Yep. Glad you're having a good time, Justin!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
I'd guess tomatoes, cucumber and onion on rye bread, with what looks like a mix of mayonnaise, olive oil, garlic and whatever. At least, that's what I'd do.
I watched the entire film a few months ago, and I really don't understand what could be considered racist about it. Can you give an example?Tribble wrote:Song of the South.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
What's that clip from? The animation is fantastic!
And, yes, it's has some of the 1940's casual racism in it. Not like Birth of a Nation racism, but there is still some there.
If you would like a cinematic rendering of the birth of the slymepit, that also references the Dublin conference that is winding up, I would refer you and the other noobs to this short documentary.Typical_Name wrote:Hai thar, I be newb! I would have posted in the introductions thread, but other posts have told me that all of the activity goes into this thread.
I found out about this place through RationalWiki. They had an oddly vicious article on this site and I thought I'd come check out what all the allegations of "misogyny" were about, and needless to say, I have not found any evidence of the endemic misogyny this community is supposed to have. A tad vulgar, sure, but not misogynist. In fact, from what I've read, you're the least sexist people I've seen for a while. I was surprised to learn that the feminist movement is even more dishonest than I thought it was. I also finally got around to looking into this "Elevatorgate" thing, and I'm shocked by how petty it is. How could anyone possibly agree with Watson's side of the issue? Is there some detail being left out in the stories I've read, or did the guy really do nothing but ask her out for coffee?
(I do find it odd that RationalWiki would be criticizing you guys, normally their articles are fairly accurate and informative. What's with that?)
I don't have much of interest to say in general, so I'll probably just lurk around for the most part, but I never know...
What this a link to PZ's backchannel?Mykeru wrote:The person linking to anal videos
I have a similar perspective. When first encountered, the troll showed some signs that signaled good intentions, and that put me off guard. For instance he called into Justin's show when Skeptic Canary's Skype connection got dropped, thereby filling a lull. And he wasn't a dick on the call either. And he showed some signs of actually having a conversation in the chat during the show. But I wish he'd taken the time to listen to the warnings I'd given (that is, not the troll listening, the person behind the troll listening). There are more reasons than simply political correctness or simple troll-defense for why the pit needs to be cautious. We (or at least, I) are not here just for lulz; we (or at least many of us) have a common purpose/goal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it which requires us to think a bit more (shall we say) 'politically' than we normally would have to on just a regular social forum. If the person behind the troll is actually interested in the consequences of letting trollishness go unchecked, they should read this blog and the comment threads that it spawned: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03 ... -internet/ Don't react with a knee-jerk. Slow down. Lurk a bit. Ask questions instead of making assumptions. The topics are not verboten, it's the trollish behaviour and unnecessary pushing of limits. We have had discussions about words, insults, slurs, and the ethical considerations. There's nothing wrong with those discussions and they can be rehashed if needed. But engage like a person, not a troll. Again, your search for lulz-for-lulz'-sake here is pretty much pointless. But you showed some interest beyond mere lulz. If you're serious about that, this is the place to discuss that stuff. And lulz will come naturally as a result of those discussions. But nobody ain't got no time for trolls.rayshul wrote: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.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.
all socks of franc, duhAneris wrote:Maybe the mathematical genius and intellectial artillery Richard Carrier can explain the 5411 vote gap (as of now) between current Slymepit registered user count and the downvotes.
Yep - 5pm US east coast time (10pm in Ireland)Parody Accountant wrote:Is Vacula doing another podcast today?
Good insights, kunda. Fuck off!kunda wrote: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.
That's if the person who logged in here was actually the caller/chatter. I'm not sure if that was established.Wonderist wrote:I have a similar perspective. When first encountered, the troll showed some signs that signaled good intentions, and that put me off guard. For instance he called into Justin's show when Skeptic Canary's Skype connection got dropped, thereby filling a lull. And he wasn't a dick on the call either. And he showed some signs of actually having a conversation in the chat during the show. But I wish he'd taken the time to listen to the warnings I'd given (that is, not the troll listening, the person behind the troll listening). There are more reasons than simply political correctness or simple troll-defense for why the pit needs to be cautious. We (or at least, I) are not here just for lulz; we (or at least many of us) have a common purpose/goal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it which requires us to think a bit more (shall we say) 'politically' than we normally would have to on just a regular social forum. If the person behind the troll is actually interested in the consequences of letting trollishness go unchecked, they should read this blog and the comment threads that it spawned: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03 ... -internet/ Don't react with a knee-jerk. Slow down. Lurk a bit. Ask questions instead of making assumptions. The topics are not verboten, it's the trollish behaviour and unnecessary pushing of limits. We have had discussions about words, insults, slurs, and the ethical considerations. There's nothing wrong with those discussions and they can be rehashed if needed. But engage like a person, not a troll. Again, your search for lulz-for-lulz'-sake here is pretty much pointless. But you showed some interest beyond mere lulz. If you're serious about that, this is the place to discuss that stuff. And lulz will come naturally as a result of those discussions. But nobody ain't got no time for trolls.rayshul wrote: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.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.
I glanced past those without reading. Then..."wait, is that Bono?"Gefan wrote:This just in from The Rystefn Home Improvement Company (a division of the ACME Corporation):
http://www.picturevip.com/x/clean/image ... /rBbHo.jpg
http://www.picturevip.com/x/clean/image ... /CpGIi.jpg
http://www.picturevip.com/x/clean/image ... /AGswz.jpg
Ha! I bet some lurkers were thinking I was full of shit when I mentioned Marxism being one of the deeper roots of the dogma. Nope. It's there. Not all branches of feminism, but it seems current feminism in academia has a chocolatey post-modernist coating over a succulent Marxist-peanutbutter centre. Yum!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.
I should just say :rimshot:CommanderTuvok wrote:What this a link to PZ's backchannel?Mykeru wrote:The person linking to anal videos
As you've probably seen, there are a bunch of comments now on the conference hashtag about men (men's rights, w/o using that term). This one illustrates the modern redefinition of "feminism" which purports to include men's rights (usually with little to show for it but talk, imo): As I think was mentioned briefly earlier, in Justin's live-tweeting there was one ~rape joke by a woman on stage (something like, 'what do we have to do to get attention, rape men?') and a comment (from the audience in Q&A, maybe?) calling Carlos Diaz "eye candy". Presumably sarcastic in the first case and lighthearted in the second, but jarring if goal really is equal and respectful treatment of women and men.ReneeHendricks wrote:I predict a flurry of angry blog posts soon regarding EWTS2013 and Catherine O'Brien's comments this past hour. Further prediction - the blog posts will contain a lot of "what about the menz?" sentences.
Gee, I wonder. :roll:Hunt wrote:It was on this one: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:
http://www.jasonwester.com/?p=829Jason 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
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.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... ent-103621
Wonder how long before the pitters find him and how he’ll respond to them.
I saw a tweet at some point yesterday regarding "eye candy". My hypocrisy alarm started screaming but I kept my mouth shut (for once). I completely missed the rape "joke".Skep tickle wrote:As you've probably seen, there are a bunch of comments now on the conference hashtag about men (men's rights, w/o using that term). This one illustrates the modern redefinition of "feminism" which purports to include men's rights (usually with little to show for it but talk, imo): As I think was mentioned briefly earlier, in Justin's live-tweeting there was one ~rape joke by a woman on stage (something like, 'what do we have to do to get attention, rape men?') and a comment (from the audience in Q&A, maybe?) calling Carlos Diaz "eye candy". Presumably sarcastic in the first case and lighthearted in the second, but jarring if goal really is equal and respectful treatment of women and men.ReneeHendricks wrote:I predict a flurry of angry blog posts soon regarding EWTS2013 and Catherine O'Brien's comments this past hour. Further prediction - the blog posts will contain a lot of "what about the menz?" sentences.
I should totally market my mad skillz.Skep tickle wrote:Evidence of Renee's psychic powers:
:shhh: shhhhh....the troll might hear youAnonymousCowherd wrote:Don't worry. Wonderist has a cunning plan.JackSkeptic wrote: 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.
No. The an / a split works on sound, so to speak. The N is added to smooth over the transition from A to another open vowel. That is in some ways reflected in the now mostly outdated instance of when most brits did not aspirate the H, so that once upon a time the contemporary phrase I went to a hotel was written as I went to an hotel.Isn't the indefinite article supposed to accord with the noun, and not its qualificatif article? Would make it "a A-class dickhead". Again, honest inquiery.
I honestly think the best way to look at this gender stuff is to put it on two axis. On one you have our views on the power divide. Does the existing gender hierarchy favor men, or does it favor women. The first, is feminism, the second is MRA-dom. The other axis, is how important is group identity. People who think that group identity shouldn't be that important are egalitarian, people who thin that group identity is everything are anti-egalitarian. Wonderist mentioned above about the Marxist origins of some types of feminism, and that's it. Marxism is terribly anti-egalitarian (which is why I'm not a Marxist).Skep tickle wrote:As you've probably seen, there are a bunch of comments now on the conference hashtag about men (men's rights, w/o using that term). This one illustrates the modern redefinition of "feminism" which purports to include men's rights (usually with little to show for it but talk, imo): As I think was mentioned briefly earlier, in Justin's live-tweeting there was one ~rape joke by a woman on stage (something like, 'what do we have to do to get attention, rape men?') and a comment (from the audience in Q&A, maybe?) calling Carlos Diaz "eye candy". Presumably sarcastic in the first case and lighthearted in the second, but jarring if goal really is equal and respectful treatment of women and men.ReneeHendricks wrote:I predict a flurry of angry blog posts soon regarding EWTS2013 and Catherine O'Brien's comments this past hour. Further prediction - the blog posts will contain a lot of "what about the menz?" sentences.
I remember reading about the situation in Palestine, and apparently, as men are losing their jobs - violence against women is on the upswing.Karmakin wrote:Oh, and one thing I was going to say before I started to ramble (I do that a lot).
If you REALLY want to help men with their problems...the big issues are NOT cultural, they are economic.
And I'm going to be blunt here. If you think education is the solution, you don't have a good handle on the actual problems. Education does very little to change the demand for labor. All it does in the long run is drive down the value of educated workers.
According to a report released in December 2011 by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, “high levels of poverty, unemployment and related frustration have contributed to an increase in tension, and ultimately violence, within families†in the occupied Palestinian territories.
This is especially true in the Gaza Strip, where the increasingly harsh economic and social conditions created by the Israeli siege have translated into violence against women, according to Mona Shawa, head of the women’s unit at the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza City.
“Gaza is under a closure. The economic situation is very bad. There is a high percentage of poverty and unemployment. There is frequent violence from Israeli attacks. All of these circumstances affect the level of violence against women,†Shawa told IPS.
Before the great depression overt, direct racism was openly practiced across America and the racist-KKK peaked at over 6-million members in 1924. However, there was a lot backlash because of the KKK's actions and by the time of Song of the South, that KKK-type of overt racism had been close to eradicated and was replaced by a softer form of stereotyping/myth-making that slavery-was-a-good-job-with-room-and-board and blacks, being all inferior and such, were happy for the opportunities.bovarchist wrote:I watched the entire film a few months ago, and I really don't understand what could be considered racist about it. Can you give an example?Tribble wrote:Song of the South.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
What's that clip from? The animation is fantastic!
And, yes, it's has some of the 1940's casual racism in it. Not like Birth of a Nation racism, but there is still some there.
You did quite well, John. Thanks. I still have a lot to learn about this "Eglish" stuff.John Greg wrote:Phil asked (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 21#p105621):
No. The an / a split works on sound, so to speak. The N is added to smooth over the transition from A to another open vowel. That is in some ways reflected in the now mostly outdated instance of when most brits did not aspirate the H, so that once upon a time the contemporary phrase I went to a hotel was written as I went to an hotel.Isn't the indefinite article supposed to accord with the noun, and not its qualificatif article? Would make it "a A-class dickhead". Again, honest inquiery.
That is no longer the case.
Sometimes I just cannot find the way to put things concisely.
Sorry.
rpguest wrote:all socks of franc, duhAneris wrote:Maybe the mathematical genius and intellectial artillery Richard Carrier can explain the 5411 vote gap (as of now) between current Slymepit registered user count and the downvotes.
Good point, but from the live-tweeting, it seemed that the comments about education were mostly aimed at reducing people's reliance on religion for societal rules (e.g. increasing "secularism") - not about overeducating people in areas that won't help them make a living.Karmakin wrote:Oh, and one thing I was going to say before I started to ramble (I do that a lot).
If you REALLY want to help men with their problems...the big issues are NOT cultural, they are economic.
And I'm going to be blunt here. If you think education is the solution, you don't have a good handle on the actual problems. Education does very little to change the demand for labor. All it does in the long run is drive down the value of educated workers.
Okay, this, I don't get, really. For several reasons.Tribble wrote:I have to agree with Lsuoma on this. You know it's sarcasm. I know it's sarcasm. Anyone who's hung out here for more than a week and is smarter than a rock or oolon knows it's sarcasm.Lsuoma wrote:Look, just fuck off with orders, and the "plan" and party lines and crap like that.Wonderist wrote: If all goes according to plan, there will be *no* drama at the conference. Justin is under strict orders from the Lsuomabteilung Patriachimeister not to cause any ruckus. No, seriously, Justin is totally harmless and only wants to dispel the myths about us by just calmly and pleasantly going about his day, live-tweeting the talks, showing that we're just normal people like anyone else. He just finished a recap of the day on his podcast. Take a listen, he's totally harmless. If anyone starts drama, it will be one of the FTB crowd, and we'll be watching out for it to warn Justin if something's up so he can talk privately with the AI staff, as the conference guidelines suggest. Take a listen: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... -day-one-1
Justin is there as Justin, nobody else. Justin is under orders from nobody. Stop trying to make the Pit something that reflects your approach. Get back to the dialog with Nugent - that's a forum where you can get rules agreed, not here.
But you know Myers and/or someone from the FtB crowd will quote mine that shit and put words into all of our mouths. Like the Commander Tuvok quote I saw around the other day. +All Tuvok (paraphrasing) said was 'don't back down from their bullshit on the Internet and engage them in their lies.' This (his actual comment) was massively distorted to mean a full-on harassment pogrom against FtB, women and feminists.
Now imagine what your quote be twisted into by the fever-dreamed SJWs at FtB...
That's a 'this-life', I'm talking 'after-life', like a genuine belief in some sort of 'existence' after their bodies are dead and buried. Doesn't have to be a 'spiritual' afterlife, tho. Say Marxists or whoever might have a belief that their lives are working toward some future Revolutionary Utopia, and so sacrificing their living bodies in the pursuit of that wished-for future is like being a 'part' of it, hence, having an 'existence' after their body is dead.JackSkeptic wrote:They do have their heaven.Wonderist wrote:Now all they need is an afterlife and it'll be a full relapse.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. …)
Their afterlife is acceptance into their cult which includes invites to parties, speaking engagements and exclusive use of hotel lifts. They also get to say how amazingly nice and enlightened they are at every available opportunity without their friends laughing at them while being able to abuse anyone they want. At the same time they can demand exclusive attention and treatment and have a hissy fit if they do not get their way (as Zvan often does) They get to make up words to fit what they want to say not what the words mean and turn on the crocodile tears any time they want without being told to grow up. For Narcissists that is heaven.
Thanks for transcribing that. I probably would have skipped it. Now I'm def gonna watch. These were the 2 quotes that surprised me most.Skep tickle wrote:From Justin's interview with Catherine O'Brien re her closing remarks; all quotes below are from CO from the interview, & any errors in transcription are mine:
...
"This thing about dividing it up into women's rights [is] demeaning"
...
At the very end, CO to JV: "You're doing fine"
I believe Lsuoma is reiterating his tenet that "Nobody represents the Slymepit. Nobody". That was the tagline for the Pit for a while, I believe when there was concern that Justin was implying he was doing something on behalf of the Pit. No one speaks for the pit, no one acts on behalf of the pit.Wonderist wrote: Okay, this, I don't get, really. For several reasons.
a) Lsuomabteilung Patriachimeister? Could anybody of the Nugent variety *not* see that as tongue-in-cheek? I said I won't make dry jokes about Lsuoma's name anymore, and I won't. (If I do by mistake, please rip me a new one for it.) But really?
b) After those two first sentences, the next thing is, "No, seriously". As in: If you didn't see the joke, hey, it was a joke. That's how people signal jokes all the time.
c) After "No, seriously," I didn't 'give orders' to anyone. I just described what Justin was up to. The "orders, and the "plan" and party lines", that was all in the first two sentences. The joke part. Ironically, the *joke* is that *of course* we're not running things in a top-down, give-orders, 'plan', and 'party lines' fashion. That's the whole point of the Nazi reference in the first place.
Given those considerations, there's one other major consideration: The purpose of the post was as a reply to sea, who had expressed fear that the conference was in jeopardy because of some impending drama shit-storm. My goal was to make her feel more at ease with the situation by showing we have a sense of humour and we're a *not* top-down 'give orders' drama-instigation politicized party.
Lsuoma reacted to something, but whatever it was, it wasn't there in the post, except maybe his name, as far as I can tell. So I'll leave his name alone. No biggie. But aside from that, I really cannot see what the big deal is. How could that be quote-mined any worse than any other post in the pit? I just don't see it. Maybe if you could extract the part of the quote that you think is problematic? I'm willing to see it if it's there, but right now I don't see it.
Threatening to harass (and yes, I mean actual harassment; repetitive direct engagement intended to harm) by trolling is crossing a line, IMO. That's what the last message had in it.LurkerPerson wrote:The sad thing is that despite being an obvious douchebag that fccq person that got banned had interesting things to say. And acting/being like a cunt shouldn't be a bannable offense, imo.
Good point, good question, one I’ve wondered about periodically. I think it is largely because of the differences in the frequencies of occurrence of women who are particularly obnoxious versus blacks and gays who are likewise. I’ve certainly found several occasions where “cunt†and “twat†are applicable – Zvan, Sally Strange, Jadehawk, CaitieCat for examples – but not too many for “nigger†or “faggotâ€. Although Crommunist and “Josh, Official Spokesgay†are pushing the limits.Apples wrote: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?"Steersman wrote: <snip>
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.
“Predominantly†is, I think, the nub of the matter. Seems there are more than a few misogynists who use gender insults in a universal context – “bitches ain’t shit†for example. Why context matters."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.
Still catching up, posting as I go....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'.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 ….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.
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.
seriously? i remember the occasional israel rants but not holocaust denialTribble wrote:And is the only person I've blocked.bhoytony wrote: There is one holocaust denier on the board, a poster going by the name of Git
Kind of came off that way, for instance this:ReneeHendricks wrote:This bit by Steersman is still bugging me (regarding my old sig on growing a thicker skin):
Steersman, are you indicating at some point I started to whine about other people's words? Trying to get a handle on the nature of this "drive-by" mentioning.Which she seems to have forgotten at “the moment of truthâ€. So to speak.
If that – complaining about his use of “nigger†and “faggot†– wasn’t any part of where you were coming from then “sorry about that chief!†:-)Way to come in both pea-shooters blazin', new guy.
"Stop your foul whining you filthy piece of distended rectum!"
:lol:Metalogic42 wrote:Still catching up, posting as I go....ffqc wrote: <snip>
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.
Did the troll just cite Pinker in response to STEERSMAN????
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Will Justin be taking Skype calls? The call in number is not toll free and I can't afford a toll call right now.Skep tickle wrote:Yep - 5pm US east coast time (10pm in Ireland)Parody Accountant wrote:Is Vacula doing another podcast today?
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... m--day-two
Yes, apologies for that. What triggered it for me was when we were asking for people to join the Nugent dialogue, and you volunteered, but were such a newcomer at that point, with very few posts, and we (the participants) weren't sure of your motivations. In a brief discussion, you expressed some views (no longer relevant, so won't bother digging them up) that we thought could be dodgy at the time. There was a lot of hoo haw going on in the blogosphere with opinions like "Why are they doing this? It's counter-productive," and "They shouldn't be doing this at all," that we (the participants at that time) thought it was too risky to go with a newcomer who could have harmful intentions. I've noticed your recent posts and I no longer hold that opinion. But fuck off anyway! ;-) By the way, we participants had/have no special pull with Lsuoma. He's the only one you have to worry about suspecting you're a troll. :-)Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I, for one, am interested in what Sea has to say about their experience at the conference. If that interferes with the mustache jokes and the "No, I'm the Queen of Tech Support!" pissing match, we can always take it to another thread.sea wrote:Hi, this is a sort of hit-and-run post ....
BTW, I'm working on the assumption that Sea is not a troll, and really does live in Ireland -- I don't know how to trace IP addresses, but their use of the word "craic" is one hint.
Oh, and I was accused of being a troll when I first posted here, too. (Must be your version of [[[virtual hugs.]]] ) But y'all have a hair trigger. There's no real harm in suffering a true troll for a few posts, but considerable harm in driving away an earnest newcomer.
you chicks are all the sameReneeHendricks wrote:Possibly. It does have me a bit confused.Skep tickle wrote: Renee - maybe Steersman mixed you & Aneris up; she expressed some concern about use of specific words w/in the last 12 hrs or so.
FFSrpguest wrote:seriously? i remember the occasional israel rants but not holocaust denialTribble wrote:And is the only person I've blocked.bhoytony wrote: There is one holocaust denier on the board, a poster going by the name of Git
It wasn't. I was referring to the entirety of his posts here. He came across more as a troll rather than someone really wishing to participate in the Slymepit.Steersman wrote:Kind of came off that way, for instance this:ReneeHendricks wrote:This bit by Steersman is still bugging me (regarding my old sig on growing a thicker skin):
Steersman, are you indicating at some point I started to whine about other people's words? Trying to get a handle on the nature of this "drive-by" mentioning.Which she seems to have forgotten at “the moment of truthâ€. So to speak.
If that – complaining about his use of “nigger†and “faggot†– wasn’t any part of where you were coming from then “sorry about that chief!†:-)Way to come in both pea-shooters blazin', new guy.
"Stop your foul whining you filthy piece of distended rectum!"
It's your own fault. You started it. :lol:bhoytony wrote: FFS
Don't think so. On the call he talked about a book (by Sokal) and said he'd post the link in the chat. Then as soon as he hung up "Harry" in the chat posted the link. He also demonstrated actual knowledge of the Sokal affair in the chat, very quickly, not enough time to get familiar with it on the fly with google/wikipedia. Also, "Harry" was in the chat since the very beginning of the show, and the caller called himself "The Letter H". I'm fairly certain the caller and the chatter were the same.Mykeru wrote:The person linking to anal videos -- presumed because no one was dumb enough to click the fishy link -- on Brave Hero chat "hardgrinder", or some such, was an obvious troll too. I didn't get the impression that you were ever one of the callers, but then I arrived to the party late.ffqc wrote:
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.
But it would explain why you went on and on here about supposedly "doxing" yourself on air, when that caller used his actual name, to give the impression you were that caller.
You are not. You were just some random asshole in the chat that saw a link to The Slymepit and decided to troll here as well. You are just a troll trying to prove something or other not worth the effort and wasting everyone's time and patience in the process. Even worse, by troll standards you aren't even particularly clever or entertaining.
Fuck off.
I caught that too, chuckled. I didn't go for the popcorn, though - fastened my seatbelt instead. :o :lol:Metalogic42 wrote:Still catching up, posting as I go....
Did the troll just cite Pinker in response to STEERSMAN????
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I think I'm getting the hang of critical theory, let me see if I can guess what the problem is:ReneeHendricks wrote:I predict a flurry of angry blog posts soon regarding EWTS2013 and Catherine O'Brien's comments this past hour. Further prediction - the blog posts will contain a lot of "what about the menz?" sentences.
This just keeps getting better and better...dcomplex wrote:
Hi, I'm ffqc's new account. Stop being a cunt and talking shit.
I'd say that's about it, in a nutshell.Kareem wrote:I think I'm getting the hang of critical theory, let me see if I can guess what the problem is:ReneeHendricks wrote:I predict a flurry of angry blog posts soon regarding EWTS2013 and Catherine O'Brien's comments this past hour. Further prediction - the blog posts will contain a lot of "what about the menz?" sentences.
Telling feminists how to best get their points across and accomplish their goals = misogyny enabling
Did I get it?
I just peeked into the chat yesterday, saw "Harry" posting a link to "triple anal" and seeming very intent on getting ppl to follow link & react. Something about that suggested "troll"... :roll:Wonderist wrote:Don't think so. On the call he talked about a book (by Sokal) and said he'd post the link in the chat. Then as soon as he hung up "Harry" in the chat posted the link. He also demonstrated actual knowledge of the Sokal affair in the chat, very quickly, not enough time to get familiar with it on the fly with google/wikipedia. Also, "Harry" was in the chat since the very beginning of the show, and the caller called himself "The Letter H". I'm fairly certain the caller and the chatter were the same.
I sent an email last night asking Justin to send Lsuoma the chat log.
Good night, sweet prince. And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...ffqc wrote:If that's the way you want to play, next time the information about the second account wont' be forthcoming and I'll just sockpuppet. I have 15 days until I fly back to NJ. I have very very little to do over that period of time. You will regret your decision,Lsuoma wrote: This account is locked. Any more accounts you use other than ffqc will also be locked and/or deleted. Your IP will also be banned. Yes, I do ban people.
