Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Dick Strawkins]

Initially, when I read the reasoning behind their flounce, that they couldn't get certain favored guests due to CFIs action, it seemed they were following in the footsteps of the mainstream media's obsessive pandering to preserve "access".

When you add Adam Isaak's relationship with Rebecca Watson, it's still access.

Maybe someone should point out all the supposedly stand-alone feminist women, like Dillahunty's wife, Beth Presswood, who seem to have "networked" in the community, if not gotten their gigs outright, the "old fashioned way".

I used to listen to 'The Atheist Experience' podcast a few years ago, as a kind of guilty pleasure. You never really learn much from listening to Dillahunty and friends, but it was sort of funny hearing them destroy the arguments of some really stoooopid Christians who would ring in and try to use some hilarious argument for the existence of Jeebus.

Well, it was funny, right up until the moment when Dillahunty admitted that many of these calls were fake.
His wife, Beth Presswood, would ring in and pretend to be a fundie, just to mock the religious, and Dillahunty would play along.
The 'stoopid fundie' calls were always the most popular parts of the show and were uploaded youtube to attract new subscribers.
Real drama, pretend drama, it doesn't matter.
Drama of any kind gets you attention.

[Dave2]

Poor Edward Gemmer, even here he can't seem to get a discussion going about the American Atheist discrimination lawsuit.

I'm a little irritated that a lot of the commentators on FtB have refused to take news of the lawsuit seriously and that their reasons for doing so seem to be more about who broke the news than the news itself.

But to be fair, until more information comes to light - what is there to say?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Initially, when I read the reasoning behind their flounce, that they couldn't get certain favored guests due to CFIs action, it seemed they were following in the footsteps of the mainstream media's obsessive pandering to preserve "access".

When you add Adam Isaak's relationship with Rebecca Watson, it's still access.

Maybe someone should point out all the supposedly stand-alone feminist women, like Dillahunty's wife, Beth Presswood, who seem to have "networked" in the community, if not gotten their gigs outright, the "old fashioned way".

I used to listen to 'The Atheist Experience' podcast a few years ago, as a kind of guilty pleasure. You never really learn much from listening to Dillahunty and friends, but it was sort of funny hearing them destroy the arguments of some really stoooopid Christians who would ring in and try to use some hilarious argument for the existence of Jeebus.

Well, it was funny, right up until the moment when Dillahunty admitted that many of these calls were fake.
His wife, Beth Presswood, would ring in and pretend to be a fundie, just to mock the religious, and Dillahunty would play along.
The 'stoopid fundie' calls were always the most popular parts of the show and were uploaded youtube to attract new subscribers.
Real drama, pretend drama, it doesn't matter.
Drama of any kind gets you attention.

O_o

Really?!? Any sources for that? Dillahunty was already flying low on my approval radar, but this would take him down so far even a F-117 flying at less than 500ft would show more signature than he does.

[Kareem]

I used to listen to 'The Atheist Experience' podcast a few years ago, as a kind of guilty pleasure. You never really learn much from listening to Dillahunty and friends, but it was sort of funny hearing them destroy the arguments of some really stoooopid Christians who would ring in and try to use some hilarious argument for the existence of Jeebus.

Well, it was funny, right up until the moment when Dillahunty admitted that many of these calls were fake.
His wife, Beth Presswood, would ring in and pretend to be a fundie, just to mock the religious, and Dillahunty would play along.
The 'stoopid fundie' calls were always the most popular parts of the show and were uploaded youtube to attract new subscribers.
Real drama, pretend drama, it doesn't matter.
Drama of any kind gets you attention.

I thought that was a one off thing, for a April Fools show.

[LurkerPerson]

I don't think it's so much about who broke the news, that's just an easy out to avoid discussion. The real crux is that the target of the lawsuit is someone who recently sided with them in their pointless, vaccuous drama-filled argument. If it had been Ron Lindsay on the end of that accusation...could you even begin to imagine the response, the renergized calls for his head?

[Mykeru]

Initially, when I read the reasoning behind their flounce, that they couldn't get certain favored guests due to CFIs action, it seemed they were following in the footsteps of the mainstream media's obsessive pandering to preserve "access".

When you add Adam Isaak's relationship with Rebecca Watson, it's still access.

Maybe someone should point out all the supposedly stand-alone feminist women, like Dillahunty's wife, Beth Presswood, who seem to have "networked" in the community, if not gotten their gigs outright, the "old fashioned way".

I used to listen to 'The Atheist Experience' podcast a few years ago, as a kind of guilty pleasure. You never really learn much from listening to Dillahunty and friends, but it was sort of funny hearing them destroy the arguments of some really stoooopid Christians who would ring in and try to use some hilarious argument for the existence of Jeebus.

Well, it was funny, right up until the moment when Dillahunty admitted that many of these calls were fake.
His wife, Beth Presswood, would ring in and pretend to be a fundie, just to mock the religious, and Dillahunty would play along.
The 'stoopid fundie' calls were always the most popular parts of the show and were uploaded youtube to attract new subscribers.
Real drama, pretend drama, it doesn't matter.
Drama of any kind gets you attention.

Well, as I understand it, Presswood's introduction to Dillahunty was to call in as a POE, even though that was supposedly strictly forbidden. Presswood was kind of a groupie so taken with it all that she was willing t fuck Matt Dillahunty, I am unaware this was an ongoing thing.

Where did Dillahunty admit this? Or are you talking about the one show where Presswood first guest hosted that they revisited her POE call?

[Dick Strawkins]

Poor Edward Gemmer, even here he can't seem to get a discussion going about the American Atheist discrimination lawsuit.

I'm a little irritated that a lot of the commentators on FtB have refused to take news of the lawsuit seriously and that their reasons for doing so seem to be more about who broke the news than the news itself.

But to be fair, until more information comes to light - what is there to say?

There is very little we can say except to point out that Silverman's words to Vacula fly in the face of his reaction to AJ Johnson's claims.

David Silverman's comparison of the slymepit to the KKK is also a worrying sentiment from someone who supposedly takes action against racism seriously.
One of the reasons why 'Godwinning' is frowned upon is that it belittles the genocide of the holocaust by comparing it to almost anything else. The KKK were/are a religious racial terrorist group who have been responsible for large numbers of murders, violent attacks and destruction of property. To compare that to even the worst of the slymepit (crappy photoshops? fatty jokes?) is not only nonsense, but reveals that Silverman is prepared to discount the real fear many have for the KKK, so long as he can score a cheap point against the opponents of his FTB allies.

[LurkerPerson]

To clarify, I would excuse the Pit slightly more for the lack of chatter on the story itself. This forum is almost entirely dedicated to mocking and pointing out the hypocrisy of a particular website and the clique of people associated with it. There isn't much more to say except "oh look, more hipocrisy from them" in this case. The whole FTB group and their supporters however are supposedly all about this sort of thing. This is the first real, actionable, LEGAL event of discrimination/harassment against not only a woman, but a black woman, in an atheist organization since...a long time? I wouldn't know, but this seems pretty rare to me. Certainly much more real than elevator and dongle gates or all those other online dramas. I don't understand how they aren't all over it with the same fanaticism and zealotry they displayed in those cases. Suddenly it's all about caution, skepticism and handling with kid gloves.

[Dick Strawkins]

Initially, when I read the reasoning behind their flounce, that they couldn't get certain favored guests due to CFIs action, it seemed they were following in the footsteps of the mainstream media's obsessive pandering to preserve "access".

When you add Adam Isaak's relationship with Rebecca Watson, it's still access.

Maybe someone should point out all the supposedly stand-alone feminist women, like Dillahunty's wife, Beth Presswood, who seem to have "networked" in the community, if not gotten their gigs outright, the "old fashioned way".

I used to listen to 'The Atheist Experience' podcast a few years ago, as a kind of guilty pleasure. You never really learn much from listening to Dillahunty and friends, but it was sort of funny hearing them destroy the arguments of some really stoooopid Christians who would ring in and try to use some hilarious argument for the existence of Jeebus.

Well, it was funny, right up until the moment when Dillahunty admitted that many of these calls were fake.
His wife, Beth Presswood, would ring in and pretend to be a fundie, just to mock the religious, and Dillahunty would play along.
The 'stoopid fundie' calls were always the most popular parts of the show and were uploaded youtube to attract new subscribers.
Real drama, pretend drama, it doesn't matter.
Drama of any kind gets you attention.

Well, as I understand it, Presswood's introduction to Dillahunty was to call in as a POE, even though that was supposedly strictly forbidden. Presswood was kind of a groupie so taken with it all that she was willing t fuck Matt Dillahunty, I am unaware this was an ongoing thing.

Where did Dillahunty admit this? Or are you talking about the one show where Presswood first guest hosted that they revisited her POE call?

I remember that show, but I got the distinct impression that she claimed to have called in on several occasions, and that Dillahunty knew of this - although perhaps not the first occasion. I'm not sure they were actually forbidding these sorts of prank calls in those days. I think that rule appeared much more recently.
I'll admit my memory could be mistaken - it's been a few years since I listened - but my memory is that there was something extremely fishy about the scenario they admitted.

[Tribble]

Reasons to post under guest:


[*]It's a long and honored internet tradition going back to slashdot[/*]

Not really. Even on Slashdot, psuedo-anonymous is the traditional way to identify yourself if you're trying to have some type of conversation or argument. Not 'Anonymous Coward " which is generally used for one-off type of posts for people who don't have the guts to stand by what they write.

[*]It helps focus on the argument, not the person that said it[/*]
[*]In an age of government spying, it makes it just a bit harder for people to track others[/*]

Mostly it gets you ignored/labeled as a 'troll' because telling one 'guest' (or Anonymous Coward) from another is impossible and you can't tell who the fuck you're arguing with. However, the government just subpoenas the records and traces you back. So, you're not protected from the government, but you are excluding yourself from a great many posters who aren't interested in trying sort your 'wheat' from all the all other guest 'chaff.'

[*]It makes it easier to avoid the flamewars and middle school drama that pervades this place, the Mykeru / Welch temper tantrums, crap like that that suck the soul out of the pit and show the pit ain't a whole lot better than the fftb assholes, probably just the same but in the outgroup[/*]

And yet you start one...

[*]It makes it harder to post, which means most comments I'd like to make are not made, which believe me, helps you and me. [/*]

Oh. I just use self control. You'd be surprised at the posts I write and then delete or substantially edit. Probably 50%.

[*]It pisses off the anal retentive control freaks that somehow think they are regulars and own the place and get offended because they view anonymity as some grave offense to them or threat to their stature.[/*]

Seems to be a product of your imagination. I haven't noticed anyone 'owning' this board. There are some dicks. But we can all be dicks, or cunts, at times.

Basically if the admin of a forum makes anonymity an option, people will use that, and that stick up your ass should be directed at the admin, not at the people.

I haven't seen any abuse of anonymous commenting here, no spam, no threats, no libel, no doxing, so truly, y'all pull your heads out of your asses cause your whinges smell like your asses because that's where your heads are. Up your asses.

So, the person who cherishes Internet traditions (while not getting them right) and wants to avoid flame wars (but starts one) and tells us that being a guest helps keep him from making asshole posts makes an asshole post.

I think you do it because people think you're an ass and have filtered you. So the only way you can be the ass you choose to be is to be anonymous so we can't filter you.


FWIW, I passed your post the first time. Had someone else not responded, I wouldn't have read it or responded because when I see 'Guest' I just move along. So even your free-floating ass-hatery is generally ignored unless someone else responds.

[Dave2]

I don't think it's so much about who broke the news, that's just an easy out to avoid discussion. The real crux is that the target of the lawsuit is someone who recently sided with them in their pointless, vaccuous drama-filled argument. If it had been Ron Lindsay on the end of that accusation...could you even begin to imagine the response, the renergized calls for his head?

I'm sure there would be - but presumably the reason that they aren't gunning for Silverman is that he has yet to earn their ire and the accusations of insensitivity regarding race at AA are only accusations at the present time. If something conclusively damning comes out of the lawsuit and Silverman makes no apology - well, then they will be clearly operating on double standards ... again.

But until then they will always be able to point out that Ron's words and actions are public record, whilst whatever AA have done or didn't do is a matter of investigation and debate.

I think they acted out of line in regard to Ron and that Ron did nothing wrong beyond (at worst) misjudge a mood - but the fact is there isn't any contention about what Ron did.

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't think it's so much about who broke the news, that's just an easy out to avoid discussion. The real crux is that the target of the lawsuit is someone who recently sided with them in their pointless, vaccuous drama-filled argument. If it had been Ron Lindsay on the end of that accusation...could you even begin to imagine the response, the renergized calls for his head?

I'm sure there would be - but presumably the reason that they aren't gunning for Silverman is that he has yet to earn their ire and the accusations of insensitivity regarding race at AA are only accusations at the present time. If something conclusively damning comes out of the lawsuit and Silverman makes no apology - well, then they will be clearly operating on double standards ... again.

But until then they will always be able to point out that Ron's words and actions are public record, whilst whatever AA have done or didn't do is a matter of investigation and debate.

I think they acted out of line in regard to Ron and that Ron did nothing wrong beyond (at worst) misjudge a mood - but the fact is there isn't any contention about what Ron did.

I think many of us assume that IF, instead of American Atheists, it was CFI that suddenly had a racial discrimination lawsuit launched against them, the response from FTB and their sycophantic commenting herd would be very different.
But that is really just speculation.
"If this happened, you would do that!" is not a good argument to make.

Their silence is interesting, but it's hard to complain about since silence on a legal matter prior to court proceedings is the judicious thing to do (Zinna Jones, please take note!)

[LurkerPerson]

How do you people feel about "pseudo-anonymous"? I haven't registered and probably won't, because as my nick implies I mostly lurk. But when I do feel compelled to post I do it with an identifiable nick. I've seen a couple of other people doing the same thing. I think it agrees with common internet etiquette.
If all else fails everyone has writing tics or a particular style. I can differentiate some of the plain "Guest" posts, or at least I think so.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I will pass on any judgement regarding AA for now. Not enough info to make up my mind. Either outcomes would be interesting to follow, SJW-wise.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

How do you people feel about "pseudo-anonymous"? I haven't registered and probably won't, because as my nick implies I mostly lurk. But when I do feel compelled to post I do it with an identifiable nick. I've seen a couple of other people doing the same thing. I think it agrees with common internet etiquette.
If all else fails everyone has writing tics or a particular style. I can differentiate some of the plain "Guest" posts, or at least I think so.

*shrugs*

Whatever floats your boat. I don't mind. Others' Milleage May Vary.

[Dave2]

There is very little we can say except to point out that Silverman's words to Vacula fly in the face of his reaction to AJ Johnson's claims.

We can't even do that - because we don't know what AJ and DS have said to one another.

It certainly looks suspicious - but until we know more it doesn't demonstrate anything much at all. People are wise to - as Stephanie says - watch and wait.

This isn't to say I don't find Silverman both slimy and intemperate - I do - but that's just a matter of impression in lieu of learning more about what he and his organisation are like behind closed doors.

David Silverman's comparison of the slymepit to the KKK is also a worrying sentiment from someone who supposedly takes action against racism seriously.

Well I would much rather people didn't make poor analogies - but I think to take this tack is to hang too much on a poor analogy.

He was just saying "let's compare your willingness to appear alongside stuff I find distasteful with a really stark example".

It was rubbish, I thought - as my willingness to post here hopefully demonstrates - but it wasn't so much comparing the SP with the KKK as it was asking Justin where the line was in terms of associating with things he himself didn't see as acceptable.

Now as it was Justin didn't have a good answer for him - which allowed him to run rampant with his KKKomparison. Justin should have said what you sort of did - that the SP allows people to speak their minds when most venues that cover this sort of stuff don't, and then does the odd photoshop or bit of heated bitching compare to a lynch mob?

[Dick Strawkins]

How do you people feel about "pseudo-anonymous"? I haven't registered and probably won't, because as my nick implies I mostly lurk. But when I do feel compelled to post I do it with an identifiable nick. I've seen a couple of other people doing the same thing. I think it agrees with common internet etiquette.
If all else fails everyone has writing tics or a particular style. I can differentiate some of the plain "Guest" posts, or at least I think so.

I think that is OK for the occasional poster.
If you are going to be commenting frequently, however, having a login username gives others the option of putting you on ignore - something that can be really useful, or even essential for particularly annoying posters.

[JackSkeptic]

To clarify, I would excuse the Pit slightly more for the lack of chatter on the story itself. This forum is almost entirely dedicated to mocking and pointing out the hypocrisy of a particular website and the clique of people associated with it. There isn't much more to say except "oh look, more hipocrisy from them" in this case. The whole FTB group and their supporters however are supposedly all about this sort of thing. This is the first real, actionable, LEGAL event of discrimination/harassment against not only a woman, but a black woman, in an atheist organization since...a long time? I wouldn't know, but this seems pretty rare to me. Certainly much more real than elevator and dongle gates or all those other online dramas. I don't understand how they aren't all over it with the same fanaticism and zealotry they displayed in those cases. Suddenly it's all about caution, skepticism and handling with kid gloves.

Their usual tactic is to make stuff up to smear people with. Over time their smears become 'fact' which they use to build more smears. Eventually what they say bears no relationship with reality, assuming it ever did. A good example is how JV is portrayed although I do agree with those who say he puts his foot in it constantly. The other obvious example is the Slympit itself. People like J B Eberhard on the Thinking Atheist broadcast of 25th June (which I really enjoyed) has clearly bought full into the 'Slympitters are evil' trope even though he otherwise seemed to agree with the very reason we are here. That shows how damaging and effective the propaganda is from FtB et al.

However they are not stupid enough to try that with someone who may well throw a law suit at them. In the UK the legal system for libel is a lot tighter and hate talk is taken very seriously. A lot of what FtB say could attract a visit from the police or a letter from a solicitor. They abuse the very freedom of speech they like to deride.

[Dave2]

To clarify, I would excuse the Pit slightly more for the lack of chatter on the story itself. This forum is almost entirely dedicated to mocking and pointing out the hypocrisy of a particular website and the clique of people associated with it. There isn't much more to say except "oh look, more hipocrisy from them" in this case. The whole FTB group and their supporters however are supposedly all about this sort of thing. This is the first real, actionable, LEGAL event of discrimination/harassment against not only a woman, but a black woman, in an atheist organization since...a long time? I wouldn't know, but this seems pretty rare to me. Certainly much more real than elevator and dongle gates or all those other online dramas. I don't understand how they aren't all over it with the same fanaticism and zealotry they displayed in those cases. Suddenly it's all about caution, skepticism and handling with kid gloves.

Easy. Because A) he's a mate and B) nothing to see as of yet.

[Zenspace]

I don't think it's so much about who broke the news, that's just an easy out to avoid discussion. The real crux is that the target of the lawsuit is someone who recently sided with them in their pointless, vaccuous drama-filled argument. If it had been Ron Lindsay on the end of that accusation...could you even begin to imagine the response, the renergized calls for his head?

Bingo. The FC(n) have really begun to realize that they are being slowly but surely marginalized within their own so-called community. AA is one of the few major organizations that still openly support and associate with them and they are going to do everything they can to play down and ignore the suit that had the bad form to show up right after the relationship went public via Silverman's piss show. I'll bet they had a collective shit on their back channel when the suit was publicized right after Silverman basically made a an open and public commitment to the FC(n). Their collective High G about face on Lindsay is a symptom of the same realization. They are running out of people and organizations to attack and it suddenly dawned on them what the natural result of that course is.

I'm really hoping CFI is just playing a smart game here and will quietly stop cease any and all formal relations with the FC(n). Interestingly, I read a thread on Barbara Drescher's FB page a couple of days ago where she and Stangroom were discussing that both had independently warned Lindsay that a engaging with FftB/Skepchick was a really bad idea, but Lindsay chose to do it anyway and is now paying the price.

[Scented Nectar]

Cruise/Marcotte do have uncanny facial similarity. Note, I don't mean they look the same...but there's something there.

It's the boat-load of crazy-cultist they share.

This calls for one of those morphing gif thingies. Which sadly I have no idea how to do.

Pausing my Pit reading to do this...

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/t ... rcotte.gif

Strangely (and not on purpose), the in-between images of them look a bit like Surly Amy!

Thank you to whoever mentioned paint.net and the colormatch add-on a while back.

[JackSkeptic]

Have you asked him? I expect he might say that that was his old un-re-educated self before he had seen the errors of his ways, had seen the light of True Feminism ™. At least as far as his “it works, bitches” comment is concerned.

But that doesn’t mean that he isn’t entitled to think that those who haven’t been similarly “enlightened” and who use such words are guilty of misogyny. And you and I are entitled to think, as I at least do, that he has his head well up his ass because there’s no empirical justification for his argument by which he makes that judgement.

So he's entitled to think that the 'unenlightened' are guilty of misogyny and yet somehow he was not a misogynist before his enlightenment? Don't forget that he was always a feminist. Further, how can he reserve such harsh judgement for the 'unenlightened' when in accordance with your defence above it is feasibly just a matter of timing and perspective, rather than a character issue, that separates him from the 'unenlightened'.

Those might well be reasonable questions to put to him the next time you see him or want to tweet him: I’ll readily agree that he’s arrogant and judgemental, and I think he’s very badly mistaken on a number of issues, notably the whole concept of “splash damage”. Here’s my own contribution on a related point that was raised here earlier:

However, I think none of that is particularly relevant to the question that started this whole sequence of comments, i.e., whether he can justifiably be called hypocritical for a series of very specific and well-defined actions in the past that took place well before he had even articulated a judgement – however erroneous or misguided – that such actions were ethically immoral and beyond the pale.

It is obvious some of his behaviour was ethically immoral and beyond the pale. Only a Sociopath wouldn't get that. To suddenly go all holier than though like a born again Christian is sickening.

[ERV]

For the record, I dont actually believe Mooney left POI for Mother Jones Just Because Of Ron.

He and Sheril pulled this same stunt with The Intersection/leaving SciBlogs. They had already organized the shift, as many bloggers had already done, and it wasnt until after it was set they were all "WE ARE LEAVING BECAUSE OF PZ MYERS!!!!!!"

No, they wanted to move their blog. It was just 'cute' to blame it on Myers later for internet points.

Likewise, Mooney has always fancied himself A Very Important Individual. As someone already stated, compare the traffic stats of Mother Jones vs CFI. Im pretty sure hes been wanting to move for a while, but Ron is just a handy scape-goat.

Srsly, hes done this before.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Strangely (and not on purpose), the in-between images of them look a bit like Surly Amy!

Thank you to whoever mentioned paint.net and the colormatch add-on a while back.

Girl, don't do that!

I'll never see War of the Worlds the same way again...

[Dave2]

I'm really hoping CFI is just playing a smart game here and will quietly stop cease any and all formal relations with the FC(n). Interestingly, I read a thread on Barbara Drescher's FB page a couple of days ago where she and Stangroom were discussing that both had independently warned Lindsay that a engaging with FftB/Skepchick was a really bad idea, but Lindsay chose to do it anyway and is now paying the price.

Well then I repeat that I think the positive thing to do is encourage some female public speakers who have something to say that runs against the narrative pushed by FtB to contact CFI and flag up their interest in having their say at a future WiS.

Otherwise the ball is just handed back to FtB if and when another WiS is announced.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

For the record, I dont actually believe Mooney left POI for Mother Jones Just Because Of Ron.

He and Sheril pulled this same stunt with The Intersection/leaving SciBlogs. They had already organized the shift, as many bloggers had already done, and it wasnt until after it was set they were all "WE ARE LEAVING BECAUSE OF PZ MYERS!!!!!!"

No, they wanted to move their blog. It was just 'cute' to blame it on Myers later for internet points.

Likewise, Mooney has always fancied himself A Very Important Individual. As someone already stated, compare the traffic stats of Mother Jones vs CFI. Im pretty sure hes been wanting to move for a while, but Ron is just a handy scape-goat.

Srsly, hes done this before.

I'd LOVE to be a fly on that wall!

[Tribble]

How do you people feel about "pseudo-anonymous"? I haven't registered and probably won't, because as my nick implies I mostly lurk. But when I do feel compelled to post I do it with an identifiable nick. I've seen a couple of other people doing the same thing. I think it agrees with common internet etiquette.
If all else fails everyone has writing tics or a particular style. I can differentiate some of the plain "Guest" posts, or at least I think so.

I don't register at every board I post as many of them allow me to type in my psuedo-anon handle and so I do. I'm assuming that's what you do here and that's fine for me. You're the one at risk of having someone log in and say stupid shit under your non-protected name.

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't think it's so much about who broke the news, that's just an easy out to avoid discussion. The real crux is that the target of the lawsuit is someone who recently sided with them in their pointless, vaccuous drama-filled argument. If it had been Ron Lindsay on the end of that accusation...could you even begin to imagine the response, the renergized calls for his head?

Bingo. The FC(n) have really begun to realize that they are being slowly but surely marginalized within their own so-called community. AA is one of the few major organizations that still openly support and associate with them and they are going to do everything they can to play down and ignore the suit that had the bad form to show up right after the relationship went public via Silverman's piss show. I'll bet they had a collective shit on their back channel when the suit was publicized right after Silverman basically made a an open and public commitment to the FC(n). Their collective High G about face on Lindsay is a symptom of the same realization. They are running out of people and organizations to attack and it suddenly dawned on them what the natural result of that course is.

I'm really hoping CFI is just playing a smart game here and will quietly stop cease any and all formal relations with the FC(n). Interestingly, I read a thread on Barbara Drescher's FB page a couple of days ago where she and Stangroom were discussing that both had independently warned Lindsay that a engaging with FftB/Skepchick was a really bad idea, but Lindsay chose to do it anyway and is now paying the price.

I noticed that one of the current demands of Lindsay is that he commits to funding a WISC3 "organized by Melody Hensley".
It is blatantly obvious to everyone that Hensley is not the person who should be running such an event. Even if we ignore the disgraceful mess she made of catering to the needs of disabled attendees, we can look at the numbers signing Svan's petition to learn an important point.
I did the calculation recently and figured out that the numbers of 'speakers' who had signed Zvans letter were exactly equal to Melody's FTB/Skepchick friends, plus one other. If we presume they all signed (and I think that's a fair assumption for such a 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' group) then that means that only one of the big name, non FTB/Skepchick female atheists signed the letter.
At the time I thought it might be Maryam Namazie (I had no proof, but it seemed that she might do it as an act of comradeship with her blogging stablemates.) Now, seeing the lineup for FTB Cons Science I realize it was probably Desiree Schell and so Maryam Namazie didn't sign.

So it's a case of Melody's friends versus everyone else.
No wonder they are desperate to have her run the next conference.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Sorry, I was told a joke last week in studio, and feel I have to share it here:

A group of disabled people get to Lourde.

The first one, a blind person, steps into the Source, comes back, and exlaims "fuck yeah!!! I can see you all!"

The second, a deaf person, steps into the Source, comes back, and exclaims "fuck yeah!!! I can ear you all!"

Third person is in a wheelchair, goes down the Source, stops halfway through and returns. Then exclaims "fuck yeah!!! New tires!"

Sorry again *hangs head in shame*

[Dick Strawkins]

To follow on from ERV's point, Mooney is already associated with Mother Jones.

http://i.imgur.com/hN1SR5V.jpg

As a participant in both the framing and the accomodationist wars, I've kept up to date with Mooney's moves over the years. It is obvious that he has been constantly moving in a more political direction. I'd hesitate to call it hard-left because virtually nothing in American politics looks hard left from a European perspective, but it is certainly firmly within the progressive/democratic camp.
He has shifted his blog on a few occasions and the idea that he's moving to Mother Jones should hardly be a shock. It seems, as ERV said, to be him using the opportunity to get some free publicity for a previously arranged career move.

[Lsuoma]

Basically if the admin of a forum makes anonymity an option, people will use that, and that stick up your ass should be directed at the admin, not at the people.

Hey, Lsuoma: go fuck yourself, you cunt!

Up your ass, spunk bubble!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Hey, Lsuoma: go fuck yourself, you cunt!

[/quote]
Up your ass, spunk bubble![/quote]

Eat a pool of caca, than shit it in another pool, then swim in that pool and swallow it again, fascist pig!

(I'm starting to realise I'm not so good at all that "insult" business...)

Three nested quotes, hey? J. C. Welch strikes again!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

then*

My fingers are drunk!

[Parody Accountant]

Hey, Lsuoma: go fuck yourself, you cunt!

Up your ass, spunk bubble!

spunk bubbles have asses now? link please.

[Ericb]

Strangely (and not on purpose), the in-between images of them look a bit like Surly Amy!

Thank you to whoever mentioned paint.net and the colormatch add-on a while back.

I actually took me a while before I realized that Surly Amy and Amanda Marcotte were different people.

[TedDahlberg]

Strangely (and not on purpose), the in-between images of them look a bit like Surly Amy!

Thank you to whoever mentioned paint.net and the colormatch add-on a while back.

I actually took me a while before I realized that Surly Amy and Amanda Marcotte were different people.

That's just because all women look alike to misogynists :dance:

[Dave]

How do you people feel about "pseudo-anonymous"? I haven't registered and probably won't, because as my nick implies I mostly lurk. But when I do feel compelled to post I do it with an identifiable nick. I've seen a couple of other people doing the same thing. I think it agrees with common internet etiquette.
If all else fails everyone has writing tics or a particular style. I can differentiate some of the plain "Guest" posts, or at least I think so.

I don't register at every board I post as many of them allow me to type in my psuedo-anon handle and so I do. I'm assuming that's what you do here and that's fine for me. You're the one at risk of having someone log in and say stupid shit under your non-protected name.

It does prevent people from putting him on a friend/foe list. Personally, I dont use them, so I dont give a shit.

[Cunt of Personality]

That's just because all women look alike to misogynists :dance:

If they can make a good sandwich, who care what they look like.

[Pitchguest]

Hey, Lsuoma: go fuck yourself, you cunt!

Up your ass, spunk bubble![/quote]

Eat a pool of caca, than shit it in another pool, then swim in that pool and swallow it again, fascist pig!

(I'm starting to realise I'm not so good at all that "insult" business...)

Three nested quotes, hey? J. C. Welch strikes again![/quote]

You can always go the Jay route.

[youtube]bGGDRRRxGp4[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

I remember that show, but I got the distinct impression that she claimed to have called in on several occasions, and that Dillahunty knew of this - although perhaps not the first occasion. I'm not sure they were actually forbidding these sorts of prank calls in those days. I think that rule appeared much more recently.
I'll admit my memory could be mistaken - it's been a few years since I listened - but my memory is that there was something extremely fishy about the scenario they admitted.

May well be that Presswood did it more than once.

A couple years ago my Dad told me the real story of how he met my mom. Now, this was after going through some of his papers, including his final orders from the Air Force that put him on a plane from Okinawa back to the states. On the reverse side of his orders was a woman's name and address written in red pencil with one of those old-style telephone exchanges like "Bensonhurst 0-7741". I asked him what that was and he startled and said "That's her number". Apparently back in the day when stewardesses were picked for youth and beauty, my dad managed to bag this one's number. And then couldn't find it until his son from a different woman came across it. He got this far-away look in his eyes like he was living out an alternative timeline.

Oh yeah, my mom: He and his Uncle Victor used to "go out bouncing". They went through the roster of dance halls locally and, striking out in the Five Boroughs, went to a third-rate place in Garden City. My mother-to-be, recently over from Scotland on a work visa, didn't know any place and so tagged along when her friends went out. He was with about 8 friends who all hit on her and the other girls and, after all was said she latched onto him.

"So, you met mom in a dive", I said, "because your friends we such losers that you looked good by comparison?"

Anyway, the story told prior to this was another iteration of "their eyes met across the dance floor" crap that had little basis in reality.

I think much of the "fishiness" in the Dillahunty-Presswood coupling is that they are trying to turn a tale of some fat fuckless douche-dirigible fucking a more or less long-range obsessed groupie with low ambitions into the atheist version of "meet cute" and can't quite pull it off.

[Pitchguest]

Oh for... I quoted a broken quote strain and I didn't fix it? :doh:

[TedDahlberg]

That's just because all women look alike to misogynists :dance:

If they can make a good sandwich, who care what they look like.

Theoretically you might come across one that makes a really good sandwich and you want to make sure to find the same one again. But then that's what marker pens are for.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

But more or less the inverse or converse of the case that TFJ, Strawkins, and I (among others) have been discussing. There it was a case of a principle that PZ has advanced relatively recently that TFJ, Strawkins and others want to use to judge PZ a hypocrite because he hadn't acted in accordance with that principle several years before PZ had even advanced it. Like trying to judge someone guilty of a crime for an act in the past that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed even though it is now.

That's being wed to a very narrow definition of hypocrisy. He doesn't have to break his rules in the present to be a hypocrite. The unilateral rule change does not absolve him of guilt for his past. By not acknowledging that guilt he is trying to draw a moral distinction between himself and others. Besides, as regards Strawkins argument, which is different from the one I was making, if you really believe that a proclaimed lifelong feminist only recently became aware that 'slut' and 'bitch' were beyond the fem pail then I have a nice set of healing crystals I'm looking to offload. He must have been one dense fucker to have not grasped that.

[Remick]

Can someone explain to me what the point of a filibuster is?

Delaying tactic, allowed procedurally in some legislative bodies.

Bottom line: when someone whose politics you like is doing it, they're being brave and selfless and it's a very admirable tactic. When someone whose politics you don't like is doing it, they're being a blowhard and it's a massive waste of time. :D

(If I'm remembering right,the US Senate moves on to other business whenever one of their members simply threatens a filibuster - because otherwise it takes 60% vote to bring debate, meaning the filibuster, to a close, and they can never get that many senators to agree on anything.)

Yes, it used to be 60% of PRESENT senators voted to end the debate and vote. Now it has to be 60% of ALL senators, and since neither party has 60...

[Lsuoma]

Just heard on the news: SCOTUS overturns DOMA 5-4. No prizes for guessing the way the justices split :-)

[Mykeru]

But more or less the inverse or converse of the case that TFJ, Strawkins, and I (among others) have been discussing. There it was a case of a principle that PZ has advanced relatively recently that TFJ, Strawkins and others want to use to judge PZ a hypocrite because he hadn't acted in accordance with that principle several years before PZ had even advanced it. Like trying to judge someone guilty of a crime for an act in the past that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed even though it is now.

That's being wed to a very narrow definition of hypocrisy. He doesn't have to break his rules in the present to be a hypocrite. The unilateral rule change does not absolve him of guilt for his past. By not acknowledging that guilt he is trying to draw a moral distinction between himself and others. Besides, as regards Strawkins argument, which is different from the one I was making, if you really believe that a proclaimed lifelong feminist only recently became aware that 'slut' and 'bitch' were beyond the fem pail then I have a nice set of healing crystals I'm looking to offload. He must have been one dense fucker to have not grasped that.

So, was all that stuff The Peez wrote back then simply his Rumspringa and now he has settled down, is dressing plain and is a good Amish?

The difference is, the Amish have this as a rite of passage and PZ is no kid.

The person who does whatever and then, upon enlightenment, becomes a rigid martinet denouncing people for lesser offenses than what he did himself isn't just a freaking cliche, it's the very definition of hypocrisy with a slight screwing of the tenses: "Do what I say, not what I did". That's forgivable when there's contrition and one uses oneself as a negative example so others can learn from your experience, but a PZ-level hypocrite won't even admit what they previously did was wrong. Usually from the narcissist's version of the Euthyphro-dilemma where whatever they did is considered right not on its own merits, but because the gas bag did it and therefore it's allowable.

That is, PZ decries sexism and misogyny and rape jokes when they fall into the wrong hands.

P.S. Steersman is a dick

[Tony Parsehole]

I think much of the "fishiness" in the Dillahunty-Presswood coupling is that they are trying to turn a tale of some fat fuckless douche-dirigible fucking a more or less long-range obsessed groupie with low ambitions into the atheist version of "meet cute" and can't quite pull it off.

Very dark. Very poetic.

[Tony Parsehole]

......Very true.

[Tony Parsehole]

Did Matt Dillahunty allude to taking part in swingers orgies or am I remembering snatches of a deeply repressed nightmare?

[Gefan]

Just heard on the news: SCOTUS overturns DOMA 5-4. No prizes for guessing the way the justices split :-)

Too much to ask that Scalia had an aneurysm, mid-dissent? Am I being greedy?

[Gefan]

From Andrew Sullivan's blog (re the striking down on DOMA):

10.34 am. Kennedy money quote:

Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations. And its operation is directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.

Translation: the feds may tinker with some aspects of a state’s civil marriages, but they may not remove an entire class of persons from equal protection. This is a conservative point – and DOMA was a betrayal of conservative federalism in favor of Christianist big government. I actually made that case sitting in front of the House hearings on DOMA. The Republicans were uninterested. They knew what they were about to do: gay-bait their way to re-election in 1996. And so Bill Clinton – a constitutional lawyer who signed this bill and who ordered his Justice Department to declare that it had no constitutional issues with it at all – gay-baited back. Today is as much a rebuke to the cynicism of Bill Clinton as it is to the fanaticism of the GOP.

[Lsuoma]

Just heard on the news: SCOTUS overturns DOMA 5-4. No prizes for guessing the way the justices split :-)

Too much to ask that Scalia had an aneurysm, mid-dissent? Am I being greedy?

I wish.

[Gefan]

Did Matt Dillahunty allude to taking part in swingers orgies or am I remembering snatches of a deeply repressed nightmare?

Ordinarily I'd vote for "deeply repressed nightmare". However, I like you, Pareshole, and if your sub-conscious is coughing up that sort of thing then I'm deeply concerned.

[Ericb]

Just heard on the news: SCOTUS overturns DOMA 5-4. No prizes for guessing the way the justices split :-)

Too much to ask that Scalia had an aneurysm, mid-dissent? Am I being greedy?

I wish.

Maybe on their next hunting trip together Dick Cheney will have an an aneurysm and accidentally shoot Scalia.

[cunt]

Did Matt Dillahunty allude to taking part in swingers orgies or am I remembering snatches of a deeply repressed nightmare?

Nah, I remember something like that too.

[Wonderist]

Jeremy Stangroom tweeted this link. After re-reading it he called it "chilling"

http://www.tu.ac.th/org/grad/master/pdf ... 5B1%5D.pdf

This ^^^ was posted a while back, but I don't want to forget about it in my catching up.

Has anyone read through this whole thing? It's from the mid 80s, so I wonder how relevant/irrelevant it is to today's feminism. Anyone have any info on whether this paper was/is widely cited in other feminist literature, or if it's just an obscure paper from an obscure book?

I'd say, yes it is chilling, if it is actually widely referenced in feminist literature. Not so much if it's just a crank view. I have no background knowledge to know where to look to find out if it is or isn't though.

[Tribble]

But more or less the inverse or converse of the case that TFJ, Strawkins, and I (among others) have been discussing. There it was a case of a principle that PZ has advanced relatively recently that TFJ, Strawkins and others want to use to judge PZ a hypocrite because he hadn't acted in accordance with that principle several years before PZ had even advanced it. Like trying to judge someone guilty of a crime for an act in the past that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed even though it is now.

That's being wed to a very narrow definition of hypocrisy. He doesn't have to break his rules in the present to be a hypocrite. The unilateral rule change does not absolve him of guilt for his past. By not acknowledging that guilt he is trying to draw a moral distinction between himself and others. Besides, as regards Strawkins argument, which is different from the one I was making, if you really believe that a proclaimed lifelong feminist only recently became aware that 'slut' and 'bitch' were beyond the fem pail then I have a nice set of healing crystals I'm looking to offload. He must have been one dense fucker to have not grasped that.

So, was all that stuff The Peez wrote back then simply his Rumspringa and now he has settled down, is dressing plain and is a good Amish?

The difference is, the Amish have this as a rite of passage and PZ is no kid.

The person who does whatever and then, upon enlightenment, becomes a rigid martinet denouncing people for lesser offenses than what he did himself isn't just a freaking cliche, it's the very definition of hypocrisy with a slight screwing of the tenses: "Do what I say, not what I did". That's forgivable when there's contrition and one uses oneself as a negative example so others can learn from your experience, but a PZ-level hypocrite won't even admit what they previously did was wrong. Usually from the narcissist's version of the Euthyphro-dilemma where whatever they did is considered right not on its own merits, but because the gas bag did it and therefore it's allowable.

That is, PZ decries sexism and misogyny and rape jokes when they fall into the wrong hands.

P.S. Steersman is a dick

If you go back in the Wayback Machine and look at his posts, you can him commenting about his readings and support for Bitch PhD, Jezebel, feministe, feministing and a number of other feminist blogs/authors/positions. He even had a sub-category for Feminists (along with some other categories) on his first interation of Pharyngula:

Feministas

Blog Sisters
Brutal Women
feministe
feministing
Mouse Words
Rox Populi
What She Said!
Trish Wilson's Blog
XX

Yet, somehow, we're supposed to pretend none of this happened, or at least feign ignorance thereof, and therefore PZ Myers can't be a hypocrite by his own standards because he didn't "know better.' Even though he has demonstrated over the years he's read a feminist blogs since at least 2005 and should, therefore, be aware of splash-damage words as that's been part-and-parcel of feminist theory since the 1960s.

That's why I stopped participating in the little 'debate.' By his own admission, he's been a feminist for a very long time which, effectively, means he's hoisted by his own hypocrisy petard through his well-documented, hypocritical 'misogynistic' conduct.

[Tribble]

Just heard on the news: SCOTUS overturns DOMA 5-4. No prizes for guessing the way the justices split :-)

Too much to ask that Scalia had an aneurysm, mid-dissent? Am I being greedy?

Yet another thing proving prayer doesn't work. If it did, there'd be a lot of new faces on the Supreme Court...

[Tigzy]

Did Matt Dillahunty allude to taking part in swingers orgies or am I remembering snatches of a deeply repressed nightmare?

Nah, I remember something like that too.

I think it was something to do with conference harassment policies - Dolly once mentioned that even swingers/bondage/something of that ilk conferences have harassment policies. As to whether he was speaking from experience or not - don't know. Don't want to, either.

[Tribble]

Jeremy Stangroom tweeted this link. After re-reading it he called it "chilling"

http://www.tu.ac.th/org/grad/master/pdf ... 5B1%5D.pdf

This ^^^ was posted a while back, but I don't want to forget about it in my catching up.

Has anyone read through this whole thing? It's from the mid 80s, so I wonder how relevant/irrelevant it is to today's feminism. Anyone have any info on whether this paper was/is widely cited in other feminist literature, or if it's just an obscure paper from an obscure book?

I'd say, yes it is chilling, if it is actually widely referenced in feminist literature. Not so much if it's just a crank view. I have no background knowledge to know where to look to find out if it is or isn't though.

It's part of the fundamental, 'academic' (a term I use extremely loosely in this case because it's schlock) groundwork Third-Wave gender feminism.

Nancy Hartsock (Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1972) is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington. She is a political theorist with research interests in contemporary feminist, Marxist, and critical theory. She is the author of Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (Northeastern, 1984), The Feminist Standpoint Revisited (Westview, 1998), and co-editor of Building Feminist Theory (Longman, 1981). She is on the editorial/advisory boards of Cultural Critique, Political Research Quarterly and other journals. Some of her recent research has appeared in such articles as "Rethinking Modernism: Minority vs. Majority Theories", "Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?", "Postmodernism and Political Change: Issues in Feminist Theory", "Masculinity, Heroism, and the Making of War."

Hartsock teaches graduate courses on the philosophy of social science, twentieth century Marxism, and contemporary feminist theory.

She's no feminist fringe-grifter like Marcotte and Watson who exploit feminism (regardless of whether they're sincere or not) but a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool Marxist-Feminist.