If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

ERV wrote:
Clearly, you don't care about black people.

Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?[/quote]

White people get AIDS too ya know!

AnonymousCowherd wrote: He is right in one sense though, that PZ's actions are only "alleged libel", no Court has judged it to be so. But what that has to do with being a "real skeptic" s anyone's guess - unless it means taking note of all kinds of legal finesse in everyday conversation.

I guess, in a legal sense, that it's libel is as alleged as is the content of the accusation because there hasn't been a ruling on either. The evidence presently available tells a vastly different story. But hey, does this mean me calling it libel is potentially legally libelous too? 'Spose I could call it 'manipulative bullshit' instead.

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!

http://archive.is/EjCaa

And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.

I am such a failure.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

GET BACK TO WRITING! THIS IS NOT INTERNET TIME!

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:

ERV wrote:
And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.

I am such a failure.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Clearly, you don't care about black people.

Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2011/10/14 ... _color.png

Ape+lust wrote:There's a mini drama explosion going on with some of the FC clowns right now. It looks like JT Eberhard is going to spend the day getting his ass whooped because he's run afoul of the Intent is Not Magic law.

He attended an atheist convention when this happened:

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

JT walked out during Bria's rant. Later he talked to her about it -- meaning he ate a lot of shit, as is proper when speaking to an angry oppressed person -- but stuck to his objections. He did the same when challenged on Twitter. Then he did a loooong write-up on his blog and committed seppuku at the end: he questioned the wisdom of call-out culture and the disproportionate beatdowns for trivial offenses in his community.

Naturally, Rebecca immediately sensed which way the mob was headed and deftly slid to the front, while Crommie and Dillahunty sniped at each other:

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

Fluffy Jen, eager to wear her Big Girl Pants in public, is expressing offense from every angle and shoehorning "White CIS male" into as many tweets as she can. Here's one:

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

As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Rope apologist wrote:IDiot (Meyer, Dembski, etc.) logic:

Functionally complex things are known to be made by intelligence. Life is functionally complex. Therefore life was made by intelligence, screw all of the details that might go against that conclusion.

idiot (Myers, NoR, et al.) logic.

Real rapes are frequently know via testimony (never mind that theirs is hearsay), and real rape claims outnumber fake (at least where prosecution occurs). We have "testimony" (equivocally, not legally), so statistically this should be a real rape claim. Therefore it is rape, screw all of the details that might go against that conclusion.

The main difference is that we actually have the evidence for evolution, and simply lack credible evidence either way in the Shermer charge, but that does nothing to change the fact that stats plus an accusation amount to nothing for any particular case.

Thanks for affirming the methods of the creationists, PZ. You're a disgrace to all real thought (even if he were to have the evidence, his insistence that everyone should just believe him is an insistence that people stop being skeptical--and ethical).

I'm just waiting for them to pull the "were you there?" argument. Hmm...will PZ start wearing big sweaters?

curriejean wrote:Holy shit, why the fuck did I bother trying to have a discussion with that Damion fellow (under his 'pick a side' post)? He's by all appearances gone off his rocker, assuming he had a rocker in the first place. I don't remember much of his participation here, which took place mostly before I made an account.

Reinhardt wrote:I've looked at the entire list of symptoms and compared it to my years of reading the Pit. Looks like a dead-on lock, with perhaps a few niggling exceptions.

This is the link he included: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Symptoms
He didn't bother arguing the point.

Also,

Reinhardt wrote:I want you to show me that you've ever once gone against the consensus view in the Pit, on any of their core issues. If you have never done so, you aren't in a particularly good place to make assertions about how they deal with dissent from the party line.

So learning by reading and observation is good enough for him to come to a conclusion, but not good enough for me to come to a conclusion. Funny.

And then he threw down some blah blah about how a true skeptic wouldn't call PZ's libel 'libel' because we don't absolutely know the accusation is false. Apparently 'true' skeptics are argument-to-moderation milquetoast agnostics. Give me a fucking break.

I'm indulging in some venting here and not there because I've spent enough time with him today. Due to my self-appointment as a member who shields the group from dissenting information, I'm not going to bother linking.

WTF on the libel part - the only way it can't be liable if he was charged and convicted in a court of law. He may be entirely guilty yet has never been to court, then, guess what, legally, you can't call him a rapist without consequences. That's the legal system. If PZ originally wrote "alleged rapist", maybe there is a point - I'm not a lawyer and don't know - but he didn't. Sorry, but people's feelings don't decide what can be published on a personal blog (or even in newspapers or newsblog-type things).

VickyCaramel wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:There's a mini drama explosion going on with some of the FC clowns right now. It looks like JT Eberhard is going to spend the day getting his ass whooped because he's run afoul of the Intent is Not Magic law.

He attended an atheist convention when this happened:

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

JT walked out during Bria's rant. Later he talked to her about it -- meaning he ate a lot of shit, as is proper when speaking to an angry oppressed person -- but stuck to his objections. He did the same when challenged on Twitter. Then he did a loooong write-up on his blog and committed seppuku at the end: he questioned the wisdom of call-out culture and the disproportionate beatdowns for trivial offenses in his community.

Naturally, Rebecca immediately sensed which way the mob was headed and deftly slid to the front, while Crommie and Dillahunty sniped at each other:

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

Fluffy Jen, eager to wear her Big Girl Pants in public, is expressing offense from every angle and shoehorning "White CIS male" into as many tweets as she can. Here's one:

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

As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

It's an entirely reasonable question, which is why it pisses off the SJW crowd as much as it does. Because reason is part of the patriarchy and rape culture, and suggesting people actually do something is ablist. Check your privilege, something, something, oppression, something, RAPE!

curriejean wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote: He is right in one sense though, that PZ's actions are only "alleged libel", no Court has judged it to be so. But what that has to do with being a "real skeptic" s anyone's guess - unless it means taking note of all kinds of legal finesse in everyday conversation.

I guess, in a legal sense, that it's libel is as alleged as is the content of the accusation because there hasn't been a ruling on either. The evidence presently available tells a vastly different story. But hey, does this mean me calling it libel is potentially legally libelous too? 'Spose I could call it 'manipulative bullshit' instead.

I suppose Shermer could be guilty and PZ could be... well even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So it's only alleged libel, and only alleged malicious, but it's 100% bona fide fuckwittery.

Please help me attend, speak at, and report on the upcoming annual FFRF convention:



5 days remain in the fundraiser.

$130/$1000 on way to the goal.

Thanks for your support!

Steersman wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Spence wrote:Just gonna drop these here.




I'm sure thunderf00t will just laugh these off, but if they were pointed at Becky it would be unequivocal evidence of misogyny in the atheist movement and straight on the "page o hate" for maximum victim points.

Funny how different things can be depending on who is doing them, through the eyes of an FTBer...

*shrug*

My response:

Whatever man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord)

Just out of curiosity, why would you think those tweets qualify as misandry? I can see that they have some sort of a hate-on for Thunderf00t, but I don’t see that that hate is because he is a man, i.e., because of misandry – “hatred of men” simply because they are men.

Seems rather difficult to actually prove things like misandry or misogyny as it seems to require fairly explicit statements to qualify, like, “all men are pricks”, or “all women are cunts”. Rather analogous, to throw the fox in amongst the chickens again – so to speak, to “all blacks are niggers” which qualifies as racist whereas “Malcolm X is a nigger” isn’t.

But the difficulty of proving that charge is why I think many SJWs – Jason Thibeault, and Sarah Jones, for examples – refuse to actually provide their own definition for “misogyny” as I expect they know their asses are hanging out in the breeze on that point.

Hey - that lady told me she wanted to smash my testicles with a hammer on Twitter. I told her it sounds fun, but I'm engaged, and she blocked me. I guess she was the victim.

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!
http://archive.is/EjCaa

And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.
I am such a failure.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

<devil's advocate>
Jen is still working on her studies & what not. If she opts to waste her spare time on allegedly crappy blog posts, how does this in any way make her less competent as a scientist?
</devil's advocate>

ERV wrote:Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

BRB, getting shoe polish.

Speculation:

Most black on black crime is done by a small group of blacks
Most white on white crime is done by a small group of whites

Fact:

Most rapes are done by a small group of men: Lisak study, 6% of men responsible for 90% of rapes.

Schrodinger's Rapist anyone?

curriejean wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote: He is right in one sense though, that PZ's actions are only "alleged libel", no Court has judged it to be so. But what that has to do with being a "real skeptic" s anyone's guess - unless it means taking note of all kinds of legal finesse in everyday conversation.

I guess, in a legal sense, that it's libel is as alleged as is the content of the accusation because there hasn't been a ruling on either. The evidence presently available tells a vastly different story. But hey, does this mean me calling it libel is potentially legally libelous too? 'Spose I could call it 'manipulative bullshit' instead.

I don't think that the "evidence presently available tells" anything except that it is open to a great many possible interpretations or explanatory scenarios. Which is what makes it look like a sticky wicket for all concerned. If, as has been suggested, Jane Doe actually has e-mails from Shermer expressing some degree of guilt then that is going to make his position somewhat problematic. If there is evidence - somewhere - that "Doe's" consent was never really rescinded until after the event - maybe after Watson's recent Papal Encylical that "drunk sex is rape" - then her and PZ's positions are looking shakey.

But you might be interested in this bit on libel and defamation:

Question: What is libel per se?

Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime ....

With the kicker being the question of whether that accusation of rape holds any water or not. Which is not likely to be decided - or shouldn't be decided - by anything other than a trial of some sorts. Which could get expensive (lawyers, you know - ;-) )

Rope apologist wrote:With there being a lot of accusations against Shermer, no really verifiable facts, I thought this might fill in a bit, at least about who is involved. A post by Driver:

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 18 2013,00:38)

So you agree that it is not 100% certain that the alleged event even happened?

You know what will really knock me down, Kevin? Ask me if I was there.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... ntry225945

Later he asks, and Kristine Harley, who I'm nearly certain is "Driver" writes "whoosh." It would seem that she's claiming that she was there (the friend?) in a deniable sort of way. I don't think it does anything to add to credibility of the claims, as she's apparently a thoroughly commited PZite, complete with all of the sloganeering and selectivity, but it might at least suggest why she's acts so incorrigibly idiotic on that thread.

I went back and either Driver is a poe, completely clueless, or just trolling. I hope. Never did answer if he or she thought it was ok for me to publish an account that they raped someone. I want to know what they think - if they are ok with it, at least they are consistent. The weird definition of "first hand account" for PZ's reporting it (if PZ wrote exactly what the person gave him, it's first hand account, otherwise you believe that PZ changed something" - WTF? Sorry, it is still a second hand account if we do not have the original. If I read a UFO story in a book, where the author talked to the people, it's still second hand. If I watch a video of an interview with the individual, that would be first hand even if I'm not the interviewer. Am I completely off base on this? It doesn't matter if PZ changed anything, wrote the whole thing himself, or if he copied it directly, the fact is it is a second-hand account. Right or wrong?

justinvacula wrote:Please help me attend, speak at, and report on the upcoming annual FFRF convention:



5 days remain in the fundraiser.

$130/$1000 on way to the goal.

Thanks for your support!

Just didn't get the hint last time, did you?

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!

http://archive.is/EjCaa

I remember that post on FTB where an atheist told her audience of atheists what questions Christians shouldn't ask atheists. It's nice to see the natural conclusion of that type of thinking.
It's also nice that Jen thinks that thinks minorities should never quell their anger to get their point across. I mean, what has this guy ever accomplished:
http://inspirationboost.com/wp-content/ ... Quotes.jpg
And how cool is it that there's a picture of Martin Luther King doing the double finger point?

Parody Accountant wrote: Go on...

[.img]http://rlv.zcache.com/i_go_to_school_to ... z1_324.jpg[/img]

/dream :character-ariel:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 4cb126.png

Fact: 92% of the victims of libel were guilty of rape.
Proof: I wasn't sued by that 92% slice of the victims of libel.

deLurch wrote:

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!
http://archive.is/EjCaa

And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.
I am such a failure.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

<devil's advocate>
Jen is still working on her studies & what not. If she opts to waste her spare time on allegedly crappy blog posts, how does this in any way make her less competent as a scientist?
</devil's advocate>

Taking time to write a >3 page blog post (in addition to dozens of tweets/retweets, and god knows what she was doing on Facebook) in the middle of the afternoon on a week day is generally not indicative of someone who is... working.

Look everyone needs 'mental health breaks'. I tell our summer kids, I dont mind if they check their facebook. I mind if they are checking their facebook instead of doing things that need to be done. I have bitched at Jen about this for years. Blog at night. Do not blog at work/when you are supposed to be working. You wouldnt play video games at work, so why would you blog at work? Fucking stupid. And she wonders why her labmates/classmates arent fond of her. Shit. Its people who do stupid shit like this in the lab who bring the entire labs moral down.

VickyCaramel wrote:As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Well, in the US it's a pretty freighted question. It can often be taken as Bria did, as exasperating ignorance or worse, as suggesting Blacks aren't doing much because you haven't heard about it. Don't ask if you're not prepared for possible anger from someone who has lived with violence in their life.

Bria took it way too far and JT didn't like it. Now every pissant out there is lining up to burnish their social justice cred on his stropped ass.

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!

http://archive.is/EjCaa

And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.

I am such a failure.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

It's okay Abbie. It's the patriarchy.

VickyCaramel wrote: As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Things are obviously a bit different across the pond than here in 'Murica. you don't have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over there posioning the minds of the black community. When blacks murder other blacks it's somehow white peoples fault. The conversation in race in America always seems to be framed in terms of "black people are expected to behave like children so if you expect them to act like adults then you're a racist". The question is not just legitimate, it's central to the problem of black-on-black violence. Namely that the black community needs to quit lying to itself and understand that 1) they have a problem and 2) they are the source of that problem and 3) they have to solve this problem for themselves, it can't be solved from without.

Steersman wrote:

Question: What is libel per se?

Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime ....

With the kicker being the question of whether that accusation of rape holds any water or not. Which is not likely to be decided - or shouldn't be decided - by anything other than a trial of some sorts. Which could get expensive (lawyers, you know - ;-) )

Make of this what you will:
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

OK, As I promised a followup to the Manosphere chart. See below for a glossary. As it happens some one else wrote one up so I did not have to:

Chart
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/a7a2d8191b43 ... b41c20.png

Glossary
http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpre ... -glossary/

I thought I would also throw this in. It is what I think of as a "foundational" document. It is a pretty long read but back in 2010 someone took the trouble to write down what he thought was going to happen in the next decade and it covers many/most of the basic talking points of the "Manosphere". Read at your own risk.

The Misandry Bubble
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/ ... ubble.html

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

What I find pretty interesting about the MGTOW business is that in my neighbourhood alone there are three men who I think qualify for that description. What they have in common are :

- They figured this all out on their own.
- They never heard of MGTOW in any way, shape or form.
- They all work with their hands. House carpenter, Gardner, Handyman are the ones in my neighbourhood.
(I have met others, a mechanic and plumber and roofer, and a carpenter).

Here is what "Bob the builder" has been working on for the last couple of years. He will be done in another year he thinks. A mortgage free house that he has built essientially from scratch mostly by himself (he hired someone to pour the foundation):

August 05, 2011 April 08, 2012 That reminds me that the next time I drop by the house I will remember to bring my camera.

"Bob" has no children and has stated that no woman is ever going to live in his house with him. "Greg" also owns his own house, but unlike "Bob" has three children with the same woman. But just like "Bob" they have never lived with him and are never going to.

Early Cuyler wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote: As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Things are obviously a bit different across the pond than here in 'Murica. you don't have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over there posioning the minds of the black community. When blacks murder other blacks it's somehow white peoples fault. The conversation in race in America always seems to be framed in terms of "black people are expected to behave like children so if you expect them to act like adults then you're a racist". The question is not just legitimate, it's central to the problem of black-on-black violence. Namely that the black community needs to quit lying to itself and understand that 1) they have a problem and 2) they are the source of that problem and 3) they have to solve this problem for themselves, it can't be solved from without.

Um... there's plenty of black people tackling black on black violence in America. You're helping as much as the "he's an arab" woman helped John McCain.
Speaking of which, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't been all that relevant since 2008.

Early Cuyler wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote: As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?
<snip>
Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Things are obviously a bit different across the pond than here in 'Murica.
<snip>
The question is not just legitimate, it's central to the problem of black-on-black violence. Namely that the black community needs to quit lying to itself and understand that 1) they have a problem and 2) they are the source of that problem and 3) they have to solve this problem for themselves, it can't be solved from without.

I’ve periodically wondered about that – possibly ever since Obama said, if I’m not mistaken, at his first inauguration that the high incidence of single parent families, headed mostly by women, within the black community was a serious problem. Bit of a jaw-dropping moment if I remember correctly.

From Jen’s Blag Hag blog:

When I started college, I labeled myself as a feminist. Like, woo, equality, who wouldn’t be behind that?! I started to read feminist blogs and I disagreed with a lot, if not most, of what they were saying. It was incredibly tempting to spew forth my uneducated opinion, and that desire did not come from wanting someone to calmly explain it to me – it came from thinking I was right and they were wrong. I’m sure I did that occasionally because no one is perfect, but you know what I ultimately decided to do? I shut up and listened. I read more and more and attempted to educate myself before partaking in any discussions. And now after a lot of time and work and thought, I understand.

Do I fully understand? Of course not. It’s a never-ending process, but it begins with listening and educating yourself first. And I fully admit I am at different stages of this process for different topics. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white Midwestern suburb, so I haven’t been aware of a lot of racial issues until recently. But instead of parroting things I may have heard from older relatives, I’ve been listening intently to better myself. I also fully admit there are still some trans issues I don’t “get,” but my response to that is to keep reading and thinking about it. To subscribe to blogs that sometimes make me uncomfortable and challenge my ideas. To do some motherfucking Googling.

I was tempted to defend JT, but he is a dumb little shit who can’t write a substantive thing to save his own life. Still this part cracked me up because Jen is speaking about some kind of autodidactic education fueled by Google as if she had done something really meaningful in her intellectual development as an undergrad.

When in actuality all she has is an aborted little germ that has been shunted into the joke that is “Secular Activism” as promoted and practiced by most (if not all) in the “movement” (fucks sake). She doesn’t know anything about the foundations or history behind the discourse she has co-opted from Critical theories, instead just uses a few misguided notions to bludgeon people with while at the same time reveling in that keen sense of hierarchy so many egalitarians bang their nubs and twats over.

I get that the Continental traditions that birthed Critical theory and those theories eventually gave rise to a few kinds of activism are drenched in complex jargon and unreadable texts. Most sane people have no inclination to try and read Kant and Hegel so they can understand Freud and Marx, so they can understand Lacan and Althusser and on and on.

Ignoring all that boring shit and lifting some social methods (for grass root activism no less) and sophisticated sounding phrases about oppression is like a person deciding they are going to be Christian and then only take their Christianity from Rick Warren and Creflo Dollar while completely ignoring scriptures and historical tradition. Its shallowness is comical and it is insanely stupid to do; so instead of doing anything meaningful with their coalition they document online hate and jack off to call out culture. And why not? What else can they do? They have pretty limited their capabilities by choosing a narrow range of conceptual tools that they don’t fully understand that they picked almost at random from a larger set of tools they don’t even know exists.



Sorry for the rant, it has been building for some time.
http://www.rantsnraves.org/images/smili ... talker.png

VickyCaramel wrote: Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

Being black isn't a matter of choice. It doesn't come with specific believes or responsibilities. Which begs the question why one alleges some "black community" different from "us", having special responsibilities. Isn't fighting crime the responsibility of all?
Besides, I guess it's tiresome to always be confronted with the full package of racial prejudice, which is inevitable when talking to social justards (well ok, it was Crommunist's own idiotic choice to be there). They are so unaware of their soft racism that whenever they "reach out" to minorities, it always sounds like a patronizing, racial slur.

Gumby wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Please help me attend, speak at, and report on the upcoming annual FFRF convention:



5 days remain in the fundraiser.

$130/$1000 on way to the goal.

Thanks for your support!

Just didn't get the hint last time, did you?

Unfortunately, MKG, his biggest mark supporter flounced a while back.

Ape+lust wrote:Update: Jen has channeled her angry spew into a thundering blog post, with nasty bad words and everything. You don't like call-out culture, JT? I'm calling you out, silencing non-ally cis-het male white short person!

http://archive.is/EjCaa

Every point of Jen's argument is McWrong:

She claims that, asking what Black people are doing about Black on Black crime is not a legitimate question. Why not? It's a serious issue that affects Black people. Wouldn't thay want to do something about it?

She claims, that JT is wrong to assume that the question is 'naive' rather than 'racist'. I don't think it's either. But why would a racist pay to attend a convention where people are likely to respond very negatively to their views?

She accuses JT of:

playing up Bria’s response with value-laden terms like “outburst,” “angry tongue lashing,” “unnecessary,” and “diatribe.” His psychic powers also make him certain that Bria’s intent was to humiliate and embarrass, and he dismisses that Bria or other black atheists have any good reason to feel unwelcome at the conference.

My guess, is that JT's interpretation of Bria Crutchfield's behaviour is that he was there, and witnessed most of it. Was Jen? Also, if Bria, an invited speaker at the conference, didn't feel welcome (and she offers no proof that she did), why was she there?

Jen claims:

After all this, JT has the gall to pull Bria aside and explain how he thinks she should have handled the situation...
He claims to understand how she feels – which is self evidently false from the article he just wrote. When you’re a member of a minority group, it is infuriating to hear the same offensive, dehumanizing, and ignorant questions over and over again.

The fool! Of course, Daddy's Little White Bi (but never had sex with a woman) Girl, understands far better what minorities feel.

In fact, JT was positively obsequious to Bria. So much so, that the relevant section of his post is too long to quote. But he makes good points about not hijacking another speakers Q&A time and that yelling and screaming at people is a poor form of argument.

Jen disagrees:

Newsflash: If someone is parroting racist, sexist, or transphobic talking points, calmly explaining why they’re wrong doesn’t tend to work because they’re not looking to have their minds changed.

Because, of course, people who disagree with your assumptions are always 'arguing in bad faith'.

Insisting that minorities quell their anger is insisting that minorities stay silent.

She, naturally, quotes Crommunist, and goes on to use the currently fashionable 'shut up and listen' line.

Requesting that people conduct themselves in discussion, like civilized human beings (at a convention of like minded people for fuck's sake) is not 'silencing' Jen.

JT really needs to grasp that he is now an outlaw and fair game. With that bandanna-wearing gym-jock thing he's got going, the 'dudebro' label is only a breath away. My prediction: he'll crawfish. Hey, JT! Dude! You're an apostate man. They're, like, never gonna forgive you!

Rystefn wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:There's a mini drama explosion going on with some of the FC clowns right now. It looks like JT Eberhard is going to spend the day getting his ass whooped because he's run afoul of the Intent is Not Magic law.

He attended an atheist convention when this happened:

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

JT walked out during Bria's rant. Later he talked to her about it -- meaning he ate a lot of shit, as is proper when speaking to an angry oppressed person -- but stuck to his objections. He did the same when challenged on Twitter. Then he did a loooong write-up on his blog and committed seppuku at the end: he questioned the wisdom of call-out culture and the disproportionate beatdowns for trivial offenses in his community.

Naturally, Rebecca immediately sensed which way the mob was headed and deftly slid to the front, while Crommie and Dillahunty sniped at each other:

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

Fluffy Jen, eager to wear her Big Girl Pants in public, is expressing offense from every angle and shoehorning "White CIS male" into as many tweets as she can. Here's one:

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

As a matter of interest, is this actually an unreasonable question when not asked within earshot of social justice warriors?

My family fled the mean streets of Walthamstow many years ago and I don't take much interest in what is going on in London these days, but as far as I am aware the Afro-Caribbean communities are concerned about black-on-black violence... firstly gun and knife crime, but there has also been discussion of gang-rape and sexual exploitation being part of the culture of black street gangs. And as far as I am aware there is co-operation with the police as well as community initiatives and it is a matter which had been taken up by local churches (Holy fuck! Could this be a rare example of Churches doing something useful?).

Isn't asking what the black community doing about black-on-black crime within the black community a lot less racist than ignoring the problem, or assuming the larger community needs to sort it out for them?

It's an entirely reasonable question, which is why it pisses off the SJW crowd as much as it does. Because reason is part of the patriarchy and rape culture, and suggesting people actually do something is ablist. Check your privilege, something, something, oppression, something, RAPE!

Wow Evertard may end up here in the pit soon. First he runs afoul of Zvan by not immediately deleting unflattering comments about her on his blog and now this.

Over at Shakesville they're gathering the pitchforks and torches to storm the castle of a men's feminist group that held a conference with nearly all female speakers, because of some miscommunication with one of the speakers. Why do men even try? For all their efforts they are only ever going to get back suspicion and outright hostility in return. The best they can expect is to be chastized for wanting "cookies".
:popcorn:

ERV wrote: Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

Your research will get you a huge black cock???????

VickyCaramel wrote:

curriejean wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote: He is right in one sense though, that PZ's actions are only "alleged libel", no Court has judged it to be so. But what that has to do with being a "real skeptic" s anyone's guess - unless it means taking note of all kinds of legal finesse in everyday conversation.

I guess, in a legal sense, that it's libel is as alleged as is the content of the accusation because there hasn't been a ruling on either. The evidence presently available tells a vastly different story. But hey, does this mean me calling it libel is potentially legally libelous too? 'Spose I could call it 'manipulative bullshit' instead.

I suppose Shermer could be guilty and PZ could be... well even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So it's only alleged libel, and only alleged malicious, but it's 100% bona fide fuckwittery.

Accusations of libel are "potentially libellous", but they are not libel per se, since libel is not a criminal act but a civil matter. (Defamation can be criminal - for example blasphemy in some countries - but I understand there are no criminal defamation laws in the US at present)

In practice, to sue, PeeZus would have to show that his statement was not libellous - and I don't know how he would do that without dragging the anonymous "victim" into the court room. And having done that, he would have to both show damages and actual malice. Realistically, Shermer has an difficult (but credible) claim of libel, but PeeZus would have it far, far tougher to show he has been libelled by accusations of libel. If you follow my meaning.

Gumby wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote: Go on...

[.img]http://rlv.zcache.com/i_go_to_school_to ... z1_324.jpg[/img]

/dream :character-ariel:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 4cb126.png

Really? I have to do a new froth because I told a shitty joke and you told a good one? FINE!

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

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

ERV wrote: Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

Your research will get you a huge black cock???????

My dick grows when I do research, why not hers?

ERV wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:

ERV wrote:And all Ive done so far today write/format about 50 pages of my dissertation, in addition to doing experiments in the lab.

I am such a failure.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Clearly, you don't care about black people.

Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

I thought you only did HIV research so you could oppress Half-Fish and xir poz pals?

justinvacula wrote:Please help me

No

Ä uest wrote:Make of this what you will:

I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

Around the same time, Popehat made reference to someone who thought actual malice did not apply to libel per se. As many here have discussed, we are very much aware that actual malice (and other aspects of defamation, such as damages) must still be proven in cases where libel per se applies.

Although having seen the following tweet, I think I have determined that the second "p" in popehat is silent:

Badger3K wrote:

Am I completely off base on this? It doesn't matter if PZ changed anything, wrote the whole thing himself, or if he copied it directly, the fact is it is a second-hand account. Right or wrong?

Well that would be the "dictionary" definition of second hand account. If you would just shutup and listen maybe you would realize that feminist definitions trump dictionary definitions in much the same way that feminist assertions trump facts.

ERV wrote:Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

Shit! No wonder you don't get hit on at virology conferences! You need to be going to this event instead.

Ä uest wrote:

I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

Dear PopeHat,
I have no idea what it is either. In fact today is the first time I have hear it. Care to explain it to us? We might as well learn something out of all this. And yes, we are well aware that just because we get an explanation from a lawyer about a subject, still means anyone not a lawyer making guesses about this is still playing amateur hour.

Ä uest wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Question: What is libel per se?
A statement that falsely: Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime ....

With the kicker being the question of whether that accusation of rape holds any water or not. Which is not likely to be decided - or shouldn't be decided - by anything other than a trial of some sorts. Which could get expensive (lawyers, you know - ;-) )

Make of this what you will:



I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

Possibly – closed-shop mentality. Read an article the other day that suggested that the legal profession is going to have to change its “business model” if it wishes to survive – maybe the ready availability of information on the Internet is part of the reason for that.

But I’m not sure what was the context of the situation he was referring to. Maybe many people were insisting – as I was to some extent – that the “crime” of libel had been committed in the accusation itself, rather than something dependent on the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. Although my impression is that since PZ and company are the ones making the accusation then they are the ones who are obliged to provide the proof or evidence for it. And if they're not able to do so then that is what would make the accusation libelous. But a guess based on limited knowledge and information ....

welch wrote:If they keep pharyngulating their own polls, they'll go blind.

bravo

ShameMaggot wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Please help me

No

DAMN!!! New guy fucked you up.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shit/ ... he-fan.gif

Kareem wrote:Um... there's plenty of black people tackling black on black violence in America.

GREAT! OK, who are these people/groups?

I'm not hearing about them because, as is often the case, the voices of reason are drowned out by loudmouthed idiots. And please don't cite people who are trying to get rid of "stand your ground" laws, those are the idiots.

Kareem wrote:Speaking of which, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't been all that relevant since 2008.

I beg to differ, we saw plenty of those two clowns durring the Zimmerman trial.

Early Cuyler wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:Love this one:

Analogy fail. :handgestures-thumbdown:

On several levels.

In particular, "using fire to fight fire" (e.g. firebreaks, controlled burns, back burning) is a totally standard technique in controlling wildfires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled ... ck_burning

Spence wrote:

Ä uest wrote:Make of this what you will:

I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

Around the same time, Popehat made reference to someone who thought actual malice did not apply to libel per se. As many here have discussed, we are very much aware that actual malice (and other aspects of defamation, such as damages) must still be proven in cases where libel per se applies.

Although having seen the following tweet, I think I have determined that the second "p" in popehat is silent:

I don't think that's a poe, since he also says this:
I find his opinions interesting, since he seems to be a free speech advocate to the Internet, and this is a Free Speech versus Feminism argument and Free Speech appears to be losing on at least two fronts with him.

I wish instead of just snarking around on twitter, he could find the time to analyze the issues in a blog post.

Here's some big black pussy:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6769 ... fd0b_z.jpg

Incidentally, welcome to all of the new peeps. Others will give the traditional welcome, but in the meantime, here's the obligatory basket of welcome links:

http://www.spwallpapers.com/var/albums/ ... 1343096456

Ä uest wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Question: What is libel per se?

Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime ....

With the kicker being the question of whether that accusation of rape holds any water or not. Which is not likely to be decided - or shouldn't be decided - by anything other than a trial of some sorts. Which could get expensive (lawyers, you know - ;-) )

Make of this what you will:

I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what he is saying. He could just be trying to protect the lawyers' union.

He's trying to protect his job. How dare the proles be able to read and understand any aspect of the law! Better pretend it's more complicated than it is, fast!

Libel per se is not a complicated concept. Normally, in a libel, slander, or suchlike situation, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that what the other person said was actually damaging to them somehow. (If I call you a disingenuous twat, you have to prove that it hurt you in order to get damages from me.) Some things, however, are assumed to be damaging, and do not require that proof. The list varies slightly from place to place, but generally includes such things as saying someone is cheating on their spouse or calling someone a serial rapist.

It takes some of the burden off of the accuser if the libel in question is libel per se, because while they still have to show that the other aspects of libel are in play (the person actually printed it, it was done with malice, so and so forth), they don't have to show that it was damaging to them.

Of course, if this becomes common knowledge, then there will be a rapid push for the laws to be rewritten so as to be more confusing. Readily understood laws threaten the stranglehold lawyers have over the so-called justice system, so they have a vested interest in making sure that all laws are as complicated and difficult to understand as possible. Why do you think so many politicians are lawyers?

ShameMaggot wrote: I was tempted to defend JT, but he is a dumb little shit who can’t write a substantive thing to save his own life. Still this part cracked me up because Jen is speaking about some kind of autodidactic education fueled by Google as if she had done something really meaningful in her intellectual development as an undergrad.

When in actuality all she has is an aborted little germ that has been shunted into the joke that is “Secular Activism” as promoted and practiced by most (if not all) in the “movement” (fucks sake). She doesn’t know anything about the foundations or history behind the discourse she has co-opted from Critical theories, instead just uses a few misguided notions to bludgeon people with while at the same time reveling in that keen sense of hierarchy so many egalitarians bang their nubs and twats over.

I get that the Continental traditions that birthed Critical theory and those theories eventually gave rise to a few kinds of activism are drenched in complex jargon and unreadable texts. Most sane people have no inclination to try and read Kant and Hegel so they can understand Freud and Marx, so they can understand Lacan and Althusser and on and on.

Ignoring all that boring shit and lifting some social methods (for grass root activism no less) and sophisticated sounding phrases about oppression is like a person deciding they are going to be Christian and then only take their Christianity from Rick Warren and Creflo Dollar while completely ignoring scriptures and historical tradition. Its shallowness is comical and it is insanely stupid to do; so instead of doing anything meaningful with their coalition they document online hate and jack off to call out culture. And why not? What else can they do? They have pretty limited their capabilities by choosing a narrow range of conceptual tools that they don’t fully understand that they picked almost at random from a larger set of tools they don’t even know exists.



Sorry for the rant, it has been building for some time.
http://www.rantsnraves.org/images/smili ... talker.png

No need to apologize. It was a good (and true) rant. The analogy to today's simplistic Christians is a good one. Of course, reading the true history of the religion and learning how it all came together is a good way to become a Christian apostate :lol:

Just in terms of feminism, maybe that's why so many feminists today practice such a simplistic, emotion-driven form of feminism - if they actually studied it hard and saw how nuts a lot of it is, they wouldn't want to identify with it anymore. So they learn enough to spout some feminist technobabble that is merely window dressing for their actual beliefs.

Spence wrote: Around the same time, Popehat made reference to someone who thought actual malice did not apply to libel per se. As many here have discussed, we are very much aware that actual malice (and other aspects of defamation, such as damages) must still be proven in cases where libel per se applies.

Although having seen the following tweet, I think I have determined that the second "p" in popehat is silent:

I wonder if he's ever sued a stenographer?

In progressive circles we call that a "blog". You might have heard of it.

Remember this guy from a week or two back?

I want to put him, and Bria Crutchfield in the same room:

[youtube]2sL2f0PoqME[/youtube]

Steersman wrote: Just out of curiosity, why would you think those tweets qualify as misandry? I can see that they have some sort of a hate-on for Thunderf00t, but I don’t see that that hate is because he is a man, i.e., because of misandry – “hatred of men” simply because they are men.

Point. But that was not why I did it.

First however, your point. Calling an individual man a dick is is no more evidence of misandry than a man calling an individual woman a bitch is no evidence of misogyny.

However, my impression is that all too often when a man does it, and included some reference to violence it is generally taken as evidence of misogyny.

So, by that "logic" a woman who wants to take to take a pick-axe to Thunderfoot because of his video is misandry.

All I did (or at least that was my intent) was to point that out. I doubt that it was successful though. Which reminds me to check and see if there was a response.

As it turns out there was. One here: And here: I think I failed to make my point. I could be wrong, but I do not think so.

Steersman wrote: Seems rather difficult to actually prove things like misandry or misogyny as it seems to require fairly explicit statements to qualify, like, “all men are pricks”, or “all women are cunts”. Rather analogous, to throw the fox in amongst the chickens again – so to speak, to “all blacks are niggers” which qualifies as racist whereas “Malcolm X is a nigger” isn’t.

But the difficulty of proving that charge is why I think many SJWs – Jason Thibeault, and Sarah Jones, for examples – refuse to actually provide their own definition for “misogyny” as I expect they know their asses are hanging out in the breeze on that point.

Indeed.

Gumby wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Please help me attend, speak at, and report on the upcoming annual FFRF convention:



5 days remain in the fundraiser.

$130/$1000 on way to the goal.

Thanks for your support!

Just didn't get the hint last time, did you?

Give to an able-bodied, intelligent, resourceful, educated person e-begging to attend a convention.
or
Give to the local soup kitchen serving meals to the hungry.

What would you do Justin?

Ä uest wrote:I don't think that's a poe

Remember - Poe's law does not specify that a post or comment be a parody, but merely that it would be impossible to parody without someone mistaking it for the real thing.

Spence wrote:

Ä uest wrote:I don't think that's a poe

Remember - Poe's law does not specify that a post or comment be a parody, but merely that it would be impossible to parody without someone mistaking it for the real thing.

Seems a trend online the last year or few is to use 'poe' when one actually means 'troll' and to use 'troll' when one actually means 'I don't like your opinion but can't be arsed to argue against it.'