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

[jimthepleb]

*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.

I refer you to my sig, that phrase just jumped out at me as wholly apposite and devastatingly evocative of their true nature.

[d4m10n]

Place your bets.

Shave off the 'stache. Then they won't recognise you.

And borrow Al’s racist hat.

[jimthepleb]

Septic = American, in rhyming slang. Septic tank = Yank = USAian.

IIRC you're Norwegian? Don't think there's rhyming slang for Norwegians ... those of your nationality have to earn the ire, disdain, and/or prejudice of the English, to achieve rhyming slang "status."

<--- Septic

Aha. How clever of the limey bastards ;-)

Yes, I am a proud Norwegian. Viking power and death to the Swedes and all that :mrgreen:

A 1000 years ago the main pasttime of Norwegian vikings was to rape and pillage the English and the Scots. Where were the Rebecca Twatsons then, eh?

She was busy being on the wrong side of history.

[Apples]

For the record, if someone did approach her in this way, it does sound creepy, in my opinion.
But it would also sound creepy for a strange woman to approach a man in this way. Or for a strange woman to approach a woman. Or a strange man to approach a man.
It is the action of the individual that is the problem, not the genders of the participants.
I have seen more specific complaints of women making unwanted approaches at conferences towards other attendees (both male and female) than I have of specific incidences of men making unwanted approaches.

Myself, I've come up with a term for that (I tend to do that in order to keep concepts straight in my head). Political Objectification. This is when you don't see people as people, but you see them as all the little sub-group boxes that Mean Something. So for example, someone's political status/power as a woman, and what her actions mean in terms of women everywhere is more important than her own personal desires/wants/needs/situation. Everybody is representative of all the boxes that they are grouped in, for good or for ill.

Needless to say, this is why SJW's tend to constantly make remarks that are blatantly sexist/racist/etc. without realizing it.

Identity politics (groups more important than individuals). Crommie's attempt to "drive a stake in the heart of color-blindness." Calls for "proportional representation" in every sphere, regardless of individual preference and the myriad non-oppression factors that affect these things. The SJWs know that the cleanest, truest approach to individual people and political debates is without reference to their supposed 'axes of privilege/disprivilege' (since egalitarianism and civil rights are all about nondiscrimination based on group-membership). The paradoxes are blatant and the logical conflicts irresolvable.

One reason feminism is so irritating today is that feminism won all of its toughest and most important battles decades ago -- the right to vote, the right to work, laws against sexual harassment, etc. Time to drop the "fem" from the sex politics discussion and, as Strawkins implies above, focus on people treating one another decently. This would be the single most effective way for 'feminists' to defang the MRAs. Same with Crommie's precious race-consciousness. It's not that you can't study and talk about race, it's that, as Karmakin points out, you can't treat it as the most important fact about people unless you really approve of racism (because the victim cred is an irresistible trump card in political arguments).

The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).

[jimthepleb]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Funny you should mention that, i was somewhat put out(read amused) to read a trans* friend of ben svan's threatening to come at CiS guys with a pickaxe handle, and suggest to metalogic that he place his balls in a vice.
So i tweeted by way of return 'trans* don't do that'
I think it has killed my account, 24hrs and still 'suspended.' At a guess for 'transphobia'.
The iota this bothers me was caught up in a draught and is now floating around the room with the other dust mites, the account was created simply to engage. It is indicative of the remarkable double standard of the Indolent Hand-wringers behaviour though.
Bonus points for actually giving me time to catch up on my tax returns and start my blog though.

[Karmakin]

The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).

Well, I think that kyriarchy/intersectionalism is a bit more than that, personally. It's not just the understanding of all the various power axis in society. It's also understanding that those power axis are often dimorphic, with power going in all directions depending on the given situation. Somethings, you can or may want to fix, and some things you can't or may not want to fix because the price is too high.

If you're trying to have an intersectionalism based worldview, then the extreme-left starting point, quite frankly, is just fail IMO.

[Za-zen]

I am going to condense my thoughts as to why this schism cannot and will not be healed.

The Atheist movement has to serve the interest of all atheists. That interest being, the prevention of religious incursion into legislature. The atheist movement should not be campaigning on issues which are held dear to people who happen to be atheists! And unfortunately that is what the politicos are attempting to do. They are conflating atheism with feminism, atheism with liberalism, atheism with [insert pet political ideology]

Why is this a problem? Because an MRA who is an atheist has as much right to be represented and valued by the atheist movement as a feminist, untill such time that they insist that the atheist movement should be fighting for mens rights, adopting MRA dogma, removing people who they deem anti-mra's from leadership positions, at which stage they should also recieve a heartfelt "wise to fuck up, or go to the tent that does that shit"

Look at the vicious campaign to oust edwina rodgers, before she'd even sat her ass in the chair. And why? Because she's a republican! Oh noes the politicos can't have that, can't have a republicsn in their liberal movement. But wait, that's exactly the problem, this isn't a fucking liberal movement, and if you can't leave your politics at the door to fight the common enemy of religion, then you are in the wrong fucking tent.

[Mykeru]

Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.

Normally Magix Movie Edit Pro saves as an .MPV file, which is a container that links to external files. Often when it can't find the external file it will prompt to locate it. This is something different, perhaps related to having more than one editing widow open.

I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.

Once a linked video file in a project is moved, or worse an entire folder is moved containing video used in a project it renders the EDL useless. BUT! most good programs alert you that the video file location doesn't exist and gives you an opportunity to re`link. If this opportunity doesn't happen you can kiss that project goodbye and you'll have to start again.

That's how it normally works.

My description could also be totally unrelated to Mykeru's problem but educational anyways....

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... emlin2.jpg

Gremlins. With these new blockbuster bombs you have to hit them juuuuust right.

The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.

Justin , I'm sure I speak for many here who just want to say to you....

either grow that thing out or shave it the fuck off. Seriously, my 17 yr old daughter has a better moustache.

Oh and congrats and all that. Fuck off.

THIS! SQUAWK! 1,000 TIMES THIS!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hpT8rrYbCdA/U ... pillar.jpg

Most things that squawk think Justin's 'stache looks tasty.

[jimthepleb]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Good point on Mabus, however wasn't the other user allowed to return on another account once it was made clear s/h/it's behaviour was unacceptable? My memory could be faulty on that, it is on most things.
On a more board-tech related note lsuoma, i seem to recall that after posting a response to another user, the UI would ping you back to the post you were responding to, rather than the last comment on the board? (again false memory disclaimer) If so could that be re-instated? If not, is it possible?

[ERV]

The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

I dont give a shit. I dont give a shit about a few billion people. That I dont give a shit about PZ Myers is a fairly unremarkable statistic, so I dont feel particularly interested in pursuing 'healing' that rift when I have actual shit to deal with in real life with real people/stuff that I actually care about.

[jimthepleb]

I am going to condense my thoughts as to why this schism cannot and will not be healed.

The Atheist Secular movement has to serve the interest of all atheists secularists. That interest being, the prevention of religious incursion into legislature. The atheist secular movement should not be campaigning on issues which are held dear to people who happen to be atheists! And unfortunately that is what the politicos are attempting to do. They are conflating atheism with feminism, atheism with liberalism, atheism with [insert pet political ideology]

Why is this a problem? Because an MRA who is an atheist secularist has as much right to be represented and valued by the atheist secularist movement as a feminist, untill such time that they insist that the atheist secular movement should be fighting for mens rights, adopting MRA dogma, removing people who they deem anti-mra's from leadership positions, at which stage they should also recieve a heartfelt "wise to fuck up, or go to the tent that does that shit"

Look at the vicious campaign to oust edwina rodgers, before she'd even sat her ass in the chair. And why? Because she's a republican! Oh noes the politicos can't have that, can't have a republicsn in their liberal movement. But wait, that's exactly the problem, this isn't a fucking liberal movement, and if you can't leave your politics at the door to fight the common enemy of religion, then you are in the wrong fucking tent.

I do this all the time too. :whistle:

[ERV]

For those of you who missed the backstory here, our original forum foundress had the temerity to post a YouTube excerpt from a Tarantino movie along with her desire to talk to a certain erotica writer face to face. Upon arising from the fainting couch, a select group of bloggers made it clear that they had interpreted this clip not as a metaphor for serious discussion about contentious issues, but rather as an actual threat of violence backed by Japanese steel. Condemnations and hysterically outlandish demands quickly followed.

That reminds me, JV should carefully watch what he posts for the next few months. There are countless people looking for even the most tenuous excuse to declare him a threat or a harasser. All attempts at reasoned discussion of certain issues must be preemptively scuttled, by any means, for obvious reasons.

You missed the part where I clearly referenced the Chris Stedman PZ Myers debate, meaning that in order for you to take the 'Kill Bill' theme literally, you would have to believe that Chris Stedman literally beheaded PZ Myers on stage in Australia.

[decius]

I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.

Sounds like a nesting issue, which may or may not be a bug or a feature. Perhaps you need to do parallel editing in a separate instance of the programme, rather than a separate window.

[Dilurk]

Martin Pribble got himself into some hot water with this post http://martinspribble.com/archives/3667
I recognise some of the usual crowd commenting.

[Lurkion]

1 ) The elevator story is an ordinary event
2 ) If an ordinary event is recounted by a man, you would not question it
3 ) ( 1 2 ) You would not question the elevator story if a man recounted it

4 ) The elevator story was recounted by a woman
5 ) If you question a story recounted by a woman that you would not have questioned
if it was recounted by a man, you are guilty of sexist behaviour
6 ) ( 3 4 5 ) If you question the elevator story, you are guilty of sexist behaviour

7 ) If you legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that
then you question the elevator story
8 ) If you are on the other side but do not make rape threats or use slurs then you
legitimately ( ? ) argue against Rebecca Watson saying guys do not do that

C ) ( 6 7 8 ) Those on the other side who do not make rape threats or use slurs
are guilty of sexist behaviour


I think it is unsound - I see no reason to believe premises 2 7 or 8 are true

I think it is unsound - I see no no reason to believe premises 2 3 6 7 8

Prermise 8 is unbelievably flawed because it assumes compartmentalisation

Which is a bit of a problem for Rebecca because I am not as neat as that now

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

OHMYGOD

[Lurkion]

Place your bets.

Shave off the 'stache. Then they won't recognise you.

And borrow Al’s racist hat.

No. Al's racist hat draws attention by yelling racist names at everyone.

[LMU]

My recent post on Zvan’s site which is, not suprisingly, “awaiting moderation” [and waiting and waiting …]:

Methinks you’re engaging in some egregious “four legs good; two legs bad” in making it a precondition that anyone to be involved in healing those “deep rifts” has to “leave the slime pit behind”. In addition, the implication that there is no one there “who acts as though any of us have a point” is simply poisoning the well as I at least, among others, have frequently conceded the contrary – for which I have received no small amount of flak, although no banning.

But that is not to mention that that precondition is decidedly unrealistic – what do you expect? An oath of allegiance to FTB and Gender Feminism plus some ritual spitting on Evolutionary Psychology? Seems to me that those issues are substantially or significantly the bones of contention generating those “rifts”, not some peripheral questions about the seating arrangements.

One might suggest, as a starting point, a drawing up of a list on each side followed by a determination of which items are in common. Non-negotiable ultimatums hardly seem to qualify.

Agreed. Putting ultimatums before laying out real terms is putting the cart before the horse. Have these people never actually been in a negotiation/mediation. Ultimatums are the final draw. They are used only when a point has to be forced.

They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).

[Angry_Drunk]

The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

I dont give a shit. I dont give a shit about a few billion people. That I dont give a shit about PZ Myers is a fairly unremarkable statistic, so I dont feel particularly interested in pursuing 'healing' that rift when I have actual shit to deal with in real life with real people/stuff that I actually care about.

All of this with the addition that there is a core group (Meyers, Benson, Laden, Watson et al) who don't even care about defending their "friends". To them it's whatever it takes to keep control of the conference circuit and the associated dosh.

[Mykeru]

You missed the part where I clearly referenced the Chris Stedman PZ Myers debate, meaning that in order for you to take the 'Kill Bill' theme literally, you would have to believe that Chris Stedman literally beheaded PZ Myers on stage in Australia.

I fully admit to Stephanie Svan's charge of threatening Laden and company with nuclear weapons:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8047/8392 ... 41a8a5.jpg

Also...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8493/8277 ... 485727.jpg

[Lsuoma]

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

[jimthepleb]

@rocko is it you that does the excellent 'fairytales' on youtube?

[decius]

Thanks, LSuoma. Like I said, I trust your judgement completely. It's only possible repercussions on others elsewhere that bother me.

[LMU]

*What would you actually call these people btw? I've used FTBer often, but I know it's not really fair to a lot of FTB bloggers who aren't involved in all of this drama. FC(n) is good for certain purposes, but it only points to 5-6 bloggers, and doesn't really cover people like Watson, Adam Lee, and the myriad of rabid commentators who all drank the koolaid.

I've been thinking of it as a series of concentric circles. SJWs are the biggest group and they contain the baboons, who are the SJWs specific to this kerfuffle in atheism/skepticism. Within the baboons are the FC(n) who are the leaders, and include PZ, Benson, etc (Is RW part of the FC(n) or is it FTB bloggers only?).

[katamari Damassi]

If Mickey Mouse cornered Minnie Mouse in an elevator and asked out for coffee, would that be mouseginy?

:rimshot:

Mickey and Minnie are in a marriage counselor's office.

Minnie says, "I don't know why Mickey insisted we come here."

The counselor says, "Mickey told me that he was concerned about your behavior. He said you've been acting strangely lately."

"No." Mickey replies. "I said she was fucking Goofy."

[Barael]

Martin Pribble got himself into some hot water with this post http://martinspribble.com/archives/3667
I recognise some of the usual crowd commenting.

And a running start for the comments:

I can see you don't understand much about women or feminism. For feminism, look up feminism 101. I can't cover it all here and it's not my job to spoon feed it to you.

I give it 7/10. The form is impeccable but an overall lack of creativity.

[katamari Damassi]

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

She was stealing hugs wasn't she?

[ReneeHendricks]

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

Thank you for this. Since the 7 tweets last night from Eucliwood sort of begging me to find out what was going on, I've been conflicted on how to respond. On the one hand, I have a guy at home who's sleep has been so bad due to his surgery, he's having visual and auditory hallucinations. So, to be frank, I could really give a flying fuck about what's going on with her. On the other hand, I'm left with this feeling that I'm some sort of "really nice" gal as she went directly to me on Twitter to find out what was up. I don't want to be a dick...well, not really.

[decius]

Mykeru is sending me unsolicited videos of himself jerking off over images of Greg Laden in a blue wig.

[Za-zen]

Okay, scratch my previous post in favour of this. Noel (also one of the hated for having the temerity to think for himself) has summised it quite well. I'll add though that the reason this rumble will continue is that they won't just fuck off. Their sense of entitlement prevents them from doing so. They will stay and keep insisting that this movement serves their politics.

http://noelplum99.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... t.html?m=1

[jimthepleb]

Mykeru is sending me unsolicited videos of himself jerking off over images of Greg Laden in a blue wig.

pics or it didn't happen.

[katamari Damassi]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Brilliant! :D

Thank you. :)

I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.

[Submariner]

Okay, scratch my previous post in favour of this. Noel (also one of the hated for having the temerity to think for himself) has summised it quite well. I'll add though that the reason this rumble will continue is that they won't just fuck off. Their sense of entitlement prevents them from doing so. They will stay and keep insisting that this movement serves their politics.

http://noelplum99.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... t.html?m=1

I found that blog to be very well reasoned as are many of Noelplum's arguments (another reason he is despised at FfTB's and A+). Having read some of his interactions with the baboons, he has much more patience than I do for the crap they fling at him.

[Mykeru]

Thank you for this. Since the 7 tweets last night from Eucliwood sort of begging me to find out what was going on, I've been conflicted on how to respond. On the one hand, I have a guy at home who's sleep has been so bad due to his surgery, he's having visual and auditory hallucinations. So, to be frank, I could really give a flying fuck about what's going on with her. On the other hand, I'm left with this feeling that I'm some sort of "really nice" gal as she went directly to me on Twitter to find out what was up. I don't want to be a dick...well, not really.

For sale:

http://johno16.edublogs.org/files/2012/ ... cn0scp.jpg

Cheap.

Mykeru is sending me unsolicited videos of himself jerking off over images of Greg Laden in a blue wig.

Get a wish list like everyone else.

pics or it didn't happen.

Hyper-skepticism!

[Lsuoma]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.

No, I know who it was and had an email discussion with them about it. I genuinely believe it was a mistake on their part, but I could be wrong. Definitely not colon. He DOWNloaded it.

[Apples]

The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).

Well, I think that kyriarchy/intersectionalism is a bit more than that, personally. It's not just the understanding of all the various power axis in society. It's also understanding that those power axis are often dimorphic, with power going in all directions depending on the given situation. Somethings, you can or may want to fix, and some things you can't or may not want to fix because the price is too high.

If you're trying to have an intersectionalism based worldview, then the extreme-left starting point, quite frankly, is just fail IMO.

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to claim that kyriarchy theory is nothing more than marxism, more like marxism plus critical theory plus the kitchen sink plus hair balls -- i.e., it's the 'internalized class-consciousness" extended to include every other "internalized" axis of privilege/oppression -- key point being the impossibility of transcending these structures (without the help of your friendly local kyriarchy plumber - i.e., Crommunist, Setar, or Ceepolk).

From the wiki on kyriarchy:

'Schüssler Fiorenza (2009) describes interdependent "stratifications of gender, race, class, religion, heterosexualism, and age" as structural positions assigned at birth. She suggests that people inhabit several positions, and that positions with privilege become nodal points through which other positions are experienced."'

Well, no duh. It's commonsensical and not even wrong. What are you doing, in real life, when you have an "intersectionalism based worldview?" Ideally, you're trying to be a decent and empathetic person who isn't blind to the fact that people are different and face varying challenges, privileges, obstacles, and opportunities, based on innumerable factors. In which case everyone who isn't a clueless asshole is already an expert, for all practical purposes, on kyriarchy theory. When applied by SJWs, the "intersectionalism based worldview" seems to involve an obsession with focusing exclusively on perceived, sometimes invented, dominance/oppression dynamics in every situation, which leads to ... A+. Paradoxically, the absolute domination of the "global moderators" is never to be questioned.

The reason I brought up marxism is that it seems like the way kyriarchy theory is applied in the skeptical movement is by pressing for an intellectual "dictatorship of the disprivileged" (the new proletariat - now with more genderqueer and less white male class-consciousness!).

tl;dr: Thus proving your point -- that the extreme-left approach to intersectionality is a fail.

[Lsuoma]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Good point on Mabus, however wasn't the other user allowed to return on another account once it was made clear s/h/it's behaviour was unacceptable? My memory could be faulty on that, it is on most things.

Yeah, you're right - faulty memory on my part. I offered to allow that person to return with another account provided they made it clear that they fessed up and identified their RL name. They chose not to, and I think I would have made the same decision.

On a more board-tech related note lsuoma, i seem to recall that after posting a response to another user, the UI would ping you back to the post you were responding to, rather than the last comment on the board? (again false memory disclaimer) If so could that be re-instated? If not, is it possible?

I don't ever remember it doing that.

[LMU]

Ah I see you've confused me with the tameless Dick Strawkins.

Wrong stick entirely I'm afraid. No forgiveness necessary.

I would like to hand in my membership to the Slyme Pit effective immediately

I am obviously too thick to continue, I have obviously been reading about the Baboons for too long and it has taken it's toll

:confusion-helpsos:

Well we'd be sad to see you go, but you may be eligible to debate Svan. Any interest? :mrgreen:

[LMU]

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

After watching the A+ forum for so long, that a mod would make such an effort to be fair is shocking. :shock:

For the record I vote for not banning anyone unless it is absolutely necessary, but I shall trust your judgement on when that might be.

[lurking coward]

Atheismplus.
Last 15 days = 38 new subscribers.
How many of those are banned users signing in under new sock accounts?

Oops. Make that 18 days.

I don't know what the number of subscribers really means. It seems to me that their forums generally have at most 6 active participants (usually all the same ones) and usually half of them are mods.

Some are probably just signing on so they can see more info about the mods. Or something.

I don't really see them as a significant faction. It is kinda interesitng however to be able to sort of eavesdrop on a cult like this. You know, without having to worry about being forced to drink lethal Kool Aide and stuff. :popcorn:

[jjbinx007]

Re: Eucliwood,

After following some breadcrumbs that Renee just dropped I've had a look and it's my judgement that she is who she says she is (reasons: her Facebook account was setup 2 years ago and Youtube is full of comments on vids that teenage girls would watch). It's also possible that it's a fake online identity set up by some dude, of course.

Eucliwood also strikes me as having "issues". But does that mean she shouldn't have the right to post here? In my view, she should have the right. The Slymepit is NOT atheismplus and it's not Freethoughtblogs. That means we should give someone the right to speak even if we disagree with much of what they say. It also gives us the right to reply to that person if we think they're talking a load of shit.

So my vote is let Eucliwood back unless she posts something which could result in legal action against you. If she does, ban her.

[jjbinx007]

And for the record, Eucliwood irritates the shit out of me.

[jjbinx007]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

[d4m10n]

The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

A shield, a sword, a forward-operating base, and a recruitment campaign for fresh volunteers back on the home front.

I have to agree that much of what has been happening (at the level of public speakers and popular bloggers like yourself) is being driven by longstanding personal alliances and vendettas. However, it seems to me that the troops in the trenches have been volunteering for duty and taking sides based on who puts out the most appealing propaganda campaign promoting and explaining their cause.

One side offers a sort of pre-utopian narrative of self-righteous feminist fury crusading against the evil monopod-wielding cis-privileged women-harassing rape-apologists intent upon reducing an entire gender to nothing but fuck toys and eye candy. This approach is designed to appeal to young lefty keyboard revolutionaries looking to smash some sort of oppressive system, the sort of folk who could have camped out with Occupy but for the unpleasant fact of winter chill.

The other side has hilarious videos making fun of the authoritarian posturing of their opponents, along with the only truly safe-space for applying genuine skepticism to the various claims of feminism.

It is obvious to me who will eventually win this struggle among skeptics. Atheists, however, are another matter entirely. Many of them got to where they are without ever learning how to do skepticism in general (“Dude, have you seen Zeitgeist?”) and remain susceptible to being manipulated by clever rhetoricians.

[LMU]

Re: Eucliwood,

...

So my vote is let Eucliwood back unless she posts something which could result in legal action against you. If she does, ban her.

I think that's exactly the concern. I am not a lawyer, but (IIRC) Lsuoma said that he had a relative who is that he consulted, and they said that there might be issues. It sounds like Lsuoma came across something additional that lead him to believe that banning was prudent.

[Lsuoma]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

I'll be posting caps when I make my post later.

[jjbinx007]

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.

[Scented Nectar]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."

Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?

Now then, let's try...
"The Matriarchy hurts womenz too." Yep, feminists try to run other women's sex lives, telling them they are not consenting when the woman knows damn well she was. Eg; drunk sex being said to always be rape. Another eg: Willing workers in the sex industry (dancing, prostitution, porn acting, phone sex operators, etc) are told by many feminists that they are raped every time they do their job.

Feminists want to control other people's sexual transaction choices. Some consider all sex with men rape, but outside of those ones, even moderate radfems try and control the transaction choice. If you are trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure, they are fine with that. If you are trading sexual pleasure for a promise of monogamy, they are fine with that. However, a fun drinking night ending in a fun one night stand of trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure? Nope! Rape rape! Even though he was drunk too, they won't say the woman raped the man, but if she was drunk (and I don't mean passed out), it get's called rape. Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better. She needs rescuing. Same story for sex work. Most feminists believe there is no way to consent to sex work, so it is all rape. Even if a woman carefully draws up her business plan, advertises and runs everything herself. Nope, she was raped. Sex for money transaction not allowed, unless it's in the form of already bought items, such as wedding rings, expensive dinners, a house, car, etc. Cash itself MAY be acceptable only in the form of financial support or allowance IF she is also living with him.

[Lsuoma]

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.

I am. BTW, the information I'll be sharing is open for discussion, but the decision to ban rests solely with me. I value the opinion of many here, which is why I've decided to share the information now that Eucliwood has given explicit permission, and it can't be considered doc dropping.

[Scented Nectar]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

Personally I don't much care for that reversal of the sexes thing, the Mrs. never uses enough lube. :shock:

Hahahahaha!!!!

There are some areas where too much lube is way better than not enough! :D

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Funny you should mention that, i was somewhat put out(read amused) to read a trans* friend of ben svan's threatening to come at CiS guys with a pickaxe handle, and suggest to metalogic that he place his balls in a vice.
So i tweeted by way of return 'trans* don't do that'
I think it has killed my account, 24hrs and still 'suspended.' At a guess for 'transphobia'.
The iota this bothers me was caught up in a draught and is now floating around the room with the other dust mites, the account was created simply to engage. It is indicative of the remarkable double standard of the Indolent Hand-wringers behaviour though.
Bonus points for actually giving me time to catch up on my tax returns and start my blog though.

:lol:
Oh no, they don't like any other variations of "...'s don't do that"s. Only men have to yield as a group to the authority of another group, (radfem women and male lackeys). Saying "don't do that" to the wrong group is a cardinal sin. :D

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

OHMYGOD

I know, eh? I think this means that we are supposed to pre-report Watson to every conference for her sexist behaviour at previous conferences. What would Melody do? :D

[Gefan]

Now, remember my prediction here.

Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.

Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to

1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.

2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.

Place your bets.

I'm picturing Melody as George Wallace standing in the University of Alabama doorway. Those of you with greater photoshop skills than me (which is basically everyone), you're welcome.

[AbsurdWalls]

Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.

Normally Magix Movie Edit Pro saves as an .MPV file, which is a container that links to external files. Often when it can't find the external file it will prompt to locate it. This is something different, perhaps related to having more than one editing widow open.

I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.

I use open-source graphing software (xmgrace) that has this bug. I have a whole bunch of rituals I go through whenever I open it, whenever I fork a file, etc. otherwise it will eat work. I can usually recover from the previous version when that happens, but it is such a pig to use that I want to avoid that whenever possible.

It's still the best graphing software I have found though.

[Scented Nectar]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

[katamari Damassi]

I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.

Someone solicited sex from PZ Myers? Do you think they were attracted to his rugged good looks, his white hot charisma, or his charming personality?

Wait. Were these prostitutes?

[Apples]

It is obvious to me who will eventually win this struggle among skeptics. Atheists, however, are another matter entirely. Many of them got to where they are without ever learning how to do skepticism in general (“Dude, have you seen Zeitgeist?”) and remain susceptible to being manipulated by clever rhetoricians.

QFT and many good points above it. Fuck PZ.

[windy]

Yes, I am a proud Norwegian. Viking power and death to the Swedes and all that :mrgreen:

Have you been following the recent Sweden vs. Norway journalistic catfight? The way the labels "racist" or "extreme right" are thrown around has some interesting parallels to the labeling of "MRAs" and "sexists" in the skeptical community... I thought this was a good response:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/artik ... d=10113487

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

That sounds fair. I get your concern, but banning someone for undisclosed reasons seemed too contrary to the spirit of the 'pit.

[Lsuoma]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

I agree with this last paragraph entirely, but I think the latter: if she's trying entrapment, she's fucking shit at it.

[jjbinx007]

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

Perhaps a compromise can be achieved - ban her until she turns 18.