The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

[Lurkion]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-shermer/

"Shermer...’s being left behind if he thinks a skeptic shouldn’t be criticized. I’m hoping, though, that he’ll snap out of this and realize that he ought to be embarrassed by the laughable accusations he makes."

SOMEONE CALL PZ. Someone has clearly stolen his password for his blog and is making very silly and obvious parodies of PZ.

THIS IS REALLY MEAN, GUYS. STOP EMBARRASSING PZ WITH YOUR OBVIOUS MOCKERY.

[Philip of Tealand]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-shermer/

"Shermer...’s being left behind if he thinks a skeptic shouldn’t be criticized. I’m hoping, though, that he’ll snap out of this and realize that he ought to be embarrassed by the laughable accusations he makes."

SOMEONE CALL PZ. Someone has clearly stolen his password for his blog and is making very silly and obvious parodies of PZ.

THIS IS REALLY MEAN, GUYS. STOP EMBARRASSING PZ WITH YOUR OBVIOUS MOCKERY.

What...you mean PZ hasn't sat there, found all the bad words and then twisted it to make Shermer look like he is talking about bad things?

PERISH THE THOUGHT!!

PERISH ALL THOUGHTS EVER!

[AbsurdWalls]

That's the whole problem with Bayes Theorm, you can prove or disprove whatever you want by adjusting assumptions, not facts.
I could prove you don't, and never have, existed.

That's not a problem with BT per se, but with how people use it. Garbage in, garbage out.

BT is about probabilities and is a great inductive reasoning tool. With more data to adjust your prior probabilities, the inference is stronger.

That's why I used the word assumptions because when trying to predict the probability of something where there is little data, it because a useless tool. I don't know any statisticians (and I know a few) that would use BT to track the probability of anything.

Amazing. Not your ignorance, but the fact that I just moments ago bumped into someone who told me that he uses Bayesian statistics to track co-morbidities (he's a biologist working with statisticians).

What are the odds of that?

[somedumbguy]

Surprise, surprise! PeeZus, in his eagerness to show off his engagement with social justice issues, misrepresents this WSJ article about 2013 federal tax rate changes for Merkins. The graphic he posts as reflecting the WSJ's ignorance of "poor people" is actually presented in the article as examples of how affluent people in various life situations will be affected by changes in the deductions allowed. There's another graphic in the article, further down the page, which shows quite clearly how poorer Merkins (the unemployed who have sporadic income, students with part-time income, low wage workers with dependent children, etc.) will be disproportionally affected by the expiration of the payroll tax break.

Overall, you're absolutely right. PZ once again fails to do due diligence on his claims.

That said, I think the graphic is pretty much bullshit -- most likely cobbled together by taking pictures out of other contexts. The single mother is illustrated looking terribly harried by her duties. But her kids look pretty depressed as well, probably not typical of most kids living in a home with an income of 260K per year.

Same thing with the retired couple with the $180K income. Most retirees at that level of income aren't looking so beat.

Single Asian chick with the $230K income looks somewhat annoyed, and the family of 6 with the $630K income is also looking pretty beat up by the world.

[ERV]

Still had the tab open-- Shermers article:

A Guy Thing? Secularism, Feminism, and a Response to Ophelia Benson
Michael Shermer

When I got involved in the skeptical, atheist, and secular movements in the 1980s, one looked out over the audience and saw mostly old white guys. Today it is a different picture entirely. At the last Skeptics Society lecture at Caltech on December 16, for example, an audience of three hundred was roughly fifty-fifty men and women, with a broad range of ages from college students to octogenarians. At the last several instances of The Amazing Meeting (TAM) in Las Vegas—the largest gathering of skeptics and atheists in the world—there have been almost as many women speakers as men and around 40 percent women attendees.

Prominent women atheists write powerful books, such as Greta Christina’s 2012 Why Are You Atheists So Angry: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, which I just listened to on audio, laughing my ass off and wishing I had come up with such poignant arguments. There are notable women skeptics, such as Carol Tavris, who has re-engineered introductory psychology textbooks to include skeptical principles throughout (see, for example, her own introduction to psychology textbook coauthored with Carole Wade).

Exceptional women physicians de­bunk alternative medicine quackery, such as Harriet Hall, MD, widely known and highly regarded as the SkepDoc. Women skeptics have created organizations to encourage more participation by women in secular communities, such as Rebecca Watson’s Skepchicks (I even posed for her Skepdudes calendar!). My friend and colleague Jennifer McCreight, whom I have encouraged to go on for her PhD, has pushed secular student groups to get more women students involved on campuses throughout the United States. For years, the brilliant Ellen Johnson headed American Atheists. Annie Laurie Gaylor’s Freedom From Religion Founda­tion has called attention to the hateful actions of religion against women. The executive director of the Richard Dawkins Founda­tion is Elisabeth Cornwell, a PhD evolutionary psychologist who writes and speaks brilliantly on all matters secular. Robynn McCarthy coanchors (with Derek Colanduno) the biweekly podcast Skep­ticality, the official podcast of the Skeptics Society. There are distinguished women columnists in skeptical, atheist, and human­ist magazines, such as Karen Stollz­now in my Skeptic magazine (along with Harriet Hall’s regular column there) and Ophelia Benson in FREE INQUIRY. And last but not least, there is the cofounder of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, Pat Linse, who also developed Jr. Skeptic magazine and has for twenty years produced world-class illustrations in support of secular issues and been a powerful force for skepticism.

This is the tip of the iceberg. Google “women in atheism” and you’ll find hundreds more examples, emblematic of how far we’ve come toward gender equality in just a quarter-century and of how much there is to celebrate.

Let me provide another example of moral progress that at first will seem counterintuitive. It involves a McCarthy-like witch hunt within secular communities to root out the last vestiges of sexism, racism, and bigotry of any kind, real or imagined. Although this unfortunate trend has produced a backlash against itself by purging from its ranks the likes of such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I contend that this is in fact a sign of moral progress. Less than a century ago, women were not even allowed to vote. Less than half a century ago, women were blatantly discriminated against in the workplace. As I mentioned, a quarter-century ago, the secular, atheist, and skeptical movements scarcely included any women. Today, even as a plethora of women openly, freely participate in—or lead—secular organizations, much ink and emotion are spilled over trivial slips of the tongue that allegedly reveal hidden biases and unconscious prejudices.

To date, I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders, thinking that “this too shall pass.” Perhaps I should have said something earlier. As Martin Niemöller famously warned about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the rise of the Nazi party, “first they came for ...” but “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a....”

When self-proclaimed secular feminists attacked Richard Dawkins for a seemingly innocent response to an equally innocent admonishment to guys by Rebecca Watson (the founder of Skepchicks) that it isn’t cool to hit on women in elevators, this erupted into what came to be known as “Elevator­gate.” I didn’t speak out because I figured that an intellect as formidable as Richard Dawkins’s did not need my comparatively modest brainpower in support.

When these same self-described secular feminists went after Sam Harris for a commentary supporting racial profiling in the search for terrorists, again I didn’t speak out. When Harris wrote, “If my daughter one day reads in my obituary that her father ‘was persistently dogged by charges of racism and bigotry,’ unscrupulous people like P.Z. Myers will be to blame,” I thought to myself: “Don’t worry about it, Sam. Your work is for the ages. PZ Myers’s work is for the minutes—the half-life measure of blogs relative to books.”

But perhaps I should have spoken out, because now the inquisition has been turned on me, by none other than one of the leading self-proclaimed secular feminists whose work has heretofore been important in the moral progress of our movement. I have already responded to this charge against me elsewhere,* so I will only briefly summarize it here. Instead of allowing my inquisitors to force me into the position of defending myself (I still believe in the judicial principle of innocence until proven guilty), I shall use this incident to make the case for moral progress.

Here’s what happened: last summer I appeared on an online television show called The Point, hosted by Huffington Post chief science correspondent Cara Santa Maria, who invited me and two other men (Sean Carroll and Edward Falzon) to discuss atheism. In a Q&A following the main discussion, a male viewer asked: “Why isn’t the gender split closer to fifty-fifty as it should be?”

Santa Maria responded first: “In putting together this panel I had a hell of a time finding a woman who would be willing to sit on the panel with me to discuss her atheism. Why is that?”

She then turned to me. I said: “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty. It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”** I then followed this up by noting that at the 2012 TAM, there had been more women speakers than men. In that I misspoke slightly; according to TAM organizer D.J. Grothe, the number of men and women speakers was equal (the roster on the web page is incorrect) until, ironically, Ophelia Benson herself dropped out. As for the sex ratio of attendees, there were 40 percent women in 2011 and 31 percent in 2012. Grothe speculated online that the anomalous downward shift might possibly be due to some of these very same secular feminists blogging about how skeptic or atheist events were not safe for women.

The other two panelists gave their answers, we moved on to the next topic, and I didn’t give it another thought until I read in Ophelia Benson’s article “Non­theism and Feminism: Why the Dis­con­nect?” (FI, December 2012/January 2013) that “atheism hasn’t always been very welcoming to women.” Why? Be­cause, Benson believes: “The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing.’”

As evidence for this claim, Benson cites my ten-second comment, removing my preface that “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty,” as well as my observation that women are now near parity in both speakers and attendees at the largest skeptics/atheist conference in the world. However sexist “it’s a guy thing” might sound out of context (and redacted of qualification), it is clear from my answer that I do not believe that women are, in Benson’s characterization, “too stupid to do nontheism” or that “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky.”

I don’t believe that for a moment, and in any case the evidence (as I outlined at the beginning of this essay) overwhelmingly demonstrates that women are more than capable of thinking, writing, speaking, and debating about God and theism. Unquestionably. Unequivocally. After reading Greta Christina’s book, for example, if I were a believer heading into a debate with her about God, I would be trembling in my boots as much as many theists I know were when they faced the great Christopher Hitchens.

So what did I mean by “it’s a guy thing”? Mostly it was just an observation of the way things were in the past (a bunch of old white guys) that is rapidly changing (the near-parity at TAM), and is in reality intellectually equal (“I think it probably really is fifty-fifty”). Yet since I wrote that explanation noted above, I have been pilloried as a sexist, misogynist, and bigot (with, thankfully, even more positive comments in support and against this secular witch hunt).

Why isn’t the sex ratio in secular, atheist, and skeptical communities perfectly fifty-fifty? I don’t know. If it were 51–49, would that be sexism or statistical noise? What about 55–45? What’s the number at which we define sexism? I don’t know. I asked Cara if she had given the matter further thought, and she replied as follows:

In my search for panelists on the show, I did reach out to a couple of high-profile female atheists local to Los Angeles, but none were available to join. We did receive a video comment from AJ Johnson, the Director of Development at American Athe­ists.

I don’t know why there seem to be more men in secular circles than women, or whether there truly are more men than women who proudly bear the atheist label. I do find that I get a lot of feedback from readers/viewers commending me on my “bravery” for speaking up as a female atheist. I’m not sure why I’m perceived as being any more brave than a man in doing so.

What I can say is whether it’s real or perceived, a gender bias does seem to exist in atheist/secular/humanist circles, but I’ve never known my friend and colleague Michael Shermer to contribute to this problem. He is, in my estimation, as pro-woman and pro-atheism as they come. [This final comment was unsolicited and I considered redacting it, but just in case there remains any doubt....]


I shall close with a warning about the propensity for social movements to turn on themselves in purges that distract from the original goals and destroy the movement from within. (I wrote about this effect in my book Why People Believe Weird Things, most notably with regards to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist movement, in which members were judged—and subsequently purged—for such trivial matters as liking the wrong music; in the end the movement was reduced to Rand and a handful of sycophants alone in her New York apartment.) As the aforementioned Harriet Hall e-mailed me, she “was vilified on Ophelia’s blog for not following a certain kind of feminist party line of how a feminist should act and think. And I was attacked there in a disturbingly irrational, nonskeptical way.” I asked her why she didn’t defend herself: “I did not dare try to explain my thinking on Ophelia’s blog, because it was apparent from the tone of the comments that anything I might say would be misinterpreted and twisted to use against me. I have always been a feminist but I have my own style of feminism. And I have felt more oppressed by these sort of feminists than by men, and far less welcome in that strain of feminism than in the atheist or skeptical communities.” As for why the sex ratio isn’t perfectly fifty-fifty, Hall noted: “I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.”

If I had to conjecture why at this mo­ment there are not more women atheists and skeptics making public appearances on such television shows, it is probably a legacy of the past socialization de­fining what women are expected to do. But as I noted at the beginning of this essay, this is changing so rapidly that I doubt the necessity of witch hunts to root out any such remnants of sexism (because of the problem of false positives, in my case).

To conclude on a positive note, if the worst offense against women in secularism today is a ten-second quip taken out of context and redacted to the two-second line “it’s a guy thing” (which in any case was not meant to be sexist) then I would count that as evidence of significant moral progress deserving of celebration, not vilification.

*http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

**At the twelve-minute mark:

[Lurkion]

Doing a bit of further research, I found this: http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/29/se ... p-z-myers/

(It's sometimes fun to google "PZ Myers discredited"). And I found this.

If the Rabbi's statement of PZ's argument is accurate, then PZ did a very good job of straw-manning atheistic arguments about design (including suggesting that evolution is a wholly random process when it is in fact the combination of randomness PLUS NATURAL SELECTION, which by its nature is not random but selective). Lay atheists sometimes tend to over-state this randomness (natural selection is not random per se) but you'd not expect it from a biologist.

Is anyone familiar with PZ's iteration of this argument? Does he perform so poorly that the Rabbi should be calling us up and saying "Your PZ is drunk. Can you send him someone to drive him home?"

And in answer to the Rabbi's question - yes, yes we are. It's not necessarily related to any point the Rabbi had to make, but we are embarrassed.

[Lurkion]

Still had the tab open-- Shermers article:
[spoiler]

A Guy Thing? Secularism, Feminism, and a Response to Ophelia Benson
Michael Shermer

When I got involved in the skeptical, atheist, and secular movements in the 1980s, one looked out over the audience and saw mostly old white guys. Today it is a different picture entirely. At the last Skeptics Society lecture at Caltech on December 16, for example, an audience of three hundred was roughly fifty-fifty men and women, with a broad range of ages from college students to octogenarians. At the last several instances of The Amazing Meeting (TAM) in Las Vegas—the largest gathering of skeptics and atheists in the world—there have been almost as many women speakers as men and around 40 percent women attendees.

Prominent women atheists write powerful books, such as Greta Christina’s 2012 Why Are You Atheists So Angry: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, which I just listened to on audio, laughing my ass off and wishing I had come up with such poignant arguments. There are notable women skeptics, such as Carol Tavris, who has re-engineered introductory psychology textbooks to include skeptical principles throughout (see, for example, her own introduction to psychology textbook coauthored with Carole Wade).

Exceptional women physicians de­bunk alternative medicine quackery, such as Harriet Hall, MD, widely known and highly regarded as the SkepDoc. Women skeptics have created organizations to encourage more participation by women in secular communities, such as Rebecca Watson’s Skepchicks (I even posed for her Skepdudes calendar!). My friend and colleague Jennifer McCreight, whom I have encouraged to go on for her PhD, has pushed secular student groups to get more women students involved on campuses throughout the United States. For years, the brilliant Ellen Johnson headed American Atheists. Annie Laurie Gaylor’s Freedom From Religion Founda­tion has called attention to the hateful actions of religion against women. The executive director of the Richard Dawkins Founda­tion is Elisabeth Cornwell, a PhD evolutionary psychologist who writes and speaks brilliantly on all matters secular. Robynn McCarthy coanchors (with Derek Colanduno) the biweekly podcast Skep­ticality, the official podcast of the Skeptics Society. There are distinguished women columnists in skeptical, atheist, and human­ist magazines, such as Karen Stollz­now in my Skeptic magazine (along with Harriet Hall’s regular column there) and Ophelia Benson in FREE INQUIRY. And last but not least, there is the cofounder of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, Pat Linse, who also developed Jr. Skeptic magazine and has for twenty years produced world-class illustrations in support of secular issues and been a powerful force for skepticism.

This is the tip of the iceberg. Google “women in atheism” and you’ll find hundreds more examples, emblematic of how far we’ve come toward gender equality in just a quarter-century and of how much there is to celebrate.

Let me provide another example of moral progress that at first will seem counterintuitive. It involves a McCarthy-like witch hunt within secular communities to root out the last vestiges of sexism, racism, and bigotry of any kind, real or imagined. Although this unfortunate trend has produced a backlash against itself by purging from its ranks the likes of such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I contend that this is in fact a sign of moral progress. Less than a century ago, women were not even allowed to vote. Less than half a century ago, women were blatantly discriminated against in the workplace. As I mentioned, a quarter-century ago, the secular, atheist, and skeptical movements scarcely included any women. Today, even as a plethora of women openly, freely participate in—or lead—secular organizations, much ink and emotion are spilled over trivial slips of the tongue that allegedly reveal hidden biases and unconscious prejudices.

To date, I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders, thinking that “this too shall pass.” Perhaps I should have said something earlier. As Martin Niemöller famously warned about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the rise of the Nazi party, “first they came for ...” but “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a....”

When self-proclaimed secular feminists attacked Richard Dawkins for a seemingly innocent response to an equally innocent admonishment to guys by Rebecca Watson (the founder of Skepchicks) that it isn’t cool to hit on women in elevators, this erupted into what came to be known as “Elevator­gate.” I didn’t speak out because I figured that an intellect as formidable as Richard Dawkins’s did not need my comparatively modest brainpower in support.

When these same self-described secular feminists went after Sam Harris for a commentary supporting racial profiling in the search for terrorists, again I didn’t speak out. When Harris wrote, “If my daughter one day reads in my obituary that her father ‘was persistently dogged by charges of racism and bigotry,’ unscrupulous people like P.Z. Myers will be to blame,” I thought to myself: “Don’t worry about it, Sam. Your work is for the ages. PZ Myers’s work is for the minutes—the half-life measure of blogs relative to books.”

But perhaps I should have spoken out, because now the inquisition has been turned on me, by none other than one of the leading self-proclaimed secular feminists whose work has heretofore been important in the moral progress of our movement. I have already responded to this charge against me elsewhere,* so I will only briefly summarize it here. Instead of allowing my inquisitors to force me into the position of defending myself (I still believe in the judicial principle of innocence until proven guilty), I shall use this incident to make the case for moral progress.

Here’s what happened: last summer I appeared on an online television show called The Point, hosted by Huffington Post chief science correspondent Cara Santa Maria, who invited me and two other men (Sean Carroll and Edward Falzon) to discuss atheism. In a Q&A following the main discussion, a male viewer asked: “Why isn’t the gender split closer to fifty-fifty as it should be?”

Santa Maria responded first: “In putting together this panel I had a hell of a time finding a woman who would be willing to sit on the panel with me to discuss her atheism. Why is that?”

She then turned to me. I said: “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty. It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”** I then followed this up by noting that at the 2012 TAM, there had been more women speakers than men. In that I misspoke slightly; according to TAM organizer D.J. Grothe, the number of men and women speakers was equal (the roster on the web page is incorrect) until, ironically, Ophelia Benson herself dropped out. As for the sex ratio of attendees, there were 40 percent women in 2011 and 31 percent in 2012. Grothe speculated online that the anomalous downward shift might possibly be due to some of these very same secular feminists blogging about how skeptic or atheist events were not safe for women.

The other two panelists gave their answers, we moved on to the next topic, and I didn’t give it another thought until I read in Ophelia Benson’s article “Non­theism and Feminism: Why the Dis­con­nect?” (FI, December 2012/January 2013) that “atheism hasn’t always been very welcoming to women.” Why? Be­cause, Benson believes: “The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing.’”

As evidence for this claim, Benson cites my ten-second comment, removing my preface that “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty,” as well as my observation that women are now near parity in both speakers and attendees at the largest skeptics/atheist conference in the world. However sexist “it’s a guy thing” might sound out of context (and redacted of qualification), it is clear from my answer that I do not believe that women are, in Benson’s characterization, “too stupid to do nontheism” or that “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky.”

I don’t believe that for a moment, and in any case the evidence (as I outlined at the beginning of this essay) overwhelmingly demonstrates that women are more than capable of thinking, writing, speaking, and debating about God and theism. Unquestionably. Unequivocally. After reading Greta Christina’s book, for example, if I were a believer heading into a debate with her about God, I would be trembling in my boots as much as many theists I know were when they faced the great Christopher Hitchens.

So what did I mean by “it’s a guy thing”? Mostly it was just an observation of the way things were in the past (a bunch of old white guys) that is rapidly changing (the near-parity at TAM), and is in reality intellectually equal (“I think it probably really is fifty-fifty”). Yet since I wrote that explanation noted above, I have been pilloried as a sexist, misogynist, and bigot (with, thankfully, even more positive comments in support and against this secular witch hunt).

Why isn’t the sex ratio in secular, atheist, and skeptical communities perfectly fifty-fifty? I don’t know. If it were 51–49, would that be sexism or statistical noise? What about 55–45? What’s the number at which we define sexism? I don’t know. I asked Cara if she had given the matter further thought, and she replied as follows:

In my search for panelists on the show, I did reach out to a couple of high-profile female atheists local to Los Angeles, but none were available to join. We did receive a video comment from AJ Johnson, the Director of Development at American Athe­ists.

I don’t know why there seem to be more men in secular circles than women, or whether there truly are more men than women who proudly bear the atheist label. I do find that I get a lot of feedback from readers/viewers commending me on my “bravery” for speaking up as a female atheist. I’m not sure why I’m perceived as being any more brave than a man in doing so.

What I can say is whether it’s real or perceived, a gender bias does seem to exist in atheist/secular/humanist circles, but I’ve never known my friend and colleague Michael Shermer to contribute to this problem. He is, in my estimation, as pro-woman and pro-atheism as they come. [This final comment was unsolicited and I considered redacting it, but just in case there remains any doubt....]


I shall close with a warning about the propensity for social movements to turn on themselves in purges that distract from the original goals and destroy the movement from within. (I wrote about this effect in my book Why People Believe Weird Things, most notably with regards to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist movement, in which members were judged—and subsequently purged—for such trivial matters as liking the wrong music; in the end the movement was reduced to Rand and a handful of sycophants alone in her New York apartment.) As the aforementioned Harriet Hall e-mailed me, she “was vilified on Ophelia’s blog for not following a certain kind of feminist party line of how a feminist should act and think. And I was attacked there in a disturbingly irrational, nonskeptical way.” I asked her why she didn’t defend herself: “I did not dare try to explain my thinking on Ophelia’s blog, because it was apparent from the tone of the comments that anything I might say would be misinterpreted and twisted to use against me. I have always been a feminist but I have my own style of feminism. And I have felt more oppressed by these sort of feminists than by men, and far less welcome in that strain of feminism than in the atheist or skeptical communities.” As for why the sex ratio isn’t perfectly fifty-fifty, Hall noted: “I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.”

If I had to conjecture why at this mo­ment there are not more women atheists and skeptics making public appearances on such television shows, it is probably a legacy of the past socialization de­fining what women are expected to do. But as I noted at the beginning of this essay, this is changing so rapidly that I doubt the necessity of witch hunts to root out any such remnants of sexism (because of the problem of false positives, in my case).

To conclude on a positive note, if the worst offense against women in secularism today is a ten-second quip taken out of context and redacted to the two-second line “it’s a guy thing” (which in any case was not meant to be sexist) then I would count that as evidence of significant moral progress deserving of celebration, not vilification.

*http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

**At the twelve-minute mark:

[/spoiler]

Thank you a lot. I've re-blogged it at my blog for safe-keeping too.

[LMU]

If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.

I need to emphasise this.

If they're willing to lie about internet harassment, I can't see how they wouldn't like about IRL harassment.

I think he should try to bring a friend, ally or someone trustworthy with him. They may be reasonable in person, but after it's over there may be some who will make stuff up about what happened, and you want all of your time to have been accounted for and witnessed, if not actually recorded. Remember that monopod man didn't actually do anything wrong.

[LMU]

[spoiler]

Yeah, if Justin turns up "unannounced" (though obviously they will have read this thread) then they could just deny him entry. Checking first is probably the way to go. If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.

On the other hand, people are often far more polite and reasonable in-person than they are online.

It could be a win/win situation for Justin, though. If his attendance is announced to the organisation in advance and they refuse, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is intimidated or harrassed (ha!) while there, even though he acts ciourteous and civil, it will yet be another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is treated well, it will be a feather in their cap, and no mistake.

If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. But at least he can visit DC (very scenic, I've been told). :D

Yeah, they will all be great examples, to us. To FtBers etc. though:
If his attendance is announced to the organisation in advance and they refuse, it will be...

This man has a record of harassing women and we will not allow him to continue to do so at this conference.

If they accept and he is intimidated or harrassed (ha!) while there, even though he acts ciourteous and civil, it will yet be...

Either: That didn't happen.
Or: He was being disruptive.
Or: So he can dish it out but he can't take it?

If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be...

This dangerous misogynist tried to gatecrash our conference we made to get away from his kind!

The only one I can agree with is: "If they accept and he is treated well, it will be a feather in their cap, and no mistake."[/spoiler]

I think giving your opponent the opportunity to behave as a decent human being is valuable and worth doing.

[Eucliwood]

I think he should try to bring a friend, ally or someone trustworthy with him. They may be reasonable in person, but after it's over there may be some who will make stuff up about what happened, and you want all of your time to have been accounted for and witnessed, if not actually recorded. Remember that monopod man didn't actually do anything wrong.

Bringing a tape recorder would do some good as well.

[Lurkion]

Who is this mythical monopod man?

[Altair]

Did anyone notice how racist Richard Carrier was in his latest Atheism Plus meltdown piece?

http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... eism-plus/

Fuck yeah!
I was reading your blog last night and I got pretty angry at how this self-appointed champions of social justice and anti-racism warriors are able to write and think the most racist things I've read in a long while. (Let's preemptively clarify that any insult or profanity or "you" pronoun used in this comment is directed to Carrier and not to Reed. Also, if Richard Reed is your real name, you probably heard a lot of "Mr. Fantastic" jokes while growing up :lol: )

Also apologies for the long post, but I'm pissed off.

Our movement has been largely white, predominately because it was only interested in “white people’s problems,” and thus uninterested in anyone else’s (and thus not attracting their interest in turn). Things like UFOs, Big Foot, homeopathy, and pseudoscience as a whole on the one end, and theology and other esoteric matters of history and philosophy on the other end, are not unimportant, but they are the luxuries of people who don’t have to worry so much about crime or poverty or such things as subtle institutional racism or economic injustice.

According to Carrier, if you're not white, you're poor and live in a crime-ridden area, right? Fucking asshole.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. I'm Colombian, that makes me hispanic, and non-white in Carrier's view. I don't live in the US, which probably doesn't make me part of the demographic Carrier is talking about, but I'm not poor and I don't give a fuck about crime. And I know there are a lot of hispanic, black or whatever non-white color you'd like who are not poor either.
I'm a skeptic, and UFOs, Big Foot, Homeopathy and pseudoscience interest me, and I like reading about it and talking about it. You don't need to dumb shit down in order to get me or other "minorities" interested.

To now adamantly insist that organized atheism and skepticism should not concern itself with those matters, is itself covertly or unintentionally racist in its attitude.

No, asshole, what's racist is YOUR attitude that minorities are too busy, or poor, or stupid to understand what skepticism is about. Have you even asked a hispanic person, or a black person, or a native person what they want to talk about? You'll get a lot of answers, because people, even minorities, have different interests and some of them will be interested in your crime shit and others will want to talk about BigFoot or something else. Stop imagining that just because they're a part of a minority they must be interested in whatever stereotypical thing you think they should be.

Moreover, if atheism is good for people, it ought to be good for racial minorities as well. We should want to spread the movement into their neighborhoods. But doing that requires caring about the things that they regard as important targets of skepticism and religious criticism. And that requires, in turn, finding out what that is. Which requires, in turn, actually talking to them.

Yes, let's spread the movement to THEIR neighborhoods, because it's impossible that some of those colored people leave in the same neighborhoods Carrier and the other privileged FTB fuckers live, 'cause they are "white people" neighborhoods. If you want brown and black people you have to go into their ghettos and find them :roll:
And again, thinking that you have to talk about poverty and crime and drug laws and incarceration rates to be interesting to non-white skeptics suggests you haven't actually talked to them.

Let me tell you something, Carrier. I'm a skeptic. Not a minority skeptic, not a hispanic or latino skeptic, just a skeptic (that sounds nice, maybe I should put it on a t-shirt ;) ). I'm interested in and can talk about bigfoot, ufos, hoaxes, and any other kinds of woo out there.

It's ironic that these guy thinks he's denouncing racism while at the same time he's totally propagating it like an unconscious bigot.

You want to know where I HAVEN'T found racism? here in the fucking pit. Some members know I'm hispanic, the most recent ones don't because it almost never comes out in conversations.
And you know what? they don't give a fuck. We have conversations and they don't give a shit about my ethnicity (or anyone else's).
I don't care about gun ownership, so I didn't enter that conversation. And no one suggested to invite me because as a hispanic I should be interested in guns since I probably live in some gun-filled third world shit-hole (hint: I don't).
English is my second language, and sometimes I make mistakes. And no one here cares, they read what they can understand and ignore the rest, unlike that crazy A+ poster back then that insulted another one for not having perfect command of the English language.

I talk to people here about what interests me and they talk back if they're interested in what I say. That's being color-blind. That's caring about ideas and not race, ethnicity or gender.

You want to see racism, Carrier? Look in the mirror. Because you won't find it in the place you claim is a pit of misogyny and hate.
There are better people here than you think, and all of them are better people than you are.

/rant end.
Phew, that felt good.
TL;DR version: Carrier is a fucking racist and I have found more racism in his posts and in other FTB posts than in the SlymePit.

[Dilurk]

Still had the tab open-- Shermers article:
{ elided no need for three copies I think}

Thank you a lot. I've re-blogged it at my blog for safe-keeping too.

His site is still up. You can ping and traceroute it, it simply looks like possibly the webserver has crashed.
At least it's not DDoS.

[Al Stefanelli]

I think y'all know what to do with this:

Taiwan confiscates 435 dog penises

[Dilurk]

ERV: http://metronews.ca/health/510812/cdn-d ... tion-risk/

[Dilurk]

I think y'all know what to do with this:

Taiwan confiscates 435 dog penises

Sounds like bull to me Al.

http://www.fashionablecanes.com/441.html

[Altair]

I think y'all know what to do with this:

Taiwan confiscates 435 dog penises

We can put them all in this cock-box and send them to you know who

http://www.homespot.com.au/293-1100-lar ... nd-hen.jpg

[Barael]

[spoiler]

Has anyone here noticed Richard Carrier's current post on his blog at FTB titled "Atheism+ : The Name for What’s Happening"?

He seems concerned that the "haters" might be the majority among atheists/skeptics, admits in the comments that he doesn't follow the A+ forum, displays considerable hostility toward opponents, and generally goes on at more length than I feel like commenting about at the moment.

He gets a surprising amount of push-back in the comments, but from who?

Carrier complaining about the "anti-feminist" threats and harassment is so divorced from reality, along with his boilerplate acronym responses, that he's hardly worth engaging. Like Dillahunty he has some idealized model of what's happening, but being so very fucking effete, he's never get boots on the ground. But why? How is it that Carrier comes out on his moral high-horse without apparently having a clue what's actually going on, about the reality of the supposed harassment, and thinking the problem in atheism is swarming hordes of misogynists?

To really get Carrier, just read his self-wanking sidebar description:

He has also become a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and the epistemology of history.

Bayesian reasoning?

In the case of Bayesian inference, folks like Karl Popper have rejected it because it's inherently non-falsifiable: "It is prone to the same vicious circle as any other justificationist epistemology, because it presupposes what it attempts to justify."

Pre-supposes what it attempts to justify.

Well, there's Richard Carrier in a nutshell.

[/spoiler]
That's the whole problem with Bayes Theorm, you can prove or disprove whatever you want by adjusting assumptions, not facts.
I could prove you don't, and never have, existed.

Not familiar with Popper's criticism but to me Bayes' Theorem simply means updating your probability estimate according to new evidence and I'd dearly like to see what kind of bastardization it requires to accomplish what you claim. What Baeys' Theorem isn't is some magical box that spits out truth if you feed it garbage so you can definitely get some dubious results, but expecting such a magic box isn't reasonable to begin with.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think y'all know what to do with this:

Taiwan confiscates 435 dog penises

We can put them all in this cock-box and send them to you know who

[spoiler]http://www.homespot.com.au/293-1100-lar ... nd-hen.jpg[/spoiler]

Mmmmmhhhh. Sounds suspiciously like Colombian organized crime methods to me...


:p

[Barael]

Eh fuck, I thought I had refreshed the page before replying to Outwest just to see a dozen replies to him basically saying the same thing I just did after hitting submit. I hereby grant myself A+ for the effort!

[Altair]

I think y'all know what to do with this:

Taiwan confiscates 435 dog penises

We can put them all in this cock-box and send them to you know who

[spoiler]http://www.homespot.com.au/293-1100-lar ... nd-hen.jpg[/spoiler]

Mmmmmhhhh. Sounds suspiciously like Colombian organized crime methods to me...


:p

Nah, if you really want to go Colombian, you have to swallow the stuff, and carry it with you. Any takers? :lol:

[welch]

So, because I'm a giver, I found a great picture of Maggie that works as either a laughing dog or a stoner dog. Feel free to use in memes as you wish:

http://bynkii.com/bynkiidotcomimages/stonerdogmeme.jpg

Actual image:

http://bynkii.com/bynkiidotcomimages/stonerdogmeme.jpg

Version just for dear auntie pheelie:

http://bynkii.com/bynkiidotcomimages/opheliaumad.png

[Dick Strawkins]

Richard Carrier, and the A-plus militia, charge again into battle. :D

[youtube]TLwjCvxp8AQ[/youtube]

[Git]

Cheers Abbie!

For anyone wanting to keep uptodate with the latest happenings in the rape-cult that is the SWP:

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/01/16/swp- ... legations/

I remember when an SWP Central Committee member sexually assaulted one of my friends (this was not a matter of an ‘unproven allegation’, since the person admitted his guilt at great length to me, putting it down to his heavy drinking). The assault involved an attack on a party member in which he tried to tear her clothes from her. She fought back, and eventually stopped him in his tracks with a kick in the balls (she told me that she said “fuck off, you old hippy”). The woman didn’t want to pursue the matter in any way and, not surprisingly, dropped out of the SWP shortly afterwards. As an SWP district organiser I raised this with the CC, asking that the person be disciplined even though there was no complaint as such, but it was explained to me that “this sort of thing happens under capitalism”, and nothing could be done about it. Obviously, not being a moron, I didn’t think that was in any way an adequate response, but I couldn’t think of anything else to do about it. Shortly afterwards I was sacked as an organiser. Then, shortly after that, I was expelled from the SWP ‘for life’ for wanting to produce a cultural magazine (as it happens, I don’t believe they expelled me because of my knowledge of this incident). I perhaps should have done more about this, but at the time – over 20 years ago – I didn’t know what else I could do.

[welch]

Who is this mythical monopod man?

He was a dude at TAM with a monopod. May or may have not been kind of creepy. He used the monopod as most people will, to assist with taking pictures, and as people who use monopods will do, when it was attached to the camera, when standing still would hold it with the camera body resting on the ground.

I have a friend who's a filmmaker, when he uses monopods that's EXACTLY how he holds it when standing still and not filming.

Of course, the SJWs see him, and led, i believe by Ashley Miller, jumped to the conclusion that he was OMG TAKING UPSKIRT PICS sans *any* proof. When confronted by TAM/Hotel Security, he let them look at the pics he'd been taking. Lo, no upskirts.

As I recall, no one who was accusing him was willing to apologize for their false accusations, as he was/wasn't a bit of a jerk, and besides, HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

The problem sorted itself out, he's stopped going to TAM.

[welch]

You want to know where I HAVEN'T found racism? here in the fucking pit. Some members know I'm hispanic, the most recent ones don't because it almost never comes out in conversations.
And you know what? they don't give a fuck. We have conversations and they don't give a shit about my ethnicity (or anyone else's).
I don't care about gun ownership, so I didn't enter that conversation. And no one suggested to invite me because as a hispanic I should be interested in guns since I probably live in some gun-filled third world shit-hole (hint: I don't).
English is my second language, and sometimes I make mistakes. And no one here cares, they read what they can understand and ignore the rest, unlike that crazy A+ poster back then that insulted another one for not having perfect command of the English language.

I talk to people here about what interests me and they talk back if they're interested in what I say. That's being color-blind. That's caring about ideas and not race, ethnicity or gender.

You want to see racism, Carrier? Look in the mirror. Because you won't find it in the place you claim is a pit of misogyny and hate.
There are better people here than you think, and all of them are better people than you are.

/rant end.
Phew, that felt good.
TL;DR version: Carrier is a fucking racist and I have found more racism in his posts and in other FTB posts than in the SlymePit.

I'm racist. I fucking hate honkies.

[Git]

Oh, for anyone not particularly

• au fait

with the behaviour of the British far-left, google "gerry healy" and "rape-cult"

[Altair]

Who is this mythical monopod man?

He was a dude at TAM with a monopod. May or may have not been kind of creepy. He used the monopod as most people will, to assist with taking pictures, and as people who use monopods will do, when it was attached to the camera, when standing still would hold it with the camera body resting on the ground.

[spoiler]I have a friend who's a filmmaker, when he uses monopods that's EXACTLY how he holds it when standing still and not filming.

Of course, the SJWs see him, and led, i believe by Ashley Miller, jumped to the conclusion that he was OMG TAKING UPSKIRT PICS sans *any* proof. When confronted by TAM/Hotel Security, he let them look at the pics he'd been taking. Lo, no upskirts.

As I recall, no one who was accusing him was willing to apologize for their false accusations, as he was/wasn't a bit of a jerk, and besides, HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

The problem sorted itself out, he's stopped going to TAM.[/spoiler]

If I remember correctly, he was a semi-regular at the JREF forums. He was also socially awkward, which made him a prime target for creep shaming.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think the saddest part is that Monopod Guy stated that TAM was probably his highlight of the year and he was always expecting it eagerly, but now feels intimidated and won't return.

Well played, SJWs!

[Gefan]

...This is not paranoia, this is not a mistake. This is a cold and calculating shit test perpetrated on the skeptical community that works like this: They, on an individual basis refrain from calling people misogynists, stalkers and harassers, subject to continual review and, in exchange, we hand over the skeptical community to them lock, stock and barrel.

That's one hell of a plausible answer to my earlier "what is it that these people really want?" question.

[Remick]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

Why?

For the lulz.

Always for the lulz.

If I start taking all that shit too seriously, I might just re-convert to catholicism.

[UnbelieveSteve]

I love Shermer.
Anyway, i wrote up the "Atheism Plus - Periodical Table of Swearing" staring The_Laughing_Coyote.
http://unbelievesteve.wordpress.com/201 ... -swearing/

[jimthepleb]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

Why?

For the lulz.

Always for the lulz.

If I start taking all that shit too seriously, I might just re-convert to catholicism.

Meh, why bother just go to A+ or FfTB, they have confessionals as threads and the priests will bugger you with porcupines.

[another lurker]

Errmmm earlier I posted viewtopic.php?p=50443#p50443

Was I correct in that it came from Pharyngula's Thunderdrome that Commander Tuvok and Another Lurker got their screenshots from?

I am starting to worry that I got it mixed up with Butterflies and Wheels and I don't want to have my facts wrong. I don't mind accusing PZ of things he has done but if it was Ophelia I'd like to accuse the right person

My screenshots were from the thunderdome.

Sorry, I should have made it more clear, I thought the url was enough. In the future I will specify.

I go to the thunderdome b/c that is where they -gossip- about posters who annoy them in other parts of FTB.

[Dick Strawkins]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

Ironically he is the 'intellectual artillery' (his words) of the entire bunch.
None of the rest of them has any academic credentials (PZ was a scientist years ago but now is a teacher in a community college (isn't that what you call the University of Minnesota, Morris?)
Ophelia has no formal qualifications, Ed, Greta, Rebecca, Svan, Laden (well he had some but he's gone or good as gone now) and Thimbledick have no decent academic training in a relevant subject.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/12 ... 2fc0ae.jpg

[Trophy]

While I like most of Shermer's article, any mention of nazis is ridiculous and a rookie mistake. Ridiculous because it's a disproportionate comparison and the same argument can be made easily without blowing it up with hyperbole and a rookie mistake because you just hand in your opponent the key to cherry-pick and ridicule your argument.

It's far more effective to call Ophelia's attack dishonest, out of context, and misleading because that's exactly what it was.

[windy]

http://i.imgur.com/q3CfI.jpg

There are also women at skeptic conferences. There, problem solved, can we all go and have a beer now?

(I was there when the "no women at Pharyngula" meme was created. Too bad to see it used in such a retarded way.)

[Chilly P.]

All else being equal the quality of the water makes a huge difference. Apparantly you do not know this (I assume others do not also) hence my post. Ignore the bit about Florida if it bothers you so much. /shrug (and my last post on how water impacts baking bread)

The kind and quantity of minerals in water not only effects bread, but beer also. This is why brewers, be they professional or homebrewers, often have to adjust their tap water to fit certain profiles of beer. For example, adding gypsum. The heavily treated swamp water of South and Central just isn't optimal for beer, bagels, and pizza; how it is up in the Northern part of the state I have no idea.

The other side of the coin, when Cubans leave Miami for elsewhere, they can never make Cuban Bread as good as it is in Miami, either. My wife (who is Cuban) and I have had this discussion with Cuban restuaranteurs in Miami, Portland, and NYC. This is probably because both South Florida and Havana are geologically similar; the Columbia River and the Catskills have a very different geology. The Portland lady who owned the restaurant even imported the flour from Miami, and her family still owns cafeterias in Hialeah, so she's no stranger to making Cuban Bread; it simply does not come out the same, probably because the Portland water is too mineral rich?

[somedumbguy]

While I like most of Shermer's article, any mention of nazis is ridiculous and a rookie mistake. Ridiculous because it's a disproportionate comparison and the same argument can be made easily without blowing it up with hyperbole and a rookie mistake because you just hand in your opponent the key to cherry-pick and ridicule your argument.

It's far more effective to call Ophelia's attack dishonest, out of context, and misleading because that's exactly what it was.

Near as I can tell he

explicitly compared them to McCarthyism and Witch hunts.
made implicit references to the Spanish Inquisition
made explicit reference to prior social movement purges

And said he should have stood up to them when they attacked others as Pastor Niemoller wrote about his experiences with NAZIs.

A) The clear comparison of their behavior is to McCarthyism and Witch Hunts not to NAZIs
B) He doesn't compare their behavior to NAZIs he compares his failure to the failure of a person that didn't stand up to oppressive powers, the NAZIs
C) The message of godwinning should not be, never reference "First They Came"
D) The message of social justice warriors is often in fact "First They Came", they should not be shunning it when others use it to

[Cunning Punt]

Richard Carrier:

Anyone who is writing wanker limericks in a serious activist forum is acting like a child. It’s perfectly acceptable for the adults in the room to send them packing.

And that sounds like a healthy movement, not a dying one. Their forums are being actively moderated for adult conversation and planning. Like any healthy movement forum.

Because the guy who doesn't read that forum knows better than someone who does.[/quote]

There once was a wanker named Carrier
Who tried to erect a big barrier
Between pitters and plus
The "them" and the "us"
When what Jen really needs is a farrier

I know, I wasn't going to go there.....

[Remick]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

Ironically he is the 'intellectual artillery' (his words) of the entire bunch.
None of the rest of them has any academic credentials (PZ was a scientist years ago but now is a teacher in a community college (isn't that what you call the University of Minnesota, Morris?)
Ophelia has no formal qualifications, Ed, Greta, Rebecca, Svan, Laden (well he had some but he's gone or good as gone now) and Thimbledick have no decent academic training in a relevant subject.

I don't know if that is sadder about Carrier or the others.

[Remick]

While I like most of Shermer's article, any mention of nazis is ridiculous and a rookie mistake. Ridiculous because it's a disproportionate comparison and the same argument can be made easily without blowing it up with hyperbole and a rookie mistake because you just hand in your opponent the key to cherry-pick and ridicule your argument.

It's far more effective to call Ophelia's attack dishonest, out of context, and misleading because that's exactly what it was.

Near as I can tell he

explicitly compared them to McCarthyism and Witch hunts.
made implicit references to the Spanish Inquisition
made explicit reference to prior social movement purges

And said he should have stood up to them when they attacked others as Pastor Niemoller wrote about his experiences with NAZIs.

A) The clear comparison of their behavior is to McCarthyism and Witch Hunts not to NAZIs
B) He doesn't compare their behavior to NAZIs he compares his failure to the failure of a person that didn't stand up to oppressive powers, the NAZIs
C) The message of godwinning should not be, never reference "First They Came"
D) The message of social justice warriors is often in fact "First They Came", they should not be shunning it when others use it to

I agree, using the "never came" is to compare the sentiment of the speaker, not the circumstances opposing the speaker.

[Remick]

dah, "First they Came",

[welch]

Honestly, I get the purpose for taking on PZ, Rebecca, Ophelia etc..

But why Carrier, does ANYONE actually pay attention to him? Do the other FTB people even read or comment on his posts? I am all for shining a light on hypocrites, but Carrier is locked in a dark room by himself trying to prove to himself how fucking smart he is. Shouldn't we just leave him to it? I imagine it will take the rest of his life.

He wants attention.

[Dick Strawkins]

While I like most of Shermer's article, any mention of nazis is ridiculous and a rookie mistake. Ridiculous because it's a disproportionate comparison and the same argument can be made easily without blowing it up with hyperbole and a rookie mistake because you just hand in your opponent the key to cherry-pick and ridicule your argument.

It's far more effective to call Ophelia's attack dishonest, out of context, and misleading because that's exactly what it was.

Shermer hardly made a nazi reference, he simply used the Niemöller lines that, while originally written about the nazis, have been used ever since to refer to non nazi situations that involve dictatorial behavior.

It's not like he was saying, "PZ and Ophelia are behaving just like the Nazis!"
He is using a widely used analogy to oppresive behavior.

On the other hand, give them any excuse and they will twist it to their agenda.

[Altair]

I think the saddest part is that Monopod Guy stated that TAM was probably his highlight of the year and he was always expecting it eagerly, but now feels intimidated and won't return.

Well played, SJWs!

That feeling of intimidation seems to be getting more common. I recently read a tweet by a guy telling how a friend of his had decided not to go to an atheist convention because he was afraid being friendly would be mistaken with being a harasser. His tweet had a lot of responses from the usual suspects telling him that meant his friend had no empathy, didn´t know how to talk to women and others, all in a very hostile tone.

I tried to find it to do a screen-capture or a link, but I can´t find it, did anyone else see that conversation? I don´t remember the user who posted it.

[welch]

Richard Carrier:

Anyone who is writing wanker limericks in a serious activist forum is acting like a child. It’s perfectly acceptable for the adults in the room to send them packing.

And that sounds like a healthy movement, not a dying one. Their forums are being actively moderated for adult conversation and planning. Like any healthy movement forum.

Because the guy who doesn't read that forum knows better than someone who does.

There once was a wanker named Carrier
Who tried to erect a big barrier
Between pitters and plus
The "them" and the "us"
When what Jen really needs is a farrier

I know, I wasn't going to go there.....[/quote]

Pity our poor Richard Carrier
Who fancies himself quite the harrier
he growls and he bites,
but try as he might
He's never to be really scarier

[Angry_Drunk]

I'm racist. I fucking hate honkies.

One of them self-hating crackers.

[welch]

While I like most of Shermer's article, any mention of nazis is ridiculous and a rookie mistake. Ridiculous because it's a disproportionate comparison and the same argument can be made easily without blowing it up with hyperbole and a rookie mistake because you just hand in your opponent the key to cherry-pick and ridicule your argument.

It's far more effective to call Ophelia's attack dishonest, out of context, and misleading because that's exactly what it was.

Shermer hardly made a nazi reference, he simply used the Niemöller lines that, while originally written about the nazis, have been used ever since to refer to non nazi situations that involve dictatorial behavior.

It's not like he was saying, "PZ and Ophelia are behaving just like the Nazis!"
He is using a widely used analogy to oppresive behavior.

On the other hand, give them any excuse and they will twist it to their agenda.

Shermer's an SP, Fair Game on.

[Skep tickle]

Did anyone notice how racist Richard Carrier was in his latest Atheism Plus meltdown piece?

http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... eism-plus/

Fuck yeah!
I was reading your blog last night and I got pretty angry at how this self-appointed champions of social justice and anti-racism warriors are able to write and think the most racist things I've read in a long while.

...

I talk to people here about what interests me and they talk back if they're interested in what I say. That's being color-blind. That's caring about ideas and not race, ethnicity or gender.

You want to see racism, Carrier? Look in the mirror. Because you won't find it in the place you claim is a pit of misogyny and hate.
There are better people here than you think, and all of them are better people than you are.

/rant end.
Phew, that felt good.
TL;DR version: Carrier is a fucking racist and I have found more racism in his posts and in other FTB posts than in the SlymePit.

:clap:

[welch]

I'm racist. I fucking hate honkies.

One of them self-hating crackers.

I'm not racist, but honkies should all be in camps.

[Pitchguest]

For Lousy's latest, can I just repeat what my signature says and be done with it?

Courtesy of Reap, "The Lousy Canuck includes so many lies in his blogs, he should be sponsored by Pinocchio." QFT.

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... analogies/

[another lurker]

More from the Thunderdome. They sure are obsessed with Reap, and Caine's apparent victimization:

td1.gif

(21.65 KiB) Downloaded 189 times

td2.gif

(7.07 KiB) Downloaded 189 times

td3.gif

(12.74 KiB) Downloaded 184 times

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-536090

I mentioned once before that they are fond of saying that 'reap' is an anagram for 'rape'. I mean, how fucking LOW can these people go?

[masakari2012]

Richard Carrier in South Park?
http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/ ... n-kyle.jpg

[Skep tickle]

From comment thread at Almost Diamonds post on Shermer's article:

Ben Zvan
January 16, 2013 at 10:47 am (UTC -6)

Is this the way that respected skeptics respond to criticism? You prod at them once, in passing, and they howl about inquisitions and McCarthy and fascism?

No, but it’s exactly how I’d expect a libertarian to respond to criticism.

WTF?

(and now I really have to head to work; damn you all for making this site such an interesting place to spend time)

[jjbinx007]

Richard Carrier:

Anyone who is writing wanker limericks in a serious activist forum is acting like a child. It’s perfectly acceptable for the adults in the room to send them packing.

And that sounds like a healthy movement, not a dying one. Their forums are being actively moderated for adult conversation and planning. Like any healthy movement forum.

Carrier should take a look at this:

I wrote up the "Atheism Plus - Periodical Table of Swearing" starring The_Laughing_Coyote.
http://unbelievesteve.wordpress.com/201 ... -swearing/

[Cunning Punt]

http://i.imgur.com/q3CfI.jpg[/quote]


There once was a Caine, fleur du mal
Who talked out her own birth canal
So great was her wrath
That she redefined math
I give you: the next Blaise Pascal !

[d4m10n]

I am still a student - graduate level at Marywood University. Yes, unfortunatly these conferences can be expensive when considering travel, hotel especially.

Registration is fairly cheap for students. Shall we inquire of Melody whether you'd be allowed to attend?

I'd been envisioning the "try to slip in under the radar" approach, but actually asking ahead of time has some benefits.

First, it could potentially save JFV a wasted trip to DC & nonrefundable expenses if he were to get there & not be let in. (Though I suspect he'd actually turn it into lemonade - interview people outside the conference about some topic, oh say how they define "feminist", then turn it into a video.)

Second, if she said that he wouldn't be allowed to attend, there'd be an interesting opportunity to work down a list (whether or not others were considering attending) - though I suspect this is not what you had in mind.

You suspect incorrectly, this is *PRECISELY* what I have in mind. It's win-win. Either Justin gets to go and report on it, or else we find out how far Melody is willing to go in her blacklisting efforts.

Damion Reinhardt
Lifetime Friend of the Center
(Melody, if you're reading this, please look me up and drop me a line.)