Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Tigzy, know your MKG and his sense of humour!I don't recall saying anything about pedants here. I'm not really bothered about grammatical mistakes in forum posts; as long as it's reasonably comprehensible, then that'll do me.
Wendell Ferguson, Don’t Close the Door on Me:Michael K Gray wrote:Oooh errr. That is a bit erm, MRA an' sexist an' all that?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:The snake is not interested in door-openings. Well, that's done...
Not at the moment, thankyou for asking.Tigzy wrote:Fancy a shag?
Ah, my mistake, coupled with a sincere apology. I must have confused you with another poster who seems to be possessed by a haunting hatred of pedantic folk.Tigzy wrote:I don't recall saying anything about pedants here. I'm not really bothered about grammatical mistakes in forum posts; as long as it's reasonably comprehensible, then that'll do me.
The same way any morality is agreed upon by any group. The gestalt as Dawkins says. Morality is not set in stone, it is a (mostly) unwritten agreement in groups.Michael K Gray wrote:How is such a collective agreement even possible?Dilurk wrote:...If we agree collectively that it is morally wrong to dox someone
I never said there was. I did say "If". So we agree.I see no evidence of an all encompassing collective agreement.
As I made no such premise in the first place, this is merely informational.I count myself out of such a thing, as I consider that there are not so hypothetical situations in which it is incumbent in law to "dox" a third party.
As I exempt myself from such an agreement, your premise is rendered invalid.
That the 'we' here of course refers again to our collective position on morality as a group if we have one. I agree with you that we may not agree on this point so there is no collective gestalt on the morality of dropping public docs that are already public here. To further clarify. I can only speak for myself, that I would not have done it, but of course you are quite free to do so.If moreover we are going to complain about Thunderf00t's additional outing then we are guilty of hypocrisy ourselves. It therefore has nothing to do with political gain in this case; it is merely the right thing to do.
It did so quite admirably, and I thank thee.Dilurk wrote:I hope that has clarified my position.
Nothing to hate when it comes to pedants. Way I see it, It's their own time they're wasting.Michael K Gray wrote:Not at the moment, thankyou for asking.Tigzy wrote:Fancy a shag?
I have just wolfed down an undersized Cormorant.Ah, my mistake, coupled with a sincere apology. I must have confused you with another poster who seems to be possessed by a haunting hatred of pedantic folk.Tigzy wrote:I don't recall saying anything about pedants here. I'm not really bothered about grammatical mistakes in forum posts; as long as it's reasonably comprehensible, then that'll do me.
I was doing that very thing.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Wrong reading on my part then. I though you (MKG) were pointing at your own apparent pedantry. Oh, well.
Oh, I am a pedant.Tigzy wrote:Nothing to hate when it comes to pedants. Way I see it, It's their own time they're wasting.
No surprise there. Is he planning to counter ?Philip wrote:http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/categ ... fancy-her/
Seems Elevatorgate has found some solid evidence of Surly's involvement in the DMCAing
Looking at the arguments in Lousy Canucks thread it really does seem that they are against the idea of 'fair use'.Philip wrote:http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/categ ... fancy-her/
Seems Elevatorgate has found some solid evidence of Surly's involvement in the DMCAing
Then PZ might be in deep shit with his Dungeon. I am ,under contractual closes, obliged to leave the way my name and image are used be controlled by my label for commercial exploitation. Does PZ make money out of his blog? I do think so.Dick Strawkins wrote:Looking at the arguments in Lousy Canucks thread it really does seem that they are against the idea of 'fair use'.Philip wrote:http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/categ ... fancy-her/
Seems Elevatorgate has found some solid evidence of Surly's involvement in the DMCAing
I remember the time this issue came up when the movie "Expelled" (back in the good old days when this was something that happened to PZ rather than what he does to anyone who disagrees with him) used John Lennon's Imagine. Yoko Ono objected but lost her case on the basis of fair use. At the time there was some disagreement amongst the atheist community about this. Yes, it was horrible that Imagine was used by that lousy film but perhaps in the end it's better to uphold the principles of fair use.
Well, the FTBers disavow this notion. According to them anything that is produced using something (like a photo) from a copyright holder requires the copyright holders permission before it can be used by another party. Does anyone seriously think the FTBers will follow this rule? If they see something written that infuriates them (as if!) they will ask for permission before they quote it?
If they see a picture, say a joke or a captioned photo, they will only describe it in words and will not post the picture on their site without asking permission?
Perhaps. Perhaps a copy-n-paste party. Unless TF coughs up logs, chances of knowing truth is nil. Writing a coherent 50 word reply in 60 seconds is not an easy task even for non-baboons. And the bit about advertising to the world she finally has a job...ccdimage wrote:So after the 12:06 post that she made with her legit account the troll would likely have popped up and she did not need to hit refresh in order to see it. So then she has one and a half minutes to read the troll post and type out the response which is not impossible and seems more likely than some elaborate plan to create drama. :think:
Notung wrote:I reckon file a counter-claim, then if she takes it further just quickly take it down. Will that work? (I'm no expert on law).
I've been arguing (politely) with Jim Lippard on Twitter about this. I'm claiming that she should have asked Justin first, and if that happened then he would have been morally obliged to comply. Given that she's trying to force him to before even asking him, if he wins then he's no longer morally obliged to take it down.
Yep, I know that. I mean that he would be (I think) justified in restoring the image on the post if he wins the case.Skeeve wrote:She filed the DMCA through Blogger and they removed his whole post at first. Once he removed the image, he was able to re-post the blog.
Correct. Sorry if I misread what you were saying...I'm popping in and out between customers.Notung wrote:Yep, I know that. I mean that he would be (I think) justified in restoring the image on the post if he wins the case.Skeeve wrote:She filed the DMCA through Blogger and they removed his whole post at first. Once he removed the image, he was able to re-post the blog.
Tapatalk let's me use Location Services if I choose. So, I should be mapped in real time below.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Philippe Giordana, 205 Avenue de la Californie, 06200 Nice, France. 1st Floor, door on the right when you come up the stairs. Mind the cat, she tends to get out when the door is open. The snake is not interested in door-openings.
Well, that's done...
testSkeeve wrote:Tapatalk let's me use Location Services if I choose. So, I should be mapped in real time below.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Philippe Giordana, 205 Avenue de la Californie, 06200 Nice, France. 1st Floor, door on the right when you come up the stairs. Mind the cat, she tends to get out when the door is open. The snake is not interested in door-openings.
Well, that's done...
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
Course, given Zvan's previous inability to differentiate between the concepts of damage and change, I think her legal knowledge can be taken with a grain of salt. Fair Use law as regards the internet is nowhere near as clear-cut as she seems to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#F ... e_InternetI don’t have much regard for Vacula, but even I feel a tiny bit sorry for what’s likely to happen to him if Amy decides to follow through on this. Federal perjury charges are no game. Nor are Los Angeles attorneys who deal in intellectual property cheap (making now a lovely time to buy that Surly-Ramics piece you’ve been looking at). Vacula’s likely cost himself a lot with this mistake.
Unless she's having a shag at the time.cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
Damn - beat me to it. I was going to say "it depends on which way they're facing - in or out!" :dance:Tigzy wrote:Unless she's having a shag at the time.cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceiveâ€. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.
Ah, yes, Legal Expert (especially on "Cyber-Stalking") Stefunny. I think she works at the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. I do see that Hannibal is there, probably trolling (assuming this is the same one who was trolling Sally at TF). Lulz must ensue.Tigzy wrote:Now Stefunny Zvan's playing lawyer as regards the Vacula-Amy_DMCA thing: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... righteous/
Even goes so far as to attempt to put the shits up Justin:Course, given Zvan's previous inability to differentiate between the concepts of damage and change, I think her legal knowledge can be taken with a grain of salt. Fair Use law as regards the internet is nowhere near as clear-cut as she seems to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#F ... e_InternetI don’t have much regard for Vacula, but even I feel a tiny bit sorry for what’s likely to happen to him if Amy decides to follow through on this. Federal perjury charges are no game. Nor are Los Angeles attorneys who deal in intellectual property cheap (making now a lovely time to buy that Surly-Ramics piece you’ve been looking at). Vacula’s likely cost himself a lot with this mistake.
Heheh. This is JohnTheOther, a real live MRA, and arch enemy of PeaZy. The more rationally and calmly that John speaks, the more into a rage PZ gets. It's very amusing whenever PZ freaks out about him. I'd link to a couple old articles where PZ has temper tantrums about him, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.Dilurk wrote:I bet he has big ones too.Scented Nectar wrote:[youtube]IvhsQfSWUfo[/youtube]
That is a possibility. Type out the first post and use the incognito mode on a chrome browser to make the troll post then send them both simultaneously and have a reply ready in notepad to cut and paste. I am not saying that something like this did not happen, but it seems a little to sophisticated and if she was going to go to so much trouble creating this plan to make drama I think she would have realised that she does not need to have the reply to the troll post ready to go. Maybe a friend made the troll post and she had already seen it before it was sent so she had time to mentally compose a response.franc wrote: Perhaps. Perhaps a copy-n-paste party. Unless TF coughs up logs, chances of knowing truth is nil. Writing a coherent 50 word reply in 60 seconds is not an easy task even for non-baboons. And the bit about advertising to the world she finally has a job...
Then don't use chromosomes. Why not go with the morphology? Pretty simple then.Steersman wrote:Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceiveâ€. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.
I knew it! It's almost like the writing was on the wall.franc wrote:That's because they are too cowardly to say I am Keyser Söze.
Amet's hilarious sometimes. Those have me LOLing. :)justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/uOGBu.jpg
In older times, they used basket weaving. I think they stopped due it becoming associated with mental health. In the late 80s, a hospitalized friend made me a rather rough leather wallet during her 'art therapy' time. As a distraction, just something to do while confined to a treatment place, it's all fine, but when it's claimed as therapy, I smell pseudoscientific woo without anything too solid behind it.franc wrote:Seeing as detox/rehab was a recent topic - it reminds me of the crap they used to make in forced craft sessions that were part of the "healing" regime.
I agree, although I think that radfeminism is a majority part as far as which social justices they usually fight. And for the most part, they are not the most extreme type of radfems, the separatists.rayshul wrote:I mean these are people who sat there dumbly while that Sikivu woman talked about the four horsemen's white supremacist bullshit.
It's *not* radfeminism. It's all SJW.
Badger3k wrote: Ah, yes, Legal Expert (especially on "Cyber-Stalking") Stefunny. I think she works at the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. I do see that Hannibal is there, probably trolling (assuming this is the same one who was trolling Sally at TF). Lulz must ensue.
:lol:hannanibal says:
August 17, 2012 at 12:45 pm
WOAH! He used a photo of a pendant? Shit just got real….
Amy needs to get a life. This shit is blatantly fair use.
Agreed, and just to be clear I have a huge amount of empathy for people dealing with issues like that. It crosses a line for me when people insist upon how they are to be treated and what other people must think of them.Steersman wrote:cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceiveâ€. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.
And the other commenters are still arguing against him, posing 'difficult' questions. What's the point if he can't respond?Tigzy wrote:But alas, it looks like Stefunny was quick to ban him: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-109666
Jean said the "Tom Johnson" story was "doubtful but not disconfirmed" suggesting that stuff like this does happen. Ophelia was a different person back then. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ment-35355Well Jean is entitled to her opinion but Ophelia's actions at the time were nothing like the Ophelia we see today (apart from the obsessive freaking out about being called names by trolls) and Jeans action in supporting the Tom Johnson story, even when it's author was shown to be a liar, were not exactly the example of moral perfection.
So they can feel superior? Having the last word is part of a lot of people, and some want to respond and make a statement of their views, even though no reply will come. The comment after Stefunny's "bye" shows that at least some don't even read Justin's posts, just make assumptions.Notung wrote:And the other commenters are still arguing against him, posing 'difficult' questions. What's the point if he can't respond?Tigzy wrote:But alas, it looks like Stefunny was quick to ban him: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-109666
I just realized the comparisons between the two occurrences - "Tom" was talking about getting harassed by atheists, and so do the Skepchicks and their groupies. Both have the same amount of evidence (well, I think there were a few cases that have been confirmed, so their is a bit more evidence for the sexism bit, but it's blown way out of proportion). Does this make PZ the Chris Mooney of Watsongate?Guest wrote:Jean said the "Tom Johnson" story was "doubtful but not disconfirmed" suggesting that stuff like this does happen. Ophelia was a different person back then. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ment-35355Well Jean is entitled to her opinion but Ophelia's actions at the time were nothing like the Ophelia we see today (apart from the obsessive freaking out about being called names by trolls) and Jeans action in supporting the Tom Johnson story, even when it's author was shown to be a liar, were not exactly the example of moral perfection.
Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
Tempting, but probably because the morphology really is a fully populated spectrum – somewhat arbitrary then where the line is drawn. For instance, as an extreme case, maybe somewhat hypothetical, it seems a “woman†can have XX and a certain set of attributes while a “man†can have XY and virtually the same set of attributes. Not an easy thing to define as suggested by this from the same article:Badger3k wrote:Then don't use chromosomes. Why not go with the morphology? Pretty simple then.Steersman wrote:Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:cunt wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... -napoleon/
It is if you've got two balls and a dick between your legs.Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make.
I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceiveâ€. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.
And with psychologists involved? What the hell does it mean to talk of how men and women feel about anything? Normal within one or two standard (or not so standard) deviations? Chasing our tails in more ways than one.Nowadays, gender verification tests typically involve evaluation by gynecologists, endocrinologists, psychologists, and internal medicine specialists.
Ah, I’m cut to the quick. Ask of me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ....bhoytony wrote:Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
Pompous windbag is pompousSteersman wrote:Ah, I’m cut to the quick. Ask of me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ....bhoytony wrote:Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
Good to see that my bullshit detector is functioning; was having doubts. A few months back she wrote a comment which set the alarm bells ringing. To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!Kazez is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes she seems highly reasonable and rational; at other times she is almost indistinguishable from a full rank Baboolie.
“Pedantic†might be more appropriate, but you might want to clear that with MKG before proceeding ...bhoytony wrote:Pompous windbag is pompousSteersman wrote:Ah, I’m cut to the quick. Ask of me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ....bhoytony wrote:Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
Yeah, I don't understand why people object to simply having a Men's Rights Movement [Disclaimer: I'm not an MRA myself]. Perhaps they could point out that MRAs are sometimes bad, or usually bad, or even always bad, but that wouldn't mean that just having an MRM is a bad idea.TFJ wrote:To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!
Act 3, Scene 1Steersman wrote:Ah, I’m cut to the quick. Ask of me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ....bhoytony wrote:Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
Er... is that a good idea?justinvacula wrote:...I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen...
Pompous windbag is pompous.Steersman wrote:“Pedantic†might be more appropriate, but you might want to clear that with MKG before proceeding ...bhoytony wrote:Pompous windbag is pompousSteersman wrote:Ah, I’m cut to the quick. Ask of me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ....bhoytony wrote:Amendecius wrote:
Steersman is a pompous windbag and a cunt.
If this isn’t exactly what you’re getting at, it certainly seems rather close to the bulls-eye:TFJ wrote:John Greg wrote:Good to see that my bullshit detector is functioning; was having doubts. A few months back she wrote a comment which set the alarm bells ringing. To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!Kazez is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes she seems highly reasonable and rational; at other times she is almost indistinguishable from a full rank Baboolie.
Jean Kazez wrote:A little note about the men's rights movement (in response to someone way up): I instinctively gag at the thought, but I'm curious about it. David Benatar has a new book coming out very soon called "The Second Sexism" and I mean to have a look. In fact, it's on my radar as a book we will want to review at The Philosophers' Magazine.
You have another string on that fiddle? ....bhoytony wrote:Pompous windbag is pompous.bhoytony wrote: ...
Pompous windbag is pompous
Not sure if that is the quote I was thinking of. Searched but couldn't find it. My recollection may well be off, in which case my apologies to Kazez. I do find her knee-jerk, shallow antipathy to Justin to be a bit silly. She should stick to commenting on the generalities if she is unwilling to educate herself on the history surrounding individuals.If this isn’t exactly what you’re getting at, it certainly seems rather close to the bulls-eye:
Jean Kazez wrote:
A little note about the men's rights movement (in response to someone way up): I instinctively gag at the thought, but I'm curious about it. David Benatar has a new book coming out very soon called "The Second Sexism" and I mean to have a look. In fact, it's on my radar as a book we will want to review at The Philosophers' Magazine.
Assuming that that was more or less directed at me, I might point to something in that article:Notung wrote:Ok - uncharitable reading of Kazez, but you could say what I said in response to her real comment as well. Why the instinctive gag?
So presumably her “instinctive gag†was based on a conflation of “misogynistic loons†with “Men’s Rights Activistsâ€. Maybe a case of some problematic categorical thinking which, one might think, should be the last thing a philosopher should be guilty of.Elevator-gate made me see the atheist-crowd in a new light. I realized there wasn't just a possible tone problem in the atheosphere, but there were a lot of problems. For one, there are a lot of misogynistic loons. They say amazingly absurd and revolting things, and there are some fairly respectable people who give these people safe harbour. For another, there are people on the respectable feminist side who simplistically [use, champion] "us-them" situations, sweeping complexities under the rug. There's no way for me to position myself with respect to this mess, because I'm against the misogynistic loons, but also against the simplifications of the supposedly feminist side. So--STAY AWAY!
Which probably didn’t win her many friends on the Skepchick and FTB side of the fence ....... people on the respectable [quote, unquote] feminist side who simplistically [use, champion] "us-them" situations, sweeping complexities under the rug.
