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

For the last several years, PZ Myers, writing the blog Pharyngula, has entertained millions of readers every month with his infectious love of evolutionary science and his equally infectious disdain for creationism, biblical literalism, "intelligent design" theory, and other products of godly illogic. While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, he does think that, most of the time, it makes them believe in the truly ridiculous--which is exactly what he skewers in this riotously funny book. In fact, The Happy Atheist is so outrageous, it's the only book about religion anyone should take seriously.

Richard Dworkins wrote:I had assumed it might be something like that, you are an amusingly abrasive and abrasively amusing fellow Mr Welch.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Just on the subject of PZs book and his wish to be able to rewrite it, I think I have an idea what he is talking about.
The publicity blurbs from the publishers make it clear that the book is, essentially, exactly what you would expect coming from the mind of PZ Myers.
But not the social justice warrior PZ Myers of today, rather its the creationist/Intelligent Design teasing PZ Myers of five years ago.

For the last several years, PZ Myers, writing the blog Pharyngula, has entertained millions of readers every month with his infectious love of evolutionary science and his equally infectious disdain for creationism, biblical literalism, "intelligent design" theory, and other products of godly illogic. While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, he does think that, most of the time, it makes them believe in the truly ridiculous--which is exactly what he skewers in this riotously funny book. In fact, The Happy Atheist is so outrageous, it's the only book about religion anyone should take seriously.

"While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, "

Where the hell is that a common atheist argument?
I've never heard a single atheist say that religion "necessarily makes people do evil, violent things."

That would mean that every religion person will do evil violent things!

Who the fuck makes that argument!

Anyway, that's an aside.
The main point is that the publicity seems to describe a book making fun of religious people for believing in stupid stuff.

If that is what the book does - and remembering PZs blog from a few years back, if it is based on 2008 PZ Myers then it may very well do so, I guess he is beginning to feel nervous about the fact that his corner of the atheist movement has moved on from this type of tactics.
In fact these type of tactics are now considered by the sjw's to be the domain of the great Satan of atheism - Richard Lucifer Dawkins.
http://i.imgur.com/hSgiUEg.jpg

welch wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Just on the subject of PZs book and his wish to be able to rewrite it, I think I have an idea what he is talking about.
The publicity blurbs from the publishers make it clear that the book is, essentially, exactly what you would expect coming from the mind of PZ Myers.
But not the social justice warrior PZ Myers of today, rather its the creationist/Intelligent Design teasing PZ Myers of five years ago.

For the last several years, PZ Myers, writing the blog Pharyngula, has entertained millions of readers every month with his infectious love of evolutionary science and his equally infectious disdain for creationism, biblical literalism, "intelligent design" theory, and other products of godly illogic. While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, he does think that, most of the time, it makes them believe in the truly ridiculous--which is exactly what he skewers in this riotously funny book. In fact, The Happy Atheist is so outrageous, it's the only book about religion anyone should take seriously.

"While PZ does not accept the common atheist argument that religion necessarily makes people do evil, violent things, "

Where the hell is that a common atheist argument?
I've never heard a single atheist say that religion "necessarily makes people do evil, violent things."

That would mean that every religion person will do evil violent things!

Who the fuck makes that argument!

Anyway, that's an aside.
The main point is that the publicity seems to describe a book making fun of religious people for believing in stupid stuff.

If that is what the book does - and remembering PZs blog from a few years back, if it is based on 2008 PZ Myers then it may very well do so, I guess he is beginning to feel nervous about the fact that his corner of the atheist movement has moved on from this type of tactics.
In fact these type of tactics are now considered by the sjw's to be the domain of the great Satan of atheism - Richard Lucifer Dawkins.
http://i.imgur.com/hSgiUEg.jpg

The idea that there is any difference between the two save target must be purged as the fantasy it is. The only difference between 2008 and 2013 is which way he's aimed.

BarnOwl wrote: I'm thinking about how small Drosophila embryos are and how one could reliably place cryosections of them in a consistent orientation on a "two-dimensional grid of distinct indexing oligos." Sounds like something a BSD lab PI would force his grad students and postdocs to try.

The typical way people deal with loss of small quantities of nucleic acids during experimental manipulation is to add carrier RNA or DNA – something like tRNA or salmon sperm DNA. We didn’t want to do that, since we would just end up with tons of useless sequencing reads. So we came up with a different strategy – adding embryos from distantly related Drosophila species to each slice at an early stage in the process. This brought the total amount of RNA in each sample well amove the threshold where our purification and library preparation worked robustly, and we could easily separate the D. melanogaster RNA we were interested in for this experiment from that of the “carrier” embryo. But we could avoid wasting sequencing reads by turning the carrier RNAs into an experiment of their own – in this case looking at expression variation between species.

rocko2466 wrote:Simon and Melody edited (and will promote) PZ's book.

Humorously, they will promote through CFI. Because CFI is their own little club for circle-jerking with their friends.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-554698

(Ergo, my comments about PZ making "editor-nervous-breakdown" jokes are accurate.)

welch wrote:
The idea that there is any difference between the two save target must be purged as the fantasy it is. The only difference between 2008 and 2013 is which way he's aimed.

I think every single one of those creeps is in the community block list we’ve set up on Twitter. Unfortunately, you will still see their rantings if you click on a tag like #wiscfi even if you have all of them blocked.

While it is not possible to tell how many of them are sockpuppets, their current numbers on Twitter get about as high as 200. Of course, they poison the well just enough (forget about being charitable–they’re never charitable) that you get one or two tweets from a much larger pool of otherwise disinterested folks on Twitter as well every so often that echo the slimepitters.

Dick Strawkins wrote:OK, time to own up.
Which one of you is Tony?
Come on, he's obviously a POE.

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

Dick Strawkins wrote:OK, time to own up.
Which one of you is Tony?
Come on, he's obviously a POE.

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

"T-shirt bullying"? Seriously? How on earth does someone bully someone with a T-shirt? It's telling you don't show a photo of the shirt, or describe precisely how said T-shirt punched someone, held them down, took their lunch money and made them cry "Uncle!" Given enough time, though, I'm sure you or one of the other weird little "Skepchick" cultists will come up with a suitable narrative (i.e., a whopper to make even Karl Rove blush), which all will claim to believe and repeat as Gospel Truth upon pain of being bullied (blocked, doxed, threatened, etc.) by the Defenders of the Great and Glorious Rebecca Watson Brand.

Before anyone bothers to Photoshop anything, I've seen a photo of Dr. Hall wearing the shirt. She was wearing it pulled over her top, in a climate controlled environment, so the aside about her presumed bad hygiene for wearing it throughout the course of the convention is as disingenuous as it is immature. All the T-shirt said was,"I am not a Skepchick/I am not a 'woman skeptic'/I am a SKEPTIC." How anyone of any degree of emotional maturity can have her pwecious fee-fees hurt by such a statement boggles the imagination -- unless, of course, we're looking to promote an idea of women being overly sensitive, irrational twits, when it's really just one woman who goes by the moniker "Surly Amy" 'cause "surly" means "edgy!" This tough "grrl" who reportedly cried at the sight of this shirt (!) also screeched about "fake jewelry," that is, ceramic jewelry not created by her Special Snowflakeness. And jewelry not of the Surly Amy Brand is to be BANNED! BANNED!

Ms. Marcotte, I wonder if you're aware of the cybermobbing Dr. Hall endured several nights ago when she wrote an open letter to feminists insisting she was not the enemy. The libel, the deliberate misrepresentation, the gaslighting—the overall bug-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred—by the Cult of Watson was breathtaking. Even the self-appointed Empress of All Atheists herself showed up to gloat and sneer, going so far as to make an aside about Dr. Hall's presumed hygiene. This went on for several paragraphs before Watson declared Dr. Hall "uninteresting" and signed off “to do more interesting things.” Take Watson's comment out of the context of this particular instant of cyberbullying and you had something that could have been written by any middle-school mean girl cheerleader going after the "gross" smart girl.

Perhaps you did see it. In any event, it's apparent you support it. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn you even participated. To think you and your sycophants here claim to be for rationality, civility, etc. Of course, it's known that when the cyberbullies of FreeThoughtBlogs and Skepchick are called out on their Middle School Musical shenanigans, they shriek "tone troll"! Because *they* can bully all they want. *Their* victims so obviously have it coming. Find out who employs them, and tell the supervisor what a Terrible Person they are! Get them fired, because FEMINISM! And accuse everyone else of stalking. And making up "straw feminists."

The sickest irony of all is that Rebecca Watson, her beta-boy sycophants, her fellow mean girls have as much to do with feminism and social justice as Phyllis Schlafly's broomstick. It's all about Watson taking an opportunity (i.e., a real scientist and skeptic calling her out on her first world privilege) to build a brand for herself, cry "victim!" by way of bringing in followers, and bully her way into either a leadership position in a skeptical organization (e.g.,libeling and attacking DJ Grothe) or creating one of her own which will not be a companion, but a rival to the established organizations, with the intent on destroying them for her own financial and narcissistic enrichment.

You, Ms. Marcotte, are the one making disingenuous arguments. Dr. Hall is not “trying to stop” the Women in Secularism conference. She is not organizing cybermobs. She is not cyberbullying. She is not threatening to get people fired because she feels “threatened” and “stalked” for being called out on a lie. That’s what YOUR people do, Marcotte. Your people. Who boast of shutting down websites and Twitter accounts. Not very free-speechy, are we? Rather a lot like those religious police we hear about in Saudi Arabia. Or the rabid conservative Christers here in the USA.

As for the idea of men being welcome to Women in Secularism, it is to laugh. That “welcome” is contingent on being free of anti-Watsonite thoughtcrime, and wearing only “approved” T-shirts that don’t make self-described tough girls throw fits and cry. True skepticism will not be allowed. It will be a worship-fest of privileged upper-middle-class white women congratulating themselves for winning battles in wars of their own imagination. For my part, I’ll go where I can think and speak freely, without fear of drawing the wrath of pale little beta-boys coming to the defense of a wounded hothouse flower who didn’t feel “safe” because someone wore a T-shirt that freaked her out. To think of a liberal arts major like you, who has apparently suffered nothing worse than a bad hair day while skipping from cushy internships and whatever into being the token feminist for the Washington *Post,* making snark about an actual scientist who paid her dues at a time when there was no affirmative action, no one to complain or cry to when she got snubbed, hit on, or otherwise verbally abused isn’t laughable, though. It’s obscene.

It’s notable that nearly all of your links “proving” Dr. Hall to be a Bad Person with Questionable Hygiene are to Cult of Watson sites. Oh, how I could go on, but then you’re already going to put me down for being “long,” as you did to Dr. Hall in your own lengthy hatchet job here. So I’ll repeat my first question, knowing full well neither you nor your followers have the intellectual integrity or the moral character to attempt to answer: How is the act of wearing a simple T-shirt “bullying”?

ReneeHendricks wrote:Everybody wave at EllenBeth Wachs! It seems she's cruising the 'pit :D

codelette wrote:Hey Apples, Ellen thinks that your mockery of Jenn is what's driving brown peeps away.
http://i.imgur.com/RrLDOWf.png

And however much I respect people for being pioneers, I’m not going to let that substitute for a good argument. I think Hall’s claims are mistaken and that she does a terrible job of backing them up with argument. The fact that she was a pioneer doesn’t change that. (I find I can no longer honestly say I admire her for the pioneering, because she has been so persistently and immovably unpleasant and vindictive, and so incapable of admitting any error.)

Dick Strawkins wrote:

codelette wrote:Hey Apples, Ellen thinks that your mockery of Jenn is what's driving brown peeps away.
http://i.imgur.com/RrLDOWf.png

Strange,
She seems fine to converse with oolon who in a similar way called black people "niggers."

windy wrote:A comment of epic proportions by a "Garth Pagan" on Marcotte's RawStory article. I couldn't decide what to leave out, so here's the whole thing:

"T-shirt bullying"? .......................

codelette wrote:Hey Apples, Ellen thinks that your mockery of Jenn is what's driving brown peeps away.
http://i.imgur.com/RrLDOWf.png

welch wrote:
How to write this if you're not andrew:

"Welch, your order was off. Summers stepped down in 2006, the credit swap shit wasn't until 2008, dumbass"

welch wrote: However, your assertion that it was solely "THE FEMINISTS" that got him fired is, as of yet, unsupported. When you look deeper, it becomes fairly clear that Summers confused "President" of Harvard with "King" of Harvard, and like a lot of private industry types, was just stupid at working in an environment where you serve at the convenience of others. (Rick Scott in FL is a great example.) His job was to manage a university, not create Larry Summers U:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Everybody wave at EllenBeth Wachs! It seems she's cruising the 'pit :D

Dick Strawkins wrote:Ophelia is still fuming at Harriet Hall.

And however much I respect people for being pioneers, I’m not going to let that substitute for a good argument. I think Hall’s claims are mistaken and that she does a terrible job of backing them up with argument. The fact that she was a pioneer doesn’t change that. (I find I can no longer honestly say I admire her for the pioneering, because she has been so persistently and immovably unpleasant and vindictive, and so incapable of admitting any error.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -the-guys/

windy wrote:A comment of epic proportions by a "Garth Pagan" on Marcotte's RawStory article. I couldn't decide what to leave out, so here's the whole thing:

"T-shirt bullying"? Seriously? How on earth does someone bully someone with a T-shirt? It's telling you don't show a photo of the shirt, or describe precisely how said T-shirt punched someone, held them down, took their lunch money and made them cry "Uncle!" Given enough time, though, I'm sure you or one of the other weird little "Skepchick" cultists will come up with a suitable narrative (i.e., a whopper to make even Karl Rove blush), which all will claim to believe and repeat as Gospel Truth upon pain of being bullied (blocked, doxed, threatened, etc.) by the Defenders of the Great and Glorious Rebecca Watson Brand.

Before anyone bothers to Photoshop anything, I've seen a photo of Dr. Hall wearing the shirt. She was wearing it pulled over her top, in a climate controlled environment, so the aside about her presumed bad hygiene for wearing it throughout the course of the convention is as disingenuous as it is immature. All the T-shirt said was,"I am not a Skepchick/I am not a 'woman skeptic'/I am a SKEPTIC." How anyone of any degree of emotional maturity can have her pwecious fee-fees hurt by such a statement boggles the imagination -- unless, of course, we're looking to promote an idea of women being overly sensitive, irrational twits, when it's really just one woman who goes by the moniker "Surly Amy" 'cause "surly" means "edgy!" This tough "grrl" who reportedly cried at the sight of this shirt (!) also screeched about "fake jewelry," that is, ceramic jewelry not created by her Special Snowflakeness. And jewelry not of the Surly Amy Brand is to be BANNED! BANNED!

Ms. Marcotte, I wonder if you're aware of the cybermobbing Dr. Hall endured several nights ago when she wrote an open letter to feminists insisting she was not the enemy. The libel, the deliberate misrepresentation, the gaslighting—the overall bug-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred—by the Cult of Watson was breathtaking. Even the self-appointed Empress of All Atheists herself showed up to gloat and sneer, going so far as to make an aside about Dr. Hall's presumed hygiene. This went on for several paragraphs before Watson declared Dr. Hall "uninteresting" and signed off “to do more interesting things.” Take Watson's comment out of the context of this particular instant of cyberbullying and you had something that could have been written by any middle-school mean girl cheerleader going after the "gross" smart girl.

Perhaps you did see it. In any event, it's apparent you support it. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn you even participated. To think you and your sycophants here claim to be for rationality, civility, etc. Of course, it's known that when the cyberbullies of FreeThoughtBlogs and Skepchick are called out on their Middle School Musical shenanigans, they shriek "tone troll"! Because *they* can bully all they want. *Their* victims so obviously have it coming. Find out who employs them, and tell the supervisor what a Terrible Person they are! Get them fired, because FEMINISM! And accuse everyone else of stalking. And making up "straw feminists."

The sickest irony of all is that Rebecca Watson, her beta-boy sycophants, her fellow mean girls have as much to do with feminism and social justice as Phyllis Schlafly's broomstick. It's all about Watson taking an opportunity (i.e., a real scientist and skeptic calling her out on her first world privilege) to build a brand for herself, cry "victim!" by way of bringing in followers, and bully her way into either a leadership position in a skeptical organization (e.g.,libeling and attacking DJ Grothe) or creating one of her own which will not be a companion, but a rival to the established organizations, with the intent on destroying them for her own financial and narcissistic enrichment.

You, Ms. Marcotte, are the one making disingenuous arguments. Dr. Hall is not “trying to stop” the Women in Secularism conference. She is not organizing cybermobs. She is not cyberbullying. She is not threatening to get people fired because she feels “threatened” and “stalked” for being called out on a lie. That’s what YOUR people do, Marcotte. Your people. Who boast of shutting down websites and Twitter accounts. Not very free-speechy, are we? Rather a lot like those religious police we hear about in Saudi Arabia. Or the rabid conservative Christers here in the USA.

As for the idea of men being welcome to Women in Secularism, it is to laugh. That “welcome” is contingent on being free of anti-Watsonite thoughtcrime, and wearing only “approved” T-shirts that don’t make self-described tough girls throw fits and cry. True skepticism will not be allowed. It will be a worship-fest of privileged upper-middle-class white women congratulating themselves for winning battles in wars of their own imagination. For my part, I’ll go where I can think and speak freely, without fear of drawing the wrath of pale little beta-boys coming to the defense of a wounded hothouse flower who didn’t feel “safe” because someone wore a T-shirt that freaked her out. To think of a liberal arts major like you, who has apparently suffered nothing worse than a bad hair day while skipping from cushy internships and whatever into being the token feminist for the Washington *Post,* making snark about an actual scientist who paid her dues at a time when there was no affirmative action, no one to complain or cry to when she got snubbed, hit on, or otherwise verbally abused isn’t laughable, though. It’s obscene.

It’s notable that nearly all of your links “proving” Dr. Hall to be a Bad Person with Questionable Hygiene are to Cult of Watson sites. Oh, how I could go on, but then you’re already going to put me down for being “long,” as you did to Dr. Hall in your own lengthy hatchet job here. So I’ll repeat my first question, knowing full well neither you nor your followers have the intellectual integrity or the moral character to attempt to answer: How is the act of wearing a simple T-shirt “bullying”?

bhoytony wrote:

windy wrote:A comment of epic proportions by a "Garth Pagan" on Marcotte's RawStory article. I couldn't decide what to leave out, so here's the whole thing:

"T-shirt bullying"? .......................

Ooh, that was a thing of beauty. If any of the FTB gobshites actually read that post I bet they are crying into their pillows right now.

P.S. EllenBeth Wachs - fuck off you dishonest harpy.

Tigzy wrote:Hi EllenBeth.

While you're perusing this place, please make sure to keep the sexy noises quiet this time, eh. ;)

Dick Strawkins wrote:Ophelia is still fuming at Harriet Hall.

And however much I respect people for being pioneers, I’m not going to let that substitute for a good argument. I think Hall’s claims are mistaken and that she does a terrible job of backing them up with argument. The fact that she was a pioneer doesn’t change that. (I find I can no longer honestly say I admire her for the pioneering, because she has been so persistently and immovably unpleasant and vindictive, and so incapable of admitting any error.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -the-guys/

Can't be D-minor. Only two chords in this song, and they're in major mode. But if it were in D, then it would be: D A D A D A... Or, DADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADA SPICMAAAAAAAAN!!!

Gumby wrote: Translation: I am so butt-hurt by Harriet Hall's refusal to mindlessly kowtow to me and my friends that I refuse to even show any respect for all the work she's done to pave the way for women.

Gumby wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Ophelia is still fuming at Harriet Hall.

And however much I respect people for being pioneers, I’m not going to let that substitute for a good argument. I think Hall’s claims are mistaken and that she does a terrible job of backing them up with argument. The fact that she was a pioneer doesn’t change that. (I find I can no longer honestly say I admire her for the pioneering, because she has been so persistently and immovably unpleasant and vindictive, and so incapable of admitting any error.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -the-guys/

Translation: I am so butt-hurt by Harriet Hall's refusal to mindlessly kowtow to me and my friends that I refuse to even show any respect for all the work she's done to pave the way for women.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 613a12.jpg

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

welch wrote:

AbsurdWalls wrote:

welch wrote:honkies

Do people actually say "honky" where you're from or is it an affectationne?

I'd never heard it used by anyone before your appearance on Reap's podcast.

It was quite popular in the 70s in the US, kind of died out after that.

I just like it because it's such a great word to describe white folks when they start acting stupid as fuck.

also, easier to type than "white people"

Tigzy wrote:Hi EllenBeth.

While you're perusing this place, please make sure to keep the sexy noises quiet this time, eh. ;)

Dick Strawkins wrote:

welch wrote:
The idea that there is any difference between the two save target must be purged as the fantasy it is. The only difference between 2008 and 2013 is which way he's aimed.

I disagree.
He has always been a bit of an arsehole, true, but in the past he was facing ID supporters and creationists and always used scientific evidence as the primary weapon to defeat their arguments. He might have thrown in a few customary insults too but he did appreciate scientific skepticism as a tool to resolve which argument is supported by the evidence.

The PZ of today, however, not only ignores evidence but has allowed the promotion of the idea of 'hyperskepticism' - an anti-science tactic that negates the scientific process. He would never have gotten away with that five years ago.

And he would have gotten away with it too, - if it weren't for those pesky slymepit kids.

http://i.imgur.com/cW0OkSs.jpg

Everybody wave at EllenBeth Wachs! It seems she's cruising the 'pit

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

Jack wrote:No one likes to be patronised. They really can't grasp that treating every minority as a victim is offensive to people in those groups who are quite capable of sticking up for themselves as long as there is an equal footing. I want an equal footing, no more and no less. Most people do. Only people with 'issues', those with no ability to understand the subtlety and complexity of human relations and those trying to get an unfair advantage buy into their ideology.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

If she's going to quote mine so blatantly she should remember that the same thing can apply to her.

Ellenbeth Wachs used the term "darkie" for black people! :o

Dick Strawkins wrote:OK, time to own up.
Which one of you is Tony?
Come on, he's obviously a POE.

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

Gumby wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

Funny thing is, over at FTB they're always saying shit like "But I guess brown people don't count" or whatnot. They use "brown people" over there the way "darkie" was used here - as a jab against the stupidity and intolerance of someone not in the minority, not against the minority itself. But it's OK when they do it, right? Because I'm sure an African American person wouldn't mind if someone like Aratina or Caine walked up to them and called them a "brown person". Personally, I'd pay money to see that :lol:

EyeNoU wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Hi EllenBeth.

While you're perusing this place, please make sure to keep the sexy noises quiet this time, eh. ;)

....and don't bogart that joint... :rimshot:

16bitheretic wrote:Oh look at that feminist solidarity for other women! Wear a t-shirt that offends one of Those Who Must Not Have Their Fee-Fees Hurt and suddenly your character and very gender are under assault by those who claim to be all for respect of women. According to Marcotte and her readers Dr. Hall must only oppose Skepchick's smearing of JREF/TAM/Grothe and is waging a phantom invisible war against WiS2 (that only they are aware of) because she's pandering to men or must be a man? Which side of this "deep rift" is allegedly a crew of misogynists again?

rayshul wrote:
I'd also suggest that the offensive word for white people these days is WHITE. Thanks, social justice warriors.

Gumby wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Everybody wave at EllenBeth Wachs! It seems she's cruising the 'pit :D

Of course she is. She's looking for "poor, poor me, I'm a victim" points.

Apples wrote:

EyeNoU wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Hi EllenBeth.

While you're perusing this place, please make sure to keep the sexy noises quiet this time, eh. ;)

....and don't bogart that joint... :rimshot:

Yeah kind of embarrassing to be founder of a Secular Organizations for Sobriety branch claiming 20+ years in recovery and then to be arrested for possession of weed.

Skep tickle wrote:Congratulations! When are you due, and how are you doing?

rayshul wrote:FUCK I LOST MY FUCKING POST. :/ It was lengthy! Now it is gone!

Thanks everyone for your congrats. :) It's all a bit mad.

Jack wrote:No one likes to be patronised. They really can't grasp that treating every minority as a victim is offensive to people in those groups who are quite capable of sticking up for themselves as long as there is an equal footing. I want an equal footing, no more and no less. Most people do. Only people with 'issues', those with no ability to understand the subtlety and complexity of human relations and those trying to get an unfair advantage buy into their ideology.

This is why I do not understand why women would buy into this shit. :/ I can't even fathom why you'd accept that shit. If I'd heard that kind of stuff as a kid about women I'd have wound up as a miserable shut in. (Possibly with a blog.)


Someone should inform EllenBeth that it appears that black people feel terrifically comfortable in the Slymepit. ^_^ Isn't that awkward? I mean, the pit has a fair amount of vocal "minorities" in the US-version of the word (anyone not white).

I'd also suggest that the offensive word for white people these days is WHITE. Thanks, social justice warriors.

Gumby wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

Funny thing is, over at FTB they're always saying shit like "But I guess brown people don't count" or whatnot. They use "brown people" over there the way "darkie" was used here - as a jab against the stupidity and intolerance of someone not in the minority, not against the minority itself. But it's OK when they do it, right? Because I'm sure an African American person wouldn't mind if someone like Aratina or Caine walked up to them and called them a "brown person". Personally, I'd pay money to see that :lol:

bhoytony wrote:

Apples wrote:

EyeNoU wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Hi EllenBeth.

While you're perusing this place, please make sure to keep the sexy noises quiet this time, eh. ;)

....and don't bogart that joint... :rimshot:

Yeah kind of embarrassing to be founder of a Secular Organizations for Sobriety branch claiming 20+ years in recovery and then to be arrested for possession of weed.

Hey, at least she doesn't get arrested for beating her husba...

Gumby wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:EllenBeth Wachs should try out as a Fox news journalist with that level of spin on a quote mine. The one instance I saw of "darkie" being used was a jab at the condescending attitudes towards ethnic minorities that pop up in the predominantly white and college educated middle class SJW circles like A+ and FTB.

Funny thing is, over at FTB they're always saying shit like "But I guess brown people don't count" or whatnot. They use "brown people" over there the way "darkie" was used here - as a jab against the stupidity and intolerance of someone not in the minority, not against the minority itself. But it's OK when they do it, right? Because I'm sure an African American person wouldn't mind if someone like Aratina or Caine walked up to them and called them a "brown person". Personally, I'd pay money to see that :lol: