Periodic Table of Swearing

[Lsuoma]

Talking about independent thought, this might be an appropriate thing to watch right now:

[youtube]LQqq3e03EBQ[/youtube]

[Evan]

One can kill a man by kicking him in the genitals. I've seriously bruised my vagina numerous times (excluding sex), including trying to climb over a fence that was just barely too tall for my legs, and crashing with my full weight directly on the top of the top of the fence with my crotch. It fucking hurt, but nowhere near as much as I've seen quite strong and touch men double over with a tenth of the pressure that my falling on the fence had. The "it's no different" argument is complete bullshit. We have ours not only tucked neatly inside, but it is made to take a lot of friction and pressure. Testicles are not protected and not meant to take any sort of touch other than gentle.

I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

Think of the way Myers disingenuously defended RW when she was caught making a bullshit claim (I forgot about whom) to have been called a cunt (I think) by pretending that people were just whiny at being blocked by RW on Twitter. It is so clear now that these are standard tactics for Myers and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberate.

That would be the incident involving Tony Ryan, the Coffee Loving Skeptic.

In other news, Skepchick.org is down at the moment.

[Dilurk]

Talking about independent thought, this might be an appropriate thing to watch right now ....

Wow. I guess you noticed the link Abbie gave in her post about the slymepit moving. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chu ... 04800.html

All I can say is respect

[Lsuoma]

I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

I have heard that this is the ultimate proof that God is a woman...

[Lsuoma]

Code: Select all

                         * *         @ @
                                                         <><>
                          ______________
                         /            \ \
  oo                    /              \ \    0 0
               o O     |     R.I.P.     | |
                       |    Original    | |
                       |    Slimepit    | |              Q Q
                       |   2011 - 2012  | |
        ^ ^            |                | |      X X
                       |                | |
                       |                | |
  /.\/.\\/.\/\.\.\/.\/\//\/\/\.\/.\/.\.\////.\/\./\.\/

[Lsuoma]

h/t to Wonderist for pointing this out, BTW.

[Badger3k]

One can kill a man by kicking him in the genitals. I've seriously bruised my vagina numerous times (excluding sex), including trying to climb over a fence that was just barely too tall for my legs, and crashing with my full weight directly on the top of the top of the fence with my crotch. It fucking hurt, but nowhere near as much as I've seen quite strong and touch men double over with a tenth of the pressure that my falling on the fence had. The "it's no different" argument is complete bullshit. We have ours not only tucked neatly inside, but it is made to take a lot of friction and pressure. Testicles are not protected and not meant to take any sort of touch other than gentle.

I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

Think of the way Myers disingenuously defended RW when she was caught making a bullshit claim (I forgot about whom) to have been called a cunt (I think) by pretending that people were just whiny at being blocked by RW on Twitter. It is so clear now that these are standard tactics for Myers and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberate.

That would be the incident involving Tony Ryan, the Coffee Loving Skeptic.

In other news, Skepchick.org is down at the moment.

Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

[Slither]

I second the suggestion of reading Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/: I also was thinking that it reminded me of the Baboon's behaviour. Altemeyer discusses at length the amazing hypocrisy that one sees in authoritarians as well as their lack of self-awareness -- the similarity seems obvious to me.

[Lsuoma]

Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

Definitely. There's enough bad will and paranoia around that we don't need any more due to that sort of shit.

[Dilurk]

Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

Definitely. There's enough bad will and paranoia around that we don't need any more due to that sort of shit.

Getting DDoS'd sucks bad. It is puerile behaviour.

[Lsuoma]

I second the suggestion of reading Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/: I also was thinking that it reminded me of the Baboon's behaviour. Altemeyer discusses at length the amazing hypocrisy that one sees in authoritarians as well as their lack of self-awareness -- the similarity seems obvious to me.

Thanks, Slither. I've created a sticky thread over here to capture recommendations for less-know resources: can you add your recommendation to the thread, please, changing the subject line to the name of the book?

[Slither]

According to skepchick's hosting service, their system status is normal, so it doesn't seem like a DDOS attack.

[sacha]

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2012/07/08/quick-update/

comments are open

[CommanderTuvok]

Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

[Slither]

can you add your recommendation to the thread, please, changing the subject line to the name of the book?

Done. Thanks!

[Lsuoma]

Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

Yikes - if the IDiots can successfully get people to believe that Twatson and the FC5 are important players in freethought and atheism, things would get a lot worse: they're almost impossible to parody. They'd be the gift that would keep on giving to the IDiot movement...

[Dilurk]

Nice [youtube]8gGzn0jSsdA[/youtube] by C0nc0rdance. Sums it up well. Paraphrasing he says "The best result would have been peaceful coexistence" Well, why not? confused

It also appears the horde is attacking him in the comments.

[Badger3k]

Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

Yikes - if the IDiots can successfully get people to believe that Twatson and the FC5 are important players in freethought and atheism, things would get a lot worse: they're almost impossible to parody. They'd be the gift that would keep on giving to the IDiot movement...

I'm assuming this is a post by Slimy Sal Cordova, with a "ht - Thunderf00t" type ending, causing one poster elsewhere to maybe suggest a conspiracy (or at least collusion). I wasn't sure if that's what he meant, so I did ask, bringing up the point that perhaps he keeps track of his opponents (TF in this case) like we keep track of the IDiots, Baboons, and others. Plus, it's all around the internet and on twitter - not surprising others have heard of it.

I am amused that the DU would go on the attack at their spiritual cousins - they both use the same type of censorship and tactics. Isn't there room under the big tent for them all? (Ok, that was all snark, I'm not amazed - even though the tactics are the same, they are still on opposite sides - disclaimer for the reasoning impaired)

[mordacious1]

This is off topic of what's being discussed now, but on topic generally, so pardon me if I disrupt the flow. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, what people perceive as threats. So...let's do a scale of 1 through 10, 10 being a severe threat (like someone pointing a gun at you asking for your money or your life. And just for fun, I'll throw in a "not nice" scale too.

Case 1: Someone asks you back to their room for coffee in an elevator. Threat level 0, not nice: 2. Now this could become threat level 10 rather quickly if the person doesn't take no for an answer and tries to get physical or verbally abusive.

Case 2: If I was a girl, I'd kick you somewhere. Or, If I was a bird, I'd peck your eyes out. Or, the famous: Mr. Churchill, if I was your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee. For all these scenarios, threat level 0 (because of the "IF", in all these cases, impossible). Not nice level: 3

Case 3: I hope someone rapes you (or beats you up, whatever). Threat level 1 (since it's wishful thinking, like I hope you get hit by a bus). Not Nice level: 5

Case 4: Why don't you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger? Threat level 5, Not nice: 8. Why five on threat? Because there are fragile people on the internet, some of whom suffer from depression or whatever and if you first get them in an emotional argument and then say that, well something bad could happen. This also applies, IMO, to rape yourself sideways with a rusty knife. You're suggesting someone, who may be fragile, hurt themselves. This is something PZ and others allow on their blogs, but not Case 2, that is a mistake on their part.

Case 5: If you don't agree with me, I'm going to try to get your blog shut down (loss of income) or get you in trouble with your boss. Threat Level: 7 Not nice: 10. If you actually contact their boss, it's goes to Threat Level 8.

Case 6: Next time I see you at a conference, I'm going to kick your ass, or harm you in another manner. Threat Level: 9 Not nice: 10

I could think of some more cases, but that covers the main ones ( I think).

[Saint N.]

@ mordacious1 (right above)

I'd agree with your analysis on Case 1, 2, 5, and 6. But I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Case 3 & 4. Couldn't the argument be made that people who are in a fragile enough state of mind would just as much be psychologically affected by the statement "I hope someone rapes you" as "Why don't you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?". To me, both sound like (very hostile) cases of wishful thinking, and I don't understand how the description you made about Case 4 (i.e. "Because there are fragile people on the internet, some of whom suffer from depression or whatever and if you first get them in an emotional argument and then say that, well something bad could happen.") couldn't be defensible applied to Case 3 (depending on an individual person's perspective and state of mind, of course).

Please don't take this comment as antagonism against the broader point you're making (on that we largely agree), I'm just curious about your response to my question.

[mordacious1]

I suppose you could make the argument that a fragile person could be damaged psychologically by any negative comment (you're a jerk!). But the difference in these two cases is that in one, you need a third party (rapist) to commit the act of violence (or a wayward bus). The odds of that are slim, whereas telling someone to harm themselves and them carrying it through might actually happen.

[masakari2012]

[mordacious1]

Oh, I could have made another case regarding that email OB got which supposedly made her pull out of TAM. Threat: 0 Not Nice: 0 Weird: 4. Overreaction on her part: 8

[DownThunder]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems to me that Rachel's (formerly Zinnia), gf is an equity feminist. That's very different than the brand of feminism I am seeing from PZ/RW et. al.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ut-choice/

Interesting.

If its the same individual, you may wish to consider further evidence:



This heather character did not seem particularly reasonable to me then.

[JAB]

It occurs to me that case 2 and all it's resulting bs could have been avoided if english had a subjunctive tense. It would be harder to quote mine that this is a threat when it's obvious in the verb tense that the action is hypothetical. (note.. I think technically we have a subjunctive but almost always identical to the past or present... in fact the only one I can think of is when you should say "I wouldn't do that if I were you" instead of "I wouldn't do that if I was you" and even the improper second quote seems to be gaining ground so we're losing the subjunctive)

[Dilurk]

This is off topic of what's being discussed now, but on topic generally, so pardon me if I disrupt the flow. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, what people perceive as threats. So...let's do a scale of 1 through 10, 10 being a severe threat (like someone pointing a gun at you asking for your money or your life. And just for fun, I'll throw in a "not nice" scale too.

The classic movie mystery scenario is the one where "You were heard telling the victim 'I'm going to kill you!'". People do this all the time, make silly threats verbally they'd never ever carry out, but in the heat of the moment. Again and again it comes down to people missing verbal clues, facial expressions that are simply not there in textual form. How many of us are good writers like Jean Kazez, who can communicate what they mean in a dispassionate to the facts way, without adding emotionally laden words?

So now we have the Internet, before then we had Bitnet and UUCP mail, young geeks who "kin barley spel" let alone write, are writing e-mails. The rest I leave up to your imagination. It has only gotten worse, anyone can set up a blog these days, the syndrome of chinese whispering (oh am I racist now?) makes claims mutate into unimaginable form. "Rebecca Watson was nearly raped in an elevator! She managed to fight him off by reading him Vogon poetry!"

What I believe we have here, is a group of young primarily male geeks who are full of piss and vinegar wanting to change the world, with older father figures they can rally around. Sadly, they may be atheists but they are not of the sceptical variety, being sceptical in the Bertrand Russell sense can be difficult when you are younger. As I have mentioned before, it does not matter to me whether RW was accosted or not in the elevator, she is entitled (logically) to feel nervous about that scenario. I would feel nervous about being alone in an elevator late at night with a fluffy kitten. However, I doubt the fluffy kitten could proposition me, unless I was very very drunk. I would agree with others here, I also find it difficult to understand why she cannot remember the face, but I would give her the benefit of the doubt. How many of us can remember details after a night of drinking?

What I find disheartening is we have atheists who are using their young followers for political reasons, they are not at all Free Thinkers or sceptics in any sense of the term. These people are not learning how to think critically, they are not learning how to be logical. This is the real tragedy here, the bullying can be dealt with by shunning this tiny part of the community.

Apologies @mordacious1, I hope I did not derail your thoughts too much.

[Dave]

I have a different idea to put forth for discussion on what drives the PZ horde.

I need to start by introducing Bob Altemeyer. He is a retired psych prof from University of Manitoba and spent his career studying the followers of authoritarians. He developed a questionare that would produce a number on how likely the respondant would be to give up their decision making to authority figures. When he retired he wrote a book on the topic that is accessible to those of us not in the field, but couldn't find a publisher. He didn't care too much since he had a good pension, so he just put it on line for free download. You should read it. (google search finds him easily or the wiki page for him has a link to the pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer )
Anyway, naturally enough, the fundamental christians score high on his index, as do republican voters although that may be mostly the effect of those in both groups.

My postulate here is that the horde is a bunch of such folk who have enough intellect to realize there is no god, but still want to follow a leader so they don't have to do the hard work of thinking for themselves; ie they would score high on the index. PZ is of course no mystery. Altemeyer didn't study why people want to be authoritarian leaders... the motivation of people to acquire power over others is no mystery.

Discuss. ;)

Interesting take. Ive read Altemeyer's work. What I find most amusing about your take is that the baboonboarders are quick to reference Altemeyer themselves when trying to discredit others. (One Icythic (sp?) does this very often. I see him on Brayton's blog, the only part of FTB I look at any longer, but recall him being a frequent poster on PZ's site, back when I did read it.) So they are obviously well aware of his work, although, it often doesnt seem that they really understand it, any more than they understand Dunning Krueger, its become more of a way to dress up a tribal marker in science sounding terms.

[JAB]

Interesting take. Ive read Altemeyer's work. What I find most amusing about your take is that the baboonboarders are quick to reference Altemeyer themselves when trying to discredit others. (One Icythic (sp?) does this very often. I see him on Brayton's blog, the only part of FTB I look at any longer, but recall him being a frequent poster on PZ's site, back when I did read it.) So they are obviously well aware of his work, although, it often doesnt seem that they really understand it, any more than they understand Dunning Krueger, its become more of a way to dress up a tribal marker in science sounding terms.

I didn't know it came up there often, but that may be where I first heard about it. Too bad none of them actually took the questionaire and answered truthfully and honestly reported the answers to their bretheren.

On a personal note, last time I was in Winnipeg, my sister and I were at an event and she introduced me to someone we met as Rob. My sister and I were later talking about random things and somehow ended up talking about Altemeyer, and that's when she told me that the Rob she'd intoduced me to was his son the politician.

[JAB]

Although, now that I think about it, they might actually enjoy the label authoritarian follower, since they have such a knee jerk hate on for anything libertarian.

[Saint N.]

I suppose you could make the argument that a fragile person could be damaged psychologically by any negative comment (you're a jerk!). But the difference in these two cases is that in one, you need a third party (rapist) to commit the act of violence (or a wayward bus). The odds of that are slim, whereas telling someone to harm themselves and them carrying it through might actually happen.

Ok, gotcha. I see what you mean now, thanks for the clarification.

[franc]

Science2.0 has another good chuckle at baboon central -

Free Thought Blogs Closet Sexism Trips Feminista Greg Laden

[EveryMan]

Abbie has written. She needed a break from all of this. She deserves as long as she needs.

"I sprung this on everybody pretty much overnight. I didnt even have my own thoughts together. No one here is behaving maliciously-- Only concerned and confused, and that second part is all my fault."

Abbie, there is not a single thing about any of this is your fault.

So Abbie dumps us with a "it's not you, its me".

Talk about tacky!

[EveryMan]

Case 5: If you don't agree with me, I'm going to try to get your blog shut down (loss of income) or get you in trouble with your boss. Threat Level: 7 Not nice: 10. If you actually contact their boss, it's goes to Threat Level 8.

Case 6: Next time I see you at a conference, I'm going to kick your ass, or harm you in another manner. Threat Level: 9 Not nice: 10

I could think of some more cases, but that covers the main ones ( I think).

I've pointed out a few times that "they" have a habit of using imagined unethical/illegal behavior to justify the real thing.

If you study abnormal psychology this is actually very, very common amongst criminals. Many (most?) criminals imagine themselves as victims in one way or the other and then use that as justification for their bad behavior.

What I personally find somewhat amusing is their stoic refusal to "name names" of known harassers. I suspect they rationale being that they know at some level they are full of shit and their natural instinct of self-preservation is kicking in.

[Saint N.]

Someone should mirror this before it disappears: (it's been flagged, so you need a youtube or gmail account to view).

Watson is the one filming, at about 0:50 we see how much of a problem she really has with sexual objectification at her own skeptic's convention.

[Saint N.]

And before I'm accusing of cyberstalking anyone, the video was linked to by some commenter on the Skepchickcon thing referenced above.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Apologies for being vague in my earlier post about the details of the CoffeeLovingSkeptic episode. The details are incidental as the PZedly defence strategy was what I wanted to emphasize.

You will find it difficult, if not impossible to get the filth flingers to admit to their faults. The religious are always accusing atheists of dogmatism and the Pharynguloid type defence is now so reflexive that it has become alien to their nature to stop and do a reality check. They can't see criticism as anything other than weaseling sophistry because that is what they are used to seeing. They are cultural pseudo-skeptics with traditions, rituals and cliched one-line putdowns.

[BarnOwl]

Maryam Namazie corrects PZ Myers, regarding her atheist category:

I am an atheist not because the atheist movement cares about rights (it doesn’t) or has been overly supportive (which it hasn’t) but because I despise religion and Islam.

The first part of that sentence sums up nicely my primary reason for avoiding involvement with the atheist community: the movement doesn't care about social justice, human rights, environmental justice, environmental issues, access to healthcare, or disability rights and access. Sure, individual atheists care about those issues, and may in fact be very involved and engaged activists addressing specific problems, but the movement as a whole Does. Not. Care. If you want to do something and participate to address, say, environmental issues, or to rectify social injustices, then the atheist movement is not the route to choose. The skeptics and freethought groups are not any better. Just look at how they pat themselves on the backs for addressing "social justice," when their activism and righteous indignation extends no further than their own conferences. Yes, a balanced anti-harassment policy at a skeptics/freethought conference is a good and (arguably) necessary thing, but it's pretty limited in its scope, and I fail to see how it addresses "social justice issues" beyond a very small group of privileged individuals. If you've any doubt how narrow the focus of their concerns is, just listen to Rebecca Watson in the "Don't Feed the Trolls" video, or read anything that Ophelia Benson has written. It's all about meeeeeeeeee!!!!

PZ has a post up about his experiences at CONvergence, and on the whole I think he makes some very good points and is (unusually) largely positive about SF & F conferences. It does sound like fun, and I agree it's important to introduce some science into a group that will be receptive, yet possibly not well-informed. PZ is certainly one of the best on teh interwebz at popularizing evolutionary biology topics. But I disagree that any time atheists (or groups of atheists) participate in some communal event, it counts as "outreach." He gives a rather ridiculous example of Pharyngula regulars attending the NY Sheep and Wool Festival (Rhinebeck):

where they will conform to the mores and conventions of that community, while representing their other interests as well. Not abrasively, not proselytizing, not even aggressively — and we weren’t any of those things at CONvergence, either — but being themselves and participating.
That’s outreach. That’s making people comfortable with atheism. That’s community expanding. We need more of it, in all kinds of venues.

Please. People at Rhinebeck will be stampeding the Verdant Gryphon booth or obsessing over handmade spindles and quiviut and heritage breed fleeces, not worrying whether someone is an atheist or skeptic or if Rebecca Watson is going to talk. Funny, I've been to a few Sheep and Wool shows locally ... never seen an anti-harassment policy. Wonder if they will demand one for Rhinebeck?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Franc:

Science2.0 has another good chuckle at baboon central -

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fre ... aden-91735

He's having a dig at everyone.

[Dilurk]

Maryam Namazie corrects PZ Myers, regarding her atheist category:

I am an atheist not because the atheist movement cares about rights (it doesn’t) or has been overly supportive (which it hasn’t) but because I despise religion and Islam.

The first part of that sentence sums up nicely my primary reason for avoiding involvement with the atheist community: the movement doesn't care about social justice, human rights, environmental justice, environmental issues, access to healthcare, or disability rights and access.

And that is exactly what being an atheist is, nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, some who happen to be atheist go nuts when the Islamic religion is attacked, suddenly we are Islamaphobes or something. Maryam Namazie needs our support.

Sure, individual atheists care about those issues, and may in fact be very involved and engaged activists addressing specific problems, but the movement as a whole Does. Not. Care. If you want to do something and participate to address, say, environmental issues, or to rectify social injustices, then the atheist movement is not the route to choose.

Then you may fit the humanist movement better.

The skeptics and freethought groups are not any better. Just look at how they pat themselves on the backs for addressing "social justice," when their activism and righteous indignation extends no further than their own conferences. Yes, a balanced anti-harassment policy at a skeptics/freethought conference is a good and (arguably) necessary thing, but it's pretty limited in its scope, and I fail to see how it addresses "social justice issues" beyond a very small group of privileged individuals. If you've any doubt how narrow the focus of their concerns is, just listen to Rebecca Watson in the "Don't Feed the Trolls" video, or read anything that Ophelia Benson has written. It's all about meeeeeeeeee!!!!

Aieeee! Do not conflate people who may call themselves free thinkers and/or sceptics with the real thing please. Please don't. Freethought blogs are anything but Freethinkers and sceptics.

PZ has a post up about his experiences at CONvergence, and on the whole I think he makes some very good points and is (unusually) largely positive about SF & F conferences. It does sound like fun, and I agree it's important to introduce some science into a group that will be receptive, yet possibly not well-informed. PZ is certainly one of the best on teh interwebz at popularizing evolutionary biology topics. But I disagree that any time atheists (or groups of atheists) participate in some communal event, it counts as "outreach." He gives a rather ridiculous example of Pharyngula regulars attending the NY Sheep and Wool Festival (Rhinebeck):

Oh B.S. I've been to my share of SF & F cons, I will also grudgingly admit to running one or two in my youth. Never ever ever has there ever been any need for paternalistic goofy anti harassment policies. Never. You are new to SF crowds aren't you? The overlap between SCA, Wiccans, geeks, SciFi types is amazing. You've never seen the hall costumes I have seen, where all sorts of things are seen, but never ever any problems with harassment. The only harassment I heard about was a wedding party that had got drunk one the same night as one of the Con nights. The hotel threw them all out. And as far as science goes? There is nothing quite like having a nuclear or rocket scientist giving a talk.

where they will conform to the mores and conventions of that community, while representing their other interests as well. Not abrasively, not proselytizing, not even aggressively — and we weren’t any of those things at CONvergence, either — but being themselves and participating.
That’s outreach. That’s making people comfortable with atheism. That’s community expanding. We need more of it, in all kinds of venues.

Please. People at Rhinebeck will be stampeding the Verdant Gryphon booth or obsessing over handmade spindles and quiviut and heritage breed fleeces, not worrying whether someone is an atheist or skeptic or if Rebecca Watson is going to talk. Funny, I've been to a few Sheep and Wool shows locally ... never seen an anti-harassment policy. Wonder if they will demand one for Rhinebeck?[/quote]

Oh dear. No kidding. Young people full of piss and vinegar being led like sheep themselves I'd say.

[BarnOwl]

@ Dilurk -

Never been to a SF&F conference, but I've been to a few Renaissance Festivals/SCA events, lots of craft shows and folklife festivals, and scientific conferences, large and small, in my field(s). No problems with harassment myself at any of those, ever, so you're probably right - it's just not necessary to have an anti-harassment policy. All of the events I've attended have a male:female ratio that is better balanced than that of the atheists/skeptics etc. conferences, and all are more diverse in just about any category you care to choose. One of the things that strikes me about the photos and accounts of atheists/freethinkers meetings are how homogenous they appear to be. Apart from the fact that the attendees are predominantly female, the International Quilt Festival has more diversity, FFS.

Hands down (hands off??) the most persistent and pervasive sexual harassment I've experienced has been in the workplace, particularly in hospitals (beginning at age 16) and medical schools (still happening, middle age). And these are places that have strongly-worded, supposedly progressive policies in place. Do they work? Not in my opinion or experience. An MD friend who now works in primary care was the only woman in her medical school (and probably the state, at the time) to be accepted into a general surgery residency. The Chief of Surgery called her "Dr. C***" every single day, several times a day, in front of other residents, medical students, OR staff, other surgeons, everybody. She persisted, and was a successful surgeon for many years, until all that time standing in the OR took a toll on her body. Makes Ophelia's paranoia and pearl-clutching seem utterly bathetic (and yes I mean the B not the p :mrgreen: ).

[Dilurk]

@ Dilurk -

Never been to a SF&F conference, but I've been to a few Renaissance Festivals/SCA events, lots of craft shows and folklife festivals, and scientific conferences, large and small, in my field(s). No problems with harassment myself at any of those, ever, so you're probably right - it's just not necessary to have an anti-harassment policy. All of the events I've attended have a male:female ratio that is better balanced than that of the atheists/skeptics etc. conferences, and all are more diverse in just about any category you care to choose. One of the things that strikes me about the photos and accounts of atheists/freethinkers meetings are how homogenous they appear to be. Apart from the fact that the attendees are predominantly female, the International Quilt Festival has more diversity, FFS.

I've made it to one or two Renaissance type events as well, craft fairs, and technical conferences. It is just not necessary to have an anti-harassment policy.

Hands down (hands off??) the most persistent and pervasive sexual harassment I've experienced has been in the workplace, particularly in hospitals (beginning at age 16) and medical schools (still happening, middle age). And these are places that have strongly-worded, supposedly progressive policies in place. Do they work? Not in my opinion or experience. An MD friend who now works in primary care was the only woman in her medical school (and probably the state, at the time) to be accepted into a general surgery residency. The Chief of Surgery called her "Dr. C***" every single day, several times a day, in front of other residents, medical students, OR staff, other surgeons, everybody. She persisted, and was a successful surgeon for many years, until all that time standing in the OR took a toll on her body. Makes Ophelia's paranoia and pearl-clutching seem utterly bathetic (and yes I mean the B not the p :mrgreen: ).

That has been my experience as well in my own field. It's the unspoken assumption that the poor woman is not going to be competent and the condescension begins. I hate that. It goes beyond the pale to see middle aged white men trying to tell me that they know better about what sexism is and being condescending towards women. FFS PZ, Laden listen to the womenz. If you want to help feminism, stop trying to help it.

[Gumby]

Someone should mirror this before it disappears: (it's been flagged, so you need a youtube or gmail account to view).

Watson is the one filming, at about 0:50 we see how much of a problem she really has with sexual objectification at her own skeptic's convention.

I grabbed it, and in case it vanishes I will mirror it to my Youtube account. The baboons will no doubt go to great lengths to femsplain to everyone why this reeeaaaaalllly isn't sexual objectification, or degradation, because the guy was a willing participant or sumpin'. Then porcupines will be tossed, along with the usual hate language. However, even though the guy is obviously a willing participant, no doubt the baboons would go into hysterical convulsions if this scenario was changed to a video from TAM, with male attendees drinking shots from the cleavage of a bikini clad buxom model who was willingly participating. These people are hypocrites of the highest order. They don't give a shit about sexism, or equality.

[Dilurk]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems to me that Rachel's (formerly Zinnia), gf is an equity feminist. That's very different than the brand of feminism I am seeing from PZ/RW et. al.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ut-choice/

Interesting.

If its the same individual, you may wish to consider further evidence:



This heather character did not seem particularly reasonable to me then.

I don't see how you get that from that video off hand. Heather was challenged to do a video in Zinnia Jones style. Ok, so she is talking about a school of feminist thought, she never said she supported this school, she just talked about it and tried to define it. I found it just confirms what I have been saying about feminist schools of thought fighting tooth and nail with each other, Heather said that herself in the video-- some feminists despise the sex positive feminist school, why should we introduce their arguments into our community?

[Za-zen]

These people are hypocrites of the highest order. They don't give a shit about sexism, or equality.

Tada of course they don't actually give a shit about sexism, it's just a drum for them to bang on for the chicks because it's the oly drum they have, and for asshats like pz cause it sells to his crazy mob..... And the bullshit that they will spout about the sexy wexy skepty chicitas, is it's adults having fun, and since it's females doing the naughty it's girl power, females pushing back against the patriachy, and other such absolute crap.

Whereas if it was me licking vodka of a stripper laying on a table, there would of course be screams of horror.

[Saint N.]

The baboons will no doubt go to great lengths to femsplain to everyone why this reeeaaaaalllly isn't sexual objectification, or degradation, because the guy was a willing participant or sumpin'.

If I saw this happening in an afterparty or something like that I probably wouldn't personally give it a second thought (unless there was coercion going on with unwilling participants), but if I go by the standards they have set for sexual objectification (where simply observing something that seems like it could possibly be harassment warrants an intervention) I'm pretty sure they'd be in violation of the very policies they are trying to implement today. Therefore, if I take Watson's claim seriously that the skeptic/atheist community has a history of promoting an environment where the sexual objectification of attendees/participants is the norm, based on this video a case can be made that Watson (and skepchick) have in the past been willing participants in nourishing this sort of sexist environment, and are thereby a key source of the very problem they are rallying against today. But will she/they then take responsibility for the "unsafe" environment she/they have helped create at their own conferences? In the last 12 months, I have yet to see this happen, and if they do it as a response to the backlash now, I'm not impressed. Although all of this is dependent on whether or not I took their claims on the subject seriously. Either way, Watson is a hypocrite whose spearheading of any anti-objectification message is a joke.

(For the sake of preemptively clearing up any confusion about the dating of the event in the link, I should mention that the video is from 2009 (the first SkepchickCon), before elevatorgate; or 2 years B.E.G, if you will :D )

[KiwiInOz]

Another example of mob bullying - http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 21sax.html

Yes she was an ignorant twit, and representative of a broad swathe of Gen Whateva, but ignorance is curable by asking stupid questions or doing research (just not on twitter).

[CommanderTuvok]

Someone should mirror this before it disappears: (it's been flagged, so you need a youtube or gmail account to view).

Watson is the one filming, at about 0:50 we see how much of a problem she really has with sexual objectification at her own skeptic's convention.

No sign of a fainting couch in that room! Everybody's lovin' it!!! The more you hear about Queen Bee, the more validation there is that she is a hypocrite with a HUGE ego.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

More PZ bashing:
http://secularhumanist.blogspot.com/201 ... ar-on.html

Pz Quote from above article:

I have a different metaphor for us, my brothers and sisters in atheism. We are not sheep; there are no shepherds here. I look out from this stage and I see 4000 pairs of hunter’s eyes, 4000 hunter’s minds, 4000 pairs of hunter’s hands. I see the primeval primate hunting band grown large and strong. I see us so confident in our strength that we laugh at our enemies. I see a people thinking and planning, fierce and focused, learning and building new tools to conquer new worlds.

You are not sheep. You, my brothers and sisters in atheism, are a fierce, coordinated hunting pack — men and women working together, and those other bastards have cause to fear us. So let’s do it: make them tremble as we demolish the city of god.

So you don't see us as a herd of cats then Peezy? Lets rather go with the pack mentality because that always ends well. Absolutely no danger of mob hysteria then? Does anyone else suspect a vengeful nerd here?

[Dilurk]

Another example of mob bullying - http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 21sax.html

Yes she was an ignorant twit, and representative of a broad swathe of Gen Whateva, but ignorance is curable by asking stupid questions or doing research (just not on twitter).

Demonstrate how clever you are by mindlessly repeating the same thing like the sheep you are..

[JAB]

Pz Quote from above article:

I have a different metaphor for us, my brothers and sisters in atheism. We are not sheep; there are no shepherds here. I look out from this stage and I see 4000 pairs of hunter’s eyes, 4000 hunter’s minds, 4000 pairs of hunter’s hands. I see the primeval primate hunting band grown large and strong. I see us so confident in our strength that we laugh at our enemies. I see a people thinking and planning, fierce and focused, learning and building new tools to conquer new worlds.

You are not sheep. You, my brothers and sisters in atheism, are a fierce, coordinated hunting pack — men and women working together, and those other bastards have cause to fear us. So let’s do it: make them tremble as we demolish the city of god.

Why do I hear "You are all individuals".. . "We are all individuals!" :lol:

[justinvacula]

I might be a bit late to the game here. I just returned from the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 annual convention. I was on the 'religious campuses' panel talking about my experience as an atheist at Catholic colleges and the denial of two Secular Student Alliance groups I tried to form. I also talked about very real threats I have received and have shared with the public (as opposed to Stephanie Zvan's imaginary 'cyberstalking' and the harassment Watson, as she says, regularly gets). I also met Mallorie Nasrallah at a meadery outside the conference. We had quite the airing of grievances :)

http://i.imgur.com/8VaU6.jpg

Anyway, on this "Don't feed the trolls" panel...

Rebecca Watson -- around 20:40 -- says, "Saying don't feed the trolls is something akin to saying to a woman don't wear a miniskirt if you don't want to get raped."

Huh?

[Badger3k]

Justin - I hope you asked for consent before you touched her. In triplicate. Witnessed and everything.

re: Watson and her miniskirt metaphor - I think she's trying to say that by saying "don't feed the trolls", you're blaming the victim. It does show how she can't see anything in terms other than the current ideology she has (like many of her ilk). I think a more apt metaphor might be "saying don't feed the trolls is like telling someone not to give money to the drooling homeless guy with foil on his head and pants around his ankles, and then keep talking to him while he mutters and drools."

[Saint N.]

I just returned from the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 annual convention. I was on the 'religious campuses' panel talking about my experience as an atheist at Catholic colleges and the denial of two Secular Student Alliance groups I tried to form. I also talked about very real threats I have received and have shared with the public (as opposed to Stephanie Zvan's imaginary 'cyberstalking' and the harassment Watson, as she says, regularly gets).

Welcome back to the Slyme Pit, is a recording of your talk going to be posted on your site soon or was it an "off-the-record" format?

I also met Mallorie Nasrallah at a meadery outside the conference. We had quite the airing of grievances

Is it fair to suppose that these grievances surrounded Mallorie's attempts to talk sense to the FC5 on several occasions over the last few months? (I think she did manage to show what a nasty piece of work that Lousy Canuk is, FWIW.)

Anyway, on this "Don't feed the trolls" panel...

Rebecca Watson -- around 20:40 -- says, "Saying don't feed the trolls is something akin to saying to a woman don't wear a miniskirt if you don't want to get raped."

Huh?

Now I don't even believe she knows what exactly an internet troll is (even with a very vicious one sitting to her far right).

[Badger3k]

I just returned from the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 annual convention. I was on the 'religious campuses' panel talking about my experience as an atheist at Catholic colleges and the denial of two Secular Student Alliance groups I tried to form. I also talked about very real threats I have received and have shared with the public (as opposed to Stephanie Zvan's imaginary 'cyberstalking' and the harassment Watson, as she says, regularly gets).

Welcome back to the Slyme Pit, is a recording of your talk going to be posted on your site soon or was it an "off-the-record" format?

I also met Mallorie Nasrallah at a meadery outside the conference. We had quite the airing of grievances

Is it fair to suppose that these grievances surrounded Mallorie's attempts to talk sense to the FC5 on several occasions over the last few months? (I think she did manage to show what a nasty piece of work that Lousy Canuk is, FWIW.)

Anyway, on this "Don't feed the trolls" panel...

Rebecca Watson -- around 20:40 -- says, "Saying don't feed the trolls is something akin to saying to a woman don't wear a miniskirt if you don't want to get raped."

Huh?

Now I don't even believe she knows what exactly an internet troll is (even with a very vicious one sitting to her far right).

Now, now, you know that both Abbie and Justin weren't trolled - clearly, they were asking for it. It's there fault that poor ol' Laden couldn't control himself - they made him do it. He had no choice. It was his upbringing. But, clearly, he won't do it again until they unleash him on the next person who deserves it (assuming they consider the "other" as a person).

[Dave]

Why do I hear "You are all individuals".. . "We are all individuals!" :lol:

Im not!

[justinvacula]

Welcome back to the Slyme Pit, is a recording of your talk going to be posted on your site soon or was it an "off-the-record" format?

The panel discussion should soon be available via the SSA or somewhere else. Many videos were released from last year's convention.

[franc]

Franc:

Science2.0 has another good chuckle at baboon central -

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fre ... aden-91735

He's having a dig at everyone.

I like Science2.0 - it is a strange place where haste in judgement is usually a bad idea. "Dig" is simplistic and cheap - they are simply one of the few remaining bastions of actual parrhesia.

[Dilurk]

Oh http://kazez.blogspot.ca/2012/07/bullying.html KABOOM! All shit has just broken out over there.

[Saint N.]

Now, now, you know that both Abbie and Justin weren't trolled - clearly, they were asking for it. It's there fault that poor ol' Laden couldn't control himself - they made him do it. He had no choice. It was his upbringing.

Oh, silly me. Must have been all my privilege keeping me from seeing that obvious social detriments faced by Laden. Living in that trailer park in middle-age, surrounded by all those people who are clearly beneath him (I mean, they didn't even graduate from Harvard, FFS), must have been a vicious experience for someone as underprivileged as Laden.

But, clearly, he won't do it again until they unleash him on the next person who deserves it (assuming they consider the "other" as a person).

Be careful now, you don't want Laden angry, you won't like him when he's angry. He might just threaten to kick your ass and tell you how you shouldn't breath his precious oxygen (that stuff doesn't grow on trees, y'know), all to teach you that threatening people is bad...or something. Whenever I think of the guy I imagine the line from the old Dave the Barbarian cartoon theme song, "He's not the greatest hero, but he's the only one they've got."

[John Greg]

Jean Kazez has now closed the "Bullying" article to comments.

Why does she keep doing that?