Bleeding from the Bunghole

#15901

Just a beautiful non-sequitur from Ellie Murasaki here.

I don't know whether to laugh or applaud.

#15902

Walter Ego wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
Git wrote:As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,
I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.
Fucking tech geeks. STFU You're boring everyone.

Please entertain us with another tale of your amazing daily life of pissing on sinks and betting on fights with cheap hotel managers, then.

#15903

welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
I think you need to pick better examples. LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice in 2010. Most of its "shitty UI" was written by StarDivision/Oracle.
In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

Now you are just ridiculing people for no reason. "amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source", who claimed that?

welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
welch wrote:http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"A Stark Moral Choice"
The section in question discusses a personal choice for his career somewhere around the KT boundary. It does not back your claim that RMS argues that free software confers moral superiority (to whom anyway?).
As I thought. Let's make this easy. You tell me the words Stallman must use for my statement to be correct. He's ranted about the moral superiority of Free software for years, if not decades, but i've no interest in reading your mind. You put the words here. Then i"ll see if he actually said those precise words. It will make things easier on everyone.

Your original claim was: "It confers neither moral superiority nor inferiority no matter how many times RMS stamps his feet otherwise"

As far as I can tell he says that free software is better from a moral, ethical economical etc. perspective. I don't see where he claims this confers superiority on individuals.

You seem to have some sort of caricature in your mind where RMS is this one-issue clown that rants about free software all day and measures everyone based on whether they follow the cult of free software or not. I linked to his comments on Apple which show that contrary to what you claimed he doesn't trash companies for not writing free software. The reality is that he trashes Apple for specific restrictions it imposes on users. All of what I've seen on his site is specific criticism of consequences not the stupid broad generalizations that you ascribe to him. Maybe you need to search through Q&A sessions or similar where people say this kind of stuff in the heat of the moment.

welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:I am not an FSF person. I linked to the FSF because you were confusing their definition of "free software" and your own and were asserting that their license is in conflict with their own ideals. If you insist that you actually knew that and were deliberately spinning this to make them look like hypocrites then please don't do that again in the future.
Their license is not free. It is not even close to free. It is highly restrictive and lays down specific terms that tell you what you cannot do with GPL'd software.

That's not free, that's "Free". The GPL is not about freedom in any sense other than what the people behind the GPL decide "freedom" is. If they don't like something, then they modify the GPL to ban the use of GPL'd software in that instance.

It's not significantly different then the way the Soviet Leaders meant "freedom": "you're free to act in the way we require and do the things we allow".

That's why i point out the BSD license as a truly "free" license. The GPL simply is not, and therefore, their claims to supporting software freedom are crapola.

You disagree with the FSF's definition of "free", fine. I acknowledged this the first time.

Obviously the BSD license is not truly "free" under your definition since it imposes requirements on the user.
A "free" license under your definition is http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

I am not sure I understand your issue with different versions of the GPL. You are free to use whichever you like. The BSD licenses comes in different versions too.

welch wrote:Ah, the GPLv2. Which is not the current version is it? No. No it is not. As well, nice way to misrepresent what Hubbard was trying to say.

Please go back to what he wrote. He wrote about the GPL scaring users away. GPLv3 is not widely in use so it is clearly not what he meant. My point was that even though his theoretical argument has merit the practice shows it to be irrelevant.

welch wrote:Oh and points for "i've not seen it so it's not there."

I didn't realize the point about Linux vs *BSD adoption among SoC vendors was going to be controversial. Otherwise I would have dropped it cause I am too lazy to go through dozens of webpages just to provide tons of links that state the obvious. Even if someone somewhere offers a *BSD port that doesn't negate the point that Linux is widely adopted despite the GPL.

welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
Git wrote:As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,
I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.
So he's not allow to point out the thing that gives him some vague form of expertise in the field?

The rest of his quote was: "I find myself violently agreeing with everything Welch has said on this subject. He is speaking sense, at least on this one."

If he agrees with everything you said then he agrees with a the whole collection of your cartoon character depictions of RMS that you produced here and have not backed up with actual quotes. His expertise does nothing to close that evidence gap.

#15904

Zenspace wrote:
Southern wrote:
If he's not going to sue, Shermer has the moral obligation of returning every penny that was donated to his "legal fund". Every single one of them. No "I'll just donate to charity" bullshit. Because that wasn't what the money was raised (with his consent, no less) for. If he doesn't follow through and don't return the money, he'll be on the same boat as The Amazing Atheist, Brett Keane, and other atheist-ebeggers assholes.
Shermer has nothing to do with the solicitation or collection of the Legal Fund. He did acknowledge its presence and took pains to remain separate from it, which was wise. See here:

"People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is mshermer@skeptic.com, which is posted on our web page http://www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong--legally or morally--and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney."

--Michael Shermer
Link: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

Scroll to Update #2

Further, it was made clear from the outset by Emery Emery what would happen with the funds if not used for Schermer's legal expenses:

My name is Emery Emery and I am launching this fund raising effort for two reasons.
1. As a show of public support for Michael Shermer.
2. To help alleviate the expenses associated with Michael's effort to defend his name.

I do not know Michael Shermer personally and he has no idea I am setting up this fund raiser. I will be making sure that all money donated will go directly to his legal team and not to him personally.

If any funds are raised beyond Mr. Shermer's legal expenses it will be used to promote skepticism and science.

The way that money will be donated will be put to a vote of the donors themselves via email.
As a contributor, I read Emery's post carefully and decided to participate. Either outcome would be satisfactory to me, although leaving a smoking legal crater where FftB used to be would be my cathartic preference. :mrgreen:

Oh, so that would makie the e-bagging more acceptable, that wasn't he the one starting it? So, lets say that I start a fund to send Justin Vacula to next WiS, and I make Justin aware of it, and he gives me green light to proceed with it; but he knows for sure that he's not going to it next year because of his schedule or because Caine threatened to throw a knife at him, is still ok for him to give me the green light to collect the money, even if he has no access to it?

#15905

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Bourne Skeptic wrote:Setar has a "problem" with someone calling the taliban "thugs"

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 517#p95297
Just right. After all, the Brits actually managed to eliminate the thuggee.

Because,of course,in SJW land they had invented the story in the first place as a kind of bad fairy tale.

:lol:

The Thugee are, according to Wiki, first mentioned in the History of FÄ«rÅ«z ShÄh, dated to around 1356 - a time when the nations that later comprised Britain had about as much interest in India as most people probably have about Walter Ego's Hotel Adventures.

But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

#15906

Oops - missed the 'Great' before 'Britain' in my previous post.

Easily done, I know.

#15907

Tigzy wrote:
But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautÃ©e". Yes, that was a bad joke).

#15908

Jonathan wrote:Just a beautiful non-sequitur from Ellie Murasaki here.

I don't know whether to laugh or applaud.

This one, from qmartindale:

The key to me is the word seems to be most used to refe to violence used by people without privilige, although I have seen it used to refer to government agents.

And you've probably seen it as part of the phrase 'corporate thugs', qmartin, but you have a confirmation bias going on there, so kindly waddle off and have a wank while thinking about some poor people, or something.

Guest · #15909

Service Dog wrote:Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:

Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.

Ofek was a new hire who has since been fired, and no, I cannot imagine anything that would justify his use of whore in that back and forth, not when he is representing a company and website he works for.

#15910

"Attention whore" simily, maybe?

#15911

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.
Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautÃ©e". Yes, that was a bad joke).

AFAIA, the French in India banned suttee before the British did.

In which case, your people have been insulting other cultural practices longer. So nyer.

In fact, the French have been insulting other cultural practices for ages, especially when it comes to other countries' cooking. Maybe they'd have been happier with Suttee if the widow had been dressed with a bit of garlic butter and fines herbes beforehand.

Guest · #15912

Not to get all FREEZE PEACH, but Amazon deciding what they want to sell and not stocking books on rape, incest, bestiality is not the same as a library not stocking classes of books and is not the same as the gov't forbidding speech.

If the clothing store I buy suits and dress shirts (yeah the Mens Warehouse) started selling tons of sex toys and sex costumes I would probably find a different clothing store to walk into to buy dress clothes at.

In today's world especially, Amazon not selling them does not even limit their sale terribly, and it doesn't even keep them off Kindle, it just keeps Amazon from profiting from them and distributing them themselves.

#15913

Tigzy wrote:
In fact, the French have been insulting other cultural practices for ages, especially when it comes to other countries' cooking. Maybe they'd have been happier with Suttee if the widow had been dressed with a bit of garlic butter and fines herbes beforehand.

We're the best. Try the waitress, tip the frog legs. A morning snailed is a morning nailed*!

*That one doesn't make sense at all, does it? I just made it up.

#15914

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.
Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautÃ©e". Yes, that was a bad joke).

There was a pretty funny sketch on Goodness Gracious Me where Sooty was going to burn Sue.

#15915

Famous quote about Suttee from Charles Napier:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

What a wicked colonialist. Completely insensitive to other people's cultures. Tsk.

#15916

BTW, I started a special thread for people who want to talk IT stuff.

#15917

welch wrote:
Linus wrote:
welch wrote:
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.
No I've been in social situations involving copious amounts of booze many many times. I could see that kind of behavior being normal for high schoolers or college freshmen or something, but not beyond that. Perhaps I've just ran with the right crowds.
Which would mean you've been sheltered from it in some way. Fuck dude, I didn't say it was a bad thing. I could have happily done without many of the situations I was in, but where I grew up and how I grew up, it was going to happen. I have seen all kinds of over the top crap happening with people WELL out of college freshman age, including one guy I knew who had a fucking "road wife". He was a computer consultant. Please don't ask me to explain how that happened or worked, i have no idea other than it was a thing that happened.

And i'm pretty sure compared to other people *I* have led a sheltered life, just on the party scene alone. post college even.

I haven't been sheltered from social situations involving copious amounts of alcohol. I've been sheltered from certain types of people who behave in certain types of ways. Hence "perhaps I've just ran with the right crowds". I do know some alcoholics and problem drinkers, but I've avoided drinking with them for obvious reasons.

Really, everything is not someone saying you're a shitty person or something.

Lol, most responses to me seem to be, but I didn't take your post that way.

#15918

Forum time seems to be about eight minutes behind at the moment.

#15919

Micro-time-zone...

#15920

Rope apologist wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Ophie....
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... le-rootle/
In the comments of Ophie's previous blog post,

Bjarte Foshaug, the artist responsible for this...
http://i.imgur.com/87PmVst.png

...describes the following image as "gross"...
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/ ... iative.jpg

In particular, Bjarte quotes Ophie quoting Bjarte quoting Holbo quoting Alberti (all of which Ophie subsequently quoted Mayhew quoting).

But what did Alberti actually say in his initial quote? He said "making the chest and the small of the back visible at once in the same figure, an impossible and inappropriate thing".

Well, sheeit: I see the chest and the lower back at the same time in both images above!
http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/phpthu ... 1_600.jpeg

Granted that she's using the floor to twist further than she otherwise could--pretty close. I wish we had a view from her back, though I don't think it necessary for comparison.

Of course the good and the just would probably whine about this, too, but that's just who they are.

Sure, it's stupid to complain about superhero poses, I wouldn't want to deny that. They're still showing their ignorance about human possibilities, apart from that.

I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.

#15921

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
In fact, the French have been insulting other cultural practices for ages, especially when it comes to other countries' cooking. Maybe they'd have been happier with Suttee if the widow had been dressed with a bit of garlic butter and fines herbes beforehand.
We're the best. Try the waitress, tip the frog legs. A morning snailed is a morning nailed*!

*That one doesn't make sense at all, does it? I just made it up.

In fairness, French food is a bit bloody good. Especially the cheeses. Dear god, soft French cheeses with herbs. Even the mass-produced ones, like Roule or Boursin, are fucking exquisite.

Speaking of cultural differences, one thing that always amused me about the difference between the French and English is the sexual peccadilo most commonly associated with each. With France, it's the menage a trois - conjures images of some French art-house actor type cavorting in candlelight with his wife and mistress, both of whom are wearing lingerie.

With England, it's dogging. Guys waiting around in car parks so they can have a wank when an exhibitionist couple drives in.

The aftermath of the menage-a-trois - all parties languidly smoking Gitanes and talking some existentialist bollocks.

The aftermath of dogging: some bloke having to get up in the early hours to clear off the dried jizz on his car, all the while hoping like hell the neighbours reckon he's just scraping away a morning frost.

Course, both pale in comparison to the German peccadilo: One partner lying under a glass-topped coffee table while the other takes a shit on top of it. Fucking hell!

#15922

Jonathan wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Fuck. Old news but I just personally came across Damion's blog post taht enlisted the aid of SZVan's wall of shame to attack the Pit.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... t-shaming/

He needs to add trigger warnings if he is really going to be a good SJW
It was only published yesterday, not old news really.

Interesting read; seems like Damion wasn't happy with the results of his random sampling so he's decided on another tack. Standard ploy of extending the actions of a few posters to criticise the entire site and everyone on it; conveniently he has neglected to mention that quite a few people have argued against the "fat comments" and there had been a debate around it. But then that doesn't fit in with the whole "celebration" angle he's going for.

On a separate note the study he quotes from only looked at those aged 50 or older. It would be interesting to know what a study of younger people would turn up.

Has anybody in Damion's comments pointed out that Damion has engaged in fat-shaming recently? Here on the pit... he made fun of whats-his-name's man-boobs / fatty torso. I think service dog has the screencap for embedding / linking into comments.

#15923

Uh-oh, showing your Thin Privilege (TM) is a big no-no in social justice warrior land.

#15924

katamari Damassi wrote: I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.

The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.

#15925

Guest wrote:Not to get all FREEZE PEACH, but Amazon deciding what they want to sell and not stocking books on rape, incest, bestiality is not the same as a library not stocking classes of books and is not the same as the gov't forbidding speech.

If the clothing store I buy suits and dress shirts (yeah the Mens Warehouse) started selling tons of sex toys and sex costumes I would probably find a different clothing store to walk into to buy dress clothes at.

In today's world especially, Amazon not selling them does not even limit their sale terribly, and it doesn't even keep them off Kindle, it just keeps Amazon from profiting from them and distributing them themselves.

OK, you've got a point - Amazon refusing to stock certain items isn't the same as the government forbidding speech. But I still have a problem with their actions. Amazon selIs the works of the Marquis de Sade. I haven't read any of these banned ebooks, but they surely can't be any more depraved than the things you find in De Sade, so why ban one set of books and not the other?

That's why I think your clothes store analogy doesn't work. If you went into a store that already sold sex toys, but they decided to drop some toys but not others based on some arbitrary criteria, wouldn't that make them hypocrites?

The ebooks that have been removed seem to be ones mentioned on a tech news website called The Kernel:

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/repor ... -of-filth/

The whole thing strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction to the above article. If Amazon does believe that such "filth" should not be sold on their site, then why did they sell them in the first place? With titles like "Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter in the Attic" (from See You Next Tuesday press - geddit?), the retailers must have known what they were getting.

(What I've said about Amazon applies to Barnes and Noble as well. They have dropped the offending titles but still sell 120 Days of Sodom etc.)

As for Amazon not limiting their sales by not selling them, well I imagine the Streisand Effect might well give their sales a boost. Censors never learn.

#15926

Guest wrote:
Service Dog wrote:Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:

Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.
Ofek was a new hire who has since been fired, and no, I cannot imagine anything that would justify his use of whore in that back and forth, not when he is representing a company and website he works for.

I found a copy of DN Lee's deleted Scientific American post. Unlike the version posted at Skepchick, the original included images of the email exchange. Looks like the "whore" comment was entirely unprovoked:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-1.png
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-2.png
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-3.jpg

I do question the wisdom of DN Lee stooping to Ofek's level by replying to his stereotypical-israeli-prick words with her stereotypical black-cunt-words. She's entitled to do so. But I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that was a smart thing to do.

I don't see any injustice in Ofek being called-out or fired. I disagree with those (such as Chris Clarke, Crip Dyke, and Scalzi) who think the woman who runs Scientific American and the woman who runs Biology Online-- have not responded adequately:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/at- ... -in-chief/
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-f ... 34647.html

I stand by my initial criticism of Rebecca Watson-- wondering how she reconciles her stance on violent online threats with publishing DN Lee's bluster.

#15927

John D wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.
The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.

I don't really buy that. While at the moment there is a sort of geek chic that some people are posing with, I think it's a stand out minority, more and more women are getting into geek culture-comics and gaming-partly because I think women who have been into it for a long time-and I knew genuine geek girls back in the 80's when you were embarrassed to be seen as a geek-are coming out of the closet. I think the way women superheroes are rendered diminishes their enjoyment. And even if giant tits and rubber spines are a tradition, it doesn't mean that it's a good one that deserves to continue.
While were on the subject of "fake geek girls"; I'd like to ask the question, so what? When I hear guys complain about that, it smacks of SJW's cries of "cultural appropriation" which I've always found to be bullshit. Nobody owns a culture, it changes and diffuses and we're all the better for it. And you would think geeky straight guys wouldn't complain about chicks wanting to join their club.

Guest · #15928

Service Dog wrote: I don't see any injustice in Ofek being called-out or fired. I disagree with those (such as Chris Clarke, Crip Dyke, and Scalzi) who think the woman who runs Scientific American and the woman who runs Biology Online-- have not responded adequately:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/at- ... -in-chief/
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-f ... 34647.html

I stand by my initial criticism of Rebecca Watson-- wondering how she reconciles her stance on violent online threats with publishing DN Lee's bluster.

Scientific American can fuck right off. They've been very sanctimonious and social justice in recent times and they can enjoy the blowback of the monsters they've supported. They haven't stuck to science so for them to now to claim "we only do science" was in fact total bullshit and the FTBullies et. al., were right to call them on it. Fuck SCIAM. And then fuck the ftbullies.

In addition, the biology online site does look like total spammer trash. I gather it's a legit site, but sheesh, it is one ugly fucking spammy looking worthless shit site. If I had happened on them, I would assume they were content stealers.

All in all, SCIAM needs to think twice about who they allow to fuck them.

#15929

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Guest wrote:Not to get all FREEZE PEACH, but Amazon deciding what they want to sell and not stocking books on rape, incest, bestiality is not the same as a library not stocking classes of books and is not the same as the gov't forbidding speech.

If the clothing store I buy suits and dress shirts (yeah the Mens Warehouse) started selling tons of sex toys and sex costumes I would probably find a different clothing store to walk into to buy dress clothes at.

In today's world especially, Amazon not selling them does not even limit their sale terribly, and it doesn't even keep them off Kindle, it just keeps Amazon from profiting from them and distributing them themselves.
OK, you've got a point - Amazon refusing to stock certain items isn't the same as the government forbidding speech. But I still have a problem with their actions. Amazon selIs the works of the Marquis de Sade. I haven't read any of these banned ebooks, but they surely can't be any more depraved than the things you find in De Sade, so why ban one set of books and not the other?

That's why I think your clothes store analogy doesn't work. If you went into a store that already sold sex toys, but they decided to drop some toys but not others based on some arbitrary criteria, wouldn't that make them hypocrites?

The ebooks that have been removed seem to be ones mentioned on a tech news website called The Kernel:

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/repor ... -of-filth/

The whole thing strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction to the above article. If Amazon does believe that such "filth" should not be sold on their site, then why did they sell them in the first place? With titles like "Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter in the Attic" (from See You Next Tuesday press - geddit?), the retailers must have known what they were getting.

(What I've said about Amazon applies to Barnes and Noble as well. They have dropped the offending titles but still sell 120 Days of Sodom etc.)

As for Amazon not limiting their sales by not selling them, well I imagine the Streisand Effect might well give their sales a boost. Censors never learn.

Wow, "an epidemic of filth". It's good to be back to the 19th century!

#15930

Why is telling other people what to like preferable to just buying/viewing what you like? Also, men are hyper-idealized in media as well.

#15931

katamari Damassi wrote:
John D wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.
The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.
I don't really buy that. While at the moment there is a sort of geek chic that some people are posing with, I think it's a stand out minority, more and more women are getting into geek culture-comics and gaming-partly because I think women who have been into it for a long time-and I knew genuine geek girls back in the 80's when you were embarrassed to be seen as a geek-are coming out of the closet. I think the way women superheroes are rendered diminishes their enjoyment. And even if giant tits and rubber spines are a tradition, it doesn't mean that it's a good one that deserves to continue.
While were on the subject of "fake geek girls"; I'd like to ask the question, so what? When I hear guys complain about that, it smacks of SJW's cries of "cultural appropriation" which I've always found to be bullshit. Nobody owns a culture, it changes and diffuses and we're all the better for it. And you would think geeky straight guys wouldn't complain about chicks wanting to join their club.

Fine. Then all the geek-chick hipsters can vote with their purses. If they don't like something then don't buy it. All I ask is that you don't get all weepy and piss all over someone elses freak. If you can't get along with everyone else who has a freak-thing of their own then you are not welcome. Go fucking cry to someone who gives a shit.

#15932

Parody Accountant wrote: I think ~~service dog~~ Strawkins has the screencap for embedding / linking into comments.

http://i.imgur.com/Stii2lz.jpg

Guest · #15933

Suet Cardigan wrote:
OK, you've got a point - Amazon refusing to stock certain items isn't the same as the government forbidding speech. But I still have a problem with their actions. Amazon selIs the works of the Marquis de Sade. I haven't read any of these banned ebooks, but they surely can't be any more depraved than the things you find in De Sade, so why ban one set of books and not the other?

When daddy rapes the virgin daughter in the pool gets taught in college lit courses, I will be more likely to agree with you that Amazon should stock it regardless of their puritanical critics. Until then, I will trust that Amazon, being the world's largest bookseller, has a better sense of what they should be selling than I.

That's why I think your clothes store analogy doesn't work. If you went into a store that already sold sex toys, but they decided to drop some toys but not others based on some arbitrary criteria, wouldn't that make them hypocrites?

Amazon sells and I have bought all sorts of sex toys.

They are still selling them.

But I think Amazon recognizes correctly that ebooks titled Virgin raped by an intruder and fucked by her dog will annoy and offend not just their sex toy customers but also their book and clothing and all their customers.

Selling shit that offends most of your customers in the name of FREEZE PEACH principles that don't apply here because it doesn't take them off the net or prevent them from being sold on the net or even read on Amazon devices isn't some form of integrity, it's just another form of stupidity.

I don't see that freedom of speech means a right to sell and distribute your goods through other private parties forcing them to reiterate your speech. Maybe you can help me on that one.

#15934

halophilic wrote:Why is telling other people what to like preferable to just buying/viewing what you like? Also, men are hyper-idealized in media as well.

Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference. And who is telling anyone "what to like" There are people saying what they don't like and what they would like. The problem for just buying/viewing what they do like is that there isn't a lot else out there if you like superheroes, there's Marvel and DC and some small time independents. For fuck sake it's like if you ask an artist to change Cat Women's cup size from EE's down to a C you guys act like someone is taking a sharpie to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

#15935

katamari Damassi wrote:
John D wrote: The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.
I don't really buy that. While at the moment there is a sort of geek chic that some people are posing with, I think it's a stand out minority, more and more women are getting into geek culture-comics and gaming-partly because I think women who have been into it for a long time-and I knew genuine geek girls back in the 80's when you were embarrassed to be seen as a geek-are coming out of the closet. I think the way women superheroes are rendered diminishes their enjoyment. And even if giant tits and rubber spines are a tradition, it doesn't mean that it's a good one that deserves to continue.
While were on the subject of "fake geek girls"; I'd like to ask the question, so what? When I hear guys complain about that, it smacks of SJW's cries of "cultural appropriation" which I've always found to be bullshit. Nobody owns a culture, it changes and diffuses and we're all the better for it. And you would think geeky straight guys wouldn't complain about chicks wanting to join their club.

Cry me a river. If their enjoyment is diminished, then tough shit - they can start their own thing if that's the case. I mean, my enjoyment with the "Twilight Saga" is a negative number, but you won't see me complaining that there's a following of that crap, or going to their spaces and saying "if just the men in the Twilight Saga weren't such fruity pansies, the story would be sooo much better!" (probably because nothing short of anihilation could salvage that thing). Have you heard of yaoi, perhaps? It's kinda of a "girl thing", but I don't see many male otakus going "yaoi ruins everything! get the man kissing out of the mangas! I'm offended by that!". Everybody learned to accept and ignore that if they don't like it, and the world goes on.

About the fake geek thing: my personal stance is that they're trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator (sexuality) to sell a product. I have problems with that, becase they suppose I'm a drolling idiot with a problem to keep my penis from making decisions for me. No, sweety, I don't think you would sleep with me if I watch your stupid show/buy your stupid shit, so stop whoring yourself, it will never work. If you have two brain cells and can see throught their thin-veiled illusion, the result is a pathetic plea for attention, and I'm not willing to give attention-whores what they think (if I wanted to do so, there's always TMZ for that).

Of course, that's just me. I don't doubt for a second that there is a legion of introverted idiots willing to give the "fake geek girls" the attention they want, so whatever. As long as they keep off from my lawn, I don't care.

#15936

John D has it right. I explained my position on this earlier. Vote with your wallet if you think something is sexist. Let creators of art decide what art to create, and how it should look.

How can people on the Pitt of all places not understand the can of worms that is opened by letting a minority group within a tiny niche special interest group dominate and censor materials to suit their tastes? This is exactly the same shit we are dealing with in the atheist community. There are SJWs in the atheist community, the gaming community and the comic community. How can you be laughing at PZ Myers and Watson and their threat narrative, but go along with the idea that unrealistic portrayals of women in comics is bad (ignoring how unrealistic the men look) and we need censorship to stop this evil oppression of the women?!?

And if you don't want censorship, what do you want? How would you stop comic book creators from drawing what they feel compelled to draw, without actively censoring their works and trying to shame and fire them? You know, just like the atheists who get accused of sexism and rape apology are shamed and fired. And how long before censorship of sexist material becomes censorship of politically-volatile material. I don't think a comic like Transmetropolitan could have been written in a comics industry that allows censorship.

Can you really not see the amazing parallels? There is probably a little legitimate sexism in all three areas (comics, atheism and video games.) But is censorship the right tool to fix it? I didn't think any Pitters would answer yes to this question.

#15937

katamari Damassi wrote:
halophilic wrote:Why is telling other people what to like preferable to just buying/viewing what you like? Also, men are hyper-idealized in media as well.
Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference.

I don't actually buy that it's an order of magnitude difference. I honestly see just as much idealization in male figures as I do in women figures in every genre of media. There are as many broad-chested, perfect-haired adonises as there are super-models. The media's standard for male physique is every bit as unrealistic as it is for women.

katamari Damassi wrote:And who is telling anyone "what to like" There are people saying what they don't like and what they would like. The problem for just buying/viewing what they do like is that there isn't a lot else out there if you like superheroes, there's Marvel and DC and some small time independents. For fuck sake it's like if you ask an artist to change Cat Women's cup size from EE's down to a C you guys act like someone is taking a sharpie to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

So what you're saying is you lack the talent to create the characters you want and instead of going through the work to build that talent or financially support someone who is willing to build that talent, you'd rather it just change to suit your preferences. Got it.

#15938

Southern wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:
John D wrote: The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.
I don't really buy that. While at the moment there is a sort of geek chic that some people are posing with, I think it's a stand out minority, more and more women are getting into geek culture-comics and gaming-partly because I think women who have been into it for a long time-and I knew genuine geek girls back in the 80's when you were embarrassed to be seen as a geek-are coming out of the closet. I think the way women superheroes are rendered diminishes their enjoyment. And even if giant tits and rubber spines are a tradition, it doesn't mean that it's a good one that deserves to continue.
While were on the subject of "fake geek girls"; I'd like to ask the question, so what? When I hear guys complain about that, it smacks of SJW's cries of "cultural appropriation" which I've always found to be bullshit. Nobody owns a culture, it changes and diffuses and we're all the better for it. And you would think geeky straight guys wouldn't complain about chicks wanting to join their club.
Cry me a river. If their enjoyment is diminished, then tough shit - they can start their own thing if that's the case. I mean, my enjoyment with the "Twilight Saga" is a negative number, but you won't see me complaining that there's a following of that crap, or going to their spaces and saying "if just the men in the Twilight Saga weren't such fruity pansies, the story would be sooo much better!" (probably because nothing short of anihilation could salvage that thing). Have you heard of yaoi, perhaps? It's kinda of a "girl thing", but I don't see many male otakus going "yaoi ruins everything! get the man kissing out of the mangas! I'm offended by that!". Everybody learned to accept and ignore that if they don't like it, and the world goes on.

About the fake geek thing: my personal stance is that they're trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator (sexuality) to sell a product. I have problems with that, becase they suppose I'm a drolling idiot with a problem to keep my penis from making decisions for me. No, sweety, I don't think you would sleep with me if I watch your stupid show/buy your stupid shit, so stop whoring yourself, it will never work. If you have two brain cells and can see throught their thin-veiled illusion, the result is a pathetic plea for attention, and I'm not willing to give attention-whores what they think (if I wanted to do so, there's always TMZ for that).

Of course, that's just me. I don't doubt for a second that there is a legion of introverted idiots willing to give the "fake geek girls" the attention they want, so whatever. As long as they keep off from my lawn, I don't care.

One daughter finds yaoi offensive and is prudish about it. The other has a small collection of yaoi (only because she's young and jobless) and quite enjoys it.

#15939

halophilic wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:
halophilic wrote:Why is telling other people what to like preferable to just buying/viewing what you like? Also, men are hyper-idealized in media as well.
Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference.
I don't actually buy that it's an order of magnitude difference. I honestly see just as much idealization in male figures as I do in women figures in every genre of media. There are as many broad-chested, perfect-haired adonises as there are super-models. The media's standard for male physique is every bit as unrealistic as it is for women.

katamari Damassi wrote:And who is telling anyone "what to like" There are people saying what they don't like and what they would like. The problem for just buying/viewing what they do like is that there isn't a lot else out there if you like superheroes, there's Marvel and DC and some small time independents. For fuck sake it's like if you ask an artist to change Cat Women's cup size from EE's down to a C you guys act like someone is taking a sharpie to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
So what you're saying is you lack the talent to create the characters you want and instead of going through the work to build that talent or financially support someone who is willing to build that talent, you'd rather it just change to suit your preferences. Got it.

No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.

#15940

katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.

So, if that's true, that there's an untapped market composed of not-15-year-old boys and not-40-year-old-man (neckbearded virgins that live in their basements, am I rite? eh? eh?), then I'm sure there are artists and studios exploring it. If there's money to be made on it, someone will make it.

Why should artists and the industry stop cattering to their existent fanbase to try and attract this unexplored fanbase, again? Couldn't they just catter to both? Isn't that what Holywood does? Should studios stop doing movies like Expendables to start making exclusively movies that are for female enjoyment like 50 Shades of Grey?

#15941

katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.

Well, shit. When you put it like that-- I can't think of any reason the guys you consider emotionally retarded dumb pussies wouldn't want "legions of new fans" like you around.

#15942

Badger3k wrote:
SkepticalCat wrote:
Actually he's dead, though his sleazy website lives on.
Yeah. It took me about 10 minutes to realize why my tenses were wrong. I forgot that he was killed by Obama-ninjas or something. I wonder why that conspiracy theory died as well.

'twas the Marlboro ninjas what killed Breitbart.

Badger3k wrote: Breitbart is a muckraker

You say that like it's a bad thing. Debs was the original muckraker.

#15943

Hemisphere wrote:
yomomma wrote: I really can't think of any lefty economics blogs though that I can read without rolling my eyes out of their sockets, but I was recently on keynesian economics research kick, trying to find out more about it. While I went into with negative preconceived notions, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that its economic philosophy was rooted in some real logic. While I don't agree with it and find some elements particularly problematic, I can definitely see why some economists would think it would work. I mean, I suppose it can, but parts of it seem rather idealistic.
Just a few thoughts:

I've always felt that the way to choose which policy (be it economic or whatever) to support is by looking at their track record. As far as I'm aware Keynesian economic policies were implemented in order to recover from the recession the USA experienced after WW2, and I guess it worked reasonably well. The other major economic 'philosophy' that I'm aware of is the Milton Friedman-esque free-market capitalism - which notably crashed every single economy that it was implemented in in South America. Whether it makes logical sense seems secondary to whether it has ever succeeded in reality.

On the other hand, I know fuck all about economics/history. I figure one day computer models will be powerful enough to allow economic theories to undergo scientific scrutiny, rather than relying on what Kahneman showed to be wildly inaccurate forecasts.

All economics is voodoo economics.

#15944

Southern wrote:
Zenspace wrote:
Southern wrote:
If he's not going to sue, Shermer has the moral obligation of returning every penny that was donated to his "legal fund". Every single one of them. No "I'll just donate to charity" bullshit. Because that wasn't what the money was raised (with his consent, no less) for. If he doesn't follow through and don't return the money, he'll be on the same boat as The Amazing Atheist, Brett Keane, and other atheist-ebeggers assholes.
Shermer has nothing to do with the solicitation or collection of the Legal Fund. He did acknowledge its presence and took pains to remain separate from it, which was wise. See here:

"People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is mshermer@skeptic.com, which is posted on our web page http://www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong--legally or morally--and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney."

--Michael Shermer
Link: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

Scroll to Update #2

Further, it was made clear from the outset by Emery Emery what would happen with the funds if not used for Schermer's legal expenses:

My name is Emery Emery and I am launching this fund raising effort for two reasons.
1. As a show of public support for Michael Shermer.
2. To help alleviate the expenses associated with Michael's effort to defend his name.

I do not know Michael Shermer personally and he has no idea I am setting up this fund raiser. I will be making sure that all money donated will go directly to his legal team and not to him personally.

If any funds are raised beyond Mr. Shermer's legal expenses it will be used to promote skepticism and science.

The way that money will be donated will be put to a vote of the donors themselves via email.
As a contributor, I read Emery's post carefully and decided to participate. Either outcome would be satisfactory to me, although leaving a smoking legal crater where FftB used to be would be my cathartic preference. :mrgreen:
Oh, so that would makie the e-bagging more acceptable, that wasn't he the one starting it? So, lets say that I start a fund to send Justin Vacula to next WiS, and I make Justin aware of it, and he gives me green light to proceed with it; but he knows for sure that he's not going to it next year because of his schedule or because Caine threatened to throw a knife at him, is still ok for him to give me the green light to collect the money, even if he has no access to it?

If Shermer knew at that point he was not going to pursue the case you might have a point. But your position is, in its entirety, hypothetical and I posit very unlikely. You are assuming Shermer knew from the very beginning he would take no real action with nothing other than your speculation to support that position.

The fund was started in the very early days of the controversy, immediately after the C&D letter was delivered and publicized. At the point it is highly unlikely that Shermer had any idea of what was about to transpire regarding the case. What is likely is that damage assessment was in full gear and legal options were being considered. He did acknowledge that if any funds were remaining, that emery would donate the funds to charity. That seemes a pretty open position and one that covers the relevant bases. At this time no one, publicly, has any idea what Shermer's plans regarding the case are. It could be filed tomorrow, next month, or next year. Until Shermer either publicly acknowledges that he will not be proceeding with the case or actually starts it, the funds should remain in place and available. Some of it is my money and I'm OK with that, not only due to those practical considerations, but that the fund served another purpose: to show that dimwit Peezus that the majority of the community will motivate against him if he is going to escalate the level of his fuckwittery and, quite literally as the fund demonstrated, put up the cash to assist in the pushback. Peezus received several wakeup calls in his self-generated fiasco.

A far more likely scenario, but still speculation on my part, is what I outlined in my prior post: Shermer may have intended to hit Peezus with a law suit at first, but as time played out he is finding that Peezus idiotic post had little to no effect on his real life, personal or professional (a reality which might also weaken any case from Shermer). As someone else pointed out, and makes a good argument for the position, Shermer could do more harm to himself by pursuing the case. The only way to logically support that risk is if his personal and professional losses justified it. So far, there are no losses on either front for Shermer that we can discern - although Shermer might well know otherwise.

#15945

Service Dog wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.
Well, shit. When you put it like that-- I can't think of any reason the guys you consider emotionally retarded dumb pussies wouldn't want "legions of new fans" like you around.

It's not for me, I'm not buying comics regardless. I simply agree with their critics on this one.

#15946

katamari Damassi wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.
Well, shit. When you put it like that-- I can't think of any reason the guys you consider emotionally retarded dumb pussies wouldn't want "legions of new fans" like you around.
It's not for me, I'm not buying comics regardless. I simply agree with their critics on this one.

"It's not for me, I'm not buying comics regardless."

Classic.

#15947

Service Dog wrote:Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:

Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.

I scrolled through her twitter feed, and either it is not there or I am pretty much incompetent at it (a strong possibility). If it was easy to find, I wonder why SA said they couldn't easily verify it?

#15948

Southern wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.
So, if that's true, that there's an untapped market composed of not-15-year-old boys and not-40-year-old-man (neckbearded virgins that live in their basements, am I rite? eh? eh?), then I'm sure there are artists and studios exploring it. If there's money to be made on it, someone will make it.

I think we know that the market/people are not always rational acters and don't always work in their own best interest. Perhaps this idea of the ownership of geek culture and tradition is getting in the way.

Why should artists and the industry stop cattering to their existent fanbase to try and attract this unexplored fanbase, again? Couldn't they just catter to both? Isn't that what Holywood does? Should studios stop doing movies like Expendables to start making exclusively movies that are for female enjoyment like 50 Shades of Grey?

Again, I'm not making that argument. There's enough diversity in the supply of entertainment in general that requiring every movie or book to cater to all people is not necessary(not possible anyway). I'm speaking of a specific genre and a specific subculture. You're making an argument ad absurdum.

#15949

Ah - email, not twitter, that explains it. I also see that the Ofek guy was fired? I haven't seen that mentioned in any of the posts on the topic, but it could be that it is easy to miss. Curious.

#15950

"When daddy rapes the virgin daughter in the pool gets taught in college lit courses, I will be more likely to agree with you that Amazon should stock it regardless of their puritanical critics."

So literary merit or fame somehow stops material from being offensive? Ever heard of the Lady Chatterley or Naked Lunch trials? Or The Satanic Verses? I don't buy the the merit argument. Is there some arbitrary line that divides books into two groups - worthy books on one side, unworthy on the other? Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

You claim that these ebooks will annoy and offend most of Amazon's customers. Amazon can indeed sell what they like so as to avoid offending their customers. That does not stop them from being hypocrites for banning these books and still selling De Sade.

Do you think Amazon should also stop selling the following:
Sex Toys - plenty of people in Texas are offended by them and tried to ban them.
Mein Kampf - offensive to many people, and it is available for download on the net, after all.
Sex Manuals - offensive to many Christian fundies.
Anything at all about homosexuality - see above.
Horror movies - explicitly show extreme violence.
All religious material - one man's belief is another man's blasphemy.

In fact, you can add just about everything to that list - you will always find people who are offended by something.

"I don't see that freedom of speech means a right to sell and distribute your goods through other private parties forcing them to reiterate your speech. Maybe you can help me on that one."

I don't think Amazon should be forced to sell anything, and if I have given that impression then I probably didn't express myself clearly enough. I think that the decision to remove the particular titles in question was arbitrary and inconsistent, and was based not on customer response but on a reaction to a shit-stirring article. I am not a free speech absolutist. If someone can prove that these books are harmful, then they should be illegal - but the same goes for all material, not just works of low literary merit or works of a sexual nature. However, I see no evidence that these works of fantasy are harmful, and if offensiveness to the majority is to determine what is acceptable then we will have a tyranny of the majority.

#15951

Jonathan wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:... came across Damion's blog post taht enlisted the aid of SZVan's wall of shame to attack the Pit.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... t-shaming/
Standard ploy of extending the actions of a few posters to criticise the entire site and everyone on it; conveniently he has neglected to mention that quite a few people have argued against the "fat comments" and there had been a debate around it. But then that doesn't fit in with the whole "celebration" angle he's going for.

I interpret that Hindenberg/Zvan 'shop to imply not that Steph is fat, rather that she's full of hot air and ready to explode at any moment. Damion is just projecting his own personal fat-hatred.

#15952

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:... came across Damion's blog post taht enlisted the aid of SZVan's wall of shame to attack the Pit.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... t-shaming/
Standard ploy of extending the actions of a few posters to criticise the entire site and everyone on it; conveniently he has neglected to mention that quite a few people have argued against the "fat comments" and there had been a debate around it. But then that doesn't fit in with the whole "celebration" angle he's going for.
I interpret that Hindenberg/Zvan 'shop to imply not that Steph is fat, rather that she's full of hot air and ready to explode at any moment. Damion is just projecting his own personal fat-hatred.

But that would imply that Damion would look at it charitably, and that would spoil his narrative. In that regard, he's just like the 'boons - never let the truth get in the way of narrative (besides, hasn't this come up before and the reasoning behind the shop been explained?)

Guest · #15953

Suet Cardigan wrote:
"When daddy rapes the virgin daughter in the pool gets taught in college lit courses, I will be more likely to agree with you that Amazon should stock it regardless of their puritanical critics."
So literary merit or fame somehow stops material from being offensive? Ever heard of the Lady Chatterley or Naked Lunch trials? Or The Satanic Verses? I don't buy the the merit argument. Is there some arbitrary line that divides books into two groups - worthy books on one side, unworthy on the other? Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

I think Amazon which is not a monopoly should be free to choose what they wish to buy or sell for any reason they choose. So yes, literary merit or fame makes material even offensive material grist for Amazon's market. If you're offensive or shocking but otherwise have no support? Feh.

I don't know that Amazon sells every book offered to them. I don't see them being hypocritical by selling books they think are profitable and not a PR nightmare and not selling books they think are not.

You say below Amazon should be able to pick and choose what they sell, but you don't seem to think that's actually so. To get your seal of approval, they need to sell what you want them to sell.

"I don't see that freedom of speech means a right to sell and distribute your goods through other private parties forcing them to reiterate your speech. Maybe you can help me on that one."

I don't think Amazon should be forced to sell anything, and if I have given that impression then I probably didn't express myself clearly enough. I think that the decision to remove the particular titles in question was arbitrary and inconsistent, and was based not on customer response but on a reaction to a shit-stirring article. I am not a free speech absolutist. If someone can prove that these books are harmful, then they should be illegal - but the same goes for all material, not just works of low literary merit or works of a sexual nature. However, I see no evidence that these works of fantasy are harmful, and if offensiveness to the majority is to determine what is acceptable then we will have a tyranny of the majority.[/quote]

My guess is that it was brought to their attention by that article at which point they said, "flush it". I think there are a zillion products sold on Amazon that Amazon doesn't even know they sell, by virtue of how Amazon works. I am not certain of that, but it's my suspicion.

So you can sell shit that breaks their requirements and do just fine until they figure it out.

I also don't see that Amazon has any ethical requirements to vet any of their products prior to sell or that Amazon has any ethical requirement to sell any product offered to them, or all products in any specific category.

if you want to call that hypocritical, fine, but to me, it's just a private party figuring out how to best sell in the marketplace.

You might be interested in last week's article:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... brad-stone

#15954

Re Shermer

Emery's second update is pretty clear. He spoke to Shermer and:

"Since PZ has chosen to ignore the cease & desist altogether, Shermer has no choice but to file a case against him. If this suit goes the full distance and PZ is brought before a civil judge to answer for his actions, they estimate around $50,000."

Shermer would be pretty stupid to have escalated it so without cause.

#15955

katamari Damassi wrote:
Southern wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote: No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.
So, if that's true, that there's an untapped market composed of not-15-year-old boys and not-40-year-old-man (neckbearded virgins that live in their basements, am I rite? eh? eh?), then I'm sure there are artists and studios exploring it. If there's money to be made on it, someone will make it.
I think we know that the market/people are not always rational acters and don't always work in their own best interest. Perhaps this idea of the ownership of geek culture and tradition is getting in the way.

Why should artists and the industry stop cattering to their existent fanbase to try and attract this unexplored fanbase, again? Couldn't they just catter to both? Isn't that what Holywood does? Should studios stop doing movies like Expendables to start making exclusively movies that are for female enjoyment like 50 Shades of Grey?
Again, I'm not making that argument. There's enough diversity in the supply of entertainment in general that requiring every movie or book to cater to all people is not necessary(not possible anyway). I'm speaking of a specific genre and a specific subculture. You're making an argument ad absurdum.

You are obviously a fucking art marketing genius! I am sure you are pulling in seven figures by now with all your clever and insightful advice about what will be the next successful comic/art trend. "How about a comic where the characters are realistically depicted... just what a comic needs!"... Fucking brilliant. You need to stop pearl clutching while simultaneously giving idiotic media advice. It's lame as hell.

I don't tell you how to enjoy knitting, or whatever the hell else you do. Knock yourself out.... do whatever you like. Some of my favorite people are knitting junkies. I don't pretend they hurt me because I have to look at too many stockings at the art fair. Shit. Comics don't hurt a soul. They have been around for a century. Get over it. (are you friends with that Sarkeesian woman???)

#15956

katamari Damassi wrote: Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference.

Is it?

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185180/xf2.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185456/yb24.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185172/warchild2.jpg

#15957

Ban romance novels. I don't like them.

#15958

Scented Nectar wrote:I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

Surely your point is that you find her attractive.

#15959

debaser71 wrote:Ban romance novels. I don't like them.

Ban everything, just in case.

rpguest · #15960

more rape apology from a rapingsy mansplaining rape apologist

[youtube]axPoVKo1mPM[/youtube]