Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Ape+lust]

Apart from the fact that giving someone your room key is a stupid way of propositioning someone, unless they're going to take you off for a shag that very second. (How do they know which is your room? Those swipe cards all look the same. How are you going to get into your room between now and shag time? etc.) Does anyone think that PeeZus has ever been sexually propositioned, at a Con or anywhere else?

He plagiarized the story from Penthouse.

:lol:

[LurkerPerson]

Wait, did PZ just imply that he only ever had sex with one person in his entire life? I know close to nothing about his history, but didn't he marry his high school sweetheart? Who else has he had a "serious emotional relationship" with, and when did it happen? The small window of time when his now current wife and he were split up?

[BarnOwl]

Ophelia has decided that it's OK for conference attendees ... even invited speakers ... to have sex:

But nah. I don’t see the problem. I agree that the bigger stars among the conference speakers shouldn’t be obnoxious about it; they shouldn’t blatantly leverage their status to get laid; but other than that, go for it. Why not? These things are social, and that’s why they’re fun. You meet people, you talk, it’s fun. Sometimes that leads to sex and/or romance, a happy weekend or an extended relationship. What’s wrong with that?
Conferences aren’t universities. Nobody’s grading anybody. Nobody has any real power over anybody. If people want to jump on each other, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t.
Conferences (of the kind we’re talking about) are like universities however in the sense that they’re meant to be intellectually stimulating, and often are. That’s erotic itself, as any fule kno. I was always getting crushes on the guys in the tweed jackets when I was at university – little crushes, big crushes, fun crushes, yearning crushes – alla crushes. This was 400 years ago, too, so there were far more men teaching than women; lots of scope for crushes. I never did anything about them though apart from trying to write really good papers. Sublimation, but then again, I wrote some good papers. Win-win if you ask me, but then I’m a nerd. But the point is: at conferences there’s not much reason not to act on attractions provided they are mutual. At least I can’t see any. You?

I think I'd find Watson's talks to be quite the opposite of intellectually stimulating. Maybe when I was younger I could afford to lose a few IQ points, but no longer.

[Ape+lust]

Apart from the fact that giving someone your room key is a stupid way of propositioning someone, unless they're going to take you off for a shag that very second. (How do they know which is your room? Those swipe cards all look the same. How are you going to get into your room between now and shag time? etc.) Does anyone think that PeeZus has ever been sexually propositioned, at a Con or anywhere else?

I'm sure even the Zedist of Zed-listers has their groupies, but PeeZus isn't even Zed-list. You'd need a whole extra alphabet to find a letter to express how microscopic his celebrity is. I know that even Rebecca has been able to get laid at Cons, but that was years ago, back when Skepchicks were doing their tits-out-for-the-lads style of 'sceptical feminism'. And, presumably, before her arse became a sack of cottage cheese bigger than the whole rest of her body.

But Myers? Christ, I know some people have low self-esteem, but what kind of sub-human smear of excrement would you have to think yourself to be, in order to believe that you deserved to be fucked by PZ Myers? (Yes, confront yourself with that mental image for a moment. Be grateful I suck at Photoshop!)

How would such a person end up at a Con? They'd never leave the house! In fact they'd surely be dead by their own hand years before their self-loathing had reached such a depth!

No, no, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and all that. I want video testimony, from a named individual, with their lawyer present, stating that they have, at sometime, wished to have Paul Zachary Myers fuck them. Then I want that person confined to a secure psychiatric institution, on the grounds of public safety.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Aw, now. Rule 34. There's a fetish for everything. Everything includes gape-mouthed schlubs who sound like Dr Demento.

[Rope apologist]

Apart from the fact that giving someone your room key is a stupid way of propositioning someone, unless they're going to take you off for a shag that very second. (How do they know which is your room? Those swipe cards all look the same. How are you going to get into your room between now and shag time? etc.) Does anyone think that PeeZus has ever been sexually propositioned, at a Con or anywhere else?

I'm sure even the Zedist of Zed-listers has their groupies, but PeeZus isn't even Zed-list. You'd need a whole extra alphabet to find a letter to express how microscopic his celebrity is. I know that even Rebecca has been able to get laid at Cons, but that was years ago, back when Skepchicks were doing their tits-out-for-the-lads style of 'sceptical feminism'. And, presumably, before her arse became a sack of cottage cheese bigger than the whole rest of her body.

But Myers? Christ, I know some people have low self-esteem, but what kind of sub-human smear of excrement would you have to think yourself to be, in order to believe that you deserved to be fucked by PZ Myers? (Yes, confront yourself with that mental image for a moment. Be grateful I suck at Photoshop!)

How would such a person end up at a Con? They'd never leave the house! In fact they'd surely be dead by their own hand years before their self-loathing had reached such a depth!

No, no, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and all that. I want video testimony, from a named individual, with their lawyer present, stating that they have, at sometime, wished to have Paul Zachary Myers fuck them. Then I want that person confined to a secure psychiatric institution, on the grounds of public safety.

I'm tempted to agree, then I think of the bovine herd (screeches from the FTB purity lurkers) of females that typically lumbers to hear such a sad sack, and it becomes a little more believable. Ophelia, maybe?

Sure, they've probably tried to off themselves, they're just too dumb to make it work. Schwyzer, for instance.

Myers is far too intellectually dishonest to deal with the fact that he likes the attention, no matter how ugly, and it's part of his ego trip. OK, if it happens. He really isn't very believable, and does Ophelia get that drunk?

It's weird primate physiology. Yeah, moron, it's actually what every honest person knows and recognizes, females like alpha males, and one major effect of feminism is to give lower class males even less of a chance with females, more for the upper class that is so "enlightened."

Really, though, FTBers and SJWs are typically unattractive, unlikable narcissicists obsessed with making rules that level the playing field for those unable to attract. Coercion must substitute for their lack of being able to attract. Now some of their typically repulsive appearance do indeed work to compensate for their lack, while these people merely become bitter and hateful, and determined to force their values and beliefs onto everyone else.

[Rope apologist]

I know we recently had a discussion about how social sciences are all completely useless but, in any case, assuming that book sales on Amazon observe something like Zipf's law and that the partial map of Amazon rank to number of sales here is accurate:

http://dogearpublishing.net/wordpress/i ... ublishing/

...then I reckon that PeeZus is moving something like 45 copies a week at the current rank of The Happy Atheist (#14,698 as of this writing), less than a week after his book debuted. That number is bound to slacken in time.

So much for his MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of fans.

Excellent. He'll be signing books out of the remainder bins before his tour is over.

I read a couple of chapters on Google Books. Collated blog posts just don't work very well. For example, he used Ophelia's favorite rhetorical tool (maybe her only tool), ironic umbrage -- "How DARE atheists think they are moral people" -- a little too often. On a blog, where you get just a couple of "chapters" a day, that sort of thing is unremarkable. In a book, it starts to sound hammy and heavy-handed really fast.

It's back to Dunning-Krueger, of course. Apparently he's pretty much given up being much of a scientist, and he thinks he knows just about everything there is to know about humans and their society, and so he goes off on a whole lot things that he really knows fuck-nothing about.

You really learn the human condition from college (ha--only if you pick very carefully from the mostly dreck they feed you) and from science fiction books, you know. He has a Spock view of the world, even believing that his politics comes from rational thought, rather than from uncritically assimilating whatever he's been told in his little hothouse environment.

The only thing he ever was any good at was explaining actual biology. And he almost wholly gave up that endeavor outside of the university.

[Verklagekasper]

cis white blah. Will I get my sandwich or will I not get my sandwich? That is the question.

[welch]

Apart from the fact that giving someone your room key is a stupid way of propositioning someone, unless they're going to take you off for a shag that very second. (How do they know which is your room? Those swipe cards all look the same. How are you going to get into your room between now and shag time? etc.) Does anyone think that PeeZus has ever been sexually propositioned, at a Con or anywhere else?

I'm sure even the Zedist of Zed-listers has their groupies, but PeeZus isn't even Zed-list. You'd need a whole extra alphabet to find a letter to express how microscopic his celebrity is. I know that even Rebecca has been able to get laid at Cons, but that was years ago, back when Skepchicks were doing their tits-out-for-the-lads style of 'sceptical feminism'. And, presumably, before her arse became a sack of cottage cheese bigger than the whole rest of her body.

But Myers? Christ, I know some people have low self-esteem, but what kind of sub-human smear of excrement would you have to think yourself to be, in order to believe that you deserved to be fucked by PZ Myers? (Yes, confront yourself with that mental image for a moment. Be grateful I suck at Photoshop!)

How would such a person end up at a Con? They'd never leave the house! In fact they'd surely be dead by their own hand years before their self-loathing had reached such a depth!

No, no, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and all that. I want video testimony, from a named individual, with their lawyer present, stating that they have, at sometime, wished to have Paul Zachary Myers fuck them. Then I want that person confined to a secure psychiatric institution, on the grounds of public safety.

I'm tempted to agree, then I think of the bovine herd (screeches from the FTB purity lurkers) of females that typically lumbers to hear such a sad sack, and it becomes a little more believable. Ophelia, maybe?

Sure, they've probably tried to off themselves, they're just too dumb to make it work. Schwyzer, for instance.

Myers is far too intellectually dishonest to deal with the fact that he likes the attention, no matter how ugly, and it's part of his ego trip. OK, if it happens. He really isn't very believable, and does Ophelia get that drunk?

It's weird primate physiology. Yeah, moron, it's actually what every honest person knows and recognizes, females like alpha males, and one major effect of feminism is to give lower class males even less of a chance with females, more for the upper class that is so "enlightened."

Really, though, FTBers and SJWs are typically unattractive, unlikable narcissicists obsessed with making rules that level the playing field for those unable to attract. Coercion must substitute for their lack of being able to attract. Now some of their typically repulsive appearance do indeed work to compensate for their lack, while these people merely become bitter and hateful, and determined to force their values and beliefs onto everyone else.

not that i'm going to go back through pharyngula to find it, fuck that, but I do believe at one point, PZ et al were saying how conference speakers should NOT bang attendees because of the power imbalance.

[Badger3k]

Apart from the fact that giving someone your room key is a stupid way of propositioning someone, unless they're going to take you off for a shag that very second. (How do they know which is your room? Those swipe cards all look the same. How are you going to get into your room between now and shag time? etc.) Does anyone think that PeeZus has ever been sexually propositioned, at a Con or anywhere else?

I'm sure even the Zedist of Zed-listers has their groupies, but PeeZus isn't even Zed-list. You'd need a whole extra alphabet to find a letter to express how microscopic his celebrity is. I know that even Rebecca has been able to get laid at Cons, but that was years ago, back when Skepchicks were doing their tits-out-for-the-lads style of 'sceptical feminism'. And, presumably, before her arse became a sack of cottage cheese bigger than the whole rest of her body.

But Myers? Christ, I know some people have low self-esteem, but what kind of sub-human smear of excrement would you have to think yourself to be, in order to believe that you deserved to be fucked by PZ Myers? (Yes, confront yourself with that mental image for a moment. Be grateful I suck at Photoshop!)

How would such a person end up at a Con? They'd never leave the house! In fact they'd surely be dead by their own hand years before their self-loathing had reached such a depth!

No, no, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and all that. I want video testimony, from a named individual, with their lawyer present, stating that they have, at sometime, wished to have Paul Zachary Myers fuck them. Then I want that person confined to a secure psychiatric institution, on the grounds of public safety.

I'm tempted to agree, then I think of the bovine herd (screeches from the FTB purity lurkers) of females that typically lumbers to hear such a sad sack, and it becomes a little more believable. Ophelia, maybe?

Sure, they've probably tried to off themselves, they're just too dumb to make it work. Schwyzer, for instance.

Myers is far too intellectually dishonest to deal with the fact that he likes the attention, no matter how ugly, and it's part of his ego trip. OK, if it happens. He really isn't very believable, and does Ophelia get that drunk?

It's weird primate physiology. Yeah, moron, it's actually what every honest person knows and recognizes, females like alpha males, and one major effect of feminism is to give lower class males even less of a chance with females, more for the upper class that is so "enlightened."

Really, though, FTBers and SJWs are typically unattractive, unlikable narcissicists obsessed with making rules that level the playing field for those unable to attract. Coercion must substitute for their lack of being able to attract. Now some of their typically repulsive appearance do indeed work to compensate for their lack, while these people merely become bitter and hateful, and determined to force their values and beliefs onto everyone else.

not that i'm going to go back through pharyngula to find it, fuck that, but I do believe at one point, PZ et al were saying how conference speakers should NOT bang attendees because of the power imbalance.

That sounds about right. Anything between the speaker and anyone else is a power balance issue, except when it was Watson doing the calling out. IIRC that was brought up at the time (probably here - it wouldn't stand a chance over there).

[Rope apologist]

not that i'm going to go back through pharyngula to find it, fuck that, but I do believe at one point, PZ et al were saying how conference speakers should NOT bang attendees because of the power imbalance.

Could well be, but in the two comments shown in this thread he appeared eager to avoid saying anything like that. Just because he doesn't isn't to be taken to mean that no one else should (no caveats for speakers, such as he), and, saying that maybe he's "weird" that way.

[another lurker]

Rope apologist wrote:

Really, though, FTBers and SJWs are typically unattractive, unlikable narcissicists obsessed with making rules that level the playing field for those unable to attract. Coercion must substitute for their lack of being able to attract. Now some of their typically repulsive appearance do indeed work to compensate for their lack, while these people merely become bitter and hateful, and determined to force their values and beliefs onto everyone else.

You could very well be describing religious fundamentalists - with their purity balls, and other sick shit.

[Bhurzum]

I know that even Rebecca has been able to get laid at Cons, but that was years ago, back when Skepchicks were doing their tits-out-for-the-lads style of 'sceptical feminism'. And, presumably, before her arse became a sack of cottage cheese bigger than the whole rest of her body.

You just know that each and every time she did get laid, the dude in question was singing this...

[youtube]Q1lB7DPe8eA[/youtube]

"Any port in a storm" as the saying goes :o

[Ä uest]

FWIW, I don't see PZ saying he is accepting these keys, just the opposite. They are offered to him, but he turns them down.

Ophelia's statement that it's okay to have sex at a conference IS interesting -- how then did she manage to not bring this up when Krauss was being named, or when Shermer was being flamed for flirting?

They seem to put a lot of emphasis on harassment is one way, flirting is two way, but given that I honestly don't know how they ever get to flirting without one person first harassing the other.

Finally, it's suggested conference organizers and speakers should pledge no sex with attendees because they wield power over the attendees. I don't go to conferences so can someone fill me in, what power does conference organizers and speakers hold over attendees?

[Kevin Solway]

Myers writes:

It was the eroticism of intellectual stimulation.

Really? Nothing to do with the fact that he is in a position of relative wealth and power, and has proven himself to be a manipulable man by fact of his years of marriage?

I really don't think "Intellectual stimulation" would work as a title for a pornographic magazine or romance novel (same thing).

[Rope apologist]

Myers writes:

It was the eroticism of intellectual stimulation.

Really? Nothing to do with the fact that he is in a position of relative wealth and power, and has proven himself to be a manipulable man by fact of his years of marriage?

I really don't think "Intellectual stimulation" would work as a title for a pornographic magazine or romance novel (same thing).

And a rather inflated view of his intellectual prowess.

Has he ever had an original idea?

[ERV]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

[Linus]

I think I'd find Watson's talks to be quite the opposite of intellectually stimulating. Maybe when I was younger I could afford to lose a few IQ points, but no longer.

*insert awkward joke* So, uh, did I tell you guys that internet trolls have been sending me rape threats and calling me ugly? I did? Well, here it is again. Also check out these totally new sexist PMs I got. *insert awkward joke* Here's something I haven't talked about before (okay actually I have, but whatever): people writing emails complaining about me to the SGU. Yeah, it's really bad. Some guy sent an email the other say saying "I think the show would be better without her". And the never address the emails complaining about me to me, they address them to the guys. Because misogyny. *insert awkward joke*

This is usually about as far as I get before I have to tune out.

[Linus]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Are you positive?

[Skep tickle]

In another classic example of entryism, the top-donating Kiva "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group, with nearly $12MM donated to-date, has been co-opted within the last month, and had its logo changed to "A+":
http://www.kiva.org/teams

They, of the damaged language-policing blog-whiners and libelists, have gotten a foothold and taken retroactive credit for all the good work that group has done, and tainted the tactic of mentioning this as a prime example of atheist good-will when the issue is raised that atheists don't give to charity.

Thanks for pointing this out.

I just sent this via Kiva's "contact us" page:

I have been a member of the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" team for YEARS. Someone recently pointed out to me that that group's logo at Kiva had been changed to "A+". I have now QUIT the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group at Kiva - Atheism Plus (A+) has been VERY divisive in the online atheist community, see the Urban Dictionary definitions of Atheism Plus: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ism%20Plus

Please let me know if there will be a change made to remove the reference to A+, or if there is a similar but non-A+-biased group with which I can affiliate at Kiva.

(my name)

Looking back in my records, I first donated at Kiva almost 7 years ago (& joined the "Atheists etc" group not long thereafter).

[Kevin Solway]

what power does conference organizers and speakers hold over attendees?

Women are naturally turned-on by power. It's a biological thing, and detracts from their ability to consent.

Power equals money, influence, status, etc.

[Rope apologist]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Hey baby, you wanna see my herpes?

Oh, so close.

[real horrorshow]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Are you positive?

I see what you did there.

Abbie, this may be because you're going to real conferences rather than, say, Wild West Bordello parties with a bit of a conference on the side. Second, you're not likely to get propositioned by any of the Slymepitters, if you encounter one IRL, because we know you're in a relationship. Thirdly as a combination attractive woman/scientist/martial artist you may be a little intimidating. Just a guess.

[Bhurzum]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Maybe you should hang around the elevators whilst wearing a blue wig.

Just a suggestion.

/duck

[DownThunder]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I just sent this via Kiva's "contact us" page:

I have been a member of the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" team for YEARS. Someone recently pointed out to me that that group's logo at Kiva had been changed to "A+". I have now QUIT the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group at Kiva - Atheism Plus (A+) has been VERY divisive in the online atheist community, see the Urban Dictionary definitions of Atheism Plus: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ism%20Plus

Please let me know if there will be a change made to remove the reference to A+, or if there is a similar but non-A+-biased group with which I can affiliate at Kiva.

(my name)

Looking back in my records, I first donated at Kiva almost 7 years ago (& joined the "Atheists etc" group not long thereafter).

As luzly and spot on the definition of A+ is over at urban dictionary, I get the feeling it's going to be orders of magnitude less credible than even wikipedia as reference material.......

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

In another classic example of entryism, the top-donating Kiva "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group, with nearly $12MM donated to-date, has been co-opted within the last month, and had its logo changed to "A+":
http://www.kiva.org/teams

They, of the damaged language-policing blog-whiners and libelists, have gotten a foothold and taken retroactive credit for all the good work that group has done, and tainted the tactic of mentioning this as a prime example of atheist good-will when the issue is raised that atheists don't give to charity.

Thanks for pointing this out.

I just sent this via Kiva's "contact us" page:

I have been a member of the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" team for YEARS. Someone recently pointed out to me that that group's logo at Kiva had been changed to "A+". I have now QUIT the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group at Kiva - Atheism Plus (A+) has been VERY divisive in the online atheist community, see the Urban Dictionary definitions of Atheism Plus: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ism%20Plus

Please let me know if there will be a change made to remove the reference to A+, or if there is a similar but non-A+-biased group with which I can affiliate at Kiva.

(my name)

Looking back in my records, I first donated at Kiva almost 7 years ago (& joined the "Atheists etc" group not long thereafter).

Woah. I haven't donated to the Kiva, but it is very important that everyone know if this charitable group is now being by A+Theism, so that they can make a well-informed donation.

[DownThunder]

what power does conference organizers and speakers hold over attendees?

Women are naturally turned-on by power. It's a biological thing, and detracts from their ability to consent.

Power equals money, influence, status, etc.

While I believe there are behaviours which can reflect something loosely and colloquially described as "power", when it comes to creating actual laws and policies based on claims that X person has "more of it" than person Y, it is far too subjective, abstract and borderline imaginary. Surely no one is seriously contemplating such a policy outside of the SJW asylum?

[some guy]

Tribble, I am glad you are addressing this oft cited but unsupported assertion that only 2% of rape claims are false.

OTOH, the DoJ did a study on DNA evidence in rape cases. What they found in a population of 10,000 cases where the accused had been identified and was a person of interest or charged that the DNA evidence only matched in 60% of the cases. Multiple organizations and researchers have tried to tackle this problem. Multiple career prosecutors have weighed in. And the bottom-line from all these evidence-based, career-observed cases is that false rape charges are distressingly high ranging and range from 40% to 50%.

Can you give a link to this study? I did not find it with a quick search, but perhaps I am not looking hard enough.

I think it's important to note the differences in the circumstances in the group of "rapes" used in the DNA study: In those cases, probably a high percentage are cases were a rape actually occured, but the question is whether or not the person charged was the one who did it. These are likely to be cases where it was a forcible attack by a stranger, with identification of the rapist being problematic.

In the case were a woman was not raped (e.g., no sexual intercourse at all, or "consented" but later regrets), there will either 1) not be any DNA evidence, or 2) the DNA would match the person accused by the "victim".

Sure, there probably are some false accusations in the group of "rapes" that were part of the DNA study set (e.g., had sex consensual sex with one man, but for one reason or another then accused another man of raping them), but I'm skeptical that the group of rapes in the DNA study is representative of rape-accusations in general.

[Ä uest]

what power does conference organizers and speakers hold over attendees?

Women are naturally turned-on by power. It's a biological thing, and detracts from their ability to consent.

Power equals money, influence, status, etc.

While I believe there are behaviours which can reflect something loosely and colloquially described as "power", when it comes to creating actual laws and policies based on claims that X person has "more of it" than person Y, it is far too subjective, abstract and borderline imaginary. Surely no one is seriously contemplating such a policy outside of the SJW asylum?

Well at least two of the four horsehung, really all four of the horsehung have been charged with impropriety at conference ranging from flirtation to rape. And so various commentators have discussed the terrible power dynamics at a conference that mean a speaker should never proposition an attendee.

http://i.imgur.com/yHKh9aw.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/ywz1ddL.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/DyGlY0w.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/m71kZNg.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/RTYvnnk.jpg

[deLurch]

The Daily Dot
"Misogynist trolls have turned Storify into a harassment tool"
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/eleva ... arassment/

Checks http://justinvacula.com/ ...
All 8 posts in August have nothing to do with this drama. Good job. Continue to positively identify who you are outside of this mess.

[clownshoe]

Our podcasts are pretty much like that. I've tried to make a habit of having the occasional short interview with Atheists from less fortunate parts of the world. Like the United States and Western Australia.

Haha!

Tomorrow night we have teed up a recording with Rock2466. That should be fun.
I'd have him on as a regular, but the two hour time difference is a killer :D

Sadly I'm unable to appreciate this comment, since at this moment, as I type, I have no idea who Rock2466 is.
Regardless, looking forward to it

This is the "genius" of Rocko2466:
[youtube]EDuesOr4De4[/youtube]

[deLurch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXloqvGehqE

Well, he's fucked. Mr Diety is about to learn Intent is Not Magic. This won't make a whit of difference -- he didn't grovel.

Just give them the finger, Mr Diety. This has fuck all to do with victim-blaming or even the victim, for that matter. They're professional character assassins who want you on their leash.

His statement is not for the dyed-in-the-wool SJW. There is no cure for that. His statement is for the run of the mill public who might bite on such statements unless they are provided with a contrary opinion.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Possibly the longest, and most pathetic, abuse of the post-nym privilege at Meyers's blog?

http://i.imgur.com/eEvOV1u.png

[Skep tickle]

Other people have commented on this (here). I'm adding my 2 cents.

Weird Primate, Horrible Weirdo

http://i.imgur.com/lfxulVa.png
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... he-podium/

Whatdabada...huh? Dude's been married 30 years! Or am I missing something here? Are PZ and his wife swingers? Then there's this bizarreness:

Pteryxx
August 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Al Dente: in that case, it’s not the conference’s responsibility to place restrictions on the more-or-less-famous person, beyond the same old harassment policy that applies to everybody.

PZ, thanks for the numbers (though I wish you wouldn’t put yourself down; I’d probably offer except you’ve made it clear you’re not interested in such offers. Hey, consent!) So taking PZ as a midrange, ANY speaker might get a few to many offers a year from fans. Which means it’s a significant issue, and potentially a significant concern.

I can also add, I’ve only been to a handful of conferences and I’ve *witnessed* a couple of speaker-attendee hookups being initiated. The public part, anyway. (None of them involved the current crop of horrible; but they did involve a lot of alcohol, and now I wonder…)

Once again...dude's been married 30 years! When did "being a swinger" become the null hypothesis for FtBers husbands and wives?

PZ:
"…it was simply that eroticism of intellectual stimulation, as you mentioned, and the impulse to indulge in a fleeting crush. …"
"…[it] just generally seemed like something we might all regret when the first brief flush of enthusiasm wore off. So I’ve always gently turned down those offers."

Pteryxx:
"So taking PZ as a midrange, ANY speaker might get a few to many offers a year from fans. Which means it’s a significant issue, and potentially a significant concern."


"Significant issue" - for who? "Potentially significant concern" - for who?

For the speakers, for some of whom being the recipient of such requests will feel like harassment?

For the speakers' partners where applicable? (Relationship exists & is not 'open'.)

Or for the people (women) offering themselves to speakers in the flush of intellectually stimulated lust? Or, offering themselves under the flush of alcohol? (Quite possibly as something of a pattern by the women who do this, if it's true PZ has gotten 8-10 different such offers over the years and that other male speakers are getting more such offers.) If so, why? Because this is unwise behavior, or...? Should they be warned "gals, don't do that", or perhaps some conference rules implemented to prevent such behavior by the women?



Pteryxx:
"...I’ve *witnessed* a couple of speaker-attendee hookups being initiated. The public part, anyway. (None of them involved the current crop of horrible; but they did involve a lot of alcohol, and now I wonder…)"


Oh, Pteryxx - do finish that sentence. What do you wonder? Whether the woman had in each case been plied with alcohol or otherwise manipulated by the man into hooking up, and therefore each of those situations was actually rape (of woman by man)?

[Skep tickle]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I just sent this via Kiva's "contact us" page:

I have been a member of the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" team for YEARS. Someone recently pointed out to me that that group's logo at Kiva had been changed to "A+". I have now QUIT the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group at Kiva - Atheism Plus (A+) has been VERY divisive in the online atheist community, see the Urban Dictionary definitions of Atheism Plus: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ism%20Plus

Please let me know if there will be a change made to remove the reference to A+, or if there is a similar but non-A+-biased group with which I can affiliate at Kiva.

(my name)

Looking back in my records, I first donated at Kiva almost 7 years ago (& joined the "Atheists etc" group not long thereafter).

As luzly and spot on the definition of A+ is over at urban dictionary, I get the feeling it's going to be orders of magnitude less credible than even wikipedia as reference material.......

Doesn't matter, that was just in case Kiva staff had NO CLUE about A+ and were going on what vocal "Atheism team members" said. (I've never participated in the "team" discussions there, but DID want my donations to be "credited" as atheist/etc.) The Rational Wiki page on A+ is no help for quick introduction to some of the issues. I'm not trying to persuasively argue my viewpoint on A+, just to point out that it's been divisive, which presumably they are not likely to see as a plus. (Unless, I suppose, they could get 2 Atheist teams competing against each other to see who gives more...)

Anyway, my "portfolio" page at Kiva says I'm in the 99th percentile of # of total loans made (78; aided, of course, by how long I've been doing it). I have no idea where the total $ I've "deposited" (to loan, then reloan when it's paid back) falls, nor the total amount I've donated to Kiva's operating expenses - they don't give that info, at least not that I'm seeing - but I'm going to take a stab & guess that both are more than most A-plussers.

[Rystefn]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Are you positive?

I see what you did there.

Abbie, this may be because you're going to real conferences rather than, say, Wild West Bordello parties with a bit of a conference on the side. Second, you're not likely to get propositioned by any of the Slymepitters, if you encounter one IRL, because we know you're in a relationship. Thirdly as a combination attractive woman/scientist/martial artist you may be a little intimidating. Just a guess.

Bunch of cowards. If you're into the idea, ask her. What's the worst that can happen? She breaks your arm in four places, cracks your skull against the ground, then drags you off to do HIV testing on your persistent vegetative punk ass? No guts, no glory, man. Besides, if there's such a thing as an afterlife, you know you're going be judged on how awesome you died, and do you really want to be the thirty billionth heart attack?

[rayshul]

What's really sad is when Crommunist is the rational one. I'm sure it won't last, but it's black man vs white woman, so who has more privilege. I wish Goku were here - he could tell me the score of each so I could know who will win. I only hope it doesn't drag out for 10 weeks.

As we've recently learned from black feminists and #solidarityisforwhitefeminists, a man of colour cannot rape a white woman because she is oppressing him. I would therefore assume that because Crommunist is a MAN OF COLOUR, Watson is OPPRESSING HIM with her comments and he is in the right. Also she is completely failing to check her privilege.

Thank goodness it's so fucking easy these days to work out who is correct, you just have to find the person with the darkest skin.

[JackRayner]

So, I don't believe anyone has mentioned this here yet, but in the comments of that strange "interview" with Shermer, this thing appeared:

Pilar drshell
• a day ago

−

the sad part is so many people know who she is. And PZ told her he can no longer talk to her. He's throwing her under the bus, as his lawyers told her he can no longer communicate with her. he used her. She now has to get a lawyer she can not afford. Thanks PZ. He's a professional, he should have gone over with her just what she was getting into. i don't think she should have been silent, but he should stand by her and help her out with the legal expenses. It may indeed be Shermer's fault, but she is not the kind of person that would really know what her coming out would entail. It happened in '06.

http://buffalobeast.com/interview-with- ... 1004285915

"Pilar" made another. I took a screen shoot and posted it yesterday, a few pages back. I don't think it seemed of interest to anyone else...

[KGuest]

In another classic example of entryism, the top-donating Kiva "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group, with nearly $12MM donated to-date, has been co-opted within the last month, and had its logo changed to "A+":
http://www.kiva.org/teams

They, of the damaged language-policing blog-whiners and libelists, have gotten a foothold and taken retroactive credit for all the good work that group has done, and tainted the tactic of mentioning this as a prime example of atheist good-will when the issue is raised that atheists don't give to charity.

Thanks for pointing this out.

I just sent this via Kiva's "contact us" page:

...

Hi Skep Tickle, thanks for noticing this and realizing the gravity. I don't think Kiva themselves cares much how their groups are run, but since the old Team Captain is still on the captains list (in addition to his 2 new additions), it may be more effective to raise the issue amongst the group themselves: http://www.kiva.org/team/atheists/messages

(Unfortunately, I believe you would have to rejoin temporarily to view/post to the group message board.)

P.S. I've been lurking for several months, and wanted to say thanks for your great work, and sorry that you were trickle-doxed by the FftBullies.

[JackRayner]

I dont get this "over-sexualized kids today" crap.
Before recently, most people lived in one room houses, longhouses, teepees, adobes, yurts, etc. There was no privacy, yet there were multiple children. There were also goats, ducks, horses, dogs, etc. often, in the case of Northern parts of the world with ice cold winters, also in the same one-room building. There were often other relatives, distant relatives, and others living in the same house.

This is an interesting perspective.

Hell, these days people can live several decades before seeing an animal being killed in person.

Then again, the internet is a screwed up place... this forum reads a lot like duck sex. :think:

Are you calling the Slymepit rapey? :?

Dammit forum code, that looks like a list to me. geez.

:lol:

[JackRayner]

I dont get this "over-sexualized kids today" crap.

Before recently, most people lived in one room houses, longhouses, teepees, adobes, yurts, etc. There was no privacy, yet there were multiple children. There were also goats, ducks, horses, dogs, etc. often, in the case of Northern parts of the world with ice cold winters, also in the same one-room building. There were often other relatives, distant relatives, and others living in the same house.

It's a popular myth. "Oh, we were so innocent, nowadays, it's all gone wrong" Every year someone says that, probably from when those terms meant something to today, and it's still bullshit. It's like talking about how in the good old days there was less crime.

I have a bit of fun with that one. I like to point to this study, that found that from '54 to '03, 9 out of 10 women had premarital sex, and add that their grandmas/moms/whatevs are probably lying when they tell tales of their chastity...

...When I do, though, people shut down on me. Maybe the thought of their grandmas getting laid grossed them out? :think:

[Hunt]

...
"Significant issue" - for who? "Potentially significant concern" - for who?

For the speakers, for some of whom being the recipient of such requests will feel like harassment?

For the speakers' partners where applicable? (Relationship exists & is not 'open'.)

Or for the people (women) offering themselves to speakers in the flush of intellectually stimulated lust? Or, offering themselves under the flush of alcohol? (Quite possibly as something of a pattern by the women who do this, if it's true PZ has gotten 8-10 different such offers over the years and that other male speakers are getting more such offers.) If so, why? Because this is unwise behavior, or...? Should they be warned "gals, don't do that", or perhaps some conference rules implemented to prevent such behavior by the women?

Pteryxx:
"...I’ve *witnessed* a couple of speaker-attendee hookups being initiated. The public part, anyway. (None of them involved the current crop of horrible; but they did involve a lot of alcohol, and now I wonder…)"

Oh, Pteryxx - do finish that sentence. What do you wonder? Whether the woman had in each case been plied with alcohol or otherwise manipulated by the man into hooking up, and therefore each of those situations was actually rape (of woman by man)?

I consider that whole post and particularly the comments something of a FtB Freudian Slip. When I was finally banned at B&W it was at the suggestion that A/S conferences were actually intended as giant hookup meetings. I was banned, and figured it was my trolling and Benson's Victorian reflex. Since I'm a "conference virgin," never been to one and probably never will, it was just a guess. I now suspect it's because I hit a little too close to the truth. The puzzle now renders a faint image. Why the urgent insistence for harassment policy? Why the presupposition that harassment and even rape will be endemic? Well, when you're running a red light district, these are going to be problems that have to be dealt with. Why, for that matter, the bizarre blind spot for marital or partner status of attendees?

To be honest, it kind of makes me ever so slightly more sympathetic to their position. At least now I have something that makes a little sense.

/paranoid delusional rambling

[rayshul]

Irrelevant video, this is just where my brain went after the duck sex.
[youtube]6-JfIduytVs[/youtube]

[Michael J]

Apparently Popehat wants to get a seat at the SJW lunch table. (Apologies if this was already posted.)



(Sorry, don't know how to insert graphic.)

Simultaneously attacking the slymepit and flaunting his lack of neurotypicality. Well played, Popehat.

I've been taken out of context. Harassment! PTSD!

[uberfeminist]

Are you calling the Slymepit rapey? :?

Holy shit. Never going to let a mallard anywhere near my drink.

[uberfeminist]

...
"Significant issue" - for who? "Potentially significant concern" - for who?

For the speakers, for some of whom being the recipient of such requests will feel like harassment?

For the speakers' partners where applicable? (Relationship exists & is not 'open'.)

Or for the people (women) offering themselves to speakers in the flush of intellectually stimulated lust? Or, offering themselves under the flush of alcohol? (Quite possibly as something of a pattern by the women who do this, if it's true PZ has gotten 8-10 different such offers over the years and that other male speakers are getting more such offers.) If so, why? Because this is unwise behavior, or...? Should they be warned "gals, don't do that", or perhaps some conference rules implemented to prevent such behavior by the women?

Pteryxx:
"...I’ve *witnessed* a couple of speaker-attendee hookups being initiated. The public part, anyway. (None of them involved the current crop of horrible; but they did involve a lot of alcohol, and now I wonder…)"

Oh, Pteryxx - do finish that sentence. What do you wonder? Whether the woman had in each case been plied with alcohol or otherwise manipulated by the man into hooking up, and therefore each of those situations was actually rape (of woman by man)?

I consider that whole post and particularly the comments something of a FtB Freudian Slip. When I was finally banned at B&W it was at the suggestion that A/S conferences were actually intended as giant hookup meetings. I was banned, and figured it was my trolling and Benson's Victorian reflex. Since I'm a "conference virgin," never been to one and probably never will, it was just a guess. I now suspect it's because I hit a little too close to the truth. The puzzle now renders a faint image. Why the urgent insistence for harassment policy? Why the presupposition that harassment and even rape will be endemic? Well, when you're running a red light district, these are going to be problems that have to be dealt with. Why, for that matter, the bizarre blind spot for marital or partner status of attendees?

To be honest, it kind of makes me ever so slightly more sympathetic to their position. At least now I have something that makes a little sense.

/paranoid delusional rambling

Makes sense. What do you think people do at church? Find mates.

Conferences create an ideal environment for people that ultimately want to find like-minded people. Perhaps also people of similar means - everyone at the conference can presumably afford to be there. Add some alcohol and a different area code...

:dance:

[LurkerPerson]

Popehat stalking and harassing slymepitters! I am so disapoint :(

[Hunt]

Makes sense. What do you think people do at church? Find mates.

Conferences create an ideal environment for people that ultimately want to find like-minded people. Perhaps also people of similar means - everyone at the conference can presumably afford to be there. Add some alcohol and a different area code...

:dance:

They often take place in hotels for shit sake, (i.e. large buildings with many bedrooms). They should just embrace it and pimp them out with bouncers, etc. How would a revelation like that not make entirely reasonable the desperate mandate for sexual conduct oversight, the paranoia over harassment and possible rape? Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we've finally found a way to frame the problem to everyone's satisfaction, maybe even Thunderfoot.

[dogen]

cis white blah. Will I get my sandwich or will I not get my sandwich? That is the question.

More to the point - white bread or brown?

[The Tim Channel]

As seen on the web:

"Overuse of GIFs means you’re telling the world, “I don’t know how to express myself, so here’s a Real Housewife saying ‘Aw hell naw’ on an infinite loop.”

Enjoy.

[Guest]

No one has ever propositioned me as a conference :(

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... tled-1.jpg

People just ask me questions about viruses.

Did that happen in a confined space like an elevator?

[Jan Steen]

I haven’t seen the actual book, but from reviews and Amazon’s preview (which includes the Acknowledgements) I infer that PZ Myers does not acknowledge anywhere in The Happy Atheist that most of the content has been published before.

As Nature reviewer Glenn Branch noted:

The chief problem with The Happy Atheist, however, is that it seems to break no new ground. By my count, Pharyngula posts provide the basis for at least 26 of the 38 essays and 5 more are adapted from a talk he gave in 2010.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/500149a

We are therefore dealing with a clear case of self-plagiarism.

(As defined in Wikipedia:

Self-plagiarism (also known as "recycling fraud"[24]) is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism)

How bad is self-plagiarism?

Reusing research that you’ve used before – even using your own writing as a reference – seems to be completely acceptable. However, writing what is supposed to be – and is understood by your readers to be – an original piece (whether it’s for a magazine, a newspaper, a blog, an academic journal or a book) without referencing material that was actually written previously is in my view lying. You are essentially passing it off as original when it clearly isn’t. If someone is paying you for original work (payment might not be in money as in the case of academic writing – rather it is for recognition of a sort), then original work he or she should have.

http://backstorywriting.wordpress.com/t ... lagiarism/

I agree. It is perfectly okay to reuse your own material. What is not okay is to try to pass it off as original. That’s unethical. That’s lying.

But, as we all know, “it is okay when we do it.” Therefore it is not at all hypocritical for Myers to scoff at self-plagiarist (and worse) Jonah Lehrer:

He’s slick. He writes with a glib authority, and is a master of superficial plausibility, able to whip out a snappy footnote with a reference just obscure enough to tickle recognition in the brains of knowledgeable readers and to wow the yahoos. He sounds smart. But there’s a real vacancy at the core.

He’s not good at the science. He’s a poor researcher. He’s not a good writer — he churns words around and knows the form, but the content isn’t there.

So now he’s going to paste together another book that will clutter the shelves and deprive better writers of support.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... s-baaaaack

Am I the only one who finds these words ironic beyond belief?

[Tribble]

Tribble, I am glad you are addressing this oft cited but unsupported assertion that only 2% of rape claims are false.

OTOH, the DoJ did a study on DNA evidence in rape cases. What they found in a population of 10,000 cases where the accused had been identified and was a person of interest or charged that the DNA evidence only matched in 60% of the cases. Multiple organizations and researchers have tried to tackle this problem. Multiple career prosecutors have weighed in. And the bottom-line from all these evidence-based, career-observed cases is that false rape charges are distressingly high ranging and range from 40% to 50%.

Can you give a link to this study? I did not find it with a quick search, but perhaps I am not looking hard enough.

Not a direct answer to your question, but yesterday I listened through a stack of GirlWritesWhat, Typhonblue and others.



If you skip to 19:00 GWW talks about the history of that 2% claim.

Susan Fucking Brownmiller. Who also redefined rape from a sex-based biological crime to a more complicated political-patriarchal crime. A stupid redefinition we're living with today. Like I said somewhere else in this thread, if there was Hell, she'd deserve the worst corner.

[LurkerPerson]

That's just outright exageration. I can think of at least a hundred different types of assholes who would deserve a worse corner in a hypothetical hell, not least murderers and (ironically) rapists. At most she would deserve being in the 4th or 5th circle, something like that, with all the other disgenuous, lying douchebags.

[Michael J]

Even in the twilight hours, the Slymepit receives more traffic. Right now 12 registered users, barring the bots, spiders and panics. 16 registered total, 49 users total.

On Atheism Plus right now, 7 total, 4 guests, 1 hidden, 2 registered users... both bots. Jen must be proud.

Twilight hours? Check your longitudinal privilege.

[Tribble]

What might help is to clarify what kind of false accusation. That is, the ones that are legitimate mistaken identity as separate from the malicious ones. When you lump both in together, it might create a viewpoint that isn't entirely accurate.

Kanin (3 studies) and McDowell came with a range of FALSE reports (ie deliberate lies) that ranged from a low of 40% to a high of 50%. There are more, some a little higher. Some a little lower. I think McDowell's study is the best because it covers every rape claim in the USAF that was made over a four-year-period.

The DoJ study that was referenced in the exoneration report was not about false claims. Rather, from what I gathered, it is further down the jurisprudence chain and was about demonstrating how poorly the accusation, investigation and prosecution process (pre-DNA) was working prior to DNA testing as well as other issues. When only 60% of the DNA evidence matches the alleged perpetrator and 20% absolutely exculpates, there's clearly a problem in your accusation/investigation/prosecution chain and if you're interested in the administration of actual justice instead of "sentence first, trial later" those problems need to be fixed. Or as they said: "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions."

And many prosecutors will tell you the same thing. This is former Denver prosecutor David Silverman (Democrat turned Independent):

For 16 years, I was a kickass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. I am unaware of any Colorado prosecutor who put as many rapists away for as much prison time as I did during my prosecutorial career. Several dozen rapists are serving thousands of years as a result of my efforts.

However, during my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. It was remarkable and surprising to me. You would have to see it to believe it.

Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is. A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent.

Objective studies have confirmed this. See Purdue Professor Kanin's nine-year study published in 1994 concluding that over 40 percent of rape allegations were demonstrably false.

The above statements are heresy to say publicly for many politically correct prosecutors. That is especially true if they want to maintain good relations with the victim advocacy community. Norm Early has a great longstnding relationship with the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) and was a past president.

I've mentioned in other posts that, in the end, our handle on this issue is limited because this has become a career-wrecking field. The SJW feminist/Victim Advocacy groups do their best to crush anyone who tries to pursue accuracy in this field. They turned on Kanin (at one point he was a feminist hero for his work on male aggression), they're tried to destroy the careers of anyone who has tried to put truth to their bullshit and it's to the point where people won't do this work, and if you speak out, well, you get attacked.

The irony of all this is that black men are the ones that suffer the most from these false claims. You'd think all those white SJWs that fund and run these programs might consider that they're victimizing their fellow victims of White Male Oppression in their SJW calculus. But they don't, because, as we've seen, too many SJWs are narcissistic thugs who are more than happy to fuck anyone else over in order to get and keep their power and privilege.

[Tribble]

Tbf, there is a lot of raging at the stupidity and victim manufacturing here. Some of it is lighthearted, some of it is just straight up rage. Obviously they would try to paint it as some sort of uniquely mysoginous trait of the pit, being pissed off at poor defenceless women who dare to act like human beings instead of the piss-soaked toilets we all want them to be (as taught by teh PATRIARCHY). Just more victim manufacturing.

Sure, there's some anger here sometimes. Sometimes, it's even directed at the opposition. But one thing I have noticed is that when things get heated here, it's usually about something other than Them. When we get really, truly angry, it's almost always at each other, not the Baboons.

There's been times when something schism-related happened, maybe something that didn't go "our way" as much as we'd hoped, and we of course get to discussing it. Our tone is the usual snark and laughing mockery and spitball-launching. But go to Ophelia's place, and she and her commenters are saying how we're "fuming" and "spitting mad" and "yelling incoherently". It's blatantly a flat-out lie designed for people to swallow who don't look over here.

QFT. At them it's mostly humor at their idiocy with occasional jabs. The real fighting is in-fighting since we're not a monoculture of Stepford Atheists or Cultists and, therefore, we have clashes when our personal ideologies rub-wrong.

[Slither]

we have clashes when our personal ideologies rub-wrong.

Nail-hammering techniques are now an ideology? :-)

[zenbabe]

Clownshoe wrote: "Tomorrow night we have teed up a recording with Rock2466. That should be fun.
I'd have him on as a regular, but the two hour time difference is a killer :D"

Sadly I'm unable to appreciate this comment, since at this moment, as I type, I have no idea who Rock2466 is.
Regardless, looking forward to it

This is the "genius" of Rocko2466:
[youtube]EDuesOr4De4[/youtube]

Oh,that was very very fun ("We found Mykeru's house!"), even with the distracting mispronunciation of "Z" (it's PeeZee, not PeeZed, you silly Queen's English speakers). I like how the continual "ding dong" of the doorbells puts in mind not only the cult like, Mormon-esque nature of the Whored, but also that they're mental fruit loops.

[Gumby]

FWIW, I don't see PZ saying he is accepting these keys, just the opposite. They are offered to him, but he turns them down.

Ophelia's statement that it's okay to have sex at a conference IS interesting -- how then did she manage to not bring this up when Krauss was being named, or when Shermer was being flamed for flirting?

They seem to put a lot of emphasis on harassment is one way, flirting is two way, but given that I honestly don't know how they ever get to flirting without one person first harassing the other.

Finally, it's suggested conference organizers and speakers should pledge no sex with attendees because they wield power over the attendees. I don't go to conferences so can someone fill me in, what power does conference organizers and speakers hold over attendees?

OK, so when does a speaker and an attendee shagging not constitute an abuse of power differential? Ophie admits to soaked circus tents panties in her younger days (late Cretaceous period) when she gazed dreamily at the tweed-jacket wearers giving lectures. She says it's OK for speakers and attendees to bump nasties... but WHEN is it OK?

I think a clue can be found in this offering from Pteryxx:

I can also add, I’ve only been to a handful of conferences and I’ve *witnessed* a couple of speaker-attendee hookups being initiated. The public part, anyway. (None of them involved the current crop of horrible; but they did involve a lot of alcohol, and now I wonder…

Seems like they think it's just fine and dandy, as long as the speaker is someone they like (and in Ophie's case, preferably wearing a tweed jacket). But if it's Shermer or Krauss or one of the other persons on their nasty little shit list, all of a sudden come the charges of "creepy predator using his power differential as a speaker as a tool to ply innocent helpless women with booze and drag them by their hair back to his cave for rape."

And here we are, back at yet another variant of the "It's OK as long as we do it" argument.

By the way, I found actual footage of Ophie in action when one of the objects of her desire gives a really HAWT lecture. (Watch the whole thing, it's not quite what you thought it would be)

[youtube]hLFuGLMJuAI[/youtube]

[zenbabe]

"Pilar" made another. I took a screen shoot and posted it yesterday, a few pages back. I don't think it seemed of interest to anyone else...

Apologies, I couldn't remember if I'd seen it here or not. I couldn't recall discussion of it.
On its own the claims made by this person are peculiar, but the extreme hypocrisy in the reaction of the horde to them, even though completely predictable, nonetheless made my jaw drop.