Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Altair]

When you equate what's going on in spain to Stalinism in a serious manner, exactly why should I take that any more seriously than the tea party idiots calling Obama Hitler?

For the same reason I don't start looking for concentration camps when people talk about a grammar nazi, some things are not literal but metaphoric.

[curriejean]

My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

[Gumby]

So, Rebecca Watson is sitting in a bar one morning, getting drunk. A man walks into the bar, comes up behind her and whispers in her ear "Hey good lookin'. How's about a rim job?"

Without saying a word, Rebecca gets up off her stool, drags the man outside, and beats him absolutely bloody to within an inch of his life. After that, she went back into the bar, sat down and continued nursing her drink.

The bartender, curious, asked her "Hey, I know it's none of my business, but if you don't mind me asking, what did that guy say to you that set you off like that?"

Watson said, "I dunno. Something about a job."

:rimshot:

[curriejean]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

[Gumby]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

Were you following any FTB/Skepchick types? It's possible you fell victim to Ooolon's idiotic block bot.

[welch]

When you equate what's going on in spain to Stalinism in a serious manner, exactly why should I take that any more seriously than the tea party idiots calling Obama Hitler?

For the same reason I don't start looking for concentration camps when people talk about a grammar nazi, some things are not literal but metaphoric.

and it was a shitty metaphor.

[welch]

My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

pretty much. See if it's on the block bot.

[KiwiInOz]

I see Silverman has taken Vacula up on his offer:

https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status ... 6179948545

Cue backlash and then backpeddle...

AAAAAARGH! PEDALLLLLL!

Spelling Nazi is Godwinning!!!!

Also - apropos of nothing, but I've seen it three times in the last week or so -- it's "toe the line," not "tow the line."

But is one a tow rag or a toe rag?

[welch]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

Were you following any FTB/Skepchick types? It's possible you fell victim to Ooolon's idiotic block bot.

Given the way the bot works, were you following anyone else on the blocklist?

[curriejean]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

Were you following any FTB/Skepchick types? It's possible you fell victim to Ooolon's idiotic block bot.

Yeah, a few of them, to keep up with the conversation. I guess that's probably it, then. Lovely.

[codelette]

Please somebody remind me when was it that Eric The Bassist gave this place "the benefit of the doubt"?
http://i.imgur.com/K6XDA1y.png

He was pretty much condemning this place from his first post.

Fix that bitch up.

PS. eric, you are a cunt.

Regards,
A woman

he was "shaking"? Fuck, how does princess even get out of bed in the morning?

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

http://fetusjournal.files.wordpress.com ... aurier.jpg

[Gumby]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

Were you following any FTB/Skepchick types? It's possible you fell victim to Ooolon's idiotic block bot.

Yeah, a few of them, to keep up with the conversation. I guess that's probably it, then. Lovely.

Yep, they pretend the block bot is harmless and doesn't "censor", but they forget to mention it helps people get kicked off twitter for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

[JayTeeAitch]

I see Silverman has taken Vacula up on his offer:

https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status ... 6179948545

Cue backlash and then backpeddle...

AAAAAARGH! PEDALLLLLL!

Spelling Nazi is Godwinning!!!!

Thank god for the new edit button then eh? I'll just click it and sort that mess out...

[Gumby]

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

Don't forget the "rage tears"!

[AndrewV69]

Oh fucking right we got mulletts and rednecks, eh. :D However I usually hear the adjective Molson applied to penises instead of hairstyles. It's a condition that can happen if far, far, far too much Molson beer has been drunk, so much that they can't get an erection - called Molson Dick. :)

Near Toronto, our rednecks can sometimes be found in certain parts of town, but for the largest concentration are in most towns north of us, like Barrie or Sudbury. They have our version of rednecks. Speaking of Sudbury, here's the recently deceased Stompin' Tom Connors singing Sudbury Saturday Night. If you're not Canadian, you might not get the words. Inco is a big nickel mining company in Sudbury.

[youtube]sl751CDdRZI[/youtube]

Reposting the vid because.

Anyway, dunno what rednecks in other countries are like but in my experience Canukistan rednecks out in the sticks are pretty decent people on the whole. So I am not going to make fun of them.

Not to mention I do not care if they have mulletts.

[Lsuoma]

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

Don't forget the "rage tears"!

And "literally vibrating with rage".

[welch]

Please somebody remind me when was it that Eric The Bassist gave this place "the benefit of the doubt"?
http://i.imgur.com/K6XDA1y.png

He was pretty much condemning this place from his first post.

Fix that bitch up.

PS. eric, you are a cunt.

Regards,
A woman

he was "shaking"? Fuck, how does princess even get out of bed in the morning?

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

http://fetusjournal.files.wordpress.com ... aurier.jpg

Man, that must suck, being that fragile.

[Altair]

Jeebus fucking keerist The Fish-head has another 5000 words or so up at Crommie's. I can't exactly tell what the fuck he's talking about except it basically seems that "Slutwalk" is racist because indigenous peoples suffer more sexual violence so whitey can't reclaim the word because it was never theirs in the first place? And one of the organizers used to be Fishface's roommate and is totes racist. Or something.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... 00x300.jpg

(snip)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -of-jamie/
http://www.freezepage.com/1369254487JXLTCNXKDS

I read that but I'm still wondering what Fish is talking about. What I can gather is that SlutWalk is racist because white women are not sluts but brown and black women are? so white women reclaiming the word slut is taking it away from non-white women?

After the known-racist one wrote me to whitesplain the criticisms of unchecked racial privilege away, I updated the first entry with a screenshot of this rather damning private message, which indicated that she neither understood what white privilege means, nor even believes it to exist

I didn't know a white person could whitesplain something to another white person. That means I can mansplain stuff to other men? What happens if we both mansplain to each other?

[Apples]

I see Silverman has taken Vacula up on his offer:

https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status ... 6179948545

Cue backlash and then backpeddle...

AAAAAARGH! PEDALLLLLL!

Spelling Nazi is Godwinning!!!!

Also - apropos of nothing, but I've seen it three times in the last week or so -- it's "toe the line," not "tow the line."

But is one a tow rag or a toe rag?

it's a d'oh rag.

[codelette]

Man, that must suck, being that fragile.

A commenter on Shakesville:

I saw this! We were watching the news that night but also were working on our laptops and neither of us bothered to turn off the TV as the news ended, and this was the first skit. I was shaking with rage and couldn't believe it-My mum and I stared at each other in shock for a minute and then we turned it off.

The offending piece?
A SNL skit...

http://www.shakesville.com/2011/02/challenge.html

[Metalogic42]

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

Don't forget the "rage tears"!

And "literally vibrating with rage".

I think they're just being overly dramatic as a means to feed the narrative. If they were serious about such over the top reactions, they all would have been thrown into asylums by now, because all the little difficulties that everyone faces in real life would have made their heads explode.

[deLurch]

I love it, at the end all this is a fight between good and evil...why did those clowns leave church?

They didn't.

Some of them just found a new church. Literally.

[ReneeHendricks]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

I still suspect that Oolon's Blockbot has something to do with this. Though, I have to admit to utilizing that bot when it comes to stalker extraordinaire, Dawn Gordon (I firmly believe *no one*, not even people like Greta, PZ, Watson, etal and their little toadies deserve to have *that* piece of shit bugging them). I've seen several people from here start up new accounts only to have them suspended in a day or less. Oolon's will, of course, deny his bot has anything to do with it.

[Metalogic42]

What happens if we both mansplain to each other?

http://www.spaceanswers.com/wp-content/ ... xplode.jpg

[Clarence]

It's also a useful point in how shitty writing can fuck a perfectly good point.

You might want to look at this:
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/201 ... ainst.html

The acceptance of domestic violence in society in the past is a huge myth. Yes, it was easy for people (women esp) to fall through the cracks because of lack of support services or money (esp when divorce was hard and you needed to prove cause though cruelty WAS considered legitimate cause for divorce) or isolation - many of our ancestors lived on farms , miles away from neighbors or towns. But there's a difference between that kind of neglect and active social approval. Nowadays its swung so far in the opposite direction that one can almost be jailed for a grab and a family broken up and all against the wishes of the purported victim - http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2 ... -dismissed

This kind of thing , like 'strict liability' age of consent laws is neither fair nor rational and it gives totalitarians of all stripes plenty of power to do incalcuable damage both to innocent men and women and even ones who are merely guilty of very mild stuff. We'd be better off offering tons of voluntary support services for men and women, and giving judges more discretion to order treatment or punishment for the cases that do make it to court. And I maintain that mild stuff -shoves, insults, grabs, slammed doors... should never make it to the criminal justice system.

Now , you are right about the 'stalinism' thing, though I might want to remind you that every single totalitarian ideology ever has messed with the family and our society does that in so many ways, up to and including telling divorced or separated parents how often they can send letters to their own children.

So i'm right about stalinism being stupid, except for the parts where it's totally like stalin?

Dude, do you even begin to see the problems with how you tried to make that point?

You say:

The acceptance of domestic violence in society in the past is a huge myth. Yes, it was easy for people (women esp) to fall through the cracks because of lack of support services or money (esp when divorce was hard and you needed to prove cause though cruelty WAS considered legitimate cause for divorce) or isolation - many of our ancestors lived on farms , miles away from neighbors or towns. But there's a difference between that kind of neglect and active social approval. Nowadays its swung so far in the opposite direction that one can almost be jailed for a grab and a family broken up and all against the wishes of the purported victim - http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2 ... -dismissed

well, let's take a look at your source.

Okay. Let's take an easy one, marital rape. Up until the 1970s, marital rape wasn't a crime. In the US, the first state to not preclude the prosecution of a spouse for rape was South Dakota in 1975. Here, from the NYT in 1987:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/ma ... essed.html

That's not a myth. That is fairly bald facts that in the united states, prior to 1975, and really up until 1993 when North Carolina finally removed the spousal exception to rape, a husband could not rape his wife. If she said "no, i don't want to have sex tonight, and he forced her, that was completely legal.

Note that it's still pretty fucked up. For example, in many states, the only way to prosecute a spouse for rape is if it is a violent rape. If the husband roofies her, and then has sex, that's totes okey-dokey. In South Carolina, the victim only has 30 days to report, and according to their law,

(A) Sexual battery, as defined in Section 16-3-651(h), when accomplished through use of aggravated force, defined as the use or the threat of use of a weapon or the use or threat of use of physical force or physical violence of a high and aggravated nature, by one spouse against the other spouse if they are living together, constitutes the felony of spousal sexual battery and, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years.

You use a source that makes a highly specific claim, one that it takes less than ten minutes to find refuting data for. As I point out to andrew, you need to review your sources mo' betta.

It's clearly not a myth. Has it been perhaps overstated to make it sound like in the old days, you could just cock-slap your wife in public and everyone applauded? All too often, yes. But that doesn't make it a myth. That makes it overstated by some groups. Kind of like how AVfM overstates things.

This kind of thing , like 'strict liability' age of consent laws is neither fair nor rational and it gives totalitarians of all stripes plenty of power to do incalcuable damage both to innocent men and women and even ones who are merely guilty of very mild stuff. We'd be better off offering tons of voluntary support services for men and women, and giving judges more discretion to order treatment or punishment for the cases that do make it to court. And I maintain that mild stuff -shoves, insults, grabs, slammed doors... should never make it to the criminal justice system.

The laws can always be revised and reviewed for fairness and better equality. However, there's a way to actually do that, and shitty writing on AVfM is none of them.

1. I meant that in the context of SPAIN you were correct about the use or misuse of "Stalinism". However, I did point out other areas that arguably are more appropriate.
2. Your understanding of marital rape is pretty simplistic. But let me put it to you very bluntly: right now MEN in America can be raped and it will not be counted as rape. This includes marriages, but is not limited to them:

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2551/male- ... existence/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2847/male- ... al-errors/
And that sort of thing is not even just limited to the US but is pretty much world-wide, including countries such as India which currently defines rape as something men do to women and not something men do to men, women to women, or women to men. I don't see the 'outrage'.
3. You didn't really deal with my link. My link pointed out that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE was not something that it was legal for a man to perform and that our ancestors took it pretty damn seriously indeed. You haven't provided any proof against my link.

My link does have something to say about "Marital Rape" laws though: if a man used FORCE to have sex with his wife he could at least be prosecuted for using that force, even if he couldn't be prosecuted for a sex crime. This is far different than what you seem to believe the laws were.

Nowadays we've "progressed" so much that technically a man (not a woman, remember forced envelopment doesn't count) has to worry about if he withdrew fast enough after she changed her mind in the act of coitus five years prior, and will she bring it up during the divorce?

Yeah...progress. Luckily most people DO take into account prior sexual history and consent, but I'm willing to bet that at least one man (The MRA's would say William Hetherington) was in jail for a marital rape he didn't even commit.

Fixing epic quote fail...

1. I meant that in the context of SPAIN you were correct about the use or misuse of "Stalinism". However, I did point out other areas that arguably are more appropriate.

to what, Stalinism? Hardly. FUD about THIS IS WHAT TEH TOTALITARIAN SOCIETIES DO is just that...fud. Same thing used against any politician doing anything someone somewhere doesn't like. First it's <policy> then it's hitler/stalin/mao.

2. Your understanding of marital rape is pretty simplistic. But let me put it to you very bluntly: right now MEN in America can be raped and it will not be counted as rape. This includes marriages, but is not limited to them:

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2551/male- ... existence/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2847/male- ... al-errors/
And that sort of thing is not even just limited to the US but is pretty much world-wide, including countries such as India which currently defines rape as something men do to women and not something men do to men, women to women, or women to men. I don't see the 'outrage'.

My understanding of marital rape is simplistic because it's a fairly simple concept: spouse A want sex, spouse be does not. Spouse A coerces or forces Spouse B to give them sex. This is not complicated. String theory is complicated. Sasha Grey's sexual history is complicated. This is not. But, nice of you to pull out both the "since you don't agree with me, CLEARLY you don't understand the problem" AND "other people do bad stuff too, so what you talked about is okay" tropes. Neither of those links disprove that in the US prior to the 70s, a wife was unable to deny her husband sex, because he could just take that shit, and walk away clean.

In addition the "well in other countries, you can ass-rape women with a yak's horn" shit still doesn't disprove anything. I mean, it's a nice attempt at distraction, but it still doesn't disprove what I stated, which shows that your "point" about societal approval of violence against women in the past in the US is a myth to be malarky. What goes on in India is indeed horrible, but that doesn't change that you're still wrong.

3. You didn't really deal with my link. My link pointed out that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE was not something that it was legal for a man to perform and that our ancestors took it pretty damn seriously indeed. You haven't provided any proof against my link.

A husband legally able to rape his wife is not "domestic violence". You're really going to try to make that case?

My link does have something to say about "Marital Rape" laws though: if a man used FORCE to have sex with his wife he could at least be prosecuted for using that force, even if he couldn't be prosecuted for a sex crime. This is far different than what you seem to believe the laws were.

Bless your stupid little heart, you are in fact going to try to make that case. From the link I provided:

A month after Rosanna Hawkins filed for divorce in Michigan in 1981, her estranged husband broke into the house where she was staying and in more than an hour of what she said was total terror, raped her. Her husband, Eugene, who had been armed with a six-inch knife, was convicted in Oceana County Circuit Court in 1982 and sentenced to 27 years to 92 years in prison.

Last February, however, the Michigan Court of Appeals voted 3 to 0 to overturn the conviction.

The court ruled that, legally speaking, Mrs. Hawkins could not have been ''raped'' by her husband because in Michigan it is not a crime for a man to sexually assault his wife unless they are living apart and one has filed for divorce. And Mrs. Hawkins's divorce filing was not valid because Michigan requires that a person be a resident for at least six months in order to file for a divorce; Mrs. Hawkins had moved back to the state only a week before she filed.

Now, let me restate this simply, because you appear to need things simple:

Eugene Hawkins broke into Rosanna Hawkins' house, and armed with a 6" knife, raped her. That, my dear, dear, preciously stupid person, is in fact using force. What happened next? Well the lower court did the sensible thing and sentenced him to many, many years in prison. Until the Michigan court of appeals then *unanimously* overturned his conviction. Why? Because as it turned out, in michigan, at the time, what he did wasn't illegal.

Here's a funny thing that had you done any research, you'd have found that the MSC remanded the case back to the Mich. Court of appeals for reconsideration of issues.

I can't find any other data on it, but I'm not a lawyer, I could be searching poorly. SO the final disposition of the case? Dunno.

In any event, in what world is the rape of a spouse not domestic violence? What, he says please first?

Nowadays we've "progressed" so much that technically a man (not a woman, remember forced envelopment doesn't count) has to worry about if he withdrew fast enough after she changed her mind in the act of coitus five years prior, and will she bring it up during the divorce?

Yeah...progress. Luckily most people DO take into account prior sexual history and consent, but I'm willing to bet that at least one man (The MRA's would say William Hetherington) was in jail for a marital rape he didn't even commit

neither of those two points disprove that this country had a history of legally allowed spousal abuse by men towards women. Which means it was not a myth.

The fact you tried to make rape separate from domestic violence is quite frankly, fucking appalling.

Hey stupid:
A. "Domestic violence" is a shove. Is it your contention that rather than being a SEX CRIME rape is a crime of domestic violence? So a shove...is a rape? Wow, are you dense. I suggest you look into sexual assault statutes. I've been doing this for years idiot.

B. OMG the court ruled she wasn't RAPED as a matter of law. So it sent him back to be tried for the ASSAULT.
Fuck you that you don't even know the goddamn difference between physical and sexual assault. Clearly, you can't sentence a guy for RAPE if he didn't rape her.
That doesn't mean I think he didn't rape her, but as a matter of law (which you'd understand if you had two brain cells) if they determine it wasn't rape, that doesn't mean it wasn't violence. That you are either too stupid to understand the distinction or too dishonest to deal with it, doesn't say much good about you.
Also, there's that pesky Ex Post Facto stuff that I know you probably don't care about and couldn't understand because it is in Latin or something.
C: "My understanding of marital rape is simplistic because it's a fairly simple concept: spouse A want sex, spouse be does not. Spouse A coerces or forces Spouse B to give them sex."
Yeah, and now you can try defining coercion. That's been one of the fun tasks of the past 30 years of Rape Law Reform. Not that I expect you to know that... you are, as you admit not a lawyer and you haven't read much of this stuff. Happy in your ignorance I suppose. Anyway, all your examples were about VIOLENCE and we were talking about DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and now not only do you want to conflate RAPE with domestic violence but you also want to conflate coercion ( a much more ill defined term even legally) with force. You are a clown, for all your bluster.

Anyway dipshit, stop conflating RAPE with domestic violence and address my first link or I'll take it you concede my point that men just didn't have the right to 'smack that bitch around'.

[codelette]

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

Don't forget the "rage tears"!

And "literally vibrating with rage".

They're so Victorian.
I wonder if they carry smelling salts around for when they get the online vapors.

[nippletwister]

My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

That happened to me on Saturday, I posted about it here.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=91510#p91510

It seemed a bit odd to me too, since I had done nothing that could be considered "agressive following" by twitter's own definition.

[ReneeHendricks]

Ok, I'll admit it. The ADS in me glazes over the extremely long posts here. I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some important/great discussions when I do this. Anyone else here do the rapid skim past thing when it comes to posts that are well over three or four paragraphs long?

[Clarence]

Oh, the "Rape case" that chaps me more than anything else (besides false accusations and some *not all* statutory b.s?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_B ... f_Maryland

It's not that I think it should be impossible to "withdraw consent".
But there has to be a reasonableness standard for the time and circumstances (5 seconds is a far cry from 50 seconds for example) and also a defense of knowledge.
My local didn't seem to set those, which means its only a matter of time until this comes up again.

So if a woman starts pegging you, and you're not into it, and say stop, if you don't say stop soon enough, she can just tear that shit up, and hey, sucks to be you?

You know, I've bagged on Andrew a lot. But honestly, compared to the idiocy you push, he's a Rhodes Fucking Scholar. I've never seen him talk HALF as stupid as you've managed to.

So, Mr. Magician:
She says stop, how long do you have? Half a second? A second? Five seconds? Does it matter if you are tired? She's on top?
She says stop, you didn't hear her or understand her. Before she can clarify, you explode inside her. Did you rape her?
She says stop, you didn't hear her or understand her. Traumatized (or not, maybe she just claims to be) she doesn't say a single thing as you continue to happily and blissfully pound away. Rapist?
She doesn't say stop, but claims she did. You are a juror. Who do you believe?

Just because it passes the attention of your one working braincell that there could be issues with this stuff, doesn't mean there aren't issues. All I said was there needed to be a Defense of Ignorance and some sort of Reasonableness standard when it came to how fast someone had to comply. And you threw a hissy fit.

Good job of thinking critically, dumbass.

[TheMudbrooker]

I see Silverman has taken Vacula up on his offer:

https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status ... 6179948545

Cue backlash and then backpeddle...

AAAAAARGH! PEDALLLLLL!

Spelling Nazi is Godwinning!!!!

Also - apropos of nothing, but I've seen it three times in the last week or so -- it's "toe the line," not "tow the line."

If we're not supposed to tow the line, may we still drag it?

[youtube]AD7IK3dKScc[/youtube]

[katamari Damassi]

Man, that must suck, being that fragile.

A commenter on Shakesville:

I saw this! We were watching the news that night but also were working on our laptops and neither of us bothered to turn off the TV as the news ended, and this was the first skit. I was shaking with rage and couldn't believe it-My mum and I stared at each other in shock for a minute and then we turned it off.

The offending piece?
A SNL skit...

http://www.shakesville.com/2011/02/challenge.html

That's par for the course there.
And that reminds me... Does anyone watch the show Elementary? For the brits here, Elementary is the american knockoff of Sherlock Holmes. I was interested in checking it out, but I noticed that it is the current favorite show of Shakesville-because Joan Watson solves crimes with her "empathy" instead of Sherlock solving them with his logic. So is it a complete piece of shit or what?

[bovarchist]

My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

Stupid question: Why would you want to follow those people anyway? When Watson/Myers blocked me, they did me a favor. I should send them a fruit basket. Or meat platter, in Watson's case.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.

The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.

Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.

[nippletwister]

My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

pretty much. See if it's on the block bot.

It is.

https://twitter.com/The_Block_Bot

Hmmm...sadly, I'm not, unless he just didn't tweet it. Yet I received the same "agressive following" notice after only four tweets!

I wonder if someone else complained just for little old me....just a day or so prior, I was banned and had all my comments removed from Marcotte's Pandgon blog liefest about Justin.

It's sad that twitter is perfectly happy to allow what could be considered slander to proliferate, but responding to slander is "aggressive following" and a punishable offense.

[Kareem]

Ohh, yep, here it is in the message from twitter alerting me to the suspension. I missed it initially: "A disproportionately large number of the users you followed have blocked your account or reported your account as spam."

Only took 16 tweets, none of which were spam or personal attacks.

Were you following any FTB/Skepchick types? It's possible you fell victim to Ooolon's idiotic block bot.

Yeah, a few of them, to keep up with the conversation. I guess that's probably it, then. Lovely.

You can use Tweetchat to follow conversations by hashtgs. http://tweetchat.com/room/ftbullies

[Trophy]

Ok, I'll admit it. The ADS in me glazes over the extremely long posts here. I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some important/great discussions when I do this. Anyone else here do the rapid skim past thing when it comes to posts that are well over three or four paragraphs long?

No idea. I'm in just for the pics.

[bovarchist]

Does anyone watch the show Elementary? For the brits here, Elementary is the american knockoff of Sherlock Holmes. I was interested in checking it out, but I noticed that it is the current favorite show of Shakesville-because Joan Watson solves crimes with her "empathy" instead of Sherlock solving them with his logic. So is it a complete piece of shit or what?

Never watched it, but I meant to get around to it. If what you say is true, wow...talk about a perfect symbol of missing the point. "Let's ruin Sherlock Holmes, because feminism."

THIS! THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE SHAKING WITH ANGER! SHAKING, I SAY! :violin:

[katamari Damassi]

Oh and over at Shakesville, sympathy for the oppressed machete wielding attackers. While they don't approve of violence they certainly understand the attackers anger.

[bovarchist]

http://fetusjournal.files.wordpress.com ... aurier.jpg

CURING HYSTERIA WITH THE AWESOMENESS OF OUR BEARDS

[JackSkeptic]

Please somebody remind me when was it that Eric The Bassist gave this place "the benefit of the doubt"?
http://i.imgur.com/K6XDA1y.png

He was pretty much condemning this place from his first post.

Fix that bitch up.

PS. eric, you are a cunt.

Regards,
A woman

he was "shaking"? Fuck, how does princess even get out of bed in the morning?

That "shaking" behavior is usual with OnlineJusticeJockeys. I have also read about about "crying", "screaming", "getting nauseous" and "throwing up" in various other feminists sites.

http://fetusjournal.files.wordpress.com ... aurier.jpg

I remember Eric. He came here, gave us some abuse, we spoke to him calmly asking him to provide evidence for his assertions. He could not. He had a short period of lucidity, went off the rails and rage quit.

He was shaking alright. Like a born again Christian would when faced with the prospect they may be wrong about Jesus. For some it is much easier to lie, distort and play the victim than face reality.

Yet unlike them if another 'Eric' pops by I will do the same and try and engage with them. That's because I don't feign a fit of the vapours if someone disagrees with me. It's because I do not play emotional games to obtain an advantage. People that play emotional games are blackmailing other people's natural empathy and it's disgusting.

Also Eric unlike you I won't lie to buddy up to anyone. How you can pretend to represent any part of 'Social Justice' is beyond me, You do not even know what the words mean.

[katamari Damassi]

Oh and over at Shakesville, sympathy for the oppressed machete wielding attackers. While they don't approve of violence they certainly understand the attackers anger.

Oh wait. Now they're angry at the attackers for "disappearing" women.

[bovarchist]

Jeebus fucking keerist The Fish-head has another 5000 words or so up at Crommie's. I can't exactly tell what the fuck he's talking about except it basically seems that "Slutwalk" is racist because indigenous peoples suffer more sexual violence so whitey can't reclaim the word because it was never theirs in the first place? And one of the organizers used to be Fishface's roommate and is totes racist. Or something.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... 00x300.jpg

(snip)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -of-jamie/
http://www.freezepage.com/1369254487JXLTCNXKDS

I read that but I'm still wondering what Fish is talking about. What I can gather is that SlutWalk is racist because white women are not sluts but brown and black women are? so white women reclaiming the word slut is taking it away from non-white women?

After the known-racist one wrote me to whitesplain the criticisms of unchecked racial privilege away, I updated the first entry with a screenshot of this rather damning private message, which indicated that she neither understood what white privilege means, nor even believes it to exist

I didn't know a white person could whitesplain something to another white person. That means I can mansplain stuff to other men? What happens if we both mansplain to each other?

It's called docking. Ultimately, it's not as fun as it sounds.

[Clarence]

Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.

The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.

Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.

This is an excellent post. I find it amazing (but still sad even though I've seen this again and again for decades concerning various "Identity" issues) that a few loud vociferous women are given a pass by some organizations and some of the mainstream press to speak for ALL women, and their own claims of horrible victimization are never examined to see if they are true. They are given a free pass to complain about all the rape and death threats they allegedly receive and they use these threats to smear ALL of their opposition but they never show the threats NOR the connection. I personally think most of their threats are made up lies, and fully half the real are from people they did their own level best to piss off (but will never admit their own fault in the exchange deteriorating) and most of the other half are from 14 year olds , hardcore misogynists and 4chan.

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Oh and over at Shakesville, sympathy for the oppressed machete wielding attackers. While they don't approve of violence they certainly understand the attackers anger.

Where are these attackers from? Will the Shakers still understand the attackers' anger if it turns out they were born and bred in Sarf London, which I wouldn't class as Muslim land, and is not currently under coalition attack.

[JackSkeptic]

Oh and over at Shakesville, sympathy for the oppressed machete wielding attackers. While they don't approve of violence they certainly understand the attackers anger.

They were not oppressed. From the accent of one of them they were from London. Shakesville are a bunch of clueless amateurs playing at grown up games.

[JackSkeptic]

Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.

The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.

Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.

This is an excellent post. I find it amazing (but still sad even though I've seen this again and again for decades concerning various "Identity" issues) that a few loud vociferous women are given a pass by some organizations and some of the mainstream press to speak for ALL women, and their own claims of horrible victimization are never examined to see if they are true. They are given a free pass to complain about all the rape and death threats they allegedly receive and they use these threats to smear ALL of their opposition but they never show the threats NOR the connection. I personally think most of their threats are made up lies, and fully half the real are from people they did their own level best to piss off (but will never admit their own fault in the exchange deteriorating) and most of the other half are from 14 year olds , hardcore misogynists and 4chan.

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Clarence, if you are trying to make friends you are doing a terrible job. Most of what you say is complete drivel. If you have a chip on your shoulder that's fine but I for one won't be dragged into it. Every time you come out with crap I will tell you so be prepared for some push back now.

Misogynists exist, threats are sometimes credible (there is a woman here that has a stalker) and adults of all ages indulge in it not just 14yo kids. I am against people, not just women, men too, using that FACT as an excuse to attack decent people in the movement who believe in equality.

Ultimately I want equality for Women AND Men. That means I will argue against people talking here as much as I will from FtB if the need arises.

[AndrewV69]

Ok, I'll admit it. The ADS in me glazes over the extremely long posts here. I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some important/great discussions when I do this. Anyone else here do the rapid skim past thing when it comes to posts that are well over three or four paragraphs long?

*wave*

(usually when welsh is on the rag though)

[Dick Strawkins]

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Are you fucking stupid or something?

If a woman gets multiple rape or death threats then something IS happening to her.
She is getting threatened and can rightfully feel terrorized.
To threaten someone with violence or rape is a crime and the person on the end of these threats is a victim of that crime.

Yes, most of the online threats are going to be trolls, but that doesn't make it a non issue.
I doubt that anyone seriously thought Justin was a threat but I think they may have some justification for a dislike of AVFM which seemingly has some fans who don't consider online threats to be an issue unless they are actually acted upon.

[FrankGrimes]

I remember Eric. He came here, gave us some abuse, we spoke to him calmly asking him to provide evidence for his assertions. He could not. He had a short period of lucidity, went off the rails and rage quit.

He was shaking alright. Like a born again Christian would when faced with the prospect they may be wrong about Jesus. For some it is much easier to lie, distort and play the victim than face reality.

Yet unlike them if another 'Eric' pops by I will do the same and try and engage with them. That's because I don't feign a fit of the vapours if someone disagrees with me. It's because I do not play emotional games to obtain an advantage. People that play emotional games are blackmailing other people's natural empathy and it's disgusting.

Also Eric unlike you I won't lie to buddy up to anyone. How you can pretend to represent any part of 'Social Justice' is beyond me, You do not even know what the words mean.

I told him he was fat but that was ok because he's a bass player. I don't think he minded that too much but when I said his singer was fat and that wasn't ok because he's a singer, I think he got offended. But to poor old Eric, everything is offensive and I bet he has a coat at the ready every time a lady needs to step over a puddle of mud.

[Clarence]

Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.

The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.

Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.

This is an excellent post. I find it amazing (but still sad even though I've seen this again and again for decades concerning various "Identity" issues) that a few loud vociferous women are given a pass by some organizations and some of the mainstream press to speak for ALL women, and their own claims of horrible victimization are never examined to see if they are true. They are given a free pass to complain about all the rape and death threats they allegedly receive and they use these threats to smear ALL of their opposition but they never show the threats NOR the connection. I personally think most of their threats are made up lies, and fully half the real are from people they did their own level best to piss off (but will never admit their own fault in the exchange deteriorating) and most of the other half are from 14 year olds , hardcore misogynists and 4chan.

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Clarence, if you are trying to make friends you are doing a terrible job. Most of what you say is complete drivel. If you have a chip on your shoulder that's fine but I for one won't be dragged into it. Every time you come out with crap I will tell you so be prepared for some push back now.

Misogynists exist, threats are sometimes credible (there is a woman here that has a stalker) and adults of all ages indulge in it not just 14yo kids. I am against people, not just women, men too, using that FACT as an excuse to attack decent people in the movement who believe in equality.

Ultimately I want equality for Women AND Men. That means I will argue against people talking here as much as I will from FtB if the need arises.

Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.

The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.

Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.

This is an excellent post. I find it amazing (but still sad even though I've seen this again and again for decades concerning various "Identity" issues) that a few loud vociferous women are given a pass by some organizations and some of the mainstream press to speak for ALL women, and their own claims of horrible victimization are never examined to see if they are true. They are given a free pass to complain about all the rape and death threats they allegedly receive and they use these threats to smear ALL of their opposition but they never show the threats NOR the connection. I personally think most of their threats are made up lies, and fully half the real are from people they did their own level best to piss off (but will never admit their own fault in the exchange deteriorating) and most of the other half are from 14 year olds , hardcore misogynists and 4chan.

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Clarence, if you are trying to make friends you are doing a terrible job. Most of what you say is complete drivel. If you have a chip on your shoulder that's fine but I for one won't be dragged into it. Every time you come out with crap I will tell you so be prepared for some push back now.

Misogynists exist, threats are sometimes credible (there is a woman here that has a stalker) and adults of all ages indulge in it not just 14yo kids. I am against people, not just women, men too, using that FACT as an excuse to attack decent people in the movement who believe in equality.

Ultimately I want equality for Women AND Men. That means I will argue against people talking here as much as I will from FtB if the need arises.

Did I deny Misogynists or rapists exist?
Fuck, I even REFERENCED THEM in my post!
Do you read?
I'm merely claiming that the FTBloggers are fucking overstating the problem and most of what they say is utter bullshit. If you have evidence to the contrary DO WHAT THEY NEVER FUCKING DO and provide it.
I could give a shit less if you 'like' me for saying something, but at least get what I'm saying correct.

[ReneeHendricks]

Ok, I'll admit it. The ADS in me glazes over the extremely long posts here. I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some important/great discussions when I do this. Anyone else here do the rapid skim past thing when it comes to posts that are well over three or four paragraphs long?

*wave*

(usually when welsh is on the rag though)

Whew. Glad I'm not the only one. I'm a firm believer of "keep it short and simple". If you can't get your point across in a few paragraphs, you've lost me.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Is "Elevatorgate" the chick that is in the wallpaper on their twitter homepage?

https://twitter.com/ElevatorGATE

[Aneris]

Correct me if I’m wrong but…
Doesn’t the Slymepit openly disseminate and laugh it up about all the sexist images and jokes and bullshit hurled at secular feminists? That’s why Vacula comes off as so disingenuous. It’s like if American Atheists had a forum where they laughed an joked about church vandalism, and then David Silverman claimed that there was no proof that American Atheists encouraged church vandalism.

But The Slymepit laughs about this awful stuff happening to secular feminists all the time, and Vacula has the nerve to claim that is not his job to denounce it? Seriously?

Or am I wrong about this? Do the pitters carefully maintain plausible deniability by never publicly disseminating sexist images and jokes? Somehow I doubt it.

their excuse is that everyone on the pit is a True Free Individual and the pit is a Total Free Speech zone, neither endorsing nor condemning what is posted there. Consequently it is evil and poisoning the well and guilt by association to hold one pitter responsible for the actions of any other pitter, or the pit as a whole. even if the accused is on very good terms with any of the ppl doing the bad actions.

If one day the bubble bursts, we probably see the same as what led to the description of Cognitive Dissonance. Better give a heads up to psychologists now, as they'll find worthy candidates to study. PZ Myers did well to ban everyone who could provide a link to our utterly nefarious photoshop corner. In a way it feels like watching reality-challenged people through a glass window. And how difficult can it be to just check the facts.

[Altair]

Is "Elevatorgate" the chick that is in the wallpaper on their twitter homepage?

https://twitter.com/ElevatorGATE

No, it seems to be someone who goes by @telomericfusion

[Clarence]

More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Are you fucking stupid or something?

If a woman gets multiple rape or death threats then something IS happening to her.
She is getting threatened and can rightfully feel terrorized.
To threaten someone with violence or rape is a crime and the person on the end of these threats is a victim of that crime.

Yes, most of the online threats are going to be trolls, but that doesn't make it a non issue.
I doubt that anyone seriously thought Justin was a threat but I think they may have some justification for a dislike of AVFM which seemingly has some fans who don't consider online threats to be an issue unless they are actually acted upon.

I don't consider online threats to be an 'issue' unless they are actually acted upon either. So hate away on me all you want. Parts of the internet are cesspools. If you stir them up you will get threatened. Doesn't matter if you are a woman or a man. And yes, that's because there are lots of trolls and lots of people who will say things to hurt the easily offended or frighten the easily frightened. That doesn't mean that if you deliberately stir up a hornets nest (as some of them have) you get to play innocent victim. That ALSO doesn't mean - and this is my main point - that MERELY CLAIMING you are OR HAVE been receiving such threats entitles you to use said alleged threats as representing people who disagree with you, ESP when you REFUSE to publish said threats, or otherwise prove your words. Have you forgotten that some of the idiots you fight on here have 'refused to name names'?

Isn't it so convenient to be able to run a victim narrative and never have to prove it?

[Aneris]

Is "Elevatorgate" the chick that is in the wallpaper on their twitter homepage?

https://twitter.com/ElevatorGATE

[Dick Strawkins]

Oh crap :(
So evolution isn't true after all.

http://i.imgur.com/m51gNrI.jpg

(I presume that's what Lousy Canuck means)

[Aneris]

Oh crap :(
So evolution isn't true after all.

http://i.imgur.com/m51gNrI.jpg

(I presume that's what Lousy Canuck means)

If possible, embed the tweet (with the downside, when the tweet get's deleted...)

Code: Select all

[tweet]https://twitter.com/lousycanuck/status/336635936597213186[/tweet]

[KiwiInOz]

Correct me if I’m wrong but…
Doesn’t the Slymepit openly disseminate and laugh it up about all the sexist images and jokes and bullshit hurled at secular feminists? That’s why Vacula comes off as so disingenuous. It’s like if American Atheists had a forum where they laughed an joked about church vandalism, and then David Silverman claimed that there was no proof that American Atheists encouraged church vandalism.

But The Slymepit laughs about this awful stuff happening to secular feminists all the time, and Vacula has the nerve to claim that is not his job to denounce it? Seriously?

Or am I wrong about this? Do the pitters carefully maintain plausible deniability by never publicly disseminating sexist images and jokes? Somehow I doubt it.

their excuse is that everyone on the pit is a True Free Individual and the pit is a Total Free Speech zone, neither endorsing nor condemning what is posted there. Consequently it is evil and poisoning the well and guilt by association to hold one pitter responsible for the actions of any other pitter, or the pit as a whole. even if the accused is on very good terms with any of the ppl doing the bad actions.

If one day the bubble bursts, we probably see the same as what led to the description of Cognitive Dissonance. Better give a heads up to psychologists now, as they'll find worthy candidates to study. PZ Myers did well to ban everyone who could provide a link to our utterly nefarious photoshop corner. In a way it feels like watching reality-challenged people through a glass window. And how difficult can it be to just check the facts.

Why challenge their beliefs when they can stay nice and safe in their little cocoons?

[Voryn]

Translation: Oh we're having a problem over here too? Well, let me just count to infinity and then we'll get on that..

Kind of hard to fix the trolls, you're a meme Silverman, you should be aware of how the internet works!