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

Hello, 60 guests.

FrankGrimes wrote:

ffqc wrote:

Wonderist wrote: He had plenty of warning. No excuses for ignorance. Deus definitely troll too.

I'm hardly a troll, motherfucker. You just ignore all of the content of my posts and then get mad about the way I say things. This is why you're a cunt.

:doh:

Doh yourself, motherfuck. Wonderist invited me here, and now he's got buyer's remorse. He knew what he was getting. I was linking videos to triple anal in Justin's chat.

Aneris wrote:But note how they misappropriate those terms, like they do with victim blaming (which is a real and serious issue). In effect, they ridicule possibly sound theories until nobody takes them seriously anymore.

The actual microaggression report I read there (see wiki talk page) explains it much differently then they do, and is actually plausible. It specifically applies the term to racism and means concrete racist motivated acts against people of color. They aren't called "micro" because they are invisible or some other nonsense.

Thank you for mentioning that. I find the concept of microaggression interesting and potentially useful to much more than just racism. But, like most things, the RadFem/SJW brigade gets it wrong.

Similarly, some use Marxist methods to support the "privilege blindness" notion that only the oppressed can see their oppression. But I remember the explanation of "false class consciousness" quite clearly, and it doesn't fit.

Skep tickle wrote:

Steersman wrote:

ffqc wrote: <snip>
I hope you get a basket of AIDS

Charming fellow - fuck you too.

Remember to use safer sex practices in doing so. :shifty:

:lol: Something may have got lost in the translation. :)

But I remember seeing a rather long shaggy-dog story illustrating the use of the word "fuck" as every possible grammatical construction: noun, verb, adverb, preposition, the lot. It described how some guy and his girlfriend were out doing various daily tasks - all using "fuck" to describe the various activities - which was concluded with a statement that "then we went home and made love" ....

Skep tickle wrote: Lsuoma, Aneris' request re your avatar might have something to do with where in the world she lives. (As I recall, it's not actually the Pentagon.)

Ah, good point. Maybe an Italian fascist instead?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... grafia.jpg

Lsuoma wrote:

Steersman wrote: Seems if “cunt” isn’t necessarily sexist then “nigger” and “faggot” – even when used as insults – aren’t necessarily racist or sexist in the sense of disparaging entire classes. Seems to be a case of special pleading to argue otherwise.

I see a difference here, Jimzo (is that correct?).

If that floats your boat, Lymphoma.

Calling someone who is demonstrably black (look up George Carlin on "openly gay" and "happens to be black" for a great laugh, BTW) a nigger, or calling someone gay who has stated that yes, they do climb the Oxo tower, or have an opening for an upward gardener, is getting close to an objective agreement.

I quite agree that that “objective agreement” is the crux of the matter. But, considering how we all find it so risible, if not very problematic, that FftB and company are so death-on-dictionaries, one might suggest that we at least take some cognizance of what they say, specifically:

nig•ger (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1. a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).

fag•got 2 (fgt)
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

cunt (knt)
n. Vulgar Slang
3. a. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a woman.

Do note the use of the indefinite article “a” in each of the three cases: nothing there that I can see that justifies any assertion that each of those terms are intrinsically applicable to every member of each of the classes denoted. They each say that the terms are applicable only to one individual in a class, not the whole one.

I'm still not sure what calling someone a "cunt" means objectively, and although like Potter Stewart and pornography, I know a cunt (vide. ffqc) when I see one, it's all internal to my head.

Another definition for “cunt” – also from “thefreedictionary” as are the others – is “a mean or obnoxious person”. But that “internal to my head” is where the wicket gets very much stickier: the shattered nerves that many women seem to experience on hearing the insult “cunt” – even directed at other people – is, presumably, also “internal to their heads”. Who gets to say that “what happens internal to my head” is trump and everyone else has to shift accordingly?

Which is where I think Nugent’s second agenda item is crucial in allowing us off the horns of that particular dilemma:

How we can balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas.

Hurting people with various insults just for the hell of it, because one is feeling peevish or has one’s nose out of joint, doesn’t seem all that credible. Doing so to get their attention – as the old joke about the mule goes – or to express social opprobrium seems quite a bit more so, if not frequently a necessity. Context, toujours le context ….

VAXherd wrote:

Aneris wrote:But note how they misappropriate those terms, like they do with victim blaming (which is a real and serious issue). In effect, they ridicule possibly sound theories until nobody takes them seriously anymore.

The actual microaggression report I read there (see wiki talk page) explains it much differently then they do, and is actually plausible. It specifically applies the term to racism and means concrete racist motivated acts against people of color. They aren't called "micro" because they are invisible or some other nonsense.

Thank you for mentioning that. I find the concept of microaggression interesting and potentially useful to much more than just racism. But, like most things, the RadFem/SJW brigade gets it wrong.

Similarly, some use Marxist methods to support the "privilege blindness" notion that only the oppressed can see their oppression. But I remember the explanation of "false class consciousness" quite clearly, and it doesn't fit.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAWHAHAHA

The concept of 'microaggression' is metaphysical piffle. I propose we define 'microaggression' to mean the behavior of midget feminists.

This entire mode of analysis is broken, just like the rest of the "identity studies" fields. There's no wall of separation between scholarship and advocacy. If we can't trust such scholars to even attempt to be objective, then it's not worth even reading what they have to say, since they don't even aim to be impartial judges, and therefore their methodology (to the extent that they have a methodology at all) is wholly inadequate to validate their claims. There's no rigour to the idea of microaggression. At all.

Steersman wrote:

How we can balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas.

Hurting people with various insults just for the hell of it, because one is feeling peevish or has one’s nose out of joint, doesn’t seem all that credible. Doing so to get their attention – as the old joke about the mule goes – or to express social opprobrium seems quite a bit more so, if not frequently a necessity. Context, toujours le context ….

Better answer: Have your interlocutors grow thicker skins, then there's no need to call them faggots. If someone called a third party a kike, I wouldn't be offended by it, because it would make no sense. Hell, when people use 'jew' to mean cheap, it still doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when leftists push conspiracy theories about 'jewish conspiracies' to 'run the world's economies into the ground' and 'steal palestinian land'.

If people want to get upset about harmless shit, then that's their prerogative. It matters a lot more if there is venom behind the use of a word. President Johnson used the word 'nigger' in private when he was working to pass civil rights legislation, but actions speak louder than words.

The entire feminist peevishness about language is that they believe that the use of lanugage influences thought, rather than vice-versa. Steven Pinker addresses the whole complex of claims in \emph{The Blank Slate} and provides a pretty convincing argument that it's just totally beyond wrongheaded.

Skep tickle wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

ffqc wrote:Unmoderate me, motherfuck.

How's this whole "moderation" thing work? Should it still be able to post, and should I still be able to see its posts? :think:

[Is that lolicon, newbie? Isn't that what Parody Accountant was predicting?]

AndrewV69 wrote: There might be at least three. I might be one of them.

I see that...

Lsuoma wrote: Nothing compared to Aneris'...

I've caught a glimpse or two of it, but it goes by very quickly.

There's at least one other, a long-time avatar that blinks once in a while. (Not mine.)

Watch carefully. Skep tickle's avatar shakes its ass.

So I am still following the links that Aneris put up here:

viewtopic.php?p=105395#p105395

Now I at the post made by the alphabet guy Thibeault. Reading that one I see the usual drivel about how important it is for allies to accept indoctrination and a complaint about JT is being a bit thick and not doing "ally" gracefully. Quite resistant to be told so actually:

Lousy Canukistan wrote: And when you do tell him (publicly) that his viewpoints undercut women in a specific way, you apparently have to apologize a lot for saying so, and only do so where it’s expressly on-topic, or else you’re the one who gets banhammered

So guess who got banhammered? Well I dunno if they were banned but the link leads to this post by our errant who is saying please do not derail threads:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... l-threads/

JT not yet your bitch wrote: So far the people who have received warnings are:

Happiestsadist
Josh, Official SpokesGay
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform

Regardless of my past of being entirely on the side of women, gays, trans people and so forth, I’m sure the accusations of me being a woman-hating, cis-hating, privileged, piece of shit who just doesn’t get it will fly.

A couple of those names indicate that they are baboons. I guess they went off exploring and forgot they were not still on the plantation. Or old habits die hard. Or something.

I hear old Thimbledoobedoo is somewhere in the USA. What are your demands for keeping him? Any reasonable offer will be greatly appreciated and earn our undying gratitude.

Steersman wrote: Hurting people with various insults just for the hell of it, because one is feeling peevish or has one’s nose out of joint, doesn’t seem all that credible. Doing so to get their attention – as the old joke about the mule goes – or to express social opprobrium seems quite a bit more so, if not frequently a necessity. Context, toujours le context ….

Oh FFS! Look it is simple. The Americans have a perfectly good word that they neglect as an insult. That word is cooze. There is no mistaking that one.

KiwiInOz wrote: Watch carefully. Skep tickle's avatar shakes its ass.

You is a lie! http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 913f57.gif

Steers, I am no native speaker much less do I know the intricate differences between the many english versions out there. And then insults and their nuance aren't exactly a feature of school english lessons.

What I do know is that several comedians use 'cunt', like Tim Minchin or Ricky Gervais. I personally don't use it all (I only mention it). I also deem it a reasonable assumption that comedians have a good grasp of language and slang, certainly better than I, and these examples clearly use it like a british combination of 'asshole and idiot'. 'Faggot' however, I only know in that one negative homophobe context. I have no real interest in discussing this through, since I can't bring anything to the table than I already have and nitpicking dictionaries seems not very effective, especially as I made my point. Also, insults could be considered along a continuum. I have to draw a line somewhere and when it's slightly different than it is for the next person, so be it. I am not demanding that you or anyone else must take over my opinion, but I explain why I see it the way I do.

ffqc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

How we can balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas.

Hurting people with various insults just for the hell of it, because one is feeling peevish or has one’s nose out of joint, doesn’t seem all that credible. Doing so to get their attention – as the old joke about the mule goes – or to express social opprobrium seems quite a bit more so, if not frequently a necessity. Context, toujours le context ….

Better answer: Have your interlocutors grow thicker skins, then there's no need to call them faggots. If someone called a third party a kike, I wouldn't be offended by it, because it would make no sense. Hell, when people use 'jew' to mean cheap, it still doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when leftists push conspiracy theories about 'jewish conspiracies' to 'run the world's economies into the ground' and 'steal palestinian land'.

If people want to get upset about harmless shit, then that's their prerogative. It matters a lot more if there is venom behind the use of a word. President Johnson used the word 'nigger' in private when he was working to pass civil rights legislation, but actions speak louder than words.

The entire feminist peevishness about language is that they believe that the use of lanugage influences thought, rather than vice-versa. Steven Pinker addresses the whole complex of claims in \emph{The Blank Slate} and provides a pretty convincing argument that it's just totally beyond wrongheaded.

My two cents worth - you are trying too hard to be edgy. There are people here that are so edgy - franc comes to mind - that they only have one dimension.

As for trolling - i'm picking you as garden gnome level.

I save the best part for last:

Thimbledoobedoo wrote: I would prefer you avoiding the topics to the situation we have now, forcing me to either chastise a person I consider to be generally on the side of angels except for these glaring flaws, or to let the damage you’re doing to my friends and allies slide in an effort to maintain our friendship.

Don’t force me into these catch-22s. Please.

What the everliving fuck? This social retard who can not possibly have an IQ over 90 really thinks he is in a position to "chastise" anyone over anything?

Aneris wrote:Steers, I am no native speaker much less do I know the intricate differences between the many english versions out there. And then insults and their nuance aren't exactly a feature of school english lessons.

What I do know is that several comedians use 'cunt', like Tim Minchin or Ricky Gervais. I personally don't use it all (I only mention it). I also deem it a reasonable assumption that comedians have a good grasp of language and slang, certainly better than I, and these examples clearly use it like a british combination of 'asshole and idiot'. 'Faggot' however, I only know in that one negative homophobe context. I have no real interest in discussing this through, since I can't bring anything to the table than I already have and nitpicking dictionaries seems not very effective, especially as I made my point. Also, insults could be considered along a continuum. I have to draw a line somewhere and when it's slightly different than it is for the next person, so be it. I am not demanding that you or anyone else must take over my opinion, but I explain why I see it the way I do.

And this is why you are held in such high regard here. (Oh, and because of your avatar)

JackRayner wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote: Watch carefully. Skep tickle's avatar shakes its ass.

You is a lie! http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 913f57.gif

Keep watching Jack. Keep watching. :mrgreen:

Gefan wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Wow, I missed a lot.

Fucking trolls.

Yeah. I think we were on page 8 when I fell asleep (something to do with an Italian liqueur that resembles Pernod - I don't even remember the name of the stuff, a shame because I need to avoid it in future).
Wake up to six pages of new stuff. Must be something good in there, right?

Wrong.

Was it Sambuca, perchance?

Next time drink it "con la mosca", with coffee beans. Tastes better and is not quite as deadly.

Mind you, after wading through last night's output here, I feel in need of a strong drink myself.

Oh, I missed that one. He actually writes "chastise" and "angels"!? (yes he does, double-checked it). How fitting. Their whole views are practically religious (Vacula the Anti-Christ, privilege is original sin, denouncing and confessing, stark dualist world view, the patriarchy as the overarching evil and roadblock before the messianic kingdom etc. …)

AndrewV69 wrote:I save the best part for last:

Thimbledoobedoo wrote: I would prefer you avoiding the topics to the situation we have now, forcing me to either chastise a person I consider to be generally on the side of angels except for these glaring flaws, or to let the damage you’re doing to my friends and allies slide in an effort to maintain our friendship.

Don’t force me into these catch-22s. Please.

What the everliving fuck? This social retard who can not possibly have an IQ over 90 really thinks he is in a position to "chastise" anyone over anything?

Don't you *dare* turn this into an us vs. them dichotomy! Or else.... I'll have to consider you.... one of THEM. There's no in between here!

Aneris wrote:Oh, I missed that one. He actually writes "chastise" and "angels"!? (yes he does, double-checked it). How fitting. Their whole views are practically religious (Vacula the Anti-Christ, privilege is original sin, denouncing and confessing, stark dualist world view, the patriarchy as the overarching evil and roadblock before the messianic kingdom etc. …)

Now all they need is an afterlife and it'll be a full relapse.

KiwiInOz wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote: Watch carefully. Skep tickle's avatar shakes its ass.

You is a lie! http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 913f57.gif

Keep watching Jack. Keep watching. :mrgreen:

Or he could use one of those online image editors to examine it and see if the image has more than one frame ... :whistle:

46, XX wrote:I'd love to hear sea (complete with her Irish accent) on Justin's radio show... she sounds delightful; I hope she does say "hi" to Justin.

http://i.imgur.com/jjurn20.jpg

Thanks for supportive posts, the new thread, and the continuing chat. I'll leave this screenshot above and catch up - I am on page 10 at the moment. If there's anything you'd like me to urgently know, please e-mail me: justinvacula (at) gmail (dot) com. Thanks.

I hope everyone enjoyed or will enjoy day one of reporting from the conference. Day two's reporting will be tonight at 10PM Dublin Time and 5PM Eastern US Time.

ffqc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

How we can balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas.

Hurting people with various insults just for the hell of it, because one is feeling peevish or has one’s nose out of joint, doesn’t seem all that credible. Doing so to get their attention – as the old joke about the mule goes – or to express social opprobrium seems quite a bit more so, if not frequently a necessity. Context, toujours le context ….

Better answer: Have your interlocutors grow thicker skins, then there's no need to call them faggots.

Curious that Renee Hendricks has that first part included in her signature. Which she seems to have forgotten at “the moment of truth”. So to speak.

If people want to get upset about harmless shit, then that's their prerogative. It matters a lot more if there is venom behind the use of a word.

Agreed. Also if the venom is clearly directed at an entire class rather than a single individual.

The entire feminist peevishness about language is that they believe that the use of langage influences thought, rather than vice-versa. Steven Pinker addresses the whole complex of claims in The Blank Slate and provides a pretty convincing argument that it's just totally beyond wrongheaded.

Yes, I generally agree, although, as with many things, I think it is also a question of feedback: each influences the other depending on person and context, but one hopes that language is a tool we use rather than the tail wagging the dog. Seems to be the latter for many people. But, speaking of Pinker, ran across this article by him in The Atlantic on free speech and profanity. This comment kind of leaped out at me:

My interest in swearing is (I swear) scientific. But swearing is not just a puzzle in cognitive neuroscience.

And I read his How the Mind Works where he discussed a number of supposed mechanisms, notably our depth perception, and how they might be implemented with neurons. I figure there are many issues like profanity that won’t really be resolved until more people take some interest in how the “hardware” functions and how it can lead to conclusions that “ain’t necessarily so”.

BTW, there’s a BBCode Guide reference in the "Post a Reply" dialog page that explains how to use italics and the like ....

Lsuoma wrote:ffqc. You're rapidly heading for moderation. I generally let stuff through, but I moderate at my convenience, not yours.

77 posts in...less than 24 hours........................

Aneris wrote:Steers, I am no native speaker much less do I know the intricate differences between the many english versions out there. And then insults and their nuance aren't exactly a feature of school english lessons.

You could have fooled me.

What I do know is that several comedians use 'cunt', like Tim Minchin or Ricky Gervais. I personally don't use it all (I only mention it). I also deem it a reasonable assumption that comedians have a good grasp of language and slang, certainly better than I ….

Comedians, good ones at least, can be rather good at illustrating foibles and problematic ways of thinking and behaving. Although I hardly think they’re infallible. But you might take a look at this routine by Lenny Bruce on “nigger” and this one, posted earlier by Andrew, by a black comedian – Reginald Hunter – from Georgia in London. Both of them aren’t explicitly addressing the question of the words used as insults, as the issue is more one of the reasons for the power, the venom behind them. But I think it is related to the question of “splash-damage” that some people obviously feel. The question is why it shouldn’t be applicable in some cases but should be in others – a neurological question, in part anyway, I think.

[with that I have to call it a day; night all]

ffqc wrote:

FrankGrimes wrote:

ffqc wrote:
I'm hardly a troll, motherfucker. You just ignore all of the content of my posts and then get mad about the way I say things. This is why you're a cunt.

:doh:

Doh yourself, motherfuck. Wonderist invited me here, and now he's got buyer's remorse. He knew what he was getting. I was linking videos to triple anal in Justin's chat.

He may well regret the referral but that's probably not for the reason you think it is. You might have some decent points to make but trying to make an impact as big as JV's head in order to make them probably isn't the way to do it, fuckface.

Lsuoma wrote: [youtube]S7tyhpWiZyM[/youtube]

What's that clip from? The animation is fantastic!

Wonderist wrote:

ffqc wrote: I gave more details when I accidentally d0xxed myself during Justin's show. For those of you who were there, I would appreciate that not being put on the forum.

Exactly what docs did you drop? No one here cares what your real name is or where you live. Reap and I talked, among other things, about doc dropping in the podcast we did last December (link in my sig). Personally, I think the real life dangers are exaggerated. I wouldn't mind people knowing my real name except there is someone who is not me with the same first and last name in the phone book and I wouldn't want to cause him and grief.

And JV... I hope my donation helped pay for at least a Guinness or two, maybe some Irish haggis even?

Well done and I hope your flight was ok.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: [youtube]S7tyhpWiZyM[/youtube]

What's that clip from? The animation is fantastic!

I think it's from Song of the South.

Wow! This is a thing of beauty: http://www.freezepage.com/1372547329YKZYSTZOOM (posted earlier by Aneris, I think?). I've barely read Thibeault before, not considering him worth the time, but the description of the post got me curious. What a pristine example of photo-negative self-projection. You can almost see the world in perfect mirror image through his eyes. I believe he's being very sincere (though deludedly so) in that post. You couldn't make that shit up without believing in it first. It's just too blatantly dumb. I'm reminded of the awesome book, The Mind of the Bible Believer (check the cover for a nice illustration of this world-reversal phenomenon).

He's definitely read my two comments here and here, because quite a bit of what he's written in this new post of his is basically the *exact opposite* interpretation to what I wrote. (Of course, not everything I wrote was original stuff, much of it repeated from previous posts; and not everything Thibeault wrote was connected to what I wrote. Just that there's enough crossover that I'm pretty certain he's at least read my two big comments and using and reversing some of my points.)

One key word I notice is entirely absent from Thibeault's post though: Evidence

Well, not *entirely* absent. It does show up *once*, in this passage (emphasis added):

Thibeault wrote:But when he gets certain topics egregiously wrong, and others explain it to him, there’s little evidence that he’s willing to respond or internalize the criticism or use it to refine his argument for the next go-around

AndrewV69 wrote: I have put welsh on ignore several times. I let him out after the huge muddled quotes business. Then he almost immediately went off his rocker again, so back on ignore he went. Since then I gather he has had another recent attack of baboonitis so he is probably there permanently. At this point I have no wish to further witness his continued self degradation, especially as the interval between these episodes appear to be decreasing.

I have Welch on ignore not because he's an asshole but because of his hit and run posting style. Plus he babbles on and on about TI (if that's the correct acronym), a subject I don't give a shit about.

It's terrible when people babble about Texas Instruments. I hate that.

Hunt wrote:It's terrible when people babble about Texas Instruments. I hate that.

IT? Some tech thing having to do with computers. It's what he does for a living.

Eskarina wrote:

Gefan wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Wow, I missed a lot.

Fucking trolls.

Yeah. I think we were on page 8 when I fell asleep (something to do with an Italian liqueur that resembles Pernod - I don't even remember the name of the stuff, a shame because I need to avoid it in future).
Wake up to six pages of new stuff. Must be something good in there, right?

Wrong.

Was it Sambuca, perchance?

Next time drink it "con la mosca", with coffee beans. Tastes better and is not quite as deadly.

Mind you, after wading through last night's output here, I feel in need of a strong drink myself.

That's the one. It goes next to Ouzo on the "handle with extreme caution" list.

I'll say this for Beckybooze, she's got the constitution of a fucking werewolf. I know I'm a good ten years older than her but there's no way I could maintain her intake for more than a weekend and live (or at least want to).

Love your analysis Aneris - we are the scapegoat, we're the common enemy. And they don't know anything about us except that we're bad for no specific reasons - at least none that are provable or applicable to the group. And unfortunately those they've "outed" or turned on happen to be... well, mainly well-respected women. (WHOOPS).

ffqc wrote:Better answer: Have your interlocutors grow thicker skins, then there's no need to call them faggots. If someone called a third party a kike, I wouldn't be offended by it, because it would make no sense. Hell, when people use 'jew' to mean cheap, it still doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when leftists push conspiracy theories about 'jewish conspiracies' to 'run the world's economies into the ground' and 'steal palestinian land'.

If people want to get upset about harmless shit, then that's their prerogative. It matters a lot more if there is venom behind the use of a word. President Johnson used the word 'nigger' in private when he was working to pass civil rights legislation, but actions speak louder than words.

The entire feminist peevishness about language is that they believe that the use of lanugage influences thought, rather than vice-versa. Steven Pinker addresses the whole complex of claims in \emph{The Blank Slate} and provides a pretty convincing argument that it's just totally beyond wrongheaded.

Agree with our interesting new internet-acquisition. Never thought words mattered but the way they're used did. Also have trouble understanding why being a nigger or a faggot is a bad thing - at base these words mean someone-who-is-black or someone-who-is-gay, and these aren't insults. Possibly I'm too practical-minded to see a problem with this beyond people getting offended for the sake of it. But as I've said before, the people I know who are incredibly racist or homophobic - who are active and in a position to reduce rights to these groups - would never use bad werdz.

Just some random thoughts/comments. I've finally decided to stop lurking because I feel I've spent enough time considering various aspects of this drama and am at a point where I feel capable of making informed statements. My personal trajectory was along the lines of Richard Dawkins>Sam Harris>Jerry Coyne>PZ Myers.......and then the Slymepit. I spent a few months absorbed in FtB blog posts thinking "Wow, these people are quick and clever and really know how to call out logical fallacies", but the more time I spent there I started to pay more attention to the comment section (I seriously never realized how much the comment section was where the action was) and began to see how something was just plain wrong. The difficulty is that it's hard to put your finger on the problem when we're talking about a pattern of behavior, when someone says 'citation needed' it's hard to say "Please set aside the next 72 hours and read the following five hundred threads'. A pattern of behavior is not a 'fact' in the conventional sense and that is where I would like to give a big 'thank fucking god!' to the Slymepit for documenting the irrationality and hypocrisy of certain bloggers.

I'm posting here because I care a lot about how the secular/atheist/skeptic narrative takes form. I've never been an activist in any sense of the word but this is one particular corner of the world that I feel strongly about, and based on the fact that it's a relatively small and newly evolving segment I feel that at this point in time individual comments can actually make a difference (small, but incremental) in how the narrative takes shape.

God...I could go on and on and on..must.stop.rambling

A comment on Justin Vacula: My personal feeling is that your situation is like that of a celebrity where people recognize that your arbitrary 'fame' affords you the opportunity to shape the narrative in a more substantial way than most of us can. Perhaps this a responsibility you didn't ask for but it's there anyway, so someone in your position either ignores the context they exist in and plows ahead pursuing their personal agenda (not in itself a bad thing), or they use the opportunity to better shape the conversation. Best of luck to you Justin! (would it fucking kill you to present yourself as a bit more professional? Jesus Christ on rubber crutches buy a button down)

Beer happened.

Hunt wrote:It's terrible when people babble about Texas Instruments. I hate that.

Fucking TI.

*spit*

I hated (and still do) TI from when they were the only game in town for binary, hex, and octal calculators. Fucking buttons on the keypad would go dead if you looked at them cross eyed.

ffqc wrote:What bothers me is when leftists push conspiracy theories about 'jewish conspiracies' to 'run the world's economies into the ground' and 'steal palestinian land'.

Oh, well, that part is true. ;) :o

AndrewV69 wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:As a young kid, in a public washroom, I saw an unflushed toilet paper with a red streak on it. I ran out and told my mother that the toilet wasn't flushed and that there was lipstick on the toilet paper. She rushed me out of that stall and off the topic fast!

Haha! Kids can say and ask "interesting" things in public. Cue the story of the 11 year old girl who asked me:

- What is your name?
- How old are you?
- Where do you live?
- Are you married?
- Do you have kids?
- How old are they?
- Where do they live?
- Do you have a girlfriend?

At which point her Mother turned bright red and told her to stop pestering me.

She was probably checking out potential stepfathers. If she hadn't been stopped, her next words might have been "Mom, he's ok. You should go out with him." :D

Wonderist wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

Tribble wrote:And how in the hell do they get piss down the sides of the toilet? Are they trying piss standing up like guys?

Most women don't want to sit their bare bums on a seat that strangers have used, so we do a squat position over the toilet and try to maintain that position while aiming one's pee straight into the toilet.

Unfortunately, not all women have the greatest aim, plus it's easy to slip while squatting, spraying piss and landing one's ass right on the seat, which then causes one to jump up with a scream in horror from touching the seat (especially if the seat was wet at all).

The fact that previous women with bad aim have soiled the seats (and down the sides), cause all the next women in line to squat too. No one wants to sit on a wet seat or even a dry public seat.

Now, if one needs to shit in a public toilet, either you need superior squatting skills to stay hovering perfectly over the seat while relaxing one's rectal muscles at the same time. Most women are unable to shit squatting, even if they can pee squatting. The best way for them is to 1) wipe the seat dry with toilet paper in case of previous undried whatever, and then 2) line the seat with plenty of new clean toilet paper so that you can safety sit down to shit.

tl;dr ... TMI

lmao! Should try transcendental meditation. Apparently they can teach you to float in the air in a lotus position. Maybe even fly!

The floating would be very handy in public washrooms. :)

I've been live-tweeting day 2 of #EWTS2013 - check feed for updates

We have a speaker, Kennedy, who said her Marxism informs her feminism talking about 'rape culture' and the usual stuff we hear... See the tweets.

Hunt wrote:It's terrible when people babble about Texas Instruments. I hate that.

Well, he does seem to have a chip on his shoulder :rimshot:

Skep tickle wrote:Re flushing: There are homes I visit where the rule is: "If it's yellow let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down."

You hang out at Chris Clarke's house? Who knew.

Wonderist wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Blood on the walls probably means that a fucking pig has been using the bathroom... although, sometimes tugging on a tampon string will pull it out so quickly that it can swing out a bit, perhaps hitting the walls. Some tampons are flushable and some aren't. Some systems can't handle any tampons flushed at all. Every woman knows not to flush pads though, so if you see that, she's either being an asshole or very drunk.

The over-the-toilet-squat is a half standing / half squatting mix. A full squat with your bum nearer the ground would allow enough muscles to relax that shitting's no problem, like when camping. When only half squatting though, the muscles keeping you in that uncomfortable position, and they clash with relaxing the shitting muscles. It's hard to do both at once. I can do it fairly well, but I prefer to line the seat and then sit. If the shitting is urgent though, a squat is usually better because it's quicker.

As a young kid, in a public washroom, I saw an unflushed toilet paper with a red streak on it. I ran out and told my mother that the toilet wasn't flushed and that there was lipstick on the toilet paper. She rushed me out of that stall and off the topic fast!

I absolutely fucking guarantee you you would *never* be able to have this conversation on FTB or Skepchick. Sincerely, thank you Lsuoma for putting up with us, and thank you ERV and all the SPs for inspiring this place. Fuck fucking dogmatic sexual taboos.

They would find some way of turning it into rape apologism, or maybe flaunting of my cis-bodied privilege, or they'd accuse me of disparaging the holy vulva with dirty bathroom talk.

JackRayner wrote:Wait wait WAIT: Do several of you have animated GIF's for avatars, or have I just ingested too much liquor tonight? Is Mykeru's avatar blinking? I keep noticing movement at the edge of the screen as I'm reading, but when I stop to look nothing happens. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... y/Durp.gif

Apparently the brown acid can lay dormant in your fat cells. As your fat cells are concentrated in your skull, this effect can be particularly insidious.

Interesting blogpost tweeted by EllenBeth - showing how the FC(n) and their rabid ferret regular commenters have alienated even people who agree with them in almost all ideological particulars:

Jason Wester wrote:Last night, I made a huge mistake. I commented on Freethought blogs, namely Greta Christina’s blog. I now wish I’d had better judgment because commenting there turned out to be a losing proposition, a zero-sum game. Though I believed, or at least I hoped, I would find some constructive dialogue there if I approached it directly and honestly and transparently, in the fifteen or so minutes I was there I was

Accused of operating in bad faith
Accused of being a fake atheist
Quoted out of context and accused of “stirring the pot” (Heaven forbid someone stir the pot there)
Patronized, repeatedly

http://www.jasonwester.com/?p=829

Unfortunately he doesn't link to the particular reGreta thread in question, and I haven't bothered to look for it because of various mismatched socks in my laundry and a several perverted secular meditation sessions I have scheduled.

Steersman wrote:

Aneris wrote:

ffqc wrote:Nice job being disingenuous, faggot. Why don't you read just the Wikipedia article on the native american depopulation. I don't want to sound like I'm an expert, but I took a college class on this particular issue. For example, take a look at chapter 9 of Unending Frontier: An ecological history of the early modern world, which discusses the Columbian exchange and the practical annihilation of the Taino population on Hispaniola primarily through disease.

I have to go back through my textbooks and the readings from the class, but the scholarly consensus is basically what I've said.

Don't keep your hopes up that I engage with you, but I deem "faggot" as wholly inacceptable. That is a clear slur, unlike 'cunt' (which was explained to death, also see here)

Well, as much as I think many of your arguments hold at least some water, there, I think I’m going to have throw a flag down on the play – or at least raise a question or two. While I think he is being an A-class dickhead himself and is kind of clueless about the nature of insults – not much point in calling someone a black bastard if they are, presumably, neither, nor is there much point in using faggot as an insult if the person isn’t gay, I figure that all of those insults are largely analogous:

Calling someone a “cunt” is to a charge of “sexist” or “misogynist” as calling someone a “nigger” is to a charge of “racist”. Or, as calling someone an “asshole” is to a charge of “misanthropist”. Or as calling someone a “faggot” is to a charge of “sexist”.

While I seriously question many of Benson’s perspectives on many things, particularly related to feminism, I kind of think she may have at least something of a point relative to the question of “cunt” versus “nigger” or “faggot”:

Benson wrote:Racial pejoratives are taboo, but sexist ones are just fine. Why is that? What does that say about routine contempt for women? Volumes, if you ask me.

Seems if “cunt” isn’t necessarily sexist then “nigger” and “faggot” – even when used as insults – aren’t necessarily racist or sexist in the sense of disparaging entire classes. Seems to be a case of special pleading to argue otherwise.

Steers - I've seen you try to make this argument several times. I know you want the goose and gander to be equally covered with sauce and all that, but I think you're making Benson's argument for her and backing yourself into a corner. If "nigger" and "faggot" are no different from "dick," "bitch," or "cunt," why do you sometimes call people "twats" but never "niggers" or "faggots?"

Warning - no citations follow: Historically/culturally, large numbers of racist/gay-hating people have used "nigger" and "faggot" to pejoratively refer to all black or gay people. Generally, "nigger" hasn't been used to single out that one black asshole you don't like (as opposed to all those other black people you like). "Faggot" hasn't been used to refer to a particular unpleasant gay person among all those gay people you think are cool. These words have predominantly been used as tools of universal insult by bigots.

"Bitch," "prick," "cunt," "dick," on the other hand, have a predominant history of being used like "asshole" -- not because the speaker hates all women or men, but because there is a particular woman or man who is being douchey and you want to single them out for doing so. That's the difference.

Scented Nectar wrote: She was probably checking out potential stepfathers. If she hadn't been stopped, her next words might have been "Mom, he's ok. You should go out with him." :D

I suppose that is a possibility. She did introduce me to her younger brother and sister, and told me where they lived. I suspect it was innocent though.

Something to note is that this is a "high trust" area. A lot of people here generally seem to have a high default expectation of other people and this includes their children.

So far the most notable incident to my mind, was when three little girls knocked on my door and asked if they could have some cookies. I have no idea who they were, but they seemed to know me well enough to ask.

(Small town dynamics. You may not know someone, but they know all about you from those who do)

justinvacula wrote:I've been live-tweeting day 2 of #EWTS2013 - check feed for updates

We have a speaker, Kennedy, who said her Marxism informs her feminism talking about 'rape culture' and the usual stuff we hear... See the tweets.

Not that anyone cares anymore, but saying "my Marxism informs my feminism" used to be one side of a rather heated argument. For Marxists, the social revolution came first and the "advancement of women ("even the ugly ones", as Marx put it) would follow from that. For Marx, female rights advocates were simply bourgeois chancers, or worse. In the First International, Marx had huge battles what he (and Engels) saw as the pro-middle class and anti-working class "socialism" of the group lead by Victoria Woodhull, a prominent US womens rights advocate who, Marx thought, stood for the "false" emancipation of women i.e. without the changes in economic base (and the ownership of the means of production - shit! why do I remember this crap?) that the revolution would bring.

Anyone claiming Marx in support of their feminism had better have one foot kicking in the doors of the Winter Palace as well.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: She was probably checking out potential stepfathers. If she hadn't been stopped, her next words might have been "Mom, he's ok. You should go out with him." :D

I suppose that is a possibility. She did introduce me to her younger brother and sister, and told me where they lived. I suspect it was innocent though.

Something to note is that this is a "high trust" area. A lot of people here generally seem to have a high default expectation of other people and this includes their children.

So far the most notable incident to my mind, was when three little girls knocked on my door and asked if they could have some cookies. I have no idea who they were, but they seemed to know me well enough to ask.

(Small town dynamics. You may not know someone, but they know all about you from those who do)

Did you know that your avatar is pooping out racist hats? :lol:

I didn't think there were any places left that were so trusting, even in small towns. It's nice that there still are some.

Apples wrote:Interesting blogpost tweeted by EllenBeth - showing how the FC(n) and their rabid ferret regular commenters have alienated even people who agree with them in almost all ideological particulars:

Jason Wester wrote:Last night, I made a huge mistake. I commented on Freethought blogs, namely Greta Christina’s blog. I now wish I’d had better judgment because commenting there turned out to be a losing proposition, a zero-sum game. Though I believed, or at least I hoped, I would find some constructive dialogue there if I approached it directly and honestly and transparently, in the fifteen or so minutes I was there I was

Accused of operating in bad faith
Accused of being a fake atheist
Quoted out of context and accused of “stirring the pot” (Heaven forbid someone stir the pot there)
Patronized, repeatedly

http://www.jasonwester.com/?p=829

Unfortunately he doesn't link to the particular reGreta thread in question, and I haven't bothered to look for it because of various mismatched socks in my laundry and a several perverted secular meditation sessions I have scheduled.

It was on this one:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... ent-103621

Wonder how long before the pitters find him and how he’ll respond to them.

Answer: Oh, we'll welcome him, with our nefarious, conniving, outstretched arms, into our evil covenant, we will...
muha...muHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. *cough* *choke*

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

justinvacula wrote:I've been live-tweeting day 2 of #EWTS2013 - check feed for updates

We have a speaker, Kennedy, who said her Marxism informs her feminism talking about 'rape culture' and the usual stuff we hear... See the tweets.

Not that anyone cares anymore, but saying "my Marxism informs my feminism" used to be one side of a rather heated argument. For Marxists, the social revolution came first and the "advancement of women ("even the ugly ones", as Marx put it) would follow from that. For Marx, female rights advocates were simply bourgeois chancers, or worse. In the First International, Marx had huge battles what he (and Engels) saw as the pro-middle class and anti-working class "socialism" of the group lead by Victoria Woodhull, a prominent US womens rights advocate who, Marx thought, stood for the "false" emancipation of women i.e. without the changes in economic base (and the ownership of the means of production - shit! why do I remember this crap?) that the revolution would bring.

Anyone claiming Marx in support of their feminism had better have one foot kicking in the doors of the Winter Palace as well.

D00d stop putting things into intellectual historical context and confusing us with the facts. That's like, totally a misogynistic dog-whistle, just like Ron Lindsay's statements. As Peezus pointed out in his speech, secularism must be "revolutionary and progressive." If you're an atheist who is not a gnu-feminist-marxist, yur doin it rong.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
― Karl Marx

That's very egalitarian of him, don't you think?

Aneris wrote:

ffqc wrote:I'm not an it. I'm a "he" or "him" depending on if you're using the nominative or objective case, you black bastard.

Ok, racism. Inacceptable, too. I find the timing very interesting. We have just three posts in about the Slymepit from our "opponents", and suddenly the troll is here coughing up any cliché that fits their narrative.

Yep. Why people are engaging him I don't know. The troll is just laying seeds for another Nugent style 'gotcha' some time in the future.

Skep tickle wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Nobody saw it, but you now have a biscuit in case you want to play the soggy game.

I did actually.

And my reaction was to think that it was pretty childish. So now that he has used up all of his three chances he joins welsh in the bad dog box.

Welch is in the bad dog box? Besides which, there IS a bad dog box? I thought Eucli was the only other one who'd been put under moderation.

Oh, and I saw the short-lived avatar. Diaper-change isn't a bad description. Actually reminded me more of work, seeing as how some days I do quite a few pelvic exams (and my kid is a boy).

He's got me on ignore. I don't act in a way he finds acceptable. I keep checking his sources and pointing out they aren't what he claims they are, and I'm not willing to take his MRA idiocy seriously. It's a shame really, a working prole like me should learn to genuflect more to my betters.

Jan Steen wrote:

Aneris wrote:

PZ Myers wrote:Obviously, I’ve been increasingly disillusioned, as it has become clear that many atheists are, well, jerks

I can sympathize, if I had to sit surrounded by them in the comment section all day one must come away with that impression. Hang in there, PZ! We care and get you out someday.

PZ's comment section is even worse than your average comment section. His is predominantly populated by that absolutely worst, most insufferable subspecies of jerk: the self-righteous jerk. I don't know how anybody can be immersed continuously in that contagious atmosphere of toxic self-righteousness and not become a self-righteous jerk in turn.

Oh, wait.

I started reading Pharnygula because I like science. I left because while, like most people, I like to have delusional belief that the social group I'm in has no bearing on my behavior, truth is we all know social groups normalize behaviors, including bad ones. It started rubbing off on me and I didn't like the changes. That's one of the many reasons I left the toxic shit-hole that Pharyngula became.

And there were others. It wasn't just that. There was also the rampant quote mining, logical fallacies, bullying and over-all hypocrisy in much of his non-science writing and that, too, became overwhelming.

Honestly, for all the bad-rap the Slyme-Pit gets, beyond a few dicks and some not-very-funny photoshops... It's not nearly the unsafe, quite-toxic shit-hole of the 'safe-space' Pharnygula.

Apples wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

justinvacula wrote:I've been live-tweeting day 2 of #EWTS2013 - check feed for updates

We have a speaker, Kennedy, who said her Marxism informs her feminism talking about 'rape culture' and the usual stuff we hear... See the tweets.

Not that anyone cares anymore, but saying "my Marxism informs my feminism" used to be one side of a rather heated argument. For Marxists, the social revolution came first and the "advancement of women ("even the ugly ones", as Marx put it) would follow from that. For Marx, female rights advocates were simply bourgeois chancers, or worse. In the First International, Marx had huge battles what he (and Engels) saw as the pro-middle class and anti-working class "socialism" of the group lead by Victoria Woodhull, a prominent US womens rights advocate who, Marx thought, stood for the "false" emancipation of women i.e. without the changes in economic base (and the ownership of the means of production - shit! why do I remember this crap?) that the revolution would bring.

Anyone claiming Marx in support of their feminism had better have one foot kicking in the doors of the Winter Palace as well.

D00d stop putting things into intellectual historical context and confusing us with the facts. That's like, totally a misogynistic dog-whistle, just like Ron Lindsay's statements. As Peezus pointed out in his speech, secularism must be "revolutionary and progressive." If you're an atheist who is not a gnu-feminist-marxist, yur doin it rong.

You have to laugh, really. Any serious revolutionary would have nothing but contempt for this lot. Even a good Trot would feel like ice-picking them and a good Leninist might actually do it (or at least hire a useful idiot for the purpose). Bourgeois adventurers.