Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

[jimthepleb]

I think that definition is too restrictive. I would say privilege is something that a person has or can do that was not earned by themselves. In itself is not negative, and it's something everyone has in different degrees.

Both a better definition, and a fair criticism. I also find it amusing that the likes of the FTBers accuse us of bigotry, yet they frequently attack their critics for who and what they are. What else is this other than intolerance and bigotry?

They are inveterate intellectual and social snobs. At least the FC5 are, but anyone else there is acting as a human shield. Observe the behaviour as Natalie Reed leaves, much hand-wringing, wailing and gnashing of teeth, the usual nod to the slymepit as the oppressors but little in the way of tangible help. Unless anyone has seen any indication that any one of the FC5 has offered to help.

[Dick Strawkins]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg

[jjbinx007]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

No. For the same reason, I don't use antivirus software. I just put up posters in my area telling people not to write viruses.

[Mark Neil]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?
[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

I doubt it's poe. Seems to be well in line with the "Don't tell women not to be raped, tell men not to rape" Kind of campaigns found in such places as the University of Ottawa student center

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBJWWxgJCKc/T ... U_of_O.jpg

[Altair]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

Hard to say.
The two websites (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/ and http://www.notever.co.uk) exist and look genuine, but I can't find that specific poster in them, not even in the "Campaign Pack" offered for download at the first site.

Points 8 and 9 make me want to scream POE!, but the site where the image is hosted makes me think it's someone's crazy idea of a campaign.

[Lsuoma]

Agreed. It was pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

What you might not know about twitter is that there is a little button that says 'view conversation' which instantly puts the tweet in it's context. And just incase it gets lost in the shuffle, it all got screen capped. So I can always put it back in context.

Do you really think Benson didn't click that button to see the context of this juicy 'death threat'?

The only one being naive was Benson in thinking she could get away with that.

We can see the context, her readers and fans cannot or do not. Humour, sarcasm and word play are not their strong suits. You just gave her more ammo for her persecution machine, regardless of your intent. I did have a good laugh at the tweet though.

I have to state that this was not actually my intention. I never meant to make it sound like a threat when taken out of context.

However... whoopee! Fucking let her quote mine me, cherry pick, take out of context. Let her fool her followers. As they say, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. But rational, sceptical people will not be fooled by this.

Her baboons will use this, or something like this in the future as ammunition, and they will find out that it is a dud.

They build their empire out of lies. Let them.

Why do you hate women?

[Brain Box]

Seems to be well in line with the "Don't tell women not to be raped, tell men not to rape" Kind of campaigns found in such places as the University of Ottawa student center

What exactly is wrong with that mind set? "Don't tell people not to get murdered, tell people not to murder."

[Dick Strawkins]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

Hard to say.
The two websites (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/ and http://www.notever.co.uk) exist and look genuine, but I can't find that specific poster in them, not even in the "Campaign Pack" offered for download at the first site.

Points 8 and 9 make me want to scream POE!, but the site where the image is hosted makes me think it's someone's crazy idea of a campaign.

It is hosted by a legitimate website.
http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/ca ... -end-rape/

I just wonder if they are the victim of a prank, I mean half the stuff on the list is just plain silly.

[Dick Strawkins]

What am I saying, half? Apart from leaving a women alone when she's out walking, everything else is bonkers.

[Lsuoma]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

Hard to say.
The two websites (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/ and http://www.notever.co.uk) exist and look genuine, but I can't find that specific poster in them, not even in the "Campaign Pack" offered for download at the first site.

Points 8 and 9 make me want to scream POE!, but the site where the image is hosted makes me think it's someone's crazy idea of a campaign.

It is hosted by a legitimate website.
http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/ca ... -end-rape/

I just wonder if they are the victim of a prank, I mean half the stuff on the list is just plain silly.

It's telling that it's so difficult to be sure, though. Or maybe I'm just blinding by my huge white cock of privilege and authoritah...

[Brain Box]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

Hard to say.
The two websites (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/ and http://www.notever.co.uk) exist and look genuine, but I can't find that specific poster in them, not even in the "Campaign Pack" offered for download at the first site.

Points 8 and 9 make me want to scream POE!, but the site where the image is hosted makes me think it's someone's crazy idea of a campaign.

It is hosted by a legitimate website.
http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/ca ... -end-rape/

I just wonder if they are the victim of a prank, I mean half the stuff on the list is just plain silly.

That is because the suggestions are made tongue in cheek. The point attempting to be driven home is that women shouldn't be blamed for being raped (of course assuming the accusation of rape is legitimate) and that rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime.

[KiwiInOz]

You are talking to a person that can ,if it suits her, wilfully misconstrue a simple "good Morning" as a clear intent to commit genocide...

http://i.imgur.com/CT8q3I1.jpg

and PZ makes an appearance in the section below... unless mumbling is a euphemism for 'wanking' in which case mebbe it's mc'reight's friend.

Jen's friend is to the right of Hello.

[Mark Neil]

That is because the suggestions are made tongue in cheek. The point attempting to be driven home is that women shouldn't be blamed for being raped (of course assuming the accusation of rape is legitimate) and that rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime.

Oh shit, you're not joking. The problem with this mindset is twofold. First is the idea that people (men and women) aren't told not to rape. If you believe otherwise, I ask you what the hell laws are, if not a list of things NOT to do? The other is that it is acceptable to project such sexist assertions against a group of people in order to completely absolve anyone of their personal responsibility for their own safety. Hell, we expect children to take responsibility for their own safety when we teach them not to go with strangers. The idea this is too much responsibility for women is, quite frankly, laughable when coming from feminists.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

[spoiler]

You are talking to a person that can ,if it suits her, wilfully misconstrue a simple "good Morning" as a clear intent to commit genocide...

http://i.imgur.com/CT8q3I1.jpg

and PZ makes an appearance in the section below... unless mumbling is a euphemism for 'wanking' in which case mebbe it's mc'reight's friend.

[/spoiler]

Jen's friend is to the right of Hello.

No, not really. It says "reported", which from the nature of the snipets leads me to think it means "reported to the authorities".

They never do that stuff. They just tweet or blog about it.

[welch]

I'm confused... is this seriously an orgy sponsored by some chick's bewbs? Can someone post dick pictures then?

(Insert pictures of Richards Dawkins and Carrier here)

I would prefer pictures of your or other men's penises. If you don't have a penis, then never mind. Keep your vagina to yourself.

Look around on the internet, there's plenty of that to go around. If you so wish.

Or are you interested in penises of specific people? Who might not be interested in flaunting theirs that much in the public? Well, then, maybe on IRC?

dude. seriously.

[Mark Neil]

That is because the suggestions are made tongue in cheek. The point attempting to be driven home is that women shouldn't be blamed for being raped (of course assuming the accusation of rape is legitimate) and that rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime.

Oh shit, you're not joking. The problem with this mindset is twofold. First is the idea that people (men and women) aren't told not to rape. If you believe otherwise, I ask you what the hell laws are, if not a list of things NOT to do? The other is that it is acceptable to project such sexist assertions against a group of people in order to completely absolve anyone of their personal responsibility for their own safety. Hell, we expect children to take responsibility for their own safety when we teach them not to go with strangers. The idea this is too much responsibility for women is, quite frankly, laughable when coming from feminists.

As an addendum, note at no point is suggested precautions to avoid becoming a victim deemed blaiming, and it is a bullshit move to try and equate the two.

[Altair]

That is because the suggestions are made tongue in cheek. The point attempting to be driven home is that women shouldn't be blamed for being raped (of course assuming the accusation of rape is legitimate) and that rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime.

I found a comment about that poster in a blog (http://www.happyplace.com/11433/poster- ... o-not-rape) that supports that idea.

I think some of you are missing the point. As j+cubed said, this is in direct retaliation to posters directed at women listing ways to avoid being raped. These include not taking drinks from strangers, never walking along, not allowing yourself be alone with a man you don't know (broken down car/in an elevator), using the buddy system, not drinking too much, carrying a whistle...anything sound familiar?

(...)

I think it's far more insensitive and offensive to rape victims to insinuate they could have prevented their own rapes if they had just followed these rules.

I think that "... rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime" is only looking at half of the situation.

We take steps to keep our stuff from being robbed (locks, padlocks, fences), we take precautions to avoid being hurt in accidents (seatbelts, helmets), and some people take precautions to avoid being shot (training, kevlar vests).

That's not saying they're to blame if something happens to them, or that they could have prevented their own rapes if they had followed the rules, it's acknowledging that we don't live in a perfect world and we can and should do things to minimize the risks we're exposed to.

It would be great if no one stole things, or killed people, or raped people, but until that happens, I'll try to do things that could increase my safety. That's common sense to me, I really don't understand why some people see prevention attempts as blame.

IMO, the parody doesn't work because the original "rules" make sense, they are things that someone can do to minimize risk (not only women, I know a lot of cases of people who have been drugged by strangers and then robbed or kidnapped), but these "parody rules" are just silly.

[welch]

Ophelia has a new postabout how

The aggregated effect of floods of negative comments online can be enough to put opinionated women off appearing in public.

It includes a swipe at Shermer:

And thus we get a feeback loop. Opinionated women get floods of cunting and bitching and why the fuck are you so uglying, so they’re put off appearing in public, so dudebros look around and don’t see many opinionated women mouthing off and they conclude that opinionated mouthing off is more of a guy thing

It also contains a link to and several quotes from a woman's blog where she talks about online attacks and insults she got.

That got me thinking about these dudebros who are so negative and offensive towards women, who are just trying to harass and shut up opinionated women online. My search yielded the following results:

(Woman1) is a scumbag piece of shit, who diminishes the struggles of others

(Woman2) and (Woman3) can both go fuck themselves.

Fuck (Woman3) for the tone trolling. This is fucking rude blog. No slurs or sexist shit was said about (Woman2) but her crappy fucking argument and dismal was torn to shreds. Rudely with lots of insults and cussing because FUCK (Woman2) for dismissing this issue

(Woman4) behaves like a f*****g a*****e

(the *'s are in the original)

So I'm also very tired of these dudebros who are trying to silence women but attacking and using nasty and offensive slurs to shut them up.
I'm so angry I'm going to break confidentiality and tell you right here who these women are and link to the dudebros who are saying this things about them.

Woman1 = Renee Hendricks
Woman2 = Sara Mayhew
Woman3 = Kylie Sturgess
Woman4 = Abbie Smith

And here are the links to the sites where you can find these slurs

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... e-coverup/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... eep-rifts/

I'm so tired of these misogynistic dudebros who just want to shut up opinionated women. :snooty:

Well Played Altair, Well Played Indeed.

[Dick Strawkins]

Serious question.

Is this a POE or not?

[spoiler]http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/im ... FINweb.jpg[/spoiler]

Hard to say.
The two websites (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/ and http://www.notever.co.uk) exist and look genuine, but I can't find that specific poster in them, not even in the "Campaign Pack" offered for download at the first site.

Points 8 and 9 make me want to scream POE!, but the site where the image is hosted makes me think it's someone's crazy idea of a campaign.

It is hosted by a legitimate website.
http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/ca ... -end-rape/

I just wonder if they are the victim of a prank, I mean half the stuff on the list is just plain silly.

That is because the suggestions are made tongue in cheek. The point attempting to be driven home is that women shouldn't be blamed for being raped (of course assuming the accusation of rape is legitimate) and that rape prevention starts with discouraging the act, like preventing any other crime.

Tongue in cheek?
It reads like a joke.
If I was a victim of rape I'd be fucking furious that a rape crisis organization was running such a frivolous campaign.
For fucks sake,

"If you have every intention of having sex later on with the woman you're dating regardless of how she feels about it, tell her directly that there is every chance that you will rape her. If you don't communicate your intentions, she may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her and inadvertently feel safe."

"Nice to meet you.
You look lovely tonight.
What do you think, shall we go to dinner straight away or have a drink at the bar first?
Or perhaps we can skip formalities and just cut to the rape."

[KiwiInOz]

[spoiler]

You are talking to a person that can ,if it suits her, wilfully misconstrue a simple "good Morning" as a clear intent to commit genocide...

http://i.imgur.com/CT8q3I1.jpg

and PZ makes an appearance in the section below... unless mumbling is a euphemism for 'wanking' in which case mebbe it's mc'reight's friend.

[/spoiler]

Jen's friend is to the right of Hello.

No, not really. It says "reported", which from the nature of the snipets leads me to think it means "reported to the authorities".

They never do that stuff. They just tweet or blog about it.

I stand corrected.

[debaser71]

because duh! only men rape and only women are raped. Because duh! men are beasts and women are delicate snowflakes.

[AbsurdWalls]

Just wait until one of the skepchicks has kids and want to attend a conference without childcare facilities. Then we'll hear all about it.

Back in the day, I went to Skepticon 4 with three other families from around OKC, and everyone took turns watching the kids while they tore up the hotel room. That meant that a handful of parents could attend lectures while the rest of us hung out with the children. The M/F ratio of these skeptics with children, oddly enough, was right about 50:50.

Every time I read a post from you I think you spend your whole life on OK Cupid.

[HoneyWagon]

http://i.imgur.com/CqDSdIg.jpg
Text version
Sharon Hill ‏@IDoubtIt
Does block and disengage sound fair to you?

Brian Engler ‏@BrianEngler
@IDoubtIt Yep.

22 Jan 13

Sharon Hill ‏@IDoubtIt
@BrianEngler Disappointed to hear that from you Brian.

[Michael K Gray]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

I am gob-smacked by the outrageous hypocrisy that rises to epic proportions, not the lack of child-care.
These dweebs are the ones who have been trenchant in their criticisms of everyone else's conferences for not having child-care facilities.

[Michael K Gray]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

Breastfeeding.

[Brain Box]

We take steps to keep our stuff from being robbed (locks, padlocks, fences), we take precautions to avoid being hurt in accidents (seatbelts, helmets), and some people take precautions to avoid being shot (training, kevlar vests).

That's not saying they're to blame if something happens to them, or that they could have prevented their own rapes if they had followed the rules, it's acknowledging that we don't live in a perfect world and we can and should do things to minimize the risks we're exposed to.

It would be great if no one stole things, or killed people, or raped people, but until that happens, I'll try to do things that could increase my safety. That's common sense to me, I really don't understand why some people see prevention attempts as blame.

IMO, the parody doesn't work because the original "rules" make sense, they are things that someone can do to minimize risk (not only women, I know a lot of cases of people who have been drugged by strangers and then robbed or kidnapped), but these "parody rules" are just silly.

But I think you are ignoring the historical context for why this kind of feminist propaganda exist, which is that in the past, and in the present in some countries, rape cases have been thrown out because it was judged that the woman "brought it on herself" by wearing revealing clothing or whatever other bullshit reason was concocted by the defense which caused the accused to lose control of his senses and commit such an immoral act. It is far less common for "the victim brought it on themselves" defense arguments to be used when the crime isn't rape.

[debaser71]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

Breastfeeding.

My wife would pump and I'd feed the babies.

[jimthepleb]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

Breastfeeding.

My wife would pump and I'd feed the babies.

that can be done but AFAIK the current thinking is that straight from source is best, especially during the colostrum stage.

[Apples]

Privilege is not a difficult concept -- so easy even a retard :shock: could understand it. People who have more money than you are (relatively) privileged. If you have no legs, people with leg-privilege have an easier time kicking Ophelia Benson in the fanny -- fanny-kicking privilege. If you live in rural New England and you're black, the white people around you have "white privilege" -- not so much because you're likely to face "discrimination" in the sense of hostility or reduced job opportunities, but because you stand out and are, at least initially, likely to be seen as an outsider. Privilege is absolutely contextual, which is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for five seconds. Does Michelle Obama have privilege? Hmmm .... she sure puts the sexy in intersectionality....

This is all basic sociology (otherwise known as common sense). "Privilege" is perhaps faintly relevant in the context of a sociology seminar, or possibly a grade school social studies classroom. "Privilege" should absolutely not be coming up in arguments among commenters on internet blogs having disputes about sexual harassment statistics.

In a decent youtube vid that someone posted here not too long ago, the message was that "if someone brings up privilege in the context of a personal argument, they are always and everywhere committing the ad hominem fallacy." This is pretty much correct.

Exploring "Intersectionality" and "Privilege" in an abstract way is like stamp collecting. A harmless hobby. But it's a pair of brass knuckles in the hands of a social justice warrior on the internet. It's simply bigotry dressed up in academic language and a last resort for a person who cannot or will not back up their claims (instead of addressing your argument, I will simply talk about your supposed demographic attributes, calculate a pretend average of how many social capital points you have, and attack you for your imagined advantages). Oppression olympics.

Incidentally, if you really tried to do the math and study the psychology of intersectional advantages/disadvantages, I would guess that of all the relatively "disprivileged" groups you could define and study (gays/trans* folks, racial minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc.), "females" (in the US, as an isolated variable) would absolutely be the most privileged of the bunch. Which is why, in 2013, fact-free "feminism" does and should provoke so much resistance from critical thinkers and commenters.

tl;dr: If someone is an extremely insensitive, uppity shithead (no, you meanies, I'm not talking about Louis), it may very well partly be because they are spoiled and unaware of the advantages they enjoy (due to whatever factors). In that case, you could call them a snotty fucking conceited cunt. Or I suppose you could tell them to check their privilege, and then you might have a chance at getting a blowjob from Ceepolk while Setar pegs you and Kassiane gives you a golden shower.

[AbsurdWalls]

Vicky, that tweet to Benson was a little naive. Out of context, it looks like direct threat.

Agreed. It was pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

What you might not know about twitter is that there is a little button that says 'view conversation' which instantly puts the tweet in it's context. And just incase it gets lost in the shuffle, it all got screen capped. So I can always put it back in context.

Do you really think Benson didn't click that button to see the context of this juicy 'death threat'?

The only one being naive was Benson in thinking she could get away with that.

I agree with Vicky here.

Look, if we are going to have to parse every fucking tweet to make sure it can't be isolated and taken out of context by Ophelia "Fuck Off" Benson, we might as well shut the fuck up.

I think it is helpful to look at what you're saying and make absolutely sure that it cannot be interpreted in the wrong way, because as we have seen recently if there is a sinister reading then that is the one people like OB will push, and their readers will (for the most part) lap it up.

[KiwiInOz]

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/CqDSdIg.jpg
Text version
Sharon Hill ‏@IDoubtIt
Does block and disengage sound fair to you?

Brian Engler ‏@BrianEngler
@IDoubtIt Yep.

22 Jan 13

Sharon Hill ‏@IDoubtIt
@BrianEngler Disappointed to hear that from you Brian.
[/spoiler]

What is the context?

[debaser71]

Ok before this gets silly. My initial post was partially tongue in cheek. I am a stay at home dad and the childcare is my department. I am also fully aware of how breastfeeding works.

[TheMan]

They didn't always use a gun, I believe that originally the kneecap was dug out with a knife or chisel. But the knees could also be smashed with a hammer.

Or a power drill.

or a screwdriver....

:)

[KiwiInOz]

Vicky, that tweet to Benson was a little naive. Out of context, it looks like direct threat.

Agreed. It was pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

What you might not know about twitter is that there is a little button that says 'view conversation' which instantly puts the tweet in it's context. And just incase it gets lost in the shuffle, it all got screen capped. So I can always put it back in context.

Do you really think Benson didn't click that button to see the context of this juicy 'death threat'?

The only one being naive was Benson in thinking she could get away with that.

I agree with Vicky here.

Look, if we are going to have to parse every fucking tweet to make sure it can't be isolated and taken out of context by Ophelia "Fuck Off" Benson, we might as well shut the fuck up.

I think it is helpful to look at what you're saying and make absolutely sure that it cannot be interpreted in the wrong way, because as we have seen recently if there is a sinister reading then that is the one people like OB will push, and their readers will (for the most part) lap it up.

To be fair; I had to read Vicky's tweet twice to get the actual meaning. But I didn't see it as a threat in the first reading.

[KiwiInOz]

[spoiler]

They didn't always use a gun, I believe that originally the kneecap was dug out with a knife or chisel. But the knees could also be smashed with a hammer.

Or a power drill.

[/spoiler]


or a screwdriver....

:)

Paging Rystefn. Paging Rystefn.

[Mark Neil]

[spoiler]

We take steps to keep our stuff from being robbed (locks, padlocks, fences), we take precautions to avoid being hurt in accidents (seatbelts, helmets), and some people take precautions to avoid being shot (training, kevlar vests).

That's not saying they're to blame if something happens to them, or that they could have prevented their own rapes if they had followed the rules, it's acknowledging that we don't live in a perfect world and we can and should do things to minimize the risks we're exposed to.

It would be great if no one stole things, or killed people, or raped people, but until that happens, I'll try to do things that could increase my safety. That's common sense to me, I really don't understand why some people see prevention attempts as blame.

IMO, the parody doesn't work because the original "rules" make sense, they are things that someone can do to minimize risk (not only women, I know a lot of cases of people who have been drugged by strangers and then robbed or kidnapped), but these "parody rules" are just silly.

[/spoiler]


But I think you are ignoring the historical context for why this kind of feminist propaganda exist, which is that in the past, and in the present in some countries, rape cases have been thrown out because it was judged that the woman "brought it on herself" by wearing revealing clothing or whatever other bullshit reason was concocted by the defense which caused the accused to lose control of his senses and commit such an immoral act. It is far less common for "the victim brought it on themselves" defense arguments to be used when the crime isn't rape.

And how exactly does that justify attacking men through such adverts? what you describe has nothing to do with "telling men not to rape", it has to do with addressing the way the justice system handles preventative measures vs blaim. But by making it about the evil menz, you are othering, which I was under the impression feminism was against. But if you can explain how telling men not to rape, and telling women they should never be expected to be responsible for their own well being, that she should depend on the good graces of the men around her, will impact judges, I'm all ears.

[Gumby]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 453873.jpg

:roll:

What the fuck does Amy need an assistant for? Someone to squeeze out turds for her SquirrelyRamics?

[cunt]

I have an idea to stop car thieves. We raise millions of pounds and run a bunch of adverts informing them that car thievery is just wrong. That just because somebody has left an iPhone 5 on the front seat of their car, that DOES NOT excuse you from breaking the window and taking it. That's bad. Then we get super pissy at the other PSAs put out by the police that victim blame people into taking precautions.

Alternatively, we take the money and set it on fire.

[Tony Parsehole]

Seems to be well in line with the "Don't tell women not to be raped, tell men not to rape" Kind of campaigns found in such places as the University of Ottawa student center

What exactly is wrong with that mind set? "Don't tell people not to get murdered, tell people not to murder."

"DON'T TELL ME TO LOCK MY FUCKING DOOR WHEN I GO ON HOLIDAY FOR 2 WEEKS! TEACH THE FUCKING BURGLAR TO KEEP OFF MY STUFF!"

[jimthepleb]

Ok before this gets silly. My initial post was partially tongue in cheek. I am a stay at home dad and the childcare is my department. I am also fully aware of how breastfeeding works.

yeah sorry i can be a daft bugger sometimes didn't mean to be snarky.
i do get to fondle around 1800 nipples twice a day though ... which is nice :)

[jimthepleb]

[spoiler]

They didn't always use a gun, I believe that originally the kneecap was dug out with a knife or chisel. But the knees could also be smashed with a hammer.

Or a power drill.

[/spoiler]


or a screwdriver....

:)

Paging Rystefn. Paging Rystefn.

is he still trying to bang in a 6" nail with his cock?

[Gumby]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 453873.jpg

Sara Mayhew responds with this bit of hilarity:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 02cdfc.jpg

http://yfrog.com/scaled/landing/863/xc7oe.jpg

[KiwiInOz]

[spoiler]

Ok before this gets silly. My initial post was partially tongue in cheek. I am a stay at home dad and the childcare is my department. I am also fully aware of how breastfeeding works.

yeah sorry i can be a daft bugger sometimes didn't mean to be snarky.[/spoiler]
i do get to fondle around 1800 nipples twice a day though ... which is nice :)

That's right. Flaunt your privilege.

[another lurker]

Ok before this gets silly. My initial post was partially tongue in cheek. I am a stay at home dad and the childcare is my department. I am also fully aware of how breastfeeding works.

Men can lactate, I believe:P

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

Males of many different mammalian species have the potential to lactate, although only one, the Dayak fruit bat of Southeast Asia, does so spontaneously. Diamond points out, however, that with the societal norm of fathers helping to rear their young, male milk production could actually be to our advantage, especially with all the career women trying to balance the demands of job and family. Why else would men still have nipples?

So get to it man, we are waiting!

BTW, from the article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media ... D744_1.gif

This man is being objectified! Where is his head!?

[Apples]

Sara Mayhew responds with this bit of hilarity:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 02cdfc.jpg
http://yfrog.com/scaled/landing/863/xc7oe.jpg

Thank god for brave and snarky sister-punishers. That makes my evening. :)

[Michael K Gray]

Renee: Who gave the $0.92?

Reminds me of the old joke (the FC(n) et. al. are going to love this one!) about the couple who was short of money, so the wife went out on the game. She came back after eight hours with UKL350.50. The husband asked "Which cheap bastard gave you 50p?" and the wife replied "PZAll of them."

In one of my efforts, I gave $17.92 (iirc), 'cos the round figures were getting bland.

[Brain Box]

And how exactly does that justify attacking men through such adverts? what you describe has nothing to do with "telling men not to rape", it has to do with addressing the way the justice system handles preventative measures vs blaim. But by making it about the evil menz, you are othering, which I was under the impression feminism was against. But if you can explain how telling men not to rape, and telling women they should never be expected to be responsible for their own well being, that she should depend on the good graces of the men around her, will impact judges, I'm all ears.

I am only defending part of their argument and not necessarily the way they communicated it. Why do you assume they are attacking all men and not just male rapists? They are making fun of rapists who use the argument that they couldn't control themselves and that the rape victim is to blame for precipitating the crime by the way she acted/dressed/or whatever.

[Metalogic42]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... agreement/

They're actually taking this seriously! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TheMan]

Sara Mayhew responds with this bit of hilarity:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 02cdfc.jpg
http://yfrog.com/scaled/landing/863/xc7oe.jpg

Thank god for brave and snarky sister-punishers. That makes my evening. :)

Brought a chuckle this end..... :)

[another lurker]

[spoiler]

We take steps to keep our stuff from being robbed (locks, padlocks, fences), we take precautions to avoid being hurt in accidents (seatbelts, helmets), and some people take precautions to avoid being shot (training, kevlar vests).

That's not saying they're to blame if something happens to them, or that they could have prevented their own rapes if they had followed the rules, it's acknowledging that we don't live in a perfect world and we can and should do things to minimize the risks we're exposed to.

It would be great if no one stole things, or killed people, or raped people, but until that happens, I'll try to do things that could increase my safety. That's common sense to me, I really don't understand why some people see prevention attempts as blame.

IMO, the parody doesn't work because the original "rules" make sense, they are things that someone can do to minimize risk (not only women, I know a lot of cases of people who have been drugged by strangers and then robbed or kidnapped), but these "parody rules" are just silly.

[/spoiler]


But I think you are ignoring the historical context for why this kind of feminist propaganda exist, which is that in the past, and in the present in some countries, rape cases have been thrown out because it was judged that the woman "brought it on herself" by wearing revealing clothing or whatever other bullshit reason was concocted by the defense which caused the accused to lose control of his senses and commit such an immoral act. It is far less common for "the victim brought it on themselves" defense arguments to be used when the crime isn't rape.

The bold part reminds me of this bullshit:

Addressing 500 worshippers on the topic of adultery, Sheik al-Hilali added: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."

Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2IkXt5TLa

[Brain Box]

I have an idea to stop car thieves. We raise millions of pounds and run a bunch of adverts informing them that car thievery is just wrong. That just because somebody has left an iPhone 5 on the front seat of their car, that DOES NOT excuse you from breaking the window and taking it. That's bad. Then we get super pissy at the other PSAs put out by the police that victim blame people into taking precautions.

Alternatively, we take the money and set it on fire.

Pretty weak analogy. First of all, when was the last time a defendant said "I couldn't resist stealing that phone because it was so enticing!" and got off the hook?

Obviously the feminist poster is an over exaggeration of the problem, that of rape apology, but the thought process it is ridiculing isn't without precedent.

[CommanderTuvok]

From Svan's cesspit:

Do not let this stop you from attending. In the comments, Melody Hensley, who is organizing the conference assures us that she has everything in hand, whether or not Vacula attends. If you have specific concerns, however, she also provides contact information. So go register. It’s going to be a gathering of amazing people.

I wonder what she means when she says Melody has everything in hand? I notice in the comments consist entirely of scaremongering, and not a single credible accusation can be found amongst them. They are bullying and harassing Justin - AGAIN.

Is it possible that people could contact Melody putting forth our worries that people attending WIS have a history of bullying and harassing Justin, and others in the community?

[cunt]

When was the last time a rapist got off the hook when he said "she was asking for it"?

[another lurker]

When was the last time a rapist got off the hook when he said "she was asking for it"?

It can vary from 'clumsy down Juan' (happened in Canada) to "she didn't fight back hard enough". In these cases I am not sure if the men got off completely, but their sentences were reduced. The 'she didnt fight back hard enough' was a case where a man raped a girl who had cerebral palsy, and b/c the girl didn't 'fight', (well duh, she couldnt fucking move) the rapist got a lenient sentence. To be fair of course, the rapist was the boyfriend of the girl's mother - the girl's mother wanted her rapist bf to get outta jail free, so she lied about what a slut her most paralyzed daughter was. Piece of shit that woman!

There was also a case a couple of years ago that prompted slut walks in Canada - a cop said 'hey ladies, if you didn't dress sexy, you wouldn't get raped' or something to that effect.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Vicky, that tweet to Benson was a little naive. Out of context, it looks like direct threat.

Agreed. It was pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

What you might not know about twitter is that there is a little button that says 'view conversation' which instantly puts the tweet in it's context. And just incase it gets lost in the shuffle, it all got screen capped. So I can always put it back in context.

Do you really think Benson didn't click that button to see the context of this juicy 'death threat'?

The only one being naive was Benson in thinking she could get away with that.

don

True, but people can be sneaky. You never know where a screencap might turn up. It wouldn't stand scrutiny, but then people don't always do much scrutinizing. You can't be everywhere at once to correct when BS spreads. People spread lies long after they are debunked.

[Apples]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... agreement/

They're actually taking this seriously! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow. If I'm not mistaken, that may be the first time the 'Pit has actually had a full screencap shoutout over at FTB. Should be good for business.

I do find it quite odd that she feels the need to say, in her introduction to JVac's video: "Vacula’s delivery in the video is more melodramatic than dramatic, and as he mentions in the notes on the video, there’s a long stretch where he can’t stop himself from laughing."

True, Vacula's no Laurence Olivier, but then again, EEB ain't Shakespeare.

[debaser71]

And how exactly does that justify attacking men through such adverts? what you describe has nothing to do with "telling men not to rape", it has to do with addressing the way the justice system handles preventative measures vs blaim. But by making it about the evil menz, you are othering, which I was under the impression feminism was against. But if you can explain how telling men not to rape, and telling women they should never be expected to be responsible for their own well being, that she should depend on the good graces of the men around her, will impact judges, I'm all ears.

I am only defending part of their argument and not necessarily the way they communicated it. Why do you assume they are attacking all men and not just male rapists? They are making fun of rapists who use the argument that they couldn't control themselves and that the rape victim is to blame for precipitating the crime by the way she acted/dressed/or whatever.

Because if I said, "ladies, stop being such gold digging whores", women would rightfully be upset. Does it matter then if I say, "hey ladies, if you are not a gold digging whore, then there's no reason for you to be upset!"?

Also, take this historical context. Shrodingers Rapsit. But no no, these posters are just fun. Sorry I am not buying it.

[debaser71]

When was the last time a rapist got off the hook when he said "she was asking for it"?

It can vary from 'clumsy down Juan' (happened in Canada) to "she didn't fight back hard enough". In these cases I am not sure if the men got off completely, but their sentences were reduced. The 'she didnt fight back hard enough' was a case where a man raped a girl who had cerebral palsy, and b/c the girl didn't 'fight', (well duh, she couldnt fucking move) the rapist got a lenient sentence. To be fair of course, the rapist was the boyfriend of the girl's mother - the girl's mother wanted her rapist bf to get outta jail free, so she lied about what a slut her most paralyzed daughter was. Piece of shit that woman!

There was also a case a couple of years ago that prompted slut walks in Canada - a cop said 'hey ladies, if you didn't dress sexy, you wouldn't get raped' or something to that effect.

I suggest you google what was actually said by that cop. I think justicar did a video of it too.

[Mark Neil]

And how exactly does that justify attacking men through such adverts? what you describe has nothing to do with "telling men not to rape", it has to do with addressing the way the justice system handles preventative measures vs blaim. But by making it about the evil menz, you are othering, which I was under the impression feminism was against. But if you can explain how telling men not to rape, and telling women they should never be expected to be responsible for their own well being, that she should depend on the good graces of the men around her, will impact judges, I'm all ears.

I am only defending part of their argument

Which part precisely. Be specific.

Why do you assume they are attacking all men and not just male rapists?

because it is directed at all men, as if they are all potential rapists (check out shrodinger's rapist if you aren't already familiar with it).

They are making fun of rapists who use the argument that they couldn't control themselves and that the rape victim is to blame for precipitating the crime by the way she acted/dressed/or whatever.

No actually, they are challenging the idea that a woman should be expected to take some responsibility for her own personal safety when it is men that are doing the crime, as if we lived in a perfect, crime free world, except for those damn rapists. Crime happens, and not just rape. We all, men included, take precautions to avoid being victimized by those elements that don't give a damn about what's right or wrong. But when the crime is rape, it seems it suddenly becomes to much to tell a women something that we routinely tell 3-4 year old children.

Now, if you wish to address judges and law enforcement using those preventative measures as excuses to dismiss cases, by all means, go right ahead. Provide your evidence it happens and I'll back you 100%. But this is an entirely different issue. And just for the record, men aren't the only ones getting a free pass on crime http://stephenkimber.com/2010/05/the-te ... ment-77736 You did say something about "don't murder", right?

[another lurker]

When was the last time a rapist got off the hook when he said "she was asking for it"?

It can vary from 'clumsy down Juan' (happened in Canada) to "she didn't fight back hard enough". In these cases I am not sure if the men got off completely, but their sentences were reduced. The 'she didnt fight back hard enough' was a case where a man raped a girl who had cerebral palsy, and b/c the girl didn't 'fight', (well duh, she couldnt fucking move) the rapist got a lenient sentence. To be fair of course, the rapist was the boyfriend of the girl's mother - the girl's mother wanted her rapist bf to get outta jail free, so she lied about what a slut her most paralyzed daughter was. Piece of shit that woman!

There was also a case a couple of years ago that prompted slut walks in Canada - a cop said 'hey ladies, if you didn't dress sexy, you wouldn't get raped' or something to that effect.

I suggest you google what was actually said by that cop. I think justicar did a video of it too.

I will try to find Justicar's video and see what he had to say. But so far 'don't dress like a slut' seems to be the quote.

"One of the safety tips was for women not to dress like 'sluts.' He said something like, 'I've been told I shouldn't say this,' and then he uttered the words," Ronda Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program, told York University's newspaper the Excalibur.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the ... le1911737/