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

And my uncle's been admitted to the hospital yesterday with what seems to be almost-terminal heart and lung failure. He's been smoking and drinking for 45 years. My aunt caught him on the hospital bedroom's balcony chain-smoking.

I'm quite distressed about this all, but I also feel an urge to facepalm.

I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

I forgot to mention... when Ophelia wrote:

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.

isn't this the same as "What about the menz?"

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And my uncle's been admitted to the hospital yesterday with what seems to be almost-terminal heart and lung failure. He's been smoking and drinking for 45 years. My aunt caught him on the hospital bedroom's balcony chain-smoking.

I'm quite distressed about this all, but I also feel an urge to facepalm.

Sorry to hear that.

I do the face-palm thing with regards to my elderly mother. She's got emphysema, is on oxygen 24/7 and still smokes Camel Unfiltered cigarettes. After years of sniping at her about it I finally just had to accept that it's her life and she is free to do what she wants with it.

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

I'm not sure, but I'm almost positive I can detect sarcasm in your post.

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

Let's give Nugent's dialogue more time. After all, we have still to read Stephanie's response to Jack's response to Stephanie's response to Jack's response to Stephanie's opinion in Post 1, Paragraph 3, Item 1(A), Subsection Q.

:lol: :roll: :lol:

Gumby wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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.

I'm not sure, but I'm almost positive I can detect sarcasm in your post.

Nah, he's channeling SallyStrange, I'm sure of it. haha, abuse here, abuse there, happy days ;)
Well done for trying Mark; you tried to use reason, but they only want to rape your sanity with their anti-reason.

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

It is not clear to me that any of the information obtained on Skep tickle was obtained through the dialog talks with Nugent.

acathode wrote:If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

If I am not mistaken, contracts are drawn up for speaking engagements such as this. Unless there is some clause in the contract that prohibits such behavior as a terminating factor, he may no longer have a choice in the matter.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote: If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.

So you got that 'trying a bit too hard' vibe too, eh?

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.’

Hahahaha! Thanks for the Pratchett reference, very appropriate!

My sympathies regarding your uncle's situation, Phil. Very frustrating and upsetting for everyone involved.

When I worked as an aide on a cardiovascular ward, I remember that one patient, who had severe hypertension and was in kidney failure, bought and consumed a bag of very salty corn chips from the vending machine on the sly, and had to spend an extra week in hospital because of this. He was an intelligent, educated person too, just very tired of being on a bland low salt diet (he told me). I'm embarrassed to remember that I think I asked him directly why he did it - I was 17 at the time and had many fewer filters than I do now.

Not that I have as many filters as I should. Good that I am not an MD. :oops:

treestump wrote:If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.

If I wanted to write a parody of deLurch trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Skep tickle 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 added a long comment. Felt good.

Well the cat is out of the bag now I suppose. Now what?

Will someone ask Nuget to sign off on a statement that harassment is bad? I think OB should be the first to demand that Nugent affirm that if you ask me, on the grounds that she is after all an expert.

Problem?

We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

Gumby wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And my uncle's been admitted to the hospital yesterday with what seems to be almost-terminal heart and lung failure. He's been smoking and drinking for 45 years. My aunt caught him on the hospital bedroom's balcony chain-smoking.

I'm quite distressed about this all, but I also feel an urge to facepalm.

Sorry to hear that.

I do the face-palm thing with regards to my elderly mother. She's got emphysema, is on oxygen 24/7 and still smokes Camel Unfiltered cigarettes. After years of sniping at her about it I finally just had to accept that it's her life and she is free to do what she wants with it.

My grandfather was the same. Smoked "gaspers" all his life and sat in the house taking alternative puffs of the cig and the oxygen bottle once the emphysema got too bad. When he had to go to the palliative care hospital, they rang my father and asked what to do as granddad had gone insane. Dad asked what they'd done and then he just said "give him back the cigs" and hung up. Problem "solved". There comes a point where it is just too late to do anything about some things, and no-one will even thank you for trying.

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

Skep Tickle's comment at heathenhub plays down any involvement of people in the "dialogue".

Gumby wrote:

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

Let's give Nugent's dialogue more time. After all, we have still to read Stephanie's response to Jack's response to Stephanie's response to Jack's response to Stephanie's opinion in Post 1, Paragraph 3, Item 1(A), Subsection Q.

:lol: :roll: :lol:

Well I hope he has someone to keep him from hitting his head when he passes out from boredom

deLurch wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

From what I've been reading over the last few days, they've been using the doxing thing for years. I doubt they'll be giving that strategy up any time soon.

Funny thing is it never seems to get them the results they were after but then doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results....

deLurch wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

Unfortunately, I think these people have always been there. Sanctimonious fucks who clump together and dictate to others what they should say and think "from now on, you have to refer to yourself as cisgendered" (fuck that). I dunno, but I suspect if you went back to ancient Rome, you'd find PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson shouting "Vestel Virgins are oppressed!" and they'd have followers. Sad, but even if PZ Myers crawls under a rock and fucks off (which I think he will in the next couple of years, people get bored eventually), some new Holy Avengers will appear to say "freeze peach! tone troll! mansplaining! I am offended at that!" and then another 5 years of "Rift" will happen. Ultimately, PZ etc are just shamelessly dishonest people, and until people bring actual libel charges against them they won't stop. I wish there was some way that Ron Lindsay could sue Myers for willfully trying to destroy his career. FtB would go under pretty fast if that happened.

deLurch wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

Wasn't being entirely serious about "sides".

But I agree, no-one should have to endure the kind of treatment being handed out to Skep Tickle, much less someone who has been as moderate as her, and who has been one of the main advocates of reasoned dialogue. While I had some hopes for that early on, I no longer believe the FC(n) [and their lickspittles] are capable of it. They have certainly declared their complete lack of interest in any form of dialogue, not just Nugent's.

sacha wrote:the Burma Shave jingle is my favourite, and did you have to point out PZ's creepy china doll hands, Concentrated? Here I was considering the dimensions of the penis on Justin-as-the-devil, and the thought of those hands made my vagina scream in terror.

Re penis size... not that I'm like obsessed or anything, heheh... but from what I've read, there is only one proven indicator that a guy's penis will be sizeable. Compare the length of their ring fingers with their index fingers.

The closest the index and ring fingers are to being the same length as each other, the more likely a large penis. The more difference in length between the index and ring fingers, the more likely that the guy's penis is small.

Sorry, I have no citation links, but it was blogged about a year or two ago and was based on some legit sounding study. Had to do with the level of testosterone also, if I'm remembering this correctly.

AnonymousCowherd wrote:Skep Tickle's comment at heathenhub plays down any involvement of people in the "dialogue".

Ah, ok, fair enough, I hadn't gotten around to reading that yet.

deLurch wrote:

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

It is not clear to me that any of the information obtained on Skep tickle was obtained through the dialog talks with Nugent.

acathode wrote:If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

If I am not mistaken, contracts are drawn up for speaking engagements such as this. Unless there is some clause in the contract that prohibits such behavior as a terminating factor, he may no longer have a choice in the matter.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, I don't want to see Nugent cancel any invitations, I want to see him speak out and condemn Benson's act of doxing one of the persons who participated in his peace talks, preferably before he lets the same Benson speak at a con he's organizing. Granted, chances are Ophelia would take such a statement as Nugent siding with the pit and therefore canceling the whole thing, but that'd be on her and not on him.

If she cannot act like an adult and accept legitimate criticism where legit criticism is due, and then do the adult thing and appolgize to Skep ticle for the bad behavior, then it should be her loss. Considering their recent outrage of Justicars "doxing" of Jen, even though he did everything he could to remove all information that could give away her address from her tweeted picture, none of them have anything remotely that would pass as a creditable defense for Ophelia gleefully giving out Scep ticle's first name while encouraging her readers to google the rest of the information.

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

Skep Tickle's comment at heathenhub plays down any involvement of people in the "dialogue".

There is no evidence it came from there, just that is was a possibility. Of course I doubt the source will ever be known.

Some people here know my real name and if it ever got out it would not bother me except that it is my choice when or if I reveal it or not. Bensons' complete lack of integrity coupled with a complete failure in critical thinking speaks volumes. Most of them have lost any trust I may have been willing to give. PMZ and Laden too. I do not think they realise how damaging this will be to them sooner or later.

It is a gross breach of confidentiality which would get someone kicked out of most professional organisations.

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.

That's why I refuse to ever follow any FftB link. I won't feed them even a single click.

I do really appreciate those that share the relevant crazy bits over here, though, otherwise I would never believe the twisted shit that comes out of them.

treestump wrote:

deLurch wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

Unfortunately, I think these people have always been there. Sanctimonious fucks who clump together and dictate to others what they should say and think "from now on, you have to refer to yourself as cisgendered" (fuck that). I dunno, but I suspect if you went back to ancient Rome, you'd find PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson shouting "Vestel Virgins are oppressed!" and they'd have followers. Sad, but even if PZ Myers crawls under a rock and fucks off (which I think he will in the next couple of years, people get bored eventually), some new Holy Avengers will appear to say "freeze peach! tone troll! mansplaining! I am offended at that!" and then another 5 years of "Rift" will happen. Ultimately, PZ etc are just shamelessly dishonest people, and until people bring actual libel charges against them they won't stop. I wish there was some way that Ron Lindsay could sue Myers for willfully trying to destroy his career. FtB would go under pretty fast if that happened.

In the UK Myers etc would have had thousands of writes on them by now. They had better be careful what they say in Ireland. I actually prefer the law to be as loose here as the US but it does indicate how seriously their behaiour is considered.

More fine nuanced thinking from the "with us or against us" brigade:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-558575

kellym
This is why it’s so vitally crucial that the leaders in the skeptical/secular movements unambiguously denounce the misogyny and harassment of the pit. DJ Grothe and Ron Lindsay have indicated their support for certain slymepitters, thus signaling that misogynist behavior is acceptable,

So if Lyndsay or Grothe indicate support for certain slympitters they are really saying that "misogynistic behavior is acceptable".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

"Perhaps I’m misreading you – are you trying to suggest that I’m a man? Cause no…not so much."

Anthony K
Well, then Lindsey doesn’t care what you have to say.

They never cease to amaze me.

Scented Nectar wrote:

sacha wrote:the Burma Shave jingle is my favourite, and did you have to point out PZ's creepy china doll hands, Concentrated? Here I was considering the dimensions of the penis on Justin-as-the-devil, and the thought of those hands made my vagina scream in terror.

Re penis size... not that I'm like obsessed or anything, heheh... but from what I've read, there is only one proven indicator that a guy's penis will be sizeable. Compare the length of their ring fingers with their index fingers.

The closest the index and ring fingers are to being the same length as each other, the more likely a large penis. The more difference in length between the index and ring fingers, the more likely that the guy's penis is small.

Sorry, I have no citation links, but it was blogged about a year or two ago and was based on some legit sounding study. Had to do with the level of testosterone also, if I'm remembering this correctly.

That sounds similar to an article I read a couple of years ago (sorry, no citation for that one either) in a popular science magazine while sitting in a doctor's waiting room. The article said that if a man's index finger and middle finger were the same length or the index finger was longer, there was a high probability that the man was homosexual. The funny part was I could always tell when someone else reading the magazine got to that article because they would stop and look at their fingers then glance around the room to see if anybody saw them do it.

By the way, the study you mention must be absolutely correct because my index and ring fingers are the same length. :dance:

jjbinx007 wrote:More fine nuanced thinking from the "with us or against us" brigade:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-558575

kellym
This is why it’s so vitally crucial that the leaders in the skeptical/secular movements unambiguously denounce the misogyny and harassment of the pit. DJ Grothe and Ron Lindsay have indicated their support for certain slymepitters, thus signaling that misogynist behavior is acceptable,

So if Lyndsay or Grothe indicate support for certain slympitters they are really saying that "misogynistic behavior is acceptable".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

"Perhaps I’m misreading you – are you trying to suggest that I’m a man? Cause no…not so much."

Anthony K
Well, then Lindsey doesn’t care what you have to say.

They never cease to amaze me.

Ironically, it's this behavior that brings people to the Pit or makes Lindsay speak out against using privilege to silence people.

In which Anthony K apologises for using the word "mangina"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-627852

I’m so sorry, CaitieCat. I apologise for contributing to your hurt.

I was being flip with a term that is commonly applied to me, PZ, and other men who support feminism; I would have been much more careful had I recalled that it’s also used to hurt transpeople. Thanks for the reminder, and I’ll be much more careful in the future.

Again, my apologies.

How strange. A day or two ago he was laying into a woman and referred to her as "whining", suggested she "take this load of fucking shit and jam it where the sun don’t fucking shine" or "shut your pie-hole", referred to Skep Tickle as "a sleazy fucking liar" who "uses her pseudonym to carry on the pit’s work of harassing Ophelia and other FtB bloggers", told a woman that "If you are a denizen of the pit, then you’re a piece of shit".

When she said "I’m sick and tired of the Pit and the FTB/Skepchick/A+ crowd all arguing that “Well they did it so why can’t we?”" Anthony responded with "fuck you and your ‘both sides do it’, asshole."

All this from one thread, directed to 2 different women.

But he begged for forgiveness when he used the word "mangina" because it might "hurt" transpeople. This man is a fucking lunatic.

jjbinx007 wrote:More fine nuanced thinking from the "with us or against us" brigade:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-558575

kellym
This is why it’s so vitally crucial that the leaders in the skeptical/secular movements unambiguously denounce the misogyny and harassment of the pit. DJ Grothe and Ron Lindsay have indicated their support for certain slymepitters, thus signaling that misogynist behavior is acceptable,

So if Lyndsay or Grothe indicate support for certain slympitters they are really saying that "misogynistic behavior is acceptable".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

"Perhaps I’m misreading you – are you trying to suggest that I’m a man? Cause no…not so much."

Anthony K
Well, then Lindsey doesn’t care what you have to say.

They never cease to amaze me.

It's simply petty politics of the extreme left and the extreme right. They have no interest in atheism or skepticism. They have just hijacked the words for their own aims and are trying to redefine them for their own dogma. That is why the dictionary definitions are rejected of course.

If they had a credible argument they would not need to resort to the disgusting tactics they use to smear opponents. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Julius Caesar did it. It's been done for thousands of years. They are two a penny demagogues with nothing new to say and certainly nothing which improves the human condition. The concepts they promote are old and stale as well as not being based on any credible social philosophy.

Something interesting - wonder what the FTB crowd will say about it...


In SheZow, a 12-year-old boy accidentally puts on a magic ring that turns him into a female superhero, known as SheZow. It's an excuse for lots of fish-out-of-water comedy and some personal growth.


http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18pas5s ... bigpic.jpg

take away line :

the main character Guy "fancies himself an extreme dude" and has his own macho catch phrase, "It's a GUY thing."

http://io9.com/gender-swapping-superher ... -510526967

sacha wrote:

Southern wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Ophie & Crew are STILL ragging on Joanne York for probably being skep tickle. Nothing will ever be enough.

Little they know that Skep Tickle is, in fact, Franc Hoggle, who is Victor Ivanoff, who is David Mabuse, who is Ophelia Benson.

The entirety of the Slymepit is the most elaborate POE in the history of the earth.

Whereas, of corse, FfTB is the biggest POS in the history of the world.

Mark Thomas wrote:

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 consent to nothing!

I appreciate the links, thank you. I've been reading up on elevatorgate - I was out of the country when that happened, too - trying to figure out what all the hubbub is about. Forgive my ignorance, this whole thing is more than a little baffling to me.

Mark, while I did't leave the country (USofA for those with global privilege :lol: ) for than a few weeks now and then, my experience was rather similar to yours. I simply got fed up with the clearly deteriorating situation at what later became FftB and walked away from the 'movement' almost completely. I re-engaged about nine months ago when the one blog I continued to occasionally follow was infected by the FftB ideology. After getting my dose of 'shut up and listen', I eventually found the Pyt (thanks, Al!) and became a bit of a regular.

The links above are crucial to understanding the history and purpose that define the ethos of the Pyt and could be considered required reading if you want to understand the how and why of this invaluable forum.

Welcome! Oh, and remember to Fuck Off!!

jjbinx007 wrote:In which Anthony K apologises for using the word "mangina"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-627852

I’m so sorry, CaitieCat. I apologise for contributing to your hurt.

I was being flip with a term that is commonly applied to me, PZ, and other men who support feminism; I would have been much more careful had I recalled that it’s also used to hurt transpeople. Thanks for the reminder, and I’ll be much more careful in the future.

Again, my apologies.

How strange. A day or two ago he was laying into a woman and referred to her as "whining", suggested she "take this load of fucking shit and jam it where the sun don’t fucking shine" or "shut your pie-hole", referred to Skep Tickle as "a sleazy fucking liar" who "uses her pseudonym to carry on the pit’s work of harassing Ophelia and other FtB bloggers", told a woman that "If you are a denizen of the pit, then you’re a piece of shit".

When she said "I’m sick and tired of the Pit and the FTB/Skepchick/A+ crowd all arguing that “Well they did it so why can’t we?”" Anthony responded with "fuck you and your ‘both sides do it’, asshole."

All this from one thread, directed to 2 different women.

But he begged for forgiveness when he used the word "mangina" because it might "hurt" transpeople. This man is a fucking lunatic.

I also find it incredible that they then claim they are 'decent people' Well, they are not in any stretch of the imagination decent people. That claim is demonstrably false.

In fact I would go further. Their complete lack of empathy means they are incapable of self examination or understanding of how they come across. They are also incapable of being proportional as they do not grasp the true impact of what they say. So they always overreact. They are just playing lip service to words they have memorised without understand what they mean or how it affects people they abuse. So to them the word 'mangina' is offensive yet 'misogynist' is not. However they use so many silly words with silly meanings they get caught out sometimes by reading from the 'unapproved' script as Anthony K did.

To us it seems complete bonkers. To them it seems entirely rational.

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

Channelling Neville Chamberlain...ouch.

I'm beginning to understand your frustration, and I do understand how my comments could be perceived as patronizing.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming we're all metaphorically on the same side and reconciliation is something everyone desires. Perhaps I'm also mistaken in assuming this to be a detour on the skeptical/atheist journey when perhaps this is really the destination for some.

And it appears that I'm trying to search for middle ground where none exists - a depressing thought which I don't think I'm ready to believe just yet.

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.)

Also

[youtube]uu5omXR9OX0[/youtube]

Skep tickle 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 added a long comment. Felt good.

The other shoe is dropping, I think. Skellett - who can in no sense be described as a Pitter - has crafted a wonderful post which can't be dismissed as easily as people *FLOOSH* the stuff here.

Liked your comment a lot too, Skeppers. BTW, let me know if you want me to change your account name... :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

Mark Thomas wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

Channelling Neville Chamberlain...ouch.

I'm beginning to understand your frustration, and I do understand how my comments could be perceived as patronizing.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming we're all metaphorically on the same side and reconciliation is something everyone desires. Perhaps I'm also mistaken in assuming this to be a detour on the skeptical/atheist journey when perhaps this is really the destination for some.

And it appears that I'm trying to search for middle ground where none exists - a depressing thought which I don't think I'm ready to believe just yet.

I don't think anyone is pretending there is a chance at reconciliation with the extremists from FtB etc. They have a political agenda, not an atheist of skeptic agenda, so there is no common ground. The purpose of any 'dialogue' is to find a common place to lay out the arguments for others to see. Nothing more or less. Also this is about stopping the extremists influencing the community well beyond their numbers through harassing and bullying. That is where the Slympit plays a crucial role.

But there already is a 'middle ground'. The vast majority of activates have no interest in this at all. I hope they can always be in a position to stay that way so they can get on with their normal activities that they want to do in the way they want to do it. But if they are alert to the dangers through sites such as this and any dialogue then they will be prepared for it if it happens. So I see all this as a form of inoculation.

deLurch wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:We really need to get Nugent on-side. Have you seen the traffic Atheist Ireland gets? That's like, one fifth of teh world!

I have no desire to get anyone on-side. There is plenty of grey area. I personally would be happy just to see everyone feeling free to speak their minds without fear of assaults on their employment or personal life and to be free of a lot of this heinous libel & slander they so freely band about.

He shoots, he misses!!!

(Go back and read the numbers in the image AC posted...)

Jack wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

Personally I hope that people make such a huge fuss over this, to such a degree that Nugent simply can't ignore addressing this before the Dublin conference. If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

Skep Tickle's comment at heathenhub plays down any involvement of people in the "dialogue".

There is no evidence it came from there, just that is was a possibility. Of course I doubt the source will ever be known.

Some people here know my real name and if it ever got out it would not bother me except that it is my choice when or if I reveal it or not. Bensons' complete lack of integrity coupled with a complete failure in critical thinking speaks volumes. Most of them have lost any trust I may have been willing to give. PMZ and Laden too. I do not think they realise how damaging this will be to them sooner or later.

It is a gross breach of confidentiality which would get someone kicked out of most professional organisations.

As far as I can piece together, the following information seems as close to the truth as we can figure out at present:

1. Skep tickle has previously commented on both Almost Diamonds and Butterflies and Wheels but using a different nym, Skeptixx.

2. She may have used the email that Ophelia contacted her with on both sites, when she commented as Skeptixx.

3. She didn't use either the name Skeptixx, or that email, recently when she left comments on Butterflies and Wheels.

4. Ophelia contacted her with the email address that was connected with the old comments made by skeptixx.

5. Ophelia used Skep tickles real name when addressing the comments on her blog.


For me it seems a step too far to say that the actual email address came directly from confidential information in Nugents talks.

It is also unnecessary. The information to link Skeptixx and Skeptickle together would have been held by anyone who had access to IP addresses of both nyms (which could be both Svan AND Benson.)
And if they also had the email address then that answers the source of that.

So Ophelia could have figured out Skeptickle/Skeptixx email address on her own with no outside help.

I think, however the more plausible story is that Ophelia slipped up here and there is a lot of rationalization for unethical behavior.
Even if Ophelia connected the dots herself she chose to partially reveal Skep tickles name - which almost immediately led to the full identification to be made.
I have no idea why people make the excuse that revealing part of a name is not doxxing. If that part of the puzzle is enough for people with malicious intent to use a google search to put the pieces together in a matter of seconds then it is little different to revealing the full name.
Ophelia knows this already after the Jesus and Mo debacle of last year.
To say "it's just a generic first name" is simply an argument from ignorance.

I'm guessing that information was shared between Ophelia and others that linked Skeptixx and Skep tickle, probably long before the recent comments, and that Ophelia responded using this information - and also upped the ante by using Skep tickles real name in her comment section.
Her action since then has been consistent with this action - initially trying to justify doxxing Skep tickle because she is on the wrong team, and later trying to say that it wasn't doxxing at all - she was responding to a sock puppet!
The idea of a serial nym being the same as a sock puppet is just silly. FTB commenters are frequently altering their nyms (JoshSpokesGay for example) or changing them outright, with no direct link (like 'Ullysses'/'Tis Himself').
Sock puppetry is usually defined as someone having two nyms at the same time that interact with each other in order to give the false impression of broad agreement (or disagreement) in the commenting group.
Having different nyms over a long period of time is not sock puppetry - if it was I guess almost all anonymous commenters are sock puppets because I doubt if everyone has stuck to the same nym throughout their use of the internettywebtubes.

Zenspace wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

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 consent to nothing!

I appreciate the links, thank you. I've been reading up on elevatorgate - I was out of the country when that happened, too - trying to figure out what all the hubbub is about. Forgive my ignorance, this whole thing is more than a little baffling to me.

Mark, while I did't leave the country (USofA for those with global privilege :lol: ) for than a few weeks now and then, my experience was rather similar to yours. I simply got fed up with the clearly deteriorating situation at what later became FftB and walked away from the 'movement' almost completely. I re-engaged about nine months ago when the one blog I continued to occasionally follow was infected by the FftB ideology. After getting my dose of 'shut up and listen', I eventually found the Pyt (thanks, Al!) and became a bit of a regular.

The links above are crucial to understanding the history and purpose that define the ethos of the Pyt and could be considered required reading if you want to understand the how and why of this invaluable forum.

Welcome! Oh, and remember to Fuck Off!!

Thank you - it is somewhat comforting to know that my experience isn't unique. Kinda feels like I've starting watching Lost in the middle of season 4 without understanding the elaborate backstory...I just hope it ends better.

deLurch wrote:

acathode wrote:If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

If I am not mistaken, contracts are drawn up for speaking engagements such as this. Unless there is some clause in the contract that prohibits such behavior as a terminating factor, he may no longer have a choice in the matter.

Ive never signed a contract for any of my speaking/debate engagements.


Re Skep tickle and 'sock puppets'--
There is a difference between using different handles and sock puppeting. I use, and have used, different handles over the course of time/different places/forums. I dont care when commentors change name on ERV.

The 'problem' is when someone, in the same thread, is using multiple handles to give the impression that lots of people support their position, or, just arguing with themselves for trolling. That is sock puppeting. Not changing your handle.

clownshoe wrote:Tim Skellett has written an open letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712

Wow! Skillet did his homework on that post. Well done! :clap:

Jack wrote: It's simply petty politics of the extreme left and the extreme right. They have no interest in atheism or skepticism. They have just hijacked the words for their own aims and are trying to redefine them for their own dogma. That is why the dictionary definitions are rejected of course.

It's important that they try to discredit and smear the current authority figures in the movement using whatever tactics necessary. First they went after Dawkins but I didn't speak out as I wasn't Dawkins. Then they went after Sam Harris but I didn't speak out as I wasn't Harris. Then they went after Kirby and ERV, Grothe and Hall, and Lindsay and Thunderf00t, and the man who could not grow a moustache to save his life, and they denounced them all as sexists and misogynists and, in some cases, racists. They dehumanised them by calling them cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers, and vermin and sub-human scum. They called upon their ranks to speak out against all anti-feminists, to always name names, and said that doxxing was fair game on those who were not on the side of righteousness. They invented AtheismPlus, and pretended it was about compassion, and women's rights, and skepticism, and said that if you were not for these things then you would be publicly shunned, and that you were a douchebag. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Words were redefined and dictionaries were deemed to be inadmissible as evidence. Thus Atheism was redefined as "Atheism is the radical notion that we should live our lives by the principles of reason and evidence." People who claimed it was simply NOT THEISM were publicly mocked and shunned and rounded upon by the savage horde.

Feminism was defined as "The radical notion that women are people". By this definition, almost everyone at the Slymepit were Feminists, but of course Feminism was redefined at will to mean something else whenever necessary.

"Harassment" now means "Someone on the internet disagrees me with me, and they have the gall to do it on a space where I cannot ban or block them". Of course, endless, repetitive blog posts about other people does not constitute harassment. It's criticism.

And thus, the toxic atmosphere began to slowly poison and strange the atheist and skeptic movement. Attention was taken away from worthwhile causes - mediums who continued to lie to grief-stricken people (for a fee of course) were now left alone, the planet continued to heat up as the misinformation campaigners were allowed to spread their falsehoods without challenge, human rights were breached in the name of religion both at home and in far away lands. Attention was drawn towards harassment policies at expensive conferences, and tacky ceramic jewellery with "Grrrrl power!" written upon them, and Fleuvogs. The more the Evil Doers tried to pushback, the more money was given to poor first world bloggers and vloggers to write copy-pasta blog entries, make Youtube videos about sexist computer games and buy copious quantities of lemming-themed hair dye.

While the compassionate and skeptical Atheism Plus movement were busy renouncing compassion and skepticism, some of the older white dudes were busy exposing fake bomb detectors, which had been responsible for the deaths of countless people in countries around the world. They had better watch out. The baboons are coming.

acathode wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:Skep Tickle's comment at heathenhub plays down any involvement of people in the "dialogue".

Ah, ok, fair enough, I hadn't gotten around to reading that yet.

deLurch wrote:

acathode wrote:I'm rather curious to how Nugent is going to react to this new turn of events. After all, it's his "peace talk" initiative that made Benson able to dox Skep tickle, so in some way, IMO, he shares some of the responsibility for the recent doxing, at least if he doesn't take a firm stance against Benson's disgusting actions.

It is not clear to me that any of the information obtained on Skep tickle was obtained through the dialog talks with Nugent.

acathode wrote:If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

If I am not mistaken, contracts are drawn up for speaking engagements such as this. Unless there is some clause in the contract that prohibits such behavior as a terminating factor, he may no longer have a choice in the matter.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, I don't want to see Nugent cancel any invitations, I want to see him speak out and condemn Benson's act of doxing one of the persons who participated in his peace talks, preferably before he lets the same Benson speak at a con he's organizing. Granted, chances are Ophelia would take such a statement as Nugent siding with the pit and therefore canceling the whole thing, but that'd be on her and not on him.

If she cannot act like an adult and accept legitimate criticism where legit criticism is due, and then do the adult thing and appolgize to Skep ticle for the bad behavior, then it should be her loss. Considering their recent outrage of Justicars "doxing" of Jen, even though he did everything he could to remove all information that could give away her address from her tweeted picture, none of them have anything remotely that would pass as a creditable defense for Ophelia gleefully giving out Scep ticle's first name while encouraging her readers to google the rest of the information.

Of course she can't handle criticism. None of them can, that's why the worked long and hard to lay the groundwork for "if you don't agree with us, you are a bad person who should not be listened to."

It's really an ad hominem of epic size and construction, and in its own perverted way, impressive. They've done a masterful job of learning what Scientology and the Pro-Life crowd have been teaching for decades now, and applied it, largely successfully, all over atheism and skepticism.

jjbinx007 wrote:In which Anthony K apologises for using the word "mangina"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-627852

I’m so sorry, CaitieCat. I apologise for contributing to your hurt.

I was being flip with a term that is commonly applied to me, PZ, and other men who support feminism; I would have been much more careful had I recalled that it’s also used to hurt transpeople. Thanks for the reminder, and I’ll be much more careful in the future.

Again, my apologies.

How strange. A day or two ago he was laying into a woman and referred to her as "whining", suggested she "take this load of fucking shit and jam it where the sun don’t fucking shine" or "shut your pie-hole", referred to Skep Tickle as "a sleazy fucking liar" who "uses her pseudonym to carry on the pit’s work of harassing Ophelia and other FtB bloggers", told a woman that "If you are a denizen of the pit, then you’re a piece of shit".

When she said "I’m sick and tired of the Pit and the FTB/Skepchick/A+ crowd all arguing that “Well they did it so why can’t we?”" Anthony responded with "fuck you and your ‘both sides do it’, asshole."

All this from one thread, directed to 2 different women.

But he begged for forgiveness when he used the word "mangina" because it might "hurt" transpeople. This man is a fucking lunatic.

No. He's a hypocrite. Lunatic gives him some vague form of out. This isn't a mental illness issue. This is an asshole issue. Brownian and the rest are not mentally ill, they are assholes. Or from my POV, Jerks. Assholes are occasionally cool. Jerks never are. They are jerks. They are deliberately, calculatingly hypocritical. It's literally an insult to those who are varying stages of mentally ill to lump them in with that lot of spoiled, immature, crying, hypocritical jerks.

treestump wrote:

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.

If I wanted to write a parody of Josh Spokesgay trying to infiltrate the slymepit, it would sound like this.

Good snark, but you might want to consider that I made no comment regarding your posts here. I did, however, follow the link provided out of curiosity, agreed with the sentiment expressed as well as the suggestion to send a letter to CFI and followed through on I what I found to be an excellent idea.

Have a nice day! :mrgreen:

Mark Thomas wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

Channelling Neville Chamberlain...ouch.

I'm beginning to understand your frustration, and I do understand how my comments could be perceived as patronizing.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming we're all metaphorically on the same side and reconciliation is something everyone desires. Perhaps I'm also mistaken in assuming this to be a detour on the skeptical/atheist journey when perhaps this is really the destination for some.

And it appears that I'm trying to search for middle ground where none exists - a depressing thought which I don't think I'm ready to believe just yet.

Do keep in mind that outside of a handful of websites, this idiocy doesn't exist. Here, some perspective:

https://dissentionisnothate.wordpress.c ... to-idiots/

Mark Thomas wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

Channelling Neville Chamberlain...ouch.

I'm beginning to understand your frustration, and I do understand how my comments could be perceived as patronizing.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming we're all metaphorically on the same side and reconciliation is something everyone desires. Perhaps I'm also mistaken in assuming this to be a detour on the skeptical/atheist journey when perhaps this is really the destination for some.

And it appears that I'm trying to search for middle ground where none exists - a depressing thought which I don't think I'm ready to believe just yet.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I'm fairly new to this place as well, and to be honest I used to be on the other "side" of things. So I've seen both sides of it, and I think I have a good perspective on this stuff. In reality, my positions/points of view/ways of thinking haven't changed one bit, even as the SJW (Social Justice Warrior) faction moves towards more and more tribalism.

But here's the secret. We ARE the middle ground. There are certain things that we disagree with when it comes to SJW-style feminism. We don't think that power dynamics are uni-directional. We don't think that men have all the blame (or all the benefit) for the gender inequalities that exist in our society. We don't think that misogyny...actual misogyny...is anywhere close to a problem in the skeptic community. But the "other side" that the SJW feminists claim that we are...that we just want women to shut up, that we think women are lesser people...simply isn't true. It simply doesn't exist.

Read the history. Read what happens when someone comes here with truly sexist, misogynistic views. They get thrown to the curb. (There's a nice thread somewhere else on the site of a pile-on of a TradCon who just won't let it go)

What I object to from the SJW feminists, and why I think they NEED to be critiqued, is that I object to their privilege claiming (and yes, it is PRIVILEGE in that they expect to be treated in a manner that is above how they treat other people), I object to their desire to "freeroll" everything in life. I object to their sexism. I object to the overly simplistic models that just blame everything on the "patriarchy", preventing them from every knowing two shits about anything they're trying to "fix".

I don't know if you're aware of this, but this is actually a much more cultural issue than just within the A/S community. Other communities, such as Reddit and Tumblr also see this conflict, and it plays out much the same way.

Look! Look! It's PZ/Canuck/Laden/Vacula suiting up for battle!!!!!!


[youtube]MQ5ziNOtoMU[/youtube]

Jack wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: those won't go a long way toward finding common ground either

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".

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.

Channelling Neville Chamberlain...ouch.

I'm beginning to understand your frustration, and I do understand how my comments could be perceived as patronizing.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming we're all metaphorically on the same side and reconciliation is something everyone desires. Perhaps I'm also mistaken in assuming this to be a detour on the skeptical/atheist journey when perhaps this is really the destination for some.

And it appears that I'm trying to search for middle ground where none exists - a depressing thought which I don't think I'm ready to believe just yet.

I don't think anyone is pretending there is a chance at reconciliation with the extremists from FtB etc. They have a political agenda, not an atheist of skeptic agenda, so there is no common ground. The purpose of any 'dialogue' is to find a common place to lay out the arguments for others to see. Nothing more or less. Also this is about stopping the extremists influencing the community well beyond their numbers through harassing and bullying. That is where the Slympit plays a crucial role.

But there already is a 'middle ground'. The vast majority of activates have no interest in this at all. I hope they can always be in a position to stay that way so they can get on with their normal activities that they want to do in the way they want to do it. But if they are alert to the dangers through sites such as this and any dialogue then they will be prepared for it if it happens. So I see all this as a form of inoculation.

They do *not* have a political agenda.

They use political agendas (feminism, racial diversity, environmentalism) as a shield to protect their PERSONAL AGENDAS from criticism.

If they had a political agenda (feminism, racial diversity, environmentalism), that would be fine. The vast majority of the commentors here and at the old ERV sites have no problem with treating everyone as individuals, giving everyone their due (for good behaviors and bad). Many here also try to do their best for the environment, for animals. If it were a genuine political agenda there wouldnt be a problem.

But its a battle of ego, nothing more.

I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

rayshul wrote:I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

I don't think that there can be a "middle ground" since the FtB group thrives on and defines itself through drama and conflict. If you met them halfway they would just move back so there could be more shouting and pearl clutching.

All skepticism and no anger make PZ a dull boy. He's addicted to adrenaline.

Ericb wrote:

rayshul wrote:I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

I don't think that there can be a "middle ground" since the FtB group thrives on and defines itself through drama and conflict. If you met them halfway they would just move back so there could be more shouting and pearl clutching.

Which is exactly what happened with the XMRV fiasco. Vincent Racaniello and I had a good cop/bad cop thing going, where I was going after the perps *very* aggressively, and Vincent was being gentle about it (in my opinion, bending over backwards to be 'even' and 'fair' when the perps in no way deserved it).

The XMRV Crew went after me with the FfTB stunts (contacting school, contacting advisors, not-so-vague threats) but they tolerated Vincent... until he posted a shirt that said 'XMRV Negative', from a Science article.

A T-shirt.

Not even for sale, just a generic stock image of a guy in a shirt that says 'XMRV negative'.

Then they went after him (nice guy) with all the aggression they went after me (bad guy).

No middle ground with crazy.

ERV wrote:

Ericb wrote:

rayshul wrote:I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

I don't think that there can be a "middle ground" since the FtB group thrives on and defines itself through drama and conflict. If you met them halfway they would just move back so there could be more shouting and pearl clutching.

Which is exactly what happened with the XMRV fiasco. Vincent Racaniello and I had a good cop/bad cop thing going, where I was going after the perps *very* aggressively, and Vincent was being gentle about it (in my opinion, bending over backwards to be 'even' and 'fair' when the perps in no way deserved it).

The XMRV Crew went after me with the FfTB stunts (contacting school, contacting advisors, not-so-vague threats) but they tolerated Vincent... until he posted a shirt that said 'XMRV Negative', from a Science article.

A T-shirt.

Not even for sale, just a generic stock image of a guy in a shirt that says 'XMRV negative'.

Then they went after him (nice guy) with all the aggression they went after me (bad guy).

No middle ground with crazy.

I have no problem with sitting down and talking with these people...

...as long as it looks like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ima ... 00x467.jpg

Gefan wrote:

ERV wrote:

Ericb wrote:

rayshul wrote:I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

I don't think that there can be a "middle ground" since the FtB group thrives on and defines itself through drama and conflict. If you met them halfway they would just move back so there could be more shouting and pearl clutching.

Which is exactly what happened with the XMRV fiasco. Vincent Racaniello and I had a good cop/bad cop thing going, where I was going after the perps *very* aggressively, and Vincent was being gentle about it (in my opinion, bending over backwards to be 'even' and 'fair' when the perps in no way deserved it).

The XMRV Crew went after me with the FfTB stunts (contacting school, contacting advisors, not-so-vague threats) but they tolerated Vincent... until he posted a shirt that said 'XMRV Negative', from a Science article.

A T-shirt.

Not even for sale, just a generic stock image of a guy in a shirt that says 'XMRV negative'.

Then they went after him (nice guy) with all the aggression they went after me (bad guy).

No middle ground with crazy.

I have no problem with sitting down and talking with these people...

...as long as it looks like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ima ... 00x467.jpg

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images ... artoon.jpg

ERV wrote:

Ericb wrote:

rayshul wrote:I don't think there's a middle ground. Sorry.

I don't think that there can be a "middle ground" since the FtB group thrives on and defines itself through drama and conflict. If you met them halfway they would just move back so there could be more shouting and pearl clutching.

Which is exactly what happened with the XMRV fiasco. Vincent Racaniello and I had a good cop/bad cop thing going, where I was going after the perps *very* aggressively, and Vincent was being gentle about it (in my opinion, bending over backwards to be 'even' and 'fair' when the perps in no way deserved it).

The XMRV Crew went after me with the FfTB stunts (contacting school, contacting advisors, not-so-vague threats) but they tolerated Vincent... until he posted a shirt that said 'XMRV Negative', from a Science article.

A T-shirt.

Not even for sale, just a generic stock image of a guy in a shirt that says 'XMRV negative'.

Then they went after him (nice guy) with all the aggression they went after me (bad guy).

No middle ground with crazy.

Lest we forget:

http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a60 ... bf2071.jpg

This may be of some help to those who aren't fully familiar with the current ructions.


http://i.imgur.com/nMD64Bd.png

ERV wrote:

deLurch wrote:

acathode wrote:If Nugent decide to give Ophelia a free pass for this and fly her in without a word of criticism, that's in itself pretty fucking disgusting behavior of him, and he deserves to be called out on it as well.

If I am not mistaken, contracts are drawn up for speaking engagements such as this. Unless there is some clause in the contract that prohibits such behavior as a terminating factor, he may no longer have a choice in the matter.

Ive never signed a contract for any of my speaking/debate engagements.


Re Skep tickle and 'sock puppets'--
There is a difference between using different handles and sock puppeting. I use, and have used, different handles over the course of time/different places/forums. I dont care when commentors change name on ERV.

The 'problem' is when someone, in the same thread, is using multiple handles to give the impression that lots of people support their position, or, just arguing with themselves for trolling. That is sock puppeting. Not changing your handle.

You didn't get the memo? The definition of sock puppets was changed quite a few months ago, during Curiosity-gate, so that the banning of Dillahunty could be justified.... and now don't try dragging out that old dictionary, by now you should be well aware of that we also changed the definition of "lose" so that anyone who tried arguing the meaning of a word by using a dictionary automatically lost the debate!

.... btw, did you get the other memo about how we changed the definition to harassment, so that now even owning a dictionary constitutes harassment? After all, they are just FULL of triggering words and wrong definitions! If you own one, you really ought to do the sensible thing and burn it!

Cunt of Personality wrote:This may be of some help to those who aren't fully familiar with the current ructions.


http://i.imgur.com/nMD64Bd.png

Sublime