The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.Angry_Drunk wrote:No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
-
- .
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Are you somehow under the impression that insulting people based on their avatars and screen names makes you look smartClarence wrote:The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.Angry_Drunk wrote:No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Thanks for the links. Preliminary reading seems to show that Hoggle isn't a fan of Watson's or radical feminism.LMU wrote:Franc has a blog here.Clarence wrote:I can see I'm REALLY going to have to catch up on who this Franc Hoggle guy is. You guys bring him up all the time, but I can remember nothing about him from the original EG brouhaha or as having anything to do with why this site was formed by Erv.Southern wrote:Pff. Everybody knows that the only sock puppets are franc's.Clarence wrote:Whoever that is.it's Eucli's younger brother
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...
And, as you are discussing with welch and all, I'm pretty sure YOU are a sock puppet of franc hoggle. Ha! Gotcha.
I'll do a googles. I'm not lazy. And I probably knew who he was but forgot. I'm getting old...just turned 42. I plead advanced age or wisdom or something.
Also welch's avatar is a reference to a line from My Immortal.
I also read the first two chapters of "My Immortal". I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry , honestly. My God, that is horrible. I Guess Welch must have read the thing all the way through and... it...it... TWISTED him. :o
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
However, I 'look' since you can't get your facts straight as to either my motivations or even what I plainly said, I know that you aren't smart. Probably liquor killing off those brain cells...Angry_Drunk wrote:Are you somehow under the impression that insulting people based on their avatars and screen names makes you look smartClarence wrote:The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.Angry_Drunk wrote:No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.AndrewV69 wrote:I know the feeling. Congratz!Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Ow. My condolences.Scented Nectar wrote:Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.AndrewV69 wrote:I know the feeling. Congratz!Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
We live in a world where there are Russo-Israeli Neo-Nazis. Anything is possible ... especially in South Carolina.
-
- .
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
"Got mine, fuck you!" is the official slogan of the Republican PartySkep tickle wrote:She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Eench?Lsuoma wrote:I just noticed that Arnieman is an anagram of Armenian.
Ive been misreading it and doing doubletakes for a while -- "Wait, why is Abbie talking about my people -- Oh, nevermind."
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
See also Bobby Jindal governor of Louisiana.Skep tickle wrote:She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Clarence wrote:I haven't ran to any Moderator Mommy asking for help, even if such was available which it isn't.nippletwister wrote:Speaking as a complete nobody, I'm not sure if Clarence is trolling, has internet rage issues and maybe trouble with the quote function, or just needs to settle down, shake his bitch-tits out of his polo shirt, and get comfortable with an open forum.
Time will tell.
I knew what this place was when I signed up here the other day. I've been a lurker quite a bit for over a year now, though not usually a daily one. I discovered this place through Scented Nectars blog, where I left a few comments.
I admit I have trouble with the quote function HERE, but apparently only when 5 or more are embedded.
And excuse me if I respond with insults back when I get insulted. How that translates to 'internet rage' is beyond me.
Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.
Peace.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Eddie Tabash? Yeah, like a contributor to ISWFACE is likely to fall in with these clowns.Notung wrote:Let's not forget that Cornwell is on the board.
I also recognise Tabash - for some reason I assume he'd take the side of rationality. Please, Eddie, I like you!
As I said earlier, I would be shocked if Lindsay hadnt felt out the Board previously. Not necessarily in a "Im doing X, will you support me?" level of explictness, but almost certainly in a, "BTW, have you seen whats going on over there?" Or "Im a little concerned that some of the people involved in WIS arent fully in tune with CFI's main goals, what do you think?" He doesnt strike me as an idiot, so he knew there would be fall out from his actions.
As to his apology. Its the right thing: The North Korea and the Alternate Universe things were over the top. They would have been fine if he was just a blogger, but they were a bit much for the leader of a major secularism org.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Hey, I like welch.nippletwister wrote:
Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.
Peace.
-
- .
- Posts: 786
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
You want I should come by and lean on a few people?Scented Nectar wrote:Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.AndrewV69 wrote:I know the feeling. Congratz!Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 811083.jpgClarence wrote:Thanks for the links. Preliminary reading seems to show that Hoggle isn't a fan of Watson's or radical feminism.LMU wrote:Clarence wrote:I can see I'm REALLY going to have to catch up on who this Franc Hoggle guy is. You guys bring him up all the time, but I can remember nothing about him from the original EG brouhaha or as having anything to do with why this site was formed by Erv.Southern wrote:Pff. Everybody knows that the only sock puppets are franc's.Clarence wrote:
Whoever that is.
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...
And, as you are discussing with welch and all, I'm pretty sure YOU are a sock puppet of franc hoggle. Ha! Gotcha.
I'll do a googles. I'm not lazy. And I probably knew who he was but forgot. I'm getting old...just turned 42. I plead advanced age or wisdom or something.
Franc has a blog here.
Also welch's avatar is a reference to a line from My Immortal.
I also read the first two chapters of "My Immortal". I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry , honestly. My God, that is horrible. I Guess Welch must have read the thing all the way through and... it...it... TWISTED him. :o
-
- .
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.
Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.
I've started a new thread for the petition:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312
I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: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.deLurch wrote: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.Stretchycheese wrote: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.
I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.
Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.
I've started a new thread for the petition:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312
I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I ignore about a quarter of your posts. You make so much of an effort to always appear reasonable it comes across as shit-eating disingenuousness.Jack wrote:I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)Clarence wrote:Congrats on your retirement. I hope you have a happy one but occasionally come back to your blog too. I've missed it, though I admit all the #&#@&@!!! video links slowed down this 400 dollar 5 year old Walmart Special quite a bit until I installed a 'new' (well..was new 3 years ago) video card instead of using the onboard graphics.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
She's a conservative christian republican in South Carolina, things like that come up every now and then.AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.
South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I am as certain as I can be the board was sounded out first. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the vitriol and unsophisticated lies he would face. I see no evidence he won't have known that and in fact came preprepared with the outline of his responses. The clowns are very predictable because they are so unsubtle and binary. Either they love you or they hate you and that is based solely on whether you disagree with them in anything (even minor) or 100% support them. They don't do nuance or proportional responses. They only care about winning at any cost and they are incapable of doing that using reason and logic as their ideas simply do not stack up the way they want them to.Dave wrote:Eddie Tabash? Yeah, like a contributor to ISWFACE is likely to fall in with these clowns.Notung wrote:Let's not forget that Cornwell is on the board.
I also recognise Tabash - for some reason I assume he'd take the side of rationality. Please, Eddie, I like you!
As I said earlier, I would be shocked if Lindsay hadnt felt out the Board previously. Not necessarily in a "Im doing X, will you support me?" level of explictness, but almost certainly in a, "BTW, have you seen whats going on over there?" Or "Im a little concerned that some of the people involved in WIS arent fully in tune with CFI's main goals, what do you think?" He doesnt strike me as an idiot, so he knew there would be fall out from his actions.
As to his apology. Its the right thing: The North Korea and the Alternate Universe things were over the top. They would have been fine if he was just a blogger, but they were a bit much for the leader of a major secularism org.
I suspect it would be trivial for any of us to ghost write a response such as provided by Carrier. It's the same old over the top emotive, irrational and unevidenced rubbish. The pseudo intellectual style is just a smoke screen for the gullible.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
You can call it 'The Chill Girls Charter'. Maybe not.curriejean wrote:I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: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.deLurch wrote: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.Stretchycheese wrote: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.
I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.
Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.
I've started a new thread for the petition:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312
I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
We all have our own style.cunt wrote:I ignore about a quarter of your posts. You make so much of an effort to always appear reasonable it comes across as shit-eating disingenuousness.Jack wrote:I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I really have a serious question for Mr Silverman: Did he support Obama and his promise of no preconditions for talking with Iran? If no, then I will shut up but if yes, how the fuck he justifies the dissonance? If it was fine to talk with Iran, a bloodthirsty dictatorship that has killed, suppressed, and robbed many (including women!) of their freedom, liberty, and even life, then what the fuck is wrong with talking to JV?
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
So you're saying that if something wasn't 100% approved of by every single person in the country, that it's a myth?Clarence wrote:Ok, since the preview shows this is apparently posting right (though I've been told you can't always trust the preview) here goes:welch wrote:Actually, that site didn't do shit to analyze the laws at the time. It supplied a bunch of anectdotes and examples of vigilantism. It features a bunch of newspaper articles, but again, nothing really involving laws. That would have required, you know, linking to laws and court decisions. Which isn't as much fun, but there you go.Clarence wrote:Since you are slow or dishonest or maybe both, I will make this a simple 101 level lesson for you.You whining about goalpost moving. Now THAT is irony. I bet you're the most awesome rules lawyer ever. Still butthurt about that whole "I sourced from a shitty website that used random reports of vigilantism, and you responded with an example of a national approval of violence against women! UNFAIR!"
What was your response?
1) rape doesn't count, only domestic violence
2) you will only accept examples that fit your millimeter-wide narrow definition of domestic violence
3) women do shitty things too, so men are innocent.
At that point, you're a moron, and I treat you as such.
And did your attempt to whip out your Internet dick fail? I bet that "I've been on the Internet since 1998 wows the millennials. Here? Not so much, especially since you've been a troll ever since. That's the problem with Internet dicks. Someone always has a bigger one.
And really, if you're so lame that mocking D&D is the best you have, (fuck yeah I play that shit, I have damned near since it was first called D&D), at least get the cultural references right.
A. I talk about domestic violence and link to a site that shows reports of both vigilantist AND LEGAL penalties for such actions in order to show that society wasn't all rah-rah about domestic violence. Yes, dumbass it was ILLEGAL TO BEAT YOUR FUCKING WIFE. Do you deny that? Are you going to try to tell me there was 'rule of thumb'?
It also parses things, as you do, *extremely* finely. Which was something I noticed, because by focusing on one highly specific crime and anecdotes, it was ignoring the overall problem, and again, was essentially nothing but a collection of anecdotes. I responded showing a different part of the same problem, to point out that no, it isn't a "myth". There was, for a long time, in this country and others, systemic support for abusing women.
Note that it doesn't mean your point that there were cases where the right thing was done is WRONG. But it does mean the idea that at no time has this country ever systemically, tacitly approved of violence against women, that the entire concept is a myth is simply incorrect.
It also does nothing to suggest that there aren't aspects of the laws of this country that don't fuck over men solely for being male. Because there are parts of the laws of this country that do that, and I wish the MRAs would stop allowing OMGFEMINISTS rage to distract them from problems that are not only more real, but more actionable. As hard as it may seem, it is much easier to fix a law than do whatever it is they want to do to feminism, it changes from second to second.
You had a few possible reactions. You of course, chose to rules lawyer it.
Of course I brought up rape, because it's a form of domestic violence. Yes, different implementations of that concept have different penalties. For example, if you shoot your SO in the face and kill them, you will be tried for MURDER not simple Domestic Abuse or what have you. That doesn't mean what you did wasn't a form of domestic violence, it just means you're going to be tried for the crime of KILLING someone instead of the crime of punching them in the face. Still domestic violence.Clarence wrote:B. You bring up marital rape which is legally not counted as domestic violence and is not what I was talking about
Well, actually, they did have social and legal legitimacy to force their wives to have sex. In fact, in such cases where the only witness was the wife, she would have actually been legally barred from testifying against her husband. So, the only way he could have been tried back then would be for their to be an outside witness. Spousal privilege has obviously been modified so that yes, a wife or husband can now testify against their spouse, even if the spouse opposes it. But as recently as 1958, in Hawkins v. United States, the one spouse, (usually the husband), could shut down the ability of the other spouse to testify against them. This particular case is detailed here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.htmlClarence wrote:C. I pointed out you could still be prosecuted for assault (not sexual assault but at least the violence) if you beat her and then raped her. I didn't say that it was all cool and all that marital rape wasn't illegal, I merely pointed out that men didn't have societal legitimacy to beat the crap out of their wives and then take sex from them.
Now, at this point, you started this bizarre parsing of the difference between rape and using force, and it became obvious to me that you were determined to "win" no matter what, and that any form of discussion that did not result in you "winning" was of no use or interest to you. I was satisfied that I had proved my point, and if the only way for you to "win" was some bizarre "it only counts if they're convicted of the specific charge of domestic/spousal abuse", well, I had no interest in that sort of idiocy, or really, you at all. So, I started assholing you, because that's what one does with a rules lawyer. It's my response to people who play the ONLY THE WORDS THAT I SPECIFICALLY TYPE COUNT bullshit as well, and you were dipping a bit into that.
Guilty as charged on the asshole thing, the rest is your own insecurity. I do not think, did not imply, nor did I state you "favor" marital rape. I said you were being a fuckwad for how you were defining things. There's a difference. You were being a specious, rules-lawyering tit. I see no reason to treat you any better than I would anyone else playing that game.Clarence wrote:D. And you've been nothing but an asshole ever since, implying if not outright stating that I must approve of marital rape.
Sure thing puddinhead. You're such a badass and you don't care so hard that you keep coming back, because you just have to win. For whatever value of win you're currently scrabbling for. I don't faze you so hard that you find it impossible to not respond just to tell me how much I don't faze you. If I fazed you any less, you might be crying.Clarence wrote:As for the rest, I pointed out that I've been on the internet for a very long time as support that your stupidity and insults wouldn't faze me. In response to my argument about how I've taken lots of shit (and occasionally given it back) your brought up your technical prowess for some reason.
I didn't know fazing was homeopathic in nature. Huh, learn something new every day.
Oh lord, he's pulling the FTB "AT LEAST I'M NOT ANONYMOUS" shit. Sigh. Okay puddinhead, you have the biggest internet balls of all. But okay, you want a real picture of me? Enjoy. If you get up real close to the screen, you can see your face.Clarence wrote:Anyway, I put my real photo up and leave myself open for shit about my weight, my face, my thinning hair, the clothes I am wearing, etc, while you put up something that looks like it came from the backside of a container by Wizards of The Coast. I don't know about who might be winning the battle of brains or hearts, but I don't hesitate to declare I think I've won the battle over who has more balls.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/8749 ... 10cd_c.jpg
This was almost the type of conversation we SHOULD have had. Anyway , first I'm going to point out two things where you are factually wrong:
A. My link also linked to newspaper cases which were brought before judges and wherein the perpetrator was punished under the color of law. Therefore there must have been some laws for them to have broken. Now are you going to admit that some of these cases WENT BEFORE A JUDGE or are you going to continue to insist that newspaper articles about spousal abusers being punished in court has nothing to do with laws?
Because by that definition, there was no societal approval of killing black people for being black by white people, since in some places, such behavior was in fact punished. Again, you're shaping your claim in a ridiculous manner. Societal approval doesn't require a perfect consensus. There was large scale approval of discrimination against black people in this country for centuries, even though there were rather large groups of people against it.
I absolutely concede that such a thing was not universally approved of. As well, we both know that there is a difference between letter of the law and how the law is actually implemented. In theory, segregation required separate but *equal*. As we can see, that last part was widely interpreted.
that's one of the problems people have with your groups by the way. You use really bizarre definitions of things that just don't work, and make no sense when compared with the real world, which again, makes me think you don't care about anything but saying "I won".
Yes, I actually did. Shocking, but true. Since i'm not being absolutist about this, my reading of it is obviously different than yours.Clarence wrote:B. Your own link betrays you. Did you read it?
Here's an exemption:"The common law rule, accepted at an early date as controlling in this country, was that husband and wife were incompetent as witnesses for or against each other. The rule rested mainly on a desire to foster peace in the family and on a general unwillingness to use testimony of witnesses tempted by strong self-interest to testify falsely. Since a defendant was barred as a witness in his own behalf because of interest, it was quite natural to bar his spouse in view of the prevailing legal fiction that husband and wife were one person. See 1 Coke, Commentary upon Littleton (19th ed. 1832) 6.b. The rule yielded to exceptions in certain types of cases, however. Thus, this Court, in Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209, while recognizing the "general rule that neither a husband nor wife can be a witness for or against the other," noted that the rule does not apply "where the husband commits an offence against the person of his wife." 13 Pet. at 38 U. S. 221. But the Court emphasized that no exception left spouses free to testify for or against each other merely because they so desired. 13 Pet. at 38 U. S. 223. [Footnote 3] "
First of all, a required bona-fide- are you actually a lawyer? because some of the stuff you're getting into makes that a valid question.Clarence wrote:If you follow the hyperlinked legal case you will see it is from the 1830's. Apparently back in the 1830's they made an exemption for the wife to testify against a husband if he physically abused her. I was unable to trace back beyond that point, but I will say the court in Stein-v-Bowman seemed to just treat that marital exemption in cases of abuse as if it was already well-known and settled law. Regardless, it's proven it goes back at least that far.
Now are you still going to claim that a woman couldn't go before a judge (despite my first link) and despite this case that is from your own link and say that her husband was abusing her? By the way, "offense against the person" if you are wondering is a legal term that refers to things like assault both physical and sexual.
Secondly, it doesn't actually "betray" me, because my entire point doesn't rest on spousal privilege. It's just another point that, along with others, undermines your claim that societal approval of violence against women was a myth, and never existed in any form whatsoever. If you're insisting that the only acceptable proof is a law that says, in legalese, yeah, punch them bitches, then we're done here.
However, the claim you're making is that societal approval of violence against women is a complete and total myth and you're really not proving it. Has it been *overstated* by groups to make a point? Of course, and had you said that, I would have agreed with you, because it's true.
But, you're making a specific claim: that there has never been general societal approval of violence against women on any level in any manner. That the *entire* thing is a myth. You make the claim, you have to either prove the entire claim, or restate the claim more narrowly. That's just basic stuff.
the fact that people abuse laws does not change the fact that Rape is in fact violence. The 'gentility' of the physical act doesn't change that. If you want to talk about how rape can be abused and overloaded as a crime, sure, we can do that, but that's a different discussion, and so isn't pertinent here.Clarence wrote:Now for the rest. You admit to not being a lawyer. So I guess it's understandable you would freak out when I basically pointed out that rape does not require force by noting there is a difference between coercion (which some would extend to "Have sex with me or I will be unhappy", thankfully the law does not go that far) and force. And if I'm a bit of a 'fuckwad' for how I'm not happy with trying to push rape into the domestic violence category (dv almost always involving RELATIONSHIPS and not random women or men on the street -like my own mother- or a one night stand) perhaps thats because I've had years and years of putting up with people increasingly trying to both legally and socially shove more and more things under the 'rape' label. We don't pussyfoot around with rapists. We put them in cages where often *not always of course* they can be subjected to REPEAT (and not necessarily gentle) rapings themselves. Really sucks for the innocent guy or gal, hmm?
As far as what I am going to claim, well, it doesn't seem to matter. Because you're requiring a standard of proof from me that's honestly, stupid. I'm not claiming that every person in the country approved. I saying that when you look at the laws *and the behaviors*, yes, there was.
You seem to want to rely solely on court cases, but already, you're self-selecting data based on cases that were:
1) Reported to the police
2) Police took the case seriously enough to make an arrest
3) the case made it to trial.
4) the defendant was found guilty
at every one of those points, there's a filtering effect, so basically, you have an inverted triangle. What finally makes it to an actual jail sentence is a small, small percentage of what actually happens. That's true today, and it's one of the things that leads people to make bad assumptions about things.
And again, your claim is that all of it is a myth, yet, the fact that a husband could rape his wife, legally, shows that there was in fact, societal support for domestic violence. It is when you start saying "RAPE DOESN'T COUNT" that I start calling you a fuckwit, because it's a fuckwitted point to make. I dated a woman who was raped. She didn't get a single injury from it, not even a bruise. It was the very valid threat of "if you don't let me, I will kill you" that kept her from fighting. But yeah, it was a violence committed against her. The fact he didn't punch her didn't change that.
If you're going to insist that along with a perfect majority, it's only violence if it meets an overly narrow definition, then again, we're done. The world is not that binary.
it seemed to be a proof of something for you. Unsure what, but sure.Clarence wrote:Anyway, thanks for posting that charming picture of you from the waist up. It helps me to get to know you better. :P
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Re: Retirementus Interruptus
And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Unless we're talking about rape. because rape isn't violence or something.Clarence wrote:Thanks for trying to link to something useful about this. Make fun of me all you want, but at least when responding to arguments of mine make an argument of your own using facts and logic is all I ask.sacha wrote:Clarence wrote: Anyway, I put my real photo up and leave myself open for shit about my weight, my face, my thinning hair, the clothes I am wearing, etc, while you put up something that looks like it came from the backside of a container by Wizards of The Coast. I don't know about who might be winning the battle of brains or hearts, but I don't hesitate to declare I think I've won the battle over who has more balls.
BHAAAAAAAAAAAA
that is bloody hilarious.
by the way: rule of thumb
Anyway, from that link:Yeah, I think this proves most of the initial points I made against Mr. Wizard, above. Thanks.So let's clarify once and for all:
English judges apparently took a more permissive attitude toward wife beating prior to 1660, but this attitude had been rejected by the time of Blackstone's commentaries, upon which our modern common law relies.
Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S.
A couple of 19th-century U.S. trial opinions referred to an "ancient law" permitting a husband to beat his wife with a stick not exceeding a thumb's width but rejected said law.
While this alleged rule involved a thumb, it wasn't the origin of "rule of thumb."
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Submariner wrote:Twitter yesterday:
Nice!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.
Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?
You.
Are.
Scum.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Clarence wrote:And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.
Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
you spend a lot of time making claims, then redefining them ever more narrowly.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Westboro Baptist ChurchTribble wrote:I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.
Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?
You.
Are.
Scum.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Oooh, that's tempting, I'll admit. :think: Unfortunately, probably illegal too. Many thanks for the offer though.TheMudbrooker wrote:You want I should come by and lean on a few people?Scented Nectar wrote:Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.AndrewV69 wrote:I know the feeling. Congratz!Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
*must resist the urge to give you a list of those who may be holding things up* 8-)
-
- .
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Westboro Baptist Church and really, hating those vile pieces of shit has fuck-all to do with being an Atheist.Tribble wrote:I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.
Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?
You.
Are.
Scum.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
lol. And SimCity V. I blame Vacula for that!Southern wrote:I'm waiting for Vacula's input on the Xbox-One fiasco. #VaculaMustDenounceAneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
-
- .
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:02 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Just got to the final couple of pages of the last few days.
Abbie, my best wishes for you and yours.
Peter
Abbie, my best wishes for you and yours.
Peter
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
"Hilarious" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of Steersman. Such humor as he generates tends to come by way of the images generated by the talented among us, like Tigzy, Jan Steen, and the peerless Gumby.Clarence wrote:He sounds like a hilarious poster. I take it despite some on here having some negative feelings about him he did bring a bit of humor to the place that even most of his detractors would admit?Cunning Punt wrote:It's alright, I can cut and paste.Clarence wrote:Ok ...derp...derp...derp. I think I just quoted something I should have put a hyperlink in. I better go get my coffee.
Steersman is different. I think the word recursion was invented just for him.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=225
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
curriejean wrote:I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: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.deLurch wrote: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.Stretchycheese wrote: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.
I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.
Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.
I've started a new thread for the petition:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312
I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.
I'm surprised that the board is going to meet over this. Are they just going to slap him on the hand for the DPRK thing?
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.Scented Nectar wrote:Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Retirementus Interruptus
You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Maybe he's new at it? This could be like those series of mugshots, the type that are shown for meth-heads, where they start out fairly normal looking and in only a couple of years progress become emaciated and grizzled.Gefan wrote:There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.Scented Nectar wrote:Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
-
- .
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Maybe his love of the pipe is only eclipsed by his love of poutine?Gefan wrote:There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.Scented Nectar wrote:Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Retirementus Interruptus
I find it incredible that they consider themselves 'nice and decent' people.Scented Nectar wrote:You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Justin, while you are at it, please denounce candied coconut shavings (that shit is disgusting), non-dairy creamer (who wants soybean oil in their coffee), and those hard plastic sealed clam shell packages that are near impossible to open.Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.
I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.
It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.
It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Thats usual for Carrier. He keeps all comments in moderation until he has time to go through them all at once. You usually get no comments for a few days and then suddenly a whole bunch appear (along with some snarky responses/insults/evasions from Carrier.Whig wrote:On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.
I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.
It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Indeed. Iguananaut in fact suggested that the proper rebuttal to Frogsaga's fairly comprehensive and damning list was a referral to their list of "Arguments to Avoid" :!: You couldn't possibly make it up.Whig wrote:On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.
I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.
It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.cunt wrote:Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.
Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
-
- .
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Submariner wrote:Hey, I like welch.nippletwister wrote:
Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.
Peace.
Oh, I like Welch just fine, I find him entertaining and often right about things he rants on(though I have a few areas of disagreement as well). But not everyone has a good reaction.
Re: Retirementus Interruptus
Glad you could get a grin about what's surely a disappointment, Nectar :)Jack wrote:I find it incredible that they consider themselves 'nice and decent' people.Scented Nectar wrote:You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)
And yes, as I learn I'm repeatedly taken aback by their claims of being 'nice and decent', yet they are the ones who truly attack. And by "truly" attack I mean going after people in their real lives and their real jobs. I thought at first that maybe Abbie's experience was a unique one but as it turns out it's their go-to response toward disagreement. There's JV losing a job before he could even actually start it, thanks to them, as well as the attempt to ban/shun him from WIS. And Lindsay's speech contained a mildly worded rebuke, which they felt -keenly-, and their response is to announce that he doesn't deserve his job and are working to get him fired. Let alone the (kinda hilarious, but still) attempt to "out" Franc. And if I understand it right, thunderf00t. Also Mykeru? Fuzzy about that one yet. And now Justicar? I know there are others. Harriet Hall? Because she wore a t-shirt which said she felt safe? DJ Goethe? Not sure what that one is yet. Pretty sure though I'm leaving people out.
Is there anyone associated here who has ever done that?
I'd feel perfectly safe alone in an elevator with JV, but I would not feel safe with them if they knew my real name. "Vicious" is a good descriptor of what I'm reading.
What does Silverman think is going to happen to him if he changes his opinion after going on Justin's show? He might well feel he -can't- change his mind.
I am babbling. But there's doesn't appear to be anything "free" about thinking, with them.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Oh and on the whole marital rape thing, from Schlosser, Criminal Laws of NJ (published in 1970!!!):
[quote]Thus, while a husband cannot rape his wife, because at marriage she gives an irrevocable consent to the sexual act . . .[\quote]
Also the ability of a wife to testify against her husband was still not sufficiently settled law in 1920 that State v. Marriner, 93, N.J.L. 273 made it all the way to the NJ State Sup Ct. (In a case of Atrocious Assault and Battery) Fortunately, after winding its way through our courts, the right result was found.
[quote]Thus, while a husband cannot rape his wife, because at marriage she gives an irrevocable consent to the sexual act . . .[\quote]
Also the ability of a wife to testify against her husband was still not sufficiently settled law in 1920 that State v. Marriner, 93, N.J.L. 273 made it all the way to the NJ State Sup Ct. (In a case of Atrocious Assault and Battery) Fortunately, after winding its way through our courts, the right result was found.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
That's my all time favorite shop here.JayTeeAitch wrote:Anyone heard anything from Ape+Lust? I see he hasn't posted for 3 months.
For any newcomers, here's his masterpiece:
http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg
No idea what happened to him. We corresponded by PM and he was a great help teaching me the basics of image manipulation. Then he just vanished. Hope he's well, he's a really decent guy.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.Dick Strawkins wrote:I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.cunt wrote:Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.
Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I've been making that mistake for years :oops:bovarchist wrote:If that's a Stripes reference, then it's "lighten up, Francis". :lol:Gumby wrote:Settle down, Francis.Clarence wrote:Oh, my! Why whomever could you be ignoring and please pray tell why you felt the Need to Announce This Important Message instead, of, you know, just quietly doing it? I mean, I don't know about some of these guys but I'll listen to your complaint. However this sort of thing means I guess we can expect a big Rage Flounce out of you at some point in the future?AndrewV69 wrote:Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...
0OnpkDWbeJs
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Apart from "threats of violence" that doesn't sound all that specific.cunt wrote:From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.Dick Strawkins wrote: I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.
Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
[quote="Jack]
I am as certain as I can be the board was sounded out first. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the vitriol and unsophisticated lies he would face. I see no evidence he won't have known that and in fact came preprepared with the outline of his responses. The clowns are very predictable because they are so unsubtle and binary. Either they love you or they hate you and that is based solely on whether you disagree with them in anything (even minor) or 100% support them. They don't do nuance or proportional responses. They only care about winning at any cost and they are incapable of doing that using reason and logic as their ideas simply do not stack up the way they want them to.
I suspect it would be trivial for any of us to ghost write a response such as provided by Carrier. It's the same old over the top emotive, irrational and unevidenced rubbish. The pseudo intellectual style is just a smoke screen for the gullible.[/quote]
It's like they're a coven of borderlines... You are the best of people, you are the worst of people... And they exhibit little, if any, ability to work with others on common interests and get beyond differences.
Never mind Lindsay from a few days ago. Silverman, who was the best of people stringing out Vacula yesterday is already being trashed as the worst of people for accepting the interview request after Vacula's silly 'condemnation' post. From Hero to Zero in less than 24 hours.
I am as certain as I can be the board was sounded out first. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the vitriol and unsophisticated lies he would face. I see no evidence he won't have known that and in fact came preprepared with the outline of his responses. The clowns are very predictable because they are so unsubtle and binary. Either they love you or they hate you and that is based solely on whether you disagree with them in anything (even minor) or 100% support them. They don't do nuance or proportional responses. They only care about winning at any cost and they are incapable of doing that using reason and logic as their ideas simply do not stack up the way they want them to.
I suspect it would be trivial for any of us to ghost write a response such as provided by Carrier. It's the same old over the top emotive, irrational and unevidenced rubbish. The pseudo intellectual style is just a smoke screen for the gullible.[/quote]
It's like they're a coven of borderlines... You are the best of people, you are the worst of people... And they exhibit little, if any, ability to work with others on common interests and get beyond differences.
Never mind Lindsay from a few days ago. Silverman, who was the best of people stringing out Vacula yesterday is already being trashed as the worst of people for accepting the interview request after Vacula's silly 'condemnation' post. From Hero to Zero in less than 24 hours.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Funny how that word 'while' suggests that there was an important caveat to follow, doesn't it? Sorry, not taking sides, I just find myself wondering what got left out.Dave wrote:Oh and on the whole marital rape thing, from Schlosser, Criminal Laws of NJ (published in 1970!!!):Thus, while a husband cannot rape his wife, because at marriage she gives an irrevocable consent to the sexual act . . .[\quote]
Also the ability of a wife to testify against her husband was still not sufficiently settled law in 1920 that State v. Marriner, 93, N.J.L. 273 made it all the way to the NJ State Sup Ct. (In a case of Atrocious Assault and Battery) Fortunately, after winding its way through our courts, the right result was found.
-
- .
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
You mean like this one?cunt wrote:From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.Dick Strawkins wrote:I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.cunt wrote:Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.
Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.