Periodic Table of Swearing

[AndrewV69]

I don't quite understand how they reconcile the idea that women are on the Slime-side...

Oh wait, I do. Because girls on the Slime side are "chill girls" who just want to act like they're one of the guys for some dick.

My bad, just answered my own question.

that's why I'm here. Just for the cock(s)

OMFG! I just got this fucking laptop! It is five days old. Now the fucking thing has coffee all over the fucking screen and keyboard!

[sacha]

I don't quite understand how they reconcile the idea that women are on the Slime-side...

Oh wait, I do. Because girls on the Slime side are "chill girls" who just want to act like they're one of the guys for some dick.

My bad, just answered my own question.

that's why I'm here. Just for the cock(s)

OMFG! I just got this fucking laptop! It is five days old. Now the fucking thing has coffee all over the fucking screen and keyboard!

coffee is trouble, Andrew. You should know that.

[Dilurk]

Commenter 'Acathode' sums it up well on TF00t's blog.

Responding to another commenter who says "“If you want a community that licks your arse and never disagrees with you then Pharyngula is definitely not the place – sceptical communities in general will not tolerate dumb-asses.", Acathode says:

From what I’ve seen, Pharyngula seems just the place if you want a community that licks your arse and never disagrees with you. You just have to stick to the Myers & Co party-line, and everyone will love you.

What most of the critics seem to want is a community and place where you can have civil, intelligent discussions and arguments, even if people have very different views and opinions. At least that’s something that I personally value, and actively sought when I first was made aware of this “movement”.

Unfortunately, this is not possible withing the FTB community, and even worse, the FTB community with Myers & Co in the front is actively working against this sort of atmosphere outside of their own site and smaller community.

Going after Payton, effectively trying to silence him by targeting his job and his position withing the community because he simply does not find the content on FTB to be good is a prime example of the sort of message FTB is sending – You either agree with us, or we will do our darnedest to get you expunged from the community, even if we have to use underhand methods.

This just reeks of political party purging, the kind you would see in Soviet, or inquisitors and witch hunters “cleansing the land”, and reminds me very little of a skeptical, free-thinking community.

I wonder if the Horde is still saying that all dissent is still limited to "Stangroom, Kirby, and the Slymepitters".

I like this part of Athacode's comment: "What most of the critics seem to want is a community and place where you can have civil, intelligent discussions and arguments, even if people have very different views and opinions."

Funny how the Slymepit fits that definition to a "T", and the Baboon boards don't even come close.

Bingo! A point I painfully tried to make very clear some time ago.

[Guest]

Integralmath on Dillahunty

[youtube]zHGuSZHxVQ4[/youtube]

[tachikoma]

http://synapses.co.za/unstoppable-tide-trolls/

[rayshul]

http://synapses.co.za/unstoppable-tide-trolls/

What I'd post in response to that blog, if I ever posted outside the safety of the Slimepit, would be...

There's another issue you're not touching on here, and that's the attempts to ruin people's lives outside of the internet. Commenting on an issue on some blogs (or even on your own blog) can result in you having your real life identity outed and/or witch hunts. See what happened to ERV for a clear example.

You will not get a safe space for discussion unless you address this.

[rayshul]

Really, that blog was nice and all, but it's like people don't get the fucking problem or something.

It's not about people being civil on motherfucking blogs.

We're not civil here and discussions happen just fine.

The real problem is about people fucking hounding out people and publically shaming them, attempting to ruin their lives. It started with Stef and it escalated with ERV, continued with Franc, surged again with DJ, and if Dr Hall had retaliated I'm betting they'd have gone for her, too. These people target others and do what they can to ruin them in order to stamp out opposition.

Interestingly this has been my overwhelming experience of anyone caught up in social justice bullshit.

[ERV]

That linked to an even earlier blog article, Atheists with vaginas which is still up. Some of the stuff written there are both hilarious and sad at the same time.

PZ is awesome.

But yeah, you ought to be invited to join more of these atheist conferences. I need more fellow science geeks standing up there with me.

1-- God, this shit started a LONG time ago, didnt it? Even their shit-stirring with DJ Grothe.
2-- I stand by the stuff I previously wrote, and am glad to see current/former Pit Crew there also making sense.
3-- Note this:

Note– WOOMYNZ opinions offered on ERV might differ from your local WOOMYNZ, so please consult and react accordingly.

Even me 3 years ago wanted everyone to be clear that I was speaking for myself as a w00mynz, not that I was speaking for all teh w00mynz. I know opinions and such change, but Im glad I wasnt a complete retard in 2009 (I, at one point, a long time ago, mistook Zuska for a role-model *shudder*).

Good times :?

[ERV]

Also, I just got back from Missouri, and though I am not a 'drinker' (since we are talking about alcohol), I brought home a TON of local peach wine. ITS SO YUMMY! Missouri peach wine is as yummy as FTBers are fucking stupid, thats how yummy this stuff is.

YUMMY!!!

[Steersman]

Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:50 pm

That’s all fine and dandy. But if you want to crucify some guy, regardless of whether he was guilty or not which I’ll concede is an open question...

actually he was proven innocent, there was a long discussion right here on the thread, are you sure you do not want to go back and read before you comment?

Actually I read and followed the contretemps in some detail, mostly over at The Skeptical Abyss. My impression from all of that was that all that could be said was that there was no evidence of him having taken any up-skirt photos. Apparently no one confronted him and demanded to see the contents of his camera or any logs of photos having been taken, sent and deleted. That to me would be the only credible evidence capable of actually proving him innocent or guilty of that crime.

However, it seems that even John C. Welch concedes or argues that he had been guilty of some serious harassment. All of which I summarized on a related thread:

Good points and some clarification in this rather turbid if not turgid contretemps. But I wonder: is it still not true that acts of harassment took place?

For instance, you quote Lee’s points 5 through 7 while 1 through 4, and 7, clearly indicate, apparently, a fairly persistent level of harassment even if, as Lee has maintained all along (apparently), the “crime” did not actually take place. Which, I might also mention, John C. Welch – apparently no particular friend of the complainant – also provides some justification for viewing it as.

But if you have a link to that thread you are referring to or other related evidence justifying your contention then I would appreciate the information and would certainly take a look at it.

[sacha]

Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:50 pm

That’s all fine and dandy. But if you want to crucify some guy, regardless of whether he was guilty or not which I’ll concede is an open question...

actually he was proven innocent, there was a long discussion right here on the thread, are you sure you do not want to go back and read before you comment?

Actually I read and followed the contretemps in some detail, mostly over at The Skeptical Abyss. My impression from all of that was that all that could be said was that there was no evidence of him having taken any up-skirt photos. Apparently no one confronted him and demanded to see the contents of his camera or any logs of photos having been taken, sent and deleted. That to me would be the only credible evidence capable of actually proving him innocent or guilty of that crime.

However, it seems that even John C. Welch concedes or argues that he had been guilty of some serious harassment. All of which I summarized on a related thread:

Good points and some clarification in this rather turbid if not turgid contretemps. But I wonder: is it still not true that acts of harassment took place?

For instance, you quote Lee’s points 5 through 7 while 1 through 4, and 7, clearly indicate, apparently, a fairly persistent level of harassment even if, as Lee has maintained all along (apparently), the “crime” did not actually take place. Which, I might also mention, John C. Welch – apparently no particular friend of the complainant – also provides some justification for viewing it as.

But if you have a link to that thread you are referring to or other related evidence justifying your contention then I would appreciate the information and would certainly take a look at it.

Okay, I'm a cunt. As soon as I responded with that, I thought, "fuck, sacha (yes, third person, I'm blond) that was cuntish" You deserve an apology for that one.

I read that his film was looked over by the JREF and cleared of any "inappropriate" photographs. I should have posted the link immediately. I will find it again and post it here.

I have empathy for "Monopod Man". I believe he is just socially inept, and meant no harm. They accused, convicted, and outed him, and he received real threats, many of them.
Apparently besides his name and email, his address, and phone number were also made public, and he was frightened enough to stay away from TAM this year, even though he had already purchased a ticket and hotel room.

I wrote a long post here about him, when someone mentioned that he was one of the three "harassers". It can be a bit frustrating to have new members repeat the same things we sorted a month ago. I'm not excusing my response to you, just attempting to explain. Most of us have been here (and at Abbie's prior to that) for over a year, and when the same group of people get together, it's easy to begin to form a "old timer" camaraderie, and have little patience to get someone new, up to date with the thread.
A lot of things have been repeated by newer commenters here, some things as if they came up with the analogy, or conclusion on their own, when someone else said the same thing six months ago. I don't know why some people have joined the thread fairly recently, and seem to have been here the entire time, and others do not.

I'll look for the link, and meanwhile, if you just search the thread for "Monopod Man" you will find a discussion about him, including my posts. Would you link to JCW's comment that you reference above, please.

[sacha]

I now see you linked to JCW's comment in your linked comment.

[sacha]

this is why I asked for the JCW link: http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=31#comment-114

[franc]

http://whois.domaintools.com/freethoughtblogs.com

"Ed" neglected to register with privacy enabled - Lists his address, real name and phone number - hosted by bluehost.com

Might be where he registered it. It's actually hosted here -

http://www.whoishostingthis.com/freethoughtblogs.com

Cloudflare. It's mentioned above. Friendly towards people that have "accountability" issues.

[franc]

Another user pretending to be Everyman, or Everyman trying to get past sacha's block? Either way, not cool.

That was me having the last word in a funny way. Lighten up, Francis. I bet franc thought it was funny.

What makes you presume stuff about me? You have to earn the privilege to make fun of Sacha - until then, it's just mindless personal one-upmanship or dick waving with no actual purpose.

[CommanderTuvok]

PZ is awesome.

:lol:

Yeah, there was a time when I was quite fond of PZ, when he was actually writing mildly interesting stuff and bashing stupid theists. However, the mask then began to slip...and what we have seen behind the mask is really ugly. Perhaps a certain Miss Watson had a considerable influence on him...

[franc]

A recent post from Ophelia:

Ok this is a good one. From a comment on Jen's post on blunderfoot.

“Freethought” means you use reason and logic to come to a conclusion, and not believing everything anyone says — even a close friend — at face value.

Hahahahahahahahaha yes right that's what freethought means. A close friend tells you she has a headache and you interrogate her for an hour trying to get her to demonstrate that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some questionable logic there to conflate those two very different kettles of fish. Something that religious fundamentalists seem to exhibit to a distressing degree – as when they assert that atheism is a religion as well – but which really doesn’t have any place in a skeptic community ...

"Parallel logic"

[Steersman]

Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:17 pm

.....
But if you have a link to that thread you are referring to or other related evidence justifying your contention then I would appreciate the information and would certainly take a look at it.

Okay, I'm a cunt. As soon as I responded with that, I thought, "fuck, sacha (yes, third person, I'm blond) that was cuntish"

No, I wouldn’t go that far: :-)

cunt n Taboo
3. Offensive slang a mean or obnoxious person

Mildly exasperating, but that’s it. :-)

You deserve an apology for that one.

De nada ... but thanks ...

I read that his film was looked over by the JREF and cleared of any "inappropriate" photographs. I should have posted the link immediately. I will find it again and post it here.

Hadn’t read anything about that and I would have thought that The Skeptical Atheist would have mentioned it, although it is a little difficult to follow the trail. And that event might have happened after the complaint which was the basis for that post of his. Thanks if you can find the link or even for looking ...

I have empathy for "Monopod Man". I believe he is just socially inept, and meant no harm.

Likewise. That’s why I used the word “crucify” in my “post” to Ophelia. Not one of “skepticism’s finest hours”, I think ....

... it's easy to begin to form a "old timer" camaraderie, and have little patience to get someone new, up to date with the thread.

I can sympathize as I’ve been in similar situations. I sort of look on it as a “teaching moment”, although not everyone is cut out for that role.

But, FWIW and in passing and to-whom-it-may-concern, as it is sort of a hobby horse of mine or a minor cause celebre, I think it would help if the blog had numbered posts or if the link to a post that was being responded to was included automatically. While I generally like the format here, not to mention the more even-keel posting, finding out context or history can be a little difficult – and the things I mentioned tend to be quite helpful in that regard on other blogs.

[Lsuoma]

Another user pretending to be Everyman, or Everyman trying to get past sacha's block? Either way, not cool.

That was me having the last word in a funny way. Lighten up, Francis. I bet franc thought it was funny.

What makes you presume stuff about me? You have to earn the privilege to make fun of Sacha - until then, it's just mindless personal one-upmanship or dick waving with no actual purpose.

EveryMan's just a wanker who loves the sound of his own typing. I've blocked his post because they're so fucking navel-gazing. He reminds me of the boring cunt I was myself when I was a teenager.

Just another internet tool...

[rayshul]

Maybe the wiki needs a post that clarifies the entire response to things rather than expecting everyone to read through the thread.

It's much easier not to read and just say "these people think women are worthless"...

Not volunteering to do it tho... eheheh. Not really the most thoughtful-thinky person around and obvs forget a lot of shit.

[Guest]

I have been following the Tfoot vs. FtB email blowout. It appears that Michael Payton has submitted his apology for not liking Ftb. It's a sad day for the skeptic community when the powers of groupthink can criminalize an opinion.

[EveryMan]

But if you have a link to that thread you are referring to or other related evidence justifying your contention then I would appreciate the information and would certainly take a look at it.

I managed to find it.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=1667&hilit=monopod#p1667

And congrats to you and sascha for goring one of my sacred cows. Namely, that a presumption of innocence is an entitlement provided per U.S. law. The accused doesn't have to "prove" anything. He is and was innocent until proven otherwise (which didn't happen).

That said, I know the guy by reputation and he is considered a bit of a weirdo. If I had to guess I would suggest he has some autism spectrum disorder (or something similar) and is therefore 'mind blind'. I.e., he really doesn't understand that he's being annoying/irritating, which his comments on skepticalabyss bear out. So there is some irony in all the 'victims' picking on a guy that is basically developmentally disabled.

[Steersman]

... obvs forget a lot of shit.

I can’t understand at all why that would be. I mean there were only “251,805,821 words posted today on WordPress.com” ... And that is probably just one of literally dozens if not hundreds of blog hosting platforms ...

It’s a wonder we don’t all have melt-downs following it all ... I’m reminded of the parable about the Sorcerer’s Apprentice ....

[Mr Danksworth]

I have been following the Tfoot vs. FtB email blowout. It appears that Michael Payton has submitted his apology for not liking Ftb. It's a sad day for the skeptic community when the powers of groupthink can criminalize an opinion.

Ooops, that post was me. Sorry.

[sacha]

... it's easy to begin to form a "old timer" camaraderie, and have little patience to get someone new, up to date with the thread.

I can sympathize as I’ve been in similar situations. I sort of look on it as a “teaching moment”, although not everyone is cut out for that role.

Well "teaching" is not my thing, which is why I don't train dogs, don't have children, and I only fuck men with a lot of experience...

I will mention, as many already know. I've been to many sceptic "gatherings, and I've been to a few TAMs, I've never been treated better than I have in the sceptic community. I have seen how the skepchicks behave, firsthand, and I have had a problem with Watson's misandry since her first SGU podcast. I know she is using the "misogyny in the sceptic community" as a lie to further her agenda.

I also may be the only female MRA here. I have always had issues with women and their misandry (not all, but fuck, I've known a tonne of sexist women, and more women than I can count, who would lie in a heartbeat to accuse a man of anywhere from harassment to rape).
I can't explain in one comment how strongly I feel about this issue. I probably need more proof than most men when it comes to accusations like these. This is a big part of why I feel comfortable here. Abbie, Nectar and I were the original "Gender Traitors", and PZ and company has tried to silence all of us. PZ and Watson tried to get me banned from a sceptic event a couple of months ago, along with trying to convince the organiser I was a "threat" to Watson's safety (just because I am a regular commenter here), they did worse to franc, and what they did to Abbie is horrific, and she is far less deserving, and a far nicer person than franc or I...


I'm tired (yeah, franc, I know). I may not find the link until tomorrow (if I can find it at all), I have not forgotten.

[AndrewV69]

I don't quite understand how they reconcile the idea that women are on the Slime-side...

Oh wait, I do. Because girls on the Slime side are "chill girls" who just want to act like they're one of the guys for some dick.

My bad, just answered my own question.

that's why I'm here. Just for the cock(s)

OMFG! I just got this fucking laptop! It is five days old. Now the fucking thing has coffee all over the fucking screen and keyboard!

coffee is trouble, Andrew. You should know that.

You would think I would know that by now. I managed to clean it up before it dried and I got sticky keys (so far so good).

[EveryMan]

Another user pretending to be Everyman, or Everyman trying to get past sacha's block? Either way, not cool.

That was me having the last word in a funny way. Lighten up, Francis. I bet franc thought it was funny.

What makes you presume stuff about me? You have to earn the privilege to make fun of Sacha - until then, it's just mindless personal one-upmanship or dick waving with no actual purpose.

Right, just as you have earned the privilege to mock the baboons ... how exactly? Do you have a PhD in Cunt Kicking from the University of Queensland? Would have loved to smell your shoe after the dissertation.

Anyways, I've had enough butthurt for the time being so I'll take my leave before I get blocked/doxxed or my head explodes from Irony.

Steersman, pleasure meeting you and thanks for the reference to the "problem of induction"; it's been enlightening.

Cheers to tachikoma and everyone else; PM me if ya need anything.

http://www.businessoflosingweight.com/w ... e-quit.jpg

[AndrewV69]

Actually I read and followed the contretemps in some detail, mostly over at The Skeptical Abyss. My impression from all of that was that all that could be said was that there was no evidence of him having taken any up-skirt photos. Apparently no one confronted him and demanded to see the contents of his camera or any logs of photos having been taken, sent and deleted. That to me would be the only credible evidence capable of actually proving him innocent or guilty of that crime.

However, it seems that even John C. Welch concedes or argues that he had been guilty of some serious harassment. All of which I summarized on a related thread:

Something that should be noted. Whatever anyone anyone may think of Lee.

Lee apparently did go to a lot of trouble (multiple places) to try and hold back the lynch mob that was forming up and clarify exactly what happened.

I am saying this because one lesson I learned, is that it is important to acknowledge when someone does the right thing. It tends to reinforce that sort of behaviour among other things.

[sacha]

I don't quite understand how they reconcile the idea that women are on the Slime-side...

Oh wait, I do. Because girls on the Slime side are "chill girls" who just want to act like they're one of the guys for some dick.

My bad, just answered my own question.

that's why I'm here. Just for the cock(s)

OMFG! I just got this fucking laptop! It is five days old. Now the fucking thing has coffee all over the fucking screen and keyboard!

coffee is trouble, Andrew. You should know that.

You would think I would know that by now. I managed to clean it up before it dried and I got sticky keys (so far so good).

your "sticky keys" are not from coffee, my dear..

[Steersman]

... it's easy to begin to form a "old timer" camaraderie, and have little patience to get someone new, up to date with the thread.

I can sympathize as I’ve been in similar situations. I sort of look on it as a “teaching moment”, although not everyone is cut out for that role.

I can't explain in one comment how strongly I feel about this issue. I probably need more proof than most men when it comes to accusations like these.

I can sympathize as it is an issue or concept that I’ve been following for literally decades, maybe not in as much depth as many but enough to know that there’s more than a little bit that’s rotten in Denmark. I tried to point that out to Sally Strange way back when I was banned over there but she tends to think, has actually stated, that the concept of dogma doesn’t apply to feminism.

But at that time I made a reference to a portion of a book – Generation of Vipers (Philip Wylie, who coined the term “momism”) – that another woman, Veronica Abbass had provided me on another blog (sorry, website) that you might be interested in. Sorry, but the book doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture of women in general. Although he targeted probably every other segment of the population and profession in it, with the possible exception of Indian Chiefs, in reaching the conclusion that, as he put it, “We have cancer of the soul”.

This is a big part of why I feel comfortable here. Abbie, Nectar and I were the original "Gender Traitors", and PZ and company has tried to silence all of us. PZ and Watson tried to get me banned from a sceptic event a couple of months ago, along with trying to convince the organiser I was a "threat" to Watson's safety (just because I am a regular commenter here), they did worse to franc, and what they did to Abbie is horrific, and she is far less deserving, and a far nicer person than franc or I...

They are looking less and less credible all the time. Kind of unfortunate too, as I think that at least PZ and Ophelia periodically make or have made some good points. Just that their commitment to dogma, or having painted themselves into some tight corners, seems to be seriously messing with their minds.

[sacha]

But at that time I made a reference to a portion of a book – Generation of Vipers (Philip Wylie, who coined the term “momism”) – that another woman, Veronica Abbass had provided me on another blog (sorry, website) that you might be interested in. Sorry, but the book doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture of women in general. Although he targeted probably every other segment of the population and profession in it, with the possible exception of Indian Chiefs, in reaching the conclusion that, as he put it, “We have cancer of the soul”.

Thanks, I'll read it.

[sacha]

Something that should be noted. Whatever anyone anyone may think of Lee.

Lee apparently did go to a lot of trouble (multiple places) to try and hold back the lynch mob that was forming up and clarify exactly what happened.

I am saying this because one lesson I learned, is that it is important to acknowledge when someone does the right thing. It tends to reinforce that sort of behaviour among other things.

I agree...

[tachikoma]

That linked to an even earlier blog article, Atheists with vaginas which is still up.

1-- God, this shit started a LONG time ago, didnt it? Even their shit-stirring with DJ Grothe.
2-- I stand by the stuff I previously wrote, and am glad to see current/former Pit Crew there also making sense.

Not that surprising. The people there were against CPP/Zuska/Isis because of the exact same bad behaviour that current pit people are against FTBers for.

Isis’s habit of using feminism to lash out at people who disagree with her, calling them misogynistic apologists for patriarchy without even bothering to notice that they are ethnic minority women who have a reputation for their feminist activism. This is a well-documented fact. She has done it more than once. She is not promoting feminism or righting injustices. She is using the labels of “misogynist” and “white male privilege” as clubs to attack people. I call that pseudo-feminism.

Underlining mine.

If the Zuskas and PhysioProfs restricted their attacks to actual instances of discriminatory actions or attitudes, I don’t think many of us would object – I wouldn’t. My issue with Zuska isn’t that she’s assertive or uncompromising, it’s that she’s spiteful and intellectually dishonest – she pretends that people who call her on being spiteful are only objecting to her assertiveness, and she habitually viciously lays into anyone who has the misfortune to say something that vaguely reminds her of someone else that she’s angry at (often for good reason) as if the inadvertent poster actually were that person and to the best of my knowledge has never, ever, ever even acknowledged the mistake

Oh Azkyroth(2009), please come and knock some sense into Azkyroth(2012), who seems to be supporting Watson and Myers in doing the same thing...

It's rather amusing to see people back in 2009 refer to SC, Svan, Benson, and Watson as examples of reasonable female atheists who aren't crazy feminists.

[astrokid.nj]

Damn.. Here's some real sexism against women. The baboons can gain some credibility if they focus on these at least.

An off-duty firewoman was left feeling like a "potential pedophile" after a national airline stopped her sitting next to two small boys on a flight - because women are barred from sitting next to unaccompanied minors.. two small boys aged between eight and 10.
She described how she moved from her window seat to the aisle to allow the boys to look out of the window, but was then pulled up by an air hostess, asking her to trade places with a male passenger.

Read more.

[Steersman]

...
Steersman, pleasure meeting you and thanks for the reference to the "problem of induction"; it's been enlightening.

Likewise.

And glad you enjoyed that article as I think that idea lies at the core of the dispute about the “different ways of knowing” – science versus religion: both of them, and most of the humanities I would guess, start from premises and hypotheses of one sort or another – basically inductive, intuitive, thinking and logic – but only science actually tries to find out which ones are actually true, hypotheses being a dime-a-dozen, a nickel-a-shipload; not all of them are or can be true. Religion is largely just “Philosophick Romances” – a term that P.B. Medawar discusses in his Art of the Soluble – highly recommended.


Thanks also for that link to sacha’s article, although, not to be critical and from what I can see from a brief skim of it, there wasn’t any reference to a primary source. Certainly a plausible possibility but no smoking gun yet ....

[sacha]

Thanks also for that link to sacha’s article, although, not to be critical and from what I can see from a brief skim of it, there wasn’t any reference to a primary source. Certainly a plausible possibility but no smoking gun yet ....

I was not referring to my post, when I said I would try to find the link to what I read, but you probably already know that. okay, I really am going to sleep now...

[sacha]

Damn.. Here's some real sexism against women. The baboons can gain some credibility if they focus on these at least.

An off-duty firewoman was left feeling like a "potential pedophile" after a national airline stopped her sitting next to two small boys on a flight - because women are barred from sitting next to unaccompanied minors.. two small boys aged between eight and 10.
She described how she moved from her window seat to the aisle to allow the boys to look out of the window, but was then pulled up by an air hostess, asking her to trade places with a male passenger.

Read more.

read the twitter comments on that page...
Right! Women never sexually abuse children... for fuck's sake.

[Steersman]

...
It's rather amusing to see people back in 2009 refer to SC, Svan, Benson, and Watson as examples of reasonable female atheists who aren't crazy feminists.

More proof of that old adage: power corrupts ....Which can probably be updated to make some reference to privilege ....

God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural… fluids.

Maybe an occupational hazard of being human …. Reminds me of a story from an old book of mine on, I think, Zen:

It described a fellow who went to school and became a White Knight and subsequently went out and rescued various damsels, of both sexes, from the depredations of various Black Knights. But he was too successful and there weren't many Black Knights about so his income from said rescuing took a precipitous nose-dive. So to supplement his income he started, at first, raiding various gardens and then, when bad turned to worse, proceeding to waylaying various travellers. But then one day he was suprised to see, in the clearing ahead of him, some White Knight challenging him and calling him to account ...

[Steersman]

Thanks also for that link to sacha’s article, although, not to be critical and from what I can see from a brief skim of it, there wasn’t any reference to a primary source. Certainly a plausible possibility but no smoking gun yet ....

.. when I said I would try to find the link to what I read, but you probably already know that.

I thought it likely – thanks for looking; but just acknowledging what was provided in passing.

okay, I really am going to sleep now...

gn

[justinvacula]

Maybe Ophelia will put this one on her blog. The horrors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morea ... s_crop.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0RiBj.jpg

[justinvacula]

Is the above what 'Surly Amy' considers to be ass-grabbing...or maybe worse?
Time for conference policies against ass-grabbing!

[rayshul]

First of all we need some solid harrassment policies that prevent the crime of talking-while-male.

[Badger3k]

Is the above what 'Surly Amy' considers to be ass-grabbing...or maybe worse?
Time for conference policies against ass-grabbing!

They need to start boycotting sporting events. I saw more ass-grabbing during the olympics than I have in my entire porn-watching career. And that's a lot! :D

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Also, I just got back from Missouri, and though I am not a 'drinker' (since we are talking about alcohol), I brought home a TON of local peach wine. ITS SO YUMMY! Missouri peach wine is as yummy as FTBers are fucking stupid, thats how yummy this stuff is.

YUMMY!!!

Coffee, laptop, same problem as Andrew.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I've blocked his post because they're so fucking navel-gazing.

Wait, what?!?

Sorry, but however Everyman might be tedious, annoying, navel-gazing, from Mars, I don't think you should block his posts. I feel that's way against the spirit of this place. Well, of course, you're the boss, but that's my take.

[franc]

I've blocked his post because they're so fucking navel-gazing.

Wait, what?!?

Sorry, but however Everyman might be tedious, annoying, navel-gazing, from Mars, I don't think you should block his posts. I feel that's way against the spirit of this place. Well, of course, you're the boss, but that's my take.

Plus you risk triggering another justicar meth binge.

Phil, the "block" doesn't block. It just collapses the comments behind a single-click twisty. I just use it to hide mabus or the mabus-oid. I've successfully ignored the other rote posters this far.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I've blocked his post because they're so fucking navel-gazing.

Wait, what?!?

Sorry, but however Everyman might be tedious, annoying, navel-gazing, from Mars, I don't think you should block his posts. I feel that's way against the spirit of this place. Well, of course, you're the boss, but that's my take.

Plus you risk triggering another justicar meth binge.

Phil, the "block" doesn't block. It just collapses the comments behind a single-click twisty. I just use it to hide mabus or the mabus-oid. I've successfully ignored the other rote posters this far.

Oh, okay. I'm still not super good at this whole "internet" thingy. I thought Lsuoma had blocked Everyman (and this I would object to).

My bad.

[franc]

Phil, the "block" doesn't block. It just collapses the comments behind a single-click twisty. I just use it to hide mabus or the mabus-oid. I've successfully ignored the other rote posters this far.

Oh, okay. I'm still not super good at this whole "internet" thingy. I thought Lsuoma had blocked Everyman (and this I would object to).

My bad.

I posted this before. It's not really that hard and it is not the same as banning or blocking -

http://i.imgur.com/lQIZy.png

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Franc, I understood that stuff (although I'm not gonna use it, I like to read every posts), but I just misread what Lsuoma was saying.

Again, my bad. I hate sundays...

[James Onen]

An oldie but goodie. This one put a smile on my face. :D

[youtube]YjRUGxi-ZZc[/youtube]

[James Onen]

If you define yourself as an Atheist you really aren’t saying very much about yourself at all. Just that you don’t accept the claims of Theists regarding the existence of any deities. So we have words like Sceptic or Critical thinker which have much more meaning attached to them. Sceptics are supposed to assess the evidence for a claim and apply reason and critical thinking to determine the validity of that claim.

This is the type of person I strive to be about everything in my life. I want to be able to look at any and all issues and apply the same critical thinking to them that I apply to theism. This however, is far easier said than done.

So one might be forgiven for thinking that members of the Sceptic Community and all it’s various celebrities also apply this critical thinking to other parts of their lives, not just the claims of the supernatural. I assumed that the people whose blogs I read and whose speeches I listened to weren’t just sceptical to the supernatural claims of religion but also to any claims regarding any issue. I soon realised that I was sadly mistaken and that there were many people claiming to be sceptics who have very fundamentalist beliefs about various subjects.

The first time I came across this was in October 2007 while reading the blog of one of these celebrities, PZ Myers. In a post entitled FFRF recap: heroes of the revolution, Hitchens screws the pooch, and the unbearable stodginess of atheists one of the most relevant paragraphs reads as follows;

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

Myers made the claim that Christopher Hitchens had proposed genocide against Muslims. I read this while sipping on a cup of tea and almost dropped it with astonishment. Christopher Hitchens proposing genocide ? The political commentator and writer Christopher Hitchens?

I literally could not believe what I was reading. Anyone even half familiar with Hitchens’ work would raise an eyebrow at such an assertion and they’d be right to do so. Hitchens no more advocated genocide against Muslims than he advocated joining the Church of Scientology. But PZ Myers wrote it and PZ Myers is a sceptic so he wouldn’t state something so foul without evidence behind it, would he ? Well as it turns out yes he would.

Where did Myers get this idea from ? Well it was from a Q&A session by Hitchens at the Freedom From Religion Foundation on October 12, 2007. You can see a video of this session on youtube here. If the video is too long you can skip to the 3:30 mark. A questioner asks, “How exactly does bombing and killing Muslims lessen their number or limit their fervor ?” to which Hitchens made a reply concerning the killing of terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden. He went on to talk about killing jihadists and specifically stated how the jihadists themselves were the ones targeting and killing Muslims.

Now I really feel that it is quite patronising to have to point out that the questioner may well have said Muslims but that he most likely meant Muslim terrorists while Hitchens clearly presumed the questioner had meant Muslim terrorists and that’s what he was talking about.

To suggest Christopher Hitchens was an advocate of genocide against Muslims or any other group is extraordinarily dishonest by Myers. Hitchens was in favour of killing terrorists, Muslim or otherwise, who want to attack western civilisation, not Muslims in general. To say otherwise goes against everything Hitchens stood for, everything he wrote, and everything he said.

If it wasn’t bad enough that Myers wrote this, several others parroted his posting, most notably perhaps Russell Glasser on the Atheist Experience, a popular television show based in Austin, Texas. In Episode #740 of the show shortly after Hitchens had passed away Russell starts the show by talking about Hitchens and his recent passing. He went on to say, at the 8 minute mark in the video, that Hitchens said “every muslim killed is a muslim we don’t have to fight as pc Myers reported”.

So why did Myers and others do this ? It’s clearly not a mistake as these people cannot but be familiar with Hitchens and his views. It took me quite a while to realise it but the answer was quite simple. Myers et al didn’t like Hitchens’ politics.

This was very difficult for me to understand at first because apart from not being a particularly political person, I’m also not an American nor have I ever visited or lived there and because of this I didn’t understand just how fundamentalist some Americans can be over politics.

Of course I was vaguely familiar with American politics from various TV shows, articles, and opinion pieces in various media. I had this shadow of an image in my understanding that the Right was Republican, conservative Christian, rich, and they didn’t like minorities, homosexuals or women’s rights while the Left was Democrat, liberal Christian or irreligious, middle class, and supportive of minorities, homosexuals, and women. I have since done quite a lot of reading on politics in the US and I believe I am pretty well informed on the subject now.

I think it might be quite difficult to try to explain to an American reader just how different politics are in Europe from the US, and it’s not really relevant for this posting, but for one simple example what Americans call the Left would be considered right-wing on the political spectrum in most European countries. It’s also worth mentioning that politics in most of Europe is much less partisan and governments are regularly formed with coalitions of political parties.

From this point of view, American politics seems extremely militant, divisive, and many supporters of each side of the political spectrum seem just as fundamentalist in their politics as the most zealous Jihadist or conservative Christian is about their religion. I’ve had discussions with some American friends regarding politics where they have become quite offended at the mere suggestion that their side (Left or Right) isn’t one hundred percent correct and the other side isn’t one hundred percent wrong.

To many on the Left, George Bush was pure evil and to the Right, Obama is the anti-Christ. There’s no grey area. There’s no middle ground. There’s no place for rational discussion. It’s simply a black and white issue. No evidence or thinking required. If you dissent from the party line then you are wrong.

The conclusion I garnered from this is that just because someone may be sceptical about one subject, such as the supernatural, it doesn’t show that they are sceptical regarding anything else. Many members of the Sceptic Community preach their views on subjects such as politics, and most recently gender issues, as fervently as any religious adherent would preach about their religious beliefs.

Right now in the Sceptic Community there is something of a civil war ongoing from an unfortunate incident where Richard Dawkins made a very ill thought-out comment against a woman complaining about unwanted sexual advances at a conference in Dublin. This issue is far too big and frustrating for me to go into and I’m pretty sure most readers (if I have any) will be familiar with it regardless. A summary of the incident can be found here or information can easily be found by Googling ‘elevatorgate’. Members of the Sceptic Community have largely moved into three separate camps. One group which claims women are getting harassed sexually at Sceptic Conferences and are the victims of online hate mail. Another group claims that this isn’t really an issue, are requesting evidence to back up the first groups claims, and that the first group are making unrealistic demands on policy changes. While the last group simply think the first two groups are been utterly ridiculous and irrational.

If the protagonists, such as PZ Myers and Phil Mason for example, of this issue applied the same sceptical and reasonable thinking to this issue and all issues in their lives that they applied to the supernatural than none of us would even have heard of it. As it stands, it is impossible for anyone to even question any of the positions without been met with emotionally charged vitriol from the adherents of that position.

This is not Scepticism.

http://musinlon.wordpress.com/2012/08/1 ... community/

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

James, stop DDOSing! :p

And whoever coined the nick "Boratina" for Cristina, not very cool. Attack the arguments, not the accent because she wasn't born in your fucking country.

DAMN!!! Crancky, I may have anger issues to deal with (I put it down to health, or not enough booze).

[Trophy]

My impression of most FTB's: Assholes of average intellect with egos the size of the moon.

Seriously fuck them. I don't need a goddamned movement to tell me that god doesn't exist or that homeopathy is bullshit. And for all their supposed "awesomeness" FTB has never produced or will never ever produce anything even close to what already written down by the likes of Christopher Hitchens. Has anyone on FTB has ever come close to produce something like Hitchen's essay "Topics of Cancer"?

[franc]

My impression of most FTB's: Assholes of average intellect with egos the size of the moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

Yes, to them mediocrity is the upper limit for personal achievement. All comes back to Nietzsche and ressentiment dunnit?

[Scented Nectar]

"Parallel logic"

[youtube]YSeehsTHjrI[/youtube]
Skip ahead to the 20 second point for the song I custom made for the Benson.

[SteveW68]

http://whois.domaintools.com/freethoughtblogs.com

"Ed" neglected to register with privacy enabled - Lists his address, real name and phone number - hosted by bluehost.com

Might be where he registered it. It's actually hosted here -

http://www.whoishostingthis.com/freethoughtblogs.com

Cloudflare. It's mentioned above. Friendly towards people that have "accountability" issues.

Ah - That *may* have been the change that was made on 9th / 10th August. Not going to pay Domaintools just to check histories. when I originally checked the nameservers were listed as Bluehost ones - now showing as Cloudflare nameservers. Either that or something completely different and I need to get my glasses checked.

[Gumby]

I don't quite understand how they reconcile the idea that women are on the Slime-side...

Oh wait, I do. Because girls on the Slime side are "chill girls" who just want to act like they're one of the guys for some dick.

My bad, just answered my own question.

that's why I'm here. Just for the cock(s)

OMFG! I just got this fucking laptop! It is five days old. Now the fucking thing has coffee all over the fucking screen and keyboard!

coffee is trouble, Andrew. You should know that.

You would think I would know that by now. I managed to clean it up before it dried and I got sticky keys (so far so good).

About a month ago I knocked an entire mug full of coffee onto my Gateway notebook's keyboard. I literally had to turn the thing upside down and shake it a bit to get all the coffee to pour out of the keyboard. Amazingly, after it dried out, it was fine except for some keys being a bit sticky. That stickiness eventually worked itself out as I used the keyboard. I can't believe the notebook survived and didn't get its electronics fried. I was very relieved, but pissed off at myself no end for being so careless.

[Gumby]

http://whois.domaintools.com/freethoughtblogs.com

"Ed" neglected to register with privacy enabled - Lists his address, real name and phone number - hosted by bluehost.com

Might be where he registered it. It's actually hosted here -

http://www.whoishostingthis.com/freethoughtblogs.com

Cloudflare. It's mentioned above. Friendly towards people that have "accountability" issues.

Ah - That *may* have been the change that was made on 9th / 10th August. Not going to pay Domaintools just to check histories. when I originally checked the nameservers were listed as Bluehost ones - now showing as Cloudflare nameservers. Either that or something completely different and I need to get my glasses checked.

When FTB was originally created they used Bluehost, but the servers couldn't handle the traffic (according to a blog post of PZ's). And indeed, I saw that when FTB first went live it was almost impossible to load a page. A real mess. So they soon switched to another host, apparently Cloudflare.

[Dilurk]

From the http://synapses.co.za/unstoppable-tide-trolls/ that was posted, is this comment.

Iamcuriousblue August 12, 2012 at 6:10 am | Permalink | Reply
The problem with FTB, or a significant portion of it, is that it basically took the culture of the “feminist blogosphere” (Jezebel, Pandagon, I Blame the Patriarchy, etc.) and grafted it on to the atheist community with disastrous results. So not only have they imported in many of the problems that that particular subculture hasn’t really dealt with (notably a “callout” culture rife with bullying, self-righteousness, exaggerated claims of victimization, dogmatism, etc.), but also imported in a whole kind of hyper-sensitive discourse around gender into another subculture (the atheist/secular one) that hasn’t really dealt with these issues, nor had any introduction one way or the other to the approaches internet feminists take to those issues. It’s ended up pretty much polarizing the secular community, perhaps in ways that ultimately would have come up anyway, but often in ways that could have been avoided if both sides were willing to be a bit less dogmatic and entrenched in their positions and actually talked things out.

I started out with *mild* criticisms of the problematic language around “sexualized imagery” found in some of the proposed anti-harassment policies, as well as much of the kneejerk kind of anti-libertarianism at FTB, and have found myself pretty quickly demonized as some horrible anti-feminist and enemy of women’s participation in the secular community. What might have been small differences have been turned into chasms. Sad, really.

I've been saying this like forever, one of my earliest e-mails to franc (Jan 4 2012) mentioned the callout culture problem We do not need this grafted onto the a/s community at all. Sadly, I don't think there is a thing any of us can do at this point except eat more popcorn and enjoy the show.

[Guest]

Thanks for the repost James.

I remember reading that piece by Myers at the time and noticing Myers misrepresentation of Hitchens views. I wrote Myers off as a pseudo skeptic with a political barrow to push, and didn't really pay any more attention to him until the whole elevator gate thing took off. Really he has always been a completely dishonest demagogue, it's only lately that this has started to be noticed by the wider skeptic 'community'.