If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

sKepptiksowat wrote:Just some boosterism to due to my lack of intellectual gravitas and skills of writing.

Possible tv series?
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5170/alfivles.jpg



If you like the vid Myk please use it. If not, it was still fun making it. Your avatar gave me the vision. Evil it is.
[youtube]XwMmBIxfOr0[/youtube]

Zenspace wrote:
:o Wow! the Stefanelli one is cool, but then Mykeru one is AWESOME!!! :clap:

16bitheretic wrote:But that's the funny thing, isn't it Richard? You people never attack actual arguments. You just keep typing stupid acronyms to make yourself appear to be soooo intellectually superior, and you toss out words like "fallacy" in the same buzzword fashion that the A+ forumers use words like "privilege"

sKepptiksowat wrote:... So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote: I have a more practical view: The boobs I have access to are AMAZING AND PERFECT. The others are nice as well, but not as good as the ones I have access to.

By virtue of you having access to them, or intrinsically?

Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... atriarchy/

Jason Thibeault wrote:Here’s an interesting app for a number of browsers that lets you, with the click of a button, swap all the pronouns and gendered words (save for slurs, for some reason) in order to get a different perspective on the thing you’re reading. It makes for an interesting juxtaposition to see how male and female politicians are described in general discourse, for instance.
And take any arbitrary story about sexism, and you’ll end up with something that would get MRAs’ blood boiling:

Yesterday, a man by the name of Gabrielle Toledano – evidently a human resources manager for EA games – wrote a rather confusing and deeply problematic op-ed for Forbes outlining why, in his estimation, sexism isn’t responsible for the dearth of men in gaming. To quote his opening remarks:

It’s easy to blame women for not creating an attractive work environment – but I think that’s a cop-out. If we want more men to work in games, we have to recognize that the problem isn’t sexism.
…The issue I have is that the video game industry is being painted as more sexist than other female-dominated workforces. I know sexism exists, but the issue isn’t just in video games. And it’s not what’s holding us back.
Nonetheless, there are still too few men working in my company, so it’s clear there is an issue to fix. Rather than blame the majority just because they are the majority, I believe the solution starts with us – men.

Which is, frankly, one of the most flippant, useless and blithely ignorant summaries of the problem I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Completely changes your perspective on things, doesn’t it?
The original Chrome extension written by Danielle Sucher was also ported to Safari and the cross-platform cross-browser Greasemonkey, so no need to feel left out of the fun.
And there’s also a Jailbreak the Binary app to scrub out all references to gender. Take Katy Perry’s hit:
I kissed a person and I liked it,
the taste of hir cherry chapstick.
I kissed a person just to try it,
I hope my significant other don’t mind it.
I’ve got both installed, and am going to make a point of enabling it on all my posts when doing re-reads of drafts. I think it’ll pay dividends in my writing, possibly.

:violin:

(Seriously, though, but what in the actual fuck?)

sKepptiksowat wrote:I suppose I should offer up my graphics services as others have. So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

Metalogic42 wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:But that's the funny thing, isn't it Richard? You people never attack actual arguments. You just keep typing stupid acronyms to make yourself appear to be soooo intellectually superior, and you toss out words like "fallacy" in the same buzzword fashion that the A+ forumers use words like "privilege"

This annoys me to no end, especially since there's a list of formal and informal fallacies on Wikipedia. Anything not on that list is not a fallacy.

VickyCaramel wrote:

Apples wrote:I don't have the link or screenshot for the Sara/Becky "ragging" kerfuffle, but it sounds like a "niggardly nigger" argument. Yes, ragging/on the rag is slang for menstruating (i.e., you stuff a rag in your panties as an old-fashioned crude sanitary pad). However,

Per the Online Etymology dictionary:

rag (v.): "scold," 1739, of unknown origin; perhaps related to Danish dialectal rag "grudge." Related: Ragged; ragging.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed ... hmode=none

But if Brainy Becky wants to argue that the usage "to rag on someone" has something to do with women or menstruation and is therefore sexist, then I suppose we must concede that, and accept the fact that Galileo was executed by John the Other, who threw acid in his face as punishment for his heretical views on evolutionary psychology.

Am I missing something? I have heard "on the rag", but who uses "ragging" to mean menstruating? That's a new one of me. Rag can be slang for a number of things, tabloid newspapers for example. But the meaning of "ragging" is teasing or bullying. I haven't seen a dictionary definition of 'ragging' which says it means menstruating.

Isn't Watson just plain wrong?

If rag-time was called tempo di raga or rague-temps it might win honor more speedily. ... What the derivation of the word is[,] I have not the faintest idea. The negroes call their clog-dancing "ragging" and the dance a "rag." [Rupert Hughes, Boston "Musical Record," April 1900]

CommanderTuvok wrote:ElevatorGATE can be a bit of an idiot at times, but sometimes, he captures some wonderful Baboon bloopers. In this Twitter exchange, Aratina Cage attempts to intimidate Hayley Stevens using the "guilt by association" gambit. Cage is in full throttle mode until Rhys Morgan steps in to defend Hayley. Obviously, this rebuke from one of the Baboon's favourite sons dents the confidence of poor old Cagey, as you can see from his last post!

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... and-rhysmo

:lol:

KiwiInOz wrote:

sKepptiksowat wrote:... So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

You have a donkey?

A donkey who takes your messages?

Wow.

That is so cool.

d4m10n wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

sKepptiksowat wrote:... So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

You have a donkey?

A donkey who takes your messages?

Wow.

That is so cool.

As a seminary dropout, I seem to recall something about the Second Coming of Balaam's Talking Ass.

appalling wrote:JREF has standards of civility that include Avalon or others. That means their points must be addressed and dealt with.

I think of it as a disagreement dial, if you allow everyone, you have thousands of people on stage, including everyone who is right about a topic and everyone who isn't, and somebody just swearing.

If you turn the dial, you get to where you have a hearable level of people arguing (eliminating the swearing person, who might have been right, but probably wasn't).

If you turn it down again, you get a group of friends, right or wrong, less viewpoints but people feel safer talking.

If you turn it right down, you have one person on stage, right, or wrong (probably both in a complex world) and you can hear every word they say. At this point you have a novel, right or wrong.

Arguing that one part of the dial is the "strongest" is too simplistic.

A+ has different moderation and it's a different conversation.

Amadanb wrote:What "dissenting views" do you think are not allowed there? Be specific. I can think of a few - someone who is openly racist or anti-feminist would probably be banned quickly. So in that respect, it's less permissive than here, maybe, but like I said, they have set the forum up as a place where people don't have to deal with bigots and trolls. That's not censorship, and even if you think every place on the Internet should allow every opinion to be expressed freely (I don't agree), it still wouldn't make them a "groupthink cult."

Zenspace wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:ElevatorGATE can be a bit of an idiot at times, but sometimes, he captures some wonderful Baboon bloopers. In this Twitter exchange, Aratina Cage attempts to intimidate Hayley Stevens using the "guilt by association" gambit. Cage is in full throttle mode until Rhys Morgan steps in to defend Hayley. Obviously, this rebuke from one of the Baboon's favourite sons dents the confidence of poor old Cagey, as you can see from his last post!

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... and-rhysmo

:lol:

The Pyt has been elevated (pun intended) to an 'ethos'. Cool! :D

welch wrote:

sKepptiksowat wrote:I suppose I should offer up my graphics services as others have. So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

Bend over bitch, imma PM you like a BOSS!

KiwiInOz wrote:

sKepptiksowat wrote:... So, if you want me to work on something for your youtube or what have you, pm my ass.

You have a donkey?

A donkey who takes your messages?

Wow.

That is so cool.

ERV wrote: Obviously. Shes done precisely that ("The speaker feels uncomfortable so you cant come").

Apples wrote:

Gumby wrote:I don't think Quontir is gonna last too much longer...

Yeah, he got in a few good jabs at Ceepolk, but for some reason the other Mods seem afraid of Ceepolk. Can't imagine why :?

Setar wrote:

Quontir wrote:It's called ANXIETY and Social Anxiety that you don't have a problem with people triggering Anxiety tells me a whole fucklot about how little of a safe space this might be.

Um. Quontir, I understand you may feel that way, but...you're not the only person with anxiety that us here have had to deal with. I do too, and, well, from my perspective the people here do care about not triggering it. You just have to make it known in the first place that you have it, because otherwise no one else can know it.

I'd like you to walk this statement back, please, because I feel very much erased by it.

Eowyn Entwife wrote:Orneon, I am sorry that I did not remember that you had told that your first language is French. When you come back, maybe what I have written here below will make it easier for you to see what caused the problems?

Apologies in advance for the likely horrible French grammar and dated usage: I have not used French actively since 1977-82.

1) Did you get permission to post what you then in fact posted? Avez-vous obtenu la permission de poster ce que vous alors avez en fait poster? ...

2) Was there reason to see your second post as a dishonest derail? Y avait-il raison de voir votre deuxième message postè comme un déraillement malhonnête?

You asked for permission to extend the topic. The word "extend" has several meanings http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend, one of which -- number 3, a rather old or legal meaning -- is synonymous to "take over" or "replace" or "take control of". The rest of its meanings are alike "grow", "make larger", "make longer" (in space or time), "increase" and "spread".

French translations of extend by Google Translate [ Show ]
étendre - extend, expand, be extended, stretch out, spread out, roll
prolonger - extend, prolong, lengthen, sustain, stretch, protract
s'étendre - extend, spread, expand, range, stretch, reach
augmenter - increase, raise, rise, enhance, grow, extend
accorder - grant, give, award, accord, allow, extend
agrandir - enlarge, extend, grow, widen, aggrandize
offrir - offer, give, afford, present, extend, treat
rallonger - extend, make longer
renforcer - strengthen, reinforce, enhance, boost, consolidate, extend
déployer - deploy, display, unfold, spread, extend, exert
enrichir - enrich, extend
améliorer - improve, enhance, better, upgrade, ameliorate, extend

None of those^^ translations describes what you actually did: you wrote about three different issues than the OP (they are related/connected issues but still different issues). You also wrote that you would prefer to not discuss the topic of the OP yourself, because you know little about it. That constitutes an attempt to change the focus of a thread away from the original topic.

Changing the focus of a thread away from the original topic is the definition of thread derailing: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... a%20thread and derailing is explicitly forbidden in our rules: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=190


3) What was criticized - you or your post? Ce qui a été critiqué - vous ou votre message postè?

Please consider the following:

This [here, which you have said/written] looks a lot like a dishonest derail.
Cette [ici, que vous avez dit/écrit] ressemble bien à un déraillement malhonnête.

I see a difference between the above and the below - do you?

You are dishonest!
Vous êtes malhonnête!

I hope this helps in figuring out what happened.

comslave wrote:

ERV wrote: Obviously. Shes done precisely that ("The speaker feels uncomfortable so you cant come").

I'd love to be wrong, and see Justin welcomed and allowed to participate. however the childish behavior I've seen from the other side and various signals they've already sent suggest he's going to be removed.

I don't waste time trying to attend parties I'm not invited to. Something I learned in high school.

Ape+lust wrote:I just noticed Caine Fleur du mal's Wimmen Power avatar is a gnu getting fisted. Goatse+

http://i.imgur.com/gnXl9A6.png

Mykeru wrote:

Altair wrote: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.

I like strong women. I like opinionated women.

What I really dislike, though, is women (or men, for that matter) who want to be "opinionated" and then whine in the fetal position in a corner should they be exposed to other people's opinion.

Solution: Get stronger women who aren't raging hypocrites.

For some strange reason (considering us dudebros) we have a lot of those give and take strong women around here.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VMSUn2TMfXo/R ... vable2.jpg

d4m10n wrote:

comslave wrote:

ERV wrote: Obviously. Shes done precisely that ("The speaker feels uncomfortable so you cant come").

I'd love to be wrong, and see Justin welcomed and allowed to participate. however the childish behavior I've seen from the other side and various signals they've already sent suggest he's going to be removed.

I don't waste time trying to attend parties I'm not invited to. Something I learned in high school.

Again, the e-mail that matters here is rlindsay@centerforinquiry.net so please feel free to write him a quick note saying that you expect CFI to live up to their bold words, “No topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny.”

HoneyWagon wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cWxDtY7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9gsKuFF.jpg

Plan ahead Vacula. Preemptively communicate with Melody's boss before you are painted as a total rage-filled woman hater.
Or even more so.

Louis wrote:Dear 'pitters,

Sorry to be such a useless old fart, but I'm going to have to bow out. I know, I know, what a tool. My bad I'm afraid, I haven't the time to do an effective job of being the "lone voice" against the "mob" (not that I'm a lone voice and you're a mob, but you know what I mean). I am afflicted with SIWOTI syndrome too badly not to want to right every damned wrong I see, and I haven't the time for that sort of investment. It might be easier without all the attempts at "gotcha" and playground grabass, but let's be blunt, that occurs everywhere, it's not you lot particularly. Cheers for the opportunity though.

I'll do my bit of the bargain, i.e. I'll check before I believe you're all a bunch of evil whassnames (which let's be blunt I did anyway), and you do your bit. Au revoir.

Louis

Mykeru wrote:

Altair wrote: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.

I like strong women. I like opinionated women.

What I really dislike, though, is women (or men, for that matter) who want to be "opinionated" and then whine in the fetal position in a corner should they be exposed to other people's opinion.

justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/ld9GgYy.jpg

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote: I have a more practical view: The boobs I have access to are AMAZING AND PERFECT. The others are nice as well, but not as good as the ones I have access to.

By virtue of you having access to them, or intrinsically?

Mykeru wrote:

welch wrote:

Richard Dworkins wrote:Does anyone consider, that the dribbling coterie of virtual tourette sufferers at FtB may actually just be pseudonyms for the bloggers at FtB, that they are deliberately being hostile in comments in order that people attempt to defend themselves and therefore produce more hits.

At this point I genuinely wonder if a large majority of hits and comments are not coming from those here. Are you feeding what you hate rather than letting it starve? I'm not saying this is the case, but would it surprise anyone?

I comment there rarely, and only on sites where I'm not banned. SO that's...justin griffith, Aron Ra, and that avicienne dude. But I use my real name, and tend not to sit around hitting refresh.

I have never been banned from Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, or the Atheism Plus forum. That's because I have never posted a comment on any of them, have never registered an account and refuse to engage them within their echo chamber.

I get the impression that this really bothers them. Like everything else.

Given all we know about their banning, blocking, even editing posts to cast people in a poor light, to engage then on their turf seems futile at best and counterproductive because it gives the impression of their being more discussion and active users than there really is. Gee, registered yet another account to pester P.Z.? That'll show him. A little discussion and selective editing, not to mention site hits, before the ban-hammer falls. Boy, that'll get him by the balls.

On level fields such as comment sections outside of their control, then it's open season on the fuckers.

rayshul wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote: I have a more practical view: The boobs I have access to are AMAZING AND PERFECT. The others are nice as well, but not as good as the ones I have access to.

By virtue of you having access to them, or intrinsically?

A boob in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Or something.

(CATCHING UP ON THE PIT VERY SLOWLY)

18

Francisco Bacopa
January 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm (UTC -8)
Seriously y’all, lawyer up. Hire private investigators. They will never stop until you can prove you can hit harder than they hit you. The long arm of the law is a pretty powerful fist. Make an effort to find out what legal recourse you have. Hire private investigators to dig up dirt. Find one of your worst harassers and hit him with a civil suit and release of embarrassing information at the same time.

You have to hit back hard, and with such shocking violence (and by violence I mean civil court injunctions and such, along with old 1995 Usenet posts about bedwetting domination fantasies) that others are deterred. They will never stop until you can instill fear.

If I were supplied with any address in Southeast Texas of one of your harassers I would gladly paint a butterfly on their driveway to send a message.

You can’t make them stop until they are afraid of you. Use the law when you can, and call for a higher level of harassment when you can’t. I am serious. I can tag anywhere from Austin to Lake Charles.

AndrewV69 wrote:

rayshul wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote: I have a more practical view: The boobs I have access to are AMAZING AND PERFECT. The others are nice as well, but not as good as the ones I have access to.

By virtue of you having access to them, or intrinsically?

A boob in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Or something.

(CATCHING UP ON THE PIT VERY SLOWLY)

I nearly composed something about two boobs and a bush in the bush before I stopped myself. You people of the pit are a baaaaaad influence.

Dicks ..., all of ya.

Brain Box wrote:

cunt wrote: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.

cunt wrote:Someone on Ophelia's blog:

18

Francisco Bacopa
January 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm (UTC -8)
Seriously y’all, lawyer up. Hire private investigators. They will never stop until you can prove you can hit harder than they hit you. The long arm of the law is a pretty powerful fist. Make an effort to find out what legal recourse you have. Hire private investigators to dig up dirt. Find one of your worst harassers and hit him with a civil suit and release of embarrassing information at the same time.

You have to hit back hard, and with such shocking violence (and by violence I mean civil court injunctions and such, along with old 1995 Usenet posts about bedwetting domination fantasies) that others are deterred. They will never stop until you can instill fear.

If I were supplied with any address in Southeast Texas of one of your harassers I would gladly paint a butterfly on their driveway to send a message.

You can’t make them stop until they are afraid of you. Use the law when you can, and call for a higher level of harassment when you can’t. I am serious. I can tag anywhere from Austin to Lake Charles.

cunt wrote:Someone on Ophelia's blog:

18

Francisco Bacopa
January 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm (UTC -8)
Seriously y’all, lawyer up. Hire private investigators. They will never stop until you can prove you can hit harder than they hit you. The long arm of the law is a pretty powerful fist. Make an effort to find out what legal recourse you have. Hire private investigators to dig up dirt. Find one of your worst harassers and hit him with a civil suit and release of embarrassing information at the same time.

You have to hit back hard, and with such shocking violence (and by violence I mean civil court injunctions and such, along with old 1995 Usenet posts about bedwetting domination fantasies) that others are deterred. They will never stop until you can instill fear.

If I were supplied with any address in Southeast Texas of one of your harassers I would gladly paint a butterfly on their driveway to send a message.

You can’t make them stop until they are afraid of you. Use the law when you can, and call for a higher level of harassment when you can’t. I am serious. I can tag anywhere from Austin to Lake Charles.

KiwiInOz wrote:

Corylus wrote:[spoiler]

Aurelian wrote:I've been wondering what an actual definition for the FTB/Skepchick/A+ triumvirate's favourite hobby horse, privilege, would actually be, beyond that of being a white, straight, cisgendered man.
A suggestion from me to start: a person of privilege is someone who, not having the necessary intelligence or work ethic, is able to exercise influence through being born into a certain position (monarchy, aristocracy), through the use of wealth, or both. Examples would include the British royal family, or the Bush and Clinton families in America. Thoughts? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I think a little :)

However, it is a stick that has been poked in everyone's face for a while so it is almost impossible to not get the wrong end of it. Privilege generally refers to people being unaware of the lack of possible disadvantages that they encounter (well it used to). It is meant to be conceptualized as a ‘consciousness raising’ concept whereby no blame is attributed to the “privilegee”, but instead the understanding of general disadvantage increased. Such situations are accordingly highlighted with the aim of informing intellectual and societal change. In this model the notion of considering one's own privilege (I utterly refuse to use the word 'check') is just an instruction to consider whether other people have barriers against them that you yourself do not.

For example, I became aware of a lack of barriers for me when I recently accompanied a wheelchair-using friend on a trip involving lots of public transport and a flight. Yes, we could access the services, in that many physical barriers were removed for us, but the emotional barriers were still very much in place. For example, there was the general impression that we were too-much-bother; that is was OK to talk down to us like children; to think it was appropriate to marshal us into roped off areas, and to generally forget about us. It was "no fun" even if vicarious "no fun". Do I now feel guilty for having the full use of my legs? No of course not. Do I have some suggestions for travel companies and their staff? You betcha. Did the whole experience do me good? Why, yes. Yes it did. I was utterly exhausted by the end of it, and I now understand my friend better.

Privilege therefore can be useful tool for exploring issues of disparity and reduced access to employment/services/power etc. These disparities can be the result of historical and cultural artefacts, urban myths, emotionally conditioned reactions, or sheer bloody laziness on the part of service providers. A discussion of 'privilege can be a helpful and enlightening way to talk about reduced access. However, the way that the term is being currently mangled (as you rightly identify as exclusively about white, straight, cisgendered men) is destroying its' utility rather than increasing it. Sigh, to the extent that I actually fear the term is now irrevocably "fooked".

The hijacked notion of privilege that is currently being hawked is actually a great example of ‘essentialist’ thinking (aka ‘you is what you is’). This thinking tends to be rather lazy, and those prone to it seem to like the water of their thought to flow immediately downhill ... rather like those who dislike gay marriage for it is all about “a man and a woman” or those who dislike trans women because they can never understand the pain of those born female.

‘Privilege' itself is actually much more often context-specific as opposed to essentialist. In fact, it must be if we wish to talk about lack of barriers, because different barriers can be raised by different people (I am completely agreeing with Altair here). For example, I am privileged in class terms in that I use standard English pronunciation (with a few additional soft southern inflections). This not an essential part of me though, in that I could change my accent (with training) if I wished, and it is also completely context-specific in that there are areas of the country in which my speech could lead to my encountering problems with others. E.g. Those extreme frozen wastes are are “oop” from North London.

Of course if you fall into essentialist thinking it is very easy to go from noting that experiencing lack of barriers is more common in some parts of the populace ... to assuming that some parts of he populace are the only ones capable of being privilege ... to assuming that those with privilege are obviously part of the mechanisms of discrimination. This is very dangerous in that moral blame gets assigned without justification. It is stupid in that as we get the effortless; oft missed; move from the descriptive to prescriptive. (Oh noes!!) Lastly, and most importantly, it is also a mistaken classification in that when - what is called commonly called “privilege” - becomes essentialist in nature it is actually something better described as ‘discrimination’.

For example, I am discriminated against as a female in terms of my likelihood of access to a certain reserved seats in the upper chamber of British Parliament (the House of Lords) insofar as I am excluded from ever taking up a job as a “Lord Spiritual’. Women cannot be bishops in the Church of England. (OK, I don’t want the job, but that is not the point). This discrimination is enshrined in law, so this is not about privilege. This is not about a context specific barrier - this is about deliberate exclusion. This is thus separate from discussions on privilege.

Of course, discrimination does - and should - annoy us a very great deal, waaay more than privilege does. The above is an example of the law messing with my democratic engagement. This is an outsourcing of my concerns (bishops are very fond of talking about things that actually impact upon me more than them) to people that I have not voted for and who do not represent me. I reserve my true anger for cases like these. I do wish others could do the same.

Now, of course, you can get cases where both privilege and discrimination are present (let’s make it really complicated!). For example, I discovered, to my surprise, that I was more ‘privileged’ as a female than a male when seeking rental accommodation as a student. Landlords (unofficially but consistently) were more likely to take on groups of all females, or mixed gender groups, than they were to take on groups of all males. The rationale was that females were tidier; a civilizing influence, and were overall less likely to trash the house: the actual evidence for this position being distinctly mixed. However, housing discrimination is also explicitly codified against (aka, illegal) – which is why landlords are covert about their choices. So this is both privilege and discrimination.

So where to go from here? The major distinction between ‘privilege’ and ‘discrimination’ is what you do when faced with it. With discrimination you can codify against it and watch for people flouting the law, with privilege you become aware of the process, foster evidence about the intrinsic irrationality of certain positions, and generally make an effort to be equitable in all of your dealings. Sometimes you need to do both - in cases where both privilege and discrimination are present. However, laws and actions seeking to reduce privilege alone are often superfluous at best and ludicrous – or even repressive – at worst. Let's not go there.

Now, back to my example of speech patterns and how this is about privilege alone. There is no reason for me to feel guilty about my speech patterns; seek to change them, or (heaven forfend!) seek to outlaw them. I simply need to be aware that other accents are common and have a care to treat people in response to what they say, rather than the geographical/societal background that their intonation conveys. Privilege and moral condemnation should only go together when people seek to ignore the former in order to avoid the latter.

Of course, it is possible that some moral condemnation is based in an inchoate understanding that a feeling of guilt would actually be appropriate ....

Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. Thus when the frustrated congregate in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion. There is prying and spying, tense watching and a sense of being watched. The surprising thing is that this pathological mistrust within the ranks leads not to dissension but to strict conformity. Knowing themselves continually watched, the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion.

Eric Hoffer, 1951.

[/spoiler]

Oh dear, I am sorry if I have whittered on a bit! Thank you very much if you have stayed with me so far. However, this really is the only way that I can adequately explain this.

As I say, I fear that the term is now no longer useful.

You are a pleasure to read, as always.

agarybuseychristmas wrote:I missed the boat a while ago, but the long hair/short hair thing comes from men serving in the military. If you had long hair as a man, you didn't serve in the military, and thus were some dope-smoking hippie. Women's long hair preference has mostly been a thing relating to wealth and health, much like tanned skin. Much like paleness, however, few people give a shit if some woman decided to get a pixie cut or a bob or something.

What is often called 'short hair' is actually some type of punkish shave of some type that people in general cannot get away with, not just women. I wonder how much it counts as 'society telling me I can't have long hair' when I am followed constantly by loss protection at virtually every store there is.

debaser71 wrote:Granted this is going back a few decades but when I had long hair, it's wasn't acceptable to a lot of people. And it wasn't just the guido assholes.

Skep tickle wrote:Any of you live in SE Texas? (Don't answer that publicly.)

If a butterfly shows up inexplicably one morning, painted on your driveway, be sure to take photos and call the police to file a report, y'hear?

sKepptiksowat wrote:

Zenspace wrote:
:o Wow! the Stefanelli one is cool, but then Mykeru one is AWESOME!!! :clap:

Thanks Zen. Much appreciated.

Skep tickle wrote:
Postè? That does not look right. Otherwise, I can't comment on her attempt at French translation, but I can & do roll my eyes at her assuming that ESL means "don't know or understand the basics of forum communication" and selflessly vomiting this teaching-from-a-position-of-English-language-privilege toward a new member without first finding out if xe wants or needs it.

What is it with some A+'ers assuming that someone whose first language isn't English needs (Eowyn's assumption) basic help with, or (maiforpeace's assumption) shaming to prevent further, online communication?

sacha wrote:

Tkmlac wrote: I'm a US American, is there any hope for me?

nope

rayshul wrote:Torsogate recap: http://www.awesomeoutof10.com/features/ ... -feminism/

Because videogaming is infected with this wank in the same way skepticism is.

Skep tickle wrote:Nabbed it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-433765

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

rayshul wrote:Happy birthday Phil, also. ^_^ I think.

Skep tickle wrote: (Justicar YouTube Video:

The "Main Goal of Feminism Revealed" is an inadvertent juxtaposition that starts at ~7:10 and has him cracking up for a while. Later, once he's over the giggles, he draws an analogy between talking about privilege and praying (neither gets anything practical done), then at 12:15 gives specific advice to SJWs/feminists.

We could just call that sexist, right? If you have something that is male dominated – more men than women in it, well that’s because of sexism. So if feminism has more women than men – because the numbers are not equivalent – then by your definition that is sexist. [big smile for the crowd ;-) ]

Here’s where I would quibble with Ophelia’s representation of what Shermer said. I think the focus should have been kept on his claim that men are just more “intellectually active” rather than equating that to “women don’t do thinky.” A distinction can be made between women having the ability to think and women being interested in taking a public stand on atheism or secularism. But here’s the thing: What he said is still incredibly sexist and dumb even without that paraphrase, whether fair or not.

Tkmlac wrote:

sacha wrote:

Tkmlac wrote: I'm a US American, is there any hope for me?

nope

I suspected. Sometimes it hits me just how bizarre we are to the rest of the world. I convinced my husband we could get away with saying we were Canadian when we travelled around Europe for two weeks in 2010. I think it helped that we both have some foreign language skills. No one expects that from the 'Mericans.