Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[nippletwister]

ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:

I don't know who you are, but the evidence is overwhelming. Noble Savage theory polluting cultural anthropology, Blank Slate theory afflicting a variety of fields, PostModernism (falsely represented as antagonistic to Marxism, being an outshoot thereof and rendering much of contemporary philosophy a joke), Patriarchy theory (don't get me started on that one), Critical theory and so on and so forth.

Call me an optimist, but I think it was just somebody giving me a good example of the SJW response to criticism. I guess you could say I was "asking for it"...

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/2EfjD54.jpg

[Dick Strawkins]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

[youtube]IZeWPScnolo[/youtube]

[welch]

You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.

However, none of that precludes looking at someone's analysis and presentation of that analysis, and criticizing those. You're trying very hard to waffle all over the place so that no one can ever say anything is correct or incorrect, because there's just no right answer, and then using that to mean you can't even begin to criticise how someone goes about making their point. That's silly. I can, as other people have, point out real flaws I see in how he's going about things. You are free to dismiss every single criticism presented, which you have, and the speed of that makes me wonder why you even bother engaging, but that doesn't mean "oh, it's all subjective anyway, you can't say anyone's right or wrong."

I never said you couldn't criticize. And I'm not saying people can't be right or wrong. I am saying that political public policy decisions are largely based on value judgements and those value judgements aren't inherently right or wrong.

That may be the most easily godwin'd statement in history. But no challenge, so I shan't. However, I look forward to you telling me how the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment, conducted by a government agency, and therefore a public policy decision, is neither inherently right or wrong.

Oh, then there's the trail of tears. DO show us the "right" side of that.

Really, you aren't even making it hard.

So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.

No, actually, facts are far more important. If you don't have the facts correct, you can't decide legality. Legality kind of requires facts. If your methods ignore pertinent facts, then they're flawed, and any of the goals resulting from those methods is equally flawed. A great example is where Groseclose manages to make the *ACLU* and the *NRA* almost the same in terms of conservative outlook. That is, on any sane level, especially one that actually uses historical data, stupid, especially in the relatively small timeslice Groseclose uses. (The NRA was, many decades ago, not as shitpot nuts as they are now.) The RAND Group is more liberal than the ACLU? That only makes sense if you know nothing about either. But, that's the flaw when you use an overly simplistic metric, as Groseclose did, to base your analysis on. If your results are that out of whack with reality, that's a sign you should re-evaluate what you're doing.

You're arguing against his model, saying that its out of whack with reality. But is it really? He rates Fox New as the most conservative media outlet. He rates the NYTs as one of the most liberal. That makes sense intellectually, right?

The fact that he got some things correct does not mean he got everything correct. Again, he is not modeling 7-dimensional space or string theory. He is in fact, modeling things that are real, and have actual real data that you can use as a comparison to decide the validity of his models. THe fact he gets so many wrong is significant, as is the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that an incorrect model cannot be the basis for correct conclusions.

to drag out a very old canard, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that the clock is coincidentally correct once every twelve hours does not mean it is functioning correctly.

Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.

It is absolutely relevant to his argument, given that he literally uses it to show that there's no way his book can be biased. He used a computer. That's not exaggeration, that's his actual point there. It is, on every level, so incorrect that I cannot believe it was made innocently. There's no way you can have enough CompSCI chops to write your own Stat code, and somehow really believe that a computer has some fucking "remove bias" function. That doesn't even make sense. Computers and software create biased output all the time, including the recent Excel-based one. ESPECIALLY when the results play into your confirmation bias. "Wow, that agrees with what we thought! WE'RE RIGHT".

There's also his rather pathetic appeals to authority. Dick Cheney must be smart. He worked with a guy who worked with a guy who worked with a guy blah, blah, who worked with Paul Erdos.

If that makes Dick Cheney smart, I'm a fucking movie star, because I have FAR less separation from Kevin Bacon than he does from Paul Erdos. Wait, I'm also a rock star, because I've tooled on a guitar with Frank Casanova (former QuickTime Guy for Apple) who played with Ace Frehley once.

Then there's the entire "i disclose my bias, WINNING" shit. What he, and you, are trying to push is that because he is so very aware of his biases, obviously he's able to keep them out of his work. What a pack of shit. What it also means is "I'm disclosing this because I have no intention of doing anything but "proving" what my biases tell me is true, and I'll use pretty much any trick in the book, from appeals to authority to bullshitting you about how computers work to make you think I'm some font of objectivity."

Telling me you're biased has exactly zero value in terms of objectivity. Knowing, or not knowing your bias means shit. For example, I have *no* idea of the political leanings of the snopes.com crew. None. What I do know, is that every time I double-check them, they have their facts straight. They could be eating baby-kabobs dipped in panda scrotum sauce with a blue whale pancreas glaze for all I know. What matters is their output is solid. What I see from Groseclose is one of the most blatant manipulation attempts ever, and that, along with the analysis of his actual methodology, tells me he's naught but yet another bullshit artist.

Groseclose does not "literally uses it to show that there's no way his book can be biased." That you write that sentence tells me that you haven't read the book, or his arguments, in much detail aside from skimming his website and quote mining.

He discusses his methodology, how he rates liberal and conservative (tip, he uses a liberal think tank rating system to do it) and how he arrives at his scores. Like I've said there are criticisms of his technique, but yours isn't one of them.

Yes, he *literally* does use computers to show that his book can be biased. Those are his words, I have linked to them, you have quoted them en toto. At this point, there's no quote mining. That is what he said. The fact it is inconvenient for you matters not a fucking bit.

Also, points deducted for using "the fact you keep saying a thing I don't like means you don't understand what I mean." I do in fact understand Groseclose's words on that page rather well. They are bullshit. There is no possible way to spin it otherwise, especially given his understanding of computer programming.

In addition, the fact that a political polar opposite group uses his methods doesn't make them correct. It just means they're wrong too. Am I seriously having to say "two wrongs don't make a right" to a fucking grown-assed adult? Fuck me, I am. Anyone using a model that creates results so at odds with reality is using a bad model, and if they insist on using that model, they are wrong to do so. The fact they may agree with me on some issues doesn't make them right.

[welch]

Please do not judge all Vancouverites on the basis of Crommunist.

I don't. I've been to Vancouver on vacation. It's a remarkable city with a lot of great people.

I don't know, guys, I've seen a lot of crazy radical feminist communist shit coming out of Vancouver.

And this is just one of many incidents. Y'all need to sort that shit out. What the fuck are you teaching up there?

Nah. Own it. It's why Florida is so awesome. WE OWN OUR CRAZY.

[Wonderist]

If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.

You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided and that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is objectively wrong. You can't. The closest you would come would be the decision itself and the accompanying rebuttal.

Here's another example - Obamacare. Show me the study which proves that was the objectively right thing to do. You can't.

You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.

So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.

Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.

Mark, I think you're missing the larger point, which is that *reality* really does have a 'liberal bias', in that the right wing in the states *simply*, as a matter of fact, speak falsehoods about *reality* (checkable facts, not value judgments) more often than the left (and I'm no fan of the lies of the political left either!).

I repeat my question to you: Did you vote for George W. Bush?

Here's another, more pertinent question (as it deals with claims about reality, rather than value judgments): Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?

*That's* the kind of bias I'm talking about, not value judgment bias. Hence why I brought up anti-GMOs and anti-vax on the left. Similar equivalents on the right would be creationism, the effects of trickle down economics, the factual claims made to justify the War on Iraq, etc. There's a reason why Canada, who *almost always* (until that point) supported the US in previous wars (e.g. Afghanistan just prior), did not support the Iraq War. The reason is that the Canadians could see, along with most of Europe and the rest of the world, that the US *did not* have sufficient evidence of WMDs to make their claims credible. They had a fucking grainy photo of what sorta looked like a truck taken from a satellite, with a circle and a big red arrow pointing to it saying, "Here be WMDs! Beware!" Literally, they had a fucking PowerPoint slide. That was their fucking evidence.

Did you, like *most* of the US (or at least enough to give Bush/Cheney confidence it wouldn't be political suicide), fall for that line of rhetoric? Those are the kinds of lies and deceptions and biases I'm talking about. That's the kind of reality you need to wake up to. You are being lied to constantly on a daily basis (by *most* media, left or right, though *more* from the right, to be perfectly honest). By people who don't even realize they are lying, most of the time. It's very much like religion, actually. Wake up! Please. The rest of the world needs a non-crazy US populace to wake up from its delusions, and help us fix real world problems. That's the big issue that this square-dancing is traipsing around.

Christianity and Islam are both fucking stupid and wrong and basically lies. I consider Islam far more dangerous at the moment (since we're past most of the medieval shit in Christianity, but not so much with Islam). It's the same with US politics. Democrats and Republicans are both fucking stupid political ideologies and wrong and basically lies. But I consider the Republicans far more dangerous because they are *more* wrong, and more dangerous liars. The connection with religion is not as arbitrary as it might first sound. Take some time to think about it. Check some facts. Do some research. Find out what people in other countries think like, and why. Nobody's got a perfect ideology, not by a long shot. But some are a lot worse than others.

A lot to digest here, let me respond to a couple things.

Does it matter who I voted for? Does knowing that fact make my arguments any more or less valid?

It's a data point, Mark. It goes to show that people can be convinced of bullshit (GWB is basically bullshit personified).

Before I move on, I just spent some time hunting down some old video footage of Colin Powell basically lying through his teeth (which he later regretted and denounced, apparently, though I've not read it myself). This is him making his case to the UN Security Council that Iraq is *definitely* hiding WMDs. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned PowerPoint slides. I wonder if you thought that was an exaggeration. Nope. I've cued it to the critical time-stamp. The entire thing is viewable from this source, though so you can watch the entire thing, if you can stomach it. Please at least watch the part where he shows those photos. It's only a few minutes:

This sentence is a mess but I'll try to parse it: "Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?"

That the US (and most intelligence agencies around the world) had evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs is irrefutable. I've seen it, took a graduate school course on it actually. See here: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

No, Mark, you've got it exactly backwards. That the US had *no* evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs at the time of Colin Powell's speech is irrefutable. Why? Because they had no fucking WMDs. (I'm referring to the time period in which he is presenting evidence from)

Since they had no WMDs, then any evidence they *thought* was evidence of WMDs *was not* evidence of WMDs. Or do you believe there's evidence of ghosts and prayer and aliens visiting Earth?

You may need a review of logical inference as well. This is an example of modus tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). The argument is thus:
* If the evidence was of WMDs, then Iraq had WMDs (at that time, as I stated above)
* Iraq did not have WMDs
* Therefore, the evidence was not of WMDs

The logical form of this argument looks like this:
* A ==> B
* ~B
* .: ~A

They were wrong, but the intelligence community did not have, and almost never do have, perfect information.

If they were wrong, then their evidence could not have been evidence *of* WMDs.

The question you really want to ask, I think, is did the evidence the intelligence community had at the time constitute a valid reason to invade Iraq.

No, you're wrong. I asked *exactly* the question I meant to ask. Your morphed question has turned into a value question. My original question is a question about what *you* (Mark) believed.

You go on to say that you don't think they had sufficient evidence to go to war. That is *not* what I asked. I repeat: "Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?"

Since you said it was hard to parse, I'll try to simplify: Did you, Mark, believe, in your mind, at the time, that the evidence provided by the US gov't was evidence that, "Yes, indeed, there most probably *are* WMDs in Iraq (enough that I think that if they went to war they would *actually* find WMDs with a thorough enough scouring at the end), even if I might not think the evidence they provided was sufficient to convince the wider intelligence/political/public community that war is technically (by the rules) justified."

Okay, that seems less simple. It boils down to: At the time, did you think that Iraq *actually* possessed WMDs based on the evidence provided?

This is a question of your *beliefs* about the factual state of the universe at that time.

Finally, the "some are a lot worse than others" thing is a value judgement you've made.

Yes, you're right but you missed the point that it's a value judgment based on the question of: Who is actually *more* factually correct about reality? I said I consider the Republicans more dangerous *because* they are *more wrong* than the Democrats. The key point is that they are, in *fact*, more wrong. That's a factual statement.

I could also argue that leftist ideologies have been responsible for more death in the last 100 years than all religions combined, which makes the left more dangerous. But I don't argue that because I don't believe the vast majority of liberals in the US model themselves after Stalin or Mao or Castro or that idiot in North Korea.

Again, you're missing the point. Those ideologies are *factually* wrong also, not just wrong in their values. Lysenko in the USSR with his anti-science views on agriculture is a *large* factor in the millions of deaths caused there. Lysenko was *factually* wrong. Those are the distinctions I'm making. You keep saying you want to talk about facts and not values, but everytime I bring it around to facts, you're trying to bring it back to values again. I wish you'd make up your mind. Myself, I also prefer to talk about facts in this particular discussion. I agree with you that value judgments here are a problem. So, lets stick to facts. I don't support Lysenko-ism or Marx's anti-scientific views of history (historical dialectics) either, so I don't see how bringing them up is going to help you dodge the *fact* that the US right wing political machine *simply* tells more *factual* untruths than the left. And again, I'm not much of a fan of the left, either. Islam, Christianity, it's all bunk to me.

[welch]

Agree 100%.

I keep bringing this up on a few blogs in these discussions, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who has ever read any feminist literature or so much as a wiki on modern sociology. The marixists have been studying media and learning to hide their politics a bit better, but the "science" aspect of it is still highly debatable, that's the reason for the distinct lack of debate, the claims of "hostility" in the community, the attacks on any science that casts doubt on social theories, and the generally smug behavior...it's to hide the fact that their "science" is pretty thin when it even exists. They've just gotten better at keeping up the bullshit line that questioning the dogma=supporting oppression.

I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.

ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:

Oh honey, this is the adults table. The children's table is here

[welch]

Yes except Tim decided what 'rating' to give each org being cited. He came up with the formula. If the formula is not intentionally biased by him, that doesn't mean it isn't biased by him. The methodology he used to rate everything was arbitrary and biased. Do you dispute this? Do you actually understand how the ratings were given?

“Reasonable people, including my friend Loucas George, may ask, (i) “What gives you the authority to decide what ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ mean?” and, related, (ii) “What gives you the authority to decide the issues that measure a person’s liberalness or conservativeness?”
The answer to both questions is that I don’t decide. Instead, I let the Americans for Democratic Action decide for me.
Founded in 1947, the ADA is a self-described liberal interest group. According to its Web site, it is "the nation’s most experienced organization committed to liberal politics, liberal policies, and a liberal future.” Its honorary presidents include Barney Frank (D-Mass.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), George McGovern, and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).
Each year it picks twenty or so roll call votes in the U.S. House and Senate, and for each it decides whether the yea or nay position is “correct” from the liberal standpoint. I use those roll calls to construct PQ scores.”

Excerpt From: Tim Groseclose, PhD. “Left Turn.” St. Martin’s Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Awesome: appeal to authority.

[welch]

Light relief. Rebecca and Amy have a wild party in Vegas.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post ... -birthday/

You could see it, until you get to this line (yes, unfortunately I read this far),

“Fuck it, come on!” Rebecca said, as she led the group down the street to the next club. I was mentally composing excuses to break off from the group and head home when a police cruiser pulled up next to us. Its siren issued a short burst.

“Miss? You can’t have that bottle open on the street.”
“Excuse me?” Rebecca asked indignantly.
“You can’t have that bottle open on the street, drop it in the trash or it’s a $400 fine.”
Rebecca looked the cop dead in the eye and took a long pull of Johnnie Walker. She wiped her mouth with the back of her hand and quietly said, “I dare you.”

The cop opened his car door and stepped out. POW! Masala Skeptic flew in from nowhere with a hard right cross and knocked him out cold. The Skepchicks all cheered as Elyse grabbed his gun and hat. A.Real.Girl took the wheel. “Get in!” she yelled. The Skepchicks piled into the cruiser…and pulled me in with them.

Bad writing all around.

Yep, very bad writing. Fun fantasies, downing bottles of whisky, very good, but includes an interesting amount of assaulting men and sexually grabbing men's asses and making men cry. sure, fun fantasies are good, but jokes about 'em that include making women cry might get a *slightly* different reaction; oh well, the gravy train of professional victimhood rolls on and on ...

Once again, emotional development stopped at (I'm being generous here) seventeen. Adults do not write that. Adults do not see themselves that way or aspire to that behavior.
This is the one reservation I have about mocking them without mercy. It sometimes seems perilously close to abusing (admittedly overgrown and spoiled) children.

It's someone who read hemingway once and thinks they're channeling all of Key West.

[Steersman]

Agree 100%.
<snip>
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.

ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:

A sole SRSer (groupthinkus maximus) appears only occasionally in the unmoderated wild outside of its herd. While its regard for other living beings verges on absoloute bloodthirsty hatred, upon confrontation it makes haste to communicate its thorough lack of giving a shit by eschewing common standards of punctuation. If you bother lingering to take note of this drab, poorly-groomed plumage, you will invariably find the SRSer's evident lack of giving a shit confirmed by the transparent solipsism in its call. While SRSer is not in any way dangerous, it can get a bit tetchy when alone and you may find it advantageous to flee before its indignance at the general injustice of the situation causes it to shit all over your shoes.

Member of Audubon? ;-)

But what is an SRSer? (apart from a member of “groupthinkus maximus”).

[agarybuseychristmas]

Agree 100%.
<snip>
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.

ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:

A sole SRSer (groupthinkus maximus) appears only occasionally in the unmoderated wild outside of its herd. While its regard for other living beings verges on absoloute bloodthirsty hatred, upon confrontation it makes haste to communicate its thorough lack of giving a shit by eschewing common standards of punctuation. If you bother lingering to take note of this drab, poorly-groomed plumage, you will invariably find the SRSer's evident lack of giving a shit confirmed by the transparent solipsism in its call. While SRSer is not in any way dangerous, it can get a bit tetchy when alone and you may find it advantageous to flee before its indignance at the general injustice of the situation causes it to shit all over your shoes.

Member of Audubon? ;-)

But what is an SRSer? (apart from a member of “groupthinkus maximus”).

An SRSer/Shitster is a member of the ShitRedditSays subreddit who accuse redditors of mostly being misogynists and assert feminist and critical theory to be the One True Philosophy. There is a heavy overlap with FtB and Atheism+. Their subreddit page was once riddled with purple dildos.

[Clarence]

From this:
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post ... -birthday/

"Elyse, A.Real.Girl, and Masala Skeptic carved a path to the dance floor while Rebecca and Surly Amy elbowed their way to the bar. I cowered by the men’s room, baffled by the disconnect between these girls’ cerebral online personas..."

Now you can tell this is fiction. I mean...seriously?
I almost died laughing.

[Wonderist]

From Groseclose's book, page 265.

"“A feature of our data is that, with only one exception, it does not require us—nor our research assistants—to make any subjective decisions when coding the data. That is, for instance, never did we or our research assistants have to think, “Did that sentence seem liberal, centrist, or conservative?” Instead, all we had to do was note the name of the think tank that was cited.
The one exception was that we excluded cases where a journalist or legislator cited a statement from an expert, but then criticized the statement. Sometimes we had to make a subjective judgment to decide if the expert really was being criticized. However, those cases comprised only a tiny fraction of our data. For instance, of the citations by journalists, only about one percent were cases where the journalist criticized the expert’s statement. Further, even if we had adopted an extremely inclusive definition of criticize, such cases would have comprised only about 1.5 percent of the data.”

Excerpt From: Tim Groseclose, PhD. “Left Turn.” St. Martin’s Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Funny. He's making a defense based on sensitivity (that the data wouldn't change much if you dropped out his subjective judgments there), and meanwhile one of the major criticisms from that Amazon review is precisely that his data suffers from a sensitivity weakness regarding a different issue (which sources to include overall; if you drop only one source, the entire study's conclusions would be reversed and/or nullified). Having cake. Eating too.

[BarnOwl]

Dana Hunter compares the "harassers" to arsonists:

If you wish to ask me that – why can’t I let the harassers meet me halfway, hash out our differences over a beer or in some grand diplomatic scheme, let me just ask you this: why won’t you let arsonists burn down your house? Not the whole thing? Well, why not just part of it? The bedroom? The living room? Kitchen? Well, how about a bathroom? Oh, and don’t forget, there will be other arsonists coming who will want to burn your house down as well, so make sure you have some kindling and other rooms ready to welcome them. And they will never ever stop, not until you’ve moved to a different state to get away from them, and never once show up to hang out with your friends or family in your old neighborhood again. Even then, they might track you down and light a match just for old times’ sake. You know, just to show you how vulnerable to arson you are, and why you might want to rebuild with asbestos. But surely, Mr. Peace Broker, you can accept that. After all, aside from the whole arson disagreement, your interests are perfectly aligned!

She includes several photos of buildings on fire, and then links to a number of Zvan's ever-so-unbiased posts.

[youtube]xNnAvTTaJjM[/youtube]

[treestump]

"That's enough. Alert sent" The guard-dogs are patrolling the Pharyngula defences...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-631895

[Garlic]

An SRSer/Shitster is a member of the ShitRedditSays subreddit who accuse redditors of mostly being misogynists and assert feminist and critical theory to be the One True Philosophy. There is a heavy overlap with FtB and Atheism+. Their subreddit page was once riddled with purple dildos.

Actually, I didn't see much theory (critical or otherwise) in SRS. Apparently they just flag whatever crosses their extremely low threshold for outrage, on a wide range of subjects.

As an example, right now SRS finds this objectionable:

[on a guy expressing his love for his dog] "Put some peanut butter on your cock and take it to the next level." [+276]

On a post about women watching Game of Thrones: "Not my wife though, she thinks it's "silly". My wife watches Vampire Diaries. My wife is an idiot." [+116]

OTOH the good thing about SRS is that they're pretty honest and realistic about themselves. From their FAQ:

Q: What is SRS?

A: In short, a circlejerk. A lot of people get really, really sick of the bigoted shit upvoted on this site and our community functions as a break room for them to laugh, vent and commiserate without being dismissed, silenced through downvotes or needing to explain why the comments suck over and over. This is why the mods are quick to ban and why the rules to keep it a circlejerk are so stringent. It may come off as asshole-ish, but part of the appeal of the sub is that for once we're the majority. It's our space and we don't have to make room for people who don't "get it".

[sacha]

Zenspace,
Overlooked you on my earlier condolences post.
Sorry about that, and very best wishes to you and your brother.

Gefan,

No worries. It is easy to miss stuff here! The thought is appreciated. I wonder what my brother would think if I told him that my associates in the Pyt were rooting for him? :lol:

(and no, he has no idea what this place is or that it even exists!)

can I root for him in the Australian sense?

[Outwest]

Please do not judge all Vancouverites on the basis of Crommunist.

I don't. I've been to Vancouver on vacation. It's a remarkable city with a lot of great people.

I don't know, guys, I've seen a lot of crazy radical feminist communist shit coming out of Vancouver.

And this is just one of many incidents. Y'all need to sort that shit out. What the fuck are you teaching up there?

Nah. Own it. It's why Florida is so awesome. WE OWN OUR CRAZY.

Yeah. Just go to fark.com. Florida has it's own tag.

[Pitchguest]

Sally Strange with her head some place where the sun don’t shine again on Lousy Canuck’s blog. My response (likely to remain in moderation until pigs fly):

Sally Strange said (#40):

So then Pitchguest comes along and quotes the dictionary definition of racism. Apparently he thinks this is making some sort of point. Unfortunately for him, the only point it’s making is that he’s another social-science-denying semi-illiterate whose opinion can be summarily dismissed.

So that means you think that the astrological definition or classification of planets (1) should carry any weight? Or that anyone rejecting those is another “astrological-science-denying semi-literate”?

Seems that you’re rather conveniently – if not dogmatically or self-servingly – ignoring the question as to whether that particular social-science perspective holds any water or not. My impression - and the dearth of evidence that supports that claim, that opinion, of yours - means that it can be summarily dismissed: FLOOSH.

----
1) “_http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictionary/clas ... ets.php”;

They have gone full retard. And as a wise man once said, you never go full retard.

They're now completely discounting definitons provided by the dictionary, definitions of which the DEFINITION is provided by looking in a fucking dictionary. Which I might add is the point of dictionaries. It goes against logic, reason, and scepticism, all of which definition can be found in a dictionary but as we all know, using a dictionary automatically means your argument is summarily dismissed. This is just another example of them setting up a scenario to confirm their own bias, much like rape culture or the patriarchy ("patriarchy hurts men too"), and the more you see it grow and become more pronounced, the more nauseating it gets.

By the way, thanks for the assist.

[Outwest]

Sally Strange with her head some place where the sun don’t shine again on Lousy Canuck’s blog. My response (likely to remain in moderation until pigs fly):

Sally Strange said (#40):

So then Pitchguest comes along and quotes the dictionary definition of racism. Apparently he thinks this is making some sort of point. Unfortunately for him, the only point it’s making is that he’s another social-science-denying semi-illiterate whose opinion can be summarily dismissed.

So that means you think that the astrological definition or classification of planets (1) should carry any weight? Or that anyone rejecting those is another “astrological-science-denying semi-literate”?

Seems that you’re rather conveniently – if not dogmatically or self-servingly – ignoring the question as to whether that particular social-science perspective holds any water or not. My impression - and the dearth of evidence that supports that claim, that opinion, of yours - means that it can be summarily dismissed: FLOOSH.

----
1) “_http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictionary/clas ... ets.php”;

They have gone full retard. And as a wise man once said, you never go full retard.

They're now completely discounting definitons provided by the dictionary, definitions of which the DEFINITION is provided by looking in a fucking dictionary. Which I might add is the point of dictionaries. It goes against logic, reason, and scepticism, all of which definition can be found in a dictionary but as we all know, using a dictionary automatically means your argument is summarily dismissed. This is just another example of them setting up a scenario to confirm their own bias, much like rape culture or the patriarchy ("patriarchy hurts men too"), and the more you see it grow and become more pronounced, the more nauseating it gets.

By the way, thanks for the assist.

Recall, PeeZus rejects dictionary definitions. I wonder how that works out as a biology teacher? Does he redefine "evolution", or "abiogenesis"? I wonder now if he blames HIV on the gay community.

[Mark Thomas]

If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.

You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided and that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is objectively wrong. You can't. The closest you would come would be the decision itself and the accompanying rebuttal.

Here's another example - Obamacare. Show me the study which proves that was the objectively right thing to do. You can't.

You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.

So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.

Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.

Mark, I think you're missing the larger point, which is that *reality* really does have a 'liberal bias', in that the right wing in the states *simply*, as a matter of fact, speak falsehoods about *reality* (checkable facts, not value judgments) more often than the left (and I'm no fan of the lies of the political left either!).

I repeat my question to you: Did you vote for George W. Bush?

Here's another, more pertinent question (as it deals with claims about reality, rather than value judgments): Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?

*That's* the kind of bias I'm talking about, not value judgment bias. Hence why I brought up anti-GMOs and anti-vax on the left. Similar equivalents on the right would be creationism, the effects of trickle down economics, the factual claims made to justify the War on Iraq, etc. There's a reason why Canada, who *almost always* (until that point) supported the US in previous wars (e.g. Afghanistan just prior), did not support the Iraq War. The reason is that the Canadians could see, along with most of Europe and the rest of the world, that the US *did not* have sufficient evidence of WMDs to make their claims credible. They had a fucking grainy photo of what sorta looked like a truck taken from a satellite, with a circle and a big red arrow pointing to it saying, "Here be WMDs! Beware!" Literally, they had a fucking PowerPoint slide. That was their fucking evidence.

Did you, like *most* of the US (or at least enough to give Bush/Cheney confidence it wouldn't be political suicide), fall for that line of rhetoric? Those are the kinds of lies and deceptions and biases I'm talking about. That's the kind of reality you need to wake up to. You are being lied to constantly on a daily basis (by *most* media, left or right, though *more* from the right, to be perfectly honest). By people who don't even realize they are lying, most of the time. It's very much like religion, actually. Wake up! Please. The rest of the world needs a non-crazy US populace to wake up from its delusions, and help us fix real world problems. That's the big issue that this square-dancing is traipsing around.

Christianity and Islam are both fucking stupid and wrong and basically lies. I consider Islam far more dangerous at the moment (since we're past most of the medieval shit in Christianity, but not so much with Islam). It's the same with US politics. Democrats and Republicans are both fucking stupid political ideologies and wrong and basically lies. But I consider the Republicans far more dangerous because they are *more* wrong, and more dangerous liars. The connection with religion is not as arbitrary as it might first sound. Take some time to think about it. Check some facts. Do some research. Find out what people in other countries think like, and why. Nobody's got a perfect ideology, not by a long shot. But some are a lot worse than others.

A lot to digest here, let me respond to a couple things.

Does it matter who I voted for? Does knowing that fact make my arguments any more or less valid?

It's a data point, Mark. It goes to show that people can be convinced of bullshit (GWB is basically bullshit personified).

Before I move on, I just spent some time hunting down some old video footage of Colin Powell basically lying through his teeth (which he later regretted and denounced, apparently, though I've not read it myself). This is him making his case to the UN Security Council that Iraq is *definitely* hiding WMDs. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned PowerPoint slides. I wonder if you thought that was an exaggeration. Nope. I've cued it to the critical time-stamp. The entire thing is viewable from this source, though so you can watch the entire thing, if you can stomach it. Please at least watch the part where he shows those photos. It's only a few minutes:

This sentence is a mess but I'll try to parse it: "Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?"

That the US (and most intelligence agencies around the world) had evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs is irrefutable. I've seen it, took a graduate school course on it actually. See here: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

No, Mark, you've got it exactly backwards. That the US had *no* evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs at the time of Colin Powell's speech is irrefutable. Why? Because they had no fucking WMDs. (I'm referring to the time period in which he is presenting evidence from)

Since they had no WMDs, then any evidence they *thought* was evidence of WMDs *was not* evidence of WMDs. Or do you believe there's evidence of ghosts and prayer and aliens visiting Earth?

You may need a review of logical inference as well. This is an example of modus tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). The argument is thus:
* If the evidence was of WMDs, then Iraq had WMDs (at that time, as I stated above)
* Iraq did not have WMDs
* Therefore, the evidence was not of WMDs

The logical form of this argument looks like this:
* A ==> B
* ~B
* .: ~A

They were wrong, but the intelligence community did not have, and almost never do have, perfect information.

If they were wrong, then their evidence could not have been evidence *of* WMDs.

The question you really want to ask, I think, is did the evidence the intelligence community had at the time constitute a valid reason to invade Iraq.

No, you're wrong. I asked *exactly* the question I meant to ask. Your morphed question has turned into a value question. My original question is a question about what *you* (Mark) believed.

You go on to say that you don't think they had sufficient evidence to go to war. That is *not* what I asked. I repeat: "Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?"

Since you said it was hard to parse, I'll try to simplify: Did you, Mark, believe, in your mind, at the time, that the evidence provided by the US gov't was evidence that, "Yes, indeed, there most probably *are* WMDs in Iraq (enough that I think that if they went to war they would *actually* find WMDs with a thorough enough scouring at the end), even if I might not think the evidence they provided was sufficient to convince the wider intelligence/political/public community that war is technically (by the rules) justified."

Okay, that seems less simple. It boils down to: At the time, did you think that Iraq *actually* possessed WMDs based on the evidence provided?

This is a question of your *beliefs* about the factual state of the universe at that time.

Finally, the "some are a lot worse than others" thing is a value judgement you've made.

Yes, you're right but you missed the point that it's a value judgment based on the question of: Who is actually *more* factually correct about reality? I said I consider the Republicans more dangerous *because* they are *more wrong* than the Democrats. The key point is that they are, in *fact*, more wrong. That's a factual statement.

I could also argue that leftist ideologies have been responsible for more death in the last 100 years than all religions combined, which makes the left more dangerous. But I don't argue that because I don't believe the vast majority of liberals in the US model themselves after Stalin or Mao or Castro or that idiot in North Korea.

Again, you're missing the point. Those ideologies are *factually* wrong also, not just wrong in their values. Lysenko in the USSR with his anti-science views on agriculture is a *large* factor in the millions of deaths caused there. Lysenko was *factually* wrong. Those are the distinctions I'm making. You keep saying you want to talk about facts and not values, but everytime I bring it around to facts, you're trying to bring it back to values again. I wish you'd make up your mind. Myself, I also prefer to talk about facts in this particular discussion. I agree with you that value judgments here are a problem. So, lets stick to facts. I don't support Lysenko-ism or Marx's anti-scientific views of history (historical dialectics) either, so I don't see how bringing them up is going to help you dodge the *fact* that the US right wing political machine *simply* tells more *factual* untruths than the left. And again, I'm not much of a fan of the left, either. Islam, Christianity, it's all bunk to me.

Couple points. WMD were found in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... _Recovered

They were not of the scope which the intelligence community predicted, but they did exist. Additionally, there is this (same source): "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

So if you want to be pedantic, your formulation is invalid.

But its even simpler than that. The intelligence community made a determination based on the evidence they had. These aren't amateurs, but they're also not infallible. They take raw intelligence gleaned from multiple sources and methods and provide critical reasoned analysis. I did not look at each piece of raw intelligence - few people have - but I did watch Colin Powell's testimony live and I did study this specific topic later on. At the time, I believed the conclusions the intelligence community. As no one outside the intelligence community was privy to the raw intelligence upon which they based their conclusions, there was very little reason not to believe them.

An analogy is a doctor diagnosing a disease. The patient exhibits the symptoms of X - although the patient could also have Y. The doctor makes a decision and treats the patient for X. If the patient later turns out to have Y, does it mean the evidence for X didn't exist?

In your construction, no analysis like this can either be correct or incorrect until the actual facts are determined. It's Schrodinger's analysis, both correct and incorrect while the box is closed. That's not how intelligence works, they have to guess on what's in the box based on all the available evidence.

Having said all of this, even though I believed the intelligence community, I still did not think it amounted to enough evidence to invade Iraq. That is the value judgement.

And so is this: "The key point is that [Republicans] are, in *fact*, more wrong. That's a factual statement." That is most decidedly not a factual statement and I would argue that it's impossible for you to prove that statement (and I think we'd need our own blog if we wanted to get into that debate). It is a value judgement based on your position on the political spectrum. And I get it, I understand that you believe them to be wrong and you believe that they don't view the world in the same factual way when in reality they are generally making different value judgements than you.

[Pitchguest]

The fuck?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-631678

Yeah, I think this is more down to these couples actually giving a damn about the kids, planning ahead and wanting them. Straight couples can do this too; I would guess if they were able to stratify by something like income or (*shudder*) self-reported metrics of readiness for children, these couples would fall into the same bracket as the straight ones who planned ahead and really wanted children.

That said, might there be some “natural” tendency for better parenting among lesbian couples? I know I’m not anyone’s idea of any standard USDA Acme lesbian, but I’ve always been really really maternal (there are pictures of 2-year-old me bottlefeeding her little sister, which looks like a bigger baby feeding a smaller one) and have only ever fallen in love with women who feel similarly. It seems like, among women who have these urges, sexual orientation doesn’t matter; I’d love to adopt a child and raise her, or him, with my girlfriend. And having “two mommies” can’t hurt when both of them are super into childcare, right?

Azuma,
Please adopt a child or two. You and your girlfriend would make absolutely wonderful parents.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-631688

Azuma Hazuki:

That said, might there be some “natural” tendency for better parenting among lesbian couples? I know I’m not anyone’s idea of any standard USDA Acme lesbian, but I’ve always been really really maternal

Please, do not even go there. Not one step further. The only women partners I’ve ever been interested in are like me in respect to children: Do. Not. Want. It’s great if you’re all fuzzy maternal*, but don’t project that onto women in general. A lot of women don’t want sprogs or like them. A lot women like them well enough, but have reasons for not wanting any of their own. Same goes for men.

Also, just because someone gets the parental warm fuzzies, doesn’t mean they are good parent material.

*I really dislike the use of maternal in discussions of parenting. Some of the best parents I know are men. I prefer using parental in place of maternal.

Sprogs???

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sprog

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-631696

I’ve always been really really maternal (there are pictures of 2-year-old me bottlefeeding her little sister, which looks like a bigger baby feeding a smaller one) and have only ever fallen in love with women who feel similarly.

Good for you. There are quite a few lesbians and bisexual women who are actively repulsed by the idea of having children. Like Caine, I’ve had women partners who were happily and firmly childfree. It’s only when I got a male identified partner that I got to hear all about how awesome and necessary babbies are and how we need to get a sperm donor ASAP.

Gender has little to do with how much a person desires kids, but gender programming in our society does have quite a bit to do with shaming people for having the wrong desires. I’ve known some very parental men who were insulted by other men for being so “girly” in their desires. And the shit childfree women get is horrifying.

magistratamarla:

Azuma,
Please adopt a child or two. You and your girlfriend would make absolutely wonderful parents.

Please, don’t do this. Just because someone waxes enthusiastic over children is not any sort of “good parent material” seal of approval. You have no idea of that person’s stability (mental, emotional, physical, financial), environment, or the state of their relationship with their partner. It’s this sort of cavalier attitude which lands so many children into unsuitable homes with unsuitable parents.

I cannot even count the amount of people who have told me, over the years, that I’d make a great parent. “Oh, you love animals! Look how good you are with them, you’d be a great mom!” Well, here’s the thing: I wouldn’t be. I’m well aware of that, but someone outside, looking in, isn’t aware of that. Why in the hell anyone would think I’m good parent material because I take good care of my animals is beyond me, but that sort of extrapolation simply isn’t helpful, and neither is the snap judgment of “good parent material” because someone loves the babies. Parenting is seriously hard work, it comes with a great deal of stress and frustration, and it’s responsibility beyond measure. Everyone needs to be more thoughtful and aware when it comes to the whole “oh, you should have children!” or “you should adopt!” business.

Azuma Hazuki:

The childfree types have the right idea; in this horrible world, where worse is coming, I couldn’t conscionably raise a child.

Excuse me, this “childfree type” (I’m a person, in case you have trouble figuring that out, and so are other childfree people) didn’t have children because she didn’t want them. It had nothing at all to do with the world at large and it had nothing to do with population. While some people may make the decision not to breed for those reasons, don’t go assigning such motives to all childfree people. By the way, if I was ever going to have children, I would have been breeding back in the ’70s – things were a tad different then, you know. FFS.

Pardon for the Opheliar type reporting, but seriously: what the fuck?

[LMU]

The fuck?
--snipped--
Pardon for the Opheliar type reporting, but seriously: what the fuck?

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, what has you confused? It looks like Azuma wants kids, maybe, or at least likes the idea of them, and Caine very much does not and is kind of sensitive/touchy/unpleasant about it. Maybe I missed something...

[BarnOwl]

Oooh, there's a program on PBS tonight entitled The Reagan Presidency.

Shall I watch it?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/fl ... rk_big.jpg

[JAB]

"That's enough. Alert sent" The guard-dogs are patrolling the Pharyngula defences...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-631895

Heehee, I scrolled up to the article and it looks like pmz is taking lessons from OB on how to write articles using almost none of your own words.

[Zenspace]

Zenspace,
Overlooked you on my earlier condolences post.
Sorry about that, and very best wishes to you and your brother.

Gefan,

No worries. It is easy to miss stuff here! The thought is appreciated. I wonder what my brother would think if I told him that my associates in the Pyt were rooting for him? :lol:

(and no, he has no idea what this place is or that it even exists!)

can I root for him in the Australian sense?

Oh, by all means do, to your hearts content!

[Pitchguest]

The fuck?
--snipped--
Pardon for the Opheliar type reporting, but seriously: what the fuck?

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, what has you confused? It looks like Azuma wants kids, maybe, or at least likes the idea of them, and Caine very much does not and is kind of sensitive/touchy/unpleasant about it. Maybe I missed something...

Well, the blog post in question deals with children in the custody of same sex couples. Azuma opens up with how she really would like to adopt a child and another encourages her to do so. The bizarre nature of it comes when Caine, Fleur du Milquetoast enters the conversation first with recounting what HER (female) partners have been like in terms of wanting children (they didn't), and then adds "a lot of women don't want to sprogs or like them" ("sprog" being a derogative term for an unpleasant child)

It's just so strange. Then another, Mellow Monkey, adds her two cents and says this, "There are quite a few lesbians and bisexual women who are actively repulsed by the idea of having children."

Azuma basically just said, "I would really like to have children" and that was it. She didn't say getting children was a requirement or that women should get children, just that she, personally, would want to adopt. And then someone jumps in and says, "Do you? Well, my partner and I didn't and some people actually find that notion repulsive. What do you say to that?"

[bovarchist]

Please do not judge all Vancouverites on the basis of Crommunist.

I don't. I've been to Vancouver on vacation. It's a remarkable city with a lot of great people.

I don't know, guys, I've seen a lot of crazy radical feminist communist shit coming out of Vancouver.

And this is just one of many incidents. Y'all need to sort that shit out. What the fuck are you teaching up there?

It's one of the most wealthy cities in the world that happens to have a massive, meth-addled ghetto, so the rich hipster kids who live there believe they are worldly.

I dunno how massive it is, but I wouldn't recommend wandering around Main and Hastings after dark.

OTOH, Doug Stanhope is performing there in August, smack dab in the middle of Skeeze Central.

[free thoughtpolice]

Dana Hunter compares the "harassers" to arsonists:

If you wish to ask me that – why can’t I let the harassers meet me halfway, hash out our differences over a beer or in some grand diplomatic scheme, let me just ask you this: why won’t you let arsonists burn down your house? Not the whole thing? Well, why not just part of it? The bedroom? The living room? Kitchen? Well, how about a bathroom? Oh, and don’t forget, there will be other arsonists coming who will want to burn your house down as well, so make sure you have some kindling and other rooms ready to welcome them. And they will never ever stop, not until you’ve moved to a different state to get away from them, and never once show up to hang out with your friends or family in your old neighborhood again. Even then, they might track you down and light a match just for old times’ sake. You know, just to show you how vulnerable to arson you are, and why you might want to rebuild with asbestos. But surely, Mr. Peace Broker, you can accept that. After all, aside from the whole arson disagreement, your interests are perfectly aligned!

She includes several photos of buildings on fire, and then links to a number of Zvan's ever-so-unbiased posts.

[youtube]xNnAvTTaJjM[/youtube]

Dana periodically goes off the deep end of the victimized feminist pool.
It seems to me that she is stressed and/or depressed during the times she writes these posts and it's clear that her toxic friends Steph and Ophie are inspiring these rants.
Patriarchalrapeculturephobia is a communicable mental disorder that needs to go into the DSM.

[Badger3k]

http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

The posters above (like their fellow liberals) are the prime reason I refuse to call myself a liberal, despite probably having many policy positions in common with them. Here's a fucking great big hint: I'll never be as fucking sanctimonious and arrogant as they.

And, while I don't think it's nearly as bad as the US rightwing media, Git's claim that there are examples of leftwing media shenanigans is not entirely untrue. I don't have any specific US-related ones at the moment, and honestly couldn't give a shit whether this article comes from a 'left' or 'right' news org, the fact is that many left-leaning folks are buying into this anti-science propaganda coming from various news outlets: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crops.html

Specific debunkings of claims in that article:
the claim that the recent suicides are due *solely* to GM-related corporate abuse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27 ... s_in_India
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demo ... ineered-cr
http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies ... ps-1.12907

Anti-vaccine propaganda is another good example of largely left-ish anti-fact nonsense. I'm far more 'left-wing' than most Americans, but to deny that the 'left' (whatever that means) doesn't have its own bugbears, especially given our many revelations about feminist dogma/propaganda (largely leftist itself), seems incautious at best.

I don't know about the states, but over here the media that pushed the anti-vax horsehit were the right wing tabloids. They love a good scare.

Since I still have a lot to read and catch up on, someone may have said it already, but if you want lefty anti-science BS, you can't go wrong with the Huffington Post. They will push any drivel that comes their way.

PS - sorry to hear about all the shit, esp Phil and Skep tickle. I tend not to say things like this often, just my way, but you have my thoughts and concern.

[FrankGrimes]

Watching that video and some others it made me wonder. These kids that protest, they're Uni student. How are their fees paid? If they're working to pay their fees surely that's supporting The Patriarchy? And if their parents are supporting them that's probably money that comes from The Patriarchy too? In fact, almost everything they do could bee seen as supporting The Patriarchy. Where'd they get those signs (or the paper/cardboard to make them) and hair dye from? Probably companies that either ARE The Patriarchy or that support it.

[dogen]

The fuck?

I’ve always been really really maternal (there are pictures of 2-year-old me bottlefeeding her little sister, which looks like a bigger baby feeding a smaller one) and have only ever fallen in love with women who feel similarly.

Good for you. There are quite a few lesbians and bisexual women who are actively repulsed by the idea of having children. Like Caine, I’ve had women partners who were happily and firmly childfree. It’s only when I got a male identified partner that I got to hear all about how awesome and necessary babbies are and how we need to get a sperm donor ASAP.

Gender has little to do with how much a person desires kids, but gender programming in our society does have quite a bit to do with shaming people for having the wrong desires. I’ve known some very parental men who were insulted by other men for being so “girly” in their desires. And the shit childfree women get is horrifying.

Can some one remind me what 'male identified' means? Is that meat and two veg, or leaves the seat up?

[Badger3k]

Since I still have a lot to read and catch up on, someone may have said it already, but if you want lefty anti-science BS, you can't go wrong with the Huffington Post. They will push any drivel that comes their way.

PS - sorry to hear about all the shit, esp Phil and Skep tickle. I tend not to say things like this often, just my way, but you have my thoughts and concern.

Aah - and Zenspace. Sorry, and anyone else I forgot.

[katamari Damassi]

The fuck?
--snipped--
Pardon for the Opheliar type reporting, but seriously: what the fuck?

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, what has you confused? It looks like Azuma wants kids, maybe, or at least likes the idea of them, and Caine very much does not and is kind of sensitive/touchy/unpleasant about it. Maybe I missed something...

I for one am grateful that they do not want to breed.

[katamari Damassi]

The fuck?

I’ve always been really really maternal (there are pictures of 2-year-old me bottlefeeding her little sister, which looks like a bigger baby feeding a smaller one) and have only ever fallen in love with women who feel similarly.

Good for you. There are quite a few lesbians and bisexual women who are actively repulsed by the idea of having children. Like Caine, I’ve had women partners who were happily and firmly childfree. It’s only when I got a male identified partner that I got to hear all about how awesome and necessary babbies are and how we need to get a sperm donor ASAP.

Gender has little to do with how much a person desires kids, but gender programming in our society does have quite a bit to do with shaming people for having the wrong desires. I’ve known some very parental men who were insulted by other men for being so “girly” in their desires. And the shit childfree women get is horrifying.

Can some one remind me what 'male identified' means? Is that meat and two veg, or leaves the seat up?

Her male identified partner has a vagina and short hair, and wants people to pretend she's a dude.

[LMU]

The fuck?
--snipped--
Pardon for the Opheliar type reporting, but seriously: what the fuck?

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, what has you confused? It looks like Azuma wants kids, maybe, or at least likes the idea of them, and Caine very much does not and is kind of sensitive/touchy/unpleasant about it. Maybe I missed something...

Well, the blog post in question deals with children in the custody of same sex couples. Azuma opens up with how she really would like to adopt a child and another encourages her to do so. The bizarre nature of it comes when Caine, Fleur du Milquetoast enters the conversation first with recounting what HER (female) partners have been like in terms of wanting children (they didn't), and then adds "a lot of women don't want to sprogs or like them" ("sprog" being a derogative term for an unpleasant child)

It's just so strange. Then another, Mellow Monkey, adds her two cents and says this, "There are quite a few lesbians and bisexual women who are actively repulsed by the idea of having children."

Azuma basically just said, "I would really like to have children" and that was it. She didn't say getting children was a requirement or that women should get children, just that she, personally, would want to adopt. And then someone jumps in and says, "Do you? Well, my partner and I didn't and some people actually find that notion repulsive. What do you say to that?"

Ah. I just chalked it up to Caine being an unpleasant person, but maybe that's too lazy. If I wanted to find fault with what Azuma said (which I don't, but Caine did), then I'd look at the part Caine quoted:

That said, might there be some “natural” tendency for better parenting among lesbian couples? I know I’m not anyone’s idea of any standard USDA Acme lesbian, but I’ve always been really really maternal

Maybe Caine doesn't like Azuma's reference to "standard USDA Acme lesbian"? Azuma seems to be saying that despite not being the "standard" lesbian, they are still maternal, suggesting that the "standard" lesbian is also maternal. If Caine identifies as a lesbian but not maternal, then they might interpret this as a slight or at least feel some need to justify themselves ("I'm not abnormal, there are lots of people like me.")

[bovarchist]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

IZeWPScnolo

Even better...

[youtube]Lfx0YF4d5FA[/youtube]

[Cunning Punt]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

[youtube]IZeWPScnolo[/youtube]

Ah, good to see it back on YouTube. He did that song at the Reason Rally and I saw it when he did a concert in Boston in 2011. It was taken down because it was part of his live act at the time.

They are never going to dump on Minchin. Who's going to be the Official Atheist Comedian? Jamie Kilstein? I'll become a fucking christian.

[Outwest]

Hey, Lsuoma,

Could we take the political debate off this thread? It's fucking boring.

[Lsuoma]

Hey, Lsuoma,

Could we take the political debate off this thread? It's fucking boring.

I can't force it off , but yes it's fucking, fucking boring.

Guys - please take it somewhere else in its own thread, eh? Remember Israel and all that shit? Worked really well to de-stink up this classy thread...

[Outwest]

Hey, Lsuoma,

Could we take the political debate off this thread? It's fucking boring.

I can't force it off , but yes it's fucking, fucking boring.

Guys - please take it somewhere else in its own thread, eh? Remember Israel and all that shit? Worked really well to de-stink up this classy thread...

Thanks, Boss.

[Dave]

Hey, Lsuoma,

Could we take the political debate off this thread? It's fucking boring.

I can't force it off , but yes it's fucking, fucking boring.

Guys - please take it somewhere else in its own thread, eh? Remember Israel and all that shit? Worked really well to de-stink up this classy thread...

Fine.

I thought it was less a political debate and more a good game of whack-a-mole. But either way, I'm done.

[Skep tickle]

... An analogy is a doctor diagnosing a disease. The patient exhibits the symptoms of X - although the patient could also have Y. The doctor makes a decision and treats the patient for X. If the patient later turns out to have Y, does it mean the evidence for X didn't exist? ...

FWIW, medicine doesn't provide a good analogy, it's not precise enough. In your example, it just means that the clinical picture could have been consistent with X, or Y, and probably also Z.

The initial information available ("history" meaning symptoms, time frame, etc; and physical exam) is usually not pathognomonic* for one specific condition.

The combination of: presence of some findings, and absence of others, and demographics (age, gender). and risk factors, suggest or describe patterns consistent with various conditions, and further testing (or time) may be used to further discriminate between them.

*(of a sign or symptom) specific to a disease or condition, such as Koplik's spots on the buccal and lingual mucosa, which are indicative of measles. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... hognomonic

[/medical wonk, not intending to join the argument this was snipped from]

[Skep tickle]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

[youtube]IZeWPScnolo[/youtube]

Ah, good to see it back on YouTube. He did that song at the Reason Rally and I saw it when he did a concert in Boston in 2011. It was taken down because it was part of his live act at the time.

They are never going to dump on Minchin. Who's going to be the Official Atheist Comedian? Jamie Kilstein? I'll become a fucking christian.

Great to see that song back online. (I've wondered how much he has to practice that last bit especially, to get all the words out smoothly & quickly.)

Yeah, he'll get a pass, until or unless he says something to the wrong person in the wrong place. (Feminism at uni clip, lol.)

In this "Thank God" clip, the opening (speaking) bit about mental illness is what might raise SJ eyebrows, wouldn't it? In the song, "bitch" refers to the white middle class insured (privileged) woman, and "cunt" refers to god, which *might* help those words slip past the purity monitors.

[Skep tickle]

... PS - sorry to hear about all the shit, esp Phil and Skep tickle. I tend not to say things like this often, just my way, but you have my thoughts and concern.

Aah - and Zenspace. Sorry, and anyone else I forgot.

Thanks, Badger3k. I wouldn't chose to repeat the past 10 days in my life, but at least I haven't lost a loved one like Phil has, or had a loved one have such a close call as Zenspace has. My thoughts, too, are with them.

[agarybuseychristmas]

The amount of the fake and edgy 'ironic' names coming from people in Portland is hilariously high. Out of the 22 currently signed, 10 are from Portland.

[Some Lurker]

NSFSJW (Not Safe For Social Justice Warriors)

[youtube]zeRRfZudseU[/youtube]

[curriejean]

Some people use anonymity to empower their ability to be a shithead. They snipe and sneer, they hide behind fake names, they use multiple sock puppets to generate the illusion that more people support their hatred, and also to prevent people from blocking them — they want to force you to read their venom.

I do not support shitheads.

I ban them. I am announcing now that if you persist in being a shithead on my blog, I won’t hesitate to expose your IP address and email. There have just been too many of you lately, and I’m spending too much time cleaning up the smears of shit you leave everywhere you go. I am aware that you’ll spend more effort now trying to cover your tracks, because that’s what you do: you’re a shithead and a coward. But I don’t care, and if I find you are using an anonymizer, or a fake email address, or are using multiple identities, that will be sufficient grounds to ban you.

If you disagree, especially if you show what is perceived by the guy in power to be negative emotion or sarcasm expressed in a way he doesn't like, you are a shithead, and the world gets your email address and your IP.

Full text:
http://www.freezepage.com/1370572025MTGITXSZGQ

[Aneris]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

[.youtube]IZeWPScnolo[/youtube]

Ricky Gervais endorsed Matt Dillahunty on Twitter... You know THAT Ricky Gervais.

Knowing Matt, and his Atheism+ view, I almost wanted to pull a Watson and warn him: "Run! Matt! He's someone who tweets and says 'cunt' a lot. Practially a Slymepitter. Run Dillahunty (or drive vblogging)!"

Even though I'm genuiely worried that Matt might get tainted by the dark side, I wouldn't do a Watson move and he can look after himself. But what does Matt? He invites Ricky over. I guess he wants to lecture and initiate Ricky into "A+ Minus" where Matt is currently the only member.

[Wonderist]

Couple points. WMD were found in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... _Recovered

They were not of the scope which the intelligence community predicted, but they did exist. Additionally, there is this (same source): "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

So if you want to be pedantic, your formulation is invalid.

For the super pedantic, the correct term is unsound, not invalid. A premise was false, but the form is valid. However, did you even read the paragraph you linked to?

Chemical Weapons Recovered

On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[118]

These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[119]

Now. The *evidence* that was presented to the American public. Was it evidence of badly corroded, unusable munitions? That's not what they said. They said "smoking gun", they said "nuclear", they said "clear and present danger". They said all sorts of *lies* to justify their war to the public.

Do you honestly think the US voting public would have supported a war on Iraq over 500 ***unusable*** munitions? Really? (This is not a value question either, it's a question of what you think would have happened if, say, Colin Powell had said, "See, we know they have these old, unusable munitions. Maybe up to 500 of these badly corroded things that, really they could only possibly sell to some terrorists. Ya never know!!! That's why we must kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds/thousands of our own troops!!! And get Cheney rich(er) in the process. Oh wait, scratch that last part, I wasn't supposed to say that.")

The 'evidence' they were presenting was of "active" chemical weapons factories. These things were produced in the 80s.

I'm talking about the factual claims they made and how they stack up against reality. The factual claims they made here do not stack up against the reality, even if I was technically wrong on the question of 'none' vs. 'some'. The fact remains it was a massive lie, sold to the people. And the people bought it. They fucking went to war over it, they were so convinced of the *actual* threat.

But its even simpler than that. The intelligence community made a determination based on the evidence they had. These aren't amateurs, but they're also not infallible.

Dodging the question. The question has *zero* to do with what the 'intelligence community' believed. It has 100% to do with what *you* personally believed. I'll amend the question slightly: Did you at the time believe that Iraq had *active, usable* WMDs, based on the evidence provided by the US gov't? You, Mark, not the intelligence community or any other person.

This is kinda like asking a theist what *they* believe about God, rather than what the Bible or their preacher tells them, or what St. Augustine said or what Paul wrote. I want to know what *you* believed.

They take raw intelligence gleaned from multiple sources and methods and provide critical reasoned analysis. I did not look at each piece of raw intelligence - few people have - but I did watch Colin Powell's testimony live and I did study this specific topic later on. At the time, I believed the conclusions the intelligence community. As no one outside the intelligence community was privy to the raw intelligence upon which they based their conclusions, there was very little reason not to believe them.

Okay, you're still not *quite* saying what you believed. Unfortunately, there is not one monolithic 'intelligence community'. Some groups believed there were WMDs, some did not reach that conclusion (an 'I don't know' is a valid answer, so I'm not saying they necessarily denied anything).

You based your belief off of what 'the intelligence community' as you perceived it was saying. And that was... what, exactly? Yes, WMDs, or no, not (or not enough evidence to draw a conclusion)? If by 'intelligence community', you mean the ones Bush/Cheney got to say "yes", like Colin Powell, then I'll assume you mean, "yes", you believed there were some, but not enough evidence to justify an actual war action. Okay fair enough, if that's the case.

An analogy is a doctor diagnosing a disease. The patient exhibits the symptoms of X - although the patient could also have Y. The doctor makes a decision and treats the patient for X. If the patient later turns out to have Y, does it mean the evidence for X didn't exist?

Good analogy. Let's go with it. If a doctor says to you, "This evidence, right here. This kinda cloudy X-Ray, that I had to have people interpret for me. This X-Ray is *definitive proof!* that you have a major case of X!!!! We need to cut off your arm or you'll fucking DIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!" And you later turn out to have Y, a relatively benign condition that yes needs a bit of medication, but not fucking cutting your arm off? Then fucking YES, the doctor did make a harmful diagnosis which you could probably sue the pants off of him/her for.

No, the doctor would not have had evidence *of* X. At best, they would have had evidence consistent with X (and also with Y). A responsible doctor would say, "This test is indicative of X, but there's also a possibility of Y, so we need to *run some more fucking tests* before we jump to any conclusions. You know, 'first do no harm' and all that jazz I signed up for in medical school."

I'll give you my own beliefs at the time for comparison: I did not know for sure that Iraq had nothing, and it was only after they had failed to report anything after the war that I had come to that conclusion (that report you referenced was 2006-ish, and fuck I'd long stopped paying attention to it by then, after Bush's 2nd fucking election; by then I was already heavy into atheist activism borne out of dashed hopes that the American voting public would wake the fuck up in 2004). Instead, I knew that there was simply not enough convincing evidence that didn't *stink* to high heaven of being dredged up by Bush/Cheney in a glaringly *obvious* effort to shift attention away from actual terrorism and towards that old punching bag with oil barrels under his petty throne, Saddam Hussein. Yeah the guy was a dictator and a fuckwad, but fucking priorities, man! The US, especially under Bush, never bothered to go after the real threats and disasters in the world; instead they opportunistically beat the war drums to fit their own agendas. It was brutally obvious to me, and it pained me to see people be so easily duped by the political propaganda, *especially* the media outlets (left included) who just basically parroted whatever the fuck the Whitehouse wanted them to say. Bush/Cheney's fucking megaphone. Gah, it sickens me to recall that period. Seemed so fucking hopeless compared to now (and we've still got a long ways to go, I'm not getting complacent, trust me).

Anyway. Bit of a rambling mess, but I can't be bothered to clean it up. Basically I could smell the chickenhawks a mile away. And I wasn't alone, either.

The point of all this is not to 'gotcha' you. It's to get you to think, "Well, yeah, I guess that was a mistaken belief. Sure, okay. But wait. If that one was mistaken, what about others? Isn't it possible that the same people who lied to me and the rest of the public about X could also have lied about Y? Or are currently lying about Z?" It's a seed of doubt, Mark. I can tell you're an intelligent person, even if I disagree with your politics (currently anyways, there's still hope! ;) ), so I'm going to assume that you'll attempt to optimize the degree of truth of your beliefs as much as possible (as opposed to the kind of dogmatic thinking that keeps people stuck in theism and other dogmas). Stick to skepticism and critical thinking, and check in with that seed of doubt every once in a while. You never know what might sprout up from it.

The Iraq War was one of those 'Big Lies' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie). So fucking big, no one would suspect it was complete bullshit. That kind of thing. It's a world-view shifter. Like the idea of Creation or Hell. Once you can give up one of those beliefs in what you've been told, it gets a process in motion. Suddenly other 'facts' you've been told seem 'out of place', and you might get the urge to just double-check them, just to see. It takes time, but if you stick to strong intellectual principles, you will eventually be able to break out of any previously held dogmas and delusions. It's something I do myself constantly, and has helped me give up a lot of beliefs that on retrospect I consider 'stupid' or at the very least naive (often painfully naive).

And it connects to the current discussion of media bias, because, and I'm being straight-up honest with you here, the US media is utterly full of shit. There are a few gems in there, yes. But for the most part, what most Americans consume on a daily basis, it's complete shit. It's just that the right-wing media is more shit than the left. That is my entire point. The big lie of the Iraq war, which the media was *entirely* complicit in communicating to the American public, is just the cherry on top of a heaping pile of shit. So, there ya go.

In your construction, no analysis like this can either be correct or incorrect until the actual facts are determined.

Yeah, that's kinda the point about not going to fucking war with people over a hunch.

It's Schrodinger's analysis, both correct and incorrect while the box is closed. That's not how intelligence works, they have to guess on what's in the box based on all the available evidence.

Not when it comes to first strike war it doesn't. They fucking had to invent the Bush-Cheney doctrine of pre-emptive war to try to justify that war. You don't fucking go to war over a god-damned hunch. That's just fucking insane.

And so is this: "The key point is that [Republicans] are, in *fact*, more wrong. That's a factual statement." That is most decidedly not a factual statement and I would argue that it's impossible for you to prove that statement (and I think we'd need our own blog if we wanted to get into that debate). It is a value judgement based on your position on the political spectrum.

No, it's a factual statement. I may or may not be *wrong* about the facts there, but it is a statement about facts, not values. I'm not saying they are wrong because they like X, and I like Y. I'm saying they're wrong because they say X is *true*, but when you check the facts, the evidence, you find out that they have a higher percentage chance of being *simply* factually wrong than the left-wing side.

Perfect example: Evolution. When US right-wing politicians or new media outlets talk about evolution, there is a significantly higher percentage chance of them being *simply, factually* wrong in what they say. This is something you can measure with statistics, and it has been measured before, though I can't remember the links it's been a while. If you really really really want to push this point, I'm saying that my prediction is that the evidence supports my claim. Nothing to do with values.

And I get it, I understand that you believe them to be wrong and you believe that they don't view the world in the same factual way when in reality they are generally making different value judgements than you.

You do accept that there is such a thing as being factually wrong, don't you?

Fact: Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Do you think that's a value judgment or a factual claim that can be tested objectively against unbiased, real world evidence?

It's these kinds of claims I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with value judgments.

[ERV]

... PS - sorry to hear about all the shit, esp Phil and Skep tickle. I tend not to say things like this often, just my way, but you have my thoughts and concern.

Aah - and Zenspace. Sorry, and anyone else I forgot.

Thanks, Badger3k. I wouldn't chose to repeat the past 10 days in my life, but at least I haven't lost a loved one like Phil has, or had a loved one have such a close call as Zenspace has. My thoughts, too, are with them.

For the record, I still have no idea who Skep tickle is. :dance:

Someone squealed here she went to Harvard med, which is fun for me because I pictured her as being young-- I guessed in med school still. Not because she is immature, but because Skep tickle reached out to me about the trouble I was having with my migraines a while back. I have med school friends who are always eager to 'help' with their new found information, but MDs are usually 'LEAVE ME ALONE IM NOT YOUR DOCTOR'.

That Skep tickle cared enough to say anything to random person on the internet, I assumed she was still very 'young' in medicine.

Turns out she is quite established, just really, really, really nice.

:clap:

[JustAtheist]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2qs2qo5.jpg

Just found this advertising placement for paul mitchell interesting considering the current debate raging.

[Badger3k]

I just saw this in my feed: How domestic violence survivors get evicted from their homes after calling police

Here's the opening paragraphs:

On June 23 of last year, Lakisha Briggs’ ex-boyfriend, Wilbert Bennett, went to find the 33-year-old mother of two at her house in Norristown, Pennsylvania, which she rented with a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 voucher. Bennett, who was just released from prison, wanted to get back together, and he refused to take no for an answer.

“You are going to be with me or you are going to be with no one,” he allegedly threatened.

Even though Briggs was terrified Bennett would hurt her or her 3-year-old daughter if she forced him to leave, there was something she feared even worse: calling the police for help. If she did, she could be kicked out of her home, and that wasn’t a risk she could afford. Feeling defenseless, Briggs succumbed to his intrusion and demands, allowing him and the friends he invited over to stay.

Anyone aware of this? If this is happening (and I only say this because this is the first I heard of it and haven't looked into it - has anyone heard of this?), this is horrible. I wonder how the SJWs missed it, though. Maybe they'll see it here and make it about themselves somehow - maybe Ophelia is going to be "evicted" from her blog, or she's being "evicted" from conferences (I suspect this is more likely). Give them an hour at most.

This has nothing to do with atheism, but a lot with humanism. I've heard enough about soldiers (men and women) getting evicted, but not this. No shit this has a chilling effect on reporting.

[Southern]

Some people use anonymity to empower their ability to be a shithead. They snipe and sneer, they hide behind fake names, they use multiple sock puppets to generate the illusion that more people support their hatred, and also to prevent people from blocking them — they want to force you to read their venom.

I do not support shitheads.

I ban them. I am announcing now that if you persist in being a shithead on my blog, I won’t hesitate to expose your IP address and email. There have just been too many of you lately, and I’m spending too much time cleaning up the smears of shit you leave everywhere you go. I am aware that you’ll spend more effort now trying to cover your tracks, because that’s what you do: you’re a shithead and a coward. But I don’t care, and if I find you are using an anonymizer, or a fake email address, or are using multiple identities, that will be sufficient grounds to ban you.

If you disagree, especially if you show what is perceived by the guy in power to be negative emotion or sarcasm expressed in a way he doesn't like, you are a shithead, and the world gets your email address and your IP.

Full text:
http://www.freezepage.com/1370572025MTGITXSZGQ

Poor PZ never heard of Tor. Poor idiot.

[DownThunder]

In case anyone cares about ancient history: Richard Carrier's A+ speech now has more than 6000 disapprovals. The approval rating is about 11%



I read just recently a phrase on FTB "A+ers and other non-regressives" or words to that effect

Got a chuckle out of it. I wonder how much longer this will linger around for.....

[Outwest]

I notice that Dave Silverman has just retweeted the following Tim Minchin video.

He'd better hope his feminist allies don't listen to the lyrics (unless of course 'bitch' and 'cunt' are now OK to use and not the sign of an unrepentent misogynist.)

[.youtube]IZeWPScnolo[/youtube]

Ricky Gervais endorsed Matt Dillahunty on Twitter... You know THAT Ricky Gervais.

Knowing Matt, and his Atheism+ view, I almost wanted to pull a Watson and warn him: "Run! Matt! He's someone who tweets and says 'cunt' a lot. Practially a Slymepitter. Run Dillahunty (or drive vblogging)!"

Even though I'm genuiely worried that Matt might get tainted by the dark side, I wouldn't do a Watson move and he can look after himself. But what does Matt? He invites Ricky over. I guess he wants to lecture and initiate Ricky into "A+ Minus" where Matt is currently the only member.

Anyone. Anyone, that would endorse Dillahunty, is a dick. Ricky? You just lost a fan.

[Southern]

Hey, you nincompoops are discussing American politics and shit, and left and right... then the black Democrat asshole in charge of your crazy country is caught spying on the population at large. Continuing the police started by the white Republican douchebag before him.

Congratulations to all of you: what you are discussing doesn't matter a bit. Left, right, center, above, bellow, they all want to fuck you in the ass.

[sacha]

DJ Grothe yesterday with Joe Roggan:



hahaha!

[Badger3k]

Some people use anonymity to empower their ability to be a shithead. They snipe and sneer, they hide behind fake names, they use multiple sock puppets to generate the illusion that more people support their hatred, and also to prevent people from blocking them — they want to force you to read their venom.

I do not support shitheads.

I ban them. I am announcing now that if you persist in being a shithead on my blog, I won’t hesitate to expose your IP address and email. There have just been too many of you lately, and I’m spending too much time cleaning up the smears of shit you leave everywhere you go. I am aware that you’ll spend more effort now trying to cover your tracks, because that’s what you do: you’re a shithead and a coward. But I don’t care, and if I find you are using an anonymizer, or a fake email address, or are using multiple identities, that will be sufficient grounds to ban you.

If you disagree, especially if you show what is perceived by the guy in power to be negative emotion or sarcasm expressed in a way he doesn't like, you are a shithead, and the world gets your email address and your IP.

Full text:
http://www.freezepage.com/1370572025MTGITXSZGQ

Poor PZ never heard of Tor. Poor idiot.

I like his last line:

So post anonymously if you want, but realize that I expect responsible and reasonable behavior if you do so.

Somehow, I expect his definition of "responsible" and "reasonable" will not be related to any dictionary definition, as his usual boobs can't post in any dictionary-definition sense of the words. Although, I wonder...all this talk about socks and such make me wonder how many of those are PZ fan base? We joke (somewhat) about the Nerd-bot, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of his posters are socks. I think finding out that that was the case would make a lot of us feel better about the human race - it would mean that there are fewer egomaniacal dysfunctional morons out there than we previously suspected. Yeah, probably too good to be true. PZ just serves as the chum bucket for the sea monkeys.

[Zenspace]

... PS - sorry to hear about all the shit, esp Phil and Skep tickle. I tend not to say things like this often, just my way, but you have my thoughts and concern.

Aah - and Zenspace. Sorry, and anyone else I forgot.

Thanks, Badger3k. I wouldn't chose to repeat the past 10 days in my life, but at least I haven't lost a loved one like Phil has, or had a loved one have such a close call as Zenspace has. My thoughts, too, are with them.

For the record, I still have no idea who Skep tickle is. :dance:

Someone squealed here she went to Harvard med, which is fun for me because I pictured her as being young-- I guessed in med school still. Not because she is immature, but because Skep tickle reached out to me about the trouble I was having with my migraines a while back. I have med school friends who are always eager to 'help' with their new found information, but MDs are usually 'LEAVE ME ALONE IM NOT YOUR DOCTOR'.

That Skep tickle cared enough to say anything to random person on the internet, I assumed she was still very 'young' in medicine.

Turns out she is quite established, just really, really, really nice.

:clap:

Being the naturally inquisitive type, when her name did come across my field of vision (she put it up herself) I poked about a bit just casually and found very impressive credentials. The other thing that pops up with 100% consistency (outside of the FftB asylum) is commentary by people who know/work with her in real life and, to an individual, speak only in the highest, glowing terms of her character and, yes, what a nice person she is.

It all goes to underline exactly how deep the utter meanness and spitfulness runs in Svan's, Ophie's (yes, that is meant to be dismissive) and Shithead Peezus. Most probably do not notice, but even here at the Pyt, I rarely, if ever, insult people. I make a rare exception in the case of these three expressly because of the pure shit they pulled on Skep tickle for no good reason other than spite. They will no longer be subject to my good graces in any way, shape or form. So, Svan, Ophie et al, when you read this, know that you pissed someone else off enough to not only think poorly of you, but now joined the ever growing ranks of people who actively seek ways to lessen your reach and impact.