Bleeding from the Bunghole

Old subthreads
Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15661

Post by Service Dog »

Tribble wrote: I shall also point out, NOT ONE PERSON is on the side of the guy. Not one. Nobody. We're all clear he's a raging asshole.
I'm on the side of the guy. I don't think it's clear he's a raging asshole.

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15662

Post by Suet Cardigan »

While we're on the subject of Nazis, I've started reading that "Hitler's Furies" book that someone mentioned a few days ago, and it mentions Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, noting that "there is an element of reality in these exaggerated depictions".

Anyway, here's our glorious leader's favorite pic:

http://www.moviestillsdb.com/media/pict ... b97412.jpg

spiffigt
.
.
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15663

Post by spiffigt »

welch wrote:
spiffigt wrote:This is why I use BSD.
Free, Open, or Net?
Net. Sadly it's slowly dying :( We would relly need an influx of some new, dedicated, developers.

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15664

Post by bovarchist »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Whoever Caine lives with has some really fucking low ideas about basic personal hygiene. Look at this fucker's fingernails from her blog (the rat, by the way, sounds like it is fine, just had a tumor removal surgery. Perfectly common with pet rats). This isn't a one-off: every photo I've seen from her rat blog which included a human hand had these filthy fucking fingernails in it too. Dirty cunt.

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

http://ratifiedtwentyfive.wordpress.com/page/3/
Who the hell takes a tumor out of a rat? Know what a rat with a tumor is? TIME FOR A NEW RAT. BECAUSE RATS ARE FREE. </channellingjackiekashian>

goddamn 'nym
.
.
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15665

Post by goddamn 'nym »

Linus wrote: Her and Matt's descriptions don't match up perfectly and I threw in a "if that is in fact what happened". It's not clear to me exactly how the body shot went down.

Did I say I wanted anyone to cheer for getting the guy fired? No. By all means defend him. There are ways of defending him without attacking her, though. I tried to make that point clear. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have been fired.

As I see it there are three basic ways of reacting to something like this:

1. Attack the perpetrator
2. Defend the perpetrator
3. Attack the victim

I'm saying I have no problem with 2. And under certain circumstances I have no problem with 3 if it's with respect to something the victim is actually morally or legally culpable of. I don't see how they can be culpable in their own harassment, though. Handling being harassed poorly isn't a crime or a moral wrong. And something like "She never says stop or no until he is fingering her in public." can be framed as either 2 or 3. I'm saying it's better to frame something like that as 2.

I'm sensitive to superior/subordinate dynamics due to personal experience. I have had a boss who basically expected me to do whatever he wanted, including stuff that had nothing to do with my job. Thankfully he didn't want anything sexual from me, but I can sympathize with the uncomfortability of the situation she was put in.
I largely agree with the summaries John D and Skep Tickle gave of the situation above.

I think you are wrong to call this a crime, in this situation it is a reasonable expectation that she would say no if she didn't like what is happening. So I am not going to categorize this as 1/2/3.

Where I am more interested in the story is in the way the reports are written. They strike me as manipulative. They are full of appeals to emotion, especially that one witness who was scarred for life by the sight of her facial expression. And Justine to this day has not realized that her inner monologue was not apparent to Joe. She also claims Joe is dangerous, which is absurd.

When I read articles that try so desperately to create a certain perception I wonder why they are not giving me the damn facts. Look at the weasel words she uses to tell us about who instigated that body shot. The body shot sets the stage for all that follows and how Joe perceives the situation. It is obvious she wanted to use the part of the story but didn't want to be explicit about the other people involved. Why?

Why does it matter that Joe did the body shot when this is all a perfectly non-sexual thing to do?

She goes on and on about creating a description of the whole situation but then when the interesting part happens she suddenly says "and here is where I’m going to start getting vague because the rest is just too painful to detail out."

Then I kept wondering why she added this bit here:
The rest of the week at CodeMash is frankly a blur. I still had to present my talk on Thursday but everyone did a really good job of making sure I was drunk enough to not have to deal with what was going on. Was I going to run into Joe again that week? Was I going to lose my job? What was going to happen? I didn’t have to think about it thanks to wine and gin and tonics.
It makes no sense to highlight that you are an alcoholic that barely recollects the rest of the week. And again, who is this "everyone"? Are we really to believe that a bunch of people decided to keep her intoxicated for a week? And she thinks Joe is her biggest problem? But it all would make sense if you wanted to preempt the question why you spent the rest of the conference drunk and happy; giving no indication that something traumatic happened.

The rest of her post is full of weird claims that don't seem to make sense to me, but I am not going to dissect it all. What seems clear is that she is an alcoholic and she needs to see a therapist immediately.

You see a weak victim that must be believed, I see someone who is spinning a story.

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15666

Post by bhoytony »

James Caruthers wrote:At least one of the FTB posters has a sweet picture of a Danelectro DC '59 reissue as his profile pic. The first cool thing I've seen on FTB in ever.
OMG Jimmy Page uses a Danelectro for his open tuning stuff, therefore you AND the FTB poster think Page is cool, therefore you are both misogynists and rape apologists. I think thats how it works

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15667

Post by Gumby »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Whoever Caine lives with has some really fucking low ideas about basic personal hygiene. Look at this fucker's fingernails from her blog (the rat, by the way, sounds like it is fine, just had a tumor removal surgery. Perfectly common with pet rats). This isn't a one-off: every photo I've seen from her rat blog which included a human hand had these filthy fucking fingernails in it too. Dirty cunt.

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

http://ratifiedtwentyfive.wordpress.com/page/3/
She's the Willard of Pharyngula!

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 6790ff.jpg

goddamn 'nym
.
.
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15668

Post by goddamn 'nym »

welch wrote:
Guest wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:He tries "very hard never to use GPL software" while he posts on a blog run by GPL software.
I didn't actually read the second paragraph, but wow, what a lunatic.

I am not sure what Stallman's politics are, but he certainly does not favor corporate exploitation of their employees, or paying them minimal wage.
No, he actually favors them being paid by the government to code, based on some very fucked up formula. Oh, and if you can't code, you shouldn't be using software. He's just a complete fuckwit at this point. Who eats toejam.
RMS' basic premise is that if your system doesn't run free software then you can not be in full control of your system. I think this is fundamentally sound. You can argue that we accept the lack of control because we can't possibly review all the code or are not programmers, but the fact is still there.

Obviously you don't change the world by peddling conventional wisdom, so some people get hung up on unimportant details. But at the core the question is: In a world where more and more things are controlled by IT who has control over the IT.

When you lost control over your own IT e.g.: do you think it is easier to regain it and develop counter-measures for others by working the dis-assembler on non-free software or by just checking the source code?

This is not an abstract concern. We know from Snowden that several hundred billion dollars are being spent by one state actor alone to take control of other people's IT and that is before the whole botnet industry and other states come in.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15669

Post by welch »

uberfeminist wrote:OK - What the hell is PZ talking about when he says "Stallman showed up"?

Wait, found it, from the comments:
RICHARD M STALLMAN says:
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/LInux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

OCTOBER 12, 2013 AT 8:00 AM REPLY
Then Later:
R.STALLMAN says:
>Someone looks in my general direction
>OMG, halp!! I’m being raped!!!!1

OCTOBER 12, 2013 AT 9:03 AM REPLY
NAT says:
Not that I’ve had much interest in what you had to say the past decade or so but I’ll be sure to no platform you should you appear at any conferences I happen to attend. After reading the comments on here I’m amazed Justine left them open but it does flush people out of the woodwork.

OCTOBER 12, 2013 AT 9:14 AM REPLY
R.STALLMAN says:
Shut up bitch, we as men must liberate all the pussy. You might think your body belongs to yourself, but it belongs to the community, to everybody, otherwise we don’t live in true freedom. Stop being a selfish cunt.

OCTOBER 12, 2013 AT 9:47 AM
Ok, all you need to do to know this is bogus is the following:

Google this quote:
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/LInux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
It fucking shows up all over the place, being posted by people who are not RMS.

PZ is an idiot and this "Nat" guy is an incredible idiot.
Yes, well, what they actually know about stallman could fit in a thimble. So unsurprising.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15670

Post by welch »

Karmakin wrote:Well. My take on all this is pretty predictable for me.

#1. What happened there is pretty normal for that sort of environment.

#2. The boss guy should have been fired for going into that environment with subordinates. No question to that. It was improper in every way shape or form.

#3. That said, in that environment those things are part of the sub-cultural norm. Further, from the story given, I have very little doubt that up until the very end a reasonable person in the boss's shoes would have thought that clear consent was given.

#4. Taking them at their word, that this is such a horrible traumatic thing, it's not about retribution, it should be about preventing this in the future.

#5. It comes down to the same thing as SO MANY FUCKING THINGS these days this time. People want their drinking experience to be a fucking theme park catered to their exact whims. She was upset because her drinking experience spiraled out of her control. Yeah. That's what happens in this sort of thing. The ENTIRE Secular rift is about this...is about making this intersection (where secularism and drinking meet) into their own personal theme park.

This. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. These situations are messes. And people enjoy the messiness of it, but sometimes it goes against you...sometimes pretty badly. And people should be aware of this.

Am I victim blaming? No. What I am saying, is that if someone gets hurt on a bender, then his/her friends who were with them/support this culture should feel like assholes. I'm blaming those jerks.

The world is not your personal theme park. ESPECIALLY when alcohol is involved.
well, it would help if people took alcohol a bit more seriously as you know, a drug. But it isn't. No one thinks about it, fuck, getting so shitfaced you can't remember last night is a sign of PRIDE, not a sign of "shit, something went wrong, I need to examine some things." It also doesn't make anyone do shit they wouldn't normally do, it just gives them an excuse.

"That doesn't count, i was drunk" ring a bell?

I have nothing against social drinking, i have nothing against heavy drinking, but for the love of christ, Alcohol is a fucking drug, just like vicodin, percocet, cocaine, or heroin. If you do not respect its potential, and you do not pay attention, you're going to end up in places you didn't think you'd be in.

But for that to change, the US has to change its view on booze and that's not happening. Too much money.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15671

Post by Service Dog »

Aneris wrote:Keep in mind that it is also wrong to assume the first story is perhaps not entirely true and every subsequent story was a correction of the first. It is entirely possible that the first story is 100% accurate and every subsequent story is false.
Which are you counting as the "first story"?
I think most readers assume Justine's blog post came first, and the witnesses wrote theirs in response to hers.

Just to be clear:
Zach's blog post was published Oct 9,
Matt Darby's Oct 11,
Justine's Oct 12.

In between, all three were active on twitter.

After Zach's post, Justine wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/4351nVq.png

After Matt's post, Justine wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/ciX3kV6.png

Hours later, Matt clarified that he intervened on a guess,
not due to any sign Justine wasn't consenting:
http://i.imgur.com/cUw9wXG.png

Minutes later, Justine wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/HPdUj3N.png

2 minutes later, she addressed this to both Zach and Matt:
http://i.imgur.com/tAd9TZ0.png

The next day she published her version.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15672

Post by welch »

Guest wrote:> her asking whether his wife would mind.

Interesting take that Joe may have seen that as her inquiring about consent and not seen as what seemed obvious to me to be her saying no.

There are several forums I visit where I can read a tale (think blind men and an elephant) and I will think one thing, and then find so many more nuances that I never caught. I will be forced to go back and reread and wonder how I missed that. It's very humbling but it also makes me very glad to live in an Internet age. Anyway, I wish the pit was like those forums. [j/k]

I am stunned many times by what I pick up, by what others never seem to glom onto, but most importantly what is shown to me that I didn't pick up on. (I would like to think that occurs on forums where free speech is encouraged and ugly speech tolerated without all the name calling and labeling and excommunication of our favorite sites.)
But that's part of the problem too. Look, here's the thing: hints rely on a fuckton of mindreading. There are a lot of people who are BAD at them. Like probably most people. What works better?

"Hey, knock it off!"
"No"
"Stop fucking touching me"
"No i'm not going to do body shots and you're being an asshole about it."

Yes, I do get that calling your boss an asshole can be a career-limiting move, but at some point, what's more important? There's a career THAT important? And if you get fired because you called your boss an asshole because you wouldn't let him slurp booze off your body, WIN! That's the kind of check that means "never work again". You could walk to the courthouse on the carpet of lawyers that would show up at your door.

She is not responsible for his behavior, but at some fucking point, you cannot rely on everyone else to save your ass all the time. There are bad people, there are stupid people, and you have to live in the real world. That means being careful about how much you drink and who with. That means you say "no" when someone STARTS getting uncomfortable.

Jesus, what would have happened if she hadn't been lucky and had a coworker with a clue?

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15673

Post by welch »

Linus wrote:
Skep tickle wrote: But as others have said, the behavior was not unusual for 2 inebriated people who are sexually attracted to each other (even if they wouldn't feel that same attraction, or behave the same way, in the absence of alcohol). And that's not a firing offense.
It's unusual based on the bars and parties I've been to.
Then you've led a sheltered life. Not even being smarmy. YOu've literally been sheltered from the shit that goes on when copious amounts of booze are involved. That account is kind of tame.
Linus wrote:
So, how could he know whether she was also interested? From what's been written, it seems that he partway relied on what he read as clues he was getting from her - her laughing (Matt says; though of course maybe that was just a "social" laugh/smile), her staying near him, letting him run his hands over her, her getting up on the bar & lying down & pulling up her shirt & letting him drink a shot from her navel, her letting him kiss her & kiss/bite her breast, her asking whether his wife would mind. This part, IMO, it's hard to fault him for. It doesn't sound like he was horribly misreading her behavior; even Matt says she was laughing, and she got up on the bar (he wasn't aware of her being coerced up there), and that (as I read it) it was only because he knew her that he figured she did not want this to be happening. So this is where her behavior seems to have contributed to the situation.
He was in a position of authority over her. Have you ever had a boss who wanted you to do things that you didn't want to do that had nothing to do with your job? I have. It's a different dynamic.
which everyone has agreed with here. Everyone. He was wrong. Not sort of wrong. but wrong. Analyzing why he might have reacted the way he did doesn't mean anyone thinks he's right. It is called "trying to figure out the details". It also means recognizing the critical points where she could have taken action herself to halt the situation. Possibly not drinking as much as she did, saying "no" in a more clear fashion, etc. All of these things contribute to a situation, and if you're going to outlaw discussion of ALL of them, then the number of repetitions of this kind of situation you will help stop becomes precisely zero. If I walk down the street in a klan outfit, it's still wrong for someone to hit me with a brick. But to label "Well maybe you could have not worn the klan outfit" as unacceptable analysis is moronic, and it seems that's what you want. That in any situation, you cannot ever point out critical points where the victim could have acted in a proactive manner to avoid what happened, because "victim blaming". That's just stupid, and helps no one.

So what's your real beef? We didn't call for him to get the full Mussolini?

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15674

Post by Gumby »


katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15675

Post by katamari Damassi »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Are we sure that those fingernails don't belong to "Dakota Ice" herself? Should somebody run a scan for DNA evidence on the nail muck?
Thank you for "Dakota Ice", You deserve an internet just for that.
:clap:

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15676

Post by welch »

Guest wrote:She's young. Single. Healthy. No dependents. Graphic Designer. Two years ruby web designer experience.
Conference speaker at CodeMash.

And yet, apparently so worried about losing her job she will stay quiet in a crowded room with help literally within a couple of feet from her for 30 minutes or more while gradually sexually assaulted by her boss.

This seems to either be a damning statement against the Patriarchy, or a statement this girl has neither sense nor self-worth nor sense of self.

Seriously, I don't know of any men in that position that would put up with that shit without quitting.

Are many women like this? Is it rational to be in the position she describes for herself and be that worried about quitting?
Dude, every WOMAN I know would have told the asshole exactly what he could do with himself in high style, and if anything happened to her at work other than him quitting/getting fired, (because it sure as shit would have been reported), they'd own the company, lock, stock, and fucking barrel.

But yeah, unfortunately, a lot of women are taught, or teach themselves, that they either cannot, or should not do anything on their own. The reasons are legion, and occasionally legitimate, but what you end up with is what you saw. I saw a lot of this when I was actively teaching martial arts. Some times the hardest thing in the world was getting a female student to hit another student, with pads, and not even full force, without APOLOGIZING for it.

Over and over. "whap...i'm sorry. whap...i'm sorry" And every time, you had to hunt for the secret. In one case, I had to say "Part of what HE'S here for is to learn to deal with people trying to hit him, just like you. So if you pull back or apologize, you're hurting his development. Be a helper. Hit him but good."

In another case, when I realized she was from a large family, all it took was "Just pretend he's your oldest brother." Ten seconds later "OKAY, YOUR SLIGHTLY YOUNGER BROTHER! IF YOU BREAK HIM, YOU CAN'T SPAR WITH HIM ANYMORE."

But over and over I had to find ways to break past that conditioning. It was work. Oddly, there seemed to be a line. In the kid's classes, that issue didn't exist, and the girls would fucking rumble the boys, no problem. But once you got to that tween/early teen age, unless they'd been in the class before, man, shit would change and fast.

So yeah, I do think that in the most critical developmental years, women get this "you're helpless before men" thing. I wish I could find the base sources so I could set them on fire, it's fucking annoying.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15677

Post by welch »

Linus wrote:
Guest wrote:
Linus wrote:
He was in a position of authority over her. Have you ever had a boss who wanted you to do things that you didn't want to do that had nothing to do with your job? I have. It's a different dynamic.
It's a small company and she has worked their for two years.
The fuck does that have to do with anything? That's not a valid excuse for him behave like that.
As I've said the stock feminist line, which this is, supports the notion that women are so fragile and need so much protection it is best they remain in the kitchen doing something safe like making sandwiches.
Gender has nothing to do with it. And the remain in the kitchen making sandwiches thing is something you obviously pulled out of your ass.
Oh for fuck's sake, are you another one of the "everything has to be a direct quote" tits too? There is a huge amount of feminists and feminist allies saying over and over that women are helpless against men. Greg Laden "YOU MUST CROSS THE STREET" shit? Yeah. That's just the low-hanging fruit.

Stop denying something just because you don't like it. I hate that shit, I think it hurts women more than anything else. Who the fuck benefits from being taught to be helpless. But if I deny it's there, what chance do I have of fixing it on any level?

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15678

Post by welch »

Linus wrote:
Guest wrote:
Linus wrote: Scrutinizing victim reports in order to figure out what happened is generally fine. Scrutinizing victim reports for other purposes is not necessarily fine.

I said in an earlier post:

"There is nothing wrong with what you describe (i.e. trying to figure out what actually happened). I didn't say there was. And I didn't say people were denying an assault took place. I'm talking about where her account of what happened is accepted but her behavior is scrutinized."

Understand it, finally?
No. It's perfectly fine to ask questions about people's behavior. It might suck. And it might be very helpful.

People are not mindreaders. It may be very enlightening for Justine to explore why she couldn't say anything. It may be very helpful for people trying to avoid that situation to discuss it as well.

And in discussing it, in supporting people who come forward, as opposed to keeping it hidden, in getting it out of the closet, we'll do away with the feelings of shame that would disincentivize people from coming forward.

We do this with our children, we do this with our friends, we do this on comedy shows, and in dramas. But no, you cannot suggest a woman as an EQ of 0.
You said (directed at me): "you're also eager to forego any contemplation or learning about what happened and why." I've proven you wrong. End of discussion.
Nonsense. you're only willing to allow discussions of specific things. Anything else, and you attack the person bringing it up. You most certainly are willing to forego discussion.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15679

Post by welch »

rayshul wrote:You know, as far as I'm aware, the one thing that's been demonstrated to reduce the number of sexual assaults against women (and women specifically) is teaching women how to say No in a clear way.



Fuck though, I hate the picking apart of stupid social fuck ups which are - apparently - dealt with... and then go through trial by internet. We've got the courts, we've got police, we've got responsible behaviour from companies. :/ I don't know what more people need. I feel like that should be enough.
I think part of it is the "hint" concept. I mean, we see it happen in minor ways all the time. "That girl was really into you" "What?" "She was all talkign to you and smiling at you" "Dude, she was being nice, we were having a good conversation" "Every time you went to the bar or the bathroom, she was complaining to her friend you weren't getting her hints" "WHAT HINTS? TALKING? LOOKING AT THE PERSON? THAT'S NOT HINTS, THAT'S POLITE" "Dumbass"

When you almost codify indirect shit like hints as how things are done, when you make mind-reading damned near a requirement, shit going wrong like it did is inevitable.

Say "yes". Say "no". Say "woo-hoo!". Say "fuck off". But for the love of christ, STOP WITH THE FUCKING HINTS. I think we've established its failure as a reliable communications method.

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15680

Post by katamari Damassi »

James Caruthers wrote:At least one of the FTB posters has a sweet picture of a Danelectro DC '59 reissue as his profile pic. The first cool thing I've seen on FTB in ever.
Careful. That's probably Guitar Douche Joe,

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15681

Post by welch »

Tribble wrote:
My daughter, at 5, testified against her former mother (terminated parental rights, adopted by my current wife) for the three years of sexual abuse she suffered at her hands. Her former mother was (literally) trying to brain-wash her (my daughter) into testifying against me as a sexual abuser and generate 'evidence' of my sexual abuse.

If a 5-year-old can endure that shit FOR THREE YEARS and refuse the easy way out then testify against HER MOTHER THE SEXUAL ABUSER... You can see why I (and she, as well) have nothing but contempt for the SJW and those that take/excuse the easy way out. I know what the hard way is. I know what duty is. I know what actual personal responsibility is. And it's something that even young children can do (and do more than people give them credit for in society at large).

And when some upper-middle-class spoiled brats who've never indicated they've experienced any sort of trauma worse than being a generation behind on their iPhone, a parking ticket or perhaps a cold latte' at Starbucks seek to lecture me from their semi-idyllic life or tell me that victims must be coddled and excuse their inactivity... That doesn't sit well with me.
I dated, almost married a woman who had been raped, at gunpoint, by her stepbrother, and when she told her father, he blamed her. Called her a whore.

When the asshole made a play to force visitation rights, she walked into the lawyer's office the day before the trial and told the lawyer the entire story. It was the first time her mom found out as well. When she told her mom "I didn't want to upset you" her mom was actually hurt and said "Of COURSE it would have upset me. Because I'm your mother. The only problem would have been "kill him or call the cops"."

Needless to say, he didn't get his visitation rights. Stepbrother has a record, and that will be with him forever. She was a teenager when the trial happened, in a VERY redneck part of NY State.

It wasn't easy, and his lawyer grilled the shit out of her on the stand, but she went through it because she knew it was the only way that this shit had even a chance of ending. That's why you go to the cops. That's why you report. Even though it will suck, because that's the ONLY chance you have of actually stopping things.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15682

Post by welch »

Brive1987 wrote:Dr Dick :)

Sure she wasn't wearing her seat belt. But in this case the company had a primary legal (if not moral) duty of care to ensure a safe work place. If things were getting out of hand there should have been resources in play to ensure a professional work space was maintained.

That's why excessive victim scrutiny appears problematic - Normal pub / party laws of the jungle and personal qui vive should not be the required SOP at a company run event.

That said, everyone has ultimate responsibility to ensure they don't get figuratively and/or literally fucked. Just here I think the company failed far more than the individual.
But it seems like the company did. Once they found out.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15683

Post by welch »

Linus wrote:I just corrected welch on this, do I really have to do it again? It was not a goal post shift because I never made a legal argument in the first place. Go ahead and think the courts are "the ultimate arbitrator" if you want. I'll still think it's wrong to raid someone's house in the middle of the night under drug suspicion (legal) and not wrong to speed or smoke pot (illegal).

Again, it's really dumb and immature to bring up a previous argument in response to an unrelated one. You could have just responded to my last post on that subject instead if it's what you wanted to talk about.
If by "correcting me" you mean "justified why whatever i say is whatever I meant, even though it's different than what I said earlier, so I win because neener-neener" then you most certainly did.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15684

Post by welch »

spiffigt wrote:
welch wrote:
spiffigt wrote:This is why I use BSD.
Free, Open, or Net?
Net. Sadly it's slowly dying :( We would relly need an influx of some new, dedicated, developers.
Or you need an IBM/Oracle to make it the basis for huge parts of their stuff. That did wonders for Linux.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15685

Post by Scented Nectar »

codelette wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Guest wrote:She's young. Single. Healthy. No dependents. Graphic Designer. Two years ruby web designer experience.
Conference speaker at CodeMash.

And yet, apparently so worried about losing her job she will stay quiet in a crowded room with help literally within a couple of feet from her for 30 minutes or more while gradually sexually assaulted by her boss.

This seems to either be a damning statement against the Patriarchy, or a statement this girl has neither sense nor self-worth nor sense of self.

Seriously, I don't know of any men in that position that would put up with that shit without quitting.

Are many women like this? Is it rational to be in the position she describes for herself and be that worried about quitting?
This sounds like drunken regret 'rape' rather than any sort of real rape or assault. I suspect that she was fine with it at the time because she was drunk and he was drunk and they fooled around.

She was probably embarrassed when remembering it the next day, realizing what she'd done in front of the people she works with when (hopefully) sober.

Thus the extremely lame sounding retelling of it with her as a victim instead of admitting to being drunk, fooling around, and being embarrassed afterwards. Pretending later that she didn't know how to stop it and was unable to say "no" or even walk away from the situation sets off my bullshit detector big time.
There is this other story I found the other. This woman, Tucker Reed, is allegedly raped by ex-boyfriend. Google her story or go to her tumblr: coveredinbandaids. Start reading from the beginning. Her stories seemed to change every few entries.
She is totally fucked up. I only made it part way through her 'about' page, and already I've learned that after the alleged rape, she went on to date the alleged rapist for 2 years. She also starts claiming that unprotected sex led to her getting chemically addicted which fooled her into thinking she was in love with him. Yikes! Another story with more holes than Swiss cheese.
From http://coveredinbandaids.tumblr.com/about :
... Aside from some oral which wasn’t that great, I was getting nothing out of it. I felt like a masturbatory device. So I started having sex. Because it seemed like a way to humanize myself.

And once you start having sex with somebody — especially a somebody who doesn’t wear a condom because “it feels like fucking into a sock” — you get chemically addicted. You fall in “love.” Your brain gets wired to see past all the red flags that scream “THIS GUY IS USING YOU. THIS GUY DOES NOT LOVE YOU. THIS GUY DOESN’T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS.”

I guess I didn’t know what love was, either. I mean, I did know, all along, that I did not “love” my attacker. But I thought I could, some day. Because he was a nice guy. A nice guy I was fond of.

And over 707 days — one year, eleven months, and seven days — I became a bitter, critical person. I pulled away from friends and family. I lost interest in everything. School, creative endeavors, fashion. The things that had defined me.

Even as this boy talked about marriage and children and the house he would build for me. How he’d propose to me with his grandmother’s ring. I felt stuck because I hadn’t turned him in, stuck because I had let him fall so in love with me. Stuck because I’d been fucking him and I felt like damaged goods.

But because I was so bitter, so critical, I managed to make the relationship deteriorate. It took months, but, finally, all that repressed emotion — my hatred, his guilt — came boiling to the surface and I realized — he’d known. He’d known all along he’d raped me that night. He’d lied about being blacked out.

So I turned him in. Two years after the fact. And I’ll save the nightmare of that experience for another post. All that “judging” I’d wanted desperately to avoid was dumped on me like a ton of bricks. ...

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15686

Post by welch »

goddamn 'nym wrote:
welch wrote:
Guest wrote:
I didn't actually read the second paragraph, but wow, what a lunatic.

I am not sure what Stallman's politics are, but he certainly does not favor corporate exploitation of their employees, or paying them minimal wage.
No, he actually favors them being paid by the government to code, based on some very fucked up formula. Oh, and if you can't code, you shouldn't be using software. He's just a complete fuckwit at this point. Who eats toejam.
RMS' basic premise is that if your system doesn't run free software then you can not be in full control of your system. I think this is fundamentally sound. You can argue that we accept the lack of control because we can't possibly review all the code or are not programmers, but the fact is still there.

Obviously you don't change the world by peddling conventional wisdom, so some people get hung up on unimportant details. But at the core the question is: In a world where more and more things are controlled by IT who has control over the IT.

When you lost control over your own IT e.g.: do you think it is easier to regain it and develop counter-measures for others by working the dis-assembler on non-free software or by just checking the source code?

This is not an abstract concern. We know from Snowden that several hundred billion dollars are being spent by one state actor alone to take control of other people's IT and that is before the whole botnet industry and other states come in.
And if you aren't a programmer, exactly what good does having the source code do you?

Wait, it's even better. Say you are a programmer. A python programmer who does web sites. You're going to do fuck all what with driver code?

Right. It's bullshit. The amount of people who can just write an operating system from scratch, including kernels, drivers, the whole fucking thing are tiny.

and it doesn't mean they know fuck all about spotting security holes in say PHP code, database code, or Apache. The fundamental error RMS and indeed most of them make is this "source code is magic" thing. That just by having it, you know what it does or how it does it, and that if you're untrained, you have even a PRAYER of knowing what's going on. It's less of a chance than winning powerball, because if you play powerball, you are on an equal footing with the other players, or at least the other players who bought the same number of tickets you did.

If you don't know a LOT about programming and similar, the source code is LESS valuable than nothing.

What RMS wants is for programmers to run everything and everyone else to be their vassals. He's an elitist of the highest order and the fact that tech has ignored him and designed for the average person, who thinks facebook is pretty cool is a slap in his face all the time.

"if you have to source code, you can verify" is just fucking stupid, because it leaves out the "...and you know how to program and you know how to program in the language used and you know how to program in the language used in the field that source code represents and and and."

It's a load of shit is what it is.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15687

Post by welch »


"Justin learns that batman didn't have a pink cape."

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15688

Post by Skep tickle »

welch wrote:
rayshul wrote:You know, as far as I'm aware, the one thing that's been demonstrated to reduce the number of sexual assaults against women (and women specifically) is teaching women how to say No in a clear way.



Fuck though, I hate the picking apart of stupid social fuck ups which are - apparently - dealt with... and then go through trial by internet. We've got the courts, we've got police, we've got responsible behaviour from companies. :/ I don't know what more people need. I feel like that should be enough.
I think part of it is the "hint" concept. I mean, we see it happen in minor ways all the time. "That girl was really into you" "What?" "She was all talkign to you and smiling at you" "Dude, she was being nice, we were having a good conversation" "Every time you went to the bar or the bathroom, she was complaining to her friend you weren't getting her hints" "WHAT HINTS? TALKING? LOOKING AT THE PERSON? THAT'S NOT HINTS, THAT'S POLITE" "Dumbass"

When you almost codify indirect shit like hints as how things are done, when you make mind-reading damned near a requirement, shit going wrong like it did is inevitable.

Say "yes". Say "no". Say "woo-hoo!". Say "fuck off". But for the love of christ, STOP WITH THE FUCKING HINTS. I think we've established its failure as a reliable communications method.
Though there are times it works fine - when both people understand the indirect approach. At the risk of going all gender-binary, I'm going to suggest that women often can have whole threads of this type of indirect conversation woven throughout an explicit conversation and understand each other quite well.

I find myself pointing the indirect aspects out to medical students frequently, after I've been in the room observing them talk with a patient. "Did you notice that after you asked about X, she brought up Y?" Or, "DId you notice that when you said A, she did B?" Then talk w/ them about what the connection was & what that might tell them about the patient was thinking, was concerned about, etc.

And, come to think of it, the times I have felt like I need to bring this up (because the student didn't seem to notice something that seemed pretty important in the interaction), the patient is female and the student is male. (Obviously in the women's clinic the patients are almost all female, but this happens sometimes when I'm working in the hospital with both male and female patients.)

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15689

Post by Scented Nectar »

Argh. I hit submit before I could reply more to the quoted excerpt.

And my edit button isn't working!!! :D

spiffigt
.
.
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15690

Post by spiffigt »

welch wrote: Or you need an IBM/Oracle to make it the basis for huge parts of their stuff. That did wonders for Linux.
Yes, that would of course be awesome. There has been stuff contributed by major companies like DIGITAL, Microsoft and some others - but no long lasting major involvement.

When I got involved with NetBSD (1.5-ish) the community was small but active with dedicated developers. Not it's just small.
ATM there are som major stuff that i lagging behind in NetBSD. My personal list is: the ZFS port has never gotten past pre-alpha, no in-kernel audio mixer (only one process can play sound), still no direct rendering (dri/drm), no support for USB3, no NFSv4, DTrace port is not finished.

Well, at least the FFS filesystem has journaling nowadays (since 5.0).

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15691

Post by Skep tickle »

Loved welch's observations on teaching martial arts & Lsuoma's on how things turned out after he addressed R's one seemingly factual statement (though sorry to hear about her later death :( ).

_____
Linus wrote:
Guest wrote:
Linus wrote:
He was in a position of authority over her. Have you ever had a boss who wanted you to do things that you didn't want to do that had nothing to do with your job? I have. It's a different dynamic.
It's a small company and she has worked their for two years.
The fuck does that have to do with anything? That's not a valid excuse for him behave like that.
Of course it isn't. Nor did Guest say it was. Guest went on to say, immediately after the part you quoted above:
Guest wrote:And at this point she is still worried about saying "no" to the boss's inappropriate advances? Not just the head kissing, not just the back rubbing, not just the butt patting, but even the body shot.

Two years in a small company and she is not sure of how to say "no" to her boss?
Guest's point, as I see it, is that she had interacted with this person regularly for 2 years yet did not know how to communicate "no" to him.

I'd add that I know of no* job where an employee would be expected to allow the boss to fondle the employee, nor where the boss would be given the latitude to do so within the scope of work. Nor of any job where an employee would be expected to drink with the boss, much less to follow the boss from bar to bar drinking heavily until 1am (though some social interaction while at a conference might be considered part of networking, positive public presentation of the company, etc).
(*I can imagine some where it may happen, e.g. to exotic dancers, porn performers, or prostitutes, particularly where that type of work is illegal)
Linus wrote:
Guest wrote:As I've said the stock feminist line, which this is, supports the notion that women are so fragile and need so much protection it is best they remain in the kitchen doing something safe like making sandwiches.
Gender has nothing to do with it. And the remain in the kitchen making sandwiches thing is something you obviously pulled out of your ass.
Gender does seem to have something to do with it. See welch's & rayshul's comments. "The SJW" position seems to be that everyone should be able to read these signals or know to ask explicitly yet without causing discomfort, and that expressing one's own boundaries explicitly (while fine in a forum setting when one's part of the in-group) shouldn't be necessary in in-person interactions.

And the sammich thing is hyperbole, and a meme. Don't take it literally.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15692

Post by Aneris »

Service Dog wrote:
Aneris wrote:Keep in mind that it is also wrong to assume the first story is perhaps not entirely true and every subsequent story was a correction of the first. It is entirely possible that the first story is 100% accurate and every subsequent story is false.
Which are you counting as the "first story"?
I think most readers assume Justine's blog post came first, and the witnesses wrote theirs in response to hers.

Just to be clear:
Zach's blog post was published Oct 9,
Matt Darby's Oct 11,
Justine's Oct 12.

In between, all three were active on twitter.
[...]
It is really not important. Any story can be first. I just noticed a tendency to give weight to “other side of the story” that comes afterwards, as if this was somehow more likely true. We are trained by media to assume later information to be closer to the truth, but this is a treacherous notion. Otherwise you are assuming too much. I didn't (and not intending to) dive into the minutiae, I don't have any stocks in there as we say in German. It is fairly impossible to judge the situation accurately. Even informations that sounds like “gotchas” are misleading: they can be misremembered too. Just the fact that it turns out that some sentence might come across as “unintended” (e.g. contradictory ) doesn't make it more true, either (this presupposes that a person is intentionally lying with the belief and gratification they were caught red handed). This is what Confirmation Bias actually is about. I submit this as a general point, not towards you Service Dog personally or anyone else (unless you feel addressed, but I don't have anyone in mind).

I guess to make it properly you need at least three independent accounts to kind of triangulate (so you always need at least two consistent facts). If people know each other, you may not know if they synchronized their stories already, who is closer to whom or other allegiances. Perhaps this is all perfectly known in this case. Anyway, it makes a certain level of detail entirely pointless to me. The information just isn't good enough for surgical precision.

I'm sorry for the victim and believe she is currently self-destructive anyway and apparently not acting rational. There is nothing to do there, either. Other than that, the blame question is somewhat against my nature. It is only useful to improve processes (i.e. to learn from it), otherwise I feel its more important for vindictive people (which I'm not). And frankly, I don't think there is anything to learn in this infantile SJW religion. People are either aware when they cross the red line or drugs have impaired their judgement too much that they have no scruples (which is no excuse, of course). Bottom line, I don't see what can be learned form it and the whole thing is a SJW chosen playfield that is played by their rules, which I like to reject. I don't believe that a lot of people exist that seriously need Caine's CCC manual (C4, how apt), and if they do exist, a full blown internet war seems way out of proportion to deal with people who are apparently socially beyond the pale.

The problems are fabricated, strawmanned into existence and a result of lack of information of the audience in combintaion with notoriously difficult interpersonal relationships between people (if grey area), and then add body language. And that in a written medium. Body language is, most conservatively estimated, more than 60% of communication, other figures go as high as over 90%. And an audience who wasn't there wants to judge a situation like that? This is insanity. Its like agreeing exactly on a particular tint without showing any colours.

In this case: the blunt and crystal clear information is that one person is a boss, the other is an employee. End of story. A boss that fingers their employee in public. Really? There is nothing to discuss. The boss, being the boss is always an inch ahead in responsiblity and not even a written consent by her would change that. A written consent would make her an irresponsible person, too, but still slightly less being in a company, work colleagues type of setting.

I think there is an agreement on that bottom line, karmakin, Lsuoma etc. all pointed out how this is a messy situation and those who enter it can be expected that it has some sort of consequence in any case (ridicule at the very least as in Lsuoma's story). I merely disagree that much more can be learned from it. It could be, hypothetical that they were all very drunk and signals, body language etc. were all impaired. If she did not consent she could have failed to bring this across due to being too drunk and he could have missed it, due to being too drunk. How does anyone quantify that? That part was apparently not clear enough to notice for thirds (otherwise they'd reported that) either. Because there wasn't anything to pick up either way or because they were too drunk to get it as well. I don't know how I could obtain that from the information provided and even provided I had it all down to metrics, I am still at a loss what is to be gained. It is a cautionary tale perhaps.

If someone feels I am somehow disagreeing with their position and it's somehow an issue (like that I didn't like making fun of someone's appearance) please be aware that misunderstanding is very possible and likely in this case. And I don't have any stocks in there, no horse in the race, no dog in the fight. Sorry for the rant and some elements of arrogance it's not meant personally to you (@Service Dog) or anyone else.

goddamn 'nym
.
.
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15693

Post by goddamn 'nym »

welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote: RMS' basic premise is that if your system doesn't run free software then you can not be in full control of your system. I think this is fundamentally sound. You can argue that we accept the lack of control because we can't possibly review all the code or are not programmers, but the fact is still there.

Obviously you don't change the world by peddling conventional wisdom, so some people get hung up on unimportant details. But at the core the question is: In a world where more and more things are controlled by IT who has control over the IT.

When you lost control over your own IT e.g.: do you think it is easier to regain it and develop counter-measures for others by working the dis-assembler on non-free software or by just checking the source code?

This is not an abstract concern. We know from Snowden that several hundred billion dollars are being spent by one state actor alone to take control of other people's IT and that is before the whole botnet industry and other states come in.
And if you aren't a programmer, exactly what good does having the source code do you?
It means that other people like 3rd party security analysts can look at the code that you use and warn you if they find an issue with it.
welch wrote:Wait, it's even better. Say you are a programmer. A python programmer who does web sites. You're going to do fuck all what with driver code?
If you are a python programmer than you can check the python code that other people use. That is better than not having the code at all.
welch wrote:Right. It's bullshit. The amount of people who can just write an operating system from scratch, including kernels, drivers, the whole fucking thing are tiny.
Thanks to a wide variety of free software kernels a lot more people can a) learn how to write this and understand that b) it is far from dark magic. This means with free software more people are experts in these areas than without. As a result more free software can be double-checked for bugs and back-doors.
welch wrote:and it doesn't mean they know fuck all about spotting security holes in say PHP code, database code, or Apache. The fundamental error RMS and indeed most of them make is this "source code is magic" thing. That just by having it, you know what it does or how it does it, and that if you're untrained, you have even a PRAYER of knowing what's going on. It's less of a chance than winning powerball, because if you play powerball, you are on an equal footing with the other players, or at least the other players who bought the same number of tickets you did.
Can you reference where RMS or really any other person takes this "source code is magic" position or is ignorant of the fact that people specialize in different areas of software development?
welch wrote:If you don't know a LOT about programming and similar, the source code is LESS valuable than nothing.

What RMS wants is for programmers to run everything and everyone else to be their vassals. He's an elitist of the highest order and the fact that tech has ignored him and designed for the average person, who thinks facebook is pretty cool is a slap in his face all the time.

"if you have to source code, you can verify" is just fucking stupid, because it leaves out the "...and you know how to program and you know how to program in the language used and you know how to program in the language used in the field that source code represents and and and."
It isn't a matter of what should be. The reality is that software is gaining more control over the world each day. Those who do not control their IT are put at a disadvantage. This is regrettable, but still a fact.

The idea that RMS wants anyone to be vassals of others is hard to reconcile with his political opinions:
http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html
welch wrote:It's a load of shit is what it is.
That free software is not a magic bullet doesn't change the fact that it is an improvement.

codelette
.
.
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15694

Post by codelette »

Scented Nectar wrote:
... Aside from some oral which wasn’t that great, I was getting nothing out of it. I felt like a masturbatory device. So I started having sex. Because it seemed like a way to humanize myself.

And once you start having sex with somebody — especially a somebody who doesn’t wear a condom because “it feels like fucking into a sock” — you get chemically addicted. You fall in “love.” Your brain gets wired to see past all the red flags that scream “THIS GUY IS USING YOU. THIS GUY DOES NOT LOVE YOU. THIS GUY DOESN’T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS.”

I guess I didn’t know what love was, either. I mean, I did know, all along, that I did not “love” my attacker. But I thought I could, some day. Because he was a nice guy. A nice guy I was fond of.

And over 707 days — one year, eleven months, and seven days — I became a bitter, critical person. I pulled away from friends and family. I lost interest in everything. School, creative endeavors, fashion. The things that had defined me.

Even as this boy talked about marriage and children and the house he would build for me. How he’d propose to me with his grandmother’s ring. I felt stuck because I hadn’t turned him in, stuck because I had let him fall so in love with me. Stuck because I’d been fucking him and I felt like damaged goods.

But because I was so bitter, so critical, I managed to make the relationship deteriorate. It took months, but, finally, all that repressed emotion — my hatred, his guilt — came boiling to the surface and I realized — he’d known. He’d known all along he’d raped me that night. He’d lied about being blacked out.

So I turned him in. Two years after the fact. And I’ll save the nightmare of that experience for another post. All that “judging” I’d wanted desperately to avoid was dumped on me like a ton of bricks. ...
I believe he broke up with her. That's when she decided to pursue rape charges -via USC- to get him kicked out of college.
My analysis?
A lot of Catholic guilt. They "fornicated". Marriage was supposed to restore her honor. He dumped her. Now her virginity will never be restored. She is "damaged goods".

They were only dating for 3 weeks before he allegedly raped her. She wasn't too sure about him. She didn't love him -supposedly- at that point. They didn't continue fucking until later on. So, does that mean that the rape incident was sex of the addictive kind? I am confused as shit.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15695

Post by free thoughtpolice »

From PZ's Justine post;
nathanaelnerode

13 October 2013 at 9:50 am (UTC -5)

“why is sexual assault so much more traumatic than other kinds of assault, and is there a way that it can be made less traumatic for the victim?”
One major reason: because people let the assaulter get away with it and insult the victim.
Saying "because people let the assaulter get away with it" is blaming the victim! Haven't you read the pleas of "stop telling people to report their rapes to the police"?
Hopefully Caine will be along shortly to straighten this misogynist out so he stops victim punishing!!

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15696

Post by katamari Damassi »

free thoughtpolice wrote:From PZ's Justine post;
nathanaelnerode

13 October 2013 at 9:50 am (UTC -5)

“why is sexual assault so much more traumatic than other kinds of assault, and is there a way that it can be made less traumatic for the victim?”
One major reason: because people let the assaulter get away with it and insult the victim.
Saying "because people let the assaulter get away with it" is blaming the victim! Haven't you read the pleas of "stop telling people to report their rapes to the police"?
Hopefully Caine will be along shortly to straighten this misogynist out so he stops victim punishing!!
Maybe part of it being more traumatic is because there is a chorus out there telling victims that they must be psychologically damaged from the experience and will take years of therapy to get over?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15697

Post by free thoughtpolice »

From Atheism+, a thread about Malala Yousafzai:
Malala Yousafzai

Postby Orenda » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Did any one else see the interview with Malala on the John Stewart show?

She's a very courageous person for standing up to those taliban thugs the way she has.

Orenda

Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:07 am

Top
Re: Malala Yousafzai

Postby Exi5tentialist » Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:12 pm
And of course for telling the US Executive branch of government to stop drone attacks against the Taliban.
Feel free to PM me at any time about anything

Exi5tentialist

Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:36 pm

Top
Re: Malala Yousafzai

Postby Setar » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:55 am

Exi5tentialist wrote:And of course for telling the US Executive branch of government to stop drone attacks against the Taliban.


I'd say that's a hell of a lot more important.

I should also note, "thug" has some very colonialist roots, and we might want to avoid it.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15698

Post by free thoughtpolice »

katamari damassi wrote:
Maybe part of it being more traumatic is because there is a chorus out there telling victims that they must be psychologically damaged from the experience and will take years of therapy to get over?
More often I see them saying that rape victims can never get over it.
It appears their "therapy" is to relive their victimhood over and over by writing about it on the internet and by throwing tantrums at wellwishers that may offer hope that they can heal.
Ever notice how therapist is just a space away from the rapist?

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15699

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

Aneris wrote:Rebecca Bradley was somehow under the radar for me, but I liked her writing in this blogpost a lot (via Ed Clint's current article mentioned earlier)

Chuck Your Privilege
http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... privilege/

She discusses some origins of SJW ideology and points out a few things that have been suspected in Slymepit before, namely that these “theories” often are racist or sexist themselves.
Rebecca Bradley wrote:Privilege, we’re told, comes in many flavours, all of them bad. White privilege. Male privilege. Heterosexual privilege. Cisgendered privilege. Ablebodied privilege. First World Privilege. Etc. We’re supposed to check our privilege frequently, or—even better—unpack it from the invisible knapsack we carry it around in. Those who have it are advised to shut up and listen to those who haven’t. Those who don’t have it are entitled to be royally pissed off at those who do. What none of us is supposed to do is question whether the invisible knapsack actually exists.

Me, I’m skeptical.

The privilege meme is not new, but its current incarnation comes out of Critical Race Theory, a politically hypercorrect socio-legal analysis that emerged in the 1970s, in part as a radical critique of the civil rights movement. At the heart of CRT is the claim that Western society lies under a great miasmic pall of minority oppression, where simply to be born a member of certain in-groups confers valuable privileges that are denied to others, including the privilege of being normal. And, since the system was designed to protect and perpetuate the interests of the white-skinned patriarchy, it cannot be changed from the inside. It is unsalvageable, rotten to the core. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... e/#respond
That post is good reading, and the comments by iamcuriousblue are even better.

I think that what infuriates me most about the SJW paradigm is the language creep. Or rather, the language creep accompanied by reckless usage, willful or otherwise.

Broadening the definition of "rape" could have been a worthwhile endeavor if those doing the broadening had limited the term to unambiguously predatory behavior and had rigorously maintained meaningful distinctions within the broadened concept. But that's not what happened. The "without consent" stipulation was maintained only on the surface; it was rightly broadened to include "without having been drugged predatorily by someone else," but no meaningful distinction was maintained between "without having been drugged predatorily by someone else" and "without having voluntarily lowered one's inhibitions to a level still above incapacitation."

As a result, the word "rape" is used to describe such a vast spectrum of behavior—from what at one extreme all decent people can agree is abominable to what at the other extreme all thinking people can agree shouldn't even be a crime—that it is cheapened and rendered meaningless without further qualification. And how often is "further qualification" forthcoming from the SJW crowd? Their whole game is to discourage you from inquiring further; they really don't want you to question the methodology of their preferred studies on rape statistics, such as Mary Koss's oft-quoted 1985 report in Ms. magazine ("one in four"), or the CDC's 2011 study.

Another example: "misogyny," which has traditionally been defined as "hatred of women," was broadened to include "conscious or unconscious bias against women" in some academic circles. Now the SJW types wield the word as a tool for shaming and silencing, able to point to the broadened definition if need be, but fully aware that their targets probably have no idea that the word has been so broadened.

"Racism," too. Most people are under the impression that "being a racist" entails actively (or at least consciously) prejudging on the basis of skin color. The term has been broadened to include "institutionalized" bias, which is often unconscious. Perhaps that's an acceptable broadening of the word in a theoretical sense, but since the broadened part of the definition still isn't common knowledge, it's counterproductive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to bludgeon people with it. No decent person who associates racism only with the KKK / Jim Crow / "separate but equal" kind of bullshit will take kindly to being called a racist.

That there is solid evidence for these kinds of unconscious biases only makes this all the more frustrating. Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on getting the important message out? But how can we accomplish that if the people being called "misogynists" and "racists" don't even know how their accusers define those words. People who need to hear the message instead feel insulted (with good reason—that's often the intent) and leave the conversation.

There's usually an important kernel of truth at the heart of these issues, but I fear that it gets lost when the SJW "messengers" engage in their distortions and misapplications. Even "privilege" is a potentially useful concept in a big-picture kind of way (e.g., will anyone deny that, on the whole, white people have it better than black people in the US? will anyone deny that our unconscious biases can figure into real-world scenarios [such as hiring decisions] and thereby translate into undesirable real-world consequences?), but when the SJW types fall back on it to explain every social interaction at the micro level, when they chalk up every disagreement to the other side being "blinded by privilege" (or, if the other side isn't privileged, being a "self-hating _____" or some euphemism therefor), when they repeatedly attempt to silence others with "check your privilege" or the more explicit "shut up and listen"—when they do these things, the signal-to-noise ratio approaches zero, thus obfuscating and rendering moot the important kernel of truth that decent people might otherwise have incorporated into their worldview.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15700

Post by Steersman »

welch wrote:
Guest wrote:She's young. Single. Healthy. No dependents. Graphic Designer. Two years ruby web designer experience.
Conference speaker at CodeMash.

And yet, apparently so worried about losing her job she will stay quiet in a crowded room with help literally within a couple of feet from her for 30 minutes or more while gradually sexually assaulted by her boss.

This seems to either be a damning statement against the Patriarchy, or a statement this girl has neither sense nor self-worth nor sense of self.

Seriously, I don't know of any men in that position that would put up with that shit without quitting.

Are many women like this? Is it rational to be in the position she describes for herself and be that worried about quitting?
Dude, every WOMAN I know would have told the asshole exactly what he could do with himself in high style, and if anything happened to her at work other than him quitting/getting fired, (because it sure as shit would have been reported), they'd own the company, lock, stock, and fucking barrel.

<snip>

So yeah, I do think that in the most critical developmental years, women get this "you're helpless before men" thing. I wish I could find the base sources so I could set them on fire, it's fucking annoying.
Would you believe …. “The Patriarchy!!11!!”? Certainly seems that many people – maybe “more of a gal thing” – have a tendency to follow the crowd, to cede authority to questionable authoritarians. Even when the crowd is heading over the cliff. Shermer or Pinker, I think, had some choice observations on and descriptions of examples of that sort of thing.

But quite credible and interesting set of observations on the issue of rape. While I definitely tend to agree with you – “Surprise, surprise, surprise”, on that point at least – I can well understand there are going to be cases where going to the cops is maybe going to be a second choice. Maggie McNeill – The Honest Courtesan (I’ve found them all to be generally so) – has any number of posts on that question – as she pointed out, many cops seem to think that “prostitutes can’t be raped”. Somewhat apropos, you might be interested in this related case she describes from your general neck of the woods on “Little Tin Gods”.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15701

Post by justinvacula »

welch wrote:

"Justin learns that batman didn't have a pink cape."
:)

Another article in local newspaper released following the protest:

W-B rosary rally met with passive protest

October 12. 2013 11:18PM

http://www.timesleader.com/news/local-n ... ve-protest

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15702

Post by Guest »

In the comments of "chuck your privilege" is this:

http://i.imgur.com/CUeF1C3.jpg

Which I find interesting as it helps explain why I see so many women, and often so many SJW women (including reporters and bloggers at MoJo) on the net proudly out and loving their BSDM experiences.

And I also find it confusing how many of these women, probably 90% of them describe themselves as submissives but then go on to present so many safe words, and so much protocol, and so much control over the situation, that I usually end up thinking how dominant they sound.

But I have no experience with BDSM and have no idea if Oliver's analysis that BDSM is a very feminist group bears any relation to reality.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15703

Post by Steersman »

Gumby wrote:
justinvacula wrote:It's just too bad we never got Ron Lindsay distributing ice cubes :p

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... tion/P200/
I've made progress on that since the last time you asked.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... d2d295.jpg

In a few more months it should be done. Really.
Looks promising - "Colonel" Myers to Corporal Watson? "Here, have some Dakota Ice"?

Though I don't get the one with the crane.

MadGav
.
.
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:52 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15704

Post by MadGav »

Guest wrote: And I also find it confusing how many of these women, probably 90% of them describe themselves as submissives but then go on to present so many safe words, and so much protocol, and so much control over the situation, that I usually end up thinking how dominant they sound.
The technical term for this is... I believe... topping from the bottom (allegedly). :shifty:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15705

Post by Steersman »

Aneris wrote:Rebecca Bradley was somehow under the radar for me, but I liked her writing in this blogpost a lot (via Ed Clint's current article mentioned earlier)

Chuck Your Privilege
http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... privilege/

She discusses some origins of SJW ideology and points out a few things that have been suspected in Slymepit before, namely that these “theories” often are racist or sexist themselves.
Great posts by both Clint and Bradley - thanks for the links. Though I'm kind of curious how or whether Damion will respond to the former as it seems rather antithetical to the FftB dogma he seems rather sympathetic to.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15706

Post by Steersman »

ROBOKiTTY wrote:So I've finished reading a few of Sam Harris' books and am now on Daniel Dennett (namely Breaking the Spell). Dennett is coming across as somewhat gentler and more diplomatic toward the religious than the other three Horsemen. His writing also feels rather dense. I found this nice nugget though:
Daniel Dennett in [i]Breaking the Spell[/i] wrote: If I were designing a phony religion, I'd surely include a version of this little gem - but I'd have a hard time saying it with a straight face:

"If anybody ever raises questions or objections about our religion that you cannot answer, that person is almost certainly Satain. In fact, the more reasonable the person is, the more eager to engage you in open-minded and congenial discussion, the more sure you can be that you're talking to Satan in disguise! Turn away! Do not listen! It's a trap!"

What is particularly cute about this trick is that it is a perfect "wild card", so lacking in content that any sect or creed or conspiracy can use it effectively. Communist cells can be warned that any criticism they encounter is almost sure to be the work of FBI infiltrators in disguise, and radical feminist discussion groups can squelch any unanswerable criticism by declaring it to be phallocentric propaganda being unwittingly spread by a brainwashed dupe of the evil patriarchy, and so forth.
Nice bit of rationalization that Dennett describes. Fortunately – or not – it seems something that is not exclusive to the religious – although they seem to have developed the idea to a fine art.

Apropos of which, I’ve always found that the efforts of 19th century clerics to discount the archeological record as a refutation of the 6000 year Biblical account were classic – they insisted that Jehovah had created the Earth 6000 years ago complete with dinosaurs and rock formations “suggesting” a much longer history. Which probably led to the development of the parody “religion”, Last Thursdayism – a case of the Omphalos hypothesis. “Nothing new under the sun”, it seems.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15707

Post by Scented Nectar »

codelette wrote:I believe he broke up with her. That's when she decided to pursue rape charges -via USC- to get him kicked out of college.
My analysis?
A lot of Catholic guilt. They "fornicated". Marriage was supposed to restore her honor. He dumped her. Now her virginity will never be restored. She is "damaged goods".

They were only dating for 3 weeks before he allegedly raped her. She wasn't too sure about him. She didn't love him -supposedly- at that point. They didn't continue fucking until later on. So, does that mean that the rape incident was sex of the addictive kind? I am confused as shit.
It means that she is making up multiple excuses to magically turn regrettable sex into a rape tale. Saying that unprotected sex chemically caused her to falsely think she was in love him, is just her way of refusing any responsibility for the 2 years of consensual sex that happened after the alleged rape.

And if she is not lying about the rape, then she's even more crazy to get into a 2 year sexual relationship with him after he raped her.

Too many holes and weird stuff in her story. I've seen that before, always in people who are attention-seeking missiles looking for sympathy and virtual hugs.

She feels she is "damaged goods" and wants pity for that, rather than act to shed that very real, religious kind of misogynistic thinking, but he did offer to marry her etc during their 2 years together. She didn't take him up on it even though that meant she was now "damaged goods" She says:
But because I was so bitter, so critical, I managed to make the relationship deteriorate.
And then, without anything to back it, she magically "realized" at that point that he had lied about blacking out 2 years, during the alleged rape.

I dunno, but if HE was black-out drunk, and SHE was conscious enough to remember the sex, then by all those drunk=rape standards, she raped him, not the other way around. :)

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15708

Post by feathers »

welch wrote:And if you aren't a programmer, exactly what good does having the source code do you?
G. 'nym beat me to it, but this is a common misconception about Free Software. The principle is that you should have the freedom to do with your hardware and software as you see fit, including inspecting its workings, adapting it and/or give it to others to do so. Having the source code available is only one means to this end, because disassembling machine code is a hopeless venture (even though many blackhat hackers have no qualms spending some sleepless nights to find holes in proprietary machine code. But this is exactly the group of people you don't want to gain control of your computer).

The other component is obviously the legal freedom to do as you please, which is precisely what most End User License Agreements explicitly take from you.
The fundamental error RMS and indeed most of them make is this "source code is magic" thing. That just by having it, you know what it does or how it does it, and that if you're untrained, you have even a PRAYER of knowing what's going on. [...] What RMS wants is for programmers to run everything and everyone else to be their vassals. He's an elitist of the highest order and the fact that tech has ignored him and designed for the average person, who thinks facebook is pretty cool is a slap in his face all the time.
RMS can be pretty autistic about this, acknowledged. Which is why most Free Software advocates regard him as the grumpy old grandfather of the idea. But someone with firm principles had to do it.
It's a load of shit is what it is.
You're currently reading a forum made with and running on Free Software. The world's largest scientific clusters, and the Large Hadron Collider, run Linux. Chances are you're using Firefox which exists because a certain obscenely rich software maker from Redmond, WA couldn't get themselves together to provide a modern, safe browser to their paying customers. If you have an Android, you are even running a free OS. If you use a search engine like Google...

Well, if it's a load of shit you're in it up to your nose.

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15709

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:In the comments of "chuck your privilege" is this:

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/CUeF1C3.jpg[./img]

Which I find interesting as it helps explain why I see so many women, and often so many SJW hacker women (including reporters and bloggers at MoJo xda-developers) on the net proudly out and loving their BSDM experiences.
/sorry for the linux privileged typo

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15710

Post by Guest »

Scented Nectar wrote: It means that she is making up multiple excuses to magically turn regrettable sex into a rape tale. Saying that unprotected sex chemically caused her to falsely think she was in love him, is just her way of refusing any responsibility for the 2 years of consensual sex that happened after the alleged rape.
Not disputing anything in your response, but there is apparently evidence that semen makes women happier, and my semen in particular.

http://i.imgur.com/AcDA6AW.jpg

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15711

Post by Service Dog »

Aneris wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Aneris wrote:Keep in mind that it is also wrong to assume the first story is perhaps not entirely true and every subsequent story was a correction of the first. It is entirely possible that the first story is 100% accurate and every subsequent story is false.
Which are you counting as the "first story"?
I think most readers assume Justine's blog post came first, and the witnesses wrote theirs in response to hers.

Just to be clear:
Zach's blog post was published Oct 9,
Matt Darby's Oct 11,
Justine's Oct 12.

In between, all three were active on twitter.
[...]
It is really not important.
....
Bottom line, I don't see what can be learned from it....

I agree that-- for the narrow purpose of the point you were making-- it doesn't matter which account came first.

However, I do think there is value to setting-the-record-straight about which account came first. For example, there's a big difference between

A.) Justine unilaterally deciding to re-open an old wound (and name her boss) out-of-the-blue;
vs.
B.) Justine merely reacting to Zach having already re-opened the wound (and having already identified her boss).

I find Scenario B more exculpatory of her, than the Scenario A.
As a harsh critic of Justine, I feel obligated to correct the record when she's blamed for more than she actually deserves.



I reject the notion that there's little of value to be gained from scrutinizing the fine details of this incident. The incident serves well as a detailed real-world case-study-- comprised of conflicting "Rashomon" accounts. Which is better than a hypothetical case-study, for purposes of honestly-deriving "Lessons Learned". Because it's too easy to author a purely-fictional hypothetical case which has the authors' preferred, biased 'right answer' built into it.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15712

Post by welch »

goddamn 'nym wrote:
welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote: RMS' basic premise is that if your system doesn't run free software then you can not be in full control of your system. I think this is fundamentally sound. You can argue that we accept the lack of control because we can't possibly review all the code or are not programmers, but the fact is still there.

Obviously you don't change the world by peddling conventional wisdom, so some people get hung up on unimportant details. But at the core the question is: In a world where more and more things are controlled by IT who has control over the IT.

When you lost control over your own IT e.g.: do you think it is easier to regain it and develop counter-measures for others by working the dis-assembler on non-free software or by just checking the source code?

This is not an abstract concern. We know from Snowden that several hundred billion dollars are being spent by one state actor alone to take control of other people's IT and that is before the whole botnet industry and other states come in.
And if you aren't a programmer, exactly what good does having the source code do you?
It means that other people like 3rd party security analysts can look at the code that you use and warn you if they find an issue with it.
welch wrote:Wait, it's even better. Say you are a programmer. A python programmer who does web sites. You're going to do fuck all what with driver code?
If you are a python programmer than you can check the python code that other people use. That is better than not having the code at all.
welch wrote:Right. It's bullshit. The amount of people who can just write an operating system from scratch, including kernels, drivers, the whole fucking thing are tiny.
Thanks to a wide variety of free software kernels a lot more people can a) learn how to write this and understand that b) it is far from dark magic. This means with free software more people are experts in these areas than without. As a result more free software can be double-checked for bugs and back-doors.
welch wrote:and it doesn't mean they know fuck all about spotting security holes in say PHP code, database code, or Apache. The fundamental error RMS and indeed most of them make is this "source code is magic" thing. That just by having it, you know what it does or how it does it, and that if you're untrained, you have even a PRAYER of knowing what's going on. It's less of a chance than winning powerball, because if you play powerball, you are on an equal footing with the other players, or at least the other players who bought the same number of tickets you did.
Can you reference where RMS or really any other person takes this "source code is magic" position or is ignorant of the fact that people specialize in different areas of software development?
welch wrote:If you don't know a LOT about programming and similar, the source code is LESS valuable than nothing.

What RMS wants is for programmers to run everything and everyone else to be their vassals. He's an elitist of the highest order and the fact that tech has ignored him and designed for the average person, who thinks facebook is pretty cool is a slap in his face all the time.

"if you have to source code, you can verify" is just fucking stupid, because it leaves out the "...and you know how to program and you know how to program in the language used and you know how to program in the language used in the field that source code represents and and and."
It isn't a matter of what should be. The reality is that software is gaining more control over the world each day. Those who do not control their IT are put at a disadvantage. This is regrettable, but still a fact.

The idea that RMS wants anyone to be vassals of others is hard to reconcile with his political opinions:
http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html
welch wrote:It's a load of shit is what it is.
That free software is not a magic bullet doesn't change the fact that it is an improvement.
So basically, if you aren't a programmer, you have to hope the person you're asking is competent and telling you the truth. Which you have absolutely no way to verify yourself. Except by finding someone ELSE to to check on them, so on and so forth. Which is exactly the situation that people have with closed source software. They have to rely on someone else. Free the software, free the software hackers.

Open source, free software, whatever the fuck version you want to use is a developmental methodology. Nothing more. It confers neither moral superiority nor inferiority no matter how many times RMS stamps his feet otherwise, and the kicker, the kicker in all of this is that the current version of the GPL restricts the SHIT out of what you're allowed to do with GPL 3 software.

If you want actual "free" software, you use BSD licensed kit. Anyone saying the GPL is a fully free license is either ignorant or lying.

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15713

Post by Guest »

Service Dog wrote: However, I do think there is value to setting-the-record-straight about which account came first. For example, there's a big difference between

A.) Justine unilaterally deciding to re-open an old wound (and name her boss) out-of-the-blue;
vs.
B.) Justine merely reacting to Zach having already re-opened the wound (and having already identified her boss).

I find Scenario B more exculpatory of her, than the Scenario A.
As a harsh critic of Justine, I feel obligated to correct the record when she's blamed for more than she actually deserves.

Filling in the backstory from 99.9% speculation based on comments at Hacker News, it seems as though in early October, someone seemingly Justine tweeted about this to the Ruby community naming Joe O'Brien and other Rubyists, knowing Joe, started attacking Joe, but also demanded proof from Justine.

That's 99.9% speculation, but there were statements

+ from Joe (since deleted from twitter) around October 3rd he would release a statement later
+ from Joe (since deleted from twitter) around October 8th he would make no more public statements
+ that Justine did not want to publish this but that "the community" demanded details and proof

Given the early October Joe tweets (and I put them in the pit yesterday, but I can't find them now), it seems likely that none of the blog posts were the initial cause of this and all three are in reaction to some off-stage manipulations (Polonius? Dr. Evil?)

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15714

Post by Scented Nectar »

Guest wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: It means that she is making up multiple excuses to magically turn regrettable sex into a rape tale. Saying that unprotected sex chemically caused her to falsely think she was in love him, is just her way of refusing any responsibility for the 2 years of consensual sex that happened after the alleged rape.
Not disputing anything in your response, but there is apparently evidence that semen makes women happier, and my semen in particular.
:lol:
I thought I'd heard of everything. I was wrong. :)

spiffigt
.
.
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15715

Post by spiffigt »

welch wrote: So basically, if you aren't a programmer, you have to hope the person you're asking is competent and telling you the truth. Which you have absolutely no way to verify yourself. Except by finding someone ELSE to to check on them, so on and so forth. Which is exactly the situation that people have with closed source software. They have to rely on someone else. Free the software, free the software hackers.
The difference being that you can hire as many people as you want/can afford to check the software. Will all of them lie in exactly the same way? In closed source you have to trust exactly one entity - the provider of the software.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15716

Post by welch »

feathers wrote:
welch wrote:And if you aren't a programmer, exactly what good does having the source code do you?
G. 'nym beat me to it, but this is a common misconception about Free Software. The principle is that you should have the freedom to do with your hardware and software as you see fit, including inspecting its workings, adapting it and/or give it to others to do so. Having the source code available is only one means to this end, because disassembling machine code is a hopeless venture (even though many blackhat hackers have no qualms spending some sleepless nights to find holes in proprietary machine code. But this is exactly the group of people you don't want to gain control of your computer).

The other component is obviously the legal freedom to do as you please, which is precisely what most End User License Agreements explicitly take from you.
you mean like the GPLv3 which is chock full of things you Are Not Allowed To Do. Funny how the main proponents of "freedom" limit the fuck out of freedom if it's "things we don't like." You want a "free" license? BSD. The GPL is anything but free.
feathers wrote:
The fundamental error RMS and indeed most of them make is this "source code is magic" thing. That just by having it, you know what it does or how it does it, and that if you're untrained, you have even a PRAYER of knowing what's going on. [...] What RMS wants is for programmers to run everything and everyone else to be their vassals. He's an elitist of the highest order and the fact that tech has ignored him and designed for the average person, who thinks facebook is pretty cool is a slap in his face all the time.
RMS can be pretty autistic about this, acknowledged. Which is why most Free Software advocates regard him as the grumpy old grandfather of the idea. But someone with firm principles had to do it.
yes, someone with principles that prevent him from owning a cell phone, and instead expecting other people to let him use theirs. The man's a world-class mooch. Have you ever seen his fucking speaking rider?
feathers wrote:
It's a load of shit is what it is.
You're currently reading a forum made with and running on Free Software. The world's largest scientific clusters, and the Large Hadron Collider, run Linux. Chances are you're using Firefox which exists because a certain obscenely rich software maker from Redmond, WA couldn't get themselves together to provide a modern, safe browser to their paying customers. If you have an Android, you are even running a free OS. If you use a search engine like Google...

Well, if it's a load of shit you're in it up to your nose.
[/quote]

oh bless your heart, you think that because I think RMS and his little fundies are full of shit that I have no use for open software. Could you be any more precious? Or wrong? There are a number of advantages to that developmental methodology, and just as many disadvantages, which is why things like Open/LibreOffice have such shitty UI. On the server side, it's awesome. On the human side, it blows fucking chunks.

You do know that Firefox only exists because it was the only browser Mozilla/Netscape had left to go with after the post Netscape 4 debacle right? It wasn't a "brave stand", it was a last gasp. It was the last chance of a company that incompetented away their market. Microsoft helped, but Netscape did far more damage to netscape than Microsoft did.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15717

Post by welch »

spiffigt wrote:
welch wrote: So basically, if you aren't a programmer, you have to hope the person you're asking is competent and telling you the truth. Which you have absolutely no way to verify yourself. Except by finding someone ELSE to to check on them, so on and so forth. Which is exactly the situation that people have with closed source software. They have to rely on someone else. Free the software, free the software hackers.
The difference being that you can hire as many people as you want/can afford to check the software. Will all of them lie in exactly the same way? In closed source you have to trust exactly one entity - the provider of the software.
Because you can pay for that in cheese, or cheap beer, right? So if you aren't a programmer or have lots of spare money laying around, the difference between open source and closed source is:

a) Price
b) See a)

I can dump all the parts needed to build an aircraft carrier in your yard. Doesn't mean it's going to do you a lick of fucking good. Same concept. Source code, especially given the state of some of that shit, (sendmail...brr), does a VERY limited number of people some good. For the average non-technical person, it does them no good at all. It takes a lot of expertise to use that shit.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15718

Post by Service Dog »

Guest wrote:
Service Dog wrote: However, I do think there is value to setting-the-record-straight about which account came first. For example, there's a big difference between

A.) Justine unilaterally deciding to re-open an old wound (and name her boss) out-of-the-blue;
vs.
B.) Justine merely reacting to Zach having already re-opened the wound (and having already identified her boss).

I find Scenario B more exculpatory of her, than the Scenario A.
As a harsh critic of Justine, I feel obligated to correct the record when she's blamed for more than she actually deserves.
Filling in the backstory from 99.9% speculation based on comments at Hacker News, it seems as though in early October, someone seemingly Justine tweeted about this to the Ruby community naming Joe O'Brien and other Rubyists, knowing Joe, started attacking Joe, but also demanded proof from Justine.

That's 99.9% speculation, but there were statements

+ from Joe (since deleted from twitter) around October 3rd he would release a statement later
+ from Joe (since deleted from twitter) around October 8th he would make no more public statements
+ that Justine did not want to publish this but that "the community" demanded details and proof

Given the early October Joe tweets (and I put them in the pit yesterday, but I can't find them now), it seems likely that none of the blog posts were the initial cause of this and all three are in reaction to some off-stage manipulations (Polonius? Dr. Evil?)
Thank you, you're right: there were allegations in the Ruby community in the week prior to the blog posts.
I don't know more than that.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15719

Post by Brive1987 »

PZ still doesn't get why responsible, reputation focused organisations get really nervous when shit erupts.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -american/

This blindness to issues of corporate governance is evidenced in his posts on JREF as well.

The fact he thinks companies should react in this same moralising do or die manner as the committed SJW shows just how little relevance there is to be found in liberal arts Hicksville USA.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15720

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

welch wrote:
spiffigt wrote:
welch wrote: So basically, if you aren't a programmer, you have to hope the person you're asking is competent and telling you the truth. Which you have absolutely no way to verify yourself. Except by finding someone ELSE to to check on them, so on and so forth. Which is exactly the situation that people have with closed source software. They have to rely on someone else. Free the software, free the software hackers.
The difference being that you can hire as many people as you want/can afford to check the software. Will all of them lie in exactly the same way? In closed source you have to trust exactly one entity - the provider of the software.
Because you can pay for that in cheese, or cheap beer, right? So if you aren't a programmer or have lots of spare money laying around, the difference between open source and closed source is:

a) Price
b) See a)

I can dump all the parts needed to build an aircraft carrier in your yard. Doesn't mean it's going to do you a lick of fucking good. Same concept. Source code, especially given the state of some of that shit, (sendmail...brr), does a VERY limited number of people some good. For the average non-technical person, it does them no good at all. It takes a lot of expertise to use that shit.
Not attacking your position, but are you saying that it's better to have no chance of understanding than a small one? If I have some questions about most open source code, there's usually somewhere to research or even someone to ask. With the big players, you simply hope that they did it right, and that government and said industry giants aren't colluding on some level. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position?

Locked