Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Clarence]

CNN does more shilling for the SJW set:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/living/ca ... ?hpt=hp_t2

This isn't an op-ed but is instead a front-page news article.
Luckily they (inadvertently?) chose to lead off with the whackiest of the complaints and so the comments section seems far more skeptical than credulous.

About an hour ago I was discussing that very "article" with others in my abode. That first complaint is just too much. For those who'd rather not click, here is the gist:

From age 20 to age 23, adult woman dates adult man. One month after breaking up, woman files complaint of having being psychologically and physically coerced into sex by (now-ex-)boyfriend throughout three-year-long relationship, although she acknowledges that she was never held down or forced into sex against her will (not sure how that squares with having been physically coerced). Said complaint is filed not with the police, but with the university, which must investigate because of Title IX. After five-month investigation, university finds allegations baseless, and so clearly we can all agree that the university is a hostile environment for women (you know, because they took the complaint seriously as they legally must, and spent five months investigating before dismissing the "charges").

What kind of 23-year-old adult thinks going to the university rather than the police is the right course of action when accusing someone of a felony? How can anybody think that way?

The first case actually made the SJW rounds early last year, if I remember correctly. So Ms. Drama Breakup has been in the news for one, maybe two years now. Anyway it's even more ridiculous when you find out that THEY BOTH LIVED ON CAMPUS and college campuses have tons of support structures for alleged victims. Why didn't she report some time during those three years? Another thing they don't mention is that the young lady was apparently very religious as is her mom, and that makes it more likely (in my opinion) that this really is because he 'ruined' her daughter and didn't marry her.

[Karmakin]

Just like Feminism, Social Justice is a term that I would have embraced whole-heartedly in the past, but it seems to have been distorted and poisoned by many mentally unbalanced narcissists. I think most of the people on this forum are left-leaning politically, though I could be wrong. According to internet SJW criteria we may as well be nazi redneck cracker slave owners though.

Karmakin + Gumby + LurkerPerson: Yes! This!!!1!11!!

Political leanings of 134 Pitters who chose to answer the poll & some (fewer) self-reports of results on "political compass": viewtopic.php?f=29&t=195

There are several threads here about feminism (in which many people self-disclose that they are equity feminists, shhhh!), including this one: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=234 (in which one question is asked in the title then a different one in the poll at the top of the thread; several people go on to comment that they answered the poll in a way that doesn't represent their stance on the poll question, because of this)

If there was one thing I would like to get through to PZ et al. with, it's this. That if you think of Social Justice as being on the "left" and anti-Social Justice (outright bigotry) being on the "right", much, if not most of the criticism that's aimed at them is coming from the left, not the right. And I don't mean a more moderate version of what they're saying. I'm saying that at the end of day understanding power dynamics and differentials is a skill, an ability. And their critics are simply better at that skill than they are.

[Lsuoma]

A bit of Pharynguloid self awareness on the DDOS thread:

tsig

9 February 2014 at 7:49 am (UTC -6)

Shutting down opinions you disagree with, how American-not.

tsig was immediately permabanned and Peezus called him a CHUDMRASlimey.

It's completely clear now that it's not about lack of self awareness and irony. It's about whoring for clicks. PeeZus, you're a low-grade, intellectually dishonest, sell-out cheap whore. End of story.

[another lurker]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

[another lurker]

It's completely clear now that it's not about lack of self awareness and irony. It's about whoring for clicks. PeeZus, you're a low-grade, intellectually dishonest, sell-out cheap whore. End of story.

I read that as whoring for dicks.

Disapoint.

[John D]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

She was super hot when she was young... but you could tell that dipping your stick in that would ruin your life... haha!

[Steersman]

<snip>
I certainly haven’t been claiming that “emergence is a proof of this concept ... ‘free-will’”, only suggesting it as a “tentative explanation”. ...

Thank you Steersman. I now see that emergence has little to do with the concept of "free will". I thought you were arguing that emergence provided some proof for either the "free-will" or "determinism" argument. It does not.

De nada; my pleasure; squeaky-wheel and all that. :-)

But not so much “proof”, as a “tentative suggestion” that the hypothesis might bear some “further investigation”. Which I’m happy to note you seem prepared to engage in, at least on the concept of emergence itself. :-)

I am absolutely convinced that the free-will debate is unsolvable primarily because the question is incoherent. It makes no sense because the definition of "free-will" is not properly defined. It is defined outside of any scientific context... as is the definition of god. Perhaps we should say we are agnostic about free-will.

Generally agree with you there, although I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that the concept is entirely “incoherent”. Part of the reason why I’ve referred to or utilized the concept of “degrees of freedom” which I thought that you as an engineer in the automotive industry might particularly appreciate or see as a useful analogy. Sort of a way off the “horns of the dilemma” that seems intrinsic to, in part, the false dichotomy of free-will versus determinism. But, along those lines, you might want to pay particular attention to the papers by Phil Anderson and Margaret Morrison as there is more of a “hard science” component to their perspectives.

But your “outside of any scientific context” highlights part of my objections to Jerry Coyne’s position on the question. The question is no doubt moot, and some degree of agnosticism on it is probably warranted, but Jerry’s arguments look rather dogmatic and aren’t, I think, likely to do his case against religion all that much good.

[Clarence]

CNN does more shilling for the SJW set:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/living/ca ... ?hpt=hp_t2

This isn't an op-ed but is instead a front-page news article.
Luckily they (inadvertently?) chose to lead off with the whackiest of the complaints and so the comments section seems far more skeptical than credulous.

About an hour ago I was discussing that very "article" with others in my abode. That first complaint is just too much. For those who'd rather not click, here is the gist:

From age 20 to age 23, adult woman dates adult man. One month after breaking up, woman files complaint of having being psychologically and physically coerced into sex by (now-ex-)boyfriend throughout three-year-long relationship, although she acknowledges that she was never held down or forced into sex against her will (not sure how that squares with having been physically coerced). Said complaint is filed not with the police, but with the university, which must investigate because of Title IX. After five-month investigation, university finds allegations baseless, and so clearly we can all agree that the university is a hostile environment for women (you know, because they took the complaint seriously as they legally must, and spent five months investigating before dismissing the "charges").

What kind of 23-year-old adult thinks going to the university rather than the police is the right course of action when accusing someone of a felony? How can anybody think that way?

I think the following segment might explain her reasoning:

The U.S. Department of Education laid out minimal requirements in a 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter for schools to follow in responding to reports of sexual harassment, or risk loss of federal funding.

The 19-page letter reminded schools that under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, colleges and universities must apply a "preponderance of evidence" standard to reviewing rape cases, which means they must operate under the assumption that "more likely than not that sexual violence occurred."

To me that sounds rather like going to the police would require there to be proof that assault had occurred, while reporting it directly to the college would cut the amound of evidence needed - or even require the boyfriend to prove his innocence of the charge.

Yes, that sounds about right. No, it wouldn't ruin his life as much as prison would - though we don't that she wouldn't have tried that if it wasn't for the need for evidence - but a college conviction for sexual assault and the probable expulsion resulting would follow him where ever he went from then on. Almost as badly in a social/job prospects (not a penal or civil) sense as being on a sex offender registry.

[John D]

<snip>
I certainly haven’t been claiming that “emergence is a proof of this concept ... ‘free-will’”, only suggesting it as a “tentative explanation”. ...

Thank you Steersman. I now see that emergence has little to do with the concept of "free will". I thought you were arguing that emergence provided some proof for either the "free-will" or "determinism" argument. It does not.

De nada; my pleasure; squeaky-wheel and all that. :-)

But not so much “proof”, as a “tentative suggestion” that the hypothesis might bear some “further investigation”. Which I’m happy to note you seem prepared to engage in, at least on the concept of emergence itself. :-)

I am absolutely convinced that the free-will debate is unsolvable primarily because the question is incoherent. It makes no sense because the definition of "free-will" is not properly defined. It is defined outside of any scientific context... as is the definition of god. Perhaps we should say we are agnostic about free-will.

Generally agree with you there, although I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that the concept is entirely “incoherent”. Part of the reason why I’ve referred to or utilized the concept of “degrees of freedom” which I thought that you as an engineer in the automotive industry might particularly appreciate or see as a useful analogy. Sort of a way off the “horns of the dilemma” that seems intrinsic to, in part, the false dichotomy of free-will versus determinism. But, along those lines, you might want to pay particular attention to the papers by Phil Anderson and Margaret Morrison as there is more of a “hard science” component to their perspectives.

But your “outside of any scientific context” highlights part of my objections to Jerry Coyne’s position on the question. The question is no doubt moot, and some degree of agnosticism on it is probably warranted, but Jerry’s arguments look rather dogmatic and aren't, I think, likely to do his case against religion all that much good.

I am following you better now. I am interested by several topics in regard to free-will. Metzinger describes a part of our consciousness as "Naive dualism". This is a apt description of how we feel and behave. Our minds operate as if we are dualistic and this is the nature of how we think and feel. He does not offer any explanation to the origin of this condition, but he defines it well.

The human mind is only capable of connecting three to four causal links according to some stuff I have read recently. Animals... depending on the species... can only make one or two links of causality. Bascially, once a system gets too complicated we can't fit the pieces together. We thus have to break systems down into pieces that we can mentally handle. The understanding of free-will becomes more likely as we better define the conscious system and how its pieces work. First things first. This is why I am more interested in what Metizinger has to say than what Harris has to say on this topic. Harris, Dennett, Coyne, etc., are making many claims but don't even have a good definition agreed upon.

I will look into Anderson and Morrison.

[Michael J]

Is antievolution.org suffering an attack as well? It doesn't fit the fftb narrative but I just got a too many connections error.

[Brive1987]

PZ posts on an abhorrent anti euthanasia poster. Love the ? In the title.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-thing-2/


A horde member points out:

The ALL.org site is truly repugnant. I can’t however, find that image anywhere on their site. Google turns it up in only two places, here and Pintrest. PZ, someone may be setting you up.

Crickets and the horde continues to thrash amongst the chum. Regardless of whether its legit or not, isn't this the moment to pull back and get your source in order?

Would you pay to learn science from a PhD with these research skills, who displays a lack of even basic due diligence? How about accept an unsubstantiated claim of rape?

[Brive1987]

A bit of Pharynguloid self awareness on the DDOS thread:

tsig

9 February 2014 at 7:49 am (UTC -6)

Shutting down opinions you disagree with, how American-not.

tsig was immediately permabanned and Peezus called him a CHUDMRASlimey.

I have to disagree with out betitted leader. Multi layered irony like this .... PZ is a comic genius.

[AndrewV69]

On the other hand her immediate behavior with Soon-Yi sounds nothing like how you would expect a decent parent to react towards a child who has been abused by a child molester. According to an article in todays New York Post, here is what happened when she discovered the relationship while at Allens apartment:

She phoned Allen, told him to stay away, and rushed back home with Satchel. Soon-Yi was there, and Mia attacked her, at one point reportedly breaking a chair over her daughter.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/08/woody-mia-a-greek-tragedy/

The official trial document also reports her to have hit Soon-Yi on the face and body.

Isn't this basically victim blaming? She blamed her daughter for the relationship (which she described as child molestation) and reacted by violently attacking Soon-Yi (breaking a chair over her?)

According to various Manosphere tropes the answer is a resounding no. If you view Soon-Yi as a victim you are probably wrong.

If you view women as the gatekeepers of sex and engaged in competition with other women then Soon-Yi not only encouraged Woody but deliberately did so in order to show up Mia and that Soon-Yi could take away her man from her. Never mind that Mia had pre-qualified Woody in the first place (if Mia viewed Woody with contempt and made that known to Soon-Yi then there would have been no incentive to take Woody away).

Mia got the message all right. Not only that, her reactions confirmed that Soon-Yi was on the right track. I strongly suspect that if Mia had treated the whole thing with amused contempt (you want him? ... hahahaha ... silly stupid girl) ) that Soon-Yi would have dropped Woody like a hot potato (but who knows?)

Mia would have then been in a morally superior position over Woody (What were you thinking? You and that silly littly girl? You stupid man ... am I the only adult here?) and IMO could have leveraged her position over Woody for things she might want even if they never got back together.

I haven't seen any of the SJW crowd mention this aspect of the incident yet. Again, this illustrates the problem of black and white thinking.
Once you are prepared to see the Soon-Yi relationship as proof that Allen is bad (and that being bad means all bad things are on the table, including molesting a seven year old), then you have to likewise view Mia Farrow as good, and discount or ignore the awful parenting that she exhibited.

No disagreement here. Just a note that you have to be willfully blind to acomplish this. Not to mention the whole outrage business appears to be rooted in middle class morality. Either that or/and you have a bunch of aging sluts/sexually fustrated/prudes trying to police male sexuality while ignoring the behaviour of Mia (who did the same thing to Andre Previn's 2nd. wife Dory Langdon that Soon-Yi did) never mind the question of who exactly is the father of Ronan .. Sinatra or Woody?)

The court should have taken all the children away from both of them.

Indeed.

[real horrorshow]

If there was one thing I would like to get through to PZ et al. with, it's this. That if you think of Social Justice as being on the "left" and anti-Social Justice (outright bigotry) being on the "right", much, if not most of the criticism that's aimed at them is coming from the left, not the right. And I don't mean a more moderate version of what they're saying. I'm saying that at the end of day understanding power dynamics and differentials is a skill, an ability. And their critics are simply better at that skill than they are.

The Whored and the FC(n) don't belong on any part of the political spectrum. Or, indeed in any faction of any serious discussion. Firstly, because they don't know enough to have a worthwhile opinion on anything. They're too lazy/stupid to do the work necessary to have a truly informed opinion - witness Hornbeck.

Secondly, because they are utterly irrational and inconsistent in their arguments and opinions, like all faith-based communities. If you're 'one of them': Hugs for your rape confession. If you're not 'one of them': Damned on the strength of hearsay.

You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. - Dr. Steven Novella

[real horrorshow]

A bit of Pharynguloid self awareness on the DDOS thread:

tsig

9 February 2014 at 7:49 am (UTC -6)

Shutting down opinions you disagree with, how American-not.

tsig was immediately permabanned and Peezus called him a CHUDMRASlimey.

It's completely clear now that it's not about lack of self awareness and irony. It's about whoring for clicks. PeeZus, you're a low-grade, intellectually dishonest, sell-out cheap whore. End of story.

Which is why I like people to Freezpage (or something) stuff they reference from FfTB, because I am not giving them one fucking click, even with my ABP Fu as strong as it is.

[piginthecity]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

Make sure you don't overlook the classic "It's Grim Up North !"

[Dick Strawkins]

On the other hand her immediate behavior with Soon-Yi sounds nothing like how you would expect a decent parent to react towards a child who has been abused by a child molester. According to an article in todays New York Post, here is what happened when she discovered the relationship while at Allens apartment:

She phoned Allen, told him to stay away, and rushed back home with Satchel. Soon-Yi was there, and Mia attacked her, at one point reportedly breaking a chair over her daughter.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/08/woody-mia-a-greek-tragedy/

The official trial document also reports her to have hit Soon-Yi on the face and body.

Isn't this basically victim blaming? She blamed her daughter for the relationship (which she described as child molestation) and reacted by violently attacking Soon-Yi (breaking a chair over her?)

According to various Manosphere tropes the answer is a resounding no. If you view Soon-Yi as a victim you are probably wrong.

If you view women as the gatekeepers of sex and engaged in competition with other women then Soon-Yi not only encouraged Woody but deliberately did so in order to show up Mia and that Soon-Yi could take away her man from her. Never mind that Mia had pre-qualified Woody in the first place (if Mia viewed Woody with contempt and made that known to Soon-Yi then there would have been no incentive to take Woody away).

Mia got the message all right. Not only that, her reactions confirmed that Soon-Yi was on the right track. I strongly suspect that if Mia had treated the whole thing with amused contempt (you want him? ... hahahaha ... silly stupid girl) ) that Soon-Yi would have dropped Woody like a hot potato (but who knows?)

Mia would have then been in a morally superior position over Woody (What were you thinking? You and that silly littly girl? You stupid man ... am I the only adult here?) and IMO could have leveraged her position over Woody for things she might want even if they never got back together.

I haven't seen any of the SJW crowd mention this aspect of the incident yet. Again, this illustrates the problem of black and white thinking.
Once you are prepared to see the Soon-Yi relationship as proof that Allen is bad (and that being bad means all bad things are on the table, including molesting a seven year old), then you have to likewise view Mia Farrow as good, and discount or ignore the awful parenting that she exhibited.

No disagreement here. Just a note that you have to be willfully blind to acomplish this. Not to mention the whole outrage business appears to be rooted in middle class morality. Either that or/and you have a bunch of aging sluts/sexually fustrated/prudes trying to police male sexuality while ignoring the behaviour of Mia (who did the same thing to Andre Previn's 2nd. wife Dory Langdon that Soon-Yi did) never mind the question of who exactly is the father of Ronan .. Sinatra or Woody?)

The court should have taken all the children away from both of them.

Indeed.

It is weird seeing the SJW crowd arguing that Woody should have been a better patriarchal role model!

From what details of their relationship I can gather, it was very unconventional.

There's an interview with Woody Allen in Time from a while back (it says 2001 but the content suggests it is from a few years earlier)

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/a ... 39,00.html

Q. How could you get involved with someone who was almost a daughter?

A. I am not Soon-Yi's father or stepfather. I've never even lived with Mia. I've never in my entire life slept at Mia's apartment, and I never even used to go over there until my children came along seven years ago. I never had any family dinners over there. I was not a father to her adopted kids in any sense of the word.

I can't quite figure out why Mia Farrow would have wanted such a relationship but I guess it works for some people - although if she was still involved with Frank Sinatra at the time I guess there could be a logic behind the distance.

[Brive1987]

Re determinism

The Reasonable Doubts guys did a good series of podcasts on this culminating in a hilarious debate with "Don" on the Don Johnson Radio show.

Debate:
http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com.au/20 ... radio.html

Podcasts:
episodes 29 and 34. ("Free Willy vs the Determinator")

Been mentioned already? Not sure.

[welch]

RE: the SJW take on Woody Allen. One of the things that is bothering me about the ongoing discussion of this twisted family drama is the black or white thinking of the SJW set. It's as though unless you believe Allen finger banged the 7 year old daughter of his then girlfriend, you think he's a living saint. Allen is a profoundly fucked up guy, but not every fucked up guy is a child molester. Fucking syllogisms! How do they work?

It's like Michael Jackson's lawyer had a point: "My client is weird. He's weird in ways we don't understand in ways we can't understand. But being weird doesn't make him a pedophile, and he has the right to be weird without people assuming that being weird means he's done bad things."

[real horrorshow]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

Make sure you don't overlook the classic "It's Grim Up North !"

Do you mean "This Sporting Life is A Kind of Loving on Saturday Night and Sunday Morning"? I must admit, my tolerance for middle class RADA luvvies pretending to be Northern proles is limited (speaking as a Northern prole). Though some of the cinematography, I recall, is pretty good.

[windy]

A recent study on stereotype threat in young female chess players has been making the rounds:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180949546/

...the researchers watched men and women play chess at twelve different tournaments. They saw 219 girls between the ages of 5 and 15 play. When they compared how the girls should have done, based on their rankings and previous play, and how they actually did, voilà: “Females performed worse than expected when playing against a male opponent, achieving 83% of the expected success based on their own and their opponent’s prerating,"

Seems legit, except I don't know how it was possible to establish any "objective" ranking based on previous play, if girls always play worse than expected against boys? Does anyone have access to the whole paper?

[welch]

<snip>
Is there a term for when people post multiple links to make it look as if their argument is heavily supported when it is isn't?

Linksplaining?

argumentum ad boredum

Yea, well, I might say the same about some of your lengthy screeds and anecdotes. Different strokes and all that.

Bless your heart.

[Bourne Skeptic]

Just what the world needs!

http://atheismplus.com/blogs/

[Brive1987]

A bit of Pharynguloid self awareness on the DDOS thread:

tsig

9 February 2014 at 7:49 am (UTC -6)

Shutting down opinions you disagree with, how American-not.

tsig was immediately permabanned and Peezus called him a CHUDMRASlimey.

Can't actually see PZ getting involved on that thread. Obvious Slymepit poe not obvious?

[Tony Parsehole]

'm a cis-scum white male working in the public sector. My boss is a woman, her boss is a woman, and so is the Director.

However, according to the mindless bigots in SJW land, because I am a cis-scum white male, I automatically have more privelege and power than they do. Which is nice, because it means that when I breeze into the office, I'll usually say to the Director "Yo bitch! Black no sugar" and then get my boss to suck me off while I wait.

Except - oh, hang on - no I don't.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3720/1198 ... 057d_o.gif

[rayshul]

[Sunder]

It's like Michael Jackson's lawyer had a point: "My client is weird. He's weird in ways we don't understand in ways we can't understand. But being weird doesn't make him a pedophile, and he has the right to be weird without people assuming that being weird means he's done bad things."

And even having done bad things doesn't make one guilty of every accusation.

And even in the court of public opinion people should be able to realize when a new accusation is of a much more serious nature than anything the accused is actually known to have done.

[another lurker]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

Make sure you don't overlook the classic "It's Grim Up North !"

Do you mean "This Sporting Life is A Kind of Loving on Saturday Night and Sunday Morning"? I must admit, my tolerance for middle class RADA luvvies pretending to be Northern proles is limited (speaking as a Northern prole). Though some of the cinematography, I recall, is pretty good.

I looked it up and all I could find was this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899032/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Anyways, apparently The Loneliness of the Long DIstance Runner is made by a middle class wanker who hates the upper classes and doesn't understand what it's like to be working class. And apparently 'Terence Davies' is the only English director who knows anything about what it's like to be a prole?

[Badger3k]

Claire Lehmann is a good find Ape+lust. I just read this and this on her blog. The Slyme is strong with this one. She'd fit right in here. I've had a go at replying to Hornbeck's post, which links to the transcript of his "lecture", with a link to Atheism Neat. I think that's only fair. Looks like she mods her comments though, it's not yet appeared.

I wondered why no one seemed to have made that comment - glad to see someone did, and I waited to read more after I made my comment. Hope it's approved - might be interesting :popcorn:

Looking at the original, there seems to be a reply from the 9th - today - but nothing from anyone here.

[Lsuoma]

It's completely clear now that it's not about lack of self awareness and irony. It's about whoring for clicks. PeeZus, you're a low-grade, intellectually dishonest, sell-out cheap whore. End of story.

Which is why I like people to Freezpage (or something) stuff they reference from FfTB, because I am not giving them one fucking click, even with my ABP Fu as strong as it is.

Yep. Only I was too lazy to type it - I know you here are all smart enough to get my drift...

[katamari Damassi]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

She's excellent in one of my favorite Allen films, Radio Days. Just because I think she's a psycho with a vendetta and out to destroy a guy's life, doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy her movies.

[mordacious1]

PZ posts on an abhorrent anti euthanasia poster. Love the ? In the title.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-thing-2/

<SNIP>

I cleaned my browser with CCleaner recently and when I clicked that link I got a white page that stated:

"Checking your browser...." and something about anti ddos attack software. Some kind of scan that takes about 5 seconds. I re-clicked it and it was normal, then I cleaned again and got the "Checking your browser..." thing again.

What is PZ putting on my computer? Anything other than a cookie?
Who's more paranoid, me or PZ?

[James Caruthers]

Nah, as Martin has already told us, it was definitely an angry neckbeard virgin rapist MRA troll cisgender scumbag who was butthurt because his Fake Nice Guy (tm) dating techniques failed, and watching pedo rape porn while playing Rapelay did nothing to diminish his rageboner and hatred of women. So, driven by pure, unadulterated butthurt and misogyny, he organized a DDoS attack on the three feminist organizations he KNEW were the most powerful and dangerous to his patriarchal desires.

You clearly need to call into the Furaffinity Experience, I mean, the Atheist Experience, and be educated about the true nature of people who don't accept glorious feminism into their hearts. Misogynist.

Now, I could be wrong. I may be completely off-track. But doesn't Martin Wagner's response seem to be completely devoid of all skepticism? Maybe he just doesn't consider himself a skeptic anymore.

Martin never was much of a skeptic on the show. You can watch it and he usually just parrots atheist party lines in calls with christians. He makes snide remarks and denigrates his christian callers constantly. Matt was always at least willing to hear someone out, and he wasn't so quick to call them names. I'm just going off my memories of the show, however. A lot of the show doesn't feature much skepticism, and is mostly people shouting over each other and spewing party lines. That's probably the nature of the beast with radio shows, but then you listen to Matt give speeches and his emotional rhetoric is very similar to preaching.

Because of the way almost all the AE hosts have swallowed SJism hook, line and sinker, I feel justified to say they're not very skeptical. You don't have to be a skeptic to be an atheist. When someone says the notion of human sexual dimorphism is as nonsensical as unicorn foot coloring, I seriously doubt any skeptic can find themselves agreeing with that notion with no reservations. A lot of this gender studies bullshit I encounter in college is full of similarly unscientific ideas about how special and unique humans are.

I came up with a long list of suspects for the DDoS, including groups that have both the desire and the ability, plus the possibility that it was a technical failure or totally unrelated attack on a parent system, but there's no point in posting that here. Suffice it to say that the social justice warriors will always blame everything bad that happens to them on whoever they see as their personal "oppressors." Apparently that is us, so get used to being used as their satan figure and boogeyman.

[free thoughtpolice]

I don't like Woody Allen movies. Never have. And this whole thing reads like a Woddy Allen movie. I'll pass.

Yeah, the one about the tangled relationships of a group of upper-middle class, Jewish, New Yorkers who talk too much is... most of them.

I kind of like many of them as they seem to provide some incisive, trenchant, and cogent observations on human nature. Although I find it somewhat amusing and ironic to reflect on the closing scene in his Annie Hall where some young students are acting out a play that was based on the supposedly biographical incidents portrayed in the bulk of the movie. In particular, the play had been re-written to be more flattering of Allen’s actions and behaviour in real-life which he sort justified by “poetic license” or the like. Which, one might suggest, bears some similarity with his published accounts of the events in question.

I've always wondered what kind of weirdo likes Woody Allen movies. :think:

[debaser71]

CNN does more shilling for the SJW set:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/living/ca ... ?hpt=hp_t2

This isn't an op-ed but is instead a front-page news article.
Luckily they (inadvertently?) chose to lead off with the whackiest of the complaints and so the comments section seems far more skeptical than credulous.

About an hour ago I was discussing that very "article" with others in my abode. That first complaint is just too much. For those who'd rather not click, here is the gist:

From age 20 to age 23, adult woman dates adult man. One month after breaking up, woman files complaint of having being psychologically and physically coerced into sex by (now-ex-)boyfriend throughout three-year-long relationship, although she acknowledges that she was never held down or forced into sex against her will (not sure how that squares with having been physically coerced). Said complaint is filed not with the police, but with the university, which must investigate because of Title IX. After five-month investigation, university finds allegations baseless, and so clearly we can all agree that the university is a hostile environment for women (you know, because they took the complaint seriously as they legally must, and spent five months investigating before dismissing the "charges").

What kind of 23-year-old adult thinks going to the university rather than the police is the right course of action when accusing someone of a felony? How can anybody think that way?

The first case actually made the SJW rounds early last year, if I remember correctly. So Ms. Drama Breakup has been in the news for one, maybe two years now. Anyway it's even more ridiculous when you find out that THEY BOTH LIVED ON CAMPUS and college campuses have tons of support structures for alleged victims. Why didn't she report some time during those three years? Another thing they don't mention is that the young lady was apparently very religious as is her mom, and that makes it more likely (in my opinion) that this really is because he 'ruined' her daughter and didn't marry her.

Couple this mentality with this http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/04/i ... -standard/ and there you have it.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Holy KiTTY, 100% of the comments are from uninformed social justice cultists.

[James Caruthers]

So facebook discussions are now an automatic safespace where skepticism is not allowed?

:think:

Yes. This is their goal. It's why they keep harping on BELIEVE THE VICTIM and RAPE VICTIMS ARE ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH.

It reduces down to this SJW statement: "The personal is political."

Think about it. Any thought you have, any speech you speak, and any opinion you express is not just your personal view. No, now it is a political statement. What you say at your worst moment is who you really are, deep inside (you MRA rapist scum), and everything you say in any private or public situation had better conform precisely to the correct politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[JackSkeptic]

PZ posts on an abhorrent anti euthanasia poster. Love the ? In the title.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-thing-2/

<SNIP>

I cleaned my browser with CCleaner recently and when I clicked that link I got a white page that stated:

"Checking your browser...." and something about anti ddos attack software. Some kind of scan that takes about 5 seconds. I re-clicked it and it was normal, then I cleaned again and got the "Checking your browser..." thing again.

What is PZ putting on my computer? Anything other than a cookie?
Who's more paranoid, me or PZ?

I assume it's a sensible defense.

Anyway I would not wish harm to FtB or the related kooky sites such as the A+ forums for two simple reasons:

1. I believe people should be able to express their opinion even if I disagree with it and their opinion includes shutting down any dissent by any means possible, including deliberately damaging people's and their friends and families real lives. The more this is in the open the better.

2. I would miss the fun. I can't take these people seriously and the more serious they take themselves the more fun they provide. Life would be more empty without these humourless blow-hards making frequent fools of themselves. The fact they seem totally unaware of the supremely arrogance and pontificating nature of the name 'FtBConscience' is an example of pompous idiots so full of themselves they have no awareness of how funny they actually are.

[Gumby]

Holy KiTTY, 100% of the comments are from uninformed social justice cultists.

Dumbass "erikthebassist" being one of them.

[Brive1987]

PZ posts on an abhorrent anti euthanasia poster. Love the ? In the title.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-thing-2/

<SNIP>

I cleaned my browser with CCleaner recently and when I clicked that link I got a white page that stated:

"Checking your browser...." and something about anti ddos attack software. Some kind of scan that takes about 5 seconds. I re-clicked it and it was normal, then I cleaned again and got the "Checking your browser..." thing again.

What is PZ putting on my computer? Anything other than a cookie?
Who's more paranoid, me or PZ?

Cloudflare. The business option which includes "advanced denial of service attack mitigation" is worth $200 a month per website.

They should setup a patreon account.

www.cloudflare.com/ddos
www.cloudflare.com/plans

[ianfc]

Holy KiTTY, 100% of the comments are from uninformed social justice cultists.

Interesting comment from chzplz

Ah feminists. The one thing imgur hates more than vegans.

[bhoytony]

Holy KiTTY, 100% of the comments are from uninformed social justice cultists.

Dumbass "erikthebassist" being one of them.

It was nice of him to explain to those silly girls in the photos that they were wrong about feminism.

[Southern]

Another variation on safehugs is non-contact hugs.

Oh, so the SJW are the predecessors of Dr. Cocteau?

[youtube]dz4HEEiJuGo[/youtube]

That makes so much sense. It explains everything. PZ Myers wants to be Dr. Cocteau!

[Brive1987]

Bwhahahahahaha

Cloudflare is now off-line:

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

[screwtape]

I am about to watch "A Dandy In Aspic" with Mia Farrow. I feel so dirty. At least Tom Courtenay will make up for her dbaggery..(I hope)

I have recently discovered British new wave cinema and am getting ready to enjoy "Billy Liar' and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"...

Make sure you don't overlook the classic "It's Grim Up North !"

Do you mean "This Sporting Life is A Kind of Loving on Saturday Night and Sunday Morning"? I must admit, my tolerance for middle class RADA luvvies pretending to be Northern proles is limited (speaking as a Northern prole). Though some of the cinematography, I recall, is pretty good.

Love the portmanteau title. From the same era I always had a soft spot for "Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment" and Lindsay Anderson's "If..." and "O Lucky Man". At least they took themselves less seriously than the works of the angry young men. BTW, O Lucky Man has vast expanses of Helen Mirren on display should that make a difference. The third part of that trilogy is entirely forgettable ("Britannia Hospital").

[AndrewV69]

Bwhahahahahaha

Cloudflare is now off-line:

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

Welp, all kinds of stuff going on. Not too long ago for example:

Code: Select all

12  64.125.12.249 (64.125.12.249)  53.252 ms  40.100 ms  40.885 ms
13  ae1.cr1.sjc2.us.above.net (64.125.24.1)  36.052 ms  38.946 ms  38.611 ms
14  * xe-0-3-0.cr1.lax112.us.above.net (64.125.26.25)  52.942 ms  52.830 ms
15  ae4.cr1.iah1.us.above.net (64.125.25.46)  85.589 ms  86.233 ms  85.397 ms
16  ae2.cr1.dca2.us.above.net (64.125.25.113)  99.230 ms  98.680 ms  98.531 ms
17  xe-0-0-0.mpr1.iad8.us.above.net (64.125.28.153)  107.606 ms *  108.036 ms
18  * xe-4-0-1.er1.iad10.us.above.net (64.125.28.162)  100.852 ms  101.768 ms
19  * * xe-1-0-1.cr1.ams5.nl.above.net (64.125.22.65)  103.565 ms
20  208.185.23.134.t00867-03.above.net (208.185.23.134)  94.656 ms *  113.150 ms
21  * ip-208-113-156-4.dreamhost.com (208.113.156.4)  102.786 ms  102.300 ms
22  ip-208-113-156-14.dreamhost.com (208.113.156.14)  97.433 ms  103.572 ms  99.980 ms
23  * * *

And prior to that this:

Code: Select all

12  64.125.12.249 (64.125.12.249)  34.241 ms  35.086 ms  34.474 ms
13  ae1.cr1.sjc2.us.above.net (64.125.24.1)  34.444 ms  40.745 ms  41.596 ms
14  * xe-0-3-0.cr1.lax112.us.above.net (64.125.26.25)  49.648 ms  50.039 ms
15  * * ae4.cr1.iah1.us.above.net (64.125.25.46)  93.827 ms
16  * * ae2.cr1.dca2.us.above.net (64.125.25.113)  101.078 ms
17  * * *

Try them again. Might be working now.

[AndrewV69]

BTW ... anyone have access to this Patriarchy, male competition, and excess male mortality. (from APA PsycNET)?

Studies of patriarchy typically focus on women’s subordination to men and the detrimental consequences for females. In this study, however, the authors predict that greater social empowerment of women will be associated with smaller mortality differences between women and men, which may seem counterintuitive from a nonevolutionary perspective. In other words, they predict that higher levels of societal patriarchy will be associated with greater levels of excess male mortality. They propose that the degree of patriarchy reflects both the extent of male control of females as reproductive assets, as well as the degree of male competition for positions of high status and power that have historically conferred disproportionate reproductive benefits. The intensity of this male competition directly predicts the extent to which male mortality rates exceed female mortality rates. The authors examined national level sociodemographic and mortality data from the WHO Mortality Database, United Nations, CIA World Factbook, and the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. They found that across nations, women’s social and economic empowerment had a strong inverse relationship with the disparity between male and female mortality from both external (direct behavioral) and (behaviorally mediated) internal causes, even when accounting for general economic inequality and the prevalence of polygyny. This study demonstrates the usefulness of an evolutionary framework for explaining contemporary social phenomena and important public health issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

It is from the journal of Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I don't like Woody Allen movies. Never have. And this whole thing reads like a Woddy Allen movie. I'll pass.

Yeah, the one about the tangled relationships of a group of upper-middle class, Jewish, New Yorkers who talk too much is... most of them.

Yeah, but TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN and SLEEPER are hilarious.

"I have a gub."

[AndrewV69]

BTW ... I try to avoid the SIWOTI syndrome but a 50+ yr old man lusting after the body of a 17yr old girl is not "creepy". Thas just a social construct.

Which also reminds me of the latest installment of the Jimmy Savile hysteria all on account of him havng fucked some 15-16 yr old girls. Apparently his DNA does not match any historical major crimes

Pity that. Eh? Eh??

[welch]

PZ posts on an abhorrent anti euthanasia poster. Love the ? In the title.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-thing-2/

<SNIP>

I cleaned my browser with CCleaner recently and when I clicked that link I got a white page that stated:

"Checking your browser...." and something about anti ddos attack software. Some kind of scan that takes about 5 seconds. I re-clicked it and it was normal, then I cleaned again and got the "Checking your browser..." thing again.

What is PZ putting on my computer? Anything other than a cookie?
Who's more paranoid, me or PZ?

THat's them being somewhat dumb with Cloudflare settings.

[welch]

Bwhahahahahaha

Cloudflare is now off-line:

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

Nah. That's just their enrollment/control panel site. If they were really offline, I'd not be at home. and I'd be screaming.

[real horrorshow]

Anyway I would not wish harm to FtB or the related kooky sites such as the A+ forums for two simple reasons:

1. I believe people should be able to express their opinion even if I disagree with it and their opinion includes shutting down any dissent by any means possible, including deliberately damaging people's and their friends and families real lives. The more this is in the open the better.

Hmm, sort of reminds me of the Danish cartoons business and before that, the Satanic Verses rumpus. During the latter, I recall, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown flounced off The New Statesman, complaining that people were suggesting that the right of free speech (not enshrined in law in England) might not be extended - unconditionally - to those who wanted to use their free speech in an attempt to deny free speech to others.

I'm passionate about the concept of free speech (the Whored's sneering of 'freeze peach', makes me especially angry), however, I find myself in a bit of a quandary with the real extremists:

" ...I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Ok, what I wanted to say was: kill him"
[sfx] CHOP!
"Right, that's the last liberal dead. From now on dissent is a capital crime."

See what I mean?

2. I would miss the fun. I can't take these people seriously and the more serious they take themselves the more fun they provide. Life would be more empty without these humourless blow-hards making frequent fools of themselves. The fact they seem totally unaware of the supremely arrogance and pontificating nature of the name 'FtBConscience' is an example of pompous idiots so full of themselves they have no awareness of how funny they actually are.

Oh, they are the infinite Mine O' Lulz it's true. I still favour the Trueman Show idea of allowing them the Chernobyl Social Justice Preserve (as A+ suggested) and sitting back to watch with beer and snacks. It's having them loose in the world I live in that worries me.

[Aneris]

Through a strange series of events, I saw Patrick Mcnee, who was mentioned earlier, in a conspiracy “documentary” and thought, wait a minute, wasn't this guy mentioned somewhere today?

Its apparently a right wing conspiracy theory which tries to capitalize Dan Browns toilet paper of conspiracy novels. The “documentary” mainly weaves together (of course) the german Illuminati, french templars with a jewish veneer (the priory of sion), arabian hashemites, and russian communists (mainly the Speznas). And they are out to destroy religion, especially the catholic church. The Illuminati undermined everything, as in all of these classic conspiracies and here they also founded the EU, or something, as a step towards a world goverment. Americans beware! The many freemason influences in the US history (i.e. freemason symbology, presidents that were freemasons) were clearly inconvenient for the makers of this “documentary” so they just glanced over it at the end (they just had to get in the iconic Dollar note, for their presentation — can't have a proper conspiracy “documentary” without the All Seeing Eye).

Perhaps, its for classic skepticism aside bigfoot. Sometimes its interesting to see how they built narratives, or see some texture of a time and for some real strange occurences (real facts) that are weaved into the storytelling. I was honestly quite amazed that Pope John Paul in his only 33 days alive as pope met a russian clergymen who died in his presence from cardiac arrest, and John Paul himself died from it, too, some few days later. Also, from another (credible) documentary on german TV, it reported on the Propaganda Due, an italian conspiracy cell that used freemasonry as cover and which was heavily connected with mafia and vatican (and who, incidentially, listed a certain Silvio Berlusconi as a member). McNees “documentary” didn't even go there"...

Anyway, does anyone know how come Patrick McNee presents such a corny, and hard to believe “documentary”?

[youtube]9wgwQiD_CT0[/youtube]

[welch]

Through a strange series of events, I saw Patrick Mcnee, who was mentioned earlier, in a conspiracy “documentary” and thought, wait a minute, wasn't this guy mentioned somewhere today?

Its apparently a right wing conspiracy theory which tries to capitalize Dan Browns toilet paper of conspiracy novels. The “documentary” mainly weaves together (of course) the german Illuminati, french templars with a jewish veneer (the priory of sion), arabian hashemites, and russian communists (mainly the Speznas). And they are out to destroy religion, especially the catholic church. The Illuminati undermined everything, as in all of these classic conspiracies and here they also founded the EU, or something, as a step towards a world goverment. Americans beware! The many freemason influences in the US history (i.e. freemason symbology, presidents that were freemasons) were clearly inconvenient for the makers of this “documentary” so they just glanced over it at the end (they just had to get in the iconic Dollar note, for their presentation — can't have a proper conspiracy “documentary” without the All Seeing Eye).

Perhaps, its for classic skepticism aside bigfoot. Sometimes its interesting to see how they built narratives, or see some texture of a time and for some real strange occurences (real facts) that are weaved into the storytelling. I was honestly quite amazed that Pope John Paul in his only 33 days alive as pope met a russian clergymen who died in his presence from cardiac arrest, and John Paul himself died from it, too, some few days later. Also, from another (credible) documentary on german TV, it reported on the Propaganda Due, an italian conspiracy cell that used freemasonry as cover and which was heavily connected with mafia and vatican (and who, incidentially, listed a certain Silvio Berlusconi as a member). McNees “documentary” didn't even go there"...

Anyway, does anyone know how come Patrick McNee presents such a corny, and hard to believe “documentary”?

[youtube]9wgwQiD_CT0[/youtube]

I have this bit of paper called a "check", and on it, I'm going to write a number with a looooot of zeros to the left of the decimal point. When I get enough to make you say "yes", you just let me know.

[katamari Damassi]

Also, I've been reading the updated edition of Lies My Teacher Told Me, and in chapter 12 when discussing the question of why history textbooks are so shit, Loewen entertains the idea of it being the fault of powerful elite interest groups before ultimately dismissing the idea as an appealing falsehood that fails to explain so much countervailing evidence.

In the US the state of Texas decides what goes into the nation's text books. One of the reasons why education sucks here.

[Aneris]

Meanwhile Zvan has her own conspiracy going, by linking the DDOS attack to Sara Mayhew, FfTB Moriarty, to PZ Holmes and Watson. Ok, not really. “it's not really her style” states Zvan somewhere mid-text, but libel is, she claims. And libel is, according to Zvan, when someone claims not to be able to post on FTB but actually could post. With a couple of caveats, of course...

Every comment Sara Mayhew has left on Almost Diamonds has been published, though they do get held until they can be checked for accuracy and a refutation published along with them as appropriate. Given Mayhew's ongoing troubled relationship with the truth, I think this is very reasonable.

Not that some comments, without good reason, were indeed held in moderation limbo because they went against her narrative. It then goes on to Victim Blaming, which can now be used for every context, even for the claim that the DDOS attacked folks brought it unto themselves, to which Mayhew replies its a buzzword. But Zvan thinks that ....

For a "buzzword", "victim blaming" has an awfully long history, well supported in the scientific literature, particularly the literature on resolution of cognitive bias, with which skeptics should generally be familiar. I think after four decades, it's probably time to stop calling the concept trendy.

It was new to me that there are four decades of research on victim blaming victims of DDOS attacks. I don't think a network even counts as a victim in the sense it was researched, in particular not when they are themselves an active part on an info war.

[katamari Damassi]

I don't like Woody Allen movies. Never have. And this whole thing reads like a Woddy Allen movie. I'll pass.

Yeah, the one about the tangled relationships of a group of upper-middle class, Jewish, New Yorkers who talk too much is... most of them.

Yeah, but TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN and SLEEPER are hilarious.

"I have a gub."

Love & Death is the funniest. Annie Hall is my favorite, with Radio Days and Bullets Over Broadway being high on the list as well. Just saw Blue Jasmine and it is very good.
[youtube]IFjttC_AGsU[/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Bwhahahahahaha

Cloudflare is now off-line:

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

Nah. That's just their enrollment/control panel site. If they were really offline, I'd not be at home. and I'd be screaming.

Pardon my dumb, but are you saying having a panel up that basically says "defensive measures have kicked in to deliver a cached page" is normal? I note the banner isn't there now.

Anyway the chest beating on Skepchick is pathetic.

Obviously the attack isn't about disliking their brand of feminism. No it's women haters attacking feminism in general. Goebbels couldn't have done a better job rousing the masses.

RW isn't that stupid, but she sure does assume her readers are.

Benson are you listening? I just compared your sides propaganda tactics to those of the Nazis.

http://i.imgur.com/SBKZZU7.jpg

[katamari Damassi]

Anyway I would not wish harm to FtB or the related kooky sites such as the A+ forums for two simple reasons:

1. I believe people should be able to express their opinion even if I disagree with it and their opinion includes shutting down any dissent by any means possible, including deliberately damaging people's and their friends and families real lives. The more this is in the open the better.

Hmm, sort of reminds me of the Danish cartoons business and before that, the Satanic Verses rumpus. During the latter, I recall, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown flounced off The New Statesman, complaining that people were suggesting that the right of free speech (not enshrined in law in England) might not be extended - unconditionally - to those who wanted to use their free speech in an attempt to deny free speech to others.

I'm passionate about the concept of free speech (the Whored's sneering of 'freeze peach', makes me especially angry), however, I find myself in a bit of a quandary with the real extremists:

" ...I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Ok, what I wanted to say was: kill him"
[sfx] CHOP!
"Right, that's the last liberal dead. From now on dissent is a capital crime."

See what I mean?

2. I would miss the fun. I can't take these people seriously and the more serious they take themselves the more fun they provide. Life would be more empty without these humourless blow-hards making frequent fools of themselves. The fact they seem totally unaware of the supremely arrogance and pontificating nature of the name 'FtBConscience' is an example of pompous idiots so full of themselves they have no awareness of how funny they actually are.

Oh, they are the infinite Mine O' Lulz it's true. I still favour the Trueman Show idea of allowing them the Chernobyl Social Justice Preserve (as A+ suggested) and sitting back to watch with beer and snacks. It's having them loose in the world I live in that worries me.

I'm against these sort of attacks myself on moral grounds as well as tactically-they lend credibility to the blogs being attacked.
I will admit though that the DDOS attack against Adria Richards employer did make me smile though. I'm not sure justice would've been done without it.

[Brive1987]

When you banhammer the Internet, the Internet banhammers you back.

Below is a remarkably naive view expressed on Skepchick. I'd respond except ......

There is something terribly ironic about people who claim to be supportive of the goals of skepticism attempting to use tactics like DDoS attacks to silence people they don’t agree with.

This kind of behavior should be eschewed by skeptics whether or not the target is inside or outside the movement. If you feel someone’s statements are not comparable with the evidence the proper way to dispute their claims is through…you know…reason and evidence, not through attempts to silence your opposition through hacking. Anyone who thinks the hacking your opponents websites is a legitimate avenue of dissent has no idea what it means to identify as a skeptic.

I did 'like' RW's tongue in cheek use of PIV as the butt of a joke line:

You may have noticed that Skepchick has been in and out (oooooh) for the past day

.