Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Little they know that Skep Tickle is, in fact, Franc Hoggle, who is Victor Ivanoff, who is David Mabuse, who is Ophelia Benson.Metalogic42 wrote:Ophie & Crew are STILL ragging on Joanne York for probably being skep tickle. Nothing will ever be enough.
http://i.imgur.com/85EK2yK.pngsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
Good idea, I'd do one now but I already did after WIS.nippletwister wrote:My email to CFI:
To put it bluntly: A small number of extremely vocal bloggers and speakers have decided that the core mission of all skeptical, secularist, and atheist organizations and communities must be to support a number of "progressive" liberal political ideals, and that any individuals who do not comply immediately, without discussion or debate, must be silenced, ousted, shamed and shunned. They have zero interest in skepticism or religious freedom, and their only interest in secularism extends no further than how it can help their political agenda. Included in this group are bloggers and speakers PZ Myers, Ophela Benson, Stephanie Svan, and Jason Thibault of Freethought Blogs, Rebecca Watson of Skepchick, and Amanda Marcotte.
I only name a few of the most vocal, and the only reason I name them is so that you can take the time to see what these people actually say and do. PZ Myers recently posted a blog offering the opinion that anyone who identifies as a "Men's Right's Activist" is simply a mass-murderer of women without the guts to pull the trigger. Amanda Marcotte recently penned a hit piece on atheist/secular activist Justin Vacula, claiming that he believes "women exist to serve men", simply because Justin does not agree with her that atheism logically leads directly to feminism. Some of these people have been directly involved in "outing" or "doxxing" people who disagree with them, so that their followers can call employers, harass, and intimidate. Some of them have been seeking to get people fired from their jobs, ousted from organizations, and attempting to establish blacklists of people not welcome to speak at or even attend events, all for the crime of disagreeing with their politics or their morally bankrupt tactics. Obviously false threat narratives, claiming harassment and fear of violence, have been built up around many individuals who dare to disagree with these ideologues.
You now have a case of this treatment in your own organization. For simply noting what is obvious to any casual reader of these individual's blogs, that limited sociological terms are often used to silence dissent and vilify people who disagree with their views, he has been called a sexist, a misogynist, a "thug in a cheap suit" (PZ Myers), and the hounds are now baying for blood.
These individuals and their supporters have little or nothing to do with secularism or ending religious discrimination, and are almost the polar opposite of "skeptics". They respect no science that does not validate their worldview, and they cannot tolerate even a hint of debate or open discussion. They openly mock the principle of free speech as bring only a cover for hatred and bigotry and oppression. In their minds, anyone being allowed to talk back, instead of permanently "shutting up and listening", is oppression. How people so privileged became such experts on oppression is anyone's guess, but they certainly have no intention of "checking their own privilege" or "shutting up and listening" to anyone.
I hope that you will take the time to see the full picture here. I hope that you will support Ron Lindsay, and keep a careful watch on those who seem to think their voices are the only ones that matter. Irrational ideologues like this are poisonous to any movement, but especially to one based on skepticism, freethought, and open discussion. I and many others will be watching the outcome of this particular "putsch", and I for one will not support any organization that gives these individuals any more influence than they already have. Again, please support Ron Lindsay in this matter. He has done nothing wrong and simply said out loud what so many reasonable people in our community, men and women, liberal and conservative alike, have been thinking lately. He couldn't have been nicer about it, yet witness what such consideration gets one in return...ridiculous accusations and outright dishonesty and hatred. Do not pander to these poisonous ideologues, it will benefit nobody.
Thank you for your time.
I suppose I was a bit too "hostile" in tone, too wordy, I went a little personal about certain people, and I noticed a couple of small spelling mistakes after I'd sent it, but oh well. If nobody cares to check out reality for themselves, or is willing to reject skepticism for politics, then no changes would have mattered anyhoo.
I do encourage everyone here who thinks Ron deserves some support to write a letter or email. Many of you could do a better job than myself, and numbers can't hurt. With what, a half-dozen hit pieces out there already, you know some of the brave keyboard warriors have been busy slinging the bullshit.
The entirety of the Slymepit is the most elaborate POE in the history of the earth.Southern wrote:Little they know that Skep Tickle is, in fact, Franc Hoggle, who is Victor Ivanoff, who is David Mabuse, who is Ophelia Benson.Metalogic42 wrote:Ophie & Crew are STILL ragging on Joanne York for probably being skep tickle. Nothing will ever be enough.
Skep tickle wrote:Oooh, awkward. :Dsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
Check your PMs.
What do we win if we guess right?Skep tickle wrote:Oooh, awkward. :Dsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
Check your PMs.
A free prostate exam! By franc.KiwiInOz wrote:What do we win if we guess right?Skep tickle wrote:Oooh, awkward. :Dsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
Check your PMs.
Right. I'd better grab the link for the 55 gallons of lube then.Skep tickle wrote:A free prostate exam! By franc.KiwiInOz wrote:What do we win if we guess right?Skep tickle wrote:Oooh, awkward. :Dsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
Check your PMs.
LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
who is criticising you here?Mark Thomas wrote:My latest comment on Ophelia's blog, caught in moderation - I'm exhausted. Seriously, I've only been reading/involved with this for a few weeks, I have no idea how the rest of you - or the rest of them for that matter - deal with all of this.
"With all due respect to the commenters who claim (and I have no reason to doubt their claim) to have been following the issues surrounding the "schism" for years - you should be orders of magnitude more tired of this than I am.
Anne C. Hanna has it exactly right - this is a complicated social problem, not a skeptical problem. Complicated social problems - aka political problems - have emotional advocates on both sides who cannot be swayed by logic or reason. Most of the commenters here criticizing me and others represent one of those sides - those convinced of their opinions and apparently unable to be swayed by logic and reason.
Ophelia admits that she ignores my arguments - to include the suggestion that she debate Skep Tickle...doesn't that drive the skeptic in you a little mad?
Would you ignore the arguments of a creationist who is arguing that the earth is 6000 years old? No, you'd demolish it with a smile - and possibly a little satire or snark - and move forward. But for the most part the commenters here - including Ophelia - aren't engaging me on my argument (and my argument here essentially boils down to: engage Skep Tickle in an honest debate and/or stop demonizing her).
For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
poor guy, give him a break, Andrew.AndrewV69 wrote:LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
Aneris wrote:I just thought that Greta Christina joined the hate business as she probably doesn't get enough hits. Like Becky some days ago (where also nobody really gave a fig). I checked hate site #1 Pharyngula and --surprise surprise-- PZ Myers spotlights Greta's views on Ron Lindsay. Wait a minute. Ron Lindsay? Again? I couldn't be arsed to follow the links and actually give her the hits and don't really care. What's more interesting is how PZ Myers damaged idiot commentariat is again on about rape & racism. Basically the usual clapfest of characterally and emotionally challenged people.
FWIW, Mark was quoting what he has posted at Ophelia's site; it's in moderation & he seems to think it won't see the light of day unless he copies it over here.sacha wrote:poor guy, give him a break, Andrew.AndrewV69 wrote:LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
bovarchist wrote:I'm starting to think that most of Benson's hits are coming from us. Maybe we're the ones who should ignore her.
I consent to nothing!Skep tickle wrote:Mark Thomas, I could give you a hug for trying! (but only if you consent first; sign here).
Bit o' recommended background reading:
http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/20 ... slime-pit/
http://dissentionisnothate.wordpress.co ... ca-watson/
and a bunch of stuff at http://greylining.com/
And, whoever Joanne York is, thank you too for your efforts.
(Not that I saw anything either of you posted, unless it was copied here. Ms Benson seems to have lost all perspective and apparently is flinging accusations left and right, and I don't see any point to even looking at it.)
I am, most definitely, not that nasty.Parody Accountant wrote:http://i.imgur.com/EGZxDnP.png
(in case ya not nasty - 'fuck off' is the standard welcome message for new people.)
Mark Thomas wrote:I am, most definitely, not that nasty.Parody Accountant wrote:http://i.imgur.com/EGZxDnP.png
(in case ya not nasty - 'fuck off' is the standard welcome message for new people.)
Sorry. I was not laughing at him. Just his situation.sacha wrote:poor guy, give him a break, Andrew.AndrewV69 wrote:LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
The Law of Inverse Inzvanity: the more rational, evidenced, and concinving your comment is while also disagreeing with Zvan (and similar: Benson), the less likely it will make it through moderation. If you post rambling incoherent drivel, she happily lets it trough to give the impression people can actually disagree with her, and perhaps to throw her commentariat a bone (controversity = hits = $$$). Even if she does let it through, it's due to calculation on Zvan's blog and moon cycle on Benson's.Mark Thomas wrote:My latest comment on Ophelia's blog, caught in moderation - I'm exhausted. Seriously, I've only been reading/involved with this for a few weeks, I have no idea how the rest of you - or the rest of them for that matter - deal with all of this.
"With all due respect to the commenters who claim (and I have no reason to doubt their claim) to have been following the issues surrounding the "schism" for years - you should be orders of magnitude more tired of this than I am.
Anne C. Hanna has it exactly right - this is a complicated social problem, not a skeptical problem. Complicated social problems - aka political problems - have emotional advocates on both sides who cannot be swayed by logic or reason. Most of the commenters here criticizing me and others represent one of those sides - those convinced of their opinions and apparently unable to be swayed by logic and reason.
Ophelia admits that she ignores my arguments - to include the suggestion that she debate Skep Tickle...doesn't that drive the skeptic in you a little mad?
Would you ignore the arguments of a creationist who is arguing that the earth is 6000 years old? No, you'd demolish it with a smile - and possibly a little satire or snark - and move forward. But for the most part the commenters here - including Ophelia - aren't engaging me on my argument (and my argument here essentially boils down to: engage Skep Tickle in an honest debate and/or stop demonizing her).
For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
I agree. funny as fuck.AndrewV69 wrote:Sorry. I was not laughing at him. Just his situation.sacha wrote:poor guy, give him a break, Andrew.AndrewV69 wrote:LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
It is just too funny to see the incredulous response of someone who has up to now not really understood the absolute lunacy of the FC(n) as he runs smack into the wall of their parallell universe.
Then they get up and stagger around going "Wha?" "What?" "WTF?"
who's the one in the yellow dress, she's a bit normal looking for Skepchick/FtB surely?Lsuoma wrote:FFS, people! DO I have to do ALL your work for you?
http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/ck22.jpg
Glad to hear you didn't. I noticed Sacha disputing the definition as well.windy wrote:I didn't... As long as you're around, what did you think of PZ's implication that sociology is a "fundamental discipline" of it's own, not a science?VAXherd wrote:Since you took the time, I'm curious: Before I spoke up, did you believe that the SJW definition of racism was "official" within Sociology? Why or why not?
Well, if you don't care, that's OK.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Hi VAXherd.
To be honest, at this point, I have no bloody idea what the SJW definition of racism is. I suspect they don't, either.
As far as sociology goes, I'm less than interested in the subject. It has, at least in my country, led to kerfuffles of epic proportions. Maybe I am being a bit unfair and lumping sociology with social activism, but I'm not aware of any big difference, so please forgive me if I got my stuff mixed up, I am mostly an uneducated fool. I just don't consider it to be a "science". It does not work on the same level (testability, falsifiability, observations, experiments...). Lots of bias one way or another going on in there, though.
(Lsuoma: suck on that fourth post!)
Parody Accountant wrote:http://i.imgur.com/85EK2yK.pngsacha wrote:so yet again, the baboons have "outed" a completely different person. The names are not even remotely similar.
R.I.P. Skep Tickle.
Brave Hero 1963 - 2011
Well, you know, people like being able to voice their views without fear of being deleted/banned/shunned/accused of being a rapist. Radical, I know, but that's just how it is. Maybe that's why they like the pit so much.Anne C. Hanna wrote:
Y’know, I can almost sort of understand the people who stumble into the middle of the Deep Rifts and just find the whole thing horrifying and start wittering on about “both sidesâ€. It’s an ignorant, poorly-thought-out response to the situation, to be sure, but at least it seems to arise from a desire for the community to be a kind, thoughtful, happy, welcoming place rather than a cruel and hostile one.
The people I *really* don’t get are the ones who, upon learning of the “schismâ€, seem to almost immediately snuggle themselves happily into the squelching, fetid muck of the Slymepit as if it’s a nice warm, soft featherbed.
After reading Athyco’s comment @99 mentioning “Mark Thomasâ€â€˜s activities over there, I wandered over to have a look and, sure enough, there he was, sitting around commiserating happily with the pitters about how exhausting it must be for them to “deal with all thisâ€, while proudly repasting his latest snotty, holier-than-thou comment that’s supposedly caught in moderation here.(*) So unless he’s been commenting on this somewhere else that hasn’t been mentioned yet, he’s apparently spent two weeks buddying up with everyone in the Slymepit before bothering to engage with the other side of the story. How the hell does a place like that become someone’s first stop in examining an issue like this, and how is it that having started there, anyone would decide to take on the Slymepit’s grievances as hir own, as opposed to maybe being just the tiniest bit skeptical of their take on the issue?
(I can sorta guess part of the answer in Mark’s case based on the quality of his replies so far — he doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as skilled at skepticism, analysis of social situations, and critical thinking as he appears to believe he is, and his capacity for empathy seems to be underdeveloped in regard to the issues in play here. But I am curious about the specific contingencies that lead people like him to frequent the pit in the first place. So how about it, Mark? Tell us about the skeptical odyssey that led you to choose to buddy up with the Slymepitters *first* and leave FTB as an afterthought?)
—
(*) Apparently he thinks he’s giving sage advice in suggesting that people here should be “orders of magnitude more tired of this than [he is]“. It’s almost as if he completely didn’t read the comment Tom Foss addressed directly to him @94, in which Tom not only made that exact point, but also explained exactly what Mark could do to avoid contributing to the problem. My comments about the Dunning-Kruger effect also appear, appropriately enough, to have gone right over Mark’s head. :D
Aneris wrote:The Law of Inverse Inzvanity: the more rational, evidenced, and concinving your comment is while also disagreeing with Zvan (and similar: Benson), the less likely it will make it through moderation. If you post rambling incoherent drivel, she happily lets it trough to give the impression people can actually disagree with her, and perhaps to throw her commentariat a bone (controversity = hits = $$$). Even if she does let it through, it's due to calculation on Zvan's blog and moon cycle on Benson's.Mark Thomas wrote:My latest comment on Ophelia's blog, caught in moderation - I'm exhausted. Seriously, I've only been reading/involved with this for a few weeks, I have no idea how the rest of you - or the rest of them for that matter - deal with all of this.
"With all due respect to the commenters who claim (and I have no reason to doubt their claim) to have been following the issues surrounding the "schism" for years - you should be orders of magnitude more tired of this than I am.
Anne C. Hanna has it exactly right - this is a complicated social problem, not a skeptical problem. Complicated social problems - aka political problems - have emotional advocates on both sides who cannot be swayed by logic or reason. Most of the commenters here criticizing me and others represent one of those sides - those convinced of their opinions and apparently unable to be swayed by logic and reason.
Ophelia admits that she ignores my arguments - to include the suggestion that she debate Skep Tickle...doesn't that drive the skeptic in you a little mad?
Would you ignore the arguments of a creationist who is arguing that the earth is 6000 years old? No, you'd demolish it with a smile - and possibly a little satire or snark - and move forward. But for the most part the commenters here - including Ophelia - aren't engaging me on my argument (and my argument here essentially boils down to: engage Skep Tickle in an honest debate and/or stop demonizing her).
For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
For the record: I don't have issues with moderation per se. People can moderate their place in any way they like. But moderating based on whim and whether or not a comment might undermine the narrative looks very poor to me. Since it's always hit and miss, you never know if you can defend previously made points (that might got through). It also has the effect to put less effort into a comment (since it might be all for naught), which, per Law of Inverse Inzvanity might increase the chance that it might appear.
We reference, quote and link to what was said all over the place so that anyone can make up their minds. They, however, conspicuously never do that. How come? This is a quick and easy check. They also dance around in the comment sections, rarely being able to quote a passage or point they allgedly find so terrible. The whole trick relies on vague allegations that something is somehow ominously terrible and everyone will surely (/tiphat Dennet) see it. You don't see it? You must be a misogynist! (so sshh if you don't better don't ask, just goosestep. If you would ask, it would be "JAQing off", and akin to trolling and a dead giveaway that you are Slymepitter. Oh, you now are).
not me, I skimmed right past this particular side topic.VAXherd wrote:
Glad to hear you didn't. I noticed Sacha disputing the definition as well.
clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712
Speaking of which, have you seen this gem in the NY Times?VAXherd wrote: I am sympathetic about the trouble this can cause. Here in the US the problems come mostly from Economics, in the form of a cultural mixing of economic theory, capitalist ideology, and Calvinism.
You know, I was once of the opinion that the elites of various countries only pretended to care about the rest of the population.If the “cutthroat leader†– the United States — were to switch to “cuddly capitalism, this would reduce the growth rate of the entire world economy,†the authors argue, by slowing the pace of innovation.
...
These findings, if substantiated, will disappoint those who long for a Swedish-style mixed economy with universal health care, paid maternal leave, child allowances, guaranteed pensions and other desirable social benefits.
If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.Zenspace wrote:Sent to the CFI Board. Feel free to copy and/or modify to use yourself if so inclined. Never know, it might actually help make a difference:
Dear Secretary Flynn and CFI Board of Directors:
I am writing to express my support for Ron Lindsay and my agreement with the speech he made at Women in Secularism 2.
The Center for Inquiry is almost certainly receiving a high volume of angry complaints remarks made by Dr. Lindsay at Women in Secularism 2. I know that some complainants are even demanding his resignation or removal. These complaints are based on a serious and willful misinterpretation of what Dr. Lindsay said, fueled by an ideologically-driven perspective which is at odds with CFI's core mission. Unfortunately, there are some people in the secular community who have made a name for themselves by attacking others with outrageous accusations. Dr. Lindsay mentioned a couple of them by name in a follow-up post, and so they and their supporters are now trying to remove him.
I want to make sure you are aware that there are many of us in the secular community who support Dr. Lindsay and appreciate his willingness to address some important issues regarding the use of privilege to silence others. The remarks made by Dr. Lindsay desperately needed to be said and, if anything, were long overdue. As can be seen directly in the nature and volume of the reaction from certain ideological quarters, made even more clear by the willful misrepresentation of the actual content of Dr. Lindsay's speech by those same individuals in an active and mean-spirited attempt to defame him. Dr. Lindsay is only the most recent target of these dangerous ideologues, as Richard Dawkins, DJ Grothe and Michael Shermer can attest.
CFI is supposed to stand for skeptical inquiry and reason. The persons attacking Dr. Lindsay and calling for his removal represent the very antithesis of the core values of CFI and Dr. Lindsay's words have served to highlight the very present danger they represent to the future of reason and even CFI itself. I would personally like to extend my thanks to Dr. Lindsay for taking point on this critical issue. I trust that CFI will also recognize the importance and true nature of what is presently occurring within the skeptical community and within CFI itself and continues to support Dr. Lindsay. People who are willing to take the desperately needed stand as he did are vitally important to the future of CFI, reason and skepticism
Thank you for your consideration.
Well, all I have to say is perhaps if Hanna examined certain precepts she holds self evident then perhaps the light bulb may go off.Metalogic42 wrote:Anne C. Hanna wrote:
The people I *really* don’t get are the ones who, upon learning of the “schismâ€, seem to almost immediately snuggle themselves happily into the squelching, fetid muck of the Slymepit as if it’s a nice warm, soft featherbed.
The irony. Hanna appears to be blissfully unaware of how she provided an example of the effect while invoking it.Anne C. Hanna wrote: My comments about the Dunning-Kruger effect also appear, appropriately enough, to have gone right over Mark’s head. :D
Indeed. That might be a reason that never once occurs to our dear Hanna. Thus her perpetual bemusement is probably assured.Metalogic42 wrote: Well, you know, people like being able to voice their views without fear of being deleted/banned/shunned/accused of being a rapist. Radical, I know, but that's just how it is. Maybe that's why they like the pit so much.
Amazing. Ophelia chose a long time ago to publish in her own name. She chose to do that. Skep Tickle chose to leave comments using a nym, along with many others at FTB. Oafy still cannot see why revealing someone's name is a bad thing... particularly when the FTB have a tendency to smear people.You’re very worried about “Skep tickle†being “doxxed.†You’re not worried about me – already “doxxed†in the sense that my identity is known.
They invariably refer to Thunderf00t using his real name, usually followed by abuse. If Skep Tickle allows her name to be made public then expect more of the same.If my daughter one day reads in my obituary that her father “was persistently dogged by charges of racism and bigotry,†unscrupulous people like PZ Myers will be to blame.
I laughed my ass off. Many good contributions. And "knickers!" :clap:Lsuoma wrote:http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/skti.jpgMetalogic42 wrote:
The jig is up. Goddess Ophelia has told us all that you're really skep tickle, and she's never wrong. That's why she has to delete all those comments that prove her wrong!
BTW. I think it was Franc who suggested that it was not a wise idea to let the FC(n) know anything about you. Perhaps some here might benefit from knowing about TOR (if you did not know already).nippletwister wrote:clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712
I think I just came. Oh, shit, was that oppressive? So sorry....
I added a long comment. Felt good.clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712
Well the cat is out of the bag now I suppose. Now what?Skep tickle wrote:I added a long comment. Felt good.clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712
Mark's experience is common to many of us new to this I suspect. Part of me still can't believe this is all nothing but a big joke or they are a religious organisation trying to damage atheism. How can such dogmatic and irrational behaviour survive in any community that claims to be skeptical?AndrewV69 wrote:Sorry. I was not laughing at him. Just his situation.sacha wrote:poor guy, give him a break, Andrew.AndrewV69 wrote:LOL. You are new around here. I can tell. LMAOMark Thomas wrote: For the record - and once again - I am of the opinion that a specific blogger (Ophelia) should stop choosing to create blog entries about a specific commentator (Skep Tickle) and either reach across the isle and debate her or ignore her arguments altogether (as Ophelia has apparently has done with me). Will someone with more experience than I (apparently that includes all of you) please explain to me how that position is beyond the pale?"
It is just too funny to see the incredulous response of someone who has up to now not really understood the absolute lunacy of the FC(n) as he runs smack into the wall of their parallell universe.
Then they get up and stagger around going "Wha?" "What?" "WTF?"
I added a comment:Skep tickle wrote:I added a long comment. Felt good.clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712
@Gurdur:
Excellent post. Bravo. I'll be honest - I have reservations about the long-term effectiveness of your new project, "The Hub" (although I applaud the effort). But, in keeping with your wishes for more civil dialogue, I'll keep this as "nice" as possible.
Ophelia Benson's actions over the past few days were, in my opinion, extremely contemptible. My issue is not just with the doxxing of skep tickle, but also how she went about it; I feel that she did it in a way that managed to be even worse than merely publishing all her information.
If she had done that, most people would have opposed her. But the gradual, "trickle" style she used had three effects. First, every "step" she took seemed less serious than a full-on doxxing (it's just her first name, it's just her career industry, it's just that she said this on a different name, etc.); creating the illusion that nothing serious was taking place. Second, prolonging it seems to have caused skep tickle no small amount of stress (I base this on her posts on the slymepit, please correct me if I'm wrong!) Finally, it shifted some of the responsibility away from herself - "I'm innocent, I didn't dox, I just gave a few small clues!"
But, even more egregious is the narrative she's been weaving for her supporters. I've been following her comments very closely as all this has been happening*, and the entire time, she's been trying her hardest to paint skep tickle as a ruthless aggressor, and herself as a victim. She's had some difficulty in this, though. She's most recently had to resort to accusing two other commenters on her blog of being "sockpuppets" of skep tickle in a further attempt to harass her.
When I noticed her doing this, I recognized one of the names - Mark Thomas (this is merely the name on the comment, and may or may not be a real name). Ophelia claimed that she did not recognize this name, and that the posting style and content was suspiciously similar to skep tickle's.
Based on this, Ophelia Benson said "goodbye" to Mark Thomas, implying that he wouldn't be allowed further comments. I posted a response to Ophelia providing details on Mark's posting history - his first known comments were on Skepchick on May 13 (long before this all went down), and since May 15 he's been posting intermittently on the slymepit. Given this, the chances of Mark Thomas being skep tickle are extremely slim, if not nonexistent.
Ophelia deleted this comment. As things continued, Ophelia claimed that Mark Thomas and the other suspected sockpuppet, "Joanne York", could clear their names by making a comment on Ophelia's blog themselves, stating that they are not in fact skep tickle.
Both of them did so, and Ophelia let both comments through moderation. However, things escalated when she quizzed them about how they knew that Ophelia sent an email to skep tickle using an address other than the one she had recently used to comment there. I decided on another comment, explaining that this was public information, and almost everyone involved knew about it. Ophelia let this comment through moderation, although presumably to get another rhetorical shot at skep tickle and the rest of the slymepit ("you people are *that* delusional?"; she also referred to the site as "Team Harassment").
Anyway, this is just a summary of the events. Why she's behaving this way, I don't know, and I won't hazard a guess. I will say this: whatever it is, it's not a good reason. To my knowledge, skep tickle has never said anything even remotely deserving of such treatment. I'll even admit this: I'd be far more deserving of being doxxed than skep tickle. Not that I actually do deserve it, but I've done more to earn Ophelia's ire in one day than skep tickle ever has (I even invented one of the snarky nicknames for her which she claims is harassment).
And yet, for some reason, Ophelia picked someone completely innocent as a target for her ire. So, you can count me as a supporter of both the letter to Michael Nugent, and of skep tickle personally.
*I've read only public comments on her blog. I've documented quite a bit in my posts on the slymepit, which I will not repeat here - it's copious, to say the least.
Funny that, we just rewatched it wednesday. I love that movie. I've heard the sequel is crap. May have to try and get it.Pitchguest wrote:I saw they're showing Boondock Saints today on TV, and it just hit me. This scene describes the FtB/Skepchick/A+ crowd to a tee, down to the insults and the victim complex.
It's uncanny.
Reminded me strongly of Fred Colon in Terry Pratchett's Jingo, trying to infiltrate a group of Klatchians in a tavern:Tigzy wrote:So you got that 'trying a bit too hard' vibe too, eh?Dick Strawkins wrote: If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.
‘Greetings, fellow brothers of the dessert,’ he said. ‘I don’t know about you, but I could just do with a plate of sheep’s eyeballs, eh? I bet you boys can’t wait to be back on your camels, I know I can’t. I spit upon the defiling dogs of Ankh–Morpork. Anyone had any baksheesh lately? You can call me Al.’
(Sorry boss for the serial posting).Tony Parsehole wrote:You can't be Josh Spokesgay because....treestump wrote:you rumbled me. I am Josh Spokesgay. You're jealous. I've sucked more dick than you've had hot dinners.Dick Strawkins wrote:If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.
I AM JOSH SPOKESGAY and I'm the only spokesgay in the village.
[youtube]KrlzaBNgz-M[/youtube]Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:(Sorry boss for the serial posting).Tony Parsehole wrote:You can't be Josh Spokesgay because....treestump wrote:you rumbled me. I am Josh Spokesgay. You're jealous. I've sucked more dick than you've had hot dinners.Dick Strawkins wrote:If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.
I AM JOSH SPOKESGAY and I'm the only spokesgay in the village.
Would that be Llanddewi Brefi?
hehe, form a circle now ladies ;) Part was not parody; I'm genuinely sick of FtB and Shitstain Myers, and I worry that if they are able to get Ron Lindsay fired, they might actually have some power to get somewhere with their jolly little vendettas (but I see that no one gives a shit too much, so just for the hell of it I'm now rooting for them to get Ron Lindsay fired, just to see what happens. I want to see Becky crowned the new CEO of CFI for a laugh), so I meant that bit fuck you very much. The last bit *was* a parody, as FtB are always going on about how this site is so hard on poor fragile Becky etc, but what the fuck, now I'll just have a laugh until this sites equivalent of PZ Myers bans me :) "CUNT: YOU ARE BANHAMMERED!". Your *letters* to the CFI are too long and too masturbatory. Do you expect people to read those, or to chew their own eyeballs out? Clearly, exposure to SallyStrange has rubbed off on you lot a bit too much. Right, I'm off to write an 80,000 word letter to the CFI on why I should perform the child sacrifice at Becky's Coronation.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Reminded me strongly of Fred Colon in Terry Pratchett's Jingo, trying to infiltrate a group of Klatchians in a tavern:‘Greetings, fellow brothers of the dessert,’ he said. ‘I don’t know about you, but I could just do with a plate of sheep’s eyeballs, eh? I bet you boys can’t wait to be back on your camels, I know I can’t. I spit upon the defiling dogs of Ankh–Morpork. Anyone had any baksheesh lately? You can call me Al.’
That's exactly the case when I was doxed in 2005 by someone who went to the trouble of looking up domain information and then cross-referenced it with public documents containing my name in order to make ludicrous claims to my employer, which was then followed by various threats including someone pointing out to me, just being helpful, that at my address my then wife would be "easy to spot", apparently having never seen a Han Chinese woman before in their life. You know, just being helpful.Pitchguest wrote:Funny how he keeps mentioning Mykeru's doxxing as a bad example, when he says Mykeru had his name on the bottom of the page on his old - though maybe he didn't before he was doxxed in 2005? And if the slimy turd has had that "About Me" page all along, then he's an even bigger idiot than Anthony K.Dick Strawkins wrote:He was touting his oolon.co.uk site here a few months back and someone did a whois registry search on it and found out his name.Pitchguest wrote:I saw this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-556372
The slimy turd was doxxed here? By whom?
And for the record, when has Skep harassed anyone? In fact, when have any of us?
As far as I recall the person who did that was criticised by almost everyone and despite the fact that it was piss easy to find his real name, we've stuck to using 'oolon' (or more recently, 'Candiru')
I think he even openly uses his real name on his oolon blog so even a whois search was unnecessary.
I regard the oolon case as a poor example of doxxing, which should really take a little more effort than reading the name from someones personal website.
But they seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to denizens of the 'Pit condemning doxxing tactics.
I'm very happy for you now that you have come out of a coma and wish you a speedy recovery. However, since you have obviously been out of the loop for a while, there was a period where people sought common ground, generally referred to by the code-name "2011-2012".Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either
Their former singer, Elisa C. Martin, was the singer on my first album. I haz a proud!Pitchguest wrote:So I usually listen to classical when I'm down in the dumps. (What?) This time it was Vivaldi, and by chance I came across this.
[youtube]5QZFgszcfwM[/youtube]
\m/ :violin:
*logs in*Mykeru wrote:I'm very happy for you now that you have come out of a coma and wish you a speedy recovery. However, since you have obviously been out of the loop for a while, there was a period where people sought common ground, generally referred to by the code-name "2011-2012".Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either
During that period people were under the mistaken impression that some people who called themselves rationalists and skeptics really were, rather than using the terms as cover for irrational ideology and personal vendetta. During that period every approach at reconciliation was viewed as weakness by the con-artists resulting in many painful and needless cock-kicks.
Occasionally we do get people now and then who attempt to channel Neville Chamberlain, but they are fewer and farther between. At this point it's widely suspected that the people who cruise in suggesting "you catch more flies with honey" as if no one ever had this idea before are either sanctimonious twats who get off acting like they are the only adult in the room, or have some organic brain defect that means while they are suggesting this, they are also twitching and shaking a turd out their pants leg.
If you are so good at finding compromise, something that has eluded us in the lumpen-prole remedial classes, can I suggest you put this skill to use where it will do the most good, such as in the rift between Creationists and people who live in reality, sex offenders and disobedient children, perhaps even that inexplicable misunderstanding between Palestinians and the State of Israel.
In any case, welcome and glad you are off that feeding tube.
