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

Is there a specific term for someone who views every single event/interaction/dynamic through the same lens, even when it's something totally unrelated? Like someone who would notice that the 'woman's studies' section of a bookshop is at the back and scream "OMG misogyny!", or that someone fired from a high school teaching job for screwing their students was black and scream "OMG racism!".

On Usenet they used to be called mission posters - they had one drum in their kit, and they banged it loud wherever they went. Is there a formal term for people (or the behavior itself) who do the same thing in real life (other than the obvious variants of 'tedious fuckwit', etc.)?

Dogmatic ideologists?

Dick Strawkins wrote:
I don't understand how the commenters on Pharyngula seem to think they have free rein to say anything whatsoever about people without facing consequences.
I guess PZ has impressed this type of behavior on them over the years and they've honed their skills through casually making unsupportable accusations against us here at the slymepit and against others who don't have the financial resources to challenge their vindictive idiocy.

Or maybe they are just idiots.
They seriously seem to think that it is only PZ that might get in trouble - not his horde, many of whom are repeating the same exact libels.

Depending on the applicability of Joint and Several Liability to defamation, if I were Shermer, I'd John Doe those commentators and drag their asses in, too. Then, presuming I won, I could collect from the biggest deep-pockets and set them on each other like pack of jackals as they sought to recover from their 'friends.'

OTOH, if I couldn't get Joint and Several I'd just hit Myers.

Cultists.

Mykeru wrote: One other motivation strikes me, which may have attracted them to the a/s community oin the first place: A membership card to act like they are smarter than everyone else. I was listening to a debate online involving Alex Gabriel and he comes across like a total tone-deaf little turdlet: http://t.co/uNGlNqAihl The impression I get is this little bastard is strutting around like he's the smartest guy in the room when it's obvious to everyone, including the dumbest guy in the room, that he has done none of the homework to make good on that conceit.

Worst debater ever. If an atheist has such a horrible debating style and diction that you start rooting for the theist opponent, even if it is someone as odious as Peter Hitchens, then there is not much left to say.

Angry_Drunk wrote:Scalzi is a fucking twat.

He's a third-rate science fiction writer who's mainly popular with hipsters because his shit is tailored to their all-consuming obsession with their own childhood. Predictably he's concluded that said popularity makes him an authority on everything.

He's to Social Justice warriors what Cory Doctrow is to freetards.

Most succinct opening sentence ever.

Sulman wrote:Nobody has come out and said it, but the clear line about Shermer appears to be: If he is innocent, so be it. He is merely collateral damage in a war that needs to be won. What kind of people does that make us? This is supposed to be coming from Skeptics?

As a small note, or three: Myers - and presumably his Whored - have publically 'divorced' scepticism. Also, even if he hadn't, he is not 'us'. Most important, the damage to Shermer has been repeatedly dismissed by the Baboon Whored not just as 'collateral' but as 'insignificant'.

The most they're willing to concede is that he might be a bit upset. Many of them are, genuinely, shocked that he's gone to law. Why couldn't he just drop PeeZus an e-mail: "Hey Paul, this thing about you publicly declaring me to be a morally degenerate serial felon. Do you think you could use your powers to turn back time so that that never happened? Thanks."

Gumby wrote:

real horrorshow wrote:

deLurch wrote:If Paul Myers says it's OK to mock creepy guys, I would take that as a direct invitation to open the flood gates on his ass.

I thought we had!

Oh no. What we've done so far is only a small taste of things to come. Haven't you been reading the Slymepit backchannel?

I knew it! That's where you've been hiding all that hot Photoshop pr0n Opheliar's always on about isn't it?

SkepticalCat wrote:

pzisatwat.png

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Random Lurker wrote:Is there a specific term for someone who views every single event/interaction/dynamic through the same lens, even when it's something totally unrelated? Like someone who would notice that the 'woman's studies' section of a bookshop is at the back and scream "OMG misogyny!", or that someone fired from a high school teaching job for screwing their students was black and scream "OMG racism!".

On Usenet they used to be called mission posters - they had one drum in their kit, and they banged it loud wherever they went. Is there a formal term for people (or the behavior itself) who do the same thing in real life (other than the obvious variants of 'tedious fuckwit', etc.)?

Monomania or Idée fixe might describe it.

Wow. Sasha Pixlee has the backbone of a sponge with osteoporosis. That level of crawly-bum-lick just to prove how un-racist you are is the highest level of twattery.

uberfeminist wrote:Yikes. I almost feel bad for Sasha. He demonstrates some amount of guilt and then Twitter piles on and accuses him of being even worse than he thought he was.

Reminds me of the A+ thread where the girl writing an feminist essay for school was accused of silencing trans* people.

Also, hi all. Testing, testing 123.

I'll fuck off now.

Holler.

uberfeminist wrote:Yikes. I almost feel bad for Sasha. He demonstrates some amount of guilt and then Twitter piles on and accuses him of being even worse than he thought he was.

Not feeling bad for him at all. I find it repulsive when someone is sucking up so shamelessly. He deserves being abused just for being a toady.

618 Andy Kimber

16 August 2013 at 9:58 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

@Thumper
@75

Not third-party evidence.

I mean it’s third-party evidence in the eyes of any lawyers who get involved in this, because…well, forgive me if I’ve got this wrong, but as I understand it, according to the original text of the quote under “Further corroboration” in an earlier version of the post, the information came to PZ from the anonymous woman not directly, but through a third party. This is something mentioned by Shermer’s lawyers in the cease-and-desist letter.

To which Peezus replies:

622 PZ Myers

16 August 2013 at 10:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Shermer’s lawyers were wrong. A lot of things in that letter were completely nonsensical.

I got the information from my source directly.

She may have emailed him directly. It still seems fairly evident that Carrie Poppy established the contact and that 'Jane Doe' is not someone who was already a trusted friend of Peezus, as has been suggested by The Horde.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-671294

real horrorshow wrote:

Sulman wrote:For God's sake man, have some backbone.

It is utterly awful to see someone willingly subjugate themselves to clear and obvious bullying.

From which we learn that Sasha Pixlee is a cunt - and even the people he wants to be friends with think so.

With a Twitter name like "Sasha Pixlee" was there ever any doubt of his cunt credentials?
I'd never heard of him. After googling his name I found this:
http://goodmenproject.com/author/sasha-pixlee/
Which includes this header:

Sasha was born in the office of a homeopath/chiropractor and was raised Mormon (the second Whitest religion in the world, after Scientology). He reasoned his way out of his intellectually disadvantaged upbringing and has become passionate about feminism, LGBT equality and anti-racism as a reaction against the culture in which he was raised. He likes justice, American whiskies, British gins, and hiding in his west coast liberal fantasyland.

And this drawing which I assume is supposed to be him:
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbebc6f7db ... =blank&r=R
When In fact he looks like this:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L33F ... /photo.jpg

His pen must have ran out before he got to the other 6 chins.

uberfeminist wrote:Yikes. I almost feel bad for Sasha. He demonstrates some amount of guilt and then Twitter piles on and accuses him of being even worse than he thought he was.

Not feeling bad for him at all. I find it repulsive when someone is sucking up so shamelessly. He deserves being abused just for being a toady.

real horrorshow wrote:

Random Lurker wrote:Is there a specific term for someone who views every single event/interaction/dynamic through the same lens, even when it's something totally unrelated? Like someone who would notice that the 'woman's studies' section of a bookshop is at the back and scream "OMG misogyny!", or that someone fired from a high school teaching job for screwing their students was black and scream "OMG racism!".

On Usenet they used to be called mission posters - they had one drum in their kit, and they banged it loud wherever they went. Is there a formal term for people (or the behavior itself) who do the same thing in real life (other than the obvious variants of 'tedious fuckwit', etc.)?

Monomania or Idée fixe might describe it.

Compulsion neurosis.

Sulman wrote:For God's sake man, have some backbone.

It is utterly awful to see someone willingly subjugate themselves to clear and obvious bullying.

He's sexually submissive and gets off on that sort of treatment. I'm not kidding.

Linus wrote:

Tribble wrote:
I don't get why anyone really cares. Ender's Game is a great book, as are some of OSC's other works. He's a fiction writer, not a politician.

1. For me the issue is the nature of the assertions in the argument. If you're going down-play someone's reasons for boycotting a movie (or anything else) by alleging something that sounds rather outlandish on the face of it and flies in the face of the person's self-described, decades-long behaviors and attitudes, I'm going to point it out and ask for proof.

2. He has thrust himself into the social and political debate. He may not be running for office, but he has used his popularity and name recognition in politics. Which means he's not 'just a writer' by his actions.

As for the movie, I'm not boycotting it though I doubt I will see it.

Jan Steen wrote:

real horrorshow wrote:

Random Lurker wrote:Is there a specific term for someone who views every single event/interaction/dynamic through the same lens, even when it's something totally unrelated? Like someone who would notice that the 'woman's studies' section of a bookshop is at the back and scream "OMG misogyny!", or that someone fired from a high school teaching job for screwing their students was black and scream "OMG racism!".

On Usenet they used to be called mission posters - they had one drum in their kit, and they banged it loud wherever they went. Is there a formal term for people (or the behavior itself) who do the same thing in real life (other than the obvious variants of 'tedious fuckwit', etc.)?

Monomania or Idée fixe might describe it.

Compulsion neurosis.

Tunnel vision works for me.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

rpguest wrote:

ThePrussian wrote:
About that - has she called him a Nazi in particular, rather than just TAM in general?

one of them that orac took her to task for in the comments was over here http://www.freezepage.com/1376664473FSVSOBTTGU

As Jews in Germany circa 1936 might have created “a climate where Jews — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.” As the Southern Poverty Law Center creates a climate where people who are the object of systematic vocal hatred end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe. That’s not to compare TAM with Nazi Germany or racist pockets of the US, of course…

thought there was an "acting like brownshirts" comparison mentioning grothe specifically at some point but cant find that

I guess it's more accurate to say she indirectly accused him of being a Nazi.

(If TAM is like Nazi Germany, it's going to be run by what? A liberal gay skeptic?)

Just as she's currently indirectly accusing him of acting like a slaveowner.

Django Benson to the rescue.

OFFS She shoul just change her name from Benson to Godwin.

Jan Steen wrote:

618 Andy Kimber

16 August 2013 at 9:58 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

@Thumper
@75

Not third-party evidence.

I mean it’s third-party evidence in the eyes of any lawyers who get involved in this, because…well, forgive me if I’ve got this wrong, but as I understand it, according to the original text of the quote under “Further corroboration” in an earlier version of the post, the information came to PZ from the anonymous woman not directly, but through a third party. This is something mentioned by Shermer’s lawyers in the cease-and-desist letter.

To which Peezus replies:

622 PZ Myers

16 August 2013 at 10:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Shermer’s lawyers were wrong. A lot of things in that letter were completely nonsensical.

I got the information from my source directly.

She may have emailed him directly. It still seems fairly evident that Carrie Poppy established the contact and that 'Jane Doe' is not someone who was already a trusted friend of Peezus, as has been suggested by The Horde.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-671294

This bickering with Shermer has been going on for nearly a year now. If it was a 'trusted friend' of Myers, she would have said something then for them to use as ammunition 10 months ago.

It just so happens that this accuser comes out right after Carrie publishes her 'expose' on JREF on PZs blog, and Carrie supplies PZ with Karens emails (which didnt occur until JULY 2013, not when the incidents occurred). Carrie 'doesnt work for big skepticism anymore', and now she has PZs blog to air all of her friends dirty laundry about people she doesnt like, and PZ is all too happy to do it.

Her handiwork in all this is obvious to even the most casual observer.

deLurch wrote:

rayshul wrote:Elevatorgate is a kid who wants to be a journalist and is faithfully covering the dramarama with gonzo style... well, as much as you can on the internet. He occasionally acts like a teenager, but he's not any kind of threat. Not least of all because he doesn't live in the same country as most of them and he's a *kid* - he doesn't have the money to travel to these things.

He is a threat in the sense that he exposes their hypocrisy, lies, stupidity and hysteria in an easily digestible manner in their own words. And he does it well.

Bingo!

Which, of course, is totally, TOTALLY unacceptable!

One wonders if they recognize the transparency of their own hypocrisy when presented in that manner and that is what actually freaks them out. :think:

Tony Parsehole wrote: And this drawing which I assume is supposed to be him:
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbebc6f7db ... =blank&r=R
When In fact he looks like this:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L33F ... /photo.jpg

His pen must have ran out before he got to the other 6 chins.

To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

Some of that may be my own issues, disliking my looks, and how I've grown older, and my various inabilities or dislike of lying, or even reasonable self-promotion, but I just wonder what goes through people's minds when they make they overly cutesy very distorted pictures of themselves, especially ones that shave off years or chins.

I wonder if some soc, or anthro student has written a paper or two on it.

Of the various online behaviors I don't understand, I personally find these highly distortive avatars among the most offputting.

katamari Damassi wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

rpguest wrote:

ThePrussian wrote:
About that - has she called him a Nazi in particular, rather than just TAM in general?

one of them that orac took her to task for in the comments was over here http://www.freezepage.com/1376664473FSVSOBTTGU

As Jews in Germany circa 1936 might have created “a climate where Jews — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.” As the Southern Poverty Law Center creates a climate where people who are the object of systematic vocal hatred end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe. That’s not to compare TAM with Nazi Germany or racist pockets of the US, of course…

thought there was an "acting like brownshirts" comparison mentioning grothe specifically at some point but cant find that

I guess it's more accurate to say she indirectly accused him of being a Nazi.

(If TAM is like Nazi Germany, it's going to be run by what? A liberal gay skeptic?)

Just as she's currently indirectly accusing him of acting like a slaveowner.

Django Benson to the rescue.

OFFS She shoul just change her name from Benson to Godwin.

And yet, when Paula Kirby uses the word "femistasi" Benson and her cronies dogpile her. Hypocrites.

Saw Elysium. It's not nearly as good as District 9 but I liked it. Too heavy handed with its message, and I don't think an orbiting habitat that large could be constructed and spun fast enough to simulate earth gravity without coming apart, but its dystopian future looked depressingly plausible.

Tony Parsehole wrote: And this drawing which I assume is supposed to be him:
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbebc6f7db ... =blank&r=R
When In fact he looks like this:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L33F ... /photo.jpg

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting a sudden urge to steal a conch.

JAB wrote:Hey Lsuoma, are any of the many guests from India? I was wondering if lawyers from either side of the case that precipitated the clownfall are doing research at the pit and I had heard that some law firms had started subcontracting such things to cheap lawyers in India.

Outsourced Lawyer: Hello, my name is Kevin. How can I help you today?

Peezus: Well, I've been served a C & D, and need to respond.

OL: Not a problem, sir. Could you describe your problem to me?

PZ: I need to respond to a C & D.

OL: Not a problem. What is your relationship with this "Sandy" person?

PZ: No, a "Cease and Desist" letter.

OL: Yes, sir, I understand. When did Sandy send you this letter?

PZ: Jeebus! Let me talk to your boss.

OL: Not a problem, sir. I'm connecting you now.

(Elevator music, then disconnect.)

ERV wrote:
She may have emailed him directly. It still seems fairly evident that Carrie Poppy established the contact and that 'Jane Doe' is not someone who was already a trusted friend of Peezus, as has been suggested by The Horde.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-671294

Her handiwork in all this is obvious to even the most casual observer.[/quote]

All I can hear right now is this 'kerching' noise.

Ä uest wrote: To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

Some of that may be my own issues, disliking my looks, and how I've grown older, and my various inabilities or dislike of lying, or even reasonable self-promotion, but I just wonder what goes through people's minds when they make they overly cutesy very distorted pictures of themselves, especially ones that shave off years or chins.

I wonder if some soc, or anthro student has written a paper or two on it.

Of the various online behaviors I don't understand, I personally find these highly distortive avatars among the most offputting.

I dunno, I think your avatar looks just like you.

Jan Steen wrote:
To which Peezus replies:

622 PZ Myers

16 August 2013 at 10:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Shermer’s lawyers were wrong. A lot of things in that letter were completely nonsensical.

I got the information from my source directly.

She may have emailed him directly. It still seems fairly evident that Carrie Poppy established the contact and that 'Jane Doe' is not someone who was already a trusted friend of Peezus, as has been suggested by The Horde.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-671294

IANAL, but is he supposed to write about the ...complicated goings-ons?

Besides, that's really a non-answer, isn't it?

Neither does he state what Shermer's lawyers are wrong about nor what things were nonsensical in the letter.

And "my source" means nothing at all without further clarification. Does he mean the anonymous woman or Carrie Poppy?

Aneris wrote:Victim Blaming is also trivializing of rape etc. Here is a working Purity Ball link.

Warning: excessive creep level

[youtube]xt4xqZdsGo0[/youtube]

So... everyone else who watched this saw a bunch of guys who want to bang their daughters, right? It's not just me?

katamari Damassi wrote:Saw Elysium. It's not nearly as good as District 9 but I liked it. Too heavy handed with its message, and I don't think an orbiting habitat that large could be constructed and spun fast enough to simulate earth gravity without coming apart, but its dystopian future looked depressingly plausible.

I really want to see it. I loved District 9. I've already read some hard criticism of Elysium (I can't find it now, but the gist of it was it is unambitious, simplistic and predictable) and it does look rather Hollywood, but I love the look.

Been some cracking SciFi recently.

ERV wrote:
This bickering with Shermer has been going on for nearly a year now. If it was a 'trusted friend' of Myers, she would have said something then for them to use as ammunition 10 months ago.

It just so happens that this accuser comes out right after Carrie publishes her 'expose' on JREF on PZs blog, and Carrie supplies PZ with Karens emails (which didnt occur until JULY 2013, not when the incidents occurred). Carrie 'doesnt work for big skepticism anymore', and now she has PZs blog to air all of her friends dirty laundry about people she doesnt like, and PZ is all too happy to do it.

Her handiwork in all this is obvious to even the most casual observer.

Carrie Poppy and Peezus are strange bedfellows, to say the least. CP works for PETA, while Peezus has written against PETA in strong terms in the past. Peezus is also very much in favour of animal experimentation (see for examples of both http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... mentation/). You would think CP hated Peezus at least as much as FTBers hate the Slymepit.

Kareem wrote:

Aneris wrote:Victim Blaming is also trivializing of rape etc. Here is a working Purity Ball link.

Warning: excessive creep level

*snipped*
So... everyone else who watched this saw a bunch of guys who want to bang their daughters, right? It's not just me?

I'm glad I'm not the only one. :-?

Sulman wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote:Saw Elysium. It's not nearly as good as District 9 but I liked it. Too heavy handed with its message, and I don't think an orbiting habitat that large could be constructed and spun fast enough to simulate earth gravity without coming apart, but its dystopian future looked depressingly plausible.

I really want to see it. I loved District 9. I've already read some hard criticism of Elysium (I can't find it now, but the gist of it was it is unambitious, simplistic and predictable) and it does look rather Hollywood, but I love the look.

Been some cracking SciFi recently.

None of it has been a patch on B5.

So, Richard Dawkins will be going on a book tour in the States to promote his new book this fall. When he gets to CalTech (Beckman Auditorium, capacity 1136), he will be joined by that well know rapi...I mean skeptic, Michael Shermer.

PZ is also promoting his new book (picture a pathetic, lonely man sitting at a card table in the back of a Barnes & Noble at the mall). He will be joined by no one. Two speakers that were shunned by FfTB will speak before a sold-out crowd. The shunner will sit there resentfully, as children try to avoid the dumpy looking man in the corner who is muttering something about being a contender.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/20 ... el-shermer

Ä uest wrote:
To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

Some of that may be my own issues, disliking my looks, and how I've grown older, and my various inabilities or dislike of lying, or even reasonable self-promotion, but I just wonder what goes through people's minds when they make they overly cutesy very distorted pictures of themselves, especially ones that shave off years or chins.

I wonder if some soc, or anthro student has written a paper or two on it.

Of the various online behaviors I don't understand, I personally find these highly distortive avatars among the most offputting.

Hey, my avatar is an accurate representation of me.

mordacious1 wrote:So, Richard Dawkins will be going on a book tour in the States to promote his new book this fall. When he gets to CalTech (Beckman Auditorium, capacity 1136), he will be joined by that well know rapi...I mean skeptic, Michael Shermer.

PZ is also promoting his new book (picture a pathetic, lonely man sitting at a card table in the back of a Barnes & Noble at the mall). He will be joined by no one. Two speakers that were shunned by FfTB will speak before a sold-out crowd. The shunner will sit there resentfully, as children try to avoid the dumpy looking man in the corner who is muttering something about being a contender.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/20 ... el-shermer

Thanks, you just gave me the idea for my next crappy shop.

Ä uest wrote: To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

Some of that may be my own issues, disliking my looks, and how I've grown older, and my various inabilities or dislike of lying, or even reasonable self-promotion, but I just wonder what goes through people's minds when they make they overly cutesy very distorted pictures of themselves, especially ones that shave off years or chins.

I wonder if some soc, or anthro student has written a paper or two on it.

Of the various online behaviors I don't understand, I personally find these highly distortive avatars among the most offputting.

One of the strangest I've seen is Rod Liddle (a writer for the Tory arse-rag The Spectator). As recently as last year his byline showed him like this:
http://i.imgur.com/5IR16gn.jpg
(The Spectator wisely uses highly sympathetic 'caricatures' for it's gallery of freaks these days.)

When, in fact he looks like this:
http://i.imgur.com/Lc47d6b.jpg

Oops, I mean this:
http://i.imgur.com/vEAlHRT.jpg
(The previous picture was from before he went into make-up)
I, on the other hand, really am a homicidal orange in a bowler hat.

mordacious1 wrote:So, Richard Dawkins will be going on a book tour in the States to promote his new book this fall. When he gets to CalTech (Beckman Auditorium, capacity 1136), he will be joined by that well know rapi...I mean skeptic, Michael Shermer.

PZ is also promoting his new book (picture a pathetic, lonely man sitting at a card table in the back of a Barnes & Noble at the mall). He will be joined by no one. Two speakers that were shunned by FfTB will speak before a sold-out crowd. The shunner will sit there resentfully, as children try to avoid the dumpy looking man in the corner who is muttering something about being a contender.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/20 ... el-shermer

Prof. Ceiling Cat is also hosting the Chicago edition:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... n-chicago/

Verklagekasper wrote:

uberfeminist wrote:Yikes. I almost feel bad for Sasha. He demonstrates some amount of guilt and then Twitter piles on and accuses him of being even worse than he thought he was.

Not feeling bad for him at all. I find it repulsive when someone is sucking up so shamelessly. He deserves being abused just for being a toady.

Are you sure he's a toady? Sounds more like a lickspittle to me, but each to their own. :whistle:

Did anybody else find this line from Sash Pixlee's bio particularly hilarious:

...Raised Mormon (the second Whitest religion in the world, after Scientology)

Oh noes! Not only did he have a religious upbringing but it was the SECOND WHITEST RELIGION IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD!! I bet he's fucking gutted he wasn't raised a Scientologist because then he could claim even more victim points.

real horrorshow wrote:

Ä uest wrote: To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

Some of that may be my own issues, disliking my looks, and how I've grown older, and my various inabilities or dislike of lying, or even reasonable self-promotion, but I just wonder what goes through people's minds when they make they overly cutesy very distorted pictures of themselves, especially ones that shave off years or chins.

I wonder if some soc, or anthro student has written a paper or two on it.

Of the various online behaviors I don't understand, I personally find these highly distortive avatars among the most offputting.

One of the strangest I've seen is Rod Liddle (a writer for the Tory arse-rag The Spectator). As recently as last year his byline showed him like this:
http://i.imgur.com/5IR16gn.jpg
(The Spectator wisely uses highly sympathetic 'caricatures' for it's gallery of freaks these days.)

When, in fact he looks like this:
http://i.imgur.com/Lc47d6b.jpg

Oops, I mean this:
http://i.imgur.com/vEAlHRT.jpg
(The previous picture was from before he went into make-up)
I, on the other hand, really am a homicidal orange in a bowler hat.

That's fucking uncanny.

Jan Steen wrote:

Mykeru wrote: One other motivation strikes me, which may have attracted them to the a/s community oin the first place: A membership card to act like they are smarter than everyone else. I was listening to a debate online involving Alex Gabriel and he comes across like a total tone-deaf little turdlet: http://t.co/uNGlNqAihl The impression I get is this little bastard is strutting around like he's the smartest guy in the room when it's obvious to everyone, including the dumbest guy in the room, that he has done none of the homework to make good on that conceit.

Worst debater ever. If an atheist has such a horrible debating style and diction that you start rooting for the theist opponent, even if it is someone as odious as Peter Hitchens, then there is not much left to say.

Sure is a strange sensation to listen to a debate on religious morality and actually be rooting for the theist.

Gabriel is not only a smug little prick, but he seems utterly tone deaf. He's like Richard Carrier in that regard, you just want to corral him by the ear, drag him into the other room and as "Do you have any idea how you come off?" And as the debate was in England where everyone is mostly agnostic anyway, it's not as though the place was packed with people from the local fundie clearinghouse like Gish used to do in his debates. There must have been a large proportion of the audience who agreed with Gabriel on the fundamental question yet had to ask "Why does this massive twat have to be on my side"?

But they are mostly like that. Just high-handed and humorless. When the audience applauded politely and Gabriel joked (because he was using his joking voice) Thank you, I hear that in my head all the time". *cringe* Gotta figure the shitlet didn't get out among real people a lot in his life, and even then it was just to get his ass kicked. And he probably had it coming by virtue of being a snotty, insulting little bastard.

dog puke wrote: Are you sure he's a toady? Sounds more like a lickspittle to me, but each to their own. :whistle:

Dang , Google translator came up with that :-/

Dick Strawkins wrote: The other possibility, and one that probably shouldn't be discounted, is that Ophelia views non-sober sex (hook-ups between two people who have both been drinking but are nowhere near blackout level inebriation) as non-consenting sex.

Actually, I've been reading the Wikipedia page on Blackouts (I know, not a scholarly source, blah blah blah), and the indication seems to be that blacking out isn't necessarily related to how much alcohol has been consumed. The start of the "Causes" section reads:

Blackouts are commonly associated with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol; however, surveys of drinkers experiencing blackouts have indicated that they are not directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed. Respondents reported they frequently recalled having "drank as much or more without memory loss," compared to instances of blacking out.[7] Subsequent research has indicated that blackouts are most likely caused by a rapid increase in a person's blood-alcohol concentration. One study, in particular, resulted in subjects being stratified easily into two groups, those who consumed alcohol very quickly, and blacked out, and those who did not black out by drinking alcohol slowly, despite being extremely intoxicated by the end of the study.[10]

So, blacking out doesn't necessarily mean that person was trashed, incapacitated, or whatever else people may assert.

Mykeru wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Mykeru wrote: One other motivation strikes me, which may have attracted them to the a/s community oin the first place: A membership card to act like they are smarter than everyone else. I was listening to a debate online involving Alex Gabriel and he comes across like a total tone-deaf little turdlet: http://t.co/uNGlNqAihl The impression I get is this little bastard is strutting around like he's the smartest guy in the room when it's obvious to everyone, including the dumbest guy in the room, that he has done none of the homework to make good on that conceit.

Worst debater ever. If an atheist has such a horrible debating style and diction that you start rooting for the theist opponent, even if it is someone as odious as Peter Hitchens, then there is not much left to say.

Sure is a strange sensation to listen to a debate on religious morality and actually be rooting for the theist.

Gabriel is not only a smug little prick, but he seems utterly tone deaf. He's like Richard Carrier in that regard, you just want to corral him by the ear, drag him into the other room and as "Do you have any idea how you come off?" And as the debate was in England where everyone is mostly agnostic anyway, it's not as though the place was packed with people from the local fundie clearinghouse like Gish used to do in his debates. There must have been a large proportion of the audience who agreed with Gabriel on the fundamental question yet had to ask "Why does this massive twat have to be on my side"?

But they are mostly like that. Just high-handed and humorless. When the audience applauded politely and Gabriel joked (because he was using his joking voice) Thank you, I hear that in my head all the time". *cringe* Gotta figure the shitlet didn't get out among real people a lot in his life, and even then it was just to get his ass kicked. And he probably had it coming by virtue of being a snotty, insulting little bastard.

In other words, he fits right in with Lazy Canuck and Steffy Zvan.

Jan Steen wrote:In other words, he fits right in with Lazy Canuck and Steffy Zvan.

An ideologue in (yet more) other words.

Wonder if his move had anything to do with Rhys Morgan and Hayley Stevens leaving the HC?

Ä uest wrote:
To be fair to Sasha, I've always been amazed at the enormous difference between people's online, pseudo-representational avatars and their actual appearance.

At least mine is accurate.

Eskarina wrote:

Kareem wrote:

Aneris wrote:Victim Blaming is also trivializing of rape etc. Here is a working Purity Ball link.

Warning: excessive creep level

*snipped*
So... everyone else who watched this saw a bunch of guys who want to bang their daughters, right? It's not just me?

I'm glad I'm not the only one. :-?

Me three.

Also, why are they using the theme from Glory? If folk remember that film, it's climax is that the regiment of Black troops it portrays attack a fortified position, suffer heavy casualties and fail to take it. Perhaps this is the Daddies subtle warning for any dusky Lotharios out there.

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

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3764/9523 ... 8a1c_o.jpg
For Real Horroshow.

Mykeru wrote:

Sulman wrote:Something's not right here. I'm very intrigued what the outcome of all this will be. It appears that some of the people involved have completely failed to understand the seriousness of what they have done.

[…] No matter what I do on the intertubes, I am aware that I am dealing with human beings, admittedly one's I don't like at times.

[…] Seriously, you have to keep in mind that they may be divested from what they are doing because, after all, all they are doing is typing. This is like some big-assed multi-player role playing game to them. This is what they do, this is what they are used to an, for the most part, this is either how they relate to other people or how they can hide behind a keyboard to play Grand Theft Social Justice whern out in the real world not only don't they drive like that, they don't even have a car.

"It's just the Internet, man!" I've seen this notion in other places. Decent people trying to defuse drama by seriously saying "What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet." Blogs and forums feel so much like chatting at a party that it can be hard to remember that we're saying all this in public, and putting it in writing.

Verklagekasper wrote:

uberfeminist wrote:Yikes. I almost feel bad for Sasha. He demonstrates some amount of guilt and then Twitter piles on and accuses him of being even worse than he thought he was.

Not feeling bad for him at all. I find it repulsive when someone is sucking up so shamelessly. He deserves being abused just for being a toady.

You will be treated like shit precisely to the level you allow.

welch wrote:Seriously, I just googled storify and my twitter handle and realized that there's a lot of storify'd stuff there.

How did I find out? I had to google it. Number of emails I've gotten automatically from it? none.


Oddly, storify is rather simple to ignore.

Only the people with Storify accounts [otherwise known as Stalkers] get the emails....if they choose to leave their account's notification settings to default...

Pretty horrible, huh?

Verklagekasper wrote:

dog puke wrote: Are you sure he's a toady? Sounds more like a lickspittle to me, but each to their own. :whistle:

Dang , Google translator came up with that :-/

He is, as uncle franc would say, a toilet-slave.

JackRayner wrote: So, blacking out doesn't necessarily mean that person was trashed, incapacitated, or whatever else people may assert.

The problem is that people, stupid people, perhaps even stupid drunk people, confuse "black out drunk" with being "passed out drunk".

Why? Because they are stupid people who like to make stupid analogies like "If you had sex when she was blacked out (ie. passed out) it was rape". Because nothing make for a good argument like conflating two terms and generally not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

And making poor analogies. And thinking a tampon applicator is corporate mass-produced rape.

"Blacked Out" drunk isn't something that happens to a person when they are drunk. It's what happens after they are drunk, but so drunk that none of that happy bozo fun time got dumped into long-term memories and they have to ask their friends the next morning why they have a wooden spoon in their urethra. Most people, except for blithe alkies, are disturbed by having a blackout, even if they don't wake up covered in blood with a knife and a doll's head of uncertain origin. If you are a worrying sort, you make think worst case scenario and if you are a woman who had to get really drunk to get your freak on, now you think you might be pregnant, and, well, if that's the case, might as well attribute it to being raped. Especially if you have caring, socially conscious asshole friends.

A person who is destined to be "blackout drunk" the next morning may not act overtly intoxicated, that is to say, completely shit-faced, unless you are staring straight into the function of their limbic system. And if you think you are doing that, you are not drunk. You're stoned.

ERV wrote:Incidentally I had a nightmare last night where I was being stalked by someone who was a mix of an ex boyfriend, Lawrence Krauss, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. FfTBers triggered me. Go figure.

Probably a repressed memory. Hoffman always creeped me out -- this is sufficient evidence to label Philip Seymour Hoffman a serial rapist!

Hemisphere wrote:Rystenfenttensys wrote:

Scalzi is a douche canoe of the first order. The only thing separating him from the A+ assholes is that he lacks the courage of his convictions and puts on a (relatively) more reasonable public face, and quietly bans rather than trumpeting how great he is when he does it.

He's also a fantastic example of why I pretty much don't read sci-fi that's been written in the last 30 years. If his brand of drivel is the best they can come up with, I want nothing to do with it. I flush better sci-fi down the shitter every morning.

I really enjoyed the Old Man's War series. It was a nice change in sci-fi from massive tomes like the type written by P.F. Hamilton. There's no cognitive dissonance in disliking the author but liking their books - e.g. Ender's Game is probably one of the best books to come out of sci-fi, and the author is a total douchecanoe.

Ender's Game is well-written, but horrible. It's like the un-Game of Thrones.

For the record, my dislike of Scalzi's writing has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a person. If you had asked me three years ago, I'd have said that he's a nice enough guy who couldn't write decent sci-fi by copying The Gods Themselves word for word. Somehow, it would come out the other end a pile of shit.

There's a pretty good Newsweek article on skepticism and atheism:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... olice.html

PZ shows up briefly, being dickish, true to type.