Bleeding from the Bunghole

#24601

Bhurzum wrote:If you like Sparky, you might also like 6oodfella, a fellow (West coaster) Scot with a particularly acidic approach to the whole SJW thing.

[youtube]hbjrocMgwpI[/youtube]

The above video is part of a series but is not indicative of his usual stuff. Check him out, you might enjoy his channel.

Oh, that was great! I loved the juxtaposition of radical feminism and the use of the traditional (patriarchal) "Please, Miss" student-to-schoolmarm form of address. Pardon my ignorance, who are "Harriet" and "Eve"?

In return, please accept my own much lamer joke, a picture of youthful love between Beckybooze and Bjarte:
http://i.imgur.com/FxIW1aI.jpg

#24602

Joseph Porter, KCB wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:If you like Sparky, you might also like 6oodfella, a fellow (West coaster) Scot with a particularly acidic approach to the whole SJW thing.

hbjrocMgwpI

The above video is part of a series but is not indicative of his usual stuff. Check him out, you might enjoy his channel.
Oh, that was great! I loved the juxtaposition of radical feminism and the use of the traditional (patriarchal) "Please, Miss" student-to-schoolmarm form of address. Pardon my ignorance, who are "Harriet" and "Eve"?

In return, please accept my own much lamer joke, a picture of youthful love between Beckybooze and Bjarte:
http://i.imgur.com/FxIW1aI.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Ensler

#24603

Apples wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:You would think that if he were that busy in a critical part of the world, he'd be saying things like "well, this three-page argument on my blog about Richard Sanderson's Twitter has been fun guys, but I've got a 12-hour shift of treating people in the ICU coming up, and after that it's straight to bed. Then I have another shift. So I won't be back for at least three days."
As LurkBoatsman said, the simplest, most charitable explanation is probably that he turned out to be well enough to go, went, and then came back. In the 'seizure on the train post' he describes himself as being "on the train back home." Is there anything in the intervening posts that is technically incompatible with his having made the trip to the Philippines?

He does tweet, on the 14th:

All that said, I agree it's pretty sad that his arriving as a medic in one of the biggest disaster zones in recent years would yield one post attracting four comments, with no followup, and no tweets. I guess he's been too busy saving the world from the depradations of Pitchguest and Franc - I mean Felch - Grogan to give insight into the biggest humanitarian story of the year besides, perhaps, Syria.

IOW, the best reason to think he's being perfectly above-board is that he is an absolutely shite and useless blogger, writer, and communicator.

But if you follow Avicenna for any length of time you will know that he never fucking shuts up about how much of a saint he is, saving lives, living in poverty, saving lives, helping the poor, saving lives, and something else, what was it?
Ah, yes, saving lives.

Now he might very well have gone to the Philippines to help in the relief effort - I have no way of knowing for certain.
But...

The evidence that he DID go is one tweet to Lousy Canuck and Canucks wife (I think) on the 15th of November saying "I am in the Philippines" - nothing else about what he is doing there, where abouts exactly, etc.

Remember, this announcement comes just a few days after he has explicitly ruled himself out from going because he has a medical condition that prevents him from traveling - he tweeted on the 9th of November that he had a temperature of 100 degrees that day and he blogged about having sinusitis. It would have been crazy to agree to travel to a disaster zone when he is so unwell (he says almost exactly that on his blog at the time.)

For him to have reached the Philippines by the 15th I'm guessing that he would have to have changed his mind almost by the next day in order to complete the preparations, tickets, transfers etc, in order to get there (thereby contradicting what he said about being too ill to help.)

Even more than this, his twitter timeline, apart from that single tweet on the fifteenth, shows zero talk of any change of mind or descriptions of the schedule, what is happening in the disaster zone etc.
You might think that the fact that he seems perfectly capable of following some stupid twitter debates over Pat Condell and other minutae during this time period would also mean that he would be able to keep us updated on the Philippines situation - if not for the purpose of telling us how many lives he is saving, but for the more altruistic purpose of publicising the situation on the ground there and using this to appeal for charitable donations.
His blog post on the 19th tells us that he is in the Philippines working in the disaster zone and yet on the 22nd he seems to be back in India.
Did he fly out there and immediately get sick and sent home again?
(That might explain why he says so little about the situation on the ground there)
But seriously, how do we reconcile his twitter timeline with the idea that he went to Tacloban to work on the relief effort?

I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he lied constantly during the Richard Sanderson incident:

viewtopic.php?p=124677#p124677

viewtopic.php?p=124678#p124678

#24604

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'd love to see Benson go on a, say, Tutsi forum and explain how western women are oppressed.

Dear Tutsilima, be quiet, the real oppression happens to King Leopold's wife.

#24605

So PZs WiS3 post gets 5 comments. He is waiting to see "if he can swing it" - ie he's having a shifty glance around to see which way the wind blows.

The micro horde similarly wat for a cue.

Crickets for now.

#24606

Is it just me or does Rebecca Watson's self appointed title of "co-host" of SGU grant her more implied prominence than is justified by being the snark/colour jester?

#24607

Brive1987 wrote:Is it just me or does Rebecca Watson's self appointed title of "co-host" of SGU grant her more implied prominence than is justified by being the snark/colour jester?

No, that's always struck me as implying more involvement than she actually has. It may be a borderline case, technically they're all co-hosts. It's just so obvious that Steve does nearly all the actual work that it gets a bit iffy. But hey it's not my podcast so I'm not the one who should complain.

#24608

Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:

Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell

Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.

Also:

Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina

Sounds like the other must see session.

I vote this time we sponsor Damion to go with his tee shirt and test some more inclusivity. :D

Hotel this year is below. Just how many damn elevators would it take to service a block like that?

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

http://www.womeninsecularism.org/schedule.html

#24609

Remembering of course that Sarah Moglia is the would be dinosaur who appropriates Neely's:

I am a beautiful animal. I am a destroyer of worlds. I am Harry fucking Potter. And, dear readers, at last the world was ...

http://i.imgur.com/O7WqLoj.jpg

The Skepchicks come out to play, on your dime of course.

#24610

Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina

A panel on gender equality with panelists from one gender only. Yep, that's real equality.

#24611

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina
A panel on gender equality with panelists from one gender only. Yep, that's real equality.

There isn't so much as a token male listed anywhere on the program (apart from opening 'welcome'). At least as far as I can see.

#24612

Brive1987 wrote:Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:

Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell
Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.

That was WISC2

Next years conference, WISC3 has the following speakers invited:

The Speakers

Ophelia Benson Â· Lindsay Beyerstein Â· Heina Dadabhoy Â· Debbie Goddard Â· Rebecca Goldstein Â· Candace Gorham Â· Melody Hensley Â· Susan Jacoby Â· Sarah Jones Â· Zinnia Jones Â· Amanda Kneif Â· Leighann Lord Â· Miri Mogilevsky Â· Taslima Nasreen Â· Katha Pollitt Â· Amy Davis Roth Â· Soraya Chemaly

In other words, a lot of the FTB skepchick crowd, plus a few women like Susan Jacoby and Katha Pollitt who have actually done something.

I am a little curious as to the aim of the conference. Pollitt and Jacoby were speakers last year (and maybe even the previous year.)
What exactly is the point of having them back again?
Is there some new campaign in which they are now involved that is relevant to the conference in 2014?

I can only compare it to professional conferences in which I've been involved in the past (in the field of science.) In those it would be seen as very strange to have a similar lineup of speakers two or three years in a row.
For a start it would look like favoritism - and the promotion of an unofficial hierarchy.
And additionally there are limited speaking slots at these meetings.
Having a small group of individuals, even very talented individuals, constantly being invited means that there are limited opportunities for others, particularly those who are talented and knowlegeable, yet who have not had the opportunities that more established individuals seem to take for granted.

Is the field of women in secularism in the US so impoverished that a conference celebrating the very best of them is mostly populated by skepchicks and FTB bloggers?

For something like skepticon I can understand the fact that it's the same speakers year after year - it is, after all, virtually their private party, and has been since the beginning. WISC on the other hand is meant to be a professional conference and as such we should expect more.

#24613

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina
A panel on gender equality with panelists from one gender only. Yep, that's real equality.

Yes but gender (like race) is a social construct so it doesn't matter if everyone on the panel is a woman.

Checkmate misogynists.

:dance:

#24614

Tapir wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote:
Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina
A panel on gender equality with panelists from one gender only. Yep, that's real equality.
Yes but gender (like race) is a social construct so it doesn't matter if everyone on the panel is a woman.

Checkmate misogynists.

:dance:

All right, from now on I'm identifying as a woman, so put me on that panel.

The 2013 conference included this:

How Feminism Makes Better Skeptics: The Role Rationality Plays in Ending Sexism
with Amanda Marcotte

Words fail me.

#24615

I don't know, I don't have a problem with WISC speakers being all-women. It is, after all, WISC. As long as they don't blame males from attending everything is fine.

#24616

'Bane', not 'blame'. Stupid Pavlovian reflex right there.

#24617

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:

Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell
Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.
That was WISC2

Next years conference, WISC3 has the following speakers invited:

The Speakers

Ophelia Benson Â· Lindsay Beyerstein Â· Heina Dadabhoy Â· Debbie Goddard Â· Rebecca Goldstein Â· Candace Gorham Â· Melody Hensley Â· Susan Jacoby Â· Sarah Jones Â· Zinnia Jones Â· Amanda Kneif Â· Leighann Lord Â· Miri Mogilevsky Â· Taslima Nasreen Â· Katha Pollitt Â· Amy Davis Roth Â· Soraya Chemaly
In other words, a lot of the FTB skepchick crowd, plus a few women like Susan Jacoby and Katha Pollitt who have actually done something.

I am a little curious as to the aim of the conference. Pollitt and Jacoby were speakers last year (and maybe even the previous year.)
What exactly is the point of having them back again?
Is there some new campaign in which they are now involved that is relevant to the conference in 2014?

I can only compare it to professional conferences in which I've been involved in the past (in the field of science.) In those it would be seen as very strange to have a similar lineup of speakers two or three years in a row.
For a start it would look like favoritism - and the promotion of an unofficial hierarchy.
And additionally there are limited speaking slots at these meetings.
Having a small group of individuals, even very talented individuals, constantly being invited means that there are limited opportunities for others, particularly those who are talented and knowlegeable, yet who have not had the opportunities that more established individuals seem to take for granted.

Is the field of women in secularism in the US so impoverished that a conference celebrating the very best of them is mostly populated by skepchicks and FTB bloggers?

For something like skepticon I can understand the fact that it's the same speakers year after year - it is, after all, virtually their private party, and has been since the beginning. WISC on the other hand is meant to be a professional conference and as such we should expect more.

Ahh, my bad. Thanks for the pickup. A little voice did actually whisper "how the hell did they fix a program already" - but I ignored it. At least I got the hotel right! :clap:

#24618

Ok, not even wrong. 'Ban', not 'blame' or 'bane'. Stupid Batmanian reflex right there.

#24619

.
This eye opener video was on No Cross, No Crescent. Until it was pulled. Here is a copy.

Interesting bit starts at 2 min 40 sec. I have never before heard defenders of Islam take this approach!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... islam.html

#24620

Brive1987 wrote:Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:

Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell
Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.

Well, Poppy is the one who fingered Shermer and Radford as stealth rapists, Moglia said Dawkins blackballed Watson from the Reason Rally, Watson's come-to-Jesus story is the elevator and how Dawkins done her wrong, and Roth thinks whatever Watson thinks. So, I'd be surprised if it was anything other than what it's always been: St Rebecca, the Elevator, and the Truth and Reckoning it inspired.

#24621

Mykeru wrote:
Guest wrote:A Voice for Men publishes an article debunking the myth of patriarchal oppression in Iran.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentris ... on-in-iran

Fine skeptics there eat it up, no questions asked, even though the author never once mentions anything about Islam or the ruling mullahs. The stories we hear from Iran are all just feminist Propaganda. Feminists hiding the truth.

Wow. Just wow. Almost speechless here. I have been waiting for this article for years.

Truly outstanding! Only at AVFM will you ever see something like this published. So proud to be a part of this!

Wow. What an article. The plight of men and boys goes invisible in yet another country. But it seems especially invisible in Iran. What privilege the women get. Damn. How could feminists ever try to spin that? This is hard to believe.

This is one of the most important article so far, IMHO.

Thank you for the poignant examples of sexism against men and the pernicious influences of feminism in Iran â€“ this article has shined a spotlight on the facts that feminists in the West have hidden.

I have long suspected the patriarchal strongholds painted by feminists were mirages. Iran, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Mongolia, etc. when you look closely at the responsibilities of the sexes in these countries it becomes apparent that women are much more priviliged than the men.

Thank you Ali , a real myth buster of an article, looking forward to more details on the situation in Iran.
Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things.
Yes, I remember after my being declared apostate, gender traitor and feminist stooge by Paul Elam, some random AVfM ~~fat fucking frustrated self-fellating neckbeard douche-airships full of angst, grievance and aerosol egg-sandwich hot air~~ commenters expressed how just so very disappointed they were in me.

Outrageous.

After any mention of A Voice For Men on the 'Pit, the probability of it being co-opted by Mykeru who wants to make it all about how Paul Elam butthurt his vagina, approaches 1"

German LurkBoatsman · #24622

Brive1987 wrote:Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:
Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell

Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.

[youtube]6LTB9zwtHRk[/youtube]

Haven't watched it, but obvious trigger warnings are obvious.

#24623

German:

Thanks! I started watching until Moglia said "I am on this panel because I have Crohn's disease". When no one laughed I realised this video needed to be appreciated at leisure and preferably after a couple of good bourbons. Crohn's not funny - until it becomes part of your CV.

#24624

Just found the reason for why the famous 8 seconds were so terrifying;

http://zeqps2k4t563atbs730zvzq12aw.wpen ... ns-171.jpg

Because no execrable pun goes unpunished...

Boom tish!

#24625

Brive1987 wrote:German:

Thanks! I started watching until Moglia said "I am on this panel because I have Crohn's disease". When no one laughed I realised this video needed to be appreciated at leisure and preferably after a couple of good bourbons. Crohn's not funny - until it becomes part of your CV.

What I noticed, without watching it, is the pitcher of Kool-Aid in front of St. Becky, plus a tumbler of suspiciously caramel-colored liquid.

Service Dog wrote: After any mention of A Voice For Men on the 'Pit, the probability of it being co-opted by Mykeru who wants to make it all about how Paul Elam butthurt his vagina, approaches 1"

Bite my lightly salted nutsack.

#24626

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I don't know, I don't have a problem with WISC speakers being all-women. It is, after all, WISC. As long as they don't blame males from attending everything is fine.

I don't mind if WiSC speakers are all women, as long as we can have a Men in Secularism Conference with all male speakers without SJW feminists complaining about it. Can we have that? :lol:

I can just picture how that would go.

Conference Organizer: "I'd like to propose a Men in Secularism Conf-"

Skepchicks, Atheism+ and FTB: "MRA MISOGYNISTS!!!"

Silly misogynists, the every day is male atheist conference day!

#24627

James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?

#24628

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
with Ophelia Benson, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Debbie Goddard, Stephanie Zvan, and moderator Greta Christina
A panel on gender equality with panelists from one gender only. Yep, that's real equality.

Well, as Zvan (channeling the great feminist Bora Zivkovic) and Secular Woman have reliably informed us, baboon-science reveals that for a woman's voice to be heard there must be no more than 40% male-bodied people in the room and women must be installed in at least 60% of the leadership positions at all levels of organization. It is known. And, in the meantime, 100% female-voiced bodies is probably a good thing so that it's a safe space for the lady-scientists to perform the delicate, dangerous, rocket-surgical procedure of removing the cancerous patriarchal gland from the center of society's skull. As Ophelia has observed, houseplants are also a necessity in all misogyny-free operating rooms. Male-identified bodies should take a seat and be quiet, if they must be present.

Of course, as folks like Sikivu and self-appointed honorary WOC SallyStrange (she loves weed and Missy Elliott and is the nemesis of vile and blinkered social-justice-science-denialists throughout the Twittersphere) point out, the people who really need to sit down and shut up are the white feminists, yo:

Retweeted by Sally:

and, by the way:

(no, there was no context for this -- Sally is simply flexing her "seeing race" muscles, which is the proper and progressive way to practice intersectional social justice. If you have any #ripplesofdoubt about this, fuck off. Racist.)

It will be interesting when the disabled, illiterate, trans* women of color tell the able-bodied, degreed feminists of color to shut up and take a seat. Eventually, it will be like a very quiet (no woo) mindfulness meditation retreat and the only sounds you hear will be the snuffing of Melody's pink-tutu'd pugs and an occasional pot-smoker's cough from Sally. Sikivu may be muttering angrily to herself, but that will go unnoticed by the presiding panel of deaf-albino-schizophrenic-first-nations-gender-fluids-who-have-been-burned-in-industrial-accidents.

Although it would certainly be a mind-expanding and enlightening privilege to spend several hundred dollars to sit in a Westin in the suburbs of DC and hear Greta, Svan, and Ophie talk amongst themselves about "gender equality" (I mean, it's basically the Conseil Solvay of cutting-edge social theory, at least in terms of mediocre dumpy-frumpy white feminist bloggery), I believe I may have to put windshield-washer fluid in my car that day.

#24629

German LurkBoatsman wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Finally for tonight. Can anyone imagine what 1.5 hours of:
Faith-Based Pseudo-Science
with Sarah Moglia, Carrie Poppy, Amy Davis Roth, Rebecca Watson, and moderator Desiree Schell

Would consist of? And why for the love of God you would pay to attend? The title could refer to any one of RW's recent Patreon videos.
[youtube]6LTB9zwtHRk[/youtube]

Haven't watched it, but obvious trigger warnings are obvious.

It's a good thing you didn't watch it! I am completely triggered!

Desiree Schell's first words are "Hello guys!"

With that genocidal greeting, she erased the existence of half the world and probably 99% of her audience!

Atheism+ recently edited a user who announced himself(of course it was a him!) that way, and then ran him out the door. Obviously they are more advanced feminists than chill girl Schell.

#24630

4,4,3,4,2,8,3,11,2,3 = last 10 comment count on Ophilia Benson's blog.

Hardly even an echo chamber.

Oh and of the 11 post one, 9 were from 2 people.

#24631

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?

What's the point of the all-female one?

I think they're both pretty pointless. I'd probably go to WiSC if they replaced every speaker with Eugenie Scott.

#24632

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?

What, really, is the point of any of these "conferences"?

Even serious scientific conferences are starting to become less necessary - it's now easy to find out about others work and query them about it without schlepping your arse across the planet to do so. But they were always viewed as one of the (few) perks of academic life, so there was that.

But the gab fests that pass for information exchange at the skeptic/atheist end of the spectrum (even those not run by the usual suspects) - let's not pretent they are anything other than ~~networking~~ ~~schmoozing~~ ~~starfucking~~ social events. Hence BeKKI! (makes noise like large startled chicken).

#24633

Gotta love that Sally Strange.

"Jews, Jews. Everywhere I look."

#24634

acathode wrote:
Sulman wrote:Funny how both extremes are basically the same.
Yeah, it's pretty sad to see all the crazies, on both sides, shitting all over their "movements", burying the valid points that both MRAs and feminists actually have under a thick layer of stinking manure. Eventually I think they'll manage to drive all sane people away from both the movements... but then I guess the crazies will just jump ship and start calling themselves egalitarians... and then proceed to shit all over that too.

Thing is, I read his article and it's (essentially) true when it comes to the facts. The problem is Islam, when it's working 'properly' for women, is a gilded cage and that many of the practices of Islam tend to reinforce the cage through unintended consequences of, in some respects, putting women on a pedestal and over-protecting them.

Strangely enough, feminists are trying to make an equivalency of this here in west; where they get their cake and get to eat it to. Some of it, like 'no fault' divorce, has blown up in their faces. The unintended consequences to women has been to 'feminize' poverty and reduce the emotional and economic fitness of their children.

And much of that has come because of yet another unforseen consequence of another feminist action -- their incorporation of the "tender years" doctrine in child custody/divorce proceedings which virtually guarantees they get custody of the children. And children, frankly, are a huge time-sink and will seriously impact your 8-to-5 career and checkbook.

And yet 70% of all divorces are filed by women, frequently over 'nothing' when the woman decides she wants greener pastures. (Even worse in college educated couples -- 90% are filed by women -- American Law and Economics Review in 2000, "These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women.")

#24635

Apples wrote:
and, by the way:

(no, there was no context for this -- Sally is simply flexing her "seeing race" muscles, which is the proper and progressive way to practice intersectional social justice. If you have any #ripplesofdoubt about this, fuck off. Racist.)

Tell her to stop reading Cosmo.

#24636

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?

Actually discussing skepticism?

#24637

Brive1987 wrote:4,4,3,4,2,8,3,11,2,3 = last 10 comment count on Ophilia Benson's blog.

Hardly even an echo chamber.

Oh and of the 11 post one, 9 were from 2 people.

You have to go back something like 40 posts until you reach one where she gets over about 30 comments - and, of course, that is a drama post.

The trouble with Ophelia is that she still has an interest in some of the subjects such as religious censorship, blasphemy, and the rights of women in third world theocracies, that used to be the mainstay of her blog in the years before Elevatorgate. The problem is that her current commenters have almost no interest in those subjects. They are interested in drama. I wouldn't even call them feminists because when she does make posts about feminist issues (such as rape in thrid world countries) she gets virtually zero comments.
But bring up the schism and they all leap in, eager to get their five minutes of hate off their chest.

#24638

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?
What, really, is the point of any of these "conferences"?

Even serious scientific conferences are starting to become less necessary - it's now easy to find out about others work and query them about it without schlepping your arse across the planet to do so. But they were always viewed as one of the (few) perks of academic life, so there was that.

But the gab fests that pass for information exchange at the skeptic/atheist end of the spectrum (even those not run by the usual suspects) - let's not pretent they are anything other than ~~networking~~ ~~schmoozing~~ ~~starfucking~~ social events. Hence BeKKI! (makes noise like large startled chicken).

Having watched my wife over the years, I think the answer is that you still find entire lines of inquiry and/or techniques that you would have otherwise missed. Plus others are more likely to respond since they have nothing better to do than talk about themselves and their projects when they're there.

#24639

Apples wrote:

Sung to the tune of 'Lovely Ladies'.

#24640

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:4,4,3,4,2,8,3,11,2,3 = last 10 comment count on Ophilia Benson's blog.

Hardly even an echo chamber.

Oh and of the 11 post one, 9 were from 2 people.
You have to go back something like 40 posts until you reach one where she gets over about 30 comments - and, of course, that is a drama post.

The trouble with Ophelia is that she still has an interest in some of the subjects such as religious censorship, blasphemy, and the rights of women in third world theocracies, that used to be the mainstay of her blog in the years before Elevatorgate. The problem is that her current commenters have almost no interest in those subjects. They are interested in drama. I wouldn't even call them feminists because when she does make posts about feminist issues (such as rape in thrid world countries) she gets virtually zero comments.
But bring up the schism and they all leap in, eager to get their five minutes of hate off their chest.

It's hard to give a damn about traditional real world messy issues when you have patriarchy, rape culture, devious MRA's and ingrained privilege to guard against. Church state separation? Boring.

#24641

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Apples wrote:
and, by the way:

(no, there was no context for this -- Sally is simply flexing her "seeing race" muscles, which is the proper and progressive way to practice intersectional social justice. If you have any #ripplesofdoubt about this, fuck off. Racist.)

Tell her to stop reading Cosmo.

Well, let's see .... according to the CIA World Factbook via wikipedia, she could go to Belarus, where the male-female ratio is apparently among the lowest in the world at .87 men for every woman, but there's still the problem of whiteness. ..... Ah, there we are!... Djibouti it is, then.

#24642

Ever wondered what feminism in defiance of patriarchal gender norms and toxic masculinity sounds like?
[youtube]s0kqobQRcUo[/youtube]
Maybe if the men sitting next to Sally on the bus had been talking loudly about fashion while painting their nails and trying on bras, she wouldn't have gotten so angry. It's all their fault for being born cisgendered and heteronormative.

#24643

Steersman wrote:
welch wrote:
it was a joke. both the gif and the comment from the fascist tit.
I got that from SD's post, but Lsuoma's? Maybe like Benson's "ironic" use of "prick"? Without some sort of "tell" it seems a bit of stretch to expect everyone to get that.

This place is exactly like Pharyngula, and Lsuoma is exactly like PZ. Yup.

#24644

Tribble wrote:
AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James: really, what would be the point of such a conference?
What, really, is the point of any of these "conferences"?

Even serious scientific conferences are starting to become less necessary - it's now easy to find out about others work and query them about it without schlepping your arse across the planet to do so. But they were always viewed as one of the (few) perks of academic life, so there was that.

But the gab fests that pass for information exchange at the skeptic/atheist end of the spectrum (even those not run by the usual suspects) - let's not pretent they are anything other than ~~networking~~ ~~schmoozing~~ ~~starfucking~~ social events. Hence BeKKI! (makes noise like large startled chicken).

Having watched my wife over the years, I think the answer is that you still find entire lines of inquiry and/or techniques that you would have otherwise missed. Plus others are more likely to respond since they have nothing better to do than talk about themselves and their projects when they're there.

I agree, at least about scientific conferences. That's why I said "starting to become less necessary". Most conferences carried the possibility of something serendipitous that could lead to something worthwhile in the way of new research angles or collaborations.

Ultimately, there will always be a place for face-to-face interaction with other humans. But when that interaction (mainly in a bar) is all there is, you really do have to question the whole reason for the exercise, and the skepchicks brigade just highlight that.

#24645

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:4,4,3,4,2,8,3,11,2,3 = last 10 comment count on Ophilia Benson's blog.

Hardly even an echo chamber.

Oh and of the 11 post one, 9 were from 2 people.
You have to go back something like 40 posts until you reach one where she gets over about 30 comments - and, of course, that is a drama post.

The trouble with Ophelia is that she still has an interest in some of the subjects such as religious censorship, blasphemy, and the rights of women in third world theocracies, that used to be the mainstay of her blog in the years before Elevatorgate. The problem is that her current commenters have almost no interest in those subjects. They are interested in drama. I wouldn't even call them feminists because when she does make posts about feminist issues (such as rape in thrid world countries) she gets virtually zero comments.
But bring up the schism and they all leap in, eager to get their five minutes of hate off their chest.

Her other problem is that her sense of internet time hasn't been recalibrated since 2003. She routinely posts incidents that already burned through Reddit and every blog/magazine in the progressosphere half a week earlier. Then she only adds her handful of one-line reactions. She's out of the loop, left behind, and pointless.

#24646

Apples wrote:...Eventually, it will be like a very quiet (no woo) mindfulness meditation retreat and the only sounds you hear will be the snuffing of Melody's pink-tutu'd pugs and an occasional pot-smoker's cough from Sally. Sikivu may be muttering angrily to herself, but that will go unnoticed by the presiding panel of deaf-albino-schizophrenic-first-nations-gender-fluids-who-have-been-burned-in-industrial-accidents...

Man, that's evocative. The whole post gave me the happy shivers.

#24647

Social Justice Warriors?

[youtube]HaBK0dBV47E[/youtube]

There is a solution.

#24648

[youtube]sO-msplukrw[/youtube]

#24649

Dick Strawkins wrote: But if you follow Avicenna for any length of time you will know that he never fucking shuts up about how much of a saint he is, saving lives, living in poverty, saving lives, helping the poor, saving lives, and something else, what was it?
Ah, yes, saving lives.

Now he might very well have gone to the Philippines to help in the relief effort - I have no way of knowing for certain.
But...

The evidence that he DID go is one tweet to Lousy Canuck and Canucks wife (I think) on the 15th of November saying "I am in the Philippines" - nothing else about what he is doing there, where abouts exactly, etc.

Remember, this announcement comes just a few days after he has explicitly ruled himself out from going because he has a medical condition that prevents him from traveling - he tweeted on the 9th of November that he had a temperature of 100 degrees that day and he blogged about having sinusitis. It would have been crazy to agree to travel to a disaster zone when he is so unwell (he says almost exactly that on his blog at the time.)

For him to have reached the Philippines by the 15th I'm guessing that he would have to have changed his mind almost by the next day in order to complete the preparations, tickets, transfers etc, in order to get there (thereby contradicting what he said about being too ill to help.)

Even more than this, his twitter timeline, apart from that single tweet on the fifteenth, shows zero talk of any change of mind or descriptions of the schedule, what is happening in the disaster zone etc.
You might think that the fact that he seems perfectly capable of following some stupid twitter debates over Pat Condell and other minutae during this time period would also mean that he would be able to keep us updated on the Philippines situation - if not for the purpose of telling us how many lives he is saving, but for the more altruistic purpose of publicising the situation on the ground there and using this to appeal for charitable donations.
His blog post on the 19th tells us that he is in the Philippines working in the disaster zone and yet on the 22nd he seems to be back in India.
Did he fly out there and immediately get sick and sent home again?
(That might explain why he says so little about the situation on the ground there)
But seriously, how do we reconcile his twitter timeline with the idea that he went to Tacloban to work on the relief effort?

I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he lied constantly during the Richard Sanderson incident:

viewtopic.php?p=124677#p124677

viewtopic.php?p=124678#p124678

The timeline seems very odd to me as well, but of course it's difficult, if not impossible, to find out the truths in his blogposts and tweets.

Here's a link to the Philippines disaster volunteer requirements for a large and well-organized medical relief NGO, Project HOPE:

http://www2.recruitingcenter.net/client ... 14&esid=az

Note in particular that volunteers must have no communicable diseases, must be current on immunizations for the relief area, must commit to at least 30 days in the disaster zone (or they'll pay their own return airfare), and preferably should speak a Philippines-relevant language. This particular NGO already has staff and volunteers more or less permanently in the Philippines, and yet they're careful to outline the unpredictability of the time commitment and the possibility for austere field accommodations. Of course not every disaster relief agency runs like a military operation, but smaller relief organizations and projects often turn into longer time commitments because of uncertain weather conditions, etc. It seems odd that Avicenna would have been able to go there and back at such short notice, and without any snags. But it's unlikely that we'll ever know the true story.

#24650

Just skimmed Alex Gabriel's response to Pat Condell's "How Gay is Islam?" video. I'm not sure why this required so many words. Alex explains this is because Condell is just so wrong (which most people here seem to agree with).

Although I didn't devote the proper amount of attention to the article, two things immediately struck me as loopy.

Islam doesnâ€™t want me dead. Islam doesnâ€™t want anything. Saying religions want things is like saying homeopathy feels sad or Thatcherism likes watching Countdown.

While I suppose it's a literally true statement that religions don't "want" anything, pointing this out is incredibly pedantic. Yet, Alex felt it was necessary to state this idea more than once in his article. When people start quibbling over technical inaccuracies rather than addressing the main thrust of the argument they're supposed to be refuting, red flags go up in my mind.

The second thing that struck me was Alex's list of countries with an without laws against homosexuality. The general point he seems to be trying to establish is that nations without muslim majorities are just as likely to have laws against homosexuality. Ignoring the irrelevancy of that point for now, there's something questionable about his facts. I noticed Jordan was listed as a country with no restrictions on homosexuality.

The thing is, I've had a number of friends and coworkers who were born and raised in Jordan. I very much got the impression you'd get your ass kicked for being openly gay over there, and the average citizen would nod in approval. This makes me suspicious to say the least.

#24651

This person's Twitter bio is the most pretentious thing to happen since a gender-fluid hipster, on a break from xir's Womyn's-Studies course, walked into Starbucks and ordered a Blonde-Roasted Veranda Mocha with a side order of flax and spelt-wheat toast "to-go" and the paid with a cheque written on an egg:
https://twitter.com/_thetimebeing_

netgendered artist, sex radical intersectional activist, asexual, anarchist, cacodaemoniacal. Post-Geek

Fuck off.

#24652

jet_lagg wrote: Although I didn't devote the proper amount of attention to the article, two things immediately struck me as loopy.

Islam doesnâ€™t want me dead. Islam doesnâ€™t want anything. Saying religions want things is like saying homeopathy feels sad or Thatcherism likes watching Countdown.
While I suppose it's a literally true statement that religions don't "want" anything, pointing this out is incredibly pedantic. Yet, Alex felt it was necessary to state this idea more than once in his article. When people start quibbling over technical inaccuracies rather than addressing the main thrust of the argument they're supposed to be refuting, red flags go up in my mind.

Aw bless. 'Interesting' Alex seems to have just discovered the fallacy of reification.

Now let's see that clever boy apply it to 'teh patriarchy'.

Also, Richard Carrier has been ejaculating fine praise over this article, bringing his intellectual artillery to bear on the matter by proclaiming that Alex has 'pwned' Condell.

Richard to his reflection, tonight:

'I feel very satisfied that I used a tone towards Condell which was not only dismissive, but also had a soupcon of geek credibility. Well done, you!'

#24653

Tigzy wrote:
Also, Richard Carrier has been ejaculating fine praise over this article, bringing his intellectual artillery to bear on the matter by proclaiming that Alex has 'pwned' Condell.

I've always found his writing strange when he praises some aspect of the FTB network. Not that I expect anyone here to agree with me, but it feels strained, like the kid on Christmas who beams after getting a hand knit sweater from his aunt. "Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted."

#24654

I just think Richard Carrier's a massive twerp, and someone who I would be very amused to see getting beaten up by chimp who then proceeds to rub his weird hanging-out arse all over Carriers smug little hobbit face.

#24655

jet_lagg wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
Also, Richard Carrier has been ejaculating fine praise over this article, bringing his intellectual artillery to bear on the matter by proclaiming that Alex has 'pwned' Condell.

I've always found his writing strange when he praises some aspect of the FTB network. Not that I expect anyone here to agree with me, but it feels strained, like the kid on Christmas who beams after getting a hand knit sweater from his aunt. "Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted."

Ha! Good one.

#24656

Tigzy wrote:I just think Richard Carrier's a massive twerp, and someone who I would be very amused to see getting beaten up by chimp who then proceeds to rub his weird hanging-out arse all over Carriers smug little hobbit face.

Do you remember that scene in the office where Gareth phones the calculator company to complain that his account figures were wrong and the only possible explanation could be a fault with the calculator? That's so Richard Carrier.

#24657

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
I agree, at least about scientific conferences. That's why I said "starting to become less necessary". Most conferences carried the possibility of something serendipitous that could lead to something worthwhile in the way of new research angles or collaborations.

Ultimately, there will always be a place for face-to-face interaction with other humans. But when that interaction (mainly in a bar) is all there is, you really do have to question the whole reason for the exercise, and the skepchicks brigade just highlight that.

I agree to some extent about the scientific conferences, especially for graduate students, postdocs, and early career scientists. What needs to be curtailed, IMHO, is the tradition of senior scientists flying all over the planet to give small-scale departmental seminars every week. I realize that this is a tiny fraction of global carbon emissions, but an unwillingness to change habits, or to budge even a centimeter on reducing fossil fuel use in industrialized countries, is symptomatic of the much, much larger problem highlighted by the G77 and China bloc walkout at the recent Climate Change COP19 in Warsaw. I've voiced my objections to continuing weekly departmental seminars at faculty meetings, but my opinion is very much a minority one, and I have little or no political power in that context. I think it's a science cultural hangover that needs to go away; few people benefit from it, beyond the faculty who invited a particular speaker (and who almost always have an established collaboration with the speaker already). The response is similar to PZ's: they just double down on the "reasons" why it's so important for them to fly to meetings, conferences, and seminars.

#24658

@Parsehole

Yep - exactly! :lol:

I like this bit he wrote on his 'Pat Condell gets seriously fucking Pwned' post:

Condellians will probably pepper my comments with defensive screeds somehow trying to restore Condellâ€™s bullet-riddled body in logic-space to some semblance of crypto-ethnophobic zombie life.

You just know he smirked, and thought 'God, I'm good!' when he wrote that.

#24659

Carrier demonstrates his 'unique' grasp of recent history with the following intro to his latest post that praises Ronald MacDonalds post on Pat Condell:

For those who donâ€™t know, Pat Condell is primarily known in our community because Dawkins likes and endorses him repeatedly. Condell is everywhere billed as a â€œcomedian and atheist internet personality,â€ I suppose because he doesnâ€™t have any actual qualifications in anything (beyond that). Heâ€™s sort of like the Rush Limbaugh of criticizing Islam. Indeed, so far as I can tell, thatâ€™s Condellâ€™s only substantive contribution to the atheist movement. And getting a hundred thousand Likes for it.

For me, and I guess a lot of others in the online atheist community, Condell became primarily known due to the frequent promotion of his videos and DVD by a certain well known blogger based in Morris Minnesota.

For example how about the following:

Speak it, brother!
Posted by PZ Myers on November 28, 2007

Clenched fist salute to Pat Condell:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... t-brother/

Or this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ir-absurd/

Or this:

Mohammedâ€™s dead hand still ruins lives from the grave
Posted by PZ Myers on April 23, 2010

Iâ€™ll be going to the Atheist Alliance International 2010 Copenhagen Convention to listen to a fine group of godless speakers, but thereâ€™s one who wonâ€™t be there â€” there was going to be a surprise speaker, not mentioned for security reasons, and now he has decided it would be too dangerous. The meeting is being held in Denmark, so of course they were going to have Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who infuriated so many Muslims, speak about his experience.

But not now. The threats and the risk are too great, and he has withdrawn.

That is genuinely disgraceful, that the idiots of Islam can rely on intimidation and fear to silence their critics. â€œReligion of Peace,â€ my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate. It seems entirely appropriate to turn things over to Pat Condell:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... till-ruin/

Or this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... ls-latest/

Or how about the following:

Pharyngula
Solid Condell
Posted by PZ Myers on April 29, 2008

I donâ€™t know about this. All this concentrated wit and venom in one place could be dangerous â€¦ and three straight hours of Pat Condell? Whew. Get copies for your local ministers, and either theyâ€™ll die of fuming apoplexy or theyâ€™ll give extremely animated and entertaining sermons the next Sunday.

Thatâ€™s right, the Richard Dawkins foundation is selling a DVD containing the distilled, consecutive output of Pat Condellâ€™s youtube rants. Get one for your mother. Play them at your atheist groupâ€™s next meeting. I might just rip out the audio and put it on a CD for my next long drive. Hey, weâ€™ve got these loud chimes that play hymns every hour in my neighborhood â€” I could crank up the speakers, aim them out the window, and play Condell in reply. I can think of quite a few militant activities I could carry out with wall-to-wall Condell.

The last story is even illustrated by the following image.

http://i.imgur.com/OMrKZM7.jpg

Now I guess that PZ might have changed his mind about Condell in the intervening time period - as have a lot of other atheists that haven't been aboard for some of the more xenophobic anti-immigration views that Condell has veered into in recent years - but a lot of what Alex Gabriel was arguing about has been covered in Condell's earlier videos - the ones that Myers is promoting in the above links.

Are we seriously supposed to memory-hole Myers involvement in making Condell popular in the first place?
It was all Richard Dawkins fault?
To be fair Dawkins could do a little more to distance himself from some of the silly things Condell has said in recent years but he isn't exactly a current major promoter of Pat Condell - he's only mentioned him fleetingly in recent years.

Carrier, on the other hand, praises Alex Gabriel for a nuanced view of Islam - which, if you read it, seems to be a plea that because some muslims are liberal it is wrong to suggest that the majority of muslims in a population may hold homophobic views.
Even if a survey reveals that to be the case. :think:

I think that Condell gets a hell of a lot of things wrong, but is it really logical that he's managed to make a huge mistake and that Islam is, in fact, gay friendly?

#24660

ERV wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Just cleaning my temp file folder and came across this picture I downloaded in 2010 off PZ's site.

Why? Because I kind of liked it.

Wonder if the post is still there now!

http://i.imgur.com/CeVXx3U.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... ofile-pic/

The artist is Rafael Gallur. He did tons of mexican porno comics covers, which looked like shit.
I guess the cheap printing was to blame. Because his art is great:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rafael+ ... .9#imgdii=_