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

Mark Neil wrote:

welch wrote: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.

I've objected to a single criticism, that the list was created with the intention to provoke violence. I've repeatedly stated that is the accusation I am opposed to, not any others. And yet you're accusing me of working overtime to dismiss ANY criticism? You fuck, and grow up.

Mark Neil wrote:

welch wrote: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.

then argue that point instead of the appeals to emotion, false equivalencies and assumptions you and cunt have been throwing around. If you feel they have the "intent" to instigate people into violence, PROVE IT.

Mark Neil wrote:I've stated I'm open to being convinced (and have stated I'm not a fan of the list, so I don't have a stake in defending it to stay up), but none of you have bothered to attempt to do so. All I've seen are assertions that intimidation and provocation is their intent, and appeals to emotion to accept that assertion. And I'm not buying it. The baboons and other feminists use the exact same tactics to claim their own victimhood. The assumption of motives and the expectation for others to accept those assumptions and condemn the accused has caused a great deal of damage in many walks of life. If you want to make an assertion on AVfM's motives for making the list, then arguing the list is a bad idea is the wrong way to support that assertion, as whether the list is a bad idea or not says absolutely nothing about the motives for creating it.

Improbable Joe, ... I got nothin'

14 February 2013 at 7:28 pm (UTC -6)

Yeah. YEAH! That asshole Fincke can get bent. What a fucking shithead that guy is.

I sure as shit refuse to respect people who have ethics that “disagree” with mine to any real extent, and I refuse to pretend that bigotry is up for debate and the victims of said bigotry need to treat their oppressors with civility or be disqualified from discussing THEIR OWN FUCKING EXPERIENCES.

Fincke can piss up a goddamned rope.

Mattir, Another One With Boltcutters

14 February 2013 at 7:37 pm (UTC -6)

The civility pledge basically creates a magic formula for telling some people that they are not allowed to speak. Because no matter how polite, reasoned, carefully phrased, nuanced, and disclaimer-laden I make my statements about sexual violence, the chilly climate, economic justice, or reproductive rights, there are some people whose response is always to tell me that I am not discussing the issues in a civil manner.

The incivility charge has enough weight already – I refuse to sign a pledge agreeing that I will obey the magic words.

Margaret

14 February 2013 at 7:33 pm (UTC -6)

I pledge not to fetishize civility over justice.

Yes! I’ve recently been accused of intolerance since “intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance”. But I can no longer keep quiet and “civil” in the face of being told that I and other women do not have the right to control what happens to our bodies, that Christian prayers posted in a public school is not discrimination against non-Christians, that rape threats against a teenage girl are unimportant compared to the horrible “discrimination” of forcing Christians to follow the Bill of Rights.

I pledge to remember that a fetishized civility is a field mark of insulation from suffering.

Yes! I’ve recently been told I’m emotional and “projecting” (?!) when I said that some of the strength of my response to the forced-birthers was putting myself in the position of Savita and being horrified and angry about it. I will not be quiet, unemotional, uninvolved, and “civil” in the face of such a horror.

welch wrote: You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it.

welch wrote: But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

CommanderTuvok wrote:Good to see some pictures of dogs. Leave the stoopid cats to the Creepy Clowns. Posting pics of cats here is an insult to Arnie.

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

comslave wrote: I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

AndrewV69 wrote:I think you would be on firmer ground if you could point to some ethical position as a reference. point. Such as "keeping enemy lists are bad for X, Y, and Z" or focus more on the intimidation aspect which you appear to believe is the key point.

Lsuoma wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

That story will run and run: it's got legs as the journos say.

Of course, Pistorious himself doesn't have a leg to stand on.

comslave wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

Lsuoma wrote:

comslave wrote: I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

comslave wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

comslave wrote: I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

free thoughtpolice wrote:

comslave wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

comslave wrote: I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

No wonder why the bid for ad space hasn't gone past $.05. The tasteless jokes here *huff*

bhoytony wrote:

rocko2466 wrote:
This is Bunkspubble, Tony. You don't get to subject-police. If you want a thread about how cool you are, make one.

The name is bhoytony, not Tony, and how is your telling me this not subject-policing? Anyway this thread is already all about how cool I am.

rocko2466 wrote:
SUCK A DICK, hoyto.

welch wrote:

nippletwister wrote:

welch wrote:

Submariner wrote: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?

You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it. But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.

nippletwister wrote: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?

Honestly, I think minorly, unless the list is like the abortion doc lists, which pretty clearly call for harm to come to the docs. I'm really sure the SPLC didn't think anyone would use their list as a targeting mechanism, and they seemed really upset that it was. But when you have a list of "hate" sites, and groups that are "bad", it is reasonable to assume that at some point, someone is going to misuse that list, because even with good intentions, such a thing can be misused. Hell if the AVfM list only had NAMES, I'd not have any real problem with it. PeeZus's dungeon only has names, and most of those are fucking 'nyms. Now, if he started adding any sort of location info, then that list would go from "stupid" to "bad" in my view, for the same reason as I find the AVfM list "bad".

Given the bias in how the AVfM list is maintained, I find it difficult to be sanguine about the location information.

nippletwister wrote: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?

is it just names, or names and locations? How much personal information does it provide? How are the names presented? How is the list maintained. If the list is essentially PeeZus' dipshit Dungeon, meh. It's stupid, and not a scintillating example of scientific debate, but i find it hard to view the Dungeon as much more than PeeZus pretending he has a large cock. Add in location information, overly biased narratives, and things change.

nippletwister wrote: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.

We've established, via SCOTUS, that freedom of speech is not absolute. Deliberately yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of non-political restrictions on speech. If you have a list of people along with a lot of personal data and are specifically demanding that harm be brought to them, that is outside freedom of speech. Clear threats to harm people are not protected. You can't threaten the President, their family, Members of congress, etc. Even in the US, "Freedom of speech" is not the absolute thing we like to pretend it is.

Again, I don't think that the AVfM list is intended to cause someone to go a-killin'. But that does not mean it isn't an intimidation tool.

TheMudbrooker wrote:I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes, so it took me a couple of days to finally put my finger on something that had been bothering me about PZ's "There's no rational basis to be anti feminist" post. I had heard this sort of rhetoric before but I just couldn't remember where. Then it hit me...this is right out of the religious right playbook. First, state your affiliation in the broadest, least descriptive terms possible. PZ declares himself a feminist, which is about as useless as describing someone as European, it gives only the vaguest idea of what sort of background is informing that person's actions. The religious right has been pulling this stunt for years, nobody in their right mind would vote for a Christian Dominionist Pentacostal who has stood in front of congregation and camera to have prayers said over them to exorcise the witches and demons who might interfere with their candidacy. But call Sarah Palin a good "Christian" instead of a religious fanatic lunatic and she gets millions of votes. Next, throw in a couple of dog-whistle phrases like "we live deeply patriarichal society" so the true believers know you're talking to them, but nothing so obvious as to put off the uninitiated. All you need to do is change PZ's radfem terminology into politico-religious terms and his blog post becomes indistinguishable from a press release put out by Bryan Ficsher or Karl Rove.

The short answer is that ‘Pikey’ is an ethnic slur aimed at traveling people

*cocks head sideways and squints a bit*

It’s a little broader than than; it’s (here in SE UK) used more generally about … well … people who just don’t belong here. You know, yes, they might be Romani.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Mudbrooker I think the PZ FC(n) position on rationality goes as follows:
I (PZ, Ophelia, Rebecca) assert that feminism is the "radical" premise that women are people too.
I am a feminist, if you disagree with me it is obvious you are not a feminist.
Therefore; You do not believe women are people.
Come on you misogynist! Stop hating on the womyn!!

masakari2012 wrote:TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

Jack wrote:

masakari2012 wrote:TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

And god. Which explains their superiority complexes.

masakari2012 wrote:TheMudbrooker, yep. Also, they invent problems and then claim to have the solution for it. The only way for those of you who are white and male to be free of the problem is to accept that you have privilege which interferes with your understanding of what they claim, admit that you are wrong, and follow what they say, and put your faith in their "greater" wisdom.

It sounds like Alcoholic's Anonymous.

Jack wrote: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.

BarnOwl wrote:I'll just leave this here ....

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 9a115f.png

ERV wrote:If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

decius wrote:

Steersman wrote: 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.

ERV wrote: Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

Michael K Gray wrote:

decius wrote:

Steersman wrote: 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.

For what it is worth, I thought it a pretty low move, as I did of his appalling "ice-pick" threat.

KiwiInOz wrote:

ERV wrote: Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

Alas. PZ's flock inflated his ego far too high. Now that zeppelin is crashing and burning.

ERV wrote:

ERV wrote:If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

ERV wrote:

ERV wrote:If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?

*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.

11. I commit that I will not make accusations of guilt by association.

aweraw wrote:Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:

http://www.gibblertron.com/post/4306444 ... em-of-2013

Given that the song is all about the writters perception of the impossibly high standards of women in L.A, my favorite quote from the articls is this:

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

Steersman wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

comslave wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

comslave wrote: I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:

Fuck you!

I win obvious joke race!

No wonder why the bid for ad space hasn't gone past $.05. The tasteless jokes here *huff*

Rather pedestrian from start to finish … :rimshot:

BarnOwl wrote:I'll just leave this here ....

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 9a115f.png

Richard Dworkins wrote:There are some amusing things in that article. I find it amusing that the content provider who typed it thinks that criticising the attitudes and behaviours of women who say and think things like this "Pussy’s not a right - it’s a privilege" with a straight face means he is denigrating all women. I'm sure the "of L.A." bit went unnoticed but it is pertinent and since gender is supposedly culturally derived, one could make the argument that perhaps he is correct in his assumption, from his personal experience.

Considering one of the most famous shows over the last 20 years "Sex in the City" is about a bunch of spoiled simpletons whining about how bad NY men are week after week, I think it is fair play. Besides if they are really so upset, I'm sure they can go and listen to "California Girls" by the Beach Boys.

You would think someone who labels themselves a comedian would understand comedy, if they knew about comedy rather than just gave themselves a label to make themselves sound less vapid.

aweraw wrote:Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:

http://www.gibblertron.com/post/4306444 ... em-of-2013

Given that the song is all about the writters perception of the impossibly high standards of women in L.A, my favorite quote from the articls is this:

I get it. Dating is hard. People are mean. It happens to everyone. Last year, I went on about 40 dates, all with guys who were not right for me.

nippletwister wrote:

bhoytony wrote: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?

ERV wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote: A quote from Ulysees:
"The pledge is a noble gesture on your part, Daniel. But that’s all it is, a gesture. Consider the denizens of the Slymepit. A woman or a “mangina” (their term) attempting to argue with them in a civil manner is an exercise in futility. I’ve seen Justin Vacula and Franc Hoggle in action. They see people being civil to them as weaklings, ready for the kill. I’ve seen Ophelia Benson ask to be left alone by the Slymepitters. That doesn’t happen."

And the hyperbole thickens...

Side-effect of a liberal arts education: I thought you were about to quote Ulysses.

I was like "I dont remember a 'Daniel' in Ulysses..."

rocko2466 wrote:

another lurker wrote: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.

Santa Claus is fucked then, with you lot on his case.