Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Tony Parsehole]

http://unicornbutterwomen.com/wp-conten ... _vomit.jpg

[Michael K Gray]

Some folk at the Slymepit have lazily and unimaginatively tried to raise giggles through unnecessary cheap jibes...

Oh, and I should have added the frissoned rider that these unimaginative cowards invariably present their crude images under the infantile security-blanket of a puerile pseudonym.

[Tony Parsehole]

Michael K Gray.
Brave hero of the Australian desert.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

To be clear, what was the point of that picture?

[Michael K Gray]

…I enjoy Jan Steen's photoshops because they are smart, to the point, and usually don't make use of one's physical characteristic. Maybe some of his works did and I missed it, but overall it's good humour. Like Peezus and O.

Likewise.
Mr Steen is a shining example of "how to do satire maturely, and in a targeted fashion that might make William Tell envious."
Accurate. Adult. Admirable. … Splendid. … Wicked.

…(franc sockpuppet #623231)

Ha! That'll fool 'em!
You are really #62368, but moonlighting as a lost sock.
Lost in the vortex of the space-time anti-continuum, rattling between the TARDIS and the drum of the tumble-dryer.

[Tony Parsehole]

Absolutely none at all.

[Michael K Gray]

To be clear, what was the point of that picture?

To accurately prove my point, I expect.

[Steersman]

...while I thought the pronoun "female" was out of order for transforming women into mere animals or pieces of meat, it appears it's, how should I put it? "Back on the menu." If, according to your own rules, you don't want to be seen as a hypocrite (heaven forbid!), you might want to change that to something a bit less dehumanizing. It's not wrong per se, and technically it's not incorrect in its use, but in true SJW standard ... "female" is considered faux pas. ...

Two things about "female":

"...the pronoun 'female'..."? Check your part of speech privilege, dude; maybe that's true in Swedish but here in good ol' English it's a noun or adjective.

<snip>

Great catch there Skep tickle – the post by Ariel on Zvan’s blog. Some interesting reading, along with all sorts of amusing contradictions, and evidence of highly questionable arguments. But, in passing and relative to the question of “female”, y’all might be interested in this statement by LeftSidePositive herself:

LeftSidePositive said (#188)
September 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Patrick, I appreciate your overall sentiments, but

I’m a bit startled by your response to his post.

WHAT?!?!?!? I think you mean HER post! I think I’m generally fairly open about being female? And if you don’t know someone’s gender, the polite thing to do is use a gender-neutral term like “zir” (or if you’re really down on new words, I suppose you could go with the gramatically-atrocious “their,” which I must confess I do in real life sometimes). But either way, the assumption that the default is male is a harmful one, and it can be very insidious.

Just a friendly heads-up.

However, while I don’t think she is a stupid woman by any manner of means, although I think she has a great many highly questionable premises running around in her cranium, I also think that she’s in danger if not the process of losing it. Ran across an interesting quote by Queen Elizabeth I:

Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor.

And while I tend to agree with both her and MKG that there have been some cheap shots here – some gratuitous insults (I tend to not make them myself unless they’ve been paid for first … ;-) ), I think she tends to categorical statements – a common failing – notably in refusing to concede the many cases where the satire from this quarter tends to be quite telling and quite incisive.

But I think her biggest fault, as with Zvan, Jadehawk, and Sally Strange, along with a great many others in that rather benighted neck of the woods, is their tendency to put too much reliance of “gender as a social construct” and all of the baggage that comes along with it as well. And I think this following quote from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate is suggestive of the problematical nature of the sociological principles they seem to subscribe to, a case in point probably being Zvan’s statement in Nugent’s dialog and that Phil questioned:

These two ideas – the denial of human nature, and the autonomy of culture from individual minds – were also articulated by the founder of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who had foreshadowed Kroeber’s doctrine of the superorganic mind:

Every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false …. The group thinks, feels, and acts quite differently from the way in which members would were they isolated …. If we begin with the individual in seeking to explain phenomena, we shall be able to understand nothing of what takes place in the group …. Individual natures are merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms. Their contribution consists exclusively in very general attitudes, in vague and consequently plastic predispositions.

[pgs 23-24]

They seem to give more autonomy and causal influence to the group than is, I think, entirely justified. Certainly without going over the arguments with a fine-toothed comb.

[rayshul]

http://unicornbutterwomen.com/wp-conten ... _vomit.jpg

Every time I see that photo I flashback to my teens and the night I discovered what my alcohol limits were.

[Mykeru]

And the WebSleuths administrators were accessories in making sure no one said anything "disparaging" about her, apparently due to her (albeit dry and crusty) vagina.

*spit*

Is that so it won't be dry and crusty?

That's disgusting. It would be like a bad clam with a bonus loogie.

[Mykeru]

I mean those kids are what, 20 years old, at most? They were 13-16 years old when Palin was running. So, the students have to Google info not taught or required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out what 'gaffe' Myers is talking about to start answering the question. Then, all the kids who are not from Michele Bachmanns district (or the state of Minnesota) have to research more information not taught required for understanding evolutionary biology at all, to figure out how to word their answers. Are they doing to get points taken off for writing it for a JD + advanced degrees from William and Mary elected official (reality) vs a first grader (PZs interpretation of Bachmann)? What if they write it for a fourth grader? A high schooler? What does Michelle Bachmann have to do with anything? And why not 'maybe it will cure cancer'? Maybe it will. I absolutely study 'deeper knowledge of biology' but I damn well think my research will help make an HIV vaccine. Im not just saying that for grant money.

Again, entirely inappropriate question.

I can just see P.Z. Meyers going into full snark mode should one of the students ask him what, as he understands it, is Michelle Bachmann's level of comprehension and how he arrived at that level.

Then again, he's a very inappropriate kind of guy.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... _Myers.jpg

[rayshul]

AmbrosiaX is currently doing the twitter-win equivalent of kicking Simon Melody in the dick. Over and over again.



CITATION PLEASE

oh noes you have a citation oh fuck...

[Hunt]

Another non-theism video:

The history of the mind-virus is one of repeated mutation and propogation. That's the whole "purpose" (to put a teleological spin on it) of denominations. Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews, but it still needed to evolve and refine itself down through the centuries to remain virulent, which is has done, in spades. The present day memes that seek to prevent adulterating heresy are the result of centuries of mind-virus evolution.

I once tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to a fundamentalist the peril of a belief system that incorporates active measures to prevent questioning its own doctrines, but of course attempts like that can simply be rejected by the same process. Once a mind virus closes off any recourse to question its veracity, there is no longer any real hope a person infected by it is going to recover.

[Michael K Gray]

...Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews...

Incorrect on every count.
1) "Christianity" did not exist in the first century. Guaranteed beyond doubt.
2) When it eventually did arrive, it was a crude rehashing of Jewish, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, (etc), prophecies.
But mainly Jewish prophecies.
3) The Essenses were quite the most impressionable Jews at the fake time of Yeshua, yet knew nothing of him, nor Christinsanty.

Literally NONE of Christianity arrived "de novo".
It is all recycled mythology.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

My favorite 'toshop of all time was this one, By Dick Strawkins, maybe? (please correct misatributtion):

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... 29a836.png[/URL]

I'm still in stiches at that one. (yeah, re-watching The Avengers right now)

[Tony Parsehole]

My favorite 'toshop of all time was this one, By Dick Strawkins, maybe? (please correct misatributtion):

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... 29a836.png[/URL]

I'm still in stiches at that one. (yeah, re-watching The Avengers right now)

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

[Tony Parsehole]

AmbrosiaX is currently doing the twitter-win equivalent of kicking Simon Melody in the dick. Over and over again.



CITATION PLEASE

oh noes you have a citation oh fuck...

I love how when they do get the citation they asked for it's all cries of "misrepresentation!".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Oh, ok, Tigzy it is then. And a bloody hat tip to him. I had to take a few minutes to explain to Ali why I was crying with laughter.

[Dick Strawkins]

My favorite 'toshop of all time was this one, By Dick Strawkins, maybe? (please correct misatributtion):

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... 29a836.png[/URL]

I'm still in stiches at that one. (yeah, re-watching The Avengers right now)

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Not me.
I think it was Tigzy.
My favorite was one of Gumby's efforts:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 18bdde.jpg

He also did the epic Steersman-Eucliwoo shop.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 979f40.jpg

Hy Gumby, please return, we miss you.
USA! USA! Wooohooo!
;)

[Hunt]

...Granted Christianity came up de novo with a compelling story to impressionable first century Jews...

Incorrect on every count.
1) "Christianity" did not exist in the first century. Guaranteed beyond doubt.
2) When it eventually did arrive, it was a crude rehashing of Jewish, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, (etc), prophecies.
But mainly Jewish prophecies.
3) The Essenses were quite the most impressionable Jews at the fake time of Yeshua, yet knew nothing of him, nor Christinsanty.

Literally NONE of Christianity arrived "de novo".
It is all recycled mythology.

1) What is your working definition of Christianity? If it was when disciples were palling around with Jesus, then it was definitely first century, unless you ascribe to Mythical Jesus Theory. Or do you consider the origin with the Gospels, in which case, Mark was probably written around 70 AD. Or what?

[Tony Parsehole]

@Dick
I can't believe I missed that first one by Gumby. That's brilliant.

And yeah Gumby, come back you twat.

[Cliché Guevara]

I wonder how many of the usual suspects took to heart Jon Stewart's interview with Bassem Youssef the other night. Speaking of the Egyptian government's efforts to prosecute Youssef and how absurd they look being threatened by a comedian's jokes:

Youssef: And they would tell you, "Oh yeah, it's a democracy, you can say what you want, but...be polite. Be nice. Be presentable. It's like, what is that?

Stewart: Is it the idea, too, that they don't understand, that by going after someone who is teasing them -- that is not a projection of power and strength...

Youssef: Great weakness...

Stewart: Great weakness and insecurity! Very surprising move.

Youssef: They are insecure. They are locked up into their teenage years. They still have pimples, and they have to deal with their, I don't know, bodily hair...

[AnonymousCowherd]

OH GOSH

I just realised that WE'RE THE FEMINISTS

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 30/3a0.jpg

Who are the feminists?

i-b4bef44cec3173834fff0e113209296a-ballooning.jpeg

(41.43 KiB) Downloaded 303 times

[AnonymousCowherd]

@Dick
I can't believe I missed that first one by Gumby. That's brilliant.

And yeah Gumby, come back you twat.

Yeah Gumby, 'bout time you were back here.

It's your fekkin' shout.

[Tigzy]

I think that one was the inimitable Tigzy and yes, it's quite epic.

Oh, ok, Tigzy it is then. And a bloody hat tip to him. I had to take a few minutes to explain to Ali why I was crying with laughter.

Aw, thanks.

Where is Brony the Rhetorical Assassin anyway? I haven't seen him about for a while. Still, that could be down to him being an assassin, I suppose - they strike unexpectedly, and all that.

Either that, or he's gone back to concentrating on his brain models and toy horsies.

[Karmakin]

Christ, Left Side Positive!

Furthermore, most of the things the Slymepit tries to pass off as satire don’t even meet this relaxed criteria. They don’t have a thesis about some wrongdoing that’s faulty, they just viciously harass people for their gender, sexual activity, appearance, etc., etc., and photoshop their heads onto animals, and threaten to rape people.

She/He/It is practically certifiable.

LSPs argument seems to boil down to

1. 'Satire is the use of humor to point out hypocrisy and wrong-doing of others'
2. Our side hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't engage in hypocrisy.
3. Therefore any criticism or mockery is invalid and cannot be called satire.
4. If it is not satire then it is harrassment.

Come on in Ariel!
The slyme is warm and the company charming!

That's an accurate run down of her (and others) position, and it's why I find it all to be horribly hollow from a moral and ethical point of view. They're not saying...and in fact they don't WANT to say that particular actions are right or wrong...they might actually have to sacrifice something if that's the case, and nobody wants that!...they're saying that what we do is right and what other people do is wrong, even if they're pretty much the exact same thing. It's pure tribalism.

[Tigzy]

Ophie again. *sigh*

This time, she's attempting to draw parallels between the dimwit kid who threatened to kill 200 people at a US school, and the kind of 'trolling' she and her coven gets.

Maureen mentioned that England actually prosecutes internet harassment, and linked to a current example.

A self-confessed British internet “troll” has admitted threatening to kill 200 people at a US school by posting menacing comments on a memorial Facebook page.

Thousands of pupils stayed away from the school in Warren county, Tennessee, after Reece Elliott, 24, of Fossway, South Shields, South Tyneside, left terrifying messages under an assumed name.

Oh yes? Whiners. Divas*. Professional Victims. Sisterhood of the Oppressed. Don’t they know trolling is just trolling and all you have to do about trolling is Not Feed It?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7838

I can't even express surprise at this kind of lunacy anymore. All I can really do is say...well, that's Ophelia for ya.

[AbsurdWalls]

I'm bored so poking around to see what I can come up with.

PZ posted the take-home exam he gave his evo-devo students to do this weekend. Three essay questions (they pick 2 to answer). See if you can spot, in question #1, (a) the gendered term and (b) the shared gender of the 2 named people who are presented presumably for lulz about their cluelessness about science:

Question 1: One of Sarah Palin’s notorious gaffes was her dismissal of “fruit fly research” — she thought it was absurd that the government actually funded science on flies. How would you explain to a congressman that basic research is important? I’m going to put two constraints on your answer: 1) It has to be comprehensible to Michele Bachmann, and 2) don’t take the shortcut of promising that which you may not deliver. That is, no “maybe it will cure cancer!” claims, but focus instead on why we should appreciate deeper knowledge of biology.

For extra credit, guess which one his commenters pointed out and which one they didn't (in agreeing with his assessment of at least one of the people but apparently missing, or giving him a pass on, the potential gender-theme-of-stupidity).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -exam-day/

There is no reason why that question has to be placed in such a loaded context, and so many reasons why it shouldn't be:

1) Showing two women up as being ignorant about the subject in the question sets up a "stereotype threat" situation.
2) I thought we weren't supposed to make fun of people for being stupid? :|
3) Stereotype threat could also be an issue for students who happen to identify as Republican. I mean I know PZ probably wants to fuck those students into the ground, but why take it to a place where they are going to feel politically "attacked" in the exam? Sometimes you have students whose beliefs cannot be reconciled with the subject matter, for example a friend of mine switched from studying Biology to Biochemistry as an undergraduate because she refused to accept evolution as an explanation for life (she was devoutly Christian). In that case you might want to be up front and say to the students that they need to agree with you on that matter to progress, I don't see being Republican as one of those situations.
4) The points that Abbie made. I am sure however the PZ probably goes on about Palin and Bachmann a lot in his lectures so his students would already be aware of who they were and their respective gaffes. One of the benefits of having a captive audience.

PZ is also really swimming against the tide by wanting his students to make a big deal out of the "knowledge for its own sake" motivation for scientific research. Even so-called "blue skies" research (with no clear deliverable) is still justified largely these days by reference to the unexpected benefits that have come out of previous work. Still, you will find it hard to get much funding unless you can present your "pathways to impact" and the "importance" (usually economic) of your work. The smart academics (i.e. the ones who get funding) either embrace that and work towards real-world goals or learn to play the game.

[AbsurdWalls]

Also:

promising that which you may not deliver

Welcome to every grant application ever!

[Mykeru]

Always wonder why they willfully ignore the fact that the Slymepit was created by a woman, and is filled with people who supported that woman. And they supported her because THAT woman stood up for ANOTHER, younger woman, who had no agency to defend herself in a public situation.

The Slymepit is a fucking cunt fest.

I agree

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_F3qNEERNCx4/S ... ting+2.jpg

It's a clam jam.

[Metalogic42]

The moniker "setard" has never been more apt:

Also, this from yesterday: I was biking in Langley without helmet (as I tend to do, cause, it's fun)

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 561#p79865

[AbsurdWalls]

I ride sans helmet all the time and have not once been hassled by a cop.

Well, I guess one of the main motivations for the law stating that cyclists need to wear a helmet is because of concern about brain damage...

[Dick Strawkins]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

[Eskarina]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

Errrr, I'm a wimp, so, NO!

I'm so wishy-washy I don't even have "enemies".

Sorry.

[Gefan]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

This seems like something a fourteen year old would write.
I don't know much about Taslima but her emotional maturity seems to be about SJW standard.

[Pitchguest]

...while I thought the pronoun "female" was out of order for transforming women into mere animals or pieces of meat, it appears it's, how should I put it? "Back on the menu." If, according to your own rules, you don't want to be seen as a hypocrite (heaven forbid!), you might want to change that to something a bit less dehumanizing. It's not wrong per se, and technically it's not incorrect in its use, but in true SJW standard ... "female" is considered faux pas. ...

Two things about "female":

"...the pronoun 'female'..."? Check your part of speech privilege, dude; maybe that's true in Swedish but here in good ol' English it's a noun or adjective.

Does "Intent is not Magic (except when it is)" translate to etymology? This may be a horrible character flaw, but I do like to find out where a word came from & what it used to mean. The main objection to "female" seems to be that it's considered to be an adjective that could modify any type of animal, and even the word "animal", whereas it appears to have started off as a noun referring to humans:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=female

female (n.)
early 14c., from Old French femelle (12c.) "woman, female," from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman" (see feminine).

Sense extended in Vulgar Latin from humans to female of other animals. Spelling altered late 14c. on mistaken parallel of male. As an adjective, from early 14c. Reference to sockets, etc., is from 1660s.

No, you're right. Damn! "Female" isn't a pronoun, not even in my own Swedish tongue; what the hell was I thinking? [no sarcasm intended]

Anyway, the "female" thing has to do with a thread on Blag Hag's old blog, where a woman objected to being called a "female" during an American Atheists meeting.

http://johannthecabbie.blogspot.se/2011 ... egate.html

[AbsurdWalls]

Interesting opportunity for a before/after case study the next time she undertakes any international air travel though.

[BarnOwl]

Ophie again. *sigh*

This time, she's attempting to draw parallels between the dimwit kid who threatened to kill 200 people at a US school, and the kind of 'trolling' she and her coven gets.

Maureen mentioned that England actually prosecutes internet harassment, and linked to a current example.

A self-confessed British internet “troll” has admitted threatening to kill 200 people at a US school by posting menacing comments on a memorial Facebook page.

Thousands of pupils stayed away from the school in Warren county, Tennessee, after Reece Elliott, 24, of Fossway, South Shields, South Tyneside, left terrifying messages under an assumed name.

Oh yes? Whiners. Divas*. Professional Victims. Sisterhood of the Oppressed. Don’t they know trolling is just trolling and all you have to do about trolling is Not Feed It?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7838

I can't even express surprise at this kind of lunacy anymore. All I can really do is say...well, that's Ophelia for ya.

She might be the most self-involved and paranoid of the remaining FtB bunch. Yesterday she was being harassed by a helicopter flying over her house:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 4909b0.png

"Stop it! Go away! I have important tweets to tweet and articles to quote and blags to blog! I can't concentrate on my important wooorrrrkkkk!"

She'd hate having to live in my city: some neighborhoods surround the airport, other neighborhoods are near the medical center (i.e. lots of helicopters), and most of the rest are under flight paths for Air Force bases. Mine is under an AFB flight path. Beats the heck outta living next to a fertilizer plant though. :-(

[Dick Strawkins]

Well Taslima's latest tweets seem almost exactly the sort of thing that Ophelia has been warning us about.
She'll be right onto these any second now to denounce clear online threats of violence and death.
...any second now...

[BarnOwl]

Another day, another Taslima threat tweet.
http://i.imgur.com/MGV2vRs.png

No, Taslima. Stop projecting your personality disorder traits onto everyone else. Nutjob.

Isn't she the "face" of the Empowering Women through Secularism" conference? Yeah, I want to attend. Not.

[Tigzy]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

[BarnOwl]

I keep waiting for Greta to write a fashion and clothing post about abuse of workers and unsafe workplace environments in the garment industry.

It would be a timely social justice issue to address, in the wake of the tragic factory building collapse in Bangladesh.

::cue noises from insects of family Gryllidae::

[bhoytony]

wanna be terrorists

[Dick Strawkins]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

All her posts that mention aspects of biology show her to be either uneducated in the subject, or holding very strange woo-like beliefs about lots of subjects.
What have tails got to do with raping?
There's plenty of tailed animals that have been shown to engage in rape - mallard ducks are a famous example.

http://i.imgur.com/lprJwij.png

Of course the most famous example of a rapey non-human animal is, of course, the hentai tentacle raper.
Perhaps Taslima should ask her local expert on that subject?

[Pitchguest]

Always wonder why they willfully ignore the fact that the Slymepit was created by a woman, and is filled with people who supported that woman. And they supported her because THAT woman stood up for ANOTHER, younger woman, who had no agency to defend herself in a public situation.

The Slymepit is a fucking cunt fest.

Ah, BUT... you see, you don't support Abbie BECAUSE she's a woman - and that's the problem. I think. All that other stuff she did and does is irrelevant, the part that's important is where she happens to be a wom- female. Obviously.

I also suspect Taslima's latest lunacy will be given a miss, as always. But what's *really* confusing is how Simon Davis keeps insisting that Melody didn't tell Sharon Hill she has/runs a hate site, because apparently "you have" meant *about* her, not hers. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Doubtful blog and Doubtful News run and owned by Sharon Hill? So isn't that just a semantic dodge? Not to mention Simon saying it's *absurd* that we would interpret Melody's words that way, when if I'm not mistaken various FtB commenters (and bloggers) have said the same thing about ERV?

"You have a hate site" regarding Doubtful News would mean that Sharon Hill runs a site filled with hate. Wouldn't it?

[Pitchguest]

And on the bigger question, wouldn't that definition hold for FtB as well? If "other people" on a site you run happens to be engaged in hateful behaviour and that, according to SJWs, turns your site into a hate site, wouldn't that mean that FtB is also a hate site?

[Pitchguest]

The thing that's funny about Ophelia's banter about Internet threats is that, despite this guy threatening to kill 200 people, nothing happened. It wasn't substantiated in any way. In fact, when he turned himself in, he admitted he was a troll and said he was merely interested in how the people might react. Which is exactly what a troll is.

He didn't arrive on the scene with guns with the intention to murder innocent children. He didn't make good on his "threat", and neither have millions of other trolls with similar (but less severe sounding) "threats." He's a dumb fuck starved for attention, with a sick sense of humour. That is all.

[BarnOwl]

Greta is clearly too busy flying around the country giving talks and promoting her latest book, to be bothered with writing about garment workers in Bangladesh:

Here’s a collection of some nice things people said this week about my erotic fiction collection, Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More. Now for sale on Kindle, Nook, and Smashwords!

On Amazon:
Paul Z. Myers, Literate erotica for the discerningly horny reader:

Bending is excellently written — and it’s not the usual one-dimensional porn I’ve encountered on the internet (you know what I mean: the “Tab A goes into Slot B” kind of porn that reads like an Ikea manual, with lube). It’s the kind of porn that explores what people are actually thinking and feeling, and it’s stronger for it.
My only reservation, and it’s not a criticism, is that it’s got a focused theme. This is a book of stories about dom/sub relations and spanking, and it doesn’t match up well with my personal kinks (which I will not discuss, except to note that the word “tentacle” only appears ONCE in the entire book, and then as a metaphor). But if it does align with your interests, expect quality arousal.

[Submariner]

Just dropping this off:

[youtube]50m0JtQJ42M[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

Wacky Tazzy once more:

@UshaPadiyar Don't underestimate tails. Rapists have dicks in their heads, not tails. Animals with tails do not rape or gangrape.

WTF???

All her posts that mention aspects of biology show her to be either uneducated in the subject, or holding very strange woo-like beliefs about lots of subjects.
What have tails got to do with raping?
There's plenty of tailed animals that have been shown to engage in rape - mallard ducks are a famous example.

http://i.imgur.com/lprJwij.png

Of course the most famous example of a rapey non-human animal is, of course, the hentai tentacle raper.
Perhaps Taslima should ask her local expert on that subject?

[youtube]EmyZoFChDOQ[/youtube]
40 seconds in.

[Tony Parsehole]

Can I just take this opportunity to say that Stewart Lee is "TEH FUUNEISTEST BLOKE EVAH!"

[Skep tickle]

Great catch there Skep tickle – the post by Ariel on Zvan’s blog. Some interesting reading, along with all sorts of amusing contradictions, and evidence of highly questionable arguments. But, in passing and relative to the question of “female”, y’all might be interested in this statement by LeftSidePositive herself:

LeftSidePositive said (#188)
September 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Patrick, I appreciate your overall sentiments, but

I’m a bit startled by your response to his post.

WHAT?!?!?!? I think you mean HER post! I think I’m generally fairly open about being female? And if you don’t know someone’s gender, the polite thing to do is use a gender-neutral term like “zir” (or if you’re really down on new words, I suppose you could go with the gramatically-atrocious “their,” which I must confess I do in real life sometimes). But either way, the assumption that the default is male is a harmful one, and it can be very insidious.

Just a friendly heads-up.

Perhaps I should clarify, for those who haven't read through that thread or aren't otherwise acquainted with the set of rules that LSP seems to feel determine which words are appropriate & which aren't: LSP is not one of those who find "female" to be derogatory, even though others among her brethren and sistern do.

(As an aside, I advise medical students I work with not to use "female" to refer to a woman while in her presence, for example while "presenting" a patient's "case" at the bedside, simply because a fair # of women do find "female" off-putting, whether because it sounds clinical/scientific or because it is also used to refer to other animals. If the student feels the need to refer to gender, I advise them to use "woman" - but, on the other hand, there's usually no reason to mention gender while we're face-to-face with the patient, unless there is something the patient would like us to know about his/her/otherpronoun gender identity. I have no idea whether some men are, in a similar manner, bothered by the use of "male" to refer to themselves.)

However, while I don’t think she is a stupid woman by any manner of means, although I think she has a great many highly questionable premises running around in her cranium, ...

FWIW, it sets my teeth on edge to see "woman" used in this context - modified by an adjective that presumably has nothing to do with the noun it modifes - instead of a noun or noun phrase that's either broader (like "person") or more specific in a relevant area (like "FTB commenter" of "SJW"). Obviously, YMMV.

(Another aside, I did a search of YMMV at Atheism+; it's been used relatively little there, with one non-mod tending to use it more than other members there. I muse; is it assumed that YM probably does V thus this qualifier is not needed, or could it be assumed that YM may not V - or at least you shouldn't talk about it in a "safe space" if it does?)

...I also think that she’s in danger if not the process of losing it. Ran across an interesting quote by Queen Elizabeth I:

Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor.

Attributed to Queen Elizabeth I: from Wikiquote, "Francis Bacon, Apophthegms (1679); first published in the Remains, No, IV (stated to have been made by Queen Elizabeth to a Sir Edward, last name not reported)." [/pedant mode] ;) :D

And I'm missing the wit in her comments, or it's been awfully diluted by her wall-o'-text and YELLING VIA CAPITAL LETTERS and fuck fuck fucks. But YMMV.

And while I tend to agree with both her and MKG that there have been some cheap shots here – some gratuitous insults (I tend to not make them myself unless they’ve been paid for first … ;-) ), I think she tends to categorical statements – a common failing – notably in refusing to concede the many cases where the satire from this quarter tends to be quite telling and quite incisive.

Yes, I quite agree.

Also, while I try not to engage in the stuff that seems gratuitous (biting my tongue, or my fingers as it were, a few times to avoid posting it), and tend to wince when I see it posted by others, it seems to me that the targets of the gratuitous insults are too readily distracted by it, if they really want to accomplish what they say they do. And also that there are, IMO, much bigger problems in the world - suffering far worse, in quantity and quality - than whether or not "the A/S community" reflects some demographic ideals that don't match those of people who identify in surveys as atheists and/or skeptics. Dear Muslima indeed.

And it seems to me that much of the gratuitous insult stuff occurs because they will not participate in reasonable discussion with those they have identified, for paltry reasons, as being enemies. It's one way

I don't know who they consider to be their role models, but history is full of people who saw and/or experienced an injustice, stood up & spoke up about it, were ridiculed (or worse), and persisted as long as they could, until eventually through their efforts (and those of other people) the sociopolitical change they'd sought came to pass. And those who tried to tell other people what to think, say, and do, until eventually through the efforts of other people (including satire and, yes, ridicule and violence, not that I'm suggesting that) the sociopolitical measures they'd imposed on others were lifted. And then of course there are people who never made it into the history books who stood up & made fools of themselves and were ridiculed for it.

Which side of history will they fall on - the woefully misunderstood saviors whose righteousness is finally recognized, the word-policing control freaks who are eventually overthrown or ignored, or simply speedbumps along the path most people take? :popcorn:

There are currently 713 upvotes and 5503 downvotes for one particular video from American Atheists...

[Skep tickle]

(Meh, ignore the sentence fragment "It's one way" - who knows what I meant to say there.)

[Bourne Skeptic]

So, for fun I sometimes troll the comments on MRA videos, making fun of people who have apparently never thought before writing and say some laughable bullshit. Anyway, while I was there, one of my brilliant deconstructions of a comment that went something like this "patriarchy doesn't exist because hearing the word gives me a headache" (evidence!! ) met with a reply that I was falling for the Apex Fallacy.

Apparently, the Apex Fallacy goes like this: it's fallacious to think that because some group (in this case, men, or more specifically white men) are over-represented in positions of power that this indicates that that group holds any advantages over others. Don't worry, I had to check it out. Utter bullshit, made up apparently by some right wing blogger trying to invent reality by naming it. It had a Wikipedia page that got deleted for lack of credible sources.

Anyway, I thought, why not make up our own fallacies? They can be anything you want.

I'll start. The Lonely Fisherman Fallacy. You're sitting on a boat by yourself long enough that you start to think that your flights of fancy and meandering whimsies about life and physical reality are reality itself. I think most of the internet falls for this fallacy.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 550#p79585

They already have fallacies, "the patriarchy" and "rape culture"

[Nim_Chimpsky]

So, for fun I sometimes troll the comments on MRA videos, making fun of people who have apparently never thought before writing and say some laughable bullshit. Anyway, while I was there, one of my brilliant deconstructions of a comment that went something like this "patriarchy doesn't exist because hearing the word gives me a headache" (evidence!! ) met with a reply that I was falling for the Apex Fallacy.

Apparently, the Apex Fallacy goes like this: it's fallacious to think that because some group (in this case, men, or more specifically white men) are over-represented in positions of power that this indicates that that group holds any advantages over others. Don't worry, I had to check it out. Utter bullshit, made up apparently by some right wing blogger trying to invent reality by naming it. It had a Wikipedia page that got deleted for lack of credible sources.

Anyway, I thought, why not make up our own fallacies? They can be anything you want.

I'll start. The Lonely Fisherman Fallacy. You're sitting on a boat by yourself long enough that you start to think that your flights of fancy and meandering whimsies about life and physical reality are reality itself. I think most of the internet falls for this fallacy.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 550#p79585

They already have fallacies, "the patriarchy" and "rape culture"

They have misrepresented the Apex Fallacy from what I can tell. According to the site:
'Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group. This fallacy has a particularly damning effect on the feminist construct of patriarchy.'

Essentially the idea seems to be that feminists look at the privileges held by certain white men in society and extrapolate that all men are in a similar position of advantage. Ignoring the fact that this simply not the case. For instance there are clearly women who come from social backgrounds and families that give them significant advantages over many men.

Anyway to show that a certain group being in powerful positions was evidence of this group having advantages over the general population, one would have to show they didn't have the ability or skill set to merit holding such positions. Some groups of people are over represented but this doesn't mean the over representation is illegitimate.

[John Greg]

I feel I should make a comment on the issue of satirizing unchangeable physical elements.

I think we need to allow some soft leeway here. For example, one of the most common (and effective) elements of skilled political cartoonists is to satirize such physical elements as noses, and general body shape, size, and other characteristics. Should they stop doing that? Absolutely not! It is funny, effective, and quite often quite relevant.

Perhaps the issue should be more tightly focused on how the satirization is carried out? Is it intentionally hurtful? Well, who's to judge that thorny wicket? Like any humour anywhere, any time, someone is going to be offended and/or hurt. So, how can we, or anyone, make any sort of hard and fast rules about what is/is not allowable when it comes to satire?

While I have gone on record as supporting Phil and MKG on their stance regarding not making fun of unchangeable physical elements, I have recently decided to recant a bit, as in support of my argument above.

Phil and MKG, I would be most interested to hear/read your arguments in more detail, especially with a focus on the phenomona of political cartoonists and that form of satirizing unchanegeable physical elements.

[John Greg]

So, has the BIG DIALOGUE simply shut down now? The last comment was entered on April 17. That's ten days ago. Ten days! Even Stefunny is no longer blathering about it on her blog.

And I really think Nugent is, I don't know, lost at sea, or something? He says:

We have got off to a good start, with people discussing important issues, including areas of agreement and disagreement, in a reasonable way that can gradually build trust.

And:

The moderating team has been working effectively, and with a good working relationship, in ensuring that the process operates according to the agreed principles published on the website.

Eh? That's certainly not my opinion at all. Nugent and I must be living in different realities.

And spell binding it ain't.

[Bourne Skeptic]

I feel I should make a comment on the issue of satirizing unchangeable physical elements.

I think we need to allow some soft leeway here. For example, one of the most common (and effective) elements of skilled political cartoonists is to satirize such physical elements as noses, and general body shape, size, and other characteristics. Should they stop doing that? Absolutely not! It is funny, effective, and quite often quite relevant.

Perhaps the issue should be more tightly focused on how the satirization is carried out? Is it intentionally hurtful? Well, who's to judge that thorny wicket? Like any humour anywhere, any time, someone is going to be offended and/or hurt. So, how can we, or anyone, make any sort of hard and fast rules about what is/is not allowable when it comes to satire?

While I have gone on record as supporting Phil and MKG on their stance regarding not making fun of unchangeable physical elements, I have recently decided to recant a bit, as in support of my argument above.

Phil and MKG, I would be most interested to hear/read your arguments in more detail, especially with a focus on the phenomona of political cartoonists and that form of satirizing unchanegeable physical elements.

An interesting analysis of political cartoons.
http://www.lincolnlogcabin.org/educatio ... sson-5.pdf

[John Greg]

Um, not to quibble, particularily, but that's not an analysis, as such, it's a test, or more accurately, an essay assignment to create an analysis of political cartoons.

[windy]

I also suspect Taslima's latest lunacy will be given a miss, as always. But what's *really* confusing is how Simon Davis keeps insisting that Melody didn't tell Sharon Hill she has/runs a hate site, because apparently "you have" meant *about* her, not hers. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Doubtful blog and Doubtful News run and owned by Sharon Hill? So isn't that just a semantic dodge? Not to mention Simon saying it's *absurd* that we would interpret Melody's words that way, when if I'm not mistaken various FtB commenters (and bloggers) have said the same thing about ERV?

"You have a hate site" regarding Doubtful News would mean that Sharon Hill runs a site filled with hate. Wouldn't it?

Unless she meant that some other "hate site" is saying that about Sharon? Her tweet is so vague, though, it's hard to say (/gregladen)

And Nim Chimpsky is here! That chimp had such a sad fate. :cry: