for the Institute for Women's Studies at Emory University (wiki)
author "'Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life': How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch with the Real Concerns of Women"
(Essay by Cathy Young here: http://reason.com/archives/2007/01/09/t ... antifemini)
+ Alice S. Rossi, Founder National Organization for Women (NOW)
+ Nadine Strossen, President ACLU
+ Joan Kennedy Taylor, Journalist,
national coordinator of the Association of Libertarian Feminists,
Instructor at the New School
"Different Voices: Feminism at the Crossroads"
"Women and the Law"
Author "Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered"

Google Scholar (and I use it so rarely, I honestly don't know how to interpret this) provides in 2,630 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... ff+sommers

So Sommer's claim to being both a feminist as well as having real life as well as academic expertise in feminism seems quite justified.

And in specific, her claims that equity feminism is a real branch of feminist theory are grounded at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/ and discussed again here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/

So on what basis can we consider Sommers not a feminist? PZ's argument seems to rely on

+ guilt by association, she (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is employed by AEI
+ Myers hyperbolic misinterpretations and misrepresentations of this quote:

In my view, the noble cause of women’s emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women’s movement. First, today’s movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same.

+ And this by Julie Craig paper from 2002 which is similar to Amanda Marcotte's recent enemies list (but is in fact a lot more fleshed out and with a great deal less vitriol) http://www.michelepolak.com/WMST100fall ... /craig.pdf

Julie Craig appears to be a fairly minor writer on things feminist during the mid 90s to mid 00s. I can't find any academic information on her, and wiki seems to provide nothing.

Craig's article "I can't believe it's not feminism! On the Feminists who aren't" seems to:

+ Start off acknowledging several of the women above

+ acknowledge they ask important questions
"They defy feminism to make some serious questions about the future of the movement and who fits into it.
Can a conservative woman be a feminist?
Has feminism become so radical that mainstream opponents of equal rights are alienated by its rhetoric?"

+ and then provide reasons to dismiss the important questions to find ways to dismiss and excommunicate them
"These are all interesting questions, but more relevant ones might be...
Do these authors actually contribute to the body of feminism, or do they perpetuate the delusion that feminism is a dangerous force with power disproportionate to the numbers of its adherents?"

+ and then goes on to assassinate several of these women

+ She acknowledges that Sommers books makes one or two valid points regarding feminist classrooms, and then without citation or defense makes the statement that Myers quotes:

Sommer’s shortsighted analysis ignores the diversity of women’s studies faculties and the existence of other critics of classroom radicalism, and her generalizations do not paint an accurate picture of feminist education any more than they adhere honestly to the realities of feminist philosophy.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like your opinion, ma'am" -- she literally backs up her claim with nothing.

+ And then she commits some more guilt by association, Sommers was funded by conservative organizations (I guess this answers the question that Craig ignored, "can conservative women be feminists")
+ Finally in the Sommer's section she makes the claim there is no evidence Sommers ever participated in feminist academics or activism.
+ Having ignored their questions, having assassinated their characters, she ends her article describing these women as wrongheaded, misinformed, grating, and faux-feminists and stating the important questions these women give to feminists are:
1] How do feminists identify each other
2] How do feminists define participation in the movement
3] Isn't it more crucial to challenge ideas of "natural" male aggression than it is to teach females to restrict their lives in order to avoid it?

Google Scholar provides 17 results for "Julie Craig" feminism (searched for this way to avoid a biologist)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... 2+feminism

Her main claim to fame seems to be the article she wrote that PZ cites. It has been mentioned by Bitch Magazine and used in a few women's studies courses, but the author is described in Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism by Linda M. Scott as one of "the new gatekeepers of feminism like Julie Craig can't see a feminism that is concerned with family as 'any kind of feminism at all.'"

http://books.google.com/books?id=5pCy8- ... &q&f=false

http://i.imgur.com/I4Lbbss.jpg

Linda Scott is described here (in essence, she sounds like a feminist dream role model)
http://us.macmillan.com/author/lindamscott
and here
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/community/people/linda-scott

In comparison, we have PZ Myers whose claim to expertise in feminism is what exactly?

+ What classes on feminism has he taken?
+ What papers on feminism has he written?
+ What books on feminism has he written?
+ What courses has he taught?
+ How have other academic feminists treated his works?

Sorry for the length of this, and I hope it is somewhat coherent if not interesting in the slightest. PZ's, Marcotte's, so many other claims that women like Sommers are not feminists when they themselves have much less academic credentials or experiences as feminists really grate. (Let's not forget that apart from writing on Feminism, Marcotte has zero academic background in feminism, her degress is in English Literature, and she has produced nothing apart from opinion pieces.)

So just what is PZ Myers claim that Sommers is not a feminist but an anti-feminist based on?

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

[JacquesCuze]

Page

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

in the current thread. Maybe it's time to stab it to death and start new?

[Mykeru]

I am... BELOVED!

And an honorary member of The Fappening.

[zenbabe]

Even Michael Nugent is condemning PZ Myers now:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

Ha!

Whenever we have met, I have raised concerns about this. Each time, he has responded that he will tone it down, which to some extent he has. He no longer encourages his commenters to tell people to shove a rotting porcupine up their ass, and they no longer tell people to die in a fire or fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw. But ceasing such vitriol, while obviously welcome, is a low hurdle for a blog promoting empathy and social justice

[Tapir]

Well, I for one feel terrible about it.

[Ericb]

Last month he described Robin Williams’ suicide as the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people, said that a white lady who made racist comments looks like the kind of person who would have laughed at nanu-nanu, then added that he should have been more rude, because asking him to have been nicer about the dead famous guy is missing the point.

I believe and hope that he has now passed the apex of this approach. Some of his recent posts have been informative and science-based, he has written a sensitive account of his first kiss as a teenager, he has argued that people are complex rather than good or bad, and some of his recent criticisms of those he disagrees with have been more balanced and nuanced.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

Yeah, no. You can hope that Peezus will become a reasonable person, but that isn't likely given that his excesses are the only thing keeping him relevant. He has built a cult around his irresponsible tirades, and if he suddenly gets reasonable he is going to lose his claque of braying imbeciles, and his status in the movement. He doesn't bring anything to atheism so unique that we can't find it in someone else who hasn't already shit on most of the major players in the community.

If the organizations who run conferences and fly speakers around the world all reach the conclusion that he's worthless as a skeptic, is a thug instead of an advocate for atheism, and in fact does nothing except work very hard at destroying the skeptic/atheist community from within so he can have control over it, and the invites and free tickets dry up, all he'll have is his sorry blog with his insane, vitriolic, pathetic regulars. His trap is that he can't become reasonable, because his horde will flay him alive and then where will he be? How will he be able to consider himself as important, as a part of the "we" who get to wield power? The only hope he has of maintaining his position as a speaker at the cons is to use intimidation and threats against the careers of those who actually do have the power to shut all that down.

Well, to amend, it seems he will always have CFI.

Nugent says: "I have no idea what PZ thinks he will gain by continuing to publicly attack named people in this personalised way."

.... really. No idea?
I guess PZ and the rest of the FTBullies (the all-seeing, all-powerful "we") already have their tickets for the next con in Dublin.

Feh!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... moscow.jpg

[Glen_Davidson]

Even Michael Nugent is condemning PZ Myers now:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

Ha!

Whenever we have met, I have raised concerns about this. Each time, he has responded that he will tone it down, which to some extent he has. He no longer encourages his commenters to tell people to shove a rotting porcupine up their ass, and they no longer tell people to die in a fire or fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw. But ceasing such vitriol, while obviously welcome, is a low hurdle for a blog promoting empathy and social justice

Anyway, they just treat anyone not of their ilk as pariahs, as "others" whose opinions mean nothing merely because they are "others."

Like Christina Hoff Sommers.

You're a non-entity if you're not like them. That's largely what their particularly vile rhetoric meant anyway, and now they're just not being quite as explicit (or non-PC) as they were.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[katamari Damassi]

I love how hordlings are proving Nugents point by showing up in his comments and being themselves. Oolon just accused him of being a tone troll.

[NoGodsEver]

Just have to pop in to say 'Hail Satan!'

[Mykeru]

Because we didn't suck up to psychotic assholes until it was no longer to our advantage.

P.S. Fuck Michael Nugent.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

HAHAHAHAHA! Spot on, Phil. I think that was the best thing you've ever written.

Oh... :cry:

Regarding PTSD: I have worked in skydiving for almost 8 years (stopped in 2005). The dark little secret about working 365/year in skydiving is that at some point, you will have to go and find the remains of a mate. One moment, you high-five them and wish them a good jump, next moment you have to go find their body in a ragged stony area. And when you finally find them, it's a fucking challenge to hold your stomach. I'm not comparing this to the military, but I think it's close enough. In my 8 years I've gone and collected around 5 or 6 friends, people I had beers with in the evening, people I taught how to pack a chute, people I taught how to skydive. And sometimes (like one month ago with Eric Plassard) learning about the death of people I've worked with closely for years. That shit is NOT someone disagreeing on Twitter. I don't have PTSD from all that crap, although I'll always remember my first death: a friend who impacted the hangar door on a swoop landing. By the time I arrived, his jaw was dislocated and he was taking in his last breath. Then he was just gone, just like that.

So Twitter PTSD is nothing more than a bullshit scam to me.

YMMV.

Depends on the individual. A highly insecure person, maybe someone with a cluster B personality disorder, can experience existential terror from what most of us would regard as an inconsequential slight. In severe cases an attack on their beliefs is experienced as an invalidation of their whole self. You might think you are arguing over a relatively inconsequential point of fact, while they are defending themselves against evisceration of their value as a human being. In contrast, scraping a friend of the tarmac may be extremely unpleasant but not necessarily have lasting consequences for a PTSD resistant individual . I can readily believe that Malady has Twitter PTSD and if she keeps going back for more it could be because she just can't resist the urge to keep defending herself. It's even possible to get PTSD from severe depression and repeated suicidal ideation seeing as you are actually facing death on a repeated basis.

[Satan]

Just have to pop in to say 'Hail Satan!'

You called?

[NoGodsEver]

Just have to pop in to say 'Hail Satan!'

You called?

Just wanted to tell you I love your work!

[Glen_Davidson]

Last month he described Robin Williams’ suicide as the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people, said that a white lady who made racist comments looks like the kind of person who would have laughed at nanu-nanu, then added that he should have been more rude, because asking him to have been nicer about the dead famous guy is missing the point.

I believe and hope that he has now passed the apex of this approach. Some of his recent posts have been informative and science-based, he has written a sensitive account of his first kiss as a teenager, he has argued that people are complex rather than good or bad, and some of his recent criticisms of those he disagrees with have been more balanced and nuanced.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/17 ... ng-people/

Yeah, no. You can hope that Peezus will become a reasonable person, but that isn't likely given that his excesses are the only thing keeping him relevant. He has built a cult around his irresponsible tirades, and if he suddenly gets reasonable he is going to lose his claque of braying imbeciles, and his status in the movement. He doesn't bring anything to atheism so unique that we can't find it in someone else who hasn't already shit on most of the major players in the community.

Yes, he's going to give up the sleaze and wow his rabble with The Happy Atheist and his understanding of society.

He only got an audience because he had a simple "message" and had a take-no-prisoners position. Which wasn't so bad when it was creationism, especially since there is something quite annoying and vaguely dishonest about ceding anything to the pseudoscientists (I do mean the activists, not the rubes).

The fact is that if Peezus were truly egalitarian he'd have (attempted to have) thrown Dawkins under the bus long ago. Peasants never were tolerated, while The PIzzle pretended to be all concerned and gracious toward Dawkins because PZ just such a magnanimous being. We all know that it was merely recognition that Dawkins has power and Peezus didn't want to antagonize someone who could damage him. Pharyngula's rabble knows it, too, and several said that it was about time their Beloved Leader broke with Dawkins.

Peezus is a fairly ignorant boob, at least outside of science, and really only had one avenue to power, his "purity" of simplistic righteousness and intimidation by outrage. That was true before, it's as true now. Give up outrage and moral one-upmanship, and he has nothing but some rather banal biology to teach (not to fault his biology posts, but there's really not much reason to get excited about them, since he has nothing that can't be found in many places). He's going to have to give up his dreams if he gives up his tactics, and it's doubtful that he would ever do either.

He has to be recognized and treated as what he is, someone whose only "importance" ever came from demagogic tactics. If that's generally recognized outside of his cult, who cares what happens within that cult of outrage?

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

HAHAHAHAHA! Spot on, Phil. I think that was the best thing you've ever written.

Oh... :cry:

Regarding PTSD: I have worked in skydiving for almost 8 years (stopped in 2005). The dark little secret about working 365/year in skydiving is that at some point, you will have to go and find the remains of a mate. One moment, you high-five them and wish them a good jump, next moment you have to go find their body in a ragged stony area. And when you finally find them, it's a fucking challenge to hold your stomach. I'm not comparing this to the military, but I think it's close enough. In my 8 years I've gone and collected around 5 or 6 friends, people I had beers with in the evening, people I taught how to pack a chute, people I taught how to skydive. And sometimes (like one month ago with Eric Plassard) learning about the death of people I've worked with closely for years. That shit is NOT someone disagreeing on Twitter. I don't have PTSD from all that crap, although I'll always remember my first death: a friend who impacted the hangar door on a swoop landing. By the time I arrived, his jaw was dislocated and he was taking in his last breath. Then he was just gone, just like that.

So Twitter PTSD is nothing more than a bullshit scam to me.

YMMV.

Depends on the individual. A highly insecure person, maybe someone with a cluster B personality disorder, can experience existential terror from what most of us would regard as an inconsequential slight. In severe cases an attack on their beliefs is experienced as an invalidation of their whole self. You might think you are arguing over a relatively inconsequential point of fact, while they are defending themselves against evisceration of their value as a human being. In contrast, scraping a friend of the tarmac may be extremely unpleasant but not necessarily have lasting consequences for a PTSD resistant individual . I can readily believe that Malady has Twitter PTSD and if she keeps going back for more it could be because she just can't resist the urge to keep defending herself. It's even possible to get PTSD from severe depression and repeated suicidal ideation seeing as you are actually facing death on a repeated basis.

It's not motherfucking PTSD. Call it what you like, but PTSD it is not. End of it. BHOTI might be better. Butt-Hurt On The Internet.

[katamari Damassi]

Don't know how many people are following the comments at Nugent's, but does anyone else get the impression that Hygelac is an Oolon sock?

[blitzem]

This has nothing to do with nothing, but this was a great show.

http://timeentertainment.files.wordpres ... 320&crop=1

Loni Anderson, sure, but when Jan Smithers wore those tight blue jeans...

Mmmm....

[Jonathan]

Don't know how many people are following the comments at Nugent's, but does anyone else get the impression that Hygelac is an Oolon sock?

I don't think so, the style of writing doesn't seem the same.

[SkepticalCat]

Just have to pop in to say 'Hail Satan!'

You called?

I was really hoping you'd make an appearance on page 666. Got here just in time! :dance:

[James Caruthers]

Because we didn't suck up to psychotic assholes until it was no longer to our advantage.

P.S. Fuck Michael Nugent.

Some sucked up until the SJL became too toxic.

Some ignored them and hoped they'd go away (they didn't, they just made up more and more criminal accusations and led internet witch trials.)

Only #GamerGate brought any serious resistance. The penisosphere also opposed social justice warriors from the start, but they're considered fringe and don't have the numbers to mount an effective resistance. Not to mention the various blunders.

I'm fairly opposed to internet activism, but it seems that the only way we're going to fight off this tumblrfem infiltration is with organized effort. If gamergate has proven anything, it's that almost every major news outlet is sympathetic if not outright in the pocket of the SJL.

Some might call that conspiracy, but look at the gamergate mainstream news coverage and tell me I'm wrong. It's hard to fight propaganda when the other side has all the megaphones.

I'm still hearing people say on twitter "just ignore them, don't give them attention and they'll go away." If that could have worked, it would have worked already. Their attention-getting strategy is to be admired. When they don't get the attention they crave, they make up/"discover" a bunch of criminal accusations and claim some famous person did it. 10/10 strategy, Caesar would be proud.

[jugheadnaut]

Sorry for the length of this, and I hope it is somewhat coherent if not interesting in the slightest. PZ's, Marcotte's, so many other claims that women like Sommers are not feminists when they themselves have much less academic credentials or experiences as feminists really grate. (Let's not forget that apart from writing on Feminism, Marcotte has zero academic background in feminism, her degress is in English Literature, and she has produced nothing apart from opinion pieces.)

So just what is PZ Myers claim that Sommers is not a feminist but an anti-feminist based on?

Good analysis. I recall in the '90s it became a major feminist cause in the US that the education system discriminated against girls and damaged their self-esteem. The evidence was some small jury rigged polls and anecdotal 'lived experience'. There were even serious calls to have an option of single sex classrooms. When CHS looked into this, she found that actual metrics told a completely different story. By the great majority of measures, girls were outperforming boys and frequently by a large margin. Feminists dealt with this in their usual way. Not by debate, but by attacking her directly. She was anti-feminist, a conservative, an Uncle Tom. If pressed for specifics, they would refer to a minor mistake in her writings that didn't have a significant effect on her conclusions and treat it as if it debunked her entirely. But over a few years, this cause became de-prioritized by social justice feminists, probably because they knew its shaky foundations and didn't want to get embarrassed again. It still lurks in the shadows, and is occasionally trotted out as a reason women are underrepresented in STEM fields.

SJW feminists really have one primary goal: policies that benefit women. They find the idea of patriarchy very useful, because if patriarchy exists, policies that benefit women can always be framed as policies that promote equality. They are not skeptics. If a factoid is politically useful in promoting a policy that benefit women and has 'truthiness', that's good enough for them. They expect the same behavior from other feminists. If a feminist does examine the factoid skeptically and come to the conclusion it is false, they automatically become anti-feminist, since their efforts are objectively harming the feminist agenda as they see it. Like most activists for a cause, they find the idea of a dispassionate search for truth foreign.

[katamari Damassi]

Don't know how many people are following the comments at Nugent's, but does anyone else get the impression that Hygelac is an Oolon sock?

I don't think so, the style of writing doesn't seem the same.

Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else? Who used to try and distract from the main point by raising a cloud of obfuscating minutiae until he wore you down, you left and he claimed victory?

[Glen_Davidson]

Because we didn't suck up to psychotic assholes until it was no longer to our advantage.

P.S. Fuck Michael Nugent.

He said it, didn't he?

Wow, he (claims that he) gets Peezus to give up the sterile, monotonous "porcupine" and "rusty knife" insults, but notes that it's a rather low threshold.

Pharyngula didn't substantially change at all by getting rid of those insults, and Nugent didn't bother.

Now he takes credit for (many others had complained) the essentially worthless retirement of those mindless, repetitive insults, and somehow becomes worried that Pharyngula is a festering pus blister when others are piling on.

Wow, Nugent. The only thing that makes us happy is that apparently it has become such a problem to other (important) people that even you take notice.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[Gumby]

Some might call that conspiracy, but look at the gamergate mainstream news coverage and tell me I'm wrong. It's hard to fight propaganda when the other side has all the megaphones.

The other major problem, one we've seen over and over, is that the press is too fucking lazy to get the other side of the story.

[Gumby]

Don't know how many people are following the comments at Nugent's, but does anyone else get the impression that Hygelac is an Oolon sock?

I don't think so, the style of writing doesn't seem the same.

Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else? Who used to try and distract from the main point by raising a cloud of obfuscating minutiae until he wore you down, you left and he claimed victory?

Wonderist

[jugheadnaut]

This has nothing to do with nothing, but this was a great show.

http://timeentertainment.files.wordpres ... 320&crop=1

Loni Anderson, sure, but when Jan Smithers wore those tight blue jeans...

Mmmm....

As a young teenager watching the show, I thought Loni Anderson was perfection personified. I couldn't imagine how a woman could be more beautiful. But when I now see pictures of her from the time, my reaction is entirely different. Sure her body is spectacular (do a google image search on her..she did a lot of cheesecake shots early in her career). But her face is weird. It's just so...round. Round shape and all her features are round. It's like she's a computer generated image that's missing a couple of planes. And her hair looks like something created out of a mold. I find Jan Smithers much more attractive.

BTW, that same guy who told me when I was young that swimsuits were sexier than topless also told me that Jan Smithers was sexier than Loni Anderson. I thought he was full of shit both times but came around to agree with him. I'll have to look him up. He was smart.

[Pagancat]

Some might call that conspiracy, but look at the gamergate mainstream news coverage and tell me I'm wrong. It's hard to fight propaganda when the other side has all the megaphones.

The other major problem, one we've seen over and over, is that the press is too fucking lazy to get the other side of the story.

Anyone know if Paul Mason has weighed in on gamergate?

[JacquesCuze]

Sorry for the length of this, and I hope it is somewhat coherent if not interesting in the slightest. PZ's, Marcotte's, so many other claims that women like Sommers are not feminists when they themselves have much less academic credentials or experiences as feminists really grate. (Let's not forget that apart from writing on Feminism, Marcotte has zero academic background in feminism, her degress is in English Literature, and she has produced nothing apart from opinion pieces.)

So just what is PZ Myers claim that Sommers is not a feminist but an anti-feminist based on?

Good analysis. I recall in the '90s it became a major feminist cause in the US that the education system discriminated against girls and damaged their self-esteem. The evidence was some small jury rigged polls and anecdotal 'lived experience'. There were even serious calls to have an option of single sex classrooms. When CHS looked into this, she found that actual metrics told a completely different story. By the great majority of measures, girls were outperforming boys and frequently by a large margin. Feminists dealt with this in their usual way. Not by debate, but by attacking her directly. She was anti-feminist, a conservative, an Uncle Tom. If pressed for specifics, they would refer to a minor mistake in her writings that didn't have a significant effect on her conclusions and treat it as if it debunked her entirely. But over a few years, this cause became de-prioritized by social justice feminists, probably because they knew its shaky foundations and didn't want to get embarrassed again. It still lurks in the shadows, and is occasionally trotted out as a reason women are underrepresented in STEM fields.

SJW feminists really have one primary goal: policies that benefit women. They find the idea of patriarchy very useful, because if patriarchy exists, policies that benefit women can always be framed as policies that promote equality. They are not skeptics. If a factoid is politically useful in promoting a policy that benefit women and has 'truthiness', that's good enough for them. They expect the same behavior from other feminists. If a feminist does examine the factoid skeptically and come to the conclusion it is false, they automatically become anti-feminist, since their efforts are objectively harming the feminist agenda as they see it. Like most activists for a cause, they find the idea of a dispassionate search for truth foreign.

Thanks, I'm glad someone read it!

http://i.imgur.com/rO9SJPF.jpg

Today, Jessica Valenti is claiming that school dress codes could be a Title IX violation

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ions-legal

How many young women can a school legally punish for dress code violations?
Singling out female students for humiliation and discipline because of their sex is a blatant violation of federal law

She doesn't address when or why she thinks dress codes might be appropriate, so we are left with no guidance on how to construct a reasonable dress code, just threatened with Federal Lawsuits if it is done wrong.

I am also curious that she feels dress codes are to keep girls' dress from distracting boys, and not to keep student's clothes from distracting everyone, boys, girls, etc. My experience is that girls are just as harsh if not harsher than others on how other girls dress. In fact, I am told by feminists that women don't dress for men's attention, but for women's attention.

I would love to see a Valenti-style feminist outline a few brief principles that will help me predict how a Valenti-style feminist feels about

+ school dress codes
+ work dress codes
+ walking around dress codes
+ burkas mandated by oppressive governments
+ burkas rejected by so called liberated governments
+ burkas worn by women to empower themselves
+ boys in muscle shirts
+ men in muscle shirts at work
+ men in muscle shirts on a crowded subway
+ men spreading their legs on a subway or bus
+ what the actual purpose of low neck, v neck, cleavage revealing dress is
+ whether school girls need to weak low neck shirts or short shorts to stay cool in hot weather, and why school boys don't need to do that

I mean I just honestly don't know and find it all confusing but I do think it is most easily and efficiently explained with

SJW feminists really have one primary goal: policies that benefit women

[Za-zen]

I have one thing to say

[youtube]VLOSrU3N6t8[/youtube]

That is all

[another lurker]

Page

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

in the current thread. Maybe it's time to stab it to death and start new?

I don't know what that is, but I don't like it. Not one bit.

[another lurker]

Some might call that conspiracy, but look at the gamergate mainstream news coverage and tell me I'm wrong. It's hard to fight propaganda when the other side has all the megaphones.

The other major problem, one we've seen over and over, is that the press is too fucking lazy to get the other side of the story.

And there is no desire too, since revenue is pretty much made through clickbait nowadays. Most big news agencies like CNN don't even hire foreign correspondents anymore - they just carry the most sensational stories that they can find on the internet. Cheaper, and guaranteed outrage!

[Lsuoma]

More fun:

Speaking of which, where are my petri dishes, Abbie? Get busy, woman! Then make me a sammich.

I am... BELOVED!

Also, no one 'cleans Petri dishes'. No one. That's not a thing. Wtf lol!

Also, when I was an undergrad, I did research on serial killers. People faking nursing/physician credentials, working as a fraud for years, however, is absolutely a thing.

[youtube]i5j1wWY-qus[/youtube]

[James Caruthers]

Some might call that conspiracy, but look at the gamergate mainstream news coverage and tell me I'm wrong. It's hard to fight propaganda when the other side has all the megaphones.

The other major problem, one we've seen over and over, is that the press is too fucking lazy to get the other side of the story.

And there is no desire too, since revenue is pretty much made through clickbait nowadays. Most big news agencies like CNN don't even hire foreign correspondents anymore - they just carry the most sensational stories that they can find on the internet. Cheaper, and guaranteed outrage!

MundaneMatt did a video recently. I didn't watch the video, but he gave his sources and I looked at those. The video is about the co-founder of The Escapist explaining that clickbait drives their income, and that according to their numbers, clickbait IS what their audience wants, despite their claim to wanting serious games journalism.

Of course, "what our audience wants" is being defined in terms of "what gives us the most ad clicks" and so it's not really a matter of audience enjoyment as it is audience attention. I could scream THAT WOMAN IS ON FIRE in a crowded theater and, according to games journalism standards, my "audience" would enjoy this far more than my well-researched powerpoint presentation. Y'know, judging by how much attention they give me.

:cdc:

[Wild Zontargs]

Y'know, the usual idiots are actually rather good at giving out recommendations: just read/watch/play whatever they're against. I mean, Kipling's just about the worst thing ever according to half of them, but rather entertaining (in much the same way as the original Conan tales are) and contains more than a few interesting tidbits.

They said: “Who has hate in his soul? Who has envied his neighbour?
Let him arise and control both that man and his labour.”
They said: “Who is eaten by sloth? Whose unthrift has destroyed him?
He shall levy a tribute from all because none have employed him.”
They said: “Who hath toiled, who hath striven, and gathered possession?
Let him be spoiled. He hath given full proof of transgression.”
They said: “Who is irked by the Law? Though we may not remove it.
If he lend us his aid in this raid, we will set him above it!
So the robber did judgment again upon such as displeased him,
The slayer, too, boasted his slain, and the judges released him.

from "The City of Brass"

Kinda sounds like some people we know. The more things change, I guess.

[bhoytony]

[youtube]jjRNXSadPUo[/youtube]

[Steersman]

http://i.imgur.com/rO9SJPF.jpg ....

Dah Fuk!! T'ain't my tweet there Jacques.

Have I joined the illustrious crowd of those who, like Benson & Dawkins, have acquired a doppleganger, a spoofer? You wouldn't have the actual Twitter status handle would you? I might have to contact them on that, athough that seems rather difficult if not impossible to do.

[Steersman]

http://i.imgur.com/rO9SJPF.jpg ....

Dah Fuk!! T'ain't my tweet there Jacques.

Have I joined the illustrious crowd of those who, like Benson & Dawkins, have acquired a doppleganger, a spoofer? You wouldn't have the actual Twitter status handle would you? I might have to contact them on that, athough that seems rather difficult if not impossible to do.

[free thoughtpolice]

Any comments from the usual suspects yet about Yazidi women kidnapped by the Islamic State and turned into sex slaves?

Just curious.

Kaveh at On the Margin of Error has had a few posts mentioning IS. He and most of the commenters have been writing generally sensible stuff with the exception of socialist peace activist exi5tentialist. His take is that Islam and the Shia- Sunni schism has nothing to do with the problems in the middle east, it is the fault of the US and to a lesser extent the UK because they have destabilised the region. Russia by the way is a force for stability in the region.
He was against the US intervening on behalf of the Kurds and the Yazidi because US and their bombing is bad and kills people.
The most recent thread there on the subject is:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/marginoferr ... -about-is/