Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Lsuoma]

Islamaphobe Matt wrote:

Knew it! It's all about their desire to suck halal cock.

I think the kneeling and sticking their butt in the air five times a day likely also has some draw.

What, the Muslim equivalent of a Catholic Boys Choir?

The correct name is,I believe, an "Mmm, dat-ass, ah!"

[zenbabe]

Is that really the case?

I mean in terms of modern TV sitcoms that follow the fat guy skinny wife thing, you have what....King of Queens, The Simpsons, Seinfeld kinda had it for a while when it was focusing on the George/Susan relationship...but you know what. Nothing else comes to mind. There might be a lot of short-run series that followed that esthetic, but they're entirely forgettable.

If you're talking about homely guy attractive wife, then it opens it up a bit..but not THAT much. I guess it depends on what you see as homely. Ed O'Neil from Married With Children? Probably (although that show is a relationship dystopia). Is Ray Romano homely? Tim Allen? Probably not. (I'd actually argue that John Goodman from Roseanne, a show which doesn't fit at all, is actually extremely attractive for a larger man).

OK, I looked it up and there's a lot more than I thought, but at least to me that's still not a LOT. It's a good number, there's a few that come from large ensemble shows (so I'm not sure that they should be on the list), and a bunch that are from dramas (so they don't count for the sitcom meme). But still. There's about a half-dozen currently running shows, more or less that feature the trope. Which actually is a lot for any given period, but I don't think that it's an absurd number. It's something that's always been around, about 3-4 shows at any given time which feature that trope. And it makes sense why.

You probably should blame Jackie Gleeson for it. Basically it's a bunch of shows trying to emulate The Honeymooners.

There's another possibility. Homely and/or fat women just don't get into acting as much because of the extreme judging and bullying (most of it female-on-female) that goes on. This would therefore reduce the pool of average young women in the industry, leading scriptwriters to avoid casting them, thus creating a self-perpetuating cycle.

Meanwhile, there's never going to be any shortage of average/fat men for disposable roles or comic relief. My impression is also that men tend not to get judged based on their appearances quite as much, unless they're effeminate men. Even then, the focus tends to be more on behaviour and social connections than appearance.

You can sort of see a similar thing going on in other media. When Susan Boyle went viral, there was a lot of vicious talk about her appearance. Adele gets blasted all the time for being fat, too.

Well that's certainly true as well. I'm not one to deny that the expectations for women are higher than they are the expectations for men in a lot of ways,

Right. I spoke of American sitcoms as proponents of the "fat man skinny wife" theme, but only as an example. Could go with "ugly man hot woman" instead too. Can easily slip into dramas and movies and whatever. It's the leeway generally given to men as regards their looks that's interesting to me, and it's that which I see spilling out in American sitcoms (as an example).

Where is the leeway coming from? I think it's worth wondering about at the very least. Many of you today have brought up a lot of great theories of why we see what we see.

SJWs/feminists have poisoned so many wells, that it's difficult to bring up the subject without sounding like one.

Perhaps it all makes sense if you think of Hollywood as a toilet.

I just think that a lot of modern online feminism is actually making the problem worse, and not better. There's a certain crabs in the bucket mentality that's not only being not pushed back against, IMO there's a good amount of actually supporting this sort of thing. They want to blame it all on the menz and be done with it

Yeah it's a sorry state of affairs, and while some of the topics relating to feminism have elements of truth to them, most of today's self identifying feminists (at least, the ones who are discussed here) take it all to ridiculous extremes. Real conversation is frozen.

Actually I'm not convinced that this is something we can do something about. Seems to me that there are obvious evolutionary benefits to why women tend to be extremely socially competitive, and until that's recognized and accepted on a broad level it's going to be very difficult to mitigate the damage/negative from it.

[windy]

Also Dollhouse but I cant find any good pics from that show because no one watched it.

I watched it, and really liked it once it got going.

I liked that show too. I remember the SJW contingent complained a lot about how rapey it was.

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/04/2 ... -subtlety/

[katamari Damassi]

I know that one is made stupider by reading Huffpo, but their Black Voices section deals with my least favorite SJW concept-Cultural Appropriation. Even the whole privilege thing has at least a kernel of truth to it, though it is abused for the purpose of silencing dissent. The only purpose that I can think of that is served by the absurdity of cultural appropriation is the nursing of grievances. Any way, the column is The Year in Cultural Appropriation and besides twerking(a dance forbidden to whites), is that white people took away Kanye, and the hyphen in Jay Z's name, oh, and something something Mackelmore. Yep, it's insane. BTW-I'm definitely for giving Kanye back to them, but they can pry Jay Z's hyphen from my cold dead hands.

[zenbabe]

Are these pairings supporting "its more ok for a guy to be a fat slob than a woman", or is it pandering? Letting the target viewers (fat slobs) live out fantasies (hot wife, funny life) via the characters?

Sure, could be that that's an explanation.
Where are the shows that pander to a similarly targeted female audience, the fat slob who wants a hot husband? Do they just not exist?

Fat slobby women just want to be mean to the pretty ones, I guess? Perhaps that's why there's so many "real housewife"-style shows mucking up the airways :D

I think this potential pandering is more obvious in, say, Joss Whetons work. In my opinion, most of the men, while not 'fat slobs', are Average Joes (or just peculiar/unique looking). The women, on the other hand, are smoking hot.

The only series of Whedon's which I have seen, and I just finished watching it, is Angel.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and didn't expect to at all. But I found the casting to be fairly even handed, as far as male/female attractiveness is concerned, though I see what you mean about his tendency to allow for more quirkiness in the visual appeal of the men. Still, most of the males were awfully sexy, and I didn't find them to be average. As an aside, I found the story telling to be very compelling, often hilarious, and ultimately devoid of sexism. My expectations in all of those categories were upended.

The ending was very frustrating and dissatisfying to me though (because goddammit I wanted a happy ending for at least ONE of those freaking characters I cared about) so now I'm reluctant to watch any more of his work.

[Apples]

America spied on Yorkshire ‘for about five minutes’
29-10-13
headsetguy

AMERICA’S National Security Agency tapped the phone calls of Yorkshire for five minutes before throwing its headphones across the room in horror.

Seasoned professionals at the NSA, many of whom have spied on the French, were left traumatised by their brief insight into what Yorkshire people say to each other in private.

A source said: “It was like overhearing a conversation between demons from the fifth circle of hell.

“No matter where the conversation started out, it very quickly found its way to the subject of faeces.

“They were talking about it as if it was money.”

Another source added: “From what I could determine, most of them are cannibals.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 3102980711

[acathode]

And the takeover of the Pit by our rightful furry masters is now complete!

thats only because of the pit's unrepentant sexism

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/

Haha seriously WTF. I love cats, and have had at least one cat (usually 2-3) since the day I was born - yet anyone who thinks that their cat regard them as much more than the button in a skinner box is deluding themselves.

Cats don't "love" humans, they view humans as things to posses - as parts of their territory. Sure, EXTREMELY important parts of their territory, since we equal food, warmth, petting, a comfortable lap to sleep in, etc, but still, in the end they're not pack animals, they simply don't have the same capacity to feel "love" like a dog who views you as a fellow pack member or pack leader.

[zenbabe]

But the article I linked was about anonymous internet troll comments and rude blogs (where have we heard that used as an example of patriarchy before?) and not television. Places like 4chan, Twitter and random blogs/YouTube are harsh on both fat men and fat women in equal measure. Basically, anything you reveal about yourself online that others know you are sensitive about will be used to mock you.

Egalitarian mocking is A-Ok in my book

Fat guys mostly have the ability to ignore that shit. TheAmazingAtheist is a great example. He had two extremely embarrassing porn videos leaked of him, not to mention his weight. He has been mocked frequently, but his responses have been awesome. He plays it off as a joke and lets people know they can't get to him that way. He seems to have accepted that popular internet figures tend to draw a lot of criticism and trolling, and most trolls latch onto whatever they think will hurt you.

Trolling =/= patriarchy. Internet assholes =/= patriarchy. The general sense I get from the fat acceptance crowd (like most SJWs) is that nobody has the right to talk to you or about you in a way you don't approve of.

In a way though, when you say that more fat guys can ignore mocking, or are more able to shrug it off, take a joke (and I agree), to me that's an example of what 'fat acceptance' should be about. Or ugly acceptance. Or age acceptance. Whatever it is that's not especially attractive about you, you should be able to take some teasing, mocking, and criticism about it, and still like yourself, be comfortable in your own skin, so to speak.

Any fat guy I've known has had private stresses about being overweight. They don't like it any more than women do, they want to change it as much as a woman does, but they don't tend to view it as a gigantic, debilitating personal failure the way women tend to (<-- and I think women are far more to blame for that then men).

Damn though, those women-run panel shows can be downright vicious with criticizing the appearance of female contestants. Much like slut-shaming, I think it's mostly women who engage in the most ruthless and cutting appearance-shaming. The claws really come out whenever the women are competing for something.

Yup. Women can be shockingly vicious.

[Some Lurker]

Trigger Warning: Video Games

Turns out that the feminist acclaimed video game Gone Home romanticizes lesbian rape:
[youtube]rcIqDRj3-p8[/youtube]
The note in question:

It's like a drug. The first time was in my room in the middle of the night. I woke up and Lonnie was kissing me. The clock said 3:13 am. Her face was spectral in its dim red light. Then I could only feel her. It was different than any time I'd done it myself. My head was swimming, I felt disembodied, transported, like being caught in a powerful current, having no control and wanting none. It broke and I didn't want anything but it again...like a drug...

Strategy:
-sleepovers are good but there have been close calls
-the basement is good but cold and smells
-my car is good but riskier still & cramped

Someday we won't have to sneak around anymore.

[free thoughtpolice]

The Muslim equivalent of a boy's choir:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Haha seriously WTF. I love cats, and have had at least one cat (usually 2-3) since the day I was born - yet anyone who thinks that their cat regard them as much more than the button in a skinner box is deluding themselves.

Cats don't "love" humans, they view humans as things to posses - as parts of their territory. Sure, EXTREMELY important parts of their territory, since we equal food, warmth, petting, a comfortable lap to sleep in, etc, but still, in the end they're not pack animals, they simply don't have the same capacity to feel "love" like a dog who views you as a fellow pack member or pack leader.

All my cats have been very affectionate -- even my last one, who'd been feral for c.7 years before I got him as a barn cat. Then he discovered the house, moved in, & commuted to work. I had another cat that used to go on walks & rides in the car with me. (I had a goat that used to ride in the cab of the truck with me, too.) But I'm The Beastmaster.

Cats do pretty well considering they've stretched three basic behaviors -- being a kitten, caring for a kitten, and (yes) marking territory -- to handle relationships with humans. The biggest issue, as I see it, is that most people expect a cat to act like a dog, and approach a cat like a dog. Dogs have co-evolved with humans for at least 40,000 years, and are very attuned to our voices and body language. A study showed that following a human's pointing finger is an inborn ability in to dogs.

Also, canine social behavior dynamics are similar to those of humans. So people don't have to adjust how they act to have a good relationship with a dog. For a cat or a horse, it requires we make more of an effort to act like a cat or a horse, but a close relationship can be created. Whether it's "love" is irrelevant semantics: whatever you call it, the feeling of being completely accepted by horses as a member of the herd, or the pride with a cat, is very profound, very wonderful, and also humbling. Bonds with cats, with dogs, and with other people are different, but can all be deep.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Right. I spoke of American sitcoms as proponents of the "fat man skinny wife" theme, but only as an example. Could go with "ugly man hot woman" instead too. Can easily slip into dramas and movies and whatever. It's the leeway generally given to men as regards their looks that's interesting to me, and it's that which I see spilling out in American sitcoms (as an example).

Where is the leeway coming from? I think it's worth wondering about at the very least. Many of you today have brought up a lot of great theories of why we see what we see.

It's pretty simple ... what men find attractive, and women find attractive are different ... so "ugly" men are frequently unbelievably sexy to women, think Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Charles Bronson, Martin Sheen, etc etc etc

[acathode]

All my cats have been very affectionate -- even my last one, who'd been feral for c.7 years before I got him as a barn cat. Then he discovered the house, moved in, & commuted to work. I had another cat that used to go on walks & rides in the car with me. (I had a goat that used to ride in the cab of the truck with me, too.) But I'm The Beastmaster.

Cats do pretty well considering they've stretched three basic behaviors -- being a kitten, caring for a kitten, and (yes) marking territory -- to handle relationships with humans. The biggest issue, as I see it, is that most people expect a cat to act like a dog, and approach a cat like a dog. Dogs have co-evolved with humans for at least 40,000 years, and are very attuned to our voices and body language. A study showed that following a human's pointing finger is an inborn ability in to dogs.

Also, canine social behavior dynamics are similar to those of humans. So people don't have to adjust how they act to have a good relationship with a dog. For a cat or a horse, it requires we make more of an effort to act like a cat or a horse, but a close relationship can be created. Whether it's "love" is irrelevant semantics: whatever you call it, the feeling of being completely accepted by horses as a member of the herd, or the pride with a cat, is very profound, very wonderful, and also humbling. Bonds with cats, with dogs, and with other people are different, but can all be deep.

Look, I love our furry hairballs, and as I said I've shared a house with at least one cat since I was born, so I'm a lot better at reading cats than I am at understanding dogs.
I'm not saying cat's aren't affectionated, what I'm saying that it's in many cases is mostly learned behavior a la Skinner box - Press button, get food, purr and brush against leg, get food. That's not to say that we to them are entirely just "skinner box buttons", but usually it doesn't seem to go very far beyond that. I've seen behavior that is (indeed as you mention) caring for a kitty aimed towards a human, but it's a lot rarer than the behavior were they treat us as part of their territory, ie. preheated sleeping places and food dispensers.

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake, that Marcotte rejects as misogyny or something, is pretty much true. I agree that cats do pretty good with what they have, but if you're getting a pet to fulfill some need for love, you're better off getting a dog rather than a cat. I also grant you that I think it's possible to develop "deeper bonds" with even a cat, but it's a lot rarer and a lot harder with cats than with dogs. Most cats will not develop any sort of deeper bonds with their owners, while a dog will naturally try to "form a pack" with the household members.

[guest]

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/20 ... lm-belief/

no mention that Issak's last documentary was funded by CFI and was never released?

[Lsuoma]

Oggie's Santa business failed, so here's his next venture:

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/wp-co ... grinch.jpg

[James Caruthers]

Not only can people not recognize fascism unless it is wearing a red armband, but anyone who tries to call anything fascist—no matter how correct—is mocked, ridiculed, and ignored in accordance with Godwin’s Law. Calling things fascist is childish and only children do it, so states the Law. Godwin’s Law is now, and will be one of the most useful tools in the lefto-fascists’ arsenal when they grab for complete control. And the whole time, they’ll be calling their opponents the fascists.

Of course, Godwin’s original intent was quite different. The original Law is merely an observation. “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” That’s it. No condemnation of the person who made the comparison; no decree that the online discussion must then end; no decree that the person who made the comparison has lost the argument; nothing. He merely observes that Nazis and Hitler make such good examples that someone will inevitably make such a comparison. It’s sort of like how everyone uses ad hominem wrong.

Easy mode for acting like a fascist is to cry godwin’s law and say “you just compare everything to nazis.”

They said the same thing when people said that saddam hussein was like hitler.

Except it turns out it was true, he was. Although he was more like stalin.

The second world war was an important lesson for all of the human race, not just about nuclear blah blah and firebombing, but about the capacity for great masses of people, into the millions easily, for being convinced that the evil they’re doing is actually good.

And just because the war ended and the axis powers lost, it doesn’t mean people are no longer capable of making those exact same mistakes. If anything, they’re more capable now, because the nazis used strong bold symbols, all you have to do is take away those symbols and leave the same behavior; the desire to censor others, the desire to stop unpopular speech.

That’s why you have to defend all unpopular speech. We even defend kate leth’s right to make her stupid shitty comics, she has that right, even though her country technically doesn’t permit that same right to everyone else (Canada doesn’t actually have any free speech laws, although technically you can say that America’s freedom of speech has already been subverted as well).

HNM: Anyone who invokes Godwin’s Law to “win” an argument is worse than retarded; they’re actively trying to subvert meaningful discourse. World war 2 was the most costly and valuable lesson in human history. To dismiss it because you’re a trendster who sees it as cliche makes you a cunt of the highest order.

It’s also been a pet peeve of mine that so few people can’t recognize fascism if there’s no swastika or goose stepping to be seen.

What really pissed me off was Spielberg’s decision to make Schindler’s List in stylish black & white. Way to totally undermine the whole point of “never again”. By making it black & white, you make it come off as something that was a product of a far off age that could never happen in modern times. So now not only do you have people who can’t recognize fascism without swastikas, they think that because movies are in color now that it can’t be a threat. It’s like a real life version of that Calvin & Hobbes comic where the father tries to trick Calvin into thinking that the real world was black and white back then and only recently turned color. Some people really are that fucking dumb.

When you have a work that claims to be anti-fascist, it ends up like V for Vendetta where it skips straight to the late game where cartoonish stormtroopers are marching around. A real anti-fascist message wouldn’t be afraid to show how attractive fascism is in the beginning (1984 skipped to the late game, but it so brilliantly deconstructed the psychology that it gets a pass). Something like that is impossible for social justice retards because they’re incapable of seeing things as anything more than a superficial checklist. The last work I can remember that took an honest look at fascism this way was The Wave. Another good work was It Can’t Happen Here.

MOD 1: Also V for Vendetta was openly in support of fascism, just fascism for their own cause. It glorified the murder of disagreeable pundits by a vigilante, and justified his kidnapping and torture of a woman in order to brainwashing her into hating the government

I excerpted this from the tumblr blog ShittyWebcomics. The tumblr account itself is mostly about how Penny Arcade sucks now, Sinfest is a crazy SJW nightmare and laughing at lazy webcomic SJWs, but there's a lot of interesting commentary buried in the feed. I was surprised (sorta) to see ShittyWebcomics noticing the same thing we have on the Pitt. That being, of course, the inability for SJWs to recognize the beginnings of totalitarian and fascist thought within their own movement. As the quote mentions, it seems many presumably intelligent, college-educated young people cannot recognize the face of fascism without the nazi salutes and reversed manji. Fascism seems to be treated as something we're too enlightened to fall for now. Personally, I find the study of why people do horrible things, and the ideologies and worldviews that lead them to those beliefs, fascinating. From Mao's Cultural Revolution to Hitler's Germany, they're all enthralling accounts of how people fool themselves into treating other people like shit in the name of a good cause or better world. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the drone program, and how drone technology may affect the rise of fascism in other countries.

[youtube]K3CNTO6LG4g[/youtube]
Funny how typing in "feminist rally" with no modifiers gives me youtube results for crazy violence and fascist mobs. :p

When I search "fascism in America" on google, I get mostly left-right garbage. Each thinks the other are fascists because reasons. One of the problems is the reasonable republicans and reasonable democrats rarely meet and talk. Most of the political discourse is framed by a pundit from red team and a pundit from blue team slugging it out on a news program.

[youtube]AcBTOU7RvbU[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm not saying cat's aren't affectionated, what I'm saying that it's in many cases is mostly learned behavior a la Skinner box - Press button, get food, purr and brush against leg, get food. That's not to say that we to them are entirely just "skinner box buttons", but usually it doesn't seem to go very far beyond that.

Tinbergen would say it's not learned and it doesn't go at all beyond that.

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake ... is pretty much true.

I'd need to know your definition of "love" in this context to understand why a dog's "love" is deeper or somehow more "real." Both, it seems to me, are equally real manifestations of their respective instincts.

I also grant you that I think it's possible to develop "deeper bonds" with even a cat, but it's a lot rarer and a lot harder with cats than with dogs. Most cats will not develop any sort of deeper bonds with their owners, while a dog will naturally try to "form a pack" with the household members.

I'd phrase it rather: most owners will not develop any deeper bonds with their cats. Dogs, as you point out, are predisposed to form a pack, even with shitty owners. Cats do take more effort. And that's sociobiology, not misogyny. :P

[Lsuoma]

I'm not saying cat's aren't affectionated, what I'm saying that it's in many cases is mostly learned behavior a la Skinner box - Press button, get food, purr and brush against leg, get food. That's not to say that we to them are entirely just "skinner box buttons", but usually it doesn't seem to go very far beyond that.

Tinbergen would say it's not learned and it doesn't go at all beyond that.

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake ... is pretty much true.

I'd need to know your definition of "love" in this context to understand why a dog's "love" is deeper or somehow more "real." Both, it seems to me, are equally real manifestations of their respective instincts.

I also grant you that I think it's possible to develop "deeper bonds" with even a cat, but it's a lot rarer and a lot harder with cats than with dogs. Most cats will not develop any sort of deeper bonds with their owners, while a dog will naturally try to "form a pack" with the household members.

I'd phrase it rather: most owners will not develop any deeper bonds with their cats. Dogs, as you point out, are predisposed to form a pack, even with shitty owners. Cats do take more effort. And that's sociobiology, not misogyny. :P

Paging Twatson on EP! Paging Twatson on EP!

[Badger3k]

I'm not saying cat's aren't affectionated, what I'm saying that it's in many cases is mostly learned behavior a la Skinner box - Press button, get food, purr and brush against leg, get food. That's not to say that we to them are entirely just "skinner box buttons", but usually it doesn't seem to go very far beyond that.

Tinbergen would say it's not learned and it doesn't go at all beyond that.

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake ... is pretty much true.

I'd need to know your definition of "love" in this context to understand why a dog's "love" is deeper or somehow more "real." Both, it seems to me, are equally real manifestations of their respective instincts.

I also grant you that I think it's possible to develop "deeper bonds" with even a cat, but it's a lot rarer and a lot harder with cats than with dogs. Most cats will not develop any sort of deeper bonds with their owners, while a dog will naturally try to "form a pack" with the household members.

I'd phrase it rather: most owners will not develop any deeper bonds with their cats. Dogs, as you point out, are predisposed to form a pack, even with shitty owners. Cats do take more effort. And that's sociobiology, not misogyny. :P

Paging Twatson on EP! Paging Twatson on EP!

Great. Now she has an idea for her next monthly Unpopular "science" post.

[acathode]

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake ... is pretty much true.

I'd need to know your definition of "love" in this context to understand why a dog's "love" is deeper or somehow more "real." Both, it seems to me, are equally real manifestations of their respective instincts.

Define love? Ask me to define God while you're at it :D
The main reason I'd consider dog's feelings of love more "deep", or rather more "genuine", is because, at least judged on their behavior, what dogs feel towards their "owners" seem to be a lot closer to the feelings we humans describe as (non-romantic) "love" between human families/friends than the feeling cats seem to have towards their "owners".

Cats probably feel something towards their owners as well, it's not that those instincts/feelings are "fake", but rather that I think to describe it as love is "fake". The human word connotes a whole host of things that is deeply tied things that come from being a pack animal, things that a dog probably feel as well, that cats most likely don't.

I also don't think it runs nearly as "deep" as what a dog, or human, might feel, in the sense that dogs get a lot more attached to their human companions than cats usually become. I have no doubt that all the dogs we've had would've missed and mourned me if I would have died or disappeared, while maybe one or two of the 15+ cats I've had would've even noticed that I was gone as long as the food kept coming.

The problem isn't really that we treat cats the same way we treat dogs, the "problem" is that we anthropomorphize both (and everything else for that matter), and dogs fit the human mold a lot better as their behavior, instincts, social "intelligence", and most likely, feelings, more closely match ours. None of this make cats "worse" than dogs, it just makes them different, more different from us than dogs, but still utterly lovely and adorable creatures.

Still, unless you're talking about a cat to which you've really formed a deeper (rarer) bond with, then I think you're deluding yourself* if you think that your cat "loves" you. However, that's only a problem if you desperately need a pet that "loves" you back, if you can be content with a cat being a cat and not a miniature human then there's no issue. Looking at the article though, and at the comments... there seems to be many for which it is a issue.

*Or anthropomorphizing your cat to much.

[JackSkeptic]

And the takeover of the Pit by our rightful furry masters is now complete!

thats only because of the pit's unrepentant sexism

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/

Haha seriously WTF. I love cats, and have had at least one cat (usually 2-3) since the day I was born - yet anyone who thinks that their cat regard them as much more than the button in a skinner box is deluding themselves.

Cats don't "love" humans, they view humans as things to posses - as parts of their territory. Sure, EXTREMELY important parts of their territory, since we equal food, warmth, petting, a comfortable lap to sleep in, etc, but still, in the end they're not pack animals, they simply don't have the same capacity to feel "love" like a dog who views you as a fellow pack member or pack leader.

I'm crying and trembling now you bastard. It's so bad I feel another 6 weeks holiday sick leave coming on.

My cat was certainly a selfish sod and did not care about anyone. I am also not a cat lover, I only owned him as a favour to a friend who could no longer keep him and I do not intend to get another cat. Yet when I had him put down I was in bits. In fact I was so bad I had to wait ages before I was safe enough to drive home. Humans need cats as we are all emotional push overs and that suits cats just fine.

[ianfc]

Some nice beards

[youtube]O6g-KxEBYwc[/youtube]

[Liesmith]

Obligatory:

[youtube]Rm1bPS3kVpQ[/youtube]

Even more obligatory:
[youtube]5KcGNF0Is4U[/youtube]

[Git]

My cat was certainly a selfish sod and did not care about anyone. I am also not a cat lover, I only owned him as a favour to a friend...

Shurely Shome Mishtake?

My condolences on his passing mind you.

[Tribble]

The idea that "cats love is shallow", or even fake ... is pretty much true.

I'd need to know your definition of "love" in this context to understand why a dog's "love" is deeper or somehow more "real." Both, it seems to me, are equally real manifestations of their respective instincts.

Define love? Ask me to define God while you're at it :D
The main reason I'd consider dog's feelings of love more "deep", or rather more "genuine", is because, at least judged on their behavior, what dogs feel towards their "owners" seem to be a lot closer to the feelings we humans describe as (non-romantic) "love" between human families/friends than the feeling cats seem to have towards their "owners".

Cats probably feel something towards their owners as well, it's not that those instincts/feelings are "fake", but rather that I think to describe it as love is "fake". The human word connotes a whole host of things that is deeply tied things that come from being a pack animal, things that a dog probably feel as well, that cats most likely don't.

I also don't think it runs nearly as "deep" as what a dog, or human, might feel, in the sense that dogs get a lot more attached to their human companions than cats usually become. I have no doubt that all the dogs we've had would've missed and mourned me if I would have died or disappeared, while maybe one or two of the 15+ cats I've had would've even noticed that I was gone as long as the food kept coming.

The problem isn't really that we treat cats the same way we treat dogs, the "problem" is that we anthropomorphize both (and everything else for that matter), and dogs fit the human mold a lot better as their behavior, instincts, social "intelligence", and most likely, feelings, more closely match ours. None of this make cats "worse" than dogs, it just makes them different, more different from us than dogs, but still utterly lovely and adorable creatures.

Still, unless you're talking about a cat to which you've really formed a deeper (rarer) bond with, then I think you're deluding yourself* if you think that your cat "loves" you. However, that's only a problem if you desperately need a pet that "loves" you back, if you can be content with a cat being a cat and not a miniature human then there's no issue. Looking at the article though, and at the comments... there seems to be many for which it is a issue.

*Or anthropomorphizing your cat to much.

Sigh. You're between thirty-and-seventy years out-of-date on cat behavior analysis. Cats are social animals -- feral and domestic -- and they form far larger and broader social circles than dogs as they're not pack animals.

I wrote a lot, but it was somewhat disorganized so I'll just let the experts sum it up:

The Myth of the Independent, Aloof Cat

The myth that cats are detached, independent and aloof is pervasive in books, cartoons and in water cooler conversations. It persists because feline social organization is quite different from that of humans or dogs, and historically misunderstood.

Cats are merely social in different ways.

Evidence is plentiful that cats have social needs. Cats have been found to form long-term pair bonds, live in family groups or in large groups with a relatively stable long-term membership. Cats recognize members of their social group, and they engage in cooperative behavior and reciprocal communication.

Cats also participate in cooperative rearing of their young.

Queens in feral colonies have even been observed helping other queens during birthing by cleaning the newborn kittens, as well as cleaning the perineal area of the mom cat after she gives birth. This cooperative birthing is rare among nonhumans.

...

Solitary behavior and aggression is more common when food is scarce, but going solo is NOT their preference. Cats can survive as solitary animals, but they readily form social groups with internal structure whenever food sources are sufficient to support them.

Cats in feral colonies will often form little groups of two or more, and they will associate more closely with these “best friends” than with other colony members. Cats are most likely to become best friends with those who are related to them, but close friendships often form among nonrelated individuals as well.

These rubbie-buddies groom each other and rub on each other (aka allogrooming and allorubbing), evidence of their need for ongoing physical contact. This is akin to a handshake or a hug between people. When your cat rubs on you, he is identifying you as part of his little colony. And you reciprocate this behavior when you pet him or groom him.

...

While there are dominant and subordinate individuals in a cat colony, unlike dogs, cats don’t maintain a clearly defined hierarchy wherein each individual is ranked above or below another. There is often an “alpha” cat, but other cats decide who owns what on a case-by-case basis, and it can change daily.

In multi-cat households, as in colonies, one cat might be “alpha” for the food dish. Another might be “alpha” for the litter area. Yet another might be the big boss of one particular room in your house.

...

In short, cats are social. They form friendships. They form large social circles. They demonstrate affection, closeness, cooperation and other 'positive' social values.

But, because they do it 'differently' than dogs, people thought wrong. For CENTURIES.

And, sadly, these mis-informed myths of the 'emotional shallowness of cats' persist, even today.

[Tribble]

thats only because of the pit's unrepentant sexism

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/

Haha seriously WTF. I love cats, and have had at least one cat (usually 2-3) since the day I was born - yet anyone who thinks that their cat regard them as much more than the button in a skinner box is deluding themselves.

Cats don't "love" humans, they view humans as things to posses - as parts of their territory. Sure, EXTREMELY important parts of their territory, since we equal food, warmth, petting, a comfortable lap to sleep in, etc, but still, in the end they're not pack animals, they simply don't have the same capacity to feel "love" like a dog who views you as a fellow pack member or pack leader.

I'm crying and trembling now you bastard. It's so bad I feel another 6 weeks holiday sick leave coming on.

My cat was certainly a selfish sod and did not care about anyone. I am also not a cat lover, I only owned him as a favour to a friend who could no longer keep him and I do not intend to get another cat. Yet when I had him put down I was in bits. In fact I was so bad I had to wait ages before I was safe enough to drive home. Humans need cats as we are all emotional push overs and that suits cats just fine.

Sad part is, your cat did care about you. And you were a big part of his life. That's why he didn't bolt out the front door to leave you and never come back.

[Tribble]

Great laugh fest:

[youtube]7Nx1y6ACscM[/youtube]

lolz...

[welch]

In short, cats are social. They form friendships. They form large social circles. They demonstrate affection, closeness, cooperation and other 'positive' social values.

But, because they do it 'differently' than dogs, people thought wrong. For CENTURIES.

And, sadly, these mis-informed myths of the 'emotional shallowness of cats' persist, even today.

Indeed. I've never bought into that myth, because it just didn't make sense. I had a cat who decided I was his human, and was quite aggressive about "protecting" me. Gave my dad quite a fun time because he was unhappy with how I was being yelled at once. In retrospect, perhaps naming him "Patton" was not the best idea. But he was the runt of the litter, and the alpha of all nipples. By the time he was a week old, when he fed, he had not just the nipple he was currently on, but clear access to nipples on either side. Because fuck you, he liked his space, and would beat the crap out of any siblings encroaching on it.

Another one was a white angora (or possibly turkish van) who was terminally stupid, skittish, but very much "my" cat. She'd sleep on the pillow behind my head, where she could properly groom me before going to sleep. (cat-induced bed head is pretty hilarious) and while she wasn't big into the holding, she'd regularly walk up on my chest and "bonk" me in the head. Just ram her empty little noggin into mine and leave it there, purring away. She ended up getting diabetic, and even with the insulin shots, kept doing steadily worse. I took her to the vet's for the last time, and held her while they put her down. Fuck me, that was worse than both parents dying. I absolutely believe Jack took a while to be able to drive home, I wasn't right for a good hour.

My current one is quite the queen, and demanding as fuck. When she wants attention, aka "always", she just walks over and takes it. Her favorite method is to stab me with her claws and look at me like 'you are not petting me. This...is a problem'. So of course, like the good little doggy I am, I pet her. She'll let me carry her around for hours cradled in one arm. She's a complete bully, especially to the dog. The dog is 80lbs, Nikki is, soaking wet...maybe 8lbs. yet if she wants to lay where the dog is laying, she walks over and either pushes the dog aside, or lays on top of the dog. The dog grumbles a lot but always gives way. So weird.

Cats do have radically different personalities than dogs, but the whole "you're just convenient" thing goes against, in my case, 30+ years of observed behavior. As tribble pointed out, they are highly affectionate and caring. They just aren't all dog about it.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

My best friend just offered me a Wii (classic, hacked, not Wii U). Anyone has any advice for good games? So far I only have Super Mario 3, Super Mario Galaxy and Xenoblade Chronicles. Thanksies.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Cats probably feel something towards their owners as well, it's not that those instincts/feelings are "fake", but rather that I think to describe it as love is "fake". The human word connotes a whole host of things that is deeply tied things that come from being a pack animal, things that a dog probably feel as well, that cats most likely don't....
... I have no doubt that all the dogs we've had would've missed and mourned me if I would have died or disappeared, while maybe one or two of the 15+ cats I've had would've even noticed that I was gone as long as the food kept coming....

Still, unless you're talking about a cat to which you've really formed a deeper (rarer) bond with, then I think you're deluding yourself* if you think that your cat "loves" you.

*Or anthropomorphizing your cat to much.

I don't anthropomorphize; that's easily the #1 reason behind the problems that people have come to me for with their horses. I try to relate to each animal at its level, using its "language."

Since we're doing Science-by-Anecdote, I've successfully formed deep, honest & meaningful bonds with pretty much every cat, dog, horse & goat I've had. (Cows, not so much.) I'm starting to prefer life in the herd over the yahoos in human society.

My sister had a cat that was aloof, but so is my sister. Then my dad adopted that cat, and now she's very affectionate, follows him around, and misses him terribly when he's away. (The cat, that is. My sister is still the same.) I'll note that cats in my family are normally free-fed, so it's not all just about the food.

My dad also has a favorite horse, Justin, here at the ranch. When my family arrived the other day, Justin went right up to the car, to the door my dad was getting out of. My dad knows almost nothing about horsemanship, but he hangs out with Justin, talks to him (:doh:) and scratches him. Is it all about the scratching? Because mutual grooming is part of how horses build & reinforce bonds. When I first met Justin, btw, he'd been abused and would kick you if you got anywhere near him. Now he's very dog-like. (When Justin was younger, I'd use him to demo ground handling. Except my clients had their horses "in hand" -- on a rope -- while I worked Justin "at liberty", that is, loose. In a dressage ring.)

dogs fit the human mold a lot better as their behavior, instincts, social "intelligence", and most likely, feelings, more closely match ours. None of this make cats "worse" than dogs, it just makes them different, more different from us than dogs, but still utterly lovely and adorable creatures.

As Tribble notes, house cats are social animals. A famous field study found that barn cats display many of the behaviors found in lion prides. So it's eminently achievable to form a "loving" relationship or whatever with a cat, you just need to meet them halfway.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

My three cats are sleeping right beside me on the couch right now. Nothing special about the couch, and they're not even touching me. They seem to just like my presence. I love them!

[some guy]

IMO, the "fat/ugly man, skinny/beautiful wife" is mostly a reflection of the differences in innate preferences. And TV/Movies reflect that, as oppose to conditioning us to that. Women tend to look for long term resource providers, so wealth and power are weighted highly. Men are looking for breeders, so looks go a long way.

Yes, all things being equal, more of anything is better for either sex. But if you had a limited budget to buy those attributes for yourself, a woman will be more successful in attracting her ideal mate if she buys more of the looks, and men if they buy more of the wealth/power. A dumb beautiful woman will be more highly sought after than a dumb handsome guy. Similarly, a fat ugly rich guy will have lots of good-looking members of the opposite sex attracted to him; a fat ugly rich woman not so much.

For example, Rosanne Barr is/was a successfully comedienne and certainly made a lot of money. Yet I doubt she was considered a hot prospect to fuck by many good looking guys. Contrast that to an analogous male counter part; e.g., Larry the Cable guy. Looks are important in a woman's sex appeal, but men (not women) have it by being wealthy/powerful. (Consider Mick Jagger, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc).

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Woohoooo!!! 4000th post is top of page! (who gives a single fuck?)

[Lsuoma]

Woohoooo!!! 4000th post is top of page! (who gives a single fuck?)

You just had to go and fuck it up, didn't you?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Woohoooo!!! 4000th post is top of page! (who gives a single fuck?)

The fine-tuning required for that to happen boggles the mind!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

And that's sociobiology..../quote]
Paging Twatson on EP! Paging Twatson on EP!

I know, I know -- I used a word off the streng verboten list.

[Jan Steen]

Peezus criticizes a piece by Carl Zimmer on a new hypothesis about the emergence of human intelligence. Never mind the hypothesis or the criticism. What annoys me is the display of bad faith and quote-mining exhibited by Peezus. In this respect he is as dishonest as any creationist.

First he finds it necessary to cast suspicions on Zimmer’s motivation for writing the piece.

What does it take to get Carl Zimmer to review your research in the New York Times?

I suppose it helps to be at Harvard. It also helps to have a combination of subjects — evolution and the human brain — that Zimmer has written about in the past. It helps to have a paper with lots of very pretty diagrams — the authors’ hypothesis is professionally illustrated. It’s also a good idea to have a vast sweeping explanation for the exceptionalism of the human brain.
(...)
You know what you don’t need? Data, or a hypothesis that makes sense.

Carl Zimmer is one of the best science journalists around, and even if he is mistaken about the worth of this particular piece of research, it is completely unwarranted to ridicule him and to portray him as some hack who is not interested in scientific accuracy. Also, as a journalist Zimmer is here mainly reporting the opinions of experts in the field. Being in fact quite a good journalist, he has moreover taken the trouble to obtain a second opinion. Peezus' poo flinging at Zimmer is just a pathetic attempt to score points against someone who probably aroused his ire for some unstated reason.

So much for the bad faith, now for the quote-mining. Peezus writes:

At least the first subtitle in the paper is “A Speculative Hypothesis,” which is entirely accurate. I don’t see how it justifies the praise it was given in Carl Zimmer’s article.

Dr. Sherwood, the George Washington University expert, praised the hypothesis for being “fairly frugal.” The emergence of the human mind might not have been a result of a vast number of mutations that altered the fine structure of the brain. Instead, a simple increase in the growth of neurons could have untethered them from their evolutionary anchors, creating the opportunity for the human mind to emerge.

Oh, wait. When the best thing you can say about a hypothesis is that it is “fairly frugal”, that’s not much praise at all.

No, you lying scumbag, this was not the best that Sherwood could say about the hypothesis. In the same article from which Peezus lifted his quote, Sherwood was also cited as follows:

“I think it presents some pretty exciting ideas,” said Chet C. Sherwood, an expert on human brain evolution at George Washington University who was not involved in the research.

Peezus is quite a piece of work. A petty, vindictive little man. One thing he is not: a Harvard-level scientist who presents exciting ideas.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... f-vacuity/

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Of late, Peezus has been whining quite a bit over what sorts of papers get published & reviewed, and which don't.


I wonder what that's about.

[Southern]

Woohoooo!!! 4000th post is top of page! (who gives a single fuck?)

The fine-tuning required for that to happen boggles the mind!

It's a Christmas Miracle! Praised be Baby Jesus!

[Jan Steen]

Zimmer responds to Myers and remains classy:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... the-brain/

[KDE]

Phil, try Rayman Origins if you like 2d platformers, really though all you need is Xenoblade Chronicles. Give it the benefit of the doubt for the first 7 hours or so, once you reach the knee you'll be like - WHOAH!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

1) That neuron research sounds very intriguing;
2) As a self-proclaimed science heavyweight, Peezus should comment on the paper itself, not the NYT review. But he's too lazy &/or too miserly to pay the $37.50;
3) In throwing his hissy fit, Peezus fails to notice how that research supports the concept of plasticity behind which he & his horde try to hide all their PoMo constructs;
4) If a Peezus writes a blog post in the woods, and there's no Pitters around to read it, does it make a sound?

[Jan Steen]

1) That neuron research sounds very intriguing;
2) As a self-proclaimed science heavyweight, Peezus should comment on the paper itself, not the NYT review. But he's too lazy &/or too miserly to pay the $37.50;
3) In throwing his hissy fit, Peezus fails to notice how that research supports the concept of plasticity behind which he & his horde try to hide all their PoMo constructs;
4) If a Peezus writes a blog post in the woods, and there's no Pitters around to read it, does it make a sound?

Well, Zimmer has read it too. He was generous enough to write:

You may also want to check out P.Z. Myers’s critique of the “tether hypothesis” on his blog Pharyngula. He raises some important questions about the idea, based on his own experiences as a neuroscientist. I’m puzzled, though, why he decided to kick it off with this swipe at me:

How much of a neuroscientist is Peezus, when he hasn't published any original research for more than a decade? Publish or perish is obviously not the order of the day at the University of Morris, Minnesota.

[welch]

My best friend just offered me a Wii (classic, hacked, not Wii U). Anyone has any advice for good games? So far I only have Super Mario 3, Super Mario Galaxy and Xenoblade Chronicles. Thanksies.

Any of the Raving Rabbids games. They're gross and awesome. You try to destroy paris by belching. And there's a cow throwing contest.

Zelda Twilight Princess is solid as well.

[Sunder]

How much of a neuroscientist is Peezus, when he hasn't published any original research for more than a decade?

I left a comment to that effect for Carl. PZ hardly deserves the attention a real journalist can bestow upon him. He has long since squandered his fifteen minutes of infamy.

[welch]

Of late, Peezus has been whining quite a bit over what sorts of papers get published & reviewed, and which don't.


I wonder what that's about.

Hard to say. It's not like he's publishing shit that could even be reviewed.

[Southern]

Phil, try Rayman Origins if you like 2d platformers, really though all you need is Xenoblade Chronicles. Give it the benefit of the doubt for the first 7 hours or so, once you reach the knee you'll be like - WHOAH!

Also, Mario Kart is always good to have to destroy relationships play with family and friends.

[Sunder]

Also, Mario Kart is always good to have to destroy relationships play with family and friends.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Mario Party?

Those games manage to take the frustration, resentment, and hatred that culminates at the destructive end of an hours-long Monopoly game and condense it into a half hour in front of the TV.

[Jan Steen]

Of late, Peezus has been whining quite a bit over what sorts of papers get published & reviewed, and which don't.


I wonder what that's about.

Hard to say. It's not like he's publishing shit that could even be reviewed.

He can always ask Greg Laden to do the reviewing. Greg's review will be about as truthful as a tale by Baron von Münchhausen, but in Peezus' case that will be an advantage.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

In mod at ZImmer's response to Myers:

Myers seems quite envious of more prolific scientists. From Dawkins to Pinker, Coyne and Shermer (who Myers infamously libeled as a serial rapist), Myers time and again resorts to ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with. He envisions himself as the next Stephen Jay Gould, but comes across more like Don Rickles.

Though he hasn't had a paper published in over a decade, and his magnum opus, _Natural Revolution_, was rejected by his publishers in favor of a compilation of his old blog posts, Myers somehow views himself as deserving of the title, Fifth Horseman of New Atheism.

If Myers wished to weigh in on Buckner & Krienen’s paper, he should have ponied up the $37.50 to read it; a lazy, sniping blog post about your review doesn't cut it. If you can't run with the big dogs, PZ, stay on the porch.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

You try to destroy paris by belching.

That was essentially the strategy of the Commune in 1871.

[James Caruthers]

I've always been more of a dog person than a cat person, but it's down to life circumstances on that one. I'm allergic to cats. I can handle outdoor cats, but cat smell in somebody's house gives me common cold symptoms.

There's a fair amount of evidence that humans and dogs have been developing alongside each other for thousands of years, during which time dogs have been bred for specific uses by humans. Dogs have the ability to follow a pointing finger. They look at our eyes to see what we're thinking. When they can't solve a problem, they look to humans to provide assistance (domesticated wolves don't do this.) Dogs are very in tune with humans. We're both pack animals, or have pack animal roots. It makes sense that a lot of people intuitively understand dogs better than cats.

https://images.akc.org/breeds/action_im ... eshond.jpg
This is the type of dog I have at the moment. He's getting pretty old, though. It'll be a sad day when we passes on, he's been the "family" dog all through my teen years. I gotta say, however, he's sooo stubborn and willful that I think training just about ANY other breed will seem easy after dealing with him. He's a classy gentleman most of the time (stays off furniture, house trained, doesn't steal food), but when he wants something, he'll sit and cry for hours until he gets what he wants. Ignoring him doesn't work, he can keep crying as long as it takes. :lol:

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

The Myth of the Independent, Aloof Cat

The myth that cats are detached, independent and aloof is pervasive in books, cartoons and in water cooler conversations. It persists because feline social organization is quite different from that of humans or dogs, and historically misunderstood.

Cats are merely social in different ways.

Evidence is plentiful that cats have social needs. Cats have been found to form long-term pair bonds, live in family groups or in large groups with a relatively stable long-term membership. Cats recognize members of their social group, and they engage in cooperative behavior and reciprocal communication.

Cats also participate in cooperative rearing of their young.

Queens in feral colonies have even been observed helping other queens during birthing by cleaning the newborn kittens, as well as cleaning the perineal area of the mom cat after she gives birth. This cooperative birthing is rare among nonhumans.

...

Solitary behavior and aggression is more common when food is scarce, but going solo is NOT their preference. Cats can survive as solitary animals, but they readily form social groups with internal structure whenever food sources are sufficient to support them.

Cats in feral colonies will often form little groups of two or more, and they will associate more closely with these “best friends” than with other colony members. Cats are most likely to become best friends with those who are related to them, but close friendships often form among nonrelated individuals as well.

These rubbie-buddies groom each other and rub on each other (aka allogrooming and allorubbing), evidence of their need for ongoing physical contact. This is akin to a handshake or a hug between people. When your cat rubs on you, he is identifying you as part of his little colony. And you reciprocate this behavior when you pet him or groom him.

...

While there are dominant and subordinate individuals in a cat colony, unlike dogs, cats don’t maintain a clearly defined hierarchy wherein each individual is ranked above or below another. There is often an “alpha” cat, but other cats decide who owns what on a case-by-case basis, and it can change daily.

In multi-cat households, as in colonies, one cat might be “alpha” for the food dish. Another might be “alpha” for the litter area. Yet another might be the big boss of one particular room in your house.

...

In short, cats are social. They form friendships. They form large social circles. They demonstrate affection, closeness, cooperation and other 'positive' social values.

But, because they do it 'differently' than dogs, people thought wrong. For CENTURIES.

And, sadly, these mis-informed myths of the 'emotional shallowness of cats' persist, even today.

Once had beautiful tabby Maine Coone which would follow me out of the flat each morning and sit forlornly under the big stone arch leading onto the hight street as I walked to the station. I'd often find her sitting under a bush waiting for me when I got home. She once followed me down the road weaving in and out of garden gates for a couple of hundred meters. On one occasion I was in the local newsagents when her distraught looking face appeared looking in through the shop window, which was remarkable because the sidewalk was really busy. She was obviously scared yet she'd still followed me down the street. If she wasn't around I'd go outside and whistle and she would usually come running. Even more unusually for a cat, if she was stuck on a roof or up a tree I'd reach up and she would try to make it down to my hands.

[Mykeru]

Also, 8 posts away from my 4000th. What do I get?

Carpal tunnel.

In unrelated news, Pitters, I'm sitting in beautiful Wilmington (NC) International Airport waiting to pick up my 93 year old Great-uncle, Battle of the Bulge survivor, member of the ETO "ghost army" and, after he never remarried after his wife Rose died in the 50s, legendary ladies man.

I can ask him questions related to how to spend nearly a century kicking ass on a daily basis.

Please, no questions on dealing with twitter PTSD. He just wouldn't understand.

[windy]

1) That neuron research sounds very intriguing;
2) As a self-proclaimed science heavyweight, Peezus should comment on the paper itself, not the NYT review. But he's too lazy &/or too miserly to pay the $37.50;

He wouldn't have had to pay for it. He probably has access to the journal through the university library, and if not, he could request a copy from the author.

[Really?]

1) That neuron research sounds very intriguing;
2) As a self-proclaimed science heavyweight, Peezus should comment on the paper itself, not the NYT review. But he's too lazy &/or too miserly to pay the $37.50;

He wouldn't have had to pay for it. He probably has access to the journal through the university library, and if not, he could request a copy from the author.

Yeah, I was just able to access it through my university library. Are we sure Peezus didn't? Libraries make it REALLY easy to get most papers instantly and in PDF format.

[AndrewV69]

Just finished skimming the rest of the comments from the PeeZuss Christ blog titled :The flip side of the MRAs

Most of the comments are the usual hot mess with some trying to inject some sanity, among them ChasCPeterson (amazed he has not gone insane by now frankly) and it ends with this comment in response to Chas linking to The Cinderella effect

(Bolding is mine)

225
theoreticalgrrrl

25 December 2013 at 11:38 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Chas,

The name is inflammatory, they have to have known that. “The Cinderella Effect” is not quite the same thing as writing a book called A NATURAL History of Child Abuse, or a Natural History or Child Murder. Give me a break.

I’ve read enough of T&P in interviews, in excerpts from their book, to know I do not have to stomach to read the entire thing. I know the synopsis and the advice they give women and that fact that they would like their ideas implemented in social policy.

I don’t know if you can possibly understand this, but it makes me nauseous and I get panic attacks even talking this much about it. Not because I’m weak, but because I’ve heard this same shit served up to me as a female so many times in my life, in so many different forms, it starts to really wear you down and you can end up, like me, with panic disorder and depression. It’s soul-destroying. I’m not being hyperbolic, it really is.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Also, 8 posts away from my 4000th. What do I get?

Carpal tunnel.

In unrelated news, Pitters, I'm sitting in beautiful Wilmington (NC) International Airport waiting to pick up my 93 year old Great-uncle, Battle of the Bulge survivor, member of the ETO "ghost army" and, after he never remarried after his wife Rose died in the 50s, legendary ladies man.

I can ask him questions related to how to spend nearly a century kicking ass on a daily basis.

Please, no questions on dealing with twitter PTSD. He just wouldn't understand.

There will be no questions from me. Just a heartfelt Thank You.

[Gumby]

Peezus' poo flinging at Zimmer is just a pathetic attempt to score points against someone who probably aroused his ire for some unstated reason.

There doesn't have to be a reason, other than "little man syndrome".

I work in the housing renovation trade, and I encounter people like PZ all the time. Despite the fact their own work is entirely unspectacular and ordinary, they never hesitate to belittle the work of others, always crowing about how they would have done a particular project so much better or faster or whatever. Funny though... their own work never seems to live up to their glowing self-descriptions.

On the other hand, the truly talented people in my field - the accomplished fine carpenters, the talented painters, the master plumbers and electricians - let their work speak for itself, and never need to resort to belittling the work of others in order to puff up their own accomplishments.

Stay classy PZ, you disgruntled, bitter old failure.

[another lurker]

Remember, PZ treats lab technicians like shit. Mere underlings, put on earth to do his bidding, a lower caste to be spit upon.