Bunkspubble!

[Apples]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

[youtube]_yJvnG5aIW8[/youtube]

[Pitchguest]

Over at Shakesville they're seething over a part of Obama's State of the Union Address. Why are they angry? Because of this statement: "We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence."
You see, it addresses men, and reduces women to their relationships. Never mind that the message was primarily aimed at men who need to be convinced of that in order to make progress on those issues. Intent isn't magic!

I haven't looked at Shakesville on this, and I recognize the wording was likely chosen by speechwriters for emotional connection & maybe aural interest, but this kind of thing grates on me, too, for 2 reasons - describing people in terms of their relationship to others, and assuming that others reading or listening have the same viewpoint (from a gender/race/etc point of view).

Re the first, other examples include the saying common in English, even outside of traditional marriage rites, referring to a couple as "man and wife" (or, as a man and his wife). An example I have noticed repeatedly over the years occurs in photo captions in the major newspaper in the (liberal) city I live in, is referring to women in a photos by their relation to others, but referring to men as the primary subject (e.g. a photo of a child & parent seems likely to read "John Smith, age 5, reads with his mother Mary" versus "James Smith reads with his son John, age 5"). If it happens occasionally, it's just coincidence. When it happens repeatedly, it sure looks like a pattern, though presumably one that the captioners & editors don't even notice.

Re the second, it's only recent that "our wives" would not necessarily mean a man is speaking to other men, but that's still (of course) the common meaning. I hear this (in the US) mostly when white politicians are talking about people who are not white; the word "they" comes out of their mouths often and IMO is jarring. Presumably the politicians should be representing all of "us" and when necessary make distinctions between people who are part of "us" without distancing "them". It's used in ads quite a bit (they start off talking about "you" and only after a while does the assumption about who "you" refers to comes out; if there's a voice, "you" is the same gender or other group-identification as the speaker, which of course makes sense).

Try varying Obama's comment; what if he were referring to men? What if he'd said, "We know our country is stronger when our husbands, sons, and fathers can live their lives free from injury in the workplace, and free from the fear of unjust accusations of rape." It would have sounded odd to have a man referring to "our husbands".

Of course, even more notable, it would have sounded odd (in the US at least) to hear anyone publicly expressing a wish to protect men, particularly when part of that wish would likely be seen as anti-women.

[/rant]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, it's semantic bullshit. The author at Shakesville describes it as "misogynist" (par for the course) and obviously meant to ignore women, while addressing the men. But lest we forget, a woman is either someone's daughter, someone's mother or someone's wife, regardless if you think it's demeaning or not.

The author says, "To my father, I am a daughter; to my employer, I am an employee; to my readers, I am a blogger. To my president, I wish to be a citizen or a resident or—better yet, shedding the political connotations of those complex words—a person." She also goes on a rather long tangent about how she doesn't support Obama and how this is somehow relevant. No, it's not. It's a red herring. For crying out loud, the sentiment is that women shouldn't fear discrimination at home, in the workplace, and shouldn't fear domestic violence. If the biggest gripe with that message is that it doesn't use the word 'women', then I say the lady doth protest too much.

[nippletwister]

And despite what it "looks" like to you, there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case. If there was any such evidence, I'm sure one of you skeptics would have provided some, other than "fuck you, I know what intimidation looks like". I'm quite sure that there is a motivation to "intimidate" in the sense of "now everybody can see what you said and did"....but again, the rest of us adults live with that all the time...male criminals and politicians live with that all the time...even innocent male defendants put up with it all the time...why the double standard here?

No, you're right. Whats evidence though in this case. Somebody gets a beating? Are they not intimidated until they get a punch?

There's no double standard, unless you're okay with someone taking photos of you at a mens rights event, finding out your name and occupation and posting it all on a radfemhub wiki. Right under the banner - Misogynist. That'd also be fair, right?

Well, yes. If I was in public, it's public already. If I was shouting "women suck, they're all lying bitches out to kill men and they must be stopped" directly into TV cameras, or got arrested blocking the doors to a NOW rally, I could easily make the fucking mainstream news all across the country, a much bigger source of threat than a single website. Literally tens of millions of people would know who I am and where I live. In the US at least, there's nothing illegal about it unless it can be shown that it directly results in actual harassment. I'm not even saying it isn't a grey area in some cases, but to deny freedom of speech you would at least have to show some intent of malice, like say, comments on the blog encouraging violence, or actual occurrences of harassment or incitement. At least, that's how it would work for a crazy man saying crazy things. How much expectation of privacy do drunk drivers or the WBC protesters have? None.

Here's my problem. It may look like ugly stupidity. It obviously does to you. But the INFORMATION contained in such lists is absolutely no more than is already publicly available, already written about and publicized by the same website, or already in public records, just all in one page instead of spread out across multiple articles. At no time is harassment or harm suggested, and it is explicitly condemned regularly on the website.

In cases of people who are solely private citizens, I'm tempted to agree with you as far as the casual "appearance" of malice or unhealthy fixation goes. Putting them on a dedicated "shaming list" does seem intrusive or a bit over the top. Even though by breaking the law, assaulting people, or making false accusations that end up in the public record, they have no legal expectation of privacy. It is pretty much taste and common courtesy that keep such people more or less anonymous. They have no more expectation of privacy that the people on The Smoking Gun's "Mugshot Roundup" every week, viewed by millions or even tens of millions of people, with names, towns, and accusations listed in the public record for anyone to find. But it is unusual to see such a focus on certain crimes and people. If this kind of thing bothers you, you should at least be consistent though. How much consideration was shown say, the Duke Lacrosse team? Marcotte is still calling them rapists in public. I don't intend that to justify harassment in return, just to point out the incredible double standard that society (and you) seem to accept and expect.

As far as elected officials, judges, DA's, and fully public activists go, I can't agree with you at all. Nobody else gets a pass like that. Obviously racist public officials and protesters get called racists, and end up on the SPLC website. Women-hating or slut-shaming judges get their names, locations, and court locations plastered across the national media in the great ongoing rape debate. Teachers who hate on gays (even on their own facebook pages) get the media treatment and have their names and employers listed across dozens, maybe hundreds of blogs. No public figure is exempt from such scrutiny or can reasonably expect to be...unless they're feminist activists or man-hating family court officials, apparently.
Then we're supposed to pretend that their words and actions just manifest spontaneously from the aether, I suppose.

[AndrewV69]

No, just establishing that logic one would reject from a small child is a pillar of AVfM.

Ummm.

I do not speak for AVfM. What I said was my view. If you have an issue with that, then my view is your target.

If a justification for keeping a PERMANENT list of enemies is "well, they do worse things/bad things too" then regardless of source, that's moronic. And in the post I replied to, you did a pretty good job of acting as if you were speaking for AVfM. Make up your mind there.

Well, it will not be the first time I unintenionally mislead someone so I will go with that.

If you think it is moronic based on whatever you have seen then so be it. I am not going to try and change your mine. That is your responsibility as far as I am concerned.

[Tony Parsehole]

Sounds rather like Sacha Wiley Shaw's poetry, minus the self-pity.
Actually, scratch that. Once you subtract the self-pity you'd be left with a pair of hipster glasses behind a microphone.

I can't stick that slam poetry malarkey. It's like bebop jazz fusion but with words. I mean, I'm all for people enjoying their hobbies, but that doesn't mean I can't sneer at it.

They call me MAN
With WOMB
But I am neither, Eustachio,
No, freind Eustachio,
For I am WOH!
WOH!
Nursemaid,
Mother,
Lover,
But not to you,
Male cast out,
From the cloak of my vagina.
Not to you.

Tony the queer Shoop, aged 17 and half.

What a brilliant piece of poetry! Why, I'm sure I couldn't do better myself. :whistle:

[AndrewV69]

So in that case, we have now decided that "not leaping to obey a cop's orders" is "violent protest"??

Ahahaha!

Ever heard a cop say "Abuse of cop is a valid charge"?

Now, just to be clear, I am not saying that what we were talking about fits the bill. It is however, something to bear in mind the next time you encounter a police office.

From what I could see of the videos, the protesters were "begging for it" if that mentality is widespread among police officers. The protesters as a whole would appear to have been indulged, possibly because the police were aware that the incident was being recorded.

Only one protester got arrested. I suspect it would have been a different story if there were no cameras.

[nippletwister]

I didn't realize they were put on the AVfM website merely for attending a feminist event.

Put on there for protesting a mens rights event. If you didn't know.

Violently protesting someone else's event isn't the same as attending one. That's twice you've been arguing apples to oranges.

Fuck off, sir/madam.

Violent protest is flipping off a policeman and making oink oink noises now. Fucking hell, north americans are pussies.

I'm with you here...the protesters were not actually physically violent, and should not be portrayed as such. However, if you watched the video, you will see that they were making outlandish incitements and accusations in public, calling every attendee a rape enabler and a scumbag, and asking why they hate women and want women to suffer, screaming right up in people's faces in a way that would get you arrested if you did it in any other way than a political protest. They were doing so in front of cameras, even glady performing FOR the cameras and the police and public. They blocked the door and crossed over the line of legality, and tried their best to tar all attendees as rapists or similar. They were not physically violent, but any such protest from a man against a women's event would be seen as violent, and criticized universally. How many people would be arguing for his privacy? But hey, expect nomral accountability of a woman, and it's PURE HATE and INCITEMENT. Even if it's clearly not.

If a man did that at a NOW conference, and accused Eve Ensler of wanting all men to die in prison, and shouted "LIAR, MURDERER" an inch from her face, he'd probably make the national news and get the shit kicked out of him, and would likely go to jail if he didn't skedaddle as soon as he was told to.

They pretty much acted like Ophelia, manufacturing hate and crimes and threats, just as publicly, just as maliciously, and expect to never be attached to their own chosen actions. Bullshit. They can take their results just like any man would have to.

[Steersman]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

It is completely up to you but I must say, this is one of the best forums I've ever posted on and I'd be very sorry to see it go

This forum is fuckin excellent, and to me, it looks like it's going from strength to strength. I mean, if the 'way' is irritating the fuck out of the baboons and getting a good few lulz out of it too, I'd say it wasn't losing it - quite the opposite.

And sure, as the pit grows and gets more contributors, you will get a lot more noise to signal. But the good stuff is still coming through - shit, just have a look at Ape Plussed and Jan Steens' 'shops for that - and there's plenty of funny fuckers around. Lulz aside, this place still serves as a good info resource for the likes of Mykeru, Noelplum (sure, he's not contributed here, but I'd bet my arse that he lurks) and tf00t - all of whose videos rarely disappoint when it comes to demonstrating to the wider community what a bunch of flaccid, nincompoop twerps the FC brigade really are. As I've said before,I don't believe the anti-FTB/Skepchick/A+ movement - such as it is - is in any way dependent on the existence the pyt. But the pyt does its bit here, and IMO, does it very well.

And if nothing else - think of that poor old sod Steersman; this is the only place where he can indulge his compulsive need to be contrary without the fear of getting banned, moderated or edited. Can you imagine the look on his poor little choo-choo face should this place be gone?
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... gs-pug.jpg
Even the pug-loving Melody Hensley wouldn't be moved to take in so sad an example, because Steersman is male, and in her view, Shrodinger's Peperami packet.

I do accept, however, that 'Think of the Steersman' is probably not the most persuasive argument for the continued existence of the pyt. Oh well.

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

Yea! A place where I won’t be put out into the cold and miserable rain, hungry, bedraggled, and friendless with no one to scratch behind my ears for my contrarian ways! ;-) :-) ;-)

Though to seriously address Tigzy’s amusing plea, I have to agree that this place is rather unique, somewhat of an oasis of free-thought. Maybe somewhat anarchic, but generally treading the fine yet important line between degenerating into the straitjacket that much of FreethoughtBlogs seems wrapped in, and the complete chaos that apparently typifies some of Reddit and Channel4, a line which seems characterized by some commendable commitments to various though somewhat undefined principles.

But more particularly, Tigzy earlier suggested that I was like the guy at the end of the Monty Python “You’re all different” sketch who – in response to the crowd saying, “Yes, we’re all different” – said, “I’m not”. The thing is, I think, it’s not a question of being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, but a question of being very skeptical about group-think, about ideology and ideologues, of virtually any kind – virtually a cause-célèbre here: group-solidarity has some significant benefits – “united we stand; divided we fall”; E Pluribus Unum – but it also has some significant dangers. Michael Shermer in his The Believing Brain quotes John Stuart Mill on the point within the context of democracy:

The development of democracy was an important step to defeating the “tyranny of the magistrate” that reigned for centuries in European monarchies, but as Mill noted, the problem with democracy is that it can lead to the “tyranny of the majority”: “There needs protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.” This is, in fact, why our country’s founders produced the Bill of Rights. There are rights that cannot be taken away no matter how big the majority in a democratic election.

A very fine line, indeed, but one which, I think, needs defending yet one which is eminently defensible and entirely tenable. Nietzsche said it as well as anyone, if maybe somewhat hyperbolically:

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

“no price” is probably an exaggeration, but, arguably, not by much. As the Bible puts it, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

[free thoughtpolice]

@ Tigzy.
Well said my old mucker. The only thing I disagree with is your photographic representation of steersman. Steersman would never let himself look so dejected.
I imagine him looking like this:
http://denverhearingtest.com/wp-content ... et-SPL.jpg
Whether he's just won the lottery or set himself alight that is the facial expression he'll be wearing.

Alas and alack, methinks this particular daguerreotype was taken whilst Steers is deep in his studies of the writing thereof ye olde englishe.

[AndrewV69]

(You know, this redefining of reality to whatever I feel like at the moment is fun. I should thank the baboons for showing me how to do this. I wonder, is it habit forming?)

When you type stuff like this, I have to ask: drunk or stoned. Because it's kind of hard to tell.

The above should have given you a clue. If it did not then all I have to say is welcome to the Aspie Club.

[Patrick]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

I've only been lurking lately, but I'm glad you'll be keeping this venue open. The relationship between the Slyme Pit and FTB/A+/Skepchick strikes me as very similar to that between After the Bar Closes at The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent. It's a great place to track (and mock) the goings on without providing a lot of traffic to sites that don't warrant it. As with AtBC, the Pit is always open to participation by those who deny the same privilege to others. And, as with the creationists at UD, the FTB/A+/Skepchick denizens only very rarely dare venture from their protected echo chamber.

[Apples]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

I've only been lurking lately, but I'm glad you'll be keeping this venue open. The relationship between the Slyme Pit and FTB/A+/Skepchick strikes me as very similar to that between After the Bar Closes at The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent. It's a great place to track (and mock) the goings on without providing a lot of traffic to sites that don't warrant it. As with AtBC, the Pit is always open to participation by those who deny the same privilege to others. And, as with the creationists at UD, the FTB/A+/Skepchick denizens only very rarely dare venture from their protected echo chamber.

Oooh - speaking of UD, I'd like to see Steersman debate Kairosfocus sometime. I bet they could wear each other out.

[BaconNutellaFiend]

Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla

A day late and a dollar short, but welcome aboard!

[JackSkeptic]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

I've only been lurking lately, but I'm glad you'll be keeping this venue open. The relationship between the Slyme Pit and FTB/A+/Skepchick strikes me as very similar to that between After the Bar Closes at The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent. It's a great place to track (and mock) the goings on without providing a lot of traffic to sites that don't warrant it. As with AtBC, the Pit is always open to participation by those who deny the same privilege to others. And, as with the creationists at UD, the FTB/A+/Skepchick denizens only very rarely dare venture from their protected echo chamber.

Except for one or two exceptions that didn't last long FtB/A+ won't accept open invites to join here (no banning) or podcats to discuss their issues and present their arguments.

That tells me all I need to know about how solid their argument is, their inability to use skeptical thought and their need to silence dissent to give the illusion of solidarity.

It reminds me of the Theists who get stressed about secular activities as they know their beliefs are unsound.

[Gumby]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

What I'm seeing is long-winded arguments about subjects not related to the main thread. If people would just move their off-topic shitfests to other threads, this place would look like itself again.

Don't shut this place down! The pit serves a vital role in the skeptical community.

[nippletwister]

As for the AVFM's hit "register her" thing. It's a tactic of tabloid journalism and it is also agitation propaganda. One is reminded of Lenny Bruce.

"But ya see, I can't do it cause I do business with these assholes, and it looks bad for me, you know, ah . . . so I want somebody to do it for me, you know? So I tell you what: Here's a stick and a gun and you do it -- but wait till I'm out of the room. And, wherever it happens, see, I'll wait back here and I'll watch, you know, and you make sure you kick 'em in the ass and throw 'em in there."

Somebody fucking gets it!!

we all get it. it's just that you are arguing a caricature that hasn't happened and isn't encouraged, and doing so in a society where the opposite (targeting men for women, or white oppressors for minorities) is happily obliged.

This isn't Mississippi Burning, it's a fucking single web page documenting things that actually happened and which were done by real people who don't care if they get noticed, and includes no personal info that isn't already common knowledge.

And despite your over-dramatization and double standards, I still agree that when it comes to PRIVATE citizens(Family court cases, not protesters or public officials), it looks over-the-top, even though they have no legal expectation of privacy.

If you want to argue that any such list is always wrong, I can agree with your sentiment, but still realize that such a utopia is never going to happen. People do things, other people notice, and sooner or later, someone writes it down. You can't really stop that except on a case-by-case basis, outlawing slander and harassment. You know, what we already do now.

[Tigzy]

Though to seriously address Tigzy’s amusing plea, I have to agree that this place is rather unique, somewhat of an oasis of free-thought. Maybe somewhat anarchic, but generally treading the fine yet important line between degenerating into the straitjacket that much of FreethoughtBlogs seems wrapped in, and the complete chaos that apparently typifies some of Reddit and Channel4

What, you mean the British TV channel well-known for Countdown, a show ostensibly for people who are into maths problems and anagrams, and not at all for guys who watch it on the pretext of ogling Rachel Riley's heavenly arse?

[Gumby]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

There I go, commenting before catching up again.

[Gumby]

Though to seriously address Tigzy’s amusing plea, I have to agree that this place is rather unique, somewhat of an oasis of free-thought. Maybe somewhat anarchic, but generally treading the fine yet important line between degenerating into the straitjacket that much of FreethoughtBlogs seems wrapped in, and the complete chaos that apparently typifies some of Reddit and Channel4

What, you mean the British TV channel well-known for Countdown, a show ostensibly for people who are into maths problems and anagrams, and not at all for guys who watch it on the pretext of ogling Rachel Riley's heavenly arse?

Never heard of her until just now. Goddamn she's gorgeous.

[Tigzy]

Never heard of her until just now. Goddamn she's gorgeous.

Indeed. And that arse...

http://www.themakoshark.com/stuff/countdown.jpg

I'm not objectifying her as a person, of course. Just the arse.

[cunt]

They were not physically violent, but any such protest from a man against a women's event would be seen as violent, and criticized universally. How many people would be arguing for his privacy? But hey, expect nomral accountability of a woman, and it's PURE HATE and INCITEMENT. Even if it's clearly not.

If a man did that at a NOW conference, and accused Eve Ensler of wanting all men to die in prison, and shouted "LIAR, MURDERER" an inch from her face, he'd probably make the national news and get the shit kicked out of him, and would likely go to jail if he didn't skedaddle as soon as he was told to.

I'd assume that if a man did that at a NOW conference (feminist group?), as part of a protest, with lots of other men and women and the police involved that the results would be about the same. The police trying to separate the protesters from the attendees and removing them if the man and his friends tried to blockade the building. The only difference, and its a fair point is that, yes, the incident would probably get more media coverage.

Normal accountability to something like that is press coverage, articles, criticism. Its not being put on a list by a group on the other side right next to dead murderers and pedophiles. The only time i've seen something like that before was with RedWatch, and Combat18 (a british neo-nazi organisation).

[Patrick]

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

I've only been lurking lately, but I'm glad you'll be keeping this venue open. The relationship between the Slyme Pit and FTB/A+/Skepchick strikes me as very similar to that between After the Bar Closes at The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent. It's a great place to track (and mock) the goings on without providing a lot of traffic to sites that don't warrant it. As with AtBC, the Pit is always open to participation by those who deny the same privilege to others. And, as with the creationists at UD, the FTB/A+/Skepchick denizens only very rarely dare venture from their protected echo chamber.

Oooh - speaking of UD, I'd like to see Steersman debate Kairosfocus sometime. I bet they could wear each other out.

It's hard enough to keep up with the volume here as it is. Inviting the spittle-flecked gibberish of the Great Bloviator of Montserrat would not improve the signal-to-noise ratio.

[Mark Neil]

Mark Neil, I take it that you wouldn't object to fundamentalist christians posting lists of abortion doctors. Because, as everyone knows, they don't do it to intimidate or getting them killed, right?

Two problems with your question. First, you're attempting to make a false equivalence between a group know to commit acts of terrorism through bombings and assaults, and the men's rights movement, which has no such history that I know of (closest is Marc Lepine back in the early 80's, before the MRM existed, and whom the MRM generally condemns). Do you see them as equivalents?

Secondly, such a list already exists. Sure it's not made by the group you identify, but if the list is the problem, then it's existence should be a problem for you, regardless of who made it. If it is the ones making the list that's the problem, then you need to demonstrate the ones making the list are a problem, and not just expect us to accept on your faith that what you say is true.

[Cunning Punt]

According to the link on his Twitter page, Latsot is this guy: http://www.lookatthestateofthat.com/index.html

He has a blog apparently.

As a general rule by the way I have no issue with people disagreeing or defending FtB etc at all, including him.

Sometimes I feel we push it a bit too much and I still think Ad Hominems are a very bad form of argument.

Well Jack, that's just because you're a big fat poopie head.

[Apples]

It's hard enough to keep up with the volume here as it is. Inviting the spittle-flecked gibberish of the Great Bloviator of Montserrat would not improve the signal-to-noise ratio.

No, true - it would definitely have to happen at UD.

[BarnOwl]

Puppehs, anyone?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8251/8473 ... ea4627.jpg
sumiFeb13 by BarnOwl83, on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8389/8473 ... 807a08.jpg
hoshiFeb13 by BarnOwl83, on Flickr

[TheMudbrooker]

Puppehs, anyone?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8251/8473 ... ea4627.jpg
sumiFeb13 by BarnOwl83, on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8389/8473 ... 807a08.jpg
hoshiFeb13 by BarnOwl83, on Flickr

You sure that's a dog?

[BarnOwl]

You sure that's a dog?

I'm sure they weigh less than many cats - one is 11 lbs, the other 12 lbs.

[decius]

Two problems with your question. First, you're attempting to make a false equivalence between a group know to commit acts of terrorism through bombings and assaults, and the men's rights movement, which has no such history that I know of (closest is Marc Lepine back in the early 80's, before the MRM existed, and whom the MRM generally condemns). Do you see them as equivalents?

Secondly, such a list already exists. Sure it's not made by the group you identify, but if the list is the problem, then it's existence should be a problem for you, regardless of who made it. If it is the ones making the list that's the problem, then you need to demonstrate the ones making the list are a problem, and not just expect us to accept on your faith that what you say is true.

Christians who made such lists in the past were chickenshits like AVfM - normally members of some fundie church or similar groups who relied on instigating UNRELATED deranged individuals to carry out the deeds.

Let me refresh your memory, because THESE people invented the practice with the intent of intimidating and harming by proxy. Your friends at the Voice for Baboons are mere latecomers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... _Activists

What is that link, btw, are you equating a clinic-finder with exposing name and private data of the workers thereof?
And you accuse me of false equivalence - like before you did with moving goalpoasts - in the same post in which you commit the very fallacy?

[welch]

I'm behind, can I have a link to this AVfM list?

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

took me a bit to find it, it's a bit separate from the main AVfM site.

Yeah, I'm gonna say this list is bullshit. Chances are good that (for example) at least some of the women listed as "killers" did so not because the victim was a man, but for completely unrelated reasons. So at best it's a "here's a bunch of bad people" list, but with only women. Why? Also, why is this person on the list: http://register-her.com/index.php?title ... c_Official

Beats me. Is this a list with a purpose beyond showing every woman that has ever done anything wrong? Because if so, I can't find it.

[BarnOwl]

PhysioPreppie must have had a manuscript rejected by Nature recently:

Like anyone gives a single flying fucke about some goddamn austrofrench cheese-eating aristocrat fuckebagge’s motherfucken name???????
In his discussion of suspects in the Piltdown Man mystery, Chris Stringer alludes to the French Jesuit priest, philosopher and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Nature 492, 177–179; 2012). The article mistakenly shortens the great man’s compound surname to “de Chardin”. In fact, it should read “Teilhard de Chardin” or just “Teilhard”.
Such aristocratic last names are often misinterpreted in English. One glaring example is the condition known as Tourette’s syndrome, incompletely named after Georges Gilles de la Tourette, who first described it. “Gilles” is part of the compound last name and not a middle name, as is commonly assumed.
From now on, I’m gonna refer to these two fuckewaddes as “Douchebagge de Chardin” and “Fuckenarde de la Tourette”, because fucke you, thatte’s why.
Oh, and the author of this important piece of correspondence to one of the scientific journals of record?
Antoine Louchart, of the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyons, France.
His official austrofrench name is now Antoine Louchart de la Pissewadde.

Or maybe he got scooped by competitors in France.

Or maybe he's just an arsewadde.

[nippletwister]

I am tempted to agree with cunt, however, thought experiment:

What if the roles were reversed, and a bunch of men were angrily yelling and threatening women outside of a feminist convention? How many people would have a problem with these hypothetical men being listed on a website?

If it seems reasonable to dox angry men outside of a feminist convention, why is it not reasonable to dox angry women outside of an mra style convention?

You do get the difference between dozing someone, and maintaining a permanent enemies list, right? For example, let's say that someone on the list has a moment of "lord, I was dumb", and while not becoming an MRA, no longer thinks that MRAs should be denied basic civil rights. How would they go about getiting their name off the list? Is the list reviewed for accuracy?

Enemies lists are bad regardless of who maintains them, and anyone insisting they aren't a form of intimidation needs to stop lying, both to themselves and others.


Although I'd definitely categorize the dungeon as an enemies list.

You are consistent and don't seem to be falling for the pervasive social double-standard that Cunt and others seem to have, that anything slightly aggressive, even only in words, that a man or group of men might do is a call for harassment and violence, and somehow worse than all the other ways these same actions are performed. And your other concern that people don't get a fair chance to make amends, dispute their inclusion, or be removed from the list, is a damn good point.
Kudos for that.

I'll admit, I'm torn on the issue. The list certainly does look silly and slightly "wanted-poster-ish", yet violence and harassment are denounced regularly, and no issues have actually come up. Which is not to say it's impossible, but it is certainly uncharitable and dishonest to say that the intent is any kind of terrorism or real intimidation, when all actual evidence does not agree. Knowing that the things you do and say in public are going to be heard and not ignored, is the same condition that all public figures, and potentially anybody who opens their mouths, already accept as part of public life. When is accountability too much? When does it become mob judgement? Good questions. But I also have to ask....how much should victims put up with, before they are allowed to name their victimizers and warn others?

It seems to me that historically, such lists have often been a tool for the unofficial organizing of group hate. But this is an incomplete view. To me it is an obviously incomplete view, as there have plenty of lists that resulted in no harm at all. But it's also obvious that some will see it as a threat, regardless of any facts.

I still stand by my point, which nobody has disputed, that it is the form, not the content, that bugs people. The people who see this list as a useful tool are not going to stop writing about the negatives of the actions of particular feminists. They are not going to ignore denial of justice to fathers and the falsely accused, or ignore the legislators, judges and DA's that cause these problems. They are not going to ignore male victims or female offenders. Names are going to be named, offenses will be written about, protesters will get the press they seek, abusive women will be shamed just like abusive men. All the same info will be passed around and read, in the form of articles, blog posts, interviews, and criticisms of public figures and exposes of more private cases by victims. None of that will change with the removal of the list, and that's all the list really is, just in one place.

[decius]

Beats me. Is this a list with a purpose beyond showing every woman that has ever done anything wrong? Because if so, I can't find it.

Come on, it's bloody transparent. Propagandists and ideologues aren't that inventive.
It's guilt by association coupled with trying to whip up frenzied rage of mobs.

[Tigzy]

Oh my - I've just found a post by Janine Hallucinating Liar where she likens Justin Vacula to a paedophile priest.

Guess where that's going!

[cunt]

You are consistent and don't seem to be falling for the pervasive social double-standard that Cunt and others seem to have, that anything slightly aggressive, even only in words, that a man or group of men might do is a call for harassment and violence, and somehow worse than all the other ways these same actions are performed. And your other concern that people don't get a fair chance to make amends, dispute their inclusion, or be removed from the list, is a damn good point.
Kudos for that.

Find me a bunch of rad-fems or similar maintaining something like that. I'll call them a bunch of cunts too, I promise.

[welch]

A few things:

1) The existence of, what is in my opinion, a really bad idea, namely the sex offender's list, does not mean the AVfM list is okay.

I'm not arguing that AVfM's list is a good idea. I repeatedly said otherwise. I'm arguing it is not the call to violence cunt portrayed it as. If you want to argue the value of the list, find another target.

2) There is some vague semblance of due process to be placed on the list, involving trials and such. There is a judicial system in place that helps ensure, at least on a basic level, the rights of all involved. I am not so naive to think this a perfect or fair system, but, there are rather a lot of checks and balances in it

And that process gives the SOR it's authority. An authority AVfM's list doesn't have. You are making it out to sound like AVfM's list is as damning to a person as the SOR, or even SPLC. It's one groups list of bad people on the internet, and has as much authorty behind it as "The Village Voice Blogs Top 10 list of best cookies in new yorK". Yes, the SOR has some semblance of due process, but that then gives strength to peoples conviction to act on it. AVfM's list has less authority to put names on a list, but likewise, that list holds little weight.

No, the creator of the list being a legal government entity gives it it's authority.

Sigh. What I state is that the AVfM list exists at the whims of two people, and so is far more arbitrary than any SOR list. The AVfM list isn't damning or not based on authority. It has none, clearly. It is damning, because as I've shown, once on the list, claims by JTO do not match the reality that you are never off. When we are talking about "a list of bad people", this is not a good thing. I also disagree with your contention it has little weight. Amongst the MRAs, it holds GREAT weight. It also has no small weight in terms of Google, (currently the third result for "Jasmine Richardson". If you're going to try to tell me google is meaningless, I'm going to ask who types things on the magic computer box for you.) The narrative on the AVfM list is also highly problematic.

As well, the "authority" of the list doesn't make it okay. You state over and over that you think the list is a bad idea, yet when anyone but you or some other "approved person" criticizes the list, you work overtime to dismiss said criticism.

3) You state: "And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here." Maybe. But what kind of liability? Civil? What kind. As we've seen with such things in the past, SPLC, Fox News, even when you can show a direct link between someone's rhetoric and the crime that was instigated by said rhetoric, the normal "penalty" is people being angry with you. For a short while. I have yet to see much evidence of legal or civil punishment being exacted for this. It does happen, to be sure, but it is *rare* and the rhetoric has to be EXTREME. Outside of Manson, groups like the Klan or Nazis, it's pretty rare to punish a group or person for their speech, even when you can show it instigated a crime.

You made the claim the SOR has more accountability, I asked how. You still haven't answered that question, merely changed the goalpost (to liability) and again, present as if the SOR somehow has more than AVfM. Sure, if someone were to act upon AVfM's list, the liability may not be satisfactory to the person targeted due to their list, but again, how is the SOR any different? If someone acts based on the SOR, how is the government held more liable than AVfM would be? Because, again, from my understanding, the government actually has less than AVfM. In fact, the SOR actually allows people to take action, by using the name being on that registry to deny jobs and living arrangements. That's something AVfM's list doesn't grant anybody protection for.

Evidently, you want me to explain the legal system in the US.

I won't go that far, but here, some basics.

To get on the SOR list requires you to be convicted of a fairly narrow range of crimes. We can agree that the range is not narrow enough, but compared to everything you can be convicted of, it's narrow.

To be convicted of a crime requires a series of conditions and steps we are all aware of so I've no need to detail them here. If convicted, there is a legal, understood method of appeal that can be applied at multiple levels, potentially, depending on any number of factors.

There are different levels of being on the list. Not everyone is on the list for the same amount of time.

There are procedures, potentially onerous, for getting off the list that are not based on personal opinion.

none of those steps, not a one, applies to the AVfM list.

Again, you imply that AVfM's list is akin a group that is "instigating" a crime. this is the assertion I'm opposed to, not the value of the list as a whole. If you want to make this assertion, then by all means, convince me. But simply claiming the list is a bad idea, and "could" lead someone outside the authority of AVfM into taing action (something Mykeru's video's, or reading this board, or, for example, people reading Ophelia's tweets (such as the guy offering to kneecap people for her... he didn't actually need to ask) could also do), therefore it's perfectly ok to label it as an intentional instigation of violence... that's wrong, and I strongly disagree with that assessment.

No, I didn't. I think such a list can POTENTIALLY be used for a crime, especially given how it's written, but that's true of any "enemies" list, including the SPLC's. Which was used as a guide for some nutjob with a gun. AVfM is hardly unique here.

In and of itself, it isn't instigating crime more than a list of cookies instigates obesity. In fact, I pointed out that getting penalized, criminally or civilly, for instigating a crime is rather difficult and uncommon. But this list doesn't exist in a vacuum. The intent of the list is not simply informative, nor academic. Look at the tone of the narratives for the entries. This is a highly vindictive list, one I think is in fact designed to intimidate people. I don't think it succeeds, because fuck, JTO and Paul Elam aren't even more popular than an old cat meme, but success doesn't remove what seems to be the obvious goal.

Now, if the list were to be revised to include clear procedures for being removed. I.e. DEATH, If you're on it for misdeeds as a government official, once you leave government on a permanent basis, your entry should be removed, Being a dumbass and deliberately harming people are not the same, etc., and the narratives made less vindictive in nature, I'd have fewer problems with it. It would be even better if occupancy wasn't up to the personal decisions of two people who are anything but unbiased.

However, as it stands, it is not the innocent informational resource you seem to be trying to convince me it is.

[decius]

You are consistent and don't seem to be falling for the pervasive social double-standard that Cunt and others seem to have, that anything slightly aggressive, even only in words, that a man or group of men might do is a call for harassment and violence, and somehow worse than all the other ways these same actions are performed. And your other concern that people don't get a fair chance to make amends, dispute their inclusion, or be removed from the list, is a damn good point.
Kudos for that.

Find me a bunch of rad-fems or similar maintaining something like that. I'll call them a bunch of cunts too, I promise.

Seconded.

They can't see any further than their dick.

[Guest]

At least the last few pages have shown the value of dissenting opinions.

[welch]

The list could also be a mean to extort money for removal. It wouldn't be the first case of the sort.

Barring some proof of that, I don't think we should be making that accusation.

[welch]

Mark Neil, I take it that you wouldn't object to fundamentalist christians posting lists of abortion doctors. Because, as everyone knows, they don't do it to intimidate or getting them killed, right?

Ooh, i'd forgotten about that one. Good point.

[another lurker]

You are consistent and don't seem to be falling for the pervasive social double-standard that Cunt and others seem to have, that anything slightly aggressive, even only in words, that a man or group of men might do is a call for harassment and violence, and somehow worse than all the other ways these same actions are performed. And your other concern that people don't get a fair chance to make amends, dispute their inclusion, or be removed from the list, is a damn good point.
Kudos for that.

Find me a bunch of rad-fems or similar maintaining something like that. I'll call them a bunch of cunts too, I promise.

cunt, decius, MKG and myself all agreed that doxing and maintaining a list of anyone, male or female = bad. I have not seen anyone here, in fact, come out and say that a double standard is in any way acceptable.

[welch]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

To be honest, don't worry about it. Set up a blog and write stuff. The advantages to being on an aggregator like SIN or FTB are small.

[JackSkeptic]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

To be honest, don't worry about it. Set up a blog and write stuff. The advantages to being on an aggregator like SIN or FTB are small.

Thanks, It seems fairly easy to do, the tricky bit is having something worth saying.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

To be honest, don't worry about it. Set up a blog and write stuff. The advantages to being on an aggregator like SIN or FTB are small.

Funnily - the *main* reason for being on an aggregator like SIN is to get recognition and views as a by product of people viewing more popular blogs.

SIN fails *miserably* at this ... what it should have is a home page that lists the last X posts ... but what it does it just list member blogs... totally useless

[free thoughtpolice]

sammy 009-crop.JPG

(137.35 KiB) Downloaded 136 times

This is a REAL dog, 15 lb. and it is his birthday!

[Lsuoma]

Never heard of her until just now. Goddamn she's gorgeous.

Indeed. And that arse...



I'm not objectifying her as a person, of course. Just the arse.

Whoa, that's good tushie!!!

[DW Adams]

Oh my - I've just found a post by Janine Hallucinating Liar where she likens Justin Vacula to a paedophile priest.

Guess where that's going!

Screencap or Freezepage?

[Steersman]

Mark Neil, I take it that you wouldn't object to fundamentalist christians posting lists of abortion doctors. Because, as everyone knows, they don't do it to intimidate or getting them killed, right?

Ooh, i'd forgotten about that one. Good point.

Just out of curiosity and as a point of reference, I wonder what you and decius and others thought and said about Mykeru outing “Creepy Bitter Girl” over the Great Poster Tear-down Extravaganza. Seems to me to be pretty much of an analogous case to the U of T protesters. How about Greg Laden’s outing of Mykeru himself – apart from the publishing of his previous address?

Those cases and arguments reminds me of a post on “The Limits of Reasonable Discourse” by the philosopher/biologist Massimo Pigliucci in which he compared “multiple adaptive peaks in genotypic space” – as in the following graphic – with “rational discourse more generally”:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2hgdcwj.jpg

This observation about that graphic seems particularly relevant to these discussions:

Consider the hypothetical landscape in the figure [above] accompanying this post. That particular graph is meant to illustrate the idea of multiple adaptive peaks in genotypic space, with natural selection pushing a population of organisms up the closest available peak (high fitness) and away from any valley (low fitness). Similar situations occur in computer science, mathematics, economics, and — I maintain — in rational discourse more generally.

Think of every peak as a particular, viable solution to whatever the problem happens to be (survival in a given environment, efficiency of a computational algorithm, or the search for a good political or ethical system). In the graphic example above, there are three peaks: one is taller, the other two are of about equal height. The taller peak represents the optimal solution across the landscape, while the other two stand for suboptimal but viable solutions. If we were talking about politics or ethics, this would correspond to saying that one political or ethical system is in fact “best” (under whatever criteria one is using) and therefore rational, while two more are also rational, but not quite as good. So reasonable people could make an argument for one or the other, or the third, of the proposed solutions, particularly when practical considerations may exclude, or make less likely, the implementation of the optimal solution represented by the highest peak.

Seems to me that a large part of the problem is that two people can start arguing from positions that are very close to each other, based on pretty much the same facts, and represented by adjacent points on that three-dimensional graph, but because of slight variations in the directional derivatives in the moral landscape – so to speak – at those different points they wind up at very different if not diametrically opposite end-points. Hence the need, I think, for spending some effort clarifying just exactly what principles and objectives are in play – not at all an easy thing to do.

[TheMudbrooker]

sammy 009-crop.JPG

This is a REAL dog, 15 lb. and it is his birthday!

Go back to post 1336 (I think) That's what a real dog looks like.

[Tigzy]

Oh my - I've just found a post by Janine Hallucinating Liar where she likens Justin Vacula to a paedophile priest.

Guess where that's going!

Screencap or Freezepage?

Screencap and link: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 336#p64336

(I'm not using freezepage for these - one of the reasons I started the thread was to offer a directory of links to the baboon nasty shite itself; that way, should one be arguing with a bab on another blog/forum, and the bab in question pulls that holier-than-thou shite, then a quick search of that thread should offer a lot of direct linkables to counter such self-righteous...er, baboonery)

[Gumby]

Oh my - I've just found a post by Janine Hallucinating Liar where she likens Justin Vacula to a paedophile priest.

Guess where that's going!

Screencap or Freezepage?

Screencap and link: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 336#p64336

(I'm not using freezepage for these - one of the reasons I started the thread was to offer a directory of links to the baboon nasty shite itself; that way, should one be arguing with a bab on another blog/forum, and the bab in question pulls that holier-than-thou shite, then a quick search of that thread should offer a lot of direct linkables to counter such self-righteous...er, baboonery)

Wow. That was terrible. Pedophile priests should be outraged at that insult.

:whistle:

[decius]

Just out of curiosity and as a point of reference, I wonder what you and decius and others thought and said about Mykeru outing “Creepy Bitter Girl” over the Great Poster Tear-down Extravaganza.

Remind me, because if she mentioned her by screen name, I wouldn't call it outing.

[nippletwister]

The street addresses are not published (unlike sex offender registries in the US), just the names and a city. If they published actual street addresses, I would be more inclined to agree that it's intimidation and a call for vigilantism. Not totally inclined, just more likely inclined. After all, the government in the US posts lists of people with their street address, for any sex offense.

Have you heard of the Internet? I mean, is this all new to you? Give me a name and a city, and in most countries, within 24 hours, maybe 48, I can have an AMAZING amount of personal information on you. You don't even have to be good at google, there are companies who will do this for you, and the fees are quite reasonable.

The idea that "oh, well, they aren't publishing addresses, just names and cities, so there's no way to track them down" is not only wrong, but you have to be completely fucking stupid to believe it.

Yet...the identities and vague locations given on the list, are all already public record. If that's all that's needed to enable a murderous vigilante, well....it's already done. They've already appeared in court records and in some cases, the mainstream news or online news.
So again, the whole problem with the list is what it looks like to some people, not the info contained. Are people just supposed to not talk about it, either?

So where is the line? How is AVFM or the SPLC responsible for what a whacko does with info that was already available and publically discussed? If somebody had gone after Lorena Bobbit, would NBC be responsible? If somebody believes right-wing propaganda and kills Obama, is Alex Jones responsible?

again, it seems it's form and not content making the issue here, along with uncharitable assumptions about intent, for no other reason than it involves a controversial and politically active group. I wonder.....if a muslim group keeps or publishes lists of known anti-muslim agitators and legislators, how convoluted and riddled with double-standards will THAT discussion be? What if an anti-KKK group in the 1920's had found out the identities of criminal KKK members? Would black people be morally required to keep it a secret from each other? Even if the courts refused to prosecute? Even if social shame was the only weapon used?

Seems to me the only real standard is the one already enforced by law. Freedom of speech, civil penalties for slander or fraud, and individual responsibility for actions. Anything else muzzles victims, enables victimizers, and creates double standards all over the place.

[free thoughtpolice]

sammy 009-crop.JPG

This is a REAL dog, 15 lb. and it is his birthday!

Go back to post 1336 (I think) That's what a real dog looks like.

Hard to believe they're of the same species.
Our little pal has the wild bred out of him to the point he expects me to chase the rabbits away from his favorite crapping spot.

[bhoytony]

Lsuoma, please kill the site now. Either that or start a new thread and banish all these boring arseholes going on and on and on and on about the fucking LIST. None of them are going to change their opinion, but that isn't going to stop them from posting another dozen pages of shite. I think everybody has got the general idea of where they all stand on the matter.

[decius]

Get fucked grunting cuntybaws.

[nippletwister]

So then the next time someone here says really mean things about someone you dislike, like oh "Ophelia is a ragingly stupid cunt", you will of course consider that an act of violence against her via definition 3b, and of course, say something against it because violence is wrong, right?

I think actually being in the physical proximity (meatspace) is necessary to call it violence. Although not restricted to meatspace by definition, it hardly seems violent typing on a keyboard. Although, some would argue that one can type words of such offense and violence as to be actionable under hate speech laws.

My argument was this: If it's ok for the government to publish lists of "sex offenders" (which may include offenses unrelated to having sex with minors) and those government lists include actual street addresses and are not considered intimidation or calls for vigilantism, then why is it not ok for AVfM to post lists of people who have committed acts of misandry that does NOT include the actual street addresses, because it's intimidation and a call for vigilantism?

You are assuming that everyone is OK with sex offenders registers, which is a big stretch. But even so, government also has the rights to detain citizens, to print money, and to wage war for no good reason if the President wants to. I wouldn't trust AVfM or anyone else with any of those "rights".

I mean, isn't doxxing a big no-no among the atheistic internet circle, no matter if they are slymers or peezers? So why would it be OK to give AVfM a free pass doing that?

Why do people have such a hard time grasping the concept of "already public information", and have such waffling definitions of "doxxing"?
Using privileged info to out an anonymous person is doxxing. Giving out private info on a private person(addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, private appointments like clinic visits) is "doxxing". Talking about or listing public figures, the actions of public figures, or the public-record actions of private people, is not "doxxing". If anybody who wants the info can find it in seconds, it's not "doxxing".
It might look tasteless, but it's not espionage.

[AndrewV69]

Lsuoma, please kill the site now. Either that or start a new thread and banish all these boring arseholes going on and on and on and on about the fucking LIST. None of them are going to change their opinion, but that isn't going to stop them from posting another dozen pages of shite. I think everybody has got the general idea of where they all stand on the matter.

Killing the site would be overkill (haha). Just move the discussion to another thread. Speaking for myself, I find the "discussion" interesting.

[nippletwister]

Lsuoma, please kill the site now. Either that or start a new thread and banish all these boring arseholes going on and on and on and on about the fucking LIST. None of them are going to change their opinion, but that isn't going to stop them from posting another dozen pages of shite. I think everybody has got the general idea of where they all stand on the matter.

So....why not just start a new topic instead of whining?

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/ZpVfp2e.jpg