Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[windy]

No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.

I'm not sure that's right - IIRC on Justin Griffith's now infamous thread, people like Justicar and a few of the newbies (at the time) were saying we're 'cleaning it up' (referring especially to a certain kick, which was being 'insult mined' to high heaven). Then, naturally that plan went out of the window pretty quickly and pissed a few people off.

What's not right? I was agreeing with you that there was more support for the idea last time it came up. Stop trying to gaslight me you chauvinist pig!!!1! I was trying to point out that there are two different aspects to this- people may agree to personally avoid those types of insults, but still think that "cleaning it up" as a collective is a non-starter.

[LMU]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_Girl.jpg
I guess Ophelia still has Nazi Germany on the brain, because, after her post saying, again, that she never made an analogy between TAM and Nazi Germany (she was just comparing Grothe to Goebbels -- it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT ;)) ..... she has a new post up.

In her current post, "When is World Yellow Star Day?" she complains about something called "World Hijab Day" and quotes two ex-muslim girls who still feel family pressure to wear the hijab.

According to the BBC -

Originated by New York woman Nazma Khan, the movement has been organised almost solely over social networking sites. It has attracted interest from Muslims and non-Muslims in more than 50 countries across the world.

For many people, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and divisiveness. It's a visible target that often bears the brunt of a larger debate about Islam in the West.

World Hijab Day is designed to counteract these controversies. It encourages non-Muslim women (or even Muslim women who do not ordinarily wear one) to don the hijab and experience what it's like to do so, as part of a bid to foster better understanding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21283301

Now, the hijab may be stupid and oppressive and patriarchal and religious -- but, especially in this context, it is really not comparable to the yellow star. Good job Ophie -- way to beat that reputation as a knee-jerk godwinner.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -star-day/

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

I disagree. I don't doubt that some women do in fact choose to wear a headscarf. Some probably do it for religious reasons, some will do it for cultural reasons, and some for sartorial reasons. Doubtless, other women are coerced into wearing it. I know someone who wears one when leaving her family home and then immediately takes it off. I have seen other women get chided on the street by men they don't know to "fix their headscarf" because it wasn't covering them enough. Those are real problems, but while some people do in fact choose to wear it I could never support banning it (I think you suggested doing so previously, forgive me if not). It is already illegal to threaten or coerce someone into doing something they don't want to, it should not be illegal to wear particular clothing.

I knew a woman who sometimes wore it to feel more connected with the culture she came from. Perhaps she was homesick.

[Submariner]

Someone who gets it.

Well as a dumbass who doesn't get it could you please give some historical references that backup the proclamation that “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick."

OK Let's review the preceding conversation to my post:

Good point, I think they always thought of equality as something that would benefit them, and didn't even imagine that

1) Men could ask for equality as well

and

2) Some of the results of being equal might not be as pleasant as they expected

I think the TWRAs Renee mentioned a couple of days ago would agree with point number 2.




“Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.”

- R. Heinlein

The point of which was a fictional character from the yr 3000 suggested that statement #2 by the previous poster, might have merit. That's it. It was to promote discussion.

I was not using it as "historical" thereby needing "historical referencing" .

Perhaps true equality would be a shitty deal for women as they would lose the chivalrous privileges they currently have, would be subject to the same penalties under law, would not be defended by random passers by if they're being attacked ( even just being mean to them), would not be prioritized by support programs, etc.

[16bitheretic]

If you drop the 16 from my username and go with just the words bit and heretic you get a selection of gibberish with a few gems:

Bitch Retie
Biter Ethic
Tribe Ethic
Bite Thrice
Bet Itchier
Breech I Tit
Bitch Tree I
Crib Tee Hit
Crib The Tie
Be Thrice It
Be Trice Hit
Be Itch Tire
Bee Rich Tit
Beer Chi Tit
Beer Itch It
Herb Ice Tit
Herb Cite It
Biter Tic Eh
Bite Tic Her
Bet Rice Hit
Bet Chi Tire
Bet Rich Tie
Bi Cheer Tit
Bi Erect Hit
Rib Itch Tee
Bit Erect Hi

I leave it to you folks to decide what best suits me.

[Submariner]

Oh and fuck off.

[another lurker]

--snipped--

He's talking about strategy (as he sees it), not morality.

Exactly - I can't believe you even had to say that - felt like I was commenting on Pharyngula for a second!

I took it to mean 'strategy' as well.

The naming of the pit is unfortunate, if we were to view this purely as a propaganda war.

But if people don't care then /shrug

It's like welcoming new people with "Fuck off!", if they can't see past it, then they probably wouldn't like it here anyway.

Having said that, I sympathize with Notung's view (I remember thinking that I wish people here would aim a little higher, even if I found some of it funny). But I think it's far more important to let people say what they want, it's the difference between paying lip service to the principle of free speech and actually allowing it.

If really you want a more polite and focused discussion maybe you could start a new thread for that? Or maybe a post on your blog? Just some thoughts.

You mean me? Or Notung? Anyways, allow me to clarify with what I meant by 'shame'. In other words, the people here at the 'pit are a pretty decent bunch - and it is a shame to see them mischaracterized, and in some cases, outright defamed, as rapists and misogynists.

[Michael K Gray]

So I just watched the Google hangout with PZ, C0nc0rdance, TruePooka and SkepticalHeretic, and wow, PZ flat out lied throughout the whole thing

Oh noze!
PZ lied?
Quick! Get the fainting couch.

[Submariner]

So I just watched the Google hangout with PZ, C0nc0rdance, TruePooka and SkepticalHeretic, and wow, PZ flat out lied throughout the whole thing

Oh noze!
PZ lied?
Quick! Get the fainting couch.

Listening to it now. You can tell when PZ is lying because his lips are moving.

[another lurker]

LMU wrote:

If really you want a more polite and focused discussion maybe you could start a new thread for that? Or maybe a post on your blog? Just some thoughts.

Ok, nvm, I misread. You meant notung. The quoting confused me. But my clarification still stands! I think you're all decent people :P

[Michael K Gray]

There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.

Too true. Nearly a "deepity"
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.

[16bitheretic]

So I just watched the Google hangout with PZ, C0nc0rdance, TruePooka and SkepticalHeretic, and wow, PZ flat out lied throughout the whole thing

Oh noze!
PZ lied?
Quick! Get the fainting couch.

Sorry, the internet is out of stock, all were taken by FTB, Surly Amy and Meoldy Hensley. They're probably on backorder too.

[free thoughtpolice]

I see the pearl clutching over at Steficupcake has gotten so tense that if they were clutching coal they could create "Almost Diamonds".posting.php?sid=c63b7a9fcaea4204699e4e4f0a9a3ef0#

[nippletwister]

There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".

Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the Damane from the Wheel of Time books). Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are brainwashed.

And those examples have shit-all to do with slaves, in masse, celebrating slavery and leg irons as a way of life, which is what your dishonest comparison would require. The first example, black owned slaves, were often bought by family and eventually turned free, sort of a halfway-house concept. The second group is that tiny percentage of escapees that just couldn't make it living in fear and uncertainty and returned to their sadly safer existence as slave workers instead.

They *still* wanted to wear leg-irons (physically or indeed metaphorically). They *still* wanted to be *owned*. They *still* wanted to be considered *property*.

Sad and all, but fuck-all to do with your comparison to large numbers of women embracing and even celebrating a slightly oppressive cultural norm. You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-head-covering women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?

"You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-FGM women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?"

See what I did there?

There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.

It's like every time you give an example of something to support your exaggerated bullshit claims, it turns out to be a really bad comparison that you have over-interpreted. You ignore facts and differences to benefit your exaggerated claims. You probably wouldn't have to do this obvious truth-stretching, if you actually thought about what you were saying(instead of just "feeling" about it) and quit talking out your ass so much, don't you think?

Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men is a bad thing. There is some shit that is objectively bad and should never be defended.

In fact, there is, at the base level, no difference between you defending the veil and Greg Laden defending men crossing over the road to avoid "scaring" women walking past them.

And now, just like our last go 'round that shall not be named, you slip into assuming that I'm supporting the veil, and supporting the oppression of women, even though I have straight-up said I consider the veil oppressive. Maybe it's not a slip on your part...maybe you're trying to poison the well intentionally, and tar me with an ugly position I never took up. I don't know. I do know that you do not handle disagreement or nuance very well, as your bullshit claims and absolutist views have already shown. What I disagree with are your dishonest comparisons, your exaggerations, and your belittling of those you seek to help.

I make no excuses for veiling, nor do I engage in cultural relativism, i.e., claiming that there are no moral differences, only aesthetic differences, between different cultural practices. But I do take into account the values, feelings, and opinions of the people I'm trying to "liberate". That does not mean I agree with those feelings or opinions, simply that I do not want to apply malicious motives or bad characterizations to those I disagree with.

My only claim has been a refutation of your claim. The veil is not at all comparable with leg irons, and many of the very people forced to wear it would probably agree with me on that much(evidenced by the very celebration that started this all). That agreement can't be boiled down to purely brainwashing and internalized oppression, but is instead also informed by the stark and obvious differences that anyone not blinded by absolutist thinking can see. There are differences in purpose, in effect, in the perception of those wearing it, and most importantly to me, of their value to society and as people. Leg irons weren't intended to "protect" slaves. As bad as the veil may be, it is rooted in the belief that women need protection and privacy and safe-keeping, not to make them slaves, though there are still effects that can seem slave-like when compared to women in the west. You seem to think you know better, but all your "evidence" is quite lacking, made up of only bald assertions and bad comparisons. Meanwhile, the celebration of the veil by women goes on, quite ignoring your quaint and patriarchal superiority.

Also, you claim that returning slaves "wanted" to be owned, that they "wanted" the leg irons, trying again to compare the open celebration of the veil to fearful returning slaves. I see you are a time-travelling mind-reader. The examples you provided made it clear that the returning slaves did so because they thought it was their best option in a scary world. Of course, they couldn't have a will of their own, or the capacity to reason at all and make a shitty choice for lack of options....no, it must be the colonization of the mind, and exactly the same as these poor women. You know best, apparently!

All that said, I think the veil is stupid and helps promote the artificial separation of the sexes, ignorant attitudes towards sex and women, and also helps keep women socially silenced. But these are all part and parcel of the wider culture. The veil is a symptom, a symbol, and can end up being a valid part of a woman's sense of self or belonging to that society. Attacking the veil against the will of the women affected accomplishes nothing, and may even be a factor against your efforts. Treat the disease, with clear legal policies, and the symptoms will eventually go out of style. Treat the symptoms,(and do so smugly and with contempt, "freeing" women by controlling them), and you may even cause a flare-up of the attitudes and beliefs that are the disease.

I believe your opinion of the veil is the more moral one, that getting rid of it should be the goal....but it must be done by argument and example and having options, not by outrageous comparisons that offend even the victims, or by introducing force. By making them do what you want, you are still an oppressor, and a foreign one at that. That's not cultural relativism, it's treating people as human beings with rights and feelings and minds of their own. You should give it a shot sometime.

[free thoughtpolice]

There was supposed to be a rimshot after the witty rejoinder.

[d4m10n]

Same here. I'm active in a local atheist group, but take the view that atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good. If you're atheist because you hero-worship Marx or Rand or Dawkins or Myers, because you watched Zeitgeist, or because of your parents, there is a damn good chance that you don't give a toss about thinking things through for yourself. Such people are potential skeptics and allies, but they have a ways to go.

I think my take on this is very different than yours, considering I live in Sweden and have first hand experience in what it means to live in a country where most are atheist or irreligious, but not skeptics. I can say for sure that even without skepticism, atheism is still a couple of thousand times more preferable than theism.

Even though we might have plenty of people buying into woo-woo and conspiracy theories, we don't have any crazy creationists with actual, real, political power trying to put God and the Bible into our legislation and classrooms.

Yeah.
Damion is spouting out of his arse here, I agree.
Atheism is not dependent on skepticism any way shape, nor form.

atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good

Cites?

Maoism, Kimism, Stalinism, and on the other side, Objectivism. All atheist ideologies freed from the rational constraints of skepticism and the moral constraints of humanism.

Not this tired bullshit "argument" again?
The above ideologies were not based on a lack of belief in a deity at all!
In fact, they are all superb examples of the leaders setting themselves up as a deity!
With the additional bonus bogus that all of them DID practise forms of scientific skepticism!

Based? Who said anything about based?

To be clear, what I *AM* saying is that godlessness in and of itself is worthless without humanist values and skeptical methodology.

Without skeptical methodology, you cannot figure out what is true.

Without humanistic values, you're not likely to use truth well.

That said, I don't think you can do either humanism or skepticism very well without becoming an atheist.

Now, where exactly do we disagree?

[LMU]

No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.

Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

Meat Logic

Meat Clog I

A Clog Emit

Clam Tie Go

Cat Gem Oil

A Clog Met I

Or as the FTB'ers might tell you:

Male Tic Go

Why restrict yourself to anagrams? Megaloogie! (Apparently I thought you were aiming too high :oops: )

[Submariner]

There was supposed to be a rimshot after the witty rejoinder.

What the hell link did you post? It turns off posting for slymepit.

[justinvacula]

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... lar-woman/

A response to Secular Woman’s article titled “Opportunity and Access in the Freethought Movement” and some assorted reflections on the current state of the online secular community

[Metalogic42]

No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.

Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

Meat Logic

Meat Clog I

A Clog Emit

Clam Tie Go

Cat Gem Oil

A Clog Met I

Or as the FTB'ers might tell you:

Male Tic Go

Why restrict yourself to anagrams? Megaloogie! (Apparently I thought you were aiming too high :oops: )

STOP HARASSING ME!!!


...Metaloogie, I like it.

[Reap]

I'm not seeing much conflict between feminism and those other 'isms.

(All the bolding is mine)

Feminism:

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

Egalitarianism:

Egalitarianism (...) is a trend of thought that favors equality for particular categories of, or for all, living entities. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] (...)

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power

Equalism:

Equalism is the philosophy that all people are created equal. It is a philosophy that has no race or gender bias

Humanism

Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)

The bolded parts should indicate the big difference I see between these isms.

If you feel that despite these differences, men and women should have more or less equal rights, then to me, you are more or less a feminist

To me, using the definitions I provided, that would make me an egalitarian or an equalist, not a feminist.

Sometimes it's the word(s) you use before your cause that's important
-radical
-extreme
-moderate
-nonpracticing
-former
-incredibly gifted

[jimthepleb]

Evenin chaps and chappettes.
Apropos of nothing whatever i would like to share the following with my friends here:

[youtube]hLqvQUoxLFI[/youtube]

[Loose CK]

The point of which was a fictional character from the yr 3000 suggested that statement #2 by the previous poster, might have merit. That's it. It was to promote discussion.

I get it now. I thought you were trying to say something by twice posting an ahistorical, sexist, reactionary quote but you were really just promoting discussion. No need to justify it.

Perhaps true equality would be a shitty deal for women...

Whoops, sorry Lou, still don't get it.

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

(...) is there a 3rd magical Pharyngula somewhere that doesn't feature the auto-bans just for being a member of a site like this and where people whose comments which are not in line with the majority opinion aren't deleted, altered or never seen after the majority of users deem them unnaceptable for being contrary to popular viewpoints?

Of course. The Secret Pharyngula Blog, didn't you knew about that?

[justinvacula]

Sorry, the previous link I put up isn't working (and Skeptic Ink Network is not loading, at least for me). Stay tuned :\

[LMU]

You mean me? Or Notung? Anyways, allow me to clarify with what I meant by 'shame'. In other words, the people here at the 'pit are a pretty decent bunch - and it is a shame to see them mischaracterized, and in some cases, outright defamed, as rapists and misogynists.

Sorry! I meant Notung, he has a blog on SIN (here I think: skepticink.com/notung/ ). I was thinking he or someone else might try starting a discussion thread similar to the original ERV PToS.

I think it's a shame too, but the defamation was going to happen anyway. Remember that people who even mildly disagreed or questioned the FTB narrative were misogynistic, rape apologizing, MRAs who should be sodomized with rusty porcupines.

[incognito]

What's the argument against moral relativity?

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Also. We don't need people to join the 'pit to be successful. We could measure our success by people rejecting the SJW narrative, or applying skepticism to sociological claims... to me that's far more important than promoting the 'pit.

Yep. I bet there's a lot of people out there who wouldn't be caught dead admitting they read the Pit, but have had their outlook on FTB/A+/Skepchick irrevocably changed by coming here to lurk. That's good enough for me.

That's actually me. I don't care about the pit or whatever, I just find PZ and Rebitchka and Stephat (HA!) and all their clique annoying and their ideas stupidly oppressive. They can go fuck themselves as far as I'm converned, and so everybody else on this boring piece of bad drama.

[Lsuoma]

Just reading more comments over Steffalump's Butthurt Central.

I see again the implied threat that colon makes along the lines of "nice job you have there, shame if something happened to it" in the comments about HR finding out how evil we are. Yet again, the language of someone who would reflexively doc-drop anyone here if they got the chance, and cum a bucketload while doing it (if his balls have dropped yet).

Plus WowbaggerBogwanker asking why Kirby, Stangroom, and others aren't blowing their bugles to rally folks against the Pit.

Also, someone called JodiJodphurs Thibedeedoodah, in addition to Jockstrap of That Ilk, admiring the 'Lump for getting through the day without killing someone. Now THAT's a High Bar! Jodphurs would like to punch someone in the face, though. She can come down to the Venetian/Palazzo tonight if she wishes - I'll be there in the casino people-watching. She'll be able to tell it's me, because I'll have a big shit-eating grin on, whereas pretty much all gamblers looks unbelievably unhappy.

[nippletwister]

The point of which was a fictional character from the yr 3000 suggested that statement #2 by the previous poster, might have merit. That's it. It was to promote discussion.

I get it now. I thought you were trying to say something by twice posting an ahistorical, sexist, reactionary quote but you were really just promoting discussion. No need to justify it.

Perhaps true equality would be a shitty deal for women...

Whoops, sorry Lou, still don't get it.

well, if there is something you disagree with, you could explain why, or put forward an argument, instead of just making stupid little snipey comments that reveal nothing except your own lack of thoughts.

[Metalogic42]

What's the argument against moral relativity?

http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Phil%201000 ... achels.pdf

[LMU]

I would see them placing a higher value on family and community as being a potential consequence of risk aversion. Why would they be more risk averse? Because evo psych ;)

Everything I'm reading/finding about risk aversion and gender differences relates to economics. But in that case, the risk has potentially huge rewards. What's the potential big reward with just not believing in SkyDaddy?
I wish I could get the full text of this:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 1745578537

This is from 2002, and the authors basically say they don't know.

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/upl ... gender.pdf

And here's something from 2007 that refutes the risk preference hypothesis:

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/2/205.short

And another (2009):

http://www3.nd.edu/~jcollet1/pubs/2009-48a.pdf

Women raised by high-socioeconomic status (SES) mothers are
less religious than women raised by low-education mothers, but mother’s SES has little effect on men’s chances
of being irreligious and father’s SES has a negligible effect on the gender difference in religiosity

Looks like evo psyche and socialization might be coming into play.

Thanks for that! So it looks like risk is wrong or at least incomplete. I feel like maybe risk isn't quite the right way to express what I'm thinking, but it's late and I'd ramble and do a poor job if I tried to explain it more now. Good night pit!

[nippletwister]

Sorry, the previous link I put up isn't working (and Skeptic Ink Network is not loading, at least for me). Stay tuned :\

Yup, no SIN in California. (imagine that!)

Shame, I was about to scroll back and read your piece! I'm sure it'll be up before too long.

[nippletwister]

Sorry, the previous link I put up isn't working (and Skeptic Ink Network is not loading, at least for me). Stay tuned :\

Yup, no SIN in California. (imagine that!)

Shame, I was about to scroll back and read your piece! I'm sure it'll be up before too long.

[rayshul]

What's the argument against moral relativity?

Possibly about the point where it has an affect on human rights. But I don't think there's a good argument against it on an open forum. Really, the different viewpoints give us something to talk about. :)

[nippletwister]

Hmmmmm.......I just commented on the Skeptic Ink Network being down, and the post here was mysteriously doubled!

COINCIDENCE???????? Or.....Gremlins?

What would a skeptic say?

[Altair]

Stephanie's post has these two comments regarding Oneiros666's post a while ago

16
Forbidden Snowflake

February 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm (UTC -6)

I do not mean to be off topic. Crowepps, what does Greta Christina’s adopted African trans-little person refer to.

It appears to present a hypothetical case, in which Greta Christina (who is known to be flighty and irresponsible with money because she bought a pair of shoes that one time) has hypothetically adopted a hypothetical child (who is an “African trans-little person” and thus worthless and contemptible) and expects a conference to offer childcare arrangements (and thus to spend money on her and her [worthless and contemptible] hypothetical child rather than pizza and strippers for whoever the fuck it was who wrote that comment). Because needing a childcare arrangement while not being in the physical vicinity of one’s child makes one a bad parent, and because an emerging movement has nothing to gain from attracting people who have children, anyway.

That is my reading of it, since GC does not, to my knowledge, have any children, adopted, African, trans, or otherwise. Would you like your brain-bleach now?

17
Janine: Hallucinating Liar

February 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm (UTC -6)

Thank you, Forbidden Snowflake, for the explanation. That is brain bleach worthy.

Also, it appears that they are not paying attention to their hero, ERV.

I remember that shortly after the shitstorm started, ERV claimed that Richard Dawkins won the argument when RDF announced free child care. That this was the trump card against Rebecca Watson.

Not that they care about these things.

I find it to be an interesting look into their psychology.
It seems to go like this:

1. ERV is their hero
2. ERV said that Dawkins offering free child care was a very good thing
3. They must all agree that this is good and not one of them should say anything different because of 1.

Now we all know that's not actually true, but it shows how they view the words of those they consider their heroes. If PZ says childcare is good, they must all agree child care is good. If Zvan says X is bad, they must all agree X is bad.

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Hmmmmm.......I just commented on the Skeptic Ink Network being down, and the post here was mysteriously doubled!

COINCIDENCE???????? Or.....Gremlins?

What would a skeptic say?

It depends.

A skepchick would say "MYSOGINY PATRIARCHY!"
A PZ would say "SLIMEPIT"
A Ophonya would say "HE KICKED ME IN THE CUNT!"
A Stephatza would say "PASS ME THE FRIES! THE FRIES!"

[Lsuoma]

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!

[Altair]

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 407471.jpg

[Submariner]

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!

I'm particularly fond of sourdough. Oh, and a deli near my work (since gone out of business) had an awesome pumpernikel/rye swirl.

[free thoughtpolice]

There was supposed to be a rimshot after the witty rejoinder.

What the hell link did you post? It turns off posting for slymepit.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=31&p=59107#

It's what happens if I click on the rim shot smiley and drag it to the prompt . As an elderly person I don't know how to post smiley things. Please don't make fun of me!!

[nippletwister]

Stephanie's post has these two comments regarding Oneiros666's post a while ago

16
Forbidden Snowflake

February 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm (UTC -6)

I do not mean to be off topic. Crowepps, what does Greta Christina’s adopted African trans-little person refer to.

It appears to present a hypothetical case, in which Greta Christina (who is known to be flighty and irresponsible with money because she bought a pair of shoes that one time) has hypothetically adopted a hypothetical child (who is an “African trans-little person” and thus worthless and contemptible) and expects a conference to offer childcare arrangements (and thus to spend money on her and her [worthless and contemptible] hypothetical child rather than pizza and strippers for whoever the fuck it was who wrote that comment). Because needing a childcare arrangement while not being in the physical vicinity of one’s child makes one a bad parent, and because an emerging movement has nothing to gain from attracting people who have children, anyway.

That is my reading of it, since GC does not, to my knowledge, have any children, adopted, African, trans, or otherwise. Would you like your brain-bleach now?

17
Janine: Hallucinating Liar

February 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm (UTC -6)

Thank you, Forbidden Snowflake, for the explanation. That is brain bleach worthy.

Also, it appears that they are not paying attention to their hero, ERV.

I remember that shortly after the shitstorm started, ERV claimed that Richard Dawkins won the argument when RDF announced free child care. That this was the trump card against Rebecca Watson.

Not that they care about these things.

I find it to be an interesting look into their psychology.
It seems to go like this:

1. ERV is their hero
2. ERV said that Dawkins offering free child care was a very good thing
3. They must all agree that this is good and not one of them should say anything different because of 1.

Now we all know that's not actually true, but it shows how they view the words of those they consider their heroes. If PZ says childcare is good, they must all agree child care is good. If Zvan says X is bad, they must all agree X is bad.

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

Lols, the projection. They can't see past labels or accept jokes, so of course, "African trans-little person" must mean we see it as worthless and contemptible, that the imaginary child is the joke.

I could be wrong, but I took it as a jab that a SJW would only adopt the most disadvantaged kid they could find, and would mainly be doing it to prove how awesome they are. (although personally, I'd bet it more likely that most of them would shun the truly disadvantaged, and probably use a cop-out like "I don't think I can offer the level of help and support this totally worthy child would need, it's better that I not be selfish enough to try". At least, that's what they usually do instead of actually helping anybody.

In their minds, they can read a deep well of privilege and hatred and "othering" into a half-thought-out non-serious sentence. It really does make me wonder what that person thinks of people that aren't like s/h/it.

God damn, what a bunch of incredible shitbags.

[Submariner]

There was supposed to be a rimshot after the witty rejoinder.

What the hell link did you post? It turns off posting for slymepit.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=31&p=59107#

It's what happens if I click on the rim shot smiley and drag it to the prompt . As an elderly person I don't know how to post smiley things. Please don't make fun of me!!

Ah, no offense meant.



Fuck off.

[incognito]

What's the argument against moral relativity?

http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Phil%201000 ... achels.pdf

I don't find those arguments compelling at all. The main objections are that the implications are disturbing, and that some types of morality are certainly the result of natural selection.

Both are kind of irrelevant when it comes to distinguishing the woo from the true in morality/ethics.

[JAB]

They are trying to project their brand of thinking into a group of people who can't even agree whether bread is bad or good, for crying out loud. :snooty:

What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!

I'm going with the Shuffle Demons... "If I can't have cheese on bread.. I'd rather be dead, I'd rather be dead..."

[youtube]o_ygBkZ-D68[/youtube]

[Lsuoma]

There was supposed to be a rimshot after the witty rejoinder.

What the hell link did you post? It turns off posting for slymepit.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=31&p=59107#

It's what happens if I click on the rim shot smiley and drag it to the prompt . As an elderly person I don't know how to post smiley things. Please don't make fun of me!!

Don't drag it. Just click that fucker. It will insert the appropriate code in the box.

Now fuck off!

[AndrewV69]

Similar levels of brainwashing involved too.

Hi Git,

At the risk of dogpiling I would like to suggest that sometimes, if you do not have much more than a feeling about something, then it may be worthwhile to examine what underlies that opinion.

I recognize that this may be difficult, but in my case at least, I have found this exercise to be always worthwhile.

For example at around the time of Elevatorgate, Devorath challenged my assertion that I could tell how a child would turn out based on first meeting one.

Well, she noted that it was ridiculous and the best one could hope for, was to be able to determine if the child was willing to play with you or not.

I was forced to agree, because on the surface, what I stated was a ridiculous thing to believe. Yet after agreeing with her online, I later found I was also rejecting her argument and basing it on my personal experience, again.

Not only that, I had failed to communicate that what I meant was generally rather than specifically, based on the examples she gave on the various outcomes she had observed.

So in the end, I found that I was both willing to accept and reject her arguments, and this inconsistency caught my attention.

It actually took me awhile to realize that the basis of my internal rejection was exclusively based on the examples I could draw upon to prove myself right. I had managed, to ignore examples of where I was wrong.

The flaws in my reasoning included the fact that I had known the parents of the children intimately, long before they were married or had children of their own. Furthermore, knowing about the heritability of traits I had pursuaded myself into an infallibility that did not stand up to objective scrunity.

When I revisited all of the cases available to me I found that I was actually only "right" much less than half of the time (40% actually). A far cry from the 100% I had previously experienced,

Whatever. Biology is not necessarily destiny, but it is probability. And combining a little knowledge with wooly thinking can be pretty hazardous to your sanity.

The point to all of this, is perhaps you should challenge your basic precepts. If not now then later. At a minimum, even if you wind up still not agreeing with other opinions expressed here or otherwise, you should at a minimum have something better to go on, other than perhaps feelings that you may not be able to articulate coherently.

YMMV

[Metalogic42]

What's the argument against moral relativity?

http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Phil%201000 ... achels.pdf

I don't find those arguments compelling at all. The main objections are that the implications are disturbing, and that some types of morality are certainly the result of natural selection.

Both are kind of irrelevant when it comes to distinguishing the woo from the true in morality/ethics.

I'm a bit busy right now, but if you'd like to discuss it further, PM me a link to this post so I remember later.

[Lurkion]

It seems Aratina is in a convo with one Jen Phillips (on Twitter) who is accusing someone here of sending things to her IRL - phone calls/mailings from Christian colleges, subscriptions to "icky" teen mags.

https://twitter.com/aratina/status/297773756477214723

Who the heck is Jen Phillips?

Tbh, I think she's another automaton trying to get on the 'in-crowd'. I've never heard of her and doubt others have, so she's trying to be a part of the victim crowd.

[nippletwister]

Similar levels of brainwashing involved too.

Hi Git,

At the risk of dogpiling I would like to suggest that sometimes, if you do not have much more than a feeling about something, then it may be worthwhile to examine what underlies that opinion.

I recognize that this may be difficult, but in my case at least, I have found this exercise to be always worthwhile.

For example at around the time of Elevatorgate, Devorath challenged my assertion that I could tell how a child would turn out based on first meeting one.

Well, she noted that it was ridiculous and the best one could hope for, was to be able to determine if the child was willing to play with you or not.

I was forced to agree, because on the surface, what I stated was a ridiculous thing to believe. Yet after agreeing with her online, I later found I was also rejecting her argument and basing it on my personal experience, again.

Not only that, I had failed to communicate that what I meant was generally rather than specifically, based on the examples she gave on the various outcomes she had observed.

So in the end, I found that I was both willing to accept and reject her arguments, and this inconsistency caught my attention.

It actually took me awhile to realize that the basis of my internal rejection was exclusively based on the examples I could draw upon to prove myself right. I had managed, to ignore examples of where I was wrong.

The flaws in my reasoning included the fact that I had known the parents of the children intimately, long before they were married or had children of their own. Furthermore, knowing about the heritability of traits I had pursuaded myself into an infallibility that did not stand up to objective scrunity.

When I revisited all of the cases available to me I found that I was actually only "right" much less than half of the time (40% actually). A far cry from the 100% I had previously experienced,

Whatever. Biology is not necessarily destiny, but it is probability. And combining a little knowledge with wooly thinking can be pretty hazardous to your sanity.

The point to all of this, is perhaps you should challenge your basic precepts. If not now then later. At a minimum, even if you wind up still not agreeing with other opinions expressed here or otherwise, you should at a minimum have something better to go on, other than perhaps feelings that you may not be able to articulate coherently.

YMMV

Wow, aren't you supposed to be some kind of asshole MRA rape-enabler, out stabbing women to death with your cock or something? Turns out you're a pretty nice and helpful fellow!

[BarnOwl]

I'm going with the Shuffle Demons... "If I can't have cheese on bread.. I'd rather be dead, I'd rather be dead..."

I'm not familiar with that band, but they remind me a bit of Morphine.

And I agree about cheese on bread. My eating preferences remain true to haplogroup.

[rayshul]

It seems Aratina is in a convo with one Jen Phillips (on Twitter) who is accusing someone here of sending things to her IRL - phone calls/mailings from Christian colleges, subscriptions to "icky" teen mags.

https://twitter.com/aratina/status/297773756477214723

Who the heck is Jen Phillips?

Tbh, I think she's another automaton trying to get on the 'in-crowd'. I've never heard of her and doubt others have, so she's trying to be a part of the victim crowd.

I've never heard of them, but then I don't go to those sites. I only heard of the Aratina one recently, although I can't remember why. Something silly they said that was captured on here. (Are they A Million Gods?) Something like that.

[John Greg]

Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-101166) is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.” came from the Pit.

And Wowbagger is claiming that anyone here who speaks out against such hateful speech will be banned and treated to the same kind of stuff.

Of course, there are no links or citations.

Christ, these people just make it up as they go along, don't they.

Well, ya, we all knew that.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-101166) is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.” came from the Pit.

And Wowbagger is claiming that anyone here who speaks out against such hateful speech will be banned and treated to the same kind of stuff.

Of course, there are no links or citations.

Christ, these people just make it up as they go along, don't they.

Well, ya, we all knew that.

He is in a circular argument ... his link to his comment, links to another of his comments, which is actually a link to Rebecca Watson's Slate article ... in which she claims to have received many comments like that but again never cites a source.

A beautiful example of hearsay evidence at work ...

[Submariner]

Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-101166) is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.” came from the Pit.

And Wowbagger is claiming that anyone here who speaks out against such hateful speech will be banned and treated to the same kind of stuff.

Of course, there are no links or citations.

Christ, these people just make it up as they go along, don't they.

Well, ya, we all knew that.

No one deserves to be raped, tortured or killed.

*Awaiting ban hammer*

[nippletwister]

No one deserves to be raped, tortured or killed.

I think I can get behind that, and not just so I can hump it.

I can has my bannination now?

[Submariner]

Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-101166) is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.” came from the Pit.

And Wowbagger is claiming that anyone here who speaks out against such hateful speech will be banned and treated to the same kind of stuff.

Of course, there are no links or citations.

Christ, these people just make it up as they go along, don't they.

Well, ya, we all knew that.

He is in a circular argument ... his link to his comment, links to another of his comments, which is actually a link to Rebecca Watson's Slate article ... in which she claims to have received many comments like that but again never cites a source.

A beautiful example of hearsay evidence at work ...

I've noticed that a lot of the links in FC(n) blogs point to other FC(n) blogs or previous blogs by the same FC(n) blogger. It means to find an exterior source for something you have to wade through dozens of "hits" to the FTB pages. Pretty clever, eh??

[incognito]

Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-101166) is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.” came from the Pit.

And Wowbagger is claiming that anyone here who speaks out against such hateful speech will be banned and treated to the same kind of stuff.

Of course, there are no links or citations.

Christ, these people just make it up as they go along, don't they.

Well, ya, we all knew that.

He is in a circular argument ... his link to his comment, links to another of his comments, which is actually a link to Rebecca Watson's Slate article ... in which she claims to have received many comments like that but again never cites a source.

A beautiful example of hearsay evidence at work ...

I've noticed that a lot of the links in FC(n) blogs point to other FC(n) blogs or previous blogs by the same FC(n) blogger. It means to find an exterior source for something you have to wade through dozens of "hits" to the FTB pages. Pretty clever, eh??

Alt med claims usually work the same way.

[rayshul]

No one deserves to be raped, tortured or killed.

I'd get behind that... but I've been recently reading in depth about Mengele's experiments and the last one feels like a sticking point for me at this point in my horror-rage. Not to Godwin or anything, but good fucking fuck fuck.

[incognito]

And infowars.com.