Justin,justinvacula wrote:Let's try again - Skeptic Ink Network seems to be back online :)
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
the difference is that calling Julian a spic is not an impossible task, as opposed to franc turning into a woman, putting on a pair of pink wellies and kicking Ofeefee in the cunt.fascination wrote: How is "If you call me a spic I'll snap your neck" any different from "If I was a girl I would kick her in the cunt" ? BTW, for anyone who doesn't know the first quote was made on Zvan's blog in the comment section by Julian Francisco to another commentator. Julian was not banned by Zvan for that comment.
I had a coronary incident about 18 months ago. Woke up with chest pain, shortness of breath, pain in left arm. Went to ER, had all the tests (troponin, angiogram, stress-echo), but they could find nothing wrong - apparently it may have been a coronary artery spasm. I have several risk factors - male, over 50, overweight, family history, and stressful job (the only one I miss is smoking.)jimthepleb wrote:So Tuesday morning I had my last cigarette and for lunch a last full fat burger with the works.
Giving shit up sucks arse.
But the bonus is that i have to get 'out of breath' exercise-wise at least twice a week, and sex is a viable way of doing so. :dance:
Not with me, it's not...ReneeHendricks wrote:Sex is *always* good :animals-bunny:
Seconded.jimthepleb wrote:
http://mightygodking.com/images/asterix ... erix87.jpg
Even bad sex is good, in as far as cardio stuff goes :DLsuoma wrote:Not with me, it's not...ReneeHendricks wrote:Sex is *always* good :animals-bunny:
Swami Booktananda says: Bread is stoopid foodLsuoma wrote:What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!Altair wrote:
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:
Good post Justin. That secular woman thing seems to be a condensation of the feminist agenda in the S/A. Again with the fucking hypoagency. Which i describe as much like if when women were allowed into golf clubs for the first time they had decided the clubhouse needed chintz curtains and a knitting circle. To swallow feminism we must suspend our scepticism. So we would no longer be a skeptical community.justinvacula wrote:Let's try again - Skeptic Ink Network seems to be back online :)
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
I'd fuck you lsuoma.Lsuoma wrote:Not with me, it's not...ReneeHendricks wrote:Sex is *always* good :animals-bunny:
Depends: if I'm just sitting there while she does me cowboy, that's not very aerobic for me.ReneeHendricks wrote: Even bad sex is good, in as far as cardio stuff goes :D
Man cannot live on bread alone...but i believe bread+guinness is all you need to live forever.TheMan wrote:Swami Booktananda says: Bread is stoopid foodLsuoma wrote:What are your opinions of bread, citizen? Be VERY, VERY careful how you answer!Altair wrote:
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:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Even bad sex is good, in as far as cardio stuff goes :DLsuoma wrote:Not with me, it's not...ReneeHendricks wrote:Sex is *always* good :animals-bunny:
Now, now. You know Granny Benson doesn't like the word cunt. She refers to it as her "mildew pit".sacha wrote:the difference is that calling Julian a spic is not an impossible task, as opposed to franc turning into a woman, putting on a pair of pink wellies and kicking Ofeefee in the cunt.fascination wrote: How is "If you call me a spic I'll snap your neck" any different from "If I was a girl I would kick her in the cunt" ? BTW, for anyone who doesn't know the first quote was made on Zvan's blog in the comment section by Julian Francisco to another commentator. Julian was not banned by Zvan for that comment.
I give you all my tool, so that none of ye shall want for a tool of your own.jimthepleb wrote:wtf lsuoma, where is your hammer?
So following further comments Chas linked to here:22
ChasCPeterson
30 January 2013 at 7:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
forget it, SC, I meant what I said. I stuck out the conversation here to the bitter, bitter end, and when you chose to revive it Gish-style on your own blog, I tried gamely there too. Your response, as you’ll recall, was to flush two (2) long Marjonović-style replies, posted in good faith and not without some time and effort, away down the permanent memory-hole. So fuck you.
But, not to worry because:Thus, sex differences in children’s toy preferences appear to be multiply determined; innate influences are augmented by social encouragement, particularly in boys.
And hey!50
daniellavine
30 January 2013 at 2:48 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Chas:
You need to relax. Skepticism is good for science and the vervet study is…prima facie implausible to be kind about it. Pushing back against it will at worst lead to better and more significant results.
*shakes head*52
ChasCPeterson
30 January 2013 at 2:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this commentthank you for that helpful advice.You need to relax.
Think I’ll do just that.
Hmm does that article also call into question the sex is good cardio exercise issue?comslave wrote:THis matter of sex discrimination MUST be addressed. I just found out that even I make more than the average male porn star. What's the FTB stand on this GRAPHIC act of discrimination!
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/stati ... de=endcard
Don't give one to Rystefyn when he returns. He only requires a screwdriver.Lsuoma wrote:I give you all my tool, so that none of ye shall want for a tool of your own.jimthepleb wrote:wtf lsuoma, where is your hammer?
jimthepleb wrote:Hmm does that article also call into question the sex is good cardio exercise issue?comslave wrote:THis matter of sex discrimination MUST be addressed. I just found out that even I make more than the average male porn star. What's the FTB stand on this GRAPHIC act of discrimination!
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/stati ... de=endcard
More fucking Gondolas!AndrewV69 wrote:I liked the show they put on the last time I was there. Gone for a ride in a gondola yet?
8-second rodeo!comslave wrote:jimthepleb wrote:Hmm does that article also call into question the sex is good cardio exercise issue?comslave wrote:THis matter of sex discrimination MUST be addressed. I just found out that even I make more than the average male porn star. What's the FTB stand on this GRAPHIC act of discrimination!
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/stati ... de=endcard
I'm sure that depends on how hard she struggles.
:rimshot:
(that's for you, Becky)
You are a white cis-male lacking in neurodiversity. You cannot be oppressed in this way. In fact, you cannot be oppressed at all. The part that says 'no matter who was required to wear it' can only refer to those who are genuinely oppressed, like Setar. Check your privilege, Jim!jimthepleb wrote:emphasis addednippletwister wrote:Git wrote:Voluntary my arse.
As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.
You know, I agree with you that having ANY kind of clothes requirements for everyday use is at least somewhat oppressive, and would be oppressive no matter who was required to wear it. Orthodox Jew Curls on men is stupid and oppressive too, if somewhat less so.
But you just repeating stupid shit you've already said doesn't make it true. While I view head coverings as oppressive, saying it's in the same league with a leg iron is just stupid beyond belief. That's no better than when feminists claim that cat-calling is the same thing as rape, just slightly lower on the scale, or that saying "you look nice" is "claiming ownership" of a woman's body.
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".
But then, I've already determined that you are a dishonest and hysterical sort who likes to uncharitably over-interpret things to make your dubious points, so I don't know why I'm bothering here....just bored, I guess.
I'm off to work tomorrow naked...let's see how that goes:)
Yes, good point.VickyCaramel wrote:I was expecting that to be orthodox Jews throwing stones at Palestinian girls on their way to school in Jerusalem. But I guess as thats an every-day thing, that wouldn't be newsworthy.Cunning Punt wrote:Or throwing stones at little girls?bhoytony wrote:Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?Git wrote:[
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538
Not yet, but I like to take little screwed up bits of paper and "accidentally" drop them in the boats as they pass along by St Mark's Square.AndrewV69 wrote:I liked the show they put on the last time I was there. Gone for a ride in a gondola yet?
I prefer to call it a circle jerk.katamari Damassi wrote:Circular referencing. A hallmark of the pseudosciences.
The yanks are clearly having sex vicariously through the pit. You wouldn't catch the Aussies talking about it on a saturday night. we're to busy actually..............comslave wrote:ReneeHendricks wrote:Even bad sex is good, in as far as cardio stuff goes :DLsuoma wrote:Not with me, it's not...ReneeHendricks wrote:Sex is *always* good :animals-bunny:
Is it just me or does Saturday night appear to be sex night in the pit?
Well, you're clearly having sex - you're in Sydney.TheMan wrote: The yanks are clearly having sex vicariously through the pit. You wouldn't catch the Aussies talking about it on a saturday night. we're to busy actually..............
watching a dvd.
Who is this Sydney person?Lsuoma wrote:Well, you're clearly having sex - you're in Sydney.
Bronco!Lsuoma wrote:8-second rodeo!
(That's when a bloke's doing it doggie-doggie and calls the woman by another name, and sees if he can stay on for the 8 seconds it takes him to blow his beans while she bucks like a brahma bull).
Well, I hate to pile on, but submariner has a point here. Most of it is fine, but you do have a tendency to publish without fully editing. I read a lot of blogs and comments, I know this isn't the first time it's been mentioned. To me it looks mostly like you're editing as you go, while still forming the ideas and outline, and not double (and triple) checking to make sure you've finished every sentence correctly once you've made your point. If you know anybody who is a more polished writer (or just a good reader) who wouldn't mind, get them to read your stuff before publishing, just for grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. If you can't find anyone, try reading each piece slowly and out loud a few times before committing, and spend the time necessary to edit your stuff.Submariner wrote:Justin,justinvacula wrote:Let's try again - Skeptic Ink Network seems to be back online :)
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
Fire your proofreader.
Friendly advice, from periscope depth.
Thank you! I have listened to all of your podcasts - I love the show! Keep up the good work - FFZ is informative and entertaining!clownshoe wrote:Our latest episode of the Full Frontal Zealotry podcast has another Atheism+ Watch segment. My co-host was so exasperated by the whole thing, it was hilarious just watching his face while I read out the thread. About halfway through he just started ranting about how much like a religion they were.
If anyone's interested: http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/158
I didn't even know this forum existed. It's like the kinder gentler pit.didymos wrote:For those not following the A+ thread over on the JREF forum, a rather amusing situation has arisen. An APlusser going by the nom de net of "qwints" has braved the unsafe spaces thereon, and tried to pull the "I've noticed you're using problematic language...why is that?" maneuver (twice in one page actually). This, it turned out, was a mistake, resulting as it did in a sort of reverse A+ dogpile where everyone else calmly and thoroughly dissected exactly how many kinds of transparent bullshit that was. Three days later and qwints is still squirming on the hook, reduced to claiming "Oh, I was, uh, just pointing out that word choice, like, matters and stuff. I totally wasn't trying to imply anything. Why would you think that?" (not quite a Nathan Thurm-caliber performance, but pretty close).
Of course, over at APlustopia, the thread would have ground to a screeching (in more than one sense) halt, and the whole lot of 'em would have been banned, except for qwints, who would have gotten an ally cookie and a nice pat on the head or whatever.
despite my often lazy posting, i do have some experience of proofreading copy. If any of the pit bloggers would want their stuff proofread pm me here and we could sort something out.nippletwister wrote:Well, I hate to pile on, but submariner has a point here. Most of it is fine, but you do have a tendency to publish without fully editing. I read a lot of blogs and comments, I know this isn't the first time it's been mentioned. To me it looks mostly like you're editing as you go, while still forming the ideas and outline, and not double (and triple) checking to make sure you've finished every sentence correctly once you've made your point. If you know anybody who is a more polished writer (or just a good reader) who wouldn't mind, get them to read your stuff before publishing, just for grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. If you can't find anyone, try reading each piece slowly and out loud a few times before committing, and spend the time necessary to edit your stuff.Submariner wrote:Justin,justinvacula wrote:Let's try again - Skeptic Ink Network seems to be back online :)
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
Fire your proofreader.
Friendly advice, from periscope depth.
I agree with everything you wrote, as far as the ideas go. The issue is clarity, not content. As I'm sure you're aware by now, even people who agree with you will notice mistakes, and this contributes to the overall impression of your work. Those who disagree with you will find reason to dismiss your arguments, and those who consider you an enemy will have ammo for mocking you. There are a lot of intelligent (or at least educated) people in the atheist/skeptic/secular blogosphere, and a lot of them are pretty ruthless pedants who will feel entitled to dismiss arguments over bad grammar or clumsy phrasing. Don't count on a charitable reader.
Note on the content....I loved it. If you get any notice from this, there will certainly be a lot of negative reactions. I've found that most "internet feminists" are angry young women and men, who often know jack shit about their own chosen labels but have plenty of passion and free time. But there are also well-educated people with a lot invested in it as well. If you're going to fight the current influence of feminism on the secular/skeptic community, you will probably need to read more of the basic works and get familiar with the theories and issues. Who knows, when stripped of internet drama, you may even agree with some of it, I'm just pointing out that to take the high ground, you should know what you are criticizing.
I think that almost all of feminist thought is made up of emotional pleading, manipulated stats, anti-scientific claims to knowledge, and purposefully untestable theories, but it took me a decade of reading and talking to figure that out. Your grasp of the stupid games of "internet feminism" seems good. Feminists and social theorists tend to avoid open debate, but still....a smart person who has been studying for years could probably make you (or most of us, really) look clueless, even if it's all bullshit.
Best of luck, you evil rape-enabler. Being a poor guy with limited opportunities in a mostly liberal and non-combative social scene, I'm still trying to work up the balls to be more public with my opinions on the matter. Thanks for being willing to be honest in public!
Michael K Gray wrote:I prefer to call it a circle jerk.katamari Damassi wrote:Circular referencing. A hallmark of the pseudosciences.
Oh, and no-one deserves to be raped.
Some folk deserve to be tortured.
Many folk in history have deserved to be killed.
Nuance, folks.
somedumbguy wrote:Fuck you assholes.
Some people clearly deserve to be killed. Hitler obviously. Stalin. The Taliban assholes responsible for Bamiyan. I'd kill those fuckers to stop Bamiyan. Bin Laden. Maybe Bil Keane (RIP). Sadly, there have been lots of people that clearly deserve to be killed. IMNSHO.
Torture. Okay, I'm not as sure anyone deserves to be tortured. Kill them. Maybe not torture them. Torture is worse than killing.
Rape? I've been taught there are so many shades of rape that I can't compare it any longer to killing or torture.
Sure, 1970s Edith Bunker style rape, no one deserves that. But then Amanda Marcotte who wrote referring to the Duke students after they were declared innocent,"Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more kisses in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, kiss them both. Get kissed chickadees. Fuck off AND GET KISSED.
Cheers, it's been fun so far.another lurker wrote:Thank you! I have listened to all of your podcasts - I love the show! Keep up the good work - FFZ is informative and entertaining!clownshoe wrote:Our latest episode of the Full Frontal Zealotry podcast has another Atheism+ Watch segment. My co-host was so exasperated by the whole thing, it was hilarious just watching his face while I read out the thread. About halfway through he just started ranting about how much like a religion they were.
If anyone's interested: http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/158
Taslima is a doctor who in 2013 spouts off that men can't be raped. <SNIP>.16bitheretic wrote:somedumbguy wrote:Fuck you assholes.
Some people clearly deserve to be killed. Hitler obviously. Stalin. The Taliban assholes responsible for Bamiyan. I'd kill those fuckers to stop Bamiyan. Bin Laden. Maybe Bil Keane (RIP). Sadly, there have been lots of people that clearly deserve to be killed. IMNSHO.
Torture. Okay, I'm not as sure anyone deserves to be tortured. Kill them. Maybe not torture them. Torture is worse than killing.
Rape? I've been taught there are so many shades of rape that I can't compare it any longer to killing or torture.
Sure, 1970s Edith Bunker style rape, no one deserves that. But then Amanda Marcotte who wrote referring to the Duke students after they were declared innocent,"Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more kisses in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, kiss them both. Get kissed chickadees. Fuck off AND GET KISSED.
Wow, I understand an argument for killing off genocidal political leaders, but saying anyone needs to be raped, regardless of what shade of rape it may be, for simply being stupid on the internet is going a bit extreme to say the least. Part of free speech is letting people expose themselves as idiots, which they are doing quite well without anyone critical of them calling for their basic human bodily rights to be removed.
You're only making it worse for yourself!BarnOwl wrote:No one deserves to be raped with a dead porcupine, tortured by being fucked into the ground, or killed by fire or broken neck.
::kicks sand:: Jehovah! Jehovah!
Al: is that you in that clip?AndrewV69 wrote: Bronco!
[youtube]4PHEcDZpGjM[/youtube]
Man, I can relate to Dexter in so may ways.
(not that I share his need to kill).
Aha, I've been waiting a while to see you clownshoe...clownshoe wrote:Our latest episode of the Full Frontal Zealotry podcast has another Atheism+ Watch segment. My co-host was so exasperated by the whole thing, it was hilarious just watching his face while I read out the thread. About halfway through he just started ranting about how much like a religion they were.
If anyone's interested: http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/158
Clearly....Lsuoma wrote:Well, you're clearly having sex - you're in Sydney.TheMan wrote: The yanks are clearly having sex vicariously through the pit. You wouldn't catch the Aussies talking about it on a saturday night. we're to busy actually..............
watching a dvd.
FTFY.nippletwister wrote:Michael K Gray wrote:I prefer to call it a circle jerk.katamari Damassi wrote:Circular referencing. A hallmark of the pseudosciences.
Oh, and no-one deserves to be raped.
Some folk deserve to be tortured.
Many folk in history have deserved to be killed.
Nuance, folks.
You often seem to bea big blowhardan Aussie to me[...]
Really only circular referencing if any given starting point leads you back to the same point. Hardly seems to qualify in this case which looks more like a comedy of errors – which is being exceedingly charitable.katamari Damassi wrote:Circular referencing. A hallmark of the pseudosciences.Submariner wrote: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??DeepInsideYourMind wrote: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.John Greg wrote: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.
A beautiful example of hearsay evidence at work ...
Which is not at all the case since the “ditchpig†in question – real classy there, John – actually said the following:John Greg wrote:Some dirtbag ditchpig from Toiletbowl's blog is claiming that the statement that Rebecca Watson got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.†came from the Pit.
While one might reasonably question LikeX’s command of the English language, I certainly don’t see that as a direct statement, any direct assertion, any direct claim, that any “Slymepitter†actually said that to Watson. The most one can conclude is that that is a suggested inference – which is something quite a bit different from a claim – or that it is a non sequitur.LykeX wrote:3) The Slymepit crowd has said much worse things in a much more directly threatening way. I’m reminded of that one comment Rebecca got, which said “you deserve to be raped, tortured and killed.â€
And for those too pressed for time, too lazy, sloppy of thinking, dogmatic of mind, or just plain bigoted, to do the requisite reading and searching, here’s the relevant quote from Watson’s “Page of Hateâ€:Watson wrote:Dawkins’ seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape “jokes,†threats, objectifying insults, and slurs.
Ah, in that case we're in agreement! My gaslighting never usually fails like this...windy wrote: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.
Quite by coincidence I did have a lovely piece of halibut tonight.Cunning Punt wrote:You're only making it worse for yourself!BarnOwl wrote:No one deserves to be raped with a dead porcupine, tortured by being fucked into the ground, or killed by fire or broken neck.
::kicks sand:: Jehovah! Jehovah!
Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Actually, free speech doesn't cover incitement to commit crimes.16bitheretic wrote:Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.16bitheretic wrote:Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
That would definitely work, but I'm of the opinion that the less that particular individual is mentioned, the better, even if it is poking fun. "Their hatejimthepleb wrote: Aha, I've been waiting a while to see you clownshoe...
I was wondering if you do requests for your excellent fairytale series?
If so, could you do a version of 'brere rabbit' regarding Watson's ridiculous 'Pleez don't say sexist stuff to me' crap?
