Periodic Table of Swearing

[Tony Parsehole]

My son asked me about this not long ago, because he saw a logic issue with "you should like people for their minds" namely "you can't fucking see a mind". What I told him:

Kiddo, here's the deal: yes, you should absolutely care as much about what's inside than out. But, as you point out, you can't see that. What you're stuck with, that makes you want to start talking to them is well, superficial. most of the time, you think they are physically attractive, and that motivates you to talk to them. if you're in earshot, you may be able to hear them talking at the same time, and so get more insight, but most of the time, what gets you to walk across the room is the outer shell. If that's not something you find interesting, you're not going to bother in most cases.

This isn't good or bad, it just is. There are as many things people find "attractive" as there are people, and your qualifications are going to be unique to you, even if they're similar to someone else's. The trick is, don't JUST be about the shell. There are a lot of awesome women out there you'll never have sex with, you may not even find them attractive that way. They're just as awesome regardless of their "stick it in" rating. But, when it comes down to it, if you're thinking of the sexin', well, there does have to some physical component for both sides. It's just how it works. There's no shame in only wanting to have sex with people you find sexually attractive, just don't be a dick about it.

The idea that letting physical attraction be a factor in your intimate relationships is a bad thing is astoundingly stupid.

Spot on. Someyimes it happens the other way too. You meet a lass and don't find her attractive one bit. Get to know her, realise she's cool and then start thinking she's hot. It happened to me before anyway.



Another awesome video BTW. Wooly has the flu and she still delivers epic pwnage. That lass has an acid tongue.
[youtube]7przyk1BJ7k[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

Uncle Fester! That's it!!!! I was thinking for ages who she reminded me of.

[Tony Parsehole]

Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.

Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.

[Tigzy]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

I see the Prune asserts that she is not a public figure. That would be because of the blog she writes which is viewable to the public, the conferences where she speaks in front of assorted members of the public, and the book she co-wrote which can be bought and read by the public. I note that none of these things are by special invitiation only.

But perhaps she has a point - maybe she isn't a public figure. Her words are very much in the public domain, though. And if she be damn't by them, then too fuckin bad.

Typical behaviour - wants all the benefits of being able to sound off on the public stage, but with a special exemption from criticism by the public.

[Tigzy]

Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.

Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.

Another odd thing about Zinnia Jones' way of speaking is this - earlier, I said that in that spliced Rebecca watson video, it didn't sound as if her voice has been spliced at all. Well, with Zinna, somehow the inverse seems to apply.

[Lsuoma]

Time allowed 3 hrs.

Attempt all questions.

If you do not know the answer to a particular question attempt to look at someone else's paper by knocking your biro onto the floor and having a quick shufty while you lean over to retrieve it.

You are allowed one visit to the toilet to look at the answers you wrote on the wall yesterday.

After ten minutes, request more paper to frighten the other candidates into thinking that you must have worked your arse off.

Attempt to introduce the one or two facts you are reasonably sure of into the answers to every question.

At 4.30 exactly, everybody cough to make the invigilator jump.

With three minutes to go, suddenly realise there are 4 more questions on the back of the page that you haven't spotted.

Section A (50%)
1. Explain why the best women's football team in the world wouldn't stand a chance against you and ten of your mates. Include in your answer:
a) Why they are unable to kick a ball straight
b) What you wouldn't mind doing with them in the bath after the match, though.

2. Pamela Anderson's tits are plastic but look good in photographs. Compare and contrast the relative merits of plastic and real tits for recreational purposes.

3. It is a long established fact that fat lasses are more grateful for it. Outline some of the reasons why this is so, and explain why all feminists are fat, ugly lesbians.

4. Write a critique of any ONE of the following films you have watched at your mates house while his parents were away for the weekend. a) Sex Boat b) Three Into One Will Go c) King Dong d) Speared by Zulu Lovers

5. Women drivers, eh? Discuss.

Section B (50%)
1. Describe an experiment to impress a girl by lighting a fart. What apparatus would you require? What risks would you run in lighting a fart and what are the benefits? Write a balanced chemical equation to describe the reaction that takes place when an eggy fart is lit in a pub with a match.

2. Name something a woman has invented.

3. On average, women live 7 years longer than men yet get their pension 5 years earlier. Explain why this isn't fair, making reference to your lazy old granny who lived to be 100 and your poor granddad who worked 52 years down the pit and died the day before he retired.

4. Argue heatedly over the respective merits of the Lamborghini Diablo and the Ferrari Testarossa without ever having seen, let alone driven, either.

5. Discuss the philosophical implications of this statement; "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

[Tony Parsehole]

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

To them it's victim blaming. Only to them.
They are attempting to conflate victim blaming with making people take responsibility for their actions. Just because you have a right to something does not make you immune to the consequences of your actions. Write your blogpost and fuck anybody who says you're victim blaming.

[Tony Parsehole]

Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.

Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.

Another odd thing about Zinnia Jones' way of speaking is this - earlier, I said that in that spliced Rebecca watson video, it didn't sound as if her voice has been spliced at all. Well, with Zinna, somehow the inverse seems to apply.

I may splice one of her videos and see if she sounds normal.
There is something deeply wrong with Zinnia's voice. It's empty. No love, no hate, no compassion, no humanity. Just.....The Nasal Void.

[Tony Parsehole]

Time allowed 3 hrs.

Attempt all questions.

If you do not know the answer to a particular question attempt to look at someone else's paper by knocking your biro onto the floor and having a quick shufty while you lean over to retrieve it.

You are allowed one visit to the toilet to look at the answers you wrote on the wall yesterday.

After ten minutes, request more paper to frighten the other candidates into thinking that you must have worked your arse off.

Attempt to introduce the one or two facts you are reasonably sure of into the answers to every question.

At 4.30 exactly, everybody cough to make the invigilator jump.

With three minutes to go, suddenly realise there are 4 more questions on the back of the page that you haven't spotted.

Section A (50%)
1. Explain why the best women's football team in the world wouldn't stand a chance against you and ten of your mates. Include in your answer:
a) Why they are unable to kick a ball straight
b) What you wouldn't mind doing with them in the bath after the match, though.

2. Pamela Anderson's tits are plastic but look good in photographs. Compare and contrast the relative merits of plastic and real tits for recreational purposes.

3. It is a long established fact that fat lasses are more grateful for it. Outline some of the reasons why this is so, and explain why all feminists are fat, ugly lesbians.

4. Write a critique of any ONE of the following films you have watched at your mates house while his parents were away for the weekend. a) Sex Boat b) Three Into One Will Go c) King Dong d) Speared by Zulu Lovers

5. Women drivers, eh? Discuss.

Section B (50%)
1. Describe an experiment to impress a girl by lighting a fart. What apparatus would you require? What risks would you run in lighting a fart and what are the benefits? Write a balanced chemical equation to describe the reaction that takes place when an eggy fart is lit in a pub with a match.

2. Name something a woman has invented.

3. On average, women live 7 years longer than men yet get their pension 5 years earlier. Explain why this isn't fair, making reference to your lazy old granny who lived to be 100 and your poor granddad who worked 52 years down the pit and died the day before he retired.

4. Argue heatedly over the respective merits of the Lamborghini Diablo and the Ferrari Testarossa without ever having seen, let alone driven, either.

5. Discuss the philosophical implications of this statement; "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

Now where have I seen this before? Viz?

[peterb]

On the "fat-loving" stuff: I've always assumed that it was just self-loathing and shame disguised as its opposite. What they're asserting is that the body is an irrelevancy and that a transcendent "attractiveness" exists that a more superior person would be aware of, and further if a person is not aware of this transcendent "attractiveness" then that person is to blame for their spiritual (if you will) inadequacies. In other words - the body is evil and icky and possesses no validity as an object, and the superior person is the one who can transcend merely physical attractiveness or desire - which is of course the ideological heart and soul of Victorian sexual repression.

Snip
.

It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows. Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

[papillon]

2. Name something a woman has invented.

The partiarchy.

[Tigzy]

I reckon that if you ran Zinnia Jones' voice backwards, you'd get reasonable and interesting messages.

Oh, some nice pwnage on the Prune's post mentioned above:

Eshto says:
October 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Great, now apply this reasoning to Stephanie Zvan’s ridiculous and over-the-top petition against Justin Vacula. And all the other public smears that have graced the pages of FTB and Skepchick.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-317547

Oh, and another little tattletroll from Oolon spotted in the wild there, too.

I'm actually thinking of making some Top Trumps from Oolon's missives: each message could have a score based on:

Vacuity
Lies
Troll factor
Racism
Homophobia

So that one - let's see...

Vacuity: 90/100 (cos it's a pointless post, as ever)
Lies: 95/100 (we're, uh, stalkers, appreantly)
Troll Factor: 100/100 (will it be anything but?)
Racism: 0/100 (makes a nice change)
Homophobia: 5/100 (the 'meatspace stalker' thing suggests latent homphobia)

I also reckon there should be a score for 'sucking Myers' gross derrier in the hope being let back into the treehouse'.

[Notung]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

They ban people who disagree on their blog, and so when someone writes a criticism on their own blog then they need another way of silencing them. A good way of doing that is to accuse them of stalking.

Seriously - I want people to read and disagree with my blog. If I have a 'stalker' (in other words, someone who reads my blog and writes about it - even if they disagree) then I'm delighted.

This 'stalking' tends to be in response to posts that do have a public effect - accusing TAM of not being 'safe', attacking Harriet Hall for saying she's not a 'Skepchick', finding status updates on private Facebook pages and unethically publicising them...

I notice that those examples are all examples of defence. Someone is being attacked - someone writes a post defending them and then the latter is accused of 'stalking'.

[Guest]

It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows. Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

I don't know how clearly enunciated the division is in the minds of the people who advocate it (not very, I assume), but the underlying thought seems to assume the very old prejudice toward a mind-body duality that would be, I think, the least revolutionary assumption one could make. Then again, to me it just seems like the old prejudice, divorced entirely from the old context which gave it meaning (religious/spiritual beliefs relating to the evil of the body, the goodness of a transcendent soul), and simply being coopted to affirm whatever you want it to affirm at the moment. In this instance my right to eat junk food, neglect my health and remain physically attractive to my partner regardless.

The other explanation is that they've just made selfishness and personal neglect into a virtue by inappropriately coopting discourse related to eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and other serious health issues, and tacked them onto a context where they are completely inappropriate. Quelle suprise - par for the course for Internet Social Justice warriors it would seem.

[BarnOwl]

quote="Phil_Giordana_FCD"]

Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

Whether deserved or not, outside of Texas, Austin has a reputation amoung some as a liberal holdout in the middle of the ignorant, republican-voting, wimmen-hating, immigrant-shooting, science-denying rest of Texas. A little blue dot in the middle of a red sea as it were. I would think thats what PeeZus was referring to.

They do have the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, which redeems them a bit.[/quote]

Bzzzzttt. The Johnson Space Center is in Houston, not Austin.

Consider the current mayors of three of the largest Texas cities. All are Democrats, so we can't distinguish them on the basis of political party affiliation.

San Antonio mayor - son of a Chicano political activist, gave a keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

Houston mayor - lesbian who has been with her domestic partner for 20+ years and has several adopted children

Austin mayor - ex-military, former Delta Fucking Airlines* pilot

Remind me which city is a little liberal blue dot in a sea of red again?

* Source of my recent FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS!!111!!!

[StyxMaker]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

If I Tweet every day, connecting to her blog and saying how wonderful I think her writing is, would she still consider it 'stalking'?

[CommanderTuvok]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

This is a pattern Opheliar has followed for a while. Go looking (out of her way) for the slightest thing to get upset about, and then distort and lie about it. Further, if anybody dares post a challenging fact on her blog, it will go down the memory hole. She is a nasty and vindictive piece of trash.

[CommanderTuvok]

Is this for fucking real.

AustinYunHB.jpg

(10.92 KiB) Downloaded 182 times

:lol:

[Za-zen]

This fat is beautiful bullshit, is the exact same argument as the one they deploy when claiming gender is a construct.

It's the patriachy, see. Society has falsely painted fat people as ugly, if the patriachy is defeated, humans will throw off their superficial shackles, and see that they've been blinded to the attractiveness of fat all along.

Dare to question this bullshit, with an argument from evolution and genetics, and you will be silenced by the wails of "mysoginst!" Because you are obviously arguing in bad faith. Note they employ "bad faith argumentation" in the same way religious people do. That is, unless you are arguing from a position of acceptance of the pressuposition, (that fat people aren't inherently unattractive) or demonstrating that you are accepting their dogma, and seeking clarification. You are arguing in bad faith, or as Palin would say "asking gotcha questions"

[BarnOwl]

Not sure why I find this so funny, but I nearly peed myself laughing at it:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... b47c13.png

From here.

[peterb]

It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows. Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

I don't know how clearly enunciated the division is in the minds of the people who advocate it (not very, I assume), but the underlying thought seems to assume the very old prejudice toward a mind-body duality that would be, I think, the least revolutionary assumption one could make. Then again, to me it just seems like the old prejudice, divorced entirely from the old context which gave it meaning (religious/spiritual beliefs relating to the evil of the body, the goodness of a transcendent soul), and simply being coopted to affirm whatever you want it to affirm at the moment. In this instance my right to eat junk food, neglect my health and remain physically attractive to my partner regardless.

.

I completely agree that a) it's not clearly enunciated and b) it's divorced from the original context. If we do get to the day where the mind body dualism is mostly gone (I'd love it but I'm not holding my breath) it will interesting to see how wide reaching the impact is.

[Dave]

Remind me which city is a little liberal blue dot in a sea of red again?

Please re-read the first line of my comment. I was commenting on a perception common in liberal circles, not the actual state of TX politics. A perception that dates back to at least the early 90s. As a self-described liberal, it is likely that PeeZus shares that perception, even though he is as likely as I was, before I read your post, to be aware of the party affiliation and personal history of various TX mayors.

[mutleyeng]

Is this for fucking real.

AustinYunHB.jpg

:lol:

must have meant Peter Hitchens

[peterb]

This fat is beautiful bullshit, is the exact same argument as the one they deploy when claiming gender is a construct.
"

This goes on my "canary in a coal mine" list. If I hear this its best just to walk away.

[BarnOwl]

Remind me which city is a little liberal blue dot in a sea of red again?

Please re-read the first line of my comment. I was commenting on a perception common in liberal circles, not the actual state of TX politics. A perception that dates back to at least the early 90s. As a self-described liberal, it is likely that PeeZus shares that perception, even though he is as likely as I was, before I read your post, to be aware of the party affiliation and personal history of various TX mayors.

Apologies, Dave - I knew what you meant. I should have added a smilie to my post, because I came off like a pretentious arse without one. My bad.

[Dick Strawkins]

Is this for fucking real.

AustinYunHB.jpg

:lol:

She was definitely drunk.

She called Bob Novella a "twat", live on stage!

"Bob, you're a twat!"

[windy]

So what was it that was so terrible about what he wrote that they threw him in jail in the first place? I do not read Norwegien, so can anyone tell me?

Nothing overt in that linked article that I saw at a quick glance, the arrest was probably more due his other writings sympathizing with Breivik's attacks and police murderers. It seems that the blogger in question is dishonest in implying that the arrest was due to MRA activism.

[Jan Steen]

If anybody is interested here's that video by Zinnia Jones' partner Heather.
Trigger warnings for droning voice, feminist claptrap/arrogance, eyes like a monkeys arsehole.
[youtube]mlTZtnayx6M[/youtube]

"...gender roles are artificially created."

Tell that to a peacock or a lion. Or a black widow spider.

One thing I have to give to her (xir?) and her partner: they didn't disable comments and ratings, however negative, unlike a certain cowardly blogger over at FfTB.

[JackRayner]

If anybody is interested here's that video by Zinnia Jones' partner Heather.
Trigger warnings for droning voice, feminist claptrap/arrogance, eyes like a monkeys arsehole.
[youtube]mlTZtnayx6M[/youtube]

"In a radical feminist world, there is no transphobia"

Riiiight. What a load of bullshit! I guess all of those instances I've heard and read about, of radfems going bat shit over non "womyn-born womyn" are just fabrications of my fucking imagination, right?

From what I've seen, fucking randfems hate trans women as much as your common, everyday asshole.

Cunt!

[ReneeHendricks]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

[DownThunder]

Yeah sure, point me to the nearest fem convention and Ill go take a leak standing up in the wombynn born womynn toilets. I forsee no problems.

From what I've seen, fucking randfems hate trans women as much as your common, everyday asshole.

Thats insensitive to everyday assholes. Everyday assholes haven't developed a highly malicious set of beliefs that trans women are rapists who co-opt womens bodies, and need to exterminated.

[SenorBeagle]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

That's the uncanny valley in action, right there...

[cunt]

I think Ophelia needs the hits, blog posts that don't involve us in some way only manage to generate 1 or 2 comments, at best.

Ophelia, you fall under this definition:

A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/leg ... defamation

Read it and weep.

[JackRayner]

On the "fat-loving" stuff: I've always assumed that it was just self-loathing and shame disguised as its opposite. What they're asserting is that the body is an irrelevancy and that a transcendent "attractiveness" exists that a more superior person would be aware of, and further if a person is not aware of this transcendent "attractiveness" then that person is to blame for their spiritual (if you will) inadequacies. In other words - the body is evil and icky and possesses no validity as an object, and the superior person is the one who can transcend merely physical attractiveness or desire - which is of course the ideological heart and soul of Victorian sexual repression.

Snip
.

It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows.

QualiaSoup made some interesting videos on the subject. Recommend watching them for anyone interested in the "substance dualism":

[youtube]RS4PW35-Y00[/youtube]

Part two can be found here:

Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

Haha. You know, I've yet to think of the question in the context of this whole substance dualism debate. I think I'm going to attempt to have fun with that in the future. Will probably have to be at someone's expense, but...

[Mr Danksworth]

Ziny's voice is odd because she is trying to make her(zer/zir/whatererthefuck)voice more female. It comes off sounding like a prepubescent boy trying to make his voice deeper.

[ReneeHendricks]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

That's the uncanny valley in action, right there...

Yes! That. I'm still shaking off this odd feeling.

[bhoytony]

Ziny's voice is odd because she is trying to make her(zer/zir/whatererthefuck)voice more female. It comes off sounding like a prepubescent boy trying to make his voice deeper.

Zinnia jones = Zachary Antolak

[Za-zen]

Thats why i am very reluctant to visit her blog. Its also why i'm pretty much defunct as a useful participant of the pyt. I haven't visited FTB in a long time now, with concession to direct links to the likes of Al's blog, though i have to admit the odour that accompanies a ftb link requires a steeling of the will in order to click.

I have conciously decided that i do not wish to feed the machine. The more clicks the drama whores get the more they drama they create. It also means that my commentary on their drivel has become seriously stubbed.

[cunt]

Thats why i am very reluctant to visit her blog. Its also why i'm pretty much defunct as a useful participant of the pyt. I haven't visited FTB in a long time now, with concession to direct links to the likes of Al's blog, though i have to admit the odour that accompanies a ftb link requires a steeling of the will in order to click.

I have conciously decided that i do not wish to feed the machine. The more clicks the drama whores get the more they drama they create. It also means that my commentary on their drivel has become seriously stubbed.

Well, I like the drama. Only reason I bother with them at all.

[John Greg]

I enjoy the drama too, and the unintentional hilarity of it all.

[Lsuoma]

There was an early (launch day+1) Pit thread on one of Zinnia Jones vids.

[Notung]

I like the drama too - it's quite addictive! That's the reason the Slymepit exists I think. Drama is Addictive (should be the tagline).

I try not to post drama because I don't want to get a reputation for it, but I'd quite like to do one soon. It's the difference between 50 hits and 500 hits, or 2 comments and 50 comments.

[Outwest]

Of course, SZvan has to comment in Ophelias blog post today, re: Justin Vacula. One commenter Eshto said: "Great, now apply this reasoning to Stephanie Zvan’s ridiculous and over-the-top petition against Justin Vacula. And all the other public smears that have graced the pages of FTB and Skepchick."

Zvans response? Classic non-response:

"Actually, Eshto, why don’t you apply Ophelia’s reasoning to that petition? Don’t just note that Ophelia has said she isn’t Obama. Take her argument apart into its component pieces, pick out the points on which it rests, find the analogous parts of my behavior (or the lack of them), and make an argument instead of just a drive-by sneer.

Think you can do that?"


Gee, I see the FfTB'ers do that all the time. Take someone's argument apart, point by point to make a cohesive argument. No wait! I forgot! they just say "Fuck You!".

[justinvacula]

re: Ophelia comments

Where are these pictures of me as Hitler bringing SCA into the reich or whatever? ...and comments about my appearance? I saw Greg Laden calling me creepy and that was about it #mencallmethings

[Za-zen]

Im amzed eshto hasnt been banned yet

[Lsuoma]

Im amzed eshto hasnt been banned yet

NOW you've done it...

[Jan Steen]

Incoming message from an A+ moderator:

Some people here are using the wrong gendered pronouns. There are correct alternatives for he/she/his/her. Those who continue to ignore or misapply these will have their account suspended and will need to be re-educated. Their comments will be deleted.

[Mykeru]

Ziny's voice is odd because she is trying to make her(zer/zir/whatererthefuck)voice more female. It comes off sounding like a prepubescent boy trying to make his voice deeper.

The acceptable pit gender neutral pronoun slashie portmanteau is "s/h/it" (she/he/it), as in "Ziny's voice is odd because s/h/it is trying to make s/h/it's voice more female."

You insensitive fuck.

[windy]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling

Denying Justin Vacula a platform in the atheist movement: Mission Accomplished!?

[Gumby]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

I tried listening to her too. Unnerving, to say the least. To me, the best way to describe her voice is to think of it as the aural version of the Uncanny Valley effect.

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of robotics and 3D computer animation, which holds that when human replicas look and act sound almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" refers to the dip in a graph of the comfort level of humans as a function of a robot's human likeness vocal intonations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[Gumby]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

That's the uncanny valley in action, right there...

Goddammit, why do I never read ahead...

[ReneeHendricks]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

That's the uncanny valley in action, right there...

Goddammit, why do I never read ahead...

At least we're getting a consensus here :D

[justinvacula]

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling

Denying Justin Vacula a platform in the atheist movement: Mission Accomplished!?

Haha, well, they've already failed.

[Mykeru]

Doormat Dickacunty's face when that guy mentions "Reality+".

:D

Hilarious. He is so fucking embarrased by A+, just look at his body language when the guy mentions it! He looked like somebody just caught him with his finger in the dogs arse! And the crowd in the background laughing their heads off at him. What a mong.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8046/8114 ... 40fe_z.jpg

[SenorBeagle]

Ack! Ok, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to listen to Zinnia Jones' voice. There's something not quite right about that. Very...off-putting.

That's the uncanny valley in action, right there...

Goddammit, why do I never read ahead...

At least we're getting a consensus here :D

That's the first time I've ever been ahead of the curve on anything.

[Za-zen]

Lol did you see dillahunty's stomping? Its a shame the caller didn't know where to take it after the right hook that left him seeing stars. Dillahunty realised he had been totally owned by one fucking sentence. You don't get more owned than that, the only thing that saved him from an on air humiliation was that the caller was inept.

[windy]

It's the patriachy, see. Society has falsely painted fat people as ugly, if the patriachy is defeated, humans will throw off their superficial shackles, and see that they've been blinded to the attractiveness of fat all along.

They have a point: once capitalist patriarchy has been abolished and everyone is living in vegan subsistence kolkhozes or some similar utopia, fat will be seen as attractive again... possibly a little TOO attractive.

[mutleyeng]

Lol did you see dillahunty's stomping? Its a shame the caller didn't know where to take it after the right hook that left him seeing stars. Dillahunty realised he had been totally owned by one fucking sentence. You don't get more owned than that, the only thing that saved him from an on air humiliation was that the caller was inept.

oh - I thought the called did pretty well. He moved the subject to atheism plus, and seemed to be asking why tack social justice to atheism. Why, if your interest is social justice, dont you do it as secularists - seemed to me he totally pwned him right up to his warm fuzzy feeling

[BoxNDox]

Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

Whether deserved or not, outside of Texas, Austin has a reputation amoung some as a liberal holdout in the middle of the ignorant, republican-voting, wimmen-hating, immigrant-shooting, science-denying rest of Texas. A little blue dot in the middle of a red sea as it were. I would think thats what PeeZus was referring to.

Liberals without clue, absolutely. (And PZ definitely seems to fall in that category.) Those who have, you know, actually spent some time in these cities in Texas are well aware it's hooey.

I grew up in rural Oklahoma, but I've also spent a fair bit of time in various parts of Texas. And the only city that really stood out - in a bad way - was Galveston. Horrible place, although my experience is dated so it may have changed.

No, the big political divide in Texas (and California) is urban versus rural, of course with urban being far more liberal and rural more conservative. 18% of Texas' population lives in rural areas, as opposed to 13% in California. Of course this isn't the only factor in making one a "red" state and the other "blue", but it's definitely a piece of it.

The good news is Texas is rapidly becoming both more urban and more Latino, so much so that some the wonks who study this stuff say it's likely to turn blue in 10-20 years.

And all this stuff aside, anyone who takes these sorts of political assessments and in effect applies them to individuals (because athiest/skeptical gathering are so small and such a tiny percentage of the overall population that's what you're effectively doing) is a buffoon. (Or is that baboon?)

But let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that both the assessment as well as the applicability of it were valid. Wouldn't that argue for going somewhere else in order to not be wasting time preaching to the converted? Oh wait, that wouldn't be slacktivism any more. Never mind.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://i.imgur.com/qBA2P.jpg

Who is Aratina Rage referring to as the people ("atheist men") who "protect" us Pytbulls? Why does AC think they should be immune from criticism, mockery and the calling out of their bullshit? Why isn't she concerned with the effect that they have had on others. That FTBullies tag didn't arise by itself - there was a reason for it.