Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Matt Cavanaugh]

As I read your definition initially, it seemed to me that if I applied your definition to a chess computer, it fits the criteria in your definition as having free will. So either I have not understood your definition correctly, or your definition is inadequate. You argued that I have not understood your definition correctly, that it included culpability. Fair enough. But another criterion of a good definition is that it doesn't use terms that need definition just as much as the original idea being defined.

Pay no attention to the bullshit artist behind the curtain, FD.

[Mykeru]

I think it came up again recently because Zvan/Skepchick have failed for years at getting DJ Grothe fired. The Shermer allegation isn't new, but Grothe's wisecrack about a transsexual he saw last month got them howling, and he's still at his job. So Brian Thompson pops up a few days ago to give the "definitive" reiteration of his story -- Shermer groped, Grothe knew, and if you're not outraged, you're a shit.

So after trying and failing to knock anyone down, with the exception of Justin Vacula who learned from that experience, they decide to try for a two-in-a-line trick shot out of Quigley Down Under?

:popcorn:

[Ape+lust]

So after trying and failing to knock anyone down, with the exception of Justin Vacula who learned from that experience, they decide to try for a two-in-a-line trick shot out of Quigley Down Under?

:popcorn:

Yeah. And I think what Vacula learned was that the moustache stays. Otherwise, he'd be accused of rape.

http://i.imgur.com/BAHpck8.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think it came up again recently because Zvan/Skepchick have failed for years at getting DJ Grothe fired. The Shermer allegation isn't new, but Grothe's wisecrack about a transsexual he saw last month got them howling, and he's still at his job. So Brian Thompson pops up a few days ago to give the "definitive" reiteration of his story -- Shermer groped, Grothe knew, and if you're not outraged, you're a shit.

So after trying and failing to knock anyone down, with the exception of Justin Vacula who learned from that experience, they decide to try for a two-in-a-line trick shot out of Quigley Down Under?

:popcorn:

Don't you dare diss that movie, it's one of my favorites!

[guest]

Personally I hope that Peezus and his gang at FtB up their game a bit over the Winterval break. I can't remember the last time any of them was frothing with rage over something, and it is all looking a bit dull over there.

Same here. The SWJ dullness also brings out the worst in the Pit.

I have some hope, though. The Rebökkster and Adam Isaak won't even spend a Jackson on a fucking tree for their appartement even though they just found am unexpected source of money in the 1-2k/month range and it makes Rebecca too sad to do "work." What might be the big thing they are saving for?
:romance-adore:

In the meantime, if some guy could accidentally touch someone's boobs while hugging or say something nice to a women he supported for years, the drama would be very welcome
:popcorn:

They're probably plannimg another world tour on the sceptic crowd's dime like they did last year in Australia and NZ.

No sign of Shermer or Dunning or or Mayhew or Stollznow or Hall or Grothe getting a tour even though they're more influential, more qualified and more likely to give quid pro quo. Poor Sid Rodrigus never got a chsnce

[Mykeru]

I think it came up again recently because Zvan/Skepchick have failed for years at getting DJ Grothe fired. The Shermer allegation isn't new, but Grothe's wisecrack about a transsexual he saw last month got them howling, and he's still at his job. So Brian Thompson pops up a few days ago to give the "definitive" reiteration of his story -- Shermer groped, Grothe knew, and if you're not outraged, you're a shit.

So after trying and failing to knock anyone down, with the exception of Justin Vacula who learned from that experience, they decide to try for a two-in-a-line trick shot out of Quigley Down Under?

:popcorn:

Don't you dare diss that movie, it's one of my favorites!

The fuck?

I love that movie too.

Quigley on the buckboard: "When do we get to Marston's land"

Henchman: "We've been traveling on it for the past three days"

[ROBOKiTTY]

I understand that and I have no problems with the satire (well, except the fact that I didn't find it particularly funny, but that's just me being grumpy). As I wouldn't have a problem if someone came with an "MRA programming language" (except for the fact that it would probably suck as a comedy piece, because the SJW crowd cannot tell a good joke even if their lives depend on it). I just think Github/Bitbucket/Google did the sensible thing and said, "this is not real software, it will never be real software, so piss off".

But it is real software. They have a semi-working interpreter already. It may be crappy software, but it is software nonetheless. It's no less software than Brainf*** and Malbolge, which is not even Turing-complete. Speaking of crappy software, these hosts are littered with abandoned software repos, many of them school or beginner projects that are nonfunctional and will never be completed. Should those go too?

[Tigzy]

'The patriarchy. It's everywhere. Imbuing every cell, every fibre, of the organic tapestry that comprises society. A poison to some, a panacea to others; you cannot escape it. It is everywhere, and it shapes - everything.'

Jacqueline Rose, a vapid, faintly hissing piece of pink noise given tits, has an article in the Guardian saying that Charles Saatchi's throat grab - and other accompanying nastinesses - as regards Nigella Lawson shows 'the ugly face of patriarchal power', and that 'What was really on display...was the ruthless nature of masculinity in thrall to itself.'

Masculinity in thrall to itself. So what the fuck does that mean, exactly? Spakky Jacqui ain't clear on this, but she says:

Masculinity in thrall to itself is ruthless. As feminism has also argued, it is a colossal act of self-deceit. When a husband assaults a wife, it is often his own weakness – the fact that men, thank goodness, cannot in fact control all women all of the time – which he is trying to repudiate. This kind of power has to trash suffering in order to hold on to itself, which is why, threatened by a woman with its loss, he will push her face into the dirt.

Note the snideness coming through: 'when' a husband assaults a wife, not 'if'. Cos...well, what else could you expect with patriarchy everwhere?

Me, I think it's more to do with the fact that Charles Saatchi is a massive cunt. Or it could be due to him actually being one of David Icke's reptile aliens who has broken cover in anger at having his lizard ego compromised by his uppity slave brood cow. But I guess we can never really be sure, in not knowing what he'd actually be like in a world without patriarchy, or even one without the secret rule of cold-blooded alien masters from the Draco constellation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ?CMP=fb_gu

[Mykeru]

Oh, I see. She probably thinks she was "almost groped" when she FORCED HERSELF BODILY AGAINST HIM.

You know, by now expecting the minimum standards of decency and integrity from these drunk little girls vying for "rape of the week" is just too much to ask.

I'm a little surprised at all of this. Can't Shermer do better?

Obviously, the only way to stop the sexual harassment at cons is to ban fat chicks.

[Suet Cardigan]

'The patriarchy. It's everywhere. Imbuing every cell, every fibre, of the organic tapestry that comprises society. A poison to some, a panacea to others; you cannot escape it. It is everywhere, and it shapes - everything.'

Jacqueline Rose, a vapid, faintly hissing piece of pink noise given tits, has an article in the Guardian saying that Charles Saatchi's throat grab - and other accompanying nastinesses - as regards Nigella Lawson shows 'the ugly face of patriarchal power', and that 'What was really on display...was the ruthless nature of masculinity in thrall to itself.'

Masculinity in thrall to itself. So what the fuck does that mean, exactly? Spakky Jacqui ain't clear on this, but she says:

Masculinity in thrall to itself is ruthless. As feminism has also argued, it is a colossal act of self-deceit. When a husband assaults a wife, it is often his own weakness – the fact that men, thank goodness, cannot in fact control all women all of the time – which he is trying to repudiate. This kind of power has to trash suffering in order to hold on to itself, which is why, threatened by a woman with its loss, he will push her face into the dirt.

Note the snideness coming through: 'when' a husband assaults a wife, not 'if'. Cos...well, what else could you expect with patriarchy everwhere?

Me, I think it's more to do with the fact that Charles Saatchi is a massive cunt. Or it could be due to him actually being one of David Icke's reptile aliens who has broken cover in anger at having his lizard ego compromised by his uppity slave brood cow. But I guess we can never really be sure, in not knowing what he'd actually be like in a world without patriarchy, or even one without the secret rule of cold-blooded alien masters from the Draco constellation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010 ... c-violence

And yet men make up nearly half of victims of domestic violence. It must be the ugly face of The Matriarchy. Or femininity in thrall to itself. Or a colossal act of self deceit. Or some such shite.

[Garewolf]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a- ... s-will-be/

Thoughts?

[James Caruthers]

Is it sexual assault if a woman strokes a man's beard without permission?

If so, then it's time to collect my victim card! :violin:

[James Caruthers]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a- ... s-will-be/

Thoughts?

The bit about universities seems pretty true. I mean, I spend a hell of a lot of time at university, and there's so much of this "gender is a social construct, masculinity is toxic" nonsense. The same people probably go to their science classes and learn about male and female ape behavior, and have no problem accepting the notion of some small (but real) differences between males and females, at least some of which they attribute to biology. But get them in a gender studies course and suddenly gender is a social construct, masculinity is toxic, etc.

This one bint in a shakespeare class (I dropped it because she sucked so hard) was teaching "feminist shakespeare." She told the class she was skipping Hamlet because it was an adolescent male fantasy. She didn't use the words "toxic masculinity," but the meaning was there.

I'm sure some MRAs exaggerate how crazy feminists are at university. But most of the time, I find there's some crossover with what MRAs claim is happening at universities, and what I see in my daily life.

[Lsuoma]

I'm sure some MRAs exaggerate how crazy feminists are at university. But most of the time, I find there's some crossover with what MRAs claim is happening at universities, and what I see in my daily life.

Actually, for some feminists I don't believe you CAN exaggerate, especially in universities.

[Sulman]

I was playing some Red Orchestra 2 multiplayer last night. One player was called Social Justice Warrior, so I shot them. They were on the opposing team, but that probably would have made no difference.

But, there was - highly unusually - someone lecturing about gendered insults, saying that people should pay more attention in gender studies. They got shouted down, but still, sign of the times.

I must add the game is usually pretty friendly. It's not like the COD kids screaming "faggot" every ten seconds. The insults are usually just good bants.

[Mykeru]

Welcome to Slyme-Con

http://static.someecards.com/someecards ... 943304.png

Thank you for obeying the rules.

[justinvacula]

http://i.imgur.com/pUbkJh2.jpg

[Scunner]

http://i.imgur.com/pUbkJh2.jpg

Will you being mentioned in the same tweet as Hensley trigger her PTSD, Justin?

[Tribble]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a- ... s-will-be/

Thoughts?

The bit about universities seems pretty true. I mean, I spend a hell of a lot of time at university, and there's so much of this "gender is a social construct, masculinity is toxic" nonsense. The same people probably go to their science classes and learn about male and female ape behavior, and have no problem accepting the notion of some small (but real) differences between males and females, at least some of which they attribute to biology. But get them in a gender studies course and suddenly gender is a social construct, masculinity is toxic, etc.

Unless, of course, these gender differences either directly benefit them or can be exploited to benefit them. Such as lowering physical standards for firefighters and policemen to get more women in uniform. Other benefits include 'minority' (despite being the majority) set-asides in government contracting, STEM academic fields, STEM career fields, the entire legal system -- criminal and civil -- is far more beneficial, if not out-right tailored, to them, they don't have to register for the draft, welfare is targeted to single woman, social services are generally targeted to support women (often ignoring, or sometimes at the expense of, men) and a ton more that we've all seen.

This one bint in a shakespeare class (I dropped it because she sucked so hard) was teaching "feminist shakespeare." She told the class she was skipping Hamlet because it was an adolescent male fantasy. She didn't use the words "toxic masculinity," but the meaning was there.

I'm sure some MRAs exaggerate how crazy feminists are at university. But most of the time, I find there's some crossover with what MRAs claim is happening at universities, and what I see in my daily life.

Yeah, some do. But it's not the horrible stretch many pretend it is.

[justinvacula]

So after trying and failing to knock anyone down, with the exception of Justin Vacula who learned from that experience, they decide to try for a two-in-a-line trick shot out of Quigley Down Under?

:popcorn:

Yeah. And I think what Vacula learned was that the moustache stays. Otherwise, he'd be accused of rape.

http://i.imgur.com/BAHpck8.jpg

Picture from 2010

:bjarte:

[zenbabe]

http://i.imgur.com/pUbkJh2.jpg

:lol:
That's delicious.
Or, in his mind, is everyone in that tweet 'mired in shit'?

[justinvacula]

[youtube]DgK5odZtNkM[/youtube]

More reasons for SJL outrage against Gaga :)

[Tribble]

BTW, I'm really beginning to fucking hate Google. Their idiotic troubleshooting their incompetence sent me through cookie deletion and I'm having to find/re-establish every password. Plus they want to link every fucking thing I have and they have screwed up half my prior-to-being-Borged-by-Google accounts across the Internet by linking shit I didn't want linked.

No. I don't want my YouTube accounts linked.
No. I don't want Google Chrome.
No. I don't want my Gmail accounts linked.
No. I don't want Google+ or Google Circles or Google Hand Job or any other Google social shit and I don't want it shared with FuckBook, either.

Gaming. Personal. Business. All to be separate. And, except for Google, they would be...

What happened to 'choice' and 'do no evil?' Fucking bastards.

/rant

[Sunder]

they don't have to register for the draft

Selective Service is such a minor gripe, though. I'm never going to be drafted, of that I can be fairly certain. The fact that there were no women in the military at the time the draft was abolished and thus the new Selective Service was male-only is just an accident of history. It literally makes not one iota of appreciable difference to any person alive today.

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

BTW, I'm really beginning to fucking hate Google. Their idiotic troubleshooting their incompetence sent me through cookie deletion and I'm having to find/re-establish every password. Plus they want to link every fucking thing I have and they have screwed up half my prior-to-being-Borged-by-Google accounts across the Internet by linking shit I didn't want linked.

No. I don't want my YouTube accounts linked.
No. I don't want Google Chrome.
No. I don't want my Gmail accounts linked.
No. I don't want Google+ or Google Circles or Google Hand Job or any other Google social shit and I don't want it shared with FuckBook, either.

Gaming. Personal. Business. All to be separate. And, except for Google, they would be...

What happened to 'choice' and 'do no evil?' Fucking bastards.

/rant

Yes, and even worse if you own an Android phone. Google wants your location, it wants to turn on wifi to scan the access points nearby and add them to its database, and if you grant location data to Google Maps, you've granted location access to all Google apps.

Google has turned from your smart helpful friend to your obsessed Aspie stalker.

[Mykeru]

Google, tell me about it. Now, unless I'm careful, I'm "Myk Eru" as the invasive, ever nagging G+ won't allow single names.

Fight for your right to delink

[Tigzy]

Peez has a post up about a woman who was harassed at a bus stop late at night. It was an ugly incident, though despite what the patriarchy might have you believe, waiting at bus stops late at night is scary for everyone, not just women:

[youtube]mR3w5Ci-h9M[/youtube]

Harassment and fat-shaming at a bus stop - oh the horror!

[Really?]

http://i.imgur.com/pUbkJh2.jpg

:lol:
That's delicious.
Or, in his mind, is everyone in that tweet 'mired in shit'?

Well, I'm wondering if Silverman, previously classified a sexual predator by these loonies, will now be accused of triggering MH's PTSD. (Not a very nice thing to do during Hensley's six-week "mental health 42 days.")

No one seems to be giving him shit yet. I can't wait until they don't "need" him anymore.

And on a separate note, I love that Lindsay is clearly not welcome to speak at a conference organized by his own organization.

Outrageous.

[ROBOKiTTY]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

[piginthecity]

Oops, I'd accidentally posted this on Jan Steen's Page o' Hate. Scroll on past if you find it way less interesting than diseased genitalia:

Jeff Dee (yes, 'that' Jeff Dee, though FWIW I don't watch Atheist Experience & never heard of him before) creates an A+ forum account & posts an introduction thread.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5704

Hi everyone. Yes, I'm 'that' Jeff Dee, former Atheist Experience host and co-host, current host of the Non-Prophets audio podcast from the Atheist Community of Austin.

I've been defending A+ for so long, in email and on facebook, I figured it was high time to sign up.

I probably won't be very active; I'm just too busy. Thanks for having me.

-Jeff Dee

Okay, I know I'm late for this party but what a weird, insoucient post from Dee and what does he think he's playing at ? Does he want to re-run curiousgate or something, or perhaps he thinks he can succeed where MD failed.

About a year ago and a half ago, when the concept of A+ was being attacked and defended it might have made sense, but now it makes no sense at all. The attack/defence phase is over as people have made up their mind.

"I'm far too busy to actually talk to any of you on your forum, but I've prioritised talking about you in other places on the internet" What the hell is that ?

Why would someone want to 'defend' an internet discussion forum when they don't think it's actually worth joining in ?

It's deeply insulting to them because, if A+ had, in any way, succeeded, it wouldn't still need 'defending' - especially by self-appointed leaders (albeit second rank) like Jeff. It's been going for a year and a half. Why isn't he instead saying "I've been publicising the great discussions you've been having on your lively and relevant forum which has injected new life and new sense of unity and purpose into the Atheist Community and has put my paltry efforts on the non-prophets podcast to shame" ? The answer is because this is obviously not true, but if Jeff thinks that it is, or even that A+ has any value at all, then why doesn't he tell them what it is.

[free thoughtpolice]

Over at chez PZ, a post up about filthy MRA's sending false info to the Occidental rape survey on campus.
Did you know that falsely reporting a rape on an online survey is illegal? Well it is, at least in Pharynguland! :drool:
Also did you know that PZ has been the victim of anonymous rape accusations (false ones of course):

I believe this actually was used as one of their justifications. Sort of like how when PZ posted about the Shermer incidents, assorted lowlifes began spreading false rape accusations against PZ.

If I remember correctly the low life that first brought the FALSE accusation to light was ... oh yeah, PZ.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... wn-sht-up/

[justinvacula]

Over at chez PZ, a post up about filthy MRA's sending false info to the Occidental rape survey on campus.
Did you know that falsely reporting a rape on an online survey is illegal? Well it is, at least in Pharynguland! :drool:
Also did you know that PZ has been the victim of anonymous rape accusations (false ones of course):

I believe this actually was used as one of their justifications. Sort of like how when PZ posted about the Shermer incidents, assorted lowlifes began spreading false rape accusations against PZ.

If I remember correctly the low life that first brought the FALSE accusation to light was ... oh yeah, PZ.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... wn-sht-up/

Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for social justice league to ______________________.

[James Caruthers]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

[VickyCaramel]

Oops, I'd accidentally posted this on Jan Steen's Page o' Hate. Scroll on past if you find it way less interesting than diseased genitalia:

Jeff Dee (yes, 'that' Jeff Dee, though FWIW I don't watch Atheist Experience & never heard of him before) creates an A+ forum account & posts an introduction thread.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5704

Hi everyone. Yes, I'm 'that' Jeff Dee, former Atheist Experience host and co-host, current host of the Non-Prophets audio podcast from the Atheist Community of Austin.

I've been defending A+ for so long, in email and on facebook, I figured it was high time to sign up.

I probably won't be very active; I'm just too busy. Thanks for having me.

-Jeff Dee

Okay, I know I'm late for this party but what a weird, insoucient post from Dee and what does he think he's playing at ? Does he want to re-run curiousgate or something, or perhaps he thinks he can succeed where MD failed.

About a year ago and a half ago, when the concept of A+ was being attacked and defended it might have made sense, but now it makes no sense at all. The attack/defence phase is over as people have made up their mind.

"I'm far too busy to actually talk to any of you on your forum, but I've prioritised talking about you in other places on the internet" What the hell is that ?

Why would someone want to 'defend' an internet discussion forum when they don't think it's actually worth joining in ?

It's deeply insulting to them because, if A+ had, in any way, succeeded, it wouldn't still need 'defending' - especially by self-appointed leaders (albeit second rank) like Jeff. It's been going for a year and a half. Why isn't he instead saying "I've been publicising the great discussions you've been having on your lively and relevant forum which has injected new life and new sense of unity and purpose into the Atheist Community and has put my paltry efforts on the non-prophets podcast to shame" ? The answer is because this is obviously not true, but if Jeff thinks that it is, or even that A+ has any value at all, then why doesn't he tell them what it is.

I dunno... but looking at the pattern, maybe his wife nagged him to do it?

[another lurker]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I was listening to him on The Thinking Atheistand he says that he always gets more donations and letters of support after appearing on fox.

[dogen]

Some gems in the comments on PZ's Occidental rape survey post:

Sounds like the MRA-ists are deeply insecure about their masculinity.

And they’re probably really bad in bed, too.

Ouchh, BURN!

As a gay man, let me add: if any woman reading is uncertain just how to handle an MRA-ist, just ask. I would be happy to make some truly alarming suggestions for leveling the sexual playing field, thereby causing said MRA-ist to both cry like a baby and walk funny for a couple of days. I believe these would be beneficial developments and might even lead some of those assholes to rethink their positions. [I better stop now before I start resorting to language that our genial blogger might object to.]

So, MRA's should be handled via a vigorous bit of non-consensual pegging, right? (I'm sure I'd probably enjoy it, but that's for another day...).

Later on in the thread, Caine calls out RFW's post -- but for an entirely different reason:

RFW @ 12:

Treat your partner like a queen, worship her and the very ground she stands on, and she’ll respond in kind.

Speaking as someone who has been with their partner 34 years, allow me to say Fuck. That. Noise. This ^ is pure idiocy, and it’s one of the pillars that props up systemic misogyny. You want to know how to treat a woman in a relationship? Like she is an actual, full, autonomous, thinking human being. By golly, I bet that would even work with people who aren’t women!

So, let's get this straight: women worshiping = misogyny. Got it.

[Apples]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

+1

[acathode]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I'm guessing he thinks that his appearances on Fox makes him look good in the eyes of other US atheists? He's probably is right in thinking that too, considering that there's a few Fox clips with him on youtube that've gotten quite a few views, with plenty of comments in the spirit of "ROFL Silverman pwned those idiot christians so good! HAHA!!".

Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

[VickyCaramel]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I'm guessing he thinks that his appearances on Fox makes him look good in the eyes of other US atheists? He's probably is right in thinking that too, considering that there's a few Fox clips with him on youtube that've gotten quite a few views, with plenty of comments in the spirit of "ROFL Silverman pwned those idiot christians so good! HAHA!!".

Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

[Dick Strawkins]

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

I thought he did OK on his recent appearance on Fox.

[youtube]G1k4gtWlft0[/youtube]

He's no Hitchens but he did manage to get some hits in.

[John D]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I'm guessing he thinks that his appearances on Fox makes him look good in the eyes of other US atheists? He's probably is right in thinking that too, considering that there's a few Fox clips with him on youtube that've gotten quite a few views, with plenty of comments in the spirit of "ROFL Silverman pwned those idiot christians so good! HAHA!!".

Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

I don't have a problem with Silverman for the most part. He tells everyone what he wants to do, and then he does it. I donate to AA and I am happy for them to put up stupid rude signs and holler on Fox. It is just one way to let people know atheists exist. It gets a conversation going. Of course, Silverman has to spend some time justifying his actions. He does ask for donation to pay his salary. I think he has been honest and fair. If you don't like him, then don't donate.

He is trying to play the game so that a large number of people support him. Of course, he tries to make even the A+ loonies happy. He will spend their money as well as he will spend my money. I am happy to let him do his thing. Even publicity of Fox gets people to at least think about atheists.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

Seems that Fox is congenitally impelled to do that – apropos of which is this clip from some 3 years ago which was linked to on a recent post by Jerry Coyne relative to the sign burning that Justin referred to a few posts back.

Something which I’ve referred to in a comment – still in moderation at the moment – on Joseph Hoffmann’s site on the question of atheists and Christmas, to wit:

Quite a good post, all things considered. And I quite agree that many atheists – and I think it is quite important to note the difference between that qualification and your apparently rather categorical condemnation of all atheists – are rather dogmatic and not particularly credible in their belief in the non-historicity of even a mortal Jesus, and likewise about the existence of “God” – a concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider.

However, while I quite agree that “religion” has contributed substantially in many ways to the advancement of civilization – such as it is, and that a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting, I think you’re bending over backwards rather too far – to almost “supine lengths”, to use Dawkins’ phrasing – in glossing over the very many problematic consequences from believing “stuff” for which there is virtually no evidence.

For instance, I note, again, that based on the Pew Forum surveys, some 33% of Americans believe their “Holy” [’tis to laugh] books are the “Word of God, taken literally word for word”, while a further 27% believe them to be the “Word of God, not taken literally”. One consequence of which is depredations like the recent efforts – described in some detail on Jerry Coyne’s site – of some “Christians” – presumably – to burn down a sign insisting on “Keep Saturn in Saturnalia” from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in response to various Christian signs insisting on “Keep Christ in Christmas”.

One thing to “let sleeping dogs lie”, quite another to stand idly by when they wake up and run amok. One might reasonably argue that a more useful course of action, and likely to preclude many of those depredations, is to wake them up and point out that they are only dreaming – at best – or are, most likely, totally deluded.

[Dick Strawkins]

Treat your partner like a queen, worship her and the very ground she stands on, and she’ll respond in kind.

Speaking as someone who has been with their partner 34 years, allow me to say Fuck. That. Noise. This ^ is pure idiocy, and it’s one of the pillars that props up systemic misogyny. You want to know how to treat a woman in a relationship? Like she is an actual, full, autonomous, thinking human being. By golly, I bet that would even work with people who aren’t women!

So, let's get this straight: women worshiping = misogyny. Got it.[/quote]

'Misogyny' is clearly the wrong word here.
If Caine had called it 'sexism' then she might have had some kind of point.

And as for your earlier point about 'non-consensual pegging'...
Wouldn't that simply be another term for rape?

[Tribble]

they don't have to register for the draft

Selective Service is such a minor gripe, though. I'm never going to be drafted, of that I can be fairly certain. The fact that there were no women in the military at the time the draft was abolished and thus the new Selective Service was male-only is just an accident of history. It literally makes not one iota of appreciable difference to any person alive today.

When I got out of the military I had to register. I never got proof of registration. So I had all kinds of trouble. I had a 12-week delay on my already 6-week delayed unemployment (I got out in one Regan's recessions and I couldn't get a job for months and got my car repossessed). I had to start college six months later and barely made the fall semester registration. I couldn't get financial aid or accept scholarships my first semester because I didn't get it cleared-up until it was too late.

And it could have been worse. I could have been fined $250,000 and lost all Federal job prospects. Plus the State had their own punishments and sanctions.

It's not about being drafted. It's the onerous bullshit and penalties that come from not registering within 30-days of turning 18. Sanctions that even apply to illegal aliens.

And no woman ever has to deal with that crap. Even if she's F-to-M sex change.

It's not about going to war. It's about yet another burden placed on men and fuck you if you want to opt out of it. It's the lack of choice. The lack of freedom. Just because you're a man.

[BarnOwl]

Where's Parody Accountant these days?

Hi all. Still alive. Doing the Sinclair Method. Hope it's not a cult. Love you.

I pretty much now have to avoid positive things like coffee, masturbation, slymepit, sex, reddit, going outside, friendship, masturbation, video games, etc. on the days I'm medicated. That is, until I stop the Sinclair Method / get cured (or :violence-shootself: )

Well, that was a deeper response than I expected. Hope you get sorted out mate.

Seconded. Hope it works for you, Parody Accountant.

Why was Pablo Picasso posing with an owl? I've no idea, but it amused me, so I made a pablowlvatar.

[dogen]

'Misogyny' is clearly the wrong word here.
If Caine had called it 'sexism' then she might have had some kind of point.

I think 'benevolent sexism' would be even better.

And as for your earlier point about 'non-consensual pegging'...
Wouldn't that simply be another term for rape?

Of course not, silly scarecrow -- women can't rape men!

[Steersman]

<snip>
Hi all. Still alive. Doing the Sinclair Method. Hope it's not a cult. Love you.

I pretty much now have to avoid positive things like coffee, masturbation, slymepit, sex, reddit, going outside, friendship, masturbation, video games, etc. on the days I'm medicated. That is, until I stop the Sinclair Method / get cured (or :violence-shootself: )

Well, that was a deeper response than I expected. Hope you get sorted out mate.

Seconded. Hope it works for you, Parody Accountant.

Yea - thirded; seems like a tough row to hoe.

Why was Pablo Picasso posing with an owl? I've no idea, but it amused me, so I made a pablowlvatar.

Good question. Holding wisdom in the palm of his hand? :-)

[Steersman]

they don't have to register for the draft

Selective Service is such a minor gripe, though. I'm never going to be drafted, of that I can be fairly certain. The fact that there were no women in the military at the time the draft was abolished and thus the new Selective Service was male-only is just an accident of history. It literally makes not one iota of appreciable difference to any person alive today.

When I got out of the military I had to register. I never got proof of registration. So I had all kinds of trouble. I had a 12-week delay on my already 6-week delayed unemployment (I got out in one Regan's recessions and I couldn't get a job for months and got my car repossessed). I had to start college six months later and barely made the fall semester registration. I couldn't get financial aid or accept scholarships my first semester because I didn't get it cleared-up until it was too late.

And it could have been worse. I could have been fined $250,000 and lost all Federal job prospects. Plus the State had their own punishments and sanctions.

It's not about being drafted. It's the onerous bullshit and penalties that come from not registering within 30-days of turning 18. Sanctions that even apply to illegal aliens.

And no woman ever has to deal with that crap. Even if she's F-to-M sex change.

It's not about going to war. It's about yet another burden placed on men and fuck you if you want to opt out of it. It's the lack of choice. The lack of freedom. Just because you're a man.

I was arguing with a woman on one of Crommunist’s posts sometime back about some religious group claiming that abortion was analogous to the Holocaust. I made some effort to point out that that position was predicated on the belief, the premise, that abortion was murder – something she found it difficult to wrap her head around; her position seemed to be that the efforts of the religious to insist that women carry the fetuses to term was some sort of an abrogation of her rights to bodily autonomy. In response I suggested that as men were obliged to put themselves in harms way with the “Selective Service” it would be at least consistent if pregnant women asking for abortions should be required to give birth, to put themselves “in harms way” for the greater glory of Man, God, and The American Way of Life.

It certainly wasn’t an analogy that she was particularly impressed with. Nor was Crommunist as he banned me shortly after that. No accounting for taste. No matter how you add up the numbers - so to speak. ;-)

[KiwiInOz]

Is it sexual assault if a woman strokes a man's beard without permission?

If so, then it's time to collect my victim card! :violin:

Well it is a secondary sexual characteristic. Like breasts.

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I'm guessing he thinks that his appearances on Fox makes him look good in the eyes of other US atheists? He's probably is right in thinking that too, considering that there's a few Fox clips with him on youtube that've gotten quite a few views, with plenty of comments in the spirit of "ROFL Silverman pwned those idiot christians so good! HAHA!!".

Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

A big part of the problem is that people saw the four horsemen as "atheist celebrities", and decided that they too could be atheist celebrities. Dawkins is speaking at a convention, getting airfare and hotel room and honorarium? Hey, I can do that!

Of course, the reason the horsemen were lauded was because they'd spent considerable time thinking and writing -- writing books, not blogs. And Hitchens and Dawkins were famous before they were spokesmen for the atheist movement.

So you got a bunch of third-raters, who couldn't write books and didn't think that deeply, but have radio voices (and all too often, radio faces) and a deep, deep need to be celebrities promoting themselves as our spokespeople: Watson, Myers, Silverman, Carrie Poppy(!).

They really don't have much to say (see: The Happy Atheist), and no one is going to learn from them as much as they'd learn from The God Delusion (which honestly is one of Dawkin's lesser works), but they'll keep churning away, creating controversy, creating a need for themselves.

Really, atheism is pretty simple. It doesn't need a dozen or a hundred spokespeople. Religion does, because you have to keep dancing to paper over its inconsistencies and tape up its falsehoods. Atheism doesn't need that continuous maintenance.

I enjoyed The God Delusion, but I was already an atheist, I was pretty conversant with arguments, and I was convinced. I don't need to go to conferences to learn how to be an atheist or how to proselytize (I don't want to proselytize), and I can get drunk without the excuse of a convention. And I don't need to watch an atheist vlog or listen to an atheist podcast each Sunday in order to "keep my faith".

For the professional atheist, atheism seems to be a bandwagon to hitch their careers to, and a ready-made audience to get tithes from. And so it attracts Watsons and Myerses and Poppies who would otherwise have to get real jobs. Fifty years ago, they'd have been Pentecostals, whooping it up for a different crowd, but not doing anything fundamentally different. They're really no different than the great mass of "divinity students" who, having graduated cow-town Bible Colleges, fan out looking for jobs as "youth pastors" while dreaming of one day having their own mega-church.

Maybe it's just that I've never been ambitious enough to want to succeed by empty gestures, but these people are trying to create a need that isn't there, in order to be "famous" and make a buck.

[FlyingV]

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

I don't understand how Silverman became the President of American Atheists. I've seen him speak a few of times in person, and I found his talks to be boring and disorganized. He lacks charm and wit, and he doesn't strike me as a powerful leader.

[VickyCaramel]

Quite a good post, all things considered. And I quite agree that many atheists – and I think it is quite important to note the difference between that qualification and your apparently rather categorical condemnation of all atheists – are rather dogmatic and not particularly credible in their belief in the non-historicity of even a mortal Jesus, and likewise about the existence of “God” – a concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider.

However, while I quite agree that “religion” has contributed substantially in many ways to the advancement of civilization – such as it is, and that a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting,[snip].

Do you really believe this or were you just being diplomatic?

[Mykeru]

Over at chez PZ, a post up about filthy MRA's sending false info to the Occidental rape survey on campus.
Did you know that falsely reporting a rape on an online survey is illegal? Well it is, at least in Pharynguland! :drool:
Also did you know that PZ has been the victim of anonymous rape accusations (false ones of course):

I believe this actually was used as one of their justifications. Sort of like how when PZ posted about the Shermer incidents, assorted lowlifes began spreading false rape accusations against PZ.

If I remember correctly the low life that first brought the FALSE accusation to light was ... oh yeah, PZ.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... wn-sht-up/

Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for social justice league to ______________________.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for social justice league to do whatever the fuck pops into their precious little noggins in thirty second brain farts even if the current thirty second brain fart completely contradicts the previous thirty second brain fart and don't you forget it, Mr. Man.

[Really?]

And as for your earlier point about 'non-consensual pegging'...
Wouldn't that simply be another term for rape?

I love that they harbor a confessed child rapist and another guy who confessed to rape by their own standards...but they throw around rape accusations like panties at a Bruno Mars concert and police "rapey" language from everyone else.

[Mykeru]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

(305.18 KiB) Downloaded 229 times

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

[VickyCaramel]

A big part of the problem is that people saw the four horsemen as "atheist celebrities", and decided that they too could be atheist celebrities. Dawkins is speaking at a convention, getting airfare and hotel room and honorarium? Hey, I can do that!

Of course, the reason the horsemen were lauded was because they'd spent considerable time thinking and writing -- writing books, not blogs. And Hitchens and Dawkins were famous before they were spokesmen for the atheist movement.

So you got a bunch of third-raters, who couldn't write books and didn't think that deeply, but have radio voices (and all too often, radio faces) and a deep, deep need to be celebrities promoting themselves as our spokespeople: Watson, Myers, Silverman, Carrie Poppy(!).

They really don't have much to say (see: The Happy Atheist), and no one is going to learn from them as much as they'd learn from The God Delusion (which honestly is one of Dawkin's lesser works), but they'll keep churning away, creating controversy, creating a need for themselves.

Really, atheism is pretty simple. It doesn't need a dozen or a hundred spokespeople. Religion does, because you have to keep dancing to paper over its inconsistencies and tape up its falsehoods. Atheism doesn't need that continuous maintenance.

I enjoyed The God Delusion, but I was already an atheist, I was pretty conversant with arguments, and I was convinced. I don't need to go to conferences to learn how to be an atheist or how to proselytize (I don't want to proselytize), and I can get drunk without the excuse of a convention. And I don't need to watch an atheist vlog or listen to an atheist podcast each Sunday in order to "keep my faith".

For the professional atheist, atheism seems to be a bandwagon to hitch their careers to, and a ready-made audience to get tithes from. And so it attracts Watsons and Myerses and Poppies who would otherwise have to get real jobs. Fifty years ago, they'd have been Pentecostals, whooping it up for a different crowd, but not doing anything fundamentally different. They're really no different than the great mass of "divinity students" who, having graduated cow-town Bible Colleges, fan out looking for jobs as "youth pastors" while dreaming of one day having their own mega-church.

Maybe it's just that I've never been ambitious enough to want to succeed by empty gestures, but these people are trying to create a need that isn't there, in order to be "famous" and make a buck.

The difference is Silverman is appointed. It is a real job and somebody has to do it. Being British, I don't actually know much about him.. but what I do know I'm not keen on. That he seems to be trying to appease all sides in this one sided rift in atheism, and that he didn't seem that sharp when on Fox.... but I suppose the likes of Hitches, and lets give him credit, Shermer, have spoiled us for lolz.

[Mykeru]

Oh wait, turned the volume up: She just wanted to get her stuff

[Dick Strawkins]

From what I have seen, it isn't Silverman making fox look bad, it is fox making fox look bad with Silverman lacking the wit to capitalize on it.

I don't understand how Silverman became the President of American Atheists. I've seen him speak a few of times in person, and I found his talks to be boring and disorganized. He lacks charm and wit, and he doesn't strike me as a powerful leader.

I suspect it's because 'American Atheists' are not exactly the most professional of groups in the first place.
It was run, essentially, as a family business by Madeline O'Hair.
After she was murdered, and the cash reserves of the organization stolen, Ellen Johnson took over but never really made waves in terms of pushing atheism forward in the US.
After the inner circle decided to oust Johnson, Silverman was probably the best choice they had available within the organization at the time.

[Steersman]

Quite a good post, all things considered. And I quite agree that many atheists – and I think it is quite important to note the difference between that qualification and your apparently rather categorical condemnation of all atheists – are rather dogmatic and not particularly credible in their belief in the non-historicity of even a mortal Jesus, and likewise about the existence of “God” – a concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider.

However, while I quite agree that “religion” has contributed substantially in many ways to the advancement of civilization – such as it is, and that a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting,[snip].

Do you really believe this or were you just being diplomatic?

Not quite sure what your “this” is referring to, but it was partly a question of being somewhat diplomatic, and because I do believe that there is some justification for the argument that “religion has contributed substantially to the advancement of civilization”.

For instance, you may wish to read Richard Tarnas’ The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View. He is apparently as atheist as they come, but he still provides a substantial amount of evidence that the Catholic Church was in fact instrumental in the dissemination of knowledge, particularly from about 500 AD to about 1400 AD. They were happy to promote learning when it was touted as “knowing the mind of god” – various universities got their starts from that belief, but they shut things down – “tighter than a bull’s ass in fly-time”, so to speak – once what was learned called into question central elements of dogma. But one has to, I think, be honest about all of the entries on both sides of the ledger – so to speak.

As for the “concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider”, you might want to take a look at the article on “panentheism” which seems to encompass some plausible ideas that have informed many religions, from Sufism to Buddhism. Seems to me that the problematic aspect of “strong atheism” is that it is asserting the non-existence of something without proof – intrinsically antithetical to skepticism – when there are many definitions to the concept over and above the Abrahamic, anthropological one it seems to focus on.

[Lsuoma]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Trevonnte? Sounds a bit like Trayvon, eh?