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

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:In other news entirely, it looks like Megan Phelps is no longer part of the WBC (if this is old news, I apologize):

https://medium.com/turning-points/83d2ef8ba4f5

Good for her.

She's not quite right about always being tied to what she said and did in the WBC. People get it. We allow people to have second acts, and she gets props for escaping the nut hatch. A lot will be forgiven.

Nathan Phelps did it. I'm sure she can too (and her sister). I can't imagine how very isolated they both must feel, however. Having your entire life being wrapped up in that family and then to be cut off and treated as though you had died.

It will be interesting to see if they can go one step further and realise there is no God either ...

decius wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Is it for example, the implication that at some level people have involuntary triggers that at heart make us no different from other animals?

I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

Walter Ego wrote: Welch's point I believe is that PZ has always been a vindictive, small-minded asshole. No one should be surprised that he is now directing his venom towards targets within the atheist/skeptic community.

cunt wrote:How did I react? By owning the living shit out of you and deicus. I'd do that anyway.

cunt wrote:How much would it take for you to phone the police scented? I mean, i've approached probably hundreds of women, and a lot of the time it's gone badly. Never to the point they phoned the cops though.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Now you might realize the irony that this is basically the 'Dear Muslima' argument (except it is Watson making it rather than getting outraged by it) but you might also see that there isn't exactly a solid reason to assume those making vile comments on that video were actually atheists. Most likely they were men in the anti-circumcision camp, which, as far as I can tell, is not an atheistic movement.
So right from the outset we have a problem between Watson and what are most likely mens rights activists rather than atheists. From that point on she has linked any criticism of her to MRA supporters, misogynists etc and stated, without any evidence, that the atheist community is a hotbed for these individuals.

Have you not just done what Twatson has done? And unless I am mistaken, while taking her to task for it?

I believe I have asked you before to think about what it is about MRAs that appears to set your teeth on edge, but I can not recall you being able to come up with some sort of definitive answer or explain it to well.

This seems to be (at least to me), a blind spot Dick. Even if you are not an MRA, it is an easy one to spot. I really do think you need to work on this because it is a hook upon which someone can easily hang a dismissal of your entire argument.

In sum, I believe you need more weasel words.

I think if I was in your position, and being aware of my biases, I would find some way to smear those poor widdle defensless MRAs (who want nothing more than unicorns and rainbows for all) while maintaining some sort of plausablle deniability. It is easy enough to do. So why not take the time to do it?

Here is an example:

Most likely they were men in the anti-circumcision camp, which, as far as I can tell, is not an atheistic movement. So right from the outset we have a problem between Watson and what are most likely what some would call mens rights activists rather than atheists. From that point on she has linked any criticism of her to MRA supporters, misogynists etc and stated, without any evidence, that the atheist community is a hotbed for these individuals.

See? This is how you can do a smear by association, while you maintain a stance of plausible deniability.

But I do wish you would think about what it is about MRAs that gets you hot. It may take awhile so I am not expecting an answer from you any time soon. But meanwhile, maintaining cover is recommended, if only for the sake of protecting your argument.

But I do wish you would think about what it is about MRAs that gets you hot

It may take awhile so I am not expecting an answer from you any time soon. But meanwhile, maintaining cover is recommended, if only for the sake of protecting your argument.

Aratina Cage ‏@aratina

@OpheliaBenson Ugh. I see Steve Novella is ganging up on you now, saying you were naughty, etc. etc. When will these men give it up???

Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina Seems there's some hair trigger "You're calling me a thoroughly ontologically repugnant thing!"
Detalles
3h Official SpokesGay Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina . . that gets in the way of people understanding that the ACTION, rgdless of your heart of hearts,
Detalles
3h Official SpokesGay Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina . .is what matters. Damn it, this isn't for Twitter. Should write essay.

2h Ophelia Benson Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina Only, there was no fucking mistake. I didn't have to add a stipulation that a sexist comment does not mean the...

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina ...commenter is a sexist. When writing for FI I don't assume that the readers don't know how to read.

cunt wrote:

Za-zen wrote:

cunt wrote:

LMU wrote:

cunt wrote:I'm glad that PUA guy got arrested.

Why?

Instead of acting like a regular human being, that little pecker thought that inter-human interaction might have some kind of konami cheat-code. He is a fucking idiot, and I like hearing about bad things happening to idiots.

He may be a fucking idiot, but thankfully in most western nations being an idiot still isn't a crime. Stick your moralising prudery up your ass cunt.

Looks like it's enough to get arrested. Lets all gather in a circle and baww our eyes out for this little prick.

cunt wrote:

decius wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Is it for example, the implication that at some level people have involuntary triggers that at heart make us no different from other animals?

I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

I have to agree on the first point and the second. Question is borked though, does the PUA say that he touched someone without consent. Or does he contend that he's the innocent, injured party?

Altair wrote:I haven't read Novella's article, but I'm going to have to read it, because Ophelia, Aratina, Josh and Joe are really PISSED at him

https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson/statu ... 6075233280

Aratina Cage ‏@aratina

@OpheliaBenson Ugh. I see Steve Novella is ganging up on you now, saying you were naughty, etc. etc. When will these men give it up???

Is it me or you can almost feel the spit coming out of her mouth when she says "these men"?

Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina Seems there's some hair trigger "You're calling me a thoroughly ontologically repugnant thing!"
Detalles
3h Official SpokesGay Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina . . that gets in the way of people understanding that the ACTION, rgdless of your heart of hearts,
Detalles
3h Official SpokesGay Official SpokesGay ‏@SpokesGay

@OpheliaBenson @ImprobableJoe @aratina . .is what matters. Damn it, this isn't for Twitter. Should write essay.

And Josh makes the startling discovery that people tend to get mad when they're insulted and called sexist, misogynist and whatnot without good reason. Who would have thought?

2h Ophelia Benson Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina Only, there was no fucking mistake. I didn't have to add a stipulation that a sexist comment does not mean the...

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina ...commenter is a sexist. When writing for FI I don't assume that the readers don't know how to read.

And this part sounds extremely close to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing the christians like to use. A good question would be at what point does someone become a sexist? Not with one comment, maybe two, or three?

Apples wrote: Is there an article? I was guessing this was about Novella's back-and-forth with Ophelia over at the Harriet Hall thread:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... r-so-much/

Gefan wrote: Where I disagree is that this stuff will lead to the downfall of civilization. I think that's en route anyway, propelled by other causes, and will arrive before the mounting bill from the RadFems comes due.
When the Peezus hits the fan, all the gender politics will evaporate rather swiftly.

AndrewV69 wrote:

welch wrote: For as smart, (and many of you are in one way), and rational as you think yourself to be, the fact you didn't realize that they treat *everyone* they see as an enemy or even in disagreement this way shows just how blind you were. The fact you were all in the same group guaranteed you fuck all nothing, and it was a grave overestimation of loyalty based solely on a loose binding to a rather in-cohesive group that allowed you to think that.

I am quite ready to go with an abnormality in the hippocampus, specifically centred around the amygdala as an explanation for this type of behaviour myself.

(note: I am not an expert in this field. You would be wise to take this opinion with a sack of salt.)

Dick Strawkins wrote:

cunt wrote:

decius wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Is it for example, the implication that at some level people have involuntary triggers that at heart make us no different from other animals?

I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

I have to agree on the first point and the second. Question is borked though, does the PUA say that he touched someone without consent. Or does he contend that he's the innocent, injured party?

Watching the video, it appears that the PUA was part of a team that filmed him using a hidden camera as he approached women to try his pick-up lines.
The police arrested them because they suspected something dodgy (he mentioned that they suspected they were filming upskirt videos of passing women.) When the police interviewed them and realized it wasn't anything like this, they were released.
In other words it is a non-story.
The police made a mistake and when they realized the guy was released.
He wasn't arrested for being a PUA.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

cunt wrote:

decius wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Is it for example, the implication that at some level people have involuntary triggers that at heart make us no different from other animals?

I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

I have to agree on the first point and the second. Question is borked though, does the PUA say that he touched someone without consent. Or does he contend that he's the innocent, injured party?

Watching the video, it appears that the PUA was part of a team that filmed him using a hidden camera as he approached women to try his pick-up lines.
The police arrested them because they suspected something dodgy (he mentioned that they suspected they were filming upskirt videos of passing women.) When the police interviewed them and realized it wasn't anything like this, they were released.
In other words it is a non-story.
The police made a mistake and when they realized the guy was released.
He wasn't arrested for being a PUA.

katamari Damassi wrote:The difference is that through her actions she has demonstrated herself to be unqualified to lead the CFI. She needs to go for that organization to retain any credibility as a skeptics' organization.

LMU wrote:
Thanks! (Sorry for being so lazy.)

cunt wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

cunt wrote:

decius wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Is it for example, the implication that at some level people have involuntary triggers that at heart make us no different from other animals?

I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

I have to agree on the first point and the second. Question is borked though, does the PUA say that he touched someone without consent. Or does he contend that he's the innocent, injured party?

Watching the video, it appears that the PUA was part of a team that filmed him using a hidden camera as he approached women to try his pick-up lines.
The police arrested them because they suspected something dodgy (he mentioned that they suspected they were filming upskirt videos of passing women.) When the police interviewed them and realized it wasn't anything like this, they were released.
In other words it is a non-story.
The police made a mistake and when they realized the guy was released.
He wasn't arrested for being a PUA.

Oh for fucks sake I watched that video. No footage of the arrest.

Zenspace wrote:

welch wrote:

Apples wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:BTW if i'm wrong on the brain box thing...ie that SDG started this (exceptionally fucking tedious) tone trolling shit that's going, on as opposed to the Svan post please say so.

Well, you already know I agree with you. This is an outgrowth of the "let's mend the rifts" sentiment among SIN bloggers, leading to the Svan "terms" and "OMG sex tapes!" posts. SDG was a coincident burp in the process (afaik it hasn't even been mentioned by anyone outside the 'Pit and is unique in its history). BB is being aggressively clueless, which is, for my purposes, one of the worst offenses you can commit at the 'Pit (aside from being persistently boring, like decius). I guess that's what killfiles are for.

Fuck mending rifts. Just stop being such oversensitive nippleheads, and things work themselves out

Here is the point that too many seem to be missing: There is no 'rift'. Never was. You can't fix what is broken by playing nice. What you have is a group of self-important bloggers who, through misplaced ego (definitely), greed (very likely), and a wildly over-inflated sense of self importance (without question!) decided that the best thing to happen to the atheist/skeptical community was themselves. The Pyt was formed by those within that community to had the gall, the utter bald faced gall, to disagree with that pathetically absurd proposition and who were pushed out, denounced and intimidated for having the (trigger warning: incoming gendered slur!) balls to disagree. That, my fellow Pytters, is the so called 'rift'.

Those self important ideologs have no interest in any way, shape or form of making nice. No matter what you or anyone else does, they will not change their ways until they have lost their power base - which is happening slowly but surely. Then, and only then, when it truly dawns on them that they were idiots that screwed themselves over (and that realization may never quite dawn on them, no matter how far they sink), will they deign to acknowledge any dialog that does not follow their designated party line. End of story.

I like to think that the Pyt is contributing to that collapse. At the very least you know you are having an impact, because they simply CAN NOT ignore the Pyt any longer. You make them nuts. It works because they cannot stand the fact that you stand up to them and publicize the hypocrites that they are, daily, in this non-stop, rude, crude, song and dance act. It is making them bonkers. Any time they spend on berating the Pyt makes you stronger and deflects them from doing more damage in other places. Also, as many are beginning to notice, the pushback is growing against FtB. Peezus is getting called out by name almost daily by a different, well known source. It may go unsaid, but don't think these very intelligent people don't know that the Pyt called the truth about FtB long before they did.

Do not expect the big name players to ever acknowledge you or join in. They may agree with what you say and do, it may even be a secret pleasure for some, but their public positions by their very nature will prevent them from acknowledging what is done here in any capacity. That is the political nature of public life, especially when you have that group of vultures hanging on every perceived misspoken word. You think Dawkins or Schermer caught some flack for their 'questionable' but minor contretemps? What in hell do think the reaction would be if they associated directly and openly with a show like this? It would be blown up into a fucking bloodbath in seconds. Get real, boys and girls.

You want to start a 'cleaner', friendlier forum. That is really OK. I support it. I would likely join it. I do see possible merit in it and it has the potential of being a real asset if done well, but don't ever think there will be a moment that everybody plays kissyface and makes up. The egos at FtB would never survive the mere thought of such a thing.

Ok. That's my soapbox rant for the month. Where's my scotch... :mrgreen:

cunt wrote:How much would it take for you to phone the police scented? I mean, i've approached probably hundreds of women, and a lot of the time it's gone badly. Never to the point they phoned the cops though.

decius wrote: I'll ask you because Cunt is a cunt and the video too long.

Did the PUA touch someone without consent or was he just chatting up ladies?

Dick Strawkins wrote: Watching the video, it appears that the PUA was part of a team that filmed him using a hidden camera as he approached women to try his pick-up lines.
The police arrested them because they suspected something dodgy (he mentioned that they suspected they were filming upskirt videos of passing women.) When the police interviewed them and realized it wasn't anything like this, they were released.
In other words it is a non-story.
The police made a mistake and when they realized the guy was released.
He wasn't arrested for being a PUA.

Dick Strawkins wrote: Do I have a problem with MRAs? I give MRAs virtually no thought.

So right from the outset we have a problem between Watson and what are most likely mens rights activists rather than atheists.

AndrewV69 wrote: Not too sure about "the downfall of civilization" myself, but I certainly see the decline and fall of the current "empire".

Cue the recent warnings by a certain Chinese "nationalist" to the Aussies about where their future prospects lie, and that it would be in their own best interests to start making the move now and willingly (and by implication), than being forced to later.

*shrug*

In any event China appears to be making moves to secure their back yard such as the development of the DF-21D and their own aircraft carrier (one so far).

Time will tell as to where this will all lead to, but I doubt that it will be puppies, unicorns and rainbows.

Meanwhile, the Aussies can go ahead and emasculate their men. I am pretty sure China approves. Not to mention when China invades the Aussie men may very well view them as liberators:

Scented Nectar wrote: Police? It would have to be some sort of physical assault or at least someone physically blocking my way in attempt to force me to talk to them. However, I could see how people might want to report him as an ordinary street nuisance, like if he's constantly bugging the same women or staying in the same street/intersection approaching person after person. That could probably cause someone to call the police. Just like they would if someone kept trying to sell them used cars by approaching them on the street.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote: Do I have a problem with MRAs? I give MRAs virtually no thought.

But you still have a blind spot:

So right from the outset we have a problem between Watson and what are most likely mens rights activists rather than atheists.

It is to you a perfectly reasonable and likely supposition. Is it not?

Apples wrote: Is there an article? I was guessing this was about Novella's back-and-forth with Ophelia over at the Harriet Hall thread:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... r-so-much/

Ape+lust wrote:Exciting news, 6 years in the making:

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

...and hold on to your boobs and nuts, Oooooooolon's about to light a wet firecracker:

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

welch wrote:

masakari2012 wrote:My comment went into moderation over at Harriet Hall's blog. I saved a screencap just incase. http://i.imgur.com/Nb4VEIc.png

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ent-111095

These people come off to me as being snobs, who think they are socially superior to everyone else, that uses emotionalism so that they can disregard what the people they disagree with may actually intend to do on the internet.

a nice analysis. We'll see if it survives

Dick Strawkins wrote: I don't think it unreasonable to consider the source of Watsons initial bout of critics after her FGM video to be anti-circumcision activists rather than atheists.
I guess our disagreement is whether you would call those who advocate against male circumcision to be mens rights activists.
Thats the way I see them. I'm not saying they are the same as the AVfM type of activists but I think you are splitting hairs if you want to exclude circumcision from the list of approved topics for actvism.

TheMan wrote:Is it correct to make the observation that I find it amazing that a University lecturer, who I would presume has spend a hell of a lot of time casting a critical analitical eye over 100's of student papers, has submitted a missive that required a wall of editor notes correcting grammar & corrections and notes to, again presuming, expand on this thought etc?...and to top it all off... a history of so many corrections needed it sent one editor "mad".... Peezus!

I hope it's not a Children's book...with the title "Happy Atheist" I'm begining to lean to that understanding. Ignorance is bliss and I should write a book too.

cunt wrote:It'd be pretty serious stuff then. Are you sure it was never "OMG, I feel threatened by normal guys trying to pick me up?". Like if you tell them that you're not interested, and they go away, you don't phone the police? Men are still allowed to talk to women? Just checking.

TheMan wrote: Is it correct to make the observation that I find it amazing that a University lecturer, who I would presume has spend a hell of a lot of time casting a critical analitical eye over 100's of student papers, has submitted a missive that required a wall of editor notes correcting grammar & corrections and notes to, again presuming, expand on this thought etc?...and to top it all off... a history of so many corrections needed it sent one editor "mad".... Peezus!

I hope it's not a Children's book...with the title "Happy Atheist" I'm begining to lean to that understanding. Ignorance is bliss and I should write a book too.

cunt wrote:At least 3 years too late. I'm surprised the publishers are even bothering at this point.

The A+ Primer (from basket o' links) wrote:The purpose of these forums being the discussion of social justice issues within the context of atheism, we use the social justice definitions of words like "racism", "sexism", and other -isms. You may have seen the terms "Institutional Racism", Systemic Racism, Institutional/Systemic Sexism, etc. The short version is -isms = prejudice + power. In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices.

Gumby wrote:

TheMan wrote: Is it correct to make the observation that I find it amazing that a University lecturer, who I would presume has spend a hell of a lot of time casting a critical analitical eye over 100's of student papers, has submitted a missive that required a wall of editor notes correcting grammar & corrections and notes to, again presuming, expand on this thought etc?...and to top it all off... a history of so many corrections needed it sent one editor "mad".... Peezus!

I hope it's not a Children's book...with the title "Happy Atheist" I'm begining to lean to that understanding. Ignorance is bliss and I should write a book too.

No doubt it's not a children's book, but it is still very wrongly titled. PZ Myers may be an atheist, but he is definitely not a happy one. He's too full of anger, dishonesty and pettiness to be happy.

Gefan wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Police? It would have to be some sort of physical assault or at least someone physically blocking my way in attempt to force me to talk to them. However, I could see how people might want to report him as an ordinary street nuisance, like if he's constantly bugging the same women or staying in the same street/intersection approaching person after person. That could probably cause someone to call the police. Just like they would if someone kept trying to sell them used cars by approaching them on the street.

I wish he were standing at a intersection trying to pick up person after person, if only because I'd be encouraged to hope I might one day see something like that in person. If I were really lucky there'd be a nice cafe nearby where I could pull up a seat and order a glass of wine while I watched.

welch wrote:They have not changed their behavior one fucking bit, the "problem" is that you (collectively) are now the target, not Dinesh D'shitstain.

Gumby wrote:No doubt it's not a children's book, but it is still very wrongly titled. PZ Myers may be an atheist, but he is definitely not a happy one. He's too full of anger, dishonesty and pettiness to be happy.

Pitchguest wrote:

cunt wrote:At least 3 years too late. I'm surprised the publishers are even bothering at this point.

Well, it seems PZ apparently wrote like he was on crack or something, considering when the editors returned the book to him to correct it was shock-full of errors, grammatical errors, syntax errors ... content errors ...

Who's willing to bet he'll delay the release for another six years?

Apples wrote:

The A+ Primer (from basket o' links) wrote:The purpose of these forums being the discussion of social justice issues within the context of atheism, we use the social justice definitions of words like "racism", "sexism", and other -isms. You may have seen the terms "Institutional Racism", Systemic Racism, Institutional/Systemic Sexism, etc. The short version is -isms = prejudice + power. In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices.

Bolding mine. I finally poked around their basket of links. The last sentence is a remarkably stupid and revealing statement to put in print, amounting to a license to be an aggressive bigot if you can claim to be "marginalized." Of course, since the poor are obviously marginalized, according to A+ dogma poor white skinheads cannot be guilty of racism. :? Since gay/black people are marginalized, gays and/or blacks can't be guilty of classism/ableism/pick-your-ism. And if atheists are marginalized, white/cis/male/straight upper-class atheists can't be guilty of sexism. Etc. I guess it's just what you'd expect, given the incredible sloppiness and superficiality of everything they've done.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 441#p33441

cunt wrote:At least 3 years too late. I'm surprised the publishers are even bothering at this point.

Release date: August 13, 2013

From the author of one of the web's most popular science blogs, The Happy Atheist takes on religious fanaticism with all the gleeful disrespect it deserves. A small, fearless book that takes aim at big, stupid targets--and nails them.

For the last several years, PZ Myers, writing the blog Pharyngula, has entertained millions of readers every month with his infectious love of evolutionary science and his equally infectious disdain for creationism, biblical literalism, "intelligent design" theory, and other products of godly illogic. While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, he does think that, most of the time, it makes them believe in the truly ridiculous--which is exactly what he skewers in this riotously funny book. In fact, The Happy Atheist is so outrageous, it's the only book about religion anyone should take seriously.

windy wrote:That's part of it, sure. But I think you're doing some retconning of your own here. A few years back there weren't mass bannings of people with wrong opinions (at least none that we knew of!), over-sensitivity about language wasn't encouraged, and the siege mentality hadn't developed yet. Those bits have changed, at least. IMO, it was more of a "frog in a slowly boiling pot" process for many regulars.

AbsurdWalls wrote:

Apples wrote:

The A+ Primer (from basket o' links) wrote:The purpose of these forums being the discussion of social justice issues within the context of atheism, we use the social justice definitions of words like "racism", "sexism", and other -isms. You may have seen the terms "Institutional Racism", Systemic Racism, Institutional/Systemic Sexism, etc. The short version is -isms = prejudice + power. In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices.

Bolding mine. I finally poked around their basket of links. The last sentence is a remarkably stupid and revealing statement to put in print, amounting to a license to be an aggressive bigot if you can claim to be "marginalized." Of course, since the poor are obviously marginalized, according to A+ dogma poor white skinheads cannot be guilty of racism. :? Since gay/black people are marginalized, gays and/or blacks can't be guilty of classism/ableism/pick-your-ism. And if atheists are marginalized, white/cis/male/straight upper-class atheists can't be guilty of sexism. Etc. I guess it's just what you'd expect, given the incredible sloppiness and superficiality of everything they've done.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 441#p33441

No, that's not quite their meaning. This idea is confined to each axis of privilege. It just means that black people can't be racist, women can't be sexist, lower-class people can't be classist etc. They don't deny that incidents happen where these people discriminate against whites, men, and toffs respectively - it's just that they have redefined the word "racism" to mean that it doesn't apply to those behaviours.

Yes, it is stupid. I know.

Walter Ego wrote:It's already being offered for sale on Amazon so PZ is committed to clean up the manuscript.

Walter Ego wrote:

cunt wrote:At least 3 years too late. I'm surprised the publishers are even bothering at this point.

It's already being offered for sale on Amazon so PZ is committed to clean up the manuscript.

The Amazon blurb:

Release date: August 13, 2013

From the author of one of the web's most popular science blogs, The Happy Atheist takes on religious fanaticism with all the gleeful disrespect it deserves. A small, fearless book that takes aim at big, stupid targets--and nails them.

For the last several years, PZ Myers, writing the blog Pharyngula, has entertained millions of readers every month with his infectious love of evolutionary science and his equally infectious disdain for creationism, biblical literalism, "intelligent design" theory, and other products of godly illogic. While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, he does think that, most of the time, it makes them believe in the truly ridiculous--which is exactly what he skewers in this riotously funny book. In fact, The Happy Atheist is so outrageous, it's the only book about religion anyone should take seriously.

Ape+lust wrote:

Gumby wrote:No doubt it's not a children's book, but it is still very wrongly titled. PZ Myers may be an atheist, but he is definitely not a happy one. He's too full of anger, dishonesty and pettiness to be happy.

No shit. If he's still clinging to that title, he's lying to himself.

"Readers who bought this book also enjoyed Paris Hilton's Frugal Wallflower."

Product Details
Hardcover: 176 pages

Walter Ego wrote:Forgot this bit from Amazon.

Product Details
Hardcover: 176 pages

Hmmm... that's not very long for a "serious" hardcover, is it? From the description, though it sounds like the tubby one may be going for humor in which case the book is probably about a hundred pages too long.

rocko2466 wrote:Hi guys.

I posted this before but it didn't embed in the thread right - an Ophie dramatic reading.

rocko2466 wrote:Hi guys.

I posted this before but it didn't embed in the thread right - an Ophie dramatic reading.

Altair wrote:I haven't read Novella's article, but I'm going to have to read it, because Ophelia, Aratina, Josh and Joe are really PISSED at him

https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson/statu ... 6075233280
<snip>

And Josh makes the startling discovery that people tend to get mad when they're insulted and called sexist, misogynist and whatnot without good reason. Who would have thought?

Altair wrote:

2h Ophelia Benson Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina Only, there was no fucking mistake. I didn't have to add a stipulation that a sexist comment does not mean the...

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson

@ImprobableJoe @aratina ...commenter is a sexist. When writing for FI I don't assume that the readers don't know how to read.

And this part sounds extremely close to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing the christians like to use. A good question would be at what point does someone become a sexist? Not with one comment, maybe two, or three?