Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Badger3k]

Actually, to expand on that last post - why would PZ feel that he is getting his nose rubbed in it? It only makes sense if he knows and is admitting he is an "assbutt". Otherwise, why feel guilty or upset? If I saw someone taking others to task for something I had no part in, then I would say "rubbing their noses in it". Unless he is still on this atheist-borg idea of his, as opposed to the whole "we're all atheists but a lot of other things, and it's a fucking huge tent we're under" kind of thinking.

[Badger3k]

Here's one for those in the online atheist/skeptical community who have long memories.

About four years ago a Christian decided to troll the atheist community. He set up a website called 'You're Not Helping' and proceeded to fill it with sockpuppets such that it appeared he had a reasonably large community who agreed with him. His main theme involved accusing 'New Atheists' of being destructive to the idea of promoting science amongst moderate religious people, but he also mixed in the question of how, or whether, people should promote atheism itself.
He hit on a winning formula early on- he criticized Ophelia Benson - which, of course, prompted her to freak out and seek out all places where these criticisms had been raised. One of these places was on Chris Mooney's blog, 'The Intersection'.
The troll, whose real name was Wally Smith (this all came out at the denouement so I'm not doxxing him here - Ophelia did that years ago), started sending in sock puppets to the comment section of The Intersection, and arguing with Ophelia. At this point Ophelia demanded that at least one of the socks be banned from The Intersection (for something he had said on the other blog) - and Mooney instead decided to ban Ophelia (technically speaking this banning falls under the Freeze Peach Amendment.)

At the time (and I think still) Mooney was desperate to find something to prove his own feeling that New Atheism was destructive - and so he was receptive to Wally Smith's comments and to the type of arguments Smith was promoting on 'You're Not Helping'.
But Smith took it too far. He made up a sock that he called 'Tom Johnson', supposedly an atheist scientist who worked with other atheist scientists on environmental research. Johnson's colleagues, however, were New Atheist dicks. They would turn up at meetings that were organized by church groups to promote understanding of climate change and proceed to insult and mock religious people there at the meeting.
Not only this, but the justification these new atheists gave for this behavior was that they had been inspired to do so by their heroes, Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.
Mooney thought Christmas had come early and promoted this comment in a blog post entitled "Exhibit A"
Finally!
Proof that new atheism is bad and that accomodationism is the way forward. :dance:

But 'Johnson' got more than a little pushback. While it is easy to believe that there are some atheists who are knobends, it is hard to believe that groups of scientists would put their careers on the line by behaving in such unprofessional ways in a public outreach meeting. When questioned about details, Johnson's story changed. He refused to provide verifiable facts, but Mooney, whose reputation as a journalist was on the line here, vouched for him (he claimed to have been in email contact with him from Johnson's university.)
In the end, however, his sock puppet farming was exposed on another discussion board which linked back to The Intersection, and thus Johnson and ultimately Wally Smith were exposed - (which in the end resulted in him getting reprimanded by his college supervisor.)

So?

What's the point of all that ancient history?
Well, the point is that the same arguments linking New Atheism to despicable real world behavior have just re-emerged.
On Butterflies and Wheels.

I found the transcript of the Jamie Kilstein video that Ophelia has just approvingly linked on her site.

[youtube]WGwlGg-m4rc[/youtube]

The majority of rape threats I see online, the majority of death threats, aren’t coming from people whose twitters profile are like: “Rush Limbaugh 4EVA”. It’s people whose profile was like: “Secular Humanist, just asking the big questions”, as if their definition of human is like privileged white male and with a lot of free time on their hands.
When I first started questioning religion it had nothing to do with a chip on my shoulder, it had to do with the way that organized religion treated the LGTB community, treated women, were cool with slavery, declared wars in their name. Yet if you go to an atheist subforum it’s the exact same shit, they just occasionally throw in the word “science” instead of “talking snake”.
Hey, New Atheists, guess who else wanted to eradicate Islam? George Bush!
Guess who else hates women? The Taliban.
Go hang out with them and leave poor dead Carl Sagan out of this.
As an atheist, you shouldn’t want to make religious people feel uncomfortable, you should want to make bigots uncomfortable. If you really care about the cause and you want more atheists, here’s a recruiting tip: stop being a dick!
Atheism is already hard enough to market, like hey, those religious guys may have heaven and all you can eat pancakes and reuniting with all your dead pets, but with atheism I hope you like nothingness and peer reviewed graphs.
“Atheism, our prophet also hates muslims”
Richard Dawkins, by the way, that’s who I was talking about.
Richard Dawkins hates muslims.
You don’t need to add white supremacy and sexism on top of all that.
If you want to prove to people you can be good without God, then look in the mirror and start with yourself.

If you can get past his annoyingly obnoxious personality and listen to what he says it becomes abundantly clear that this is simply identity politics with no holds barred. Including the question of whether telling the truth is important.

"The majority of rape threats I see online, the majority of death threats, aren’t coming from people whose twitters profile are like: “Rush Limbaugh 4EVA”. It’s people whose profile was like: “Secular Humanist, just asking the big questions”,"

I call bullshit on this one.
While I don't deny that rape or death threats don't occur online, I do think that the vast majority of people realize that such threats have serious implications. It's not like calling someone an asshole. Make an actual threat and you get the police turning up at your house.
Which is why those who do make threats tend to be either:

1. Complete idiots who don't understand the consequences of their actions.
or
2. Anonymous trolls, who do their best to hit and run, without leaving a direct link to their real identity or actual interests.

In either case the idea that the majority of the people making such threats call themselves "secular humanists" is laughable.

And apparently atheist subforums are filled with people who are indistinguishable from the Taliban!
Apart from the point about slavery (as far as I'm aware, the Taliban are against that - unlike New Atheists, who are in favor of it, according to Kilstein :shock: ) - oh, and white supremacy, and misogyny. And being a bit like George Bush (isn't that stupidity shaming? :think: )

Basically Kilstein just compares New Atheists to the worst things he can think of (I was waiting for Nazis - I guess there's always the next video.)
It would almost be funny - except it's Jamie Kilstein we are talking about here.


The weird thing is that Ophelia seems to have missed the point entirely here - this is pure Tom Johnson style 'lying for accomodationism' (or whatever Johnson really wanted) - except it goes further than Johnson/Smith went. Even though Smith was most likely a Christian he didn't have the contempt for science that Kilstein demonstrates. Johnson portrayed his opponents as acting like dicks amongst the moderately religious - Kilstein describes them as a kind of cross between the Klan and the Taliban.

Yes, Kilstein is a moron who is venting, but when the rhetoric is so far over the top like this you either ignore it, or you try to correct it - you don't approvingly link it - unless you happen to agree with it completely (and if she does then there is no hope for her, she's too far down that particular rabbit-hole to ever drag back out.)

All I can do is sit in awe at your skillz, and at your determination to actually look into Wankstain. Yech. He really went with the whole "guess who else had a mustache? Hitler!" type of argument (well, not much of an argument, but if your mental development is that of a grade-school kid, what else do you have. Seriously, if you dislike Islam you are like George Bush? Maybe in the fact that you both dislike Islam, but perhaps in nothing else. Logical Fallacy much, Wankstain? And these hindquarterposteriors actually link approvingly to it? (Good catch with the Tom Johnson stuff - love to link that to Ophie since it caused her so many problems/irritations - but she'd never see the connection.

[Za-zen]

Lil thimble, and stephalump, remember when we told you that you were splitting a movement whose focus was on destroying the brain virus that gods exist, and you told us, no, the movement should be focused on what you thought was more important, and we replied; remember who the real enemy is!

[youtube]0swJ6J3zwnY[/youtube]

Your sub movement of a movement was always destined to implode

[Badger3k]

I also decided to make a post on Avi's, because I have a penchant for self-harm. Apparently.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ent-436394

You know the answer to your last question - yes, it is too hard for him to do. Not that he would ever admit it. I think you'll see more distractions and diversions, but never get any answer to your questions. He's a wannabe who feels left out - he's not a big name, just a minor player, and he wants the big victim-cred, and move up the ladder of SJW-land. But he seems to be missing the animal cunning that some of them have, and just comes across as stupid, self-centered, and very clueless. He'll never be a big-league player, and I think he knows it. Now, if he cut off his foot, or promoted spreading HIV, or did something similar...why, he might work his way up the FtB ladder of victimhood.

[BarnOwl]

<snip>

If you can get past his annoyingly obnoxious personality and listen to what he says it becomes abundantly clear that this is simply identity politics with no holds barred. Including the question of whether telling the truth is important.

"The majority of rape threats I see online, the majority of death threats, aren’t coming from people whose twitters profile are like: “Rush Limbaugh 4EVA”. It’s people whose profile was like: “Secular Humanist, just asking the big questions”,"

I call bullshit on this one.
While I don't deny that rape or death threats don't occur online, I do think that the vast majority of people realize that such threats have serious implications. It's not like calling someone an asshole. Make an actual threat and you get the police turning up at your house.
Which is why those who do make threats tend to be either:

1. Complete idiots who don't understand the consequences of their actions.
or
2. Anonymous trolls, who do their best to hit and run, without leaving a direct link to their real identity or actual interests.

In either case the idea that the majority of the people making such threats call themselves "secular humanists" is laughable.

And apparently atheist subforums are filled with people who are indistinguishable from the Taliban!
Apart from the point about slavery (as far as I'm aware, the Taliban are against that - unlike New Atheists, who are in favor of it, according to Kilstein :shock: ) - oh, and white supremacy, and misogyny. And being a bit like George Bush (isn't that stupidity shaming? :think: )

Basically Kilstein just compares New Atheists to the worst things he can think of (I was waiting for Nazis - I guess there's always the next video.)
It would almost be funny - except it's Jamie Kilstein we are talking about here.


The weird thing is that Ophelia seems to have missed the point entirely here - this is pure Tom Johnson style 'lying for accomodationism' (or whatever Johnson really wanted) - except it goes further than Johnson/Smith went. Even though Smith was most likely a Christian he didn't have the contempt for science that Kilstein demonstrates. Johnson portrayed his opponents as acting like dicks amongst the moderately religious - Kilstein describes them as a kind of cross between the Klan and the Taliban.

Yes, Kilstein is a moron who is venting, but when the rhetoric is so far over the top like this you either ignore it, or you try to correct it - you don't approvingly link it - unless you happen to agree with it completely (and if she does then there is no hope for her, she's too far down that particular rabbit-hole to ever drag back out.)

Kudos to you for being able to listen to Kilstein - I can't get past his annoyingly obnoxious personality. He's the worst of an extremely annoying bunch. Whiny, self-involved, smug, self righteous, and incredibly dishonest.

When PeeZus says "rub our noses in it" he really means "rub the noses of the SlymePit and of other people I don't like in it." PeeZus is a lifelong social justice activist, feminist, and humanist, remember.

Also, the Taliban are the new Nazis, apparently.

[acathode]

Catching up on the last 5-10 pages... Stupidgate is hilarious, it's the A+ forums all over again. Makes me miss the sheer stupidity and comedy that they used to create... such a good think to see that some of the A+es are making guest appearances outside of their little protected habitat and creating some more "grade A+" comedy.

Being half-serious though, this whole fetish the FBTers have for policing slurs just makes me think a lot of them used to be bullied in school.

There's one side to them, where it seems they pretty much seem to believe that if they just forbid anyone from using slurs that hurt anyone's feelings, people will magically become nice people and no longer say mean things about and to them. On the other hand, the SJWs themselves are some of the most vicious and toxic people you can find, and they just love calling people names. They just revel in being nasty and hateful... reading FTB, it's really easy to start thinking that they are making up for things in real life.

Normally, this contradiction is just another day in "it's ok when we do it!"-land, but now when one of their own was stupid enough to say something about it out loud... the fireworks are spectacular!
:popcorn:

[Dick Strawkins]

I just noticed the following comment from the normally intelligent Sastra (probably the last of the old guard of thoughtful pharyngula commenters - the rest, like Paul W have long since given up in disgust)

The dictionary definition of atheism is a fine way to begin at the very beginning. It allows secular humanists to distance themselves from the philosophy of Stalin, for example. But the atheist “movement” has to be a movement towards something. Nobody who identifies as an atheist can just rest and stop there: even those who choose to do so are taking a stance against taking any stances (which is silly.)

Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble. It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on.

At least that’s my take.

I think she's made a mistake here.
She, like a lot of US based atheists, seem to think it is critical to have a focussed 'atheist movement'.
If she looked across to Europe she's notice that this has not been the way that European atheism has progressed. For Europeans it has been far more important to concentrate on secularism and removing religious influence from the laws of the lands.
(And by 'secularism' I don't mean atheism, I mean genuine respect for the right to hold whatever view you want, so long as you don't try to foist it on others.)
The rise in atheism has been an indirect result of this viewpoint - in much the same way that promoting the understanding of science can also lead to a rise in the levels of religious non belief.

Perhaps she is trying to be charitable to PZs anti dictionary atheist position - that's the only explanation I can think of. The idea that just because you describe 'atheism' in a dictionary fashion (non belief in religion or Gods) doesn't mean you have no other beliefs any more than saying you don't believe in ghosts means you have no morals.
"Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble"
Indeed not. And neither does it preclude being in favor of them.

"It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on."

Since she has just pointed out that you don't even need to know the arguments against the existence of God to be an atheist, it should be obvious that we can come to atheism for a variety of reasons (for example political reasons, scientific reasons, cultural reasons etc) and as such there is no guarantee that your principles will be the same as a fellow atheist (in much the same way that there is little reason to assume someone who also doesn't believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships, will have the same political stance as yourself.)

[jet_lagg]

Other priorities in life have mostly kept me away from the pit of lates, but I've been lurking from time to time, yearning for Cunt's return.

This is almost as good. Hell... this is better.

:popcorn:

As the resident unapologetic Richard Carrier fan I'll admit it's bullshit that he isn't chiming in on this issue. Throwing your lot in with a group of people (especially in such a reckless, hostile fashion), to me, means you take responsibility on some level for their actions. I'd understand if he admitted he made a mistake (cue howls of laughter from the pit) as I did, and openly cut ties from the group. But just quietly ignoring the havoc they wreak? Not talking about them anymore and hoping people forget you were ever a member? Disappointing to say the least.

[Za-zen]

I just noticed the following comment from the normally intelligent Sastra (probably the last of the old guard of thoughtful pharyngula commenters - the rest, like Paul W have long since given up in disgust)

The dictionary definition of atheism is a fine way to begin at the very beginning. It allows secular humanists to distance themselves from the philosophy of Stalin, for example. But the atheist “movement” has to be a movement towards something. Nobody who identifies as an atheist can just rest and stop there: even those who choose to do so are taking a stance against taking any stances (which is silly.)

Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble. It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on.

At least that’s my take.

I think she's made a mistake here.
She, like a lot of US based atheists, seem to think it is critical to have a focussed 'atheist movement'.
If she looked across to Europe she's notice that this has not been the way that European atheism has progressed. For Europeans it has been far more important to concentrate on secularism and removing religious influence from the laws of the lands.
(And by 'secularism' I don't mean atheism, I mean genuine respect for the right to hold whatever view you want, so long as you don't try to foist it on others.)
The rise in atheism has been an indirect result of this viewpoint - in much the same way that promoting the understanding of science can also lead to a rise in the levels of religious non belief.

Perhaps she is trying to be charitable to PZs anti dictionary atheist position - that's the only explanation I can think of. The idea that just because you describe 'atheism' in a dictionary fashion (non belief in religion or Gods) doesn't mean you have no other beliefs any more than saying you don't believe in ghosts means you have no morals.
"Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble"
Indeed not. And neither does it preclude being in favor of them.

"It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on."

Since she has just pointed out that you don't even need to know the arguments against the existence of God to be an atheist, it should be obvious that we can come to atheism for a variety of reasons (for example political reasons, scientific reasons, cultural reasons etc) and as such there is no guarantee that your principles will be the same as a fellow atheist (in much the same way that there is little reason to assume someone who also doesn't believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships, will have the same political stance as yourself.)

It is hugely entertaining, that in most european countries, which actually have religion written into their state structures, if their premier started making god noises on the podium, he'd be decried as a looney toon, and there would be demands for him to be wheeled out of office before his meltdown caused him to press the wrong button.

Whilst in the US, a nation specifically constituted to be secular, god nooses from the podium are a requirement, and usually result in a polls bump.

It is beautifully absurd.

[Brive1987]

Sastra seems pretty diffident about whether they are talking organised ideological based movement or just actively following the tenets of an alternative worldview/value system to theistic deontology.

I don't think she even knows. Just that there .. Must ... Be ... More.

[Apples]

*snip*[a lengthy post well-worth reading in its entirety.]*snip*

Good observations.

[BarnOwl]

I just noticed the following comment from the normally intelligent Sastra (probably the last of the old guard of thoughtful pharyngula commenters - the rest, like Paul W have long since given up in disgust)

The dictionary definition of atheism is a fine way to begin at the very beginning. It allows secular humanists to distance themselves from the philosophy of Stalin, for example. But the atheist “movement” has to be a movement towards something. Nobody who identifies as an atheist can just rest and stop there: even those who choose to do so are taking a stance against taking any stances (which is silly.)

Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble. It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on.

At least that’s my take.

I think she's made a mistake here.
She, like a lot of US based atheists, seem to think it is critical to have a focussed 'atheist movement'.
If she looked across to Europe she's notice that this has not been the way that European atheism has progressed. For Europeans it has been far more important to concentrate on secularism and removing religious influence from the laws of the lands.
(And by 'secularism' I don't mean atheism, I mean genuine respect for the right to hold whatever view you want, so long as you don't try to foist it on others.)
The rise in atheism has been an indirect result of this viewpoint - in much the same way that promoting the understanding of science can also lead to a rise in the levels of religious non belief.

Perhaps she is trying to be charitable to PZs anti dictionary atheist position - that's the only explanation I can think of. The idea that just because you describe 'atheism' in a dictionary fashion (non belief in religion or Gods) doesn't mean you have no other beliefs any more than saying you don't believe in ghosts means you have no morals.
"Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble"
Indeed not. And neither does it preclude being in favor of them.

"It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on."

Since she has just pointed out that you don't even need to know the arguments against the existence of God to be an atheist, it should be obvious that we can come to atheism for a variety of reasons (for example political reasons, scientific reasons, cultural reasons etc) and as such there is no guarantee that your principles will be the same as a fellow atheist (in much the same way that there is little reason to assume someone who also doesn't believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships, will have the same political stance as yourself.)

They're obsessed with assigning labels, for themselves and for others, allies and enemies. They want to be defined by words, rather than by actions - that way, they don't have to actually do anything. THey also want to be in control of the words used to define themselves, AND to make decisions about the labels applied to people whom they don't like.

And I agree with your points about European vs. US atheism and secularism. I don't see the need to have a focused atheist movement myself, and I think the atheist meetings and squabbles over perceived leadership roles are silly and complete wastes of time. Better to focus on improving science education and encouraging engagement in community activities, IMHO.

[Dick Strawkins]

Catching up on the last 5-10 pages... Stupidgate is hilarious, it's the A+ forums all over again. Makes me miss the sheer stupidity and comedy that they used to create... such a good think to see that some of the A+es are making guest appearances outside of their little protected habitat and creating some more "grade A+" comedy.

Being half-serious though, this whole fetish the FBTers have for policing slurs just makes me think a lot of them used to be bullied in school.

There's one side to them, where it seems they pretty much seem to believe that if they just forbid anyone from using slurs that hurt anyone's feelings, people will magically become nice people and no longer say mean things about and to them. On the other hand, the SJWs themselves are some of the most vicious and toxic people you can find, and they just love calling people names. They just revel in being nasty and hateful... reading FTB, it's really easy to start thinking that they are making up for things in real life.

Normally, this contradiction is just another day in "it's ok when we do it!"-land, but now when one of their own was stupid enough to say something about it out loud... the fireworks are spectacular!
:popcorn:

They have two options that allow themselves to be somewhat consistent:

First, they can adopt the Dan Fincke resolution of only addressing the argument and not insulting the opponent.
I will point out that this is not an easy stance to take - even Fincke couldn't manage it in my experience (he once banned me for being a slymepitter after I had left a non insulting but critical comment on his thread)

Alternatively, they can admit that they see a value in insults.

The trouble with their approach is that the traditional stance of 'It's OK When We Do It' (and not when anyone else does it)
If you criticise someone for insulting you or your friends - and have as the basis of your criticism that insults reduce (good) people to things (a shit, an asshole, an idiot etc) then you have ruled out that option for yourself when confronting an opponent (because even the worst opponent is not a thing - they are a person.)

Remember, we've all been called 'shits' by Ophelia on multiple occasions.
We either get hung up on being reduced to an object - or we agree that it is her right to vent in this way. As Pinker has described it, pejorative insults have the effect of a mental smack in the face, they are useful in situations where you want to startle your opponent (but without physically thumping them) - which is why they are universally used in all cultures.

[real horrorshow]

Deary me, leaving aside the obvious rubbish like:

The majority of rape threats I see online, the majority of death threats, aren’t coming from people whose twitters profile are like: “Rush Limbaugh 4EVA”. It’s people whose profile was like: “Secular Humanist"...

The nub of this is the "I'd rather hang out with nice accommodationist Christians than nasty rude Atheists with their boring old sciencing" argument. (Never mind if he's just got done saying that he doesn't like Christians who cherry-pick the bible or Christians who are biblical literalists and nasty about gays - which might reduce his chances of finding Christians he thinks are nice and accommodationist.) Well, I believe him and that's what he should do. And it's what Offie should do, if she likes.

Now, for me, personally, this wouldn't work. Because I like science, I like what it's done for us, I like the kind of thinking that it promotes. I think these things are very important. If I'm given the choice of hanging out with a bunch of nice happy-clappy types with a headful of woo-woo and sitting on my own reading a good popular science text, I'll take the book.

For the same reason, I don't care all that much about Atheist/Sceptic Communities/Movements. Because Atheism just says I'm not a Theist and Scepticism is a healthy habit of mind I can practice all by myself (in fact that's often easier that way).

Maybe it's my good fortune that I don't feel this mighty need to belong. In the same way that is probably my good fortune that I've never had religious faith. Or maybe I'm just an anti-social [insert SJW insult here], but I don't think so. I get on with people here well enough - for example - and I don't think that's because we all agree on everything. Nor do I think it's because we're willing to ignore our differences in order to accommodate each other. There have been some ding-dong rows here. I've been in some of them. Some of them never got resolved and never will be. But in most cases people argue rationally, in good faith. They bring some evidence and own their shit. These things are more important than "don't be a dick" as a blanket rule.

Perhaps even more important: We're here for the lulz. We don't flatter ourselves that we're going to lead a movement and save humanity. It's understood that the best we can do is snipe at the most conspicuous targets and - Dawkins be praised - we're seldom short of them. If Offie and any of the other FreeThoughtPolice want to get into bed with the nice Christians, or even the nice Muslims, let them. They're all irrationalists together. All more concerned with being part of the in-group than with any intellectual principle. Fuck 'em.

[Apples]

Lolwut? :D

I assume she meant "I just cannot win."

[Dick Strawkins]

If Offie and any of the other FreeThoughtPolice want to get into bed with the nice Christians, or even the nice Muslims, let them. They're all irrationalists together. All more concerned with being part of the in-group than with any intellectual principle. Fuck 'em.

Ophelia give the impression of someone who has never met a real muslim before, never mind want to be friends with them.
She's friends with a couple of ex-muslims, Taslima Nasreen and Maryam Namazie, but if anything, she is far more critical of Islam than the likes of Dawkins or Harris (who, unlike Ophelia, don't seem to be in favor of legal measures such as banning head coverings.)

There is a real difference between Ophelia and the likes of Peezus and Watson on this issue. Ophelia does seem to have a genuine interest in combatting Islam and writes about it far more often and in far more aggressive terms than anything Dawkins does (or anything Peezus has done for the past couple of years since he was born again - as a feminist.)
She doesn't seem to realize the leeway she is being given here - her chosen identity group - the social justice brigade - generally view those with views of Islam similar to Ophelia's views, as unadulterated racists.

[John D]

[.... get a check from the government every month - it's called being "disabled," and people who don't spend the money to build ramps and oversized bathroom stalls to accommodate the small minority of people who are wheelchair-bound get their asses sued under the ADA.

You have a beef with your own government. Maybe try voting for a different party.

Sometimes we have to live with the decisions our fellow citizens have made for a while. It's to do with the fact that we can't demand that the world revolves around us and only us.

If your business is having trouble, do remember that the same rules re access also apply to your competitors, so there may be reasons for lack of competitiveness, apart from payment for disability provision.

No, you're missing my point. I'm not opposed to the government's requiring accommodations for, or providing cash assistance to, people who have the misfortune of being unable to walk. But I'm unwilling to adopt euphemisms the purpose of which is to protect certain handicapped snowflakes' feelings by pretending that disabilities are not disabilities.

There's a meaningful difference between a "wheelchair user" (who might be someone with broken ankles or an old person who has trouble walking long distances and gets wheeled around at the airport) and people like Steven Hawking, who are genuinely "wheelchair-bound."

My point is, if they weren't disabilities, they wouldn't require accommodation or make people eligible for social security checks. And I'm opposed to language-policing on principle, especially around self-esteem. If someone who can't walk is, in addition, so fragile or narcissistic that hearing "wheelchair-bound" is a problem for them, then their problem is not actually other people's language-usage -- it's their own unresolved psychological/emotional issues around their disability.

Anyway, intent is magic, and newspeak should be unnecessary, among people with a modicum of mental health who are actually capable of honest relationships and clear communication.

Indeed, you are right. I tested the "wheelchair bound" topic with my wife last night. I said... "Hey. people are saying we shouldn't say the word wheelchair bound because it sounds like you are in bondage... like a slave." My wife immediately gave me a quizzical look and said... "Well... what about house bound?" Haha. "Wheelchair bound" has a meaning. "Disabled" has a meaning. I mean... for shits sake.... if you are not disabled you can get disability checks....you get the checks because you CAN'T WORK because you are "disabled". WTF! Trying to change words like "disabled" and "wheelchair bound" is bizarre.

[Sulaco]

StupidGate is the funniest thing in a long time. It is a work of art.

Please Jan do a piranha series on it!

[Guest]

I just noticed the following comment from the normally intelligent Sastra (probably the last of the old guard of thoughtful pharyngula commenters - the rest, like Paul W have long since given up in disgust)

The dictionary definition of atheism is a fine way to begin at the very beginning. It allows secular humanists to distance themselves from the philosophy of Stalin, for example. But the atheist “movement” has to be a movement towards something. Nobody who identifies as an atheist can just rest and stop there: even those who choose to do so are taking a stance against taking any stances (which is silly.)

Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble. It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on.

At least that’s my take.

I think she's made a mistake here.
She, like a lot of US based atheists, seem to think it is critical to have a focussed 'atheist movement'.
If she looked across to Europe she's notice that this has not been the way that European atheism has progressed. For Europeans it has been far more important to concentrate on secularism and removing religious influence from the laws of the lands.
(And by 'secularism' I don't mean atheism, I mean genuine respect for the right to hold whatever view you want, so long as you don't try to foist it on others.)
The rise in atheism has been an indirect result of this viewpoint - in much the same way that promoting the understanding of science can also lead to a rise in the levels of religious non belief.

I think most of the difference in religiosity between (western) Europe and the US can be explained by the quality of social safety nets, differences in income inequality and wealth gap. The correlation between these has been demonstrated in the academic literature, and I think the causal direction is at least plausible: more social safety, and less income inequality leads to less need for comfort by religion. I think most atheists, and especially the non-religious, "cultural" christians in Europe, are atheists not from whim, but also not from some principle like scepticism, or humanism. They are atheists simply becauce they don't need religion, at least not in the form of "justice after death".

[Apples]

Lolwut? :D

I assume she meant "I just cannot win."

Heh - guess you've got to be careful with embedding Tweets ( - in case they get deleted. Above I originally embedded a tweet in which Elyse said, approximately, "So I guess we're going to make this a thing? I just can't with #stupidgate" and perhaps thought better of it.

[Southern]

Your face is funny. Seriously, just look at that photo.

[Apples]

Lolwut? :D

I assume she meant "I just cannot win."

Heh - guess you've got to be careful with embedding Tweets ( - in case they get deleted. Above I originally embedded a tweet in which Elyse said, approximately, "So I guess we're going to make this a thing? I just can't with #stupidgate" and perhaps thought better of it.

Or maybe she meant to say "with" after all. Whatever. :cdc:

[Aneris]

I just noticed the following comment from the normally intelligent Sastra (probably the last of the old guard of thoughtful pharyngula commenters - the rest, like Paul W have long since given up in disgust)

The dictionary definition of atheism is a fine way to begin at the very beginning. It allows secular humanists to distance themselves from the philosophy of Stalin, for example. But the atheist “movement” has to be a movement towards something. Nobody who identifies as an atheist can just rest and stop there: even those who choose to do so are taking a stance against taking any stances (which is silly.)

Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble. It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on.

At least that’s my take.

I think she's made a mistake here.
She, like a lot of US based atheists, seem to think it is critical to have a focussed 'atheist movement'.
If she looked across to Europe she's notice that this has not been the way that European atheism has progressed. For Europeans it has been far more important to concentrate on secularism and removing religious influence from the laws of the lands.
(And by 'secularism' I don't mean atheism, I mean genuine respect for the right to hold whatever view you want, so long as you don't try to foist it on others.)
The rise in atheism has been an indirect result of this viewpoint - in much the same way that promoting the understanding of science can also lead to a rise in the levels of religious non belief.

Perhaps she is trying to be charitable to PZs anti dictionary atheist position - that's the only explanation I can think of. The idea that just because you describe 'atheism' in a dictionary fashion (non belief in religion or Gods) doesn't mean you have no other beliefs any more than saying you don't believe in ghosts means you have no morals.
"Atheism doesn’t necessitate being in favor of human rights, or feminism, or science, or anything fine or noble"
Indeed not. And neither does it preclude being in favor of them.

"It doesn’t even necessitate lining up arguments against the existence of God. But if atheists who “come out” don’t do anything else, it does seem a bit pointless. We are all atheists not from whim, but from principles which lead to other principles and so on."

Since she has just pointed out that you don't even need to know the arguments against the existence of God to be an atheist, it should be obvious that we can come to atheism for a variety of reasons (for example political reasons, scientific reasons, cultural reasons etc) and as such there is no guarantee that your principles will be the same as a fellow atheist (in much the same way that there is little reason to assume someone who also doesn't believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships, will have the same political stance as yourself.)

I am not sure about this. It is correct, that in Europe Atheism is more an issue of secularism. However, New Atheist, as opposed to various old ones, assumes the scientific method, healthy skepticism and some other things as a value that must be supported (and on which the secular society should rest). It is true that we take this for granted, as there are no discernable groups who oppose this to deal with. But the Horsemen and everything that came up at the time, was very “sciency” , some would say “scientistic” and it was always implict that valueing the scientific method would be one of the things everyone agrees on (to the point where it might become invisible as a shared value). But we don't actually get that automatically, hence some switched to “skepticism first” and similar ideas.

To make an extreme example. Suppose our community was suddenly invaded by hordes of atheists who believe all sorts of woo, or while agree to science, base their views on obsolete or bogus premises (e.g. social darwinist). Then you'd suddenly have to make a distinction clear. This is clearly not what the Atheist Movement is about, at present. And in that sense, I can understand the argument.

However, PZ Myers and Co. are wrong with their assumptions, that their brand of views represents what the atheist movement is about. Ironically, it's the opposite, it is what it is not about. But the 'dictionary atheist' critics are mistaken, that its due to their alleged dictionary atheism. It is, precisely, because we share the value that someone's claims should be supported by evidence and sound reasoning, and the Social Justice League have decided to abandon that in favour of ideology. But pro-science and demanding evidence etc. is not the same as dictionary atheism, and QED.

[Pitchguest]

This is heartbreaking. Poor Melody confined to her bed apart from those fun nights out at all those events that were listed earlier on the 'Pit. Does anybody have the dates again?


http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2072/g4oj.png

(hang on a minute, "housebound" isn't that like slavery or something?)

Is there a single one of these fuckwits who isn't afflicted by some terrible mental or physical disability which gives them maximum victim cred, but still allows them to party like it's 1999.

I need to address this. First of all, I lol'd at the use of "housebound" in the wake of "wheelchair-bound" being deemed ableist. That gave me a big laugh. Second of all, her PTSD originated on Twitter. How the fuck can she be "housebound" because of that? It's not like she sees Twitter everywhere she goes and besides she keeps fucking using it herself in spite of it. In what universe does a Twitter induced PTSD render one "housebound" if all you have to do to avoid Twitter is to turn off the computer (or the mobile) and go outside? Finally, why is Melody Hensley still thought of as a leader for a somewhat major secular organization? What the hell is Ron Lindsay playing at?

Still, having said all that, again, this is the biggest laugh I've had in a while so I should probably thank them for failing at life while at the same time prolonging mine (after all, laughter is the best medicine). (Kassiane tossing his surlies made me wheeze I was laughing so hard, Surly pinning all the blame on Elyse was hilarious, and Surly, Elyse and Melody having a falling out made me laugh because of the absurdity of it all. Seriously, is there ever a time when these people don't suffer emotional breakdowns over nothing? How do they even get up in the morning? Ye gods.)

[Pitchguest]

Oh, yeah, and from a few weeks back I had a big laugh: Surly telling DJ Grothe to fuck off and leave her alone - after she had referred to him and tagged him in a previous tweet. To his husband. Haha, what? :lol:

[debaser71]

Atheism in America is a "thing" thanks to people like Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Harris, and many others. It took about 15 years of "in your face "new" atheism" to get atheism to be accepted at all in mainstream modern America. These SJW atheists are riding the coat tails of the people who were fighting in the trenches to make atheism acceptable. And this does not bother me. Good. Atheism is mainstream and there are assholes labeling themselves as atheists. Oh deary me. This situation is about 9,000 times better than atheists being invisible and marginalized.

[welch]

It's extremely telling that essentially all sides of this kerfuffle are putting so much effort into trying to come up with "appropriate" insults.

Because they still want to be able to shit on and dogpile anyone with a slightly contrary position, they just want to be immune from blowback. They only care about other peoples' feelings to the extent that those other people will scream into their ear about it.

It would seem to me that if you have a hard time coming up with "appropriate" insults, maybe that's a sign you should just stop being a raging dickhole to people.

Oh no you don't Welch! No more playing with the Social Justards until you own that Hedley Lamarr shit! http://i.imgur.com/KCuIrTM.jpg

personally, i'd rather have a date with hedley. He's way funnier.

[Dick Strawkins]

bla-di-bla - dictionary atheists - bla-di-bla europe - secularism

I am not sure about this. It is correct, that in Europe Atheism is more an issue of secularism. However, New Atheist, as opposed to various old ones, assumes the scientific method, healthy skepticism and some other things as a value that must be supported (and on which the secular society should rest). It is true that we take this for granted, as there are no discernable groups who oppose this to deal with. But the Horsemen and everything that came up at the time, was very “sciency” , some would say “scientistic” and it was always implict that valueing the scientific method would be one of the things everyone agrees on (to the point where it might become invisible as a shared value). But we don't actually get that automatically, hence some switched to “skepticism first” and similar ideas.

To make an extreme example. Suppose our community was suddenly invaded by hordes of atheists who believe all sorts of woo, or while agree to science, base their views on obsolete or bogus premises (e.g. social darwinist). Then you'd suddenly have to make a distinction clear. This is clearly not what the Atheist Movement is about, at present. And in that sense, I can understand the argument.

However, PZ Myers and Co. are wrong with their assumptions, that their brand of views represents what the atheist movement is about. Ironically, it's the opposite, it is what it is not about. But the 'dictionary atheist' critics are mistaken, that its due to their alleged dictionary atheism. It is, precisely, because we share the value that someone's claims should be supported by evidence and sound reasoning, and the Social Justice League have decided to abandon that in favour of ideology. But pro-science and demanding evidence etc. is not the same as dictionary atheism, and QED.

"To make an extreme example. Suppose our community was suddenly invaded by hordes of atheists who believe all sorts of woo, or while agree to science, base their views on obsolete or bogus premises (e.g. social darwinist)."

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the community WAS invaded by hordes of atheists who believed in, if not woo, at least a political viewpoint that was not supported by the evidence.

The one good thing about the schism is that it helped refine the idea of new atheism (or outspoken atheism.) Both Peezus and Ophelia were firmly within the New Atheist camp just three years ago. You can even argue that they still are and yet a gulf has opened between them and the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Coyne. This doesn't mean that new atheism (or anti-accomodationism) was wrong. It means that it was in reality more nuanced and less unified than it appeared at that time.
It now seems to have split into two groups, one of which (the horsemen side) seem to allow for broad political differences (Dawkins and Harris, for example are not on the same side of all political issues, just as Dawkins and Hitchens were not when it came to the Iraq war) - and the other: Peezus and O et al, allow for precious little deviation from the true path.

[welch]

PZ notes:

By the way, the people who do the tech stuff for FtB all happen to be men

Now all we need is for an FtB crazy to emerge and be triggered by this callous binarist rejection of the fluidity of social gender constructs. Oh what larks.

Evidently, they are not only men, but not that good at what they do. Then again, given the "budget" FTB has to pay for competent help, that's probably the best they CAN do.

[zenbabe]

Everybody slow the fuck down.
*cry*
I can't keep up. Or I do nothing else.
And even then I don't keep up really.
Like swimming in quicksand, you quick clever rabbits.

[Cliché Guevara]

The one good thing about the schism is that it helped refine the idea of new atheism (or outspoken atheism.) Both Peezus and Ophelia were firmly within the New Atheist camp just three years ago. You can even argue that they still are and yet a gulf has opened between them and the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Coyne. This doesn't mean that new atheism (or anti-accomodationism) was wrong. It means that it was in reality more nuanced and less unified than it appeared at that time.
It now seems to have split into two groups, one of which (the horsemen side) seem to allow for broad political differences (Dawkins and Harris, for example are not on the same side of all political issues, just as Dawkins and Hitchens were not when it came to the Iraq war) - and the other: Peezus and O et al, allow for precious little deviation from the true path.

Peezus looked at New Atheism and decided what it needed was the New Left. Atheism+ was the attempt to engineer a full-blown media phenomenon out of that combination.

[katamari Damassi]

That Watson article made no sense at all (nonsense?). It sought, but failed to find any coherence.

Thanks for that confirmation. It's early and I'm still on my first cup of coffee, when I read the Cowntess' post and couldn't make heads nor tails of it, I was afraid my brain was broken.

[welch]

The "OMG JOO USED A BAD WERD" thing is hilarious. Because if I had any real temporal power, and were as evil as simply posting here makes me in their eyes, I would donate so much money to these idiots and encourage the infighting to escalate further and further.

Then, while they weren't paying attention, I'd use very polite language to take away as many of their rights as I could using the most polite legal language available, and by the time they realized they'd been screwed, it would be far too late, because, screwed.

These people obsessing about words are fucking idiots. They occasionally wake up for shit like Kansas' "New Gay Jim Crow" bill, but don't know that the same kind of shit is happening in many other states in this country. They somehow think that the laws against offending people won't be used against them. Or that the government filtering out "objectionable" material on the Internet won't fuck with their special furry time.

They are every power-mad politician and tycoon's wet dream: a large, loud group of trivially manipulated people who've not a fucking thought in their head for anything but their own stupidity.

This: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

and This: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/me ... 1_0000.pdf

none of these things contain any "bad werds". They are carefully written and edited to avoid such things (at least for their times. Dred Scott is almost 200 years old.)

Yet by the standards PZ and the rest of the morons promulgate, there's nothing wrong here. It's all good because it passes the language test. I mean, it's obscene as hell, and disgusting. But at least they don't call anyone a cunt or stupid. So SJW-compliant.

It's probably a good thing I'm not a billionaire.

[Barael]

It is hugely entertaining, that in most european countries, which actually have religion written into their state structures, if their premier started making god noises on the podium, he'd be decried as a looney toon, and there would be demands for him to be wheeled out of office before his meltdown caused him to press the wrong button.

Whilst in the US, a nation specifically constituted to be secular, god nooses from the podium are a requirement, and usually result in a polls bump.

It is beautifully absurd.

It seems it's better to establish one and then vigorously disrespect it rather than respect the establishment of none.

[Mykeru]

Didn't Melody start it by attacking Sara's passion for shoes and selfies?

Well, yes, but remember that Sara is smarter, better-looking and nicer than Melody. How much of that shit was she supposed to take?

Worst thing about that bitch Sara is that she's talented and an active supporter of women's rights and women in science through her art AM I RITE GUYS???

That's where marketing and reality collide. What they market is the "sisterhood" being attacked by regressive elements, MRAs and trolls. The reality is, much of this crap is simply girl-on-girl violence, without the socially redeeming benefit of a mud wrestling pit, perpetrated by the mean-girls clique.

• Rebecca Watson publicly bashes Steff McGraw
  
  Melody Hensley makes snide remarks about Abbie Smith
  
  Amy Roth has a blubber-fest and demands something be done about Harriet Hall
  
  Stephanie Zvan burns EllenBeth Wachs for heresy
  
  And everyone flings shit and used tampons at Sara Mayhew.

And the very people who claim they need blocking and blacklists because they are such victims, are the perpetrators of all this.

What a crock of STUPID shit.

[Ape+lust]

Pfft. All that silly horseshit was asked and answered many times, many years ago. PZ's just taken up the old theist charge: If you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything; why don't you go ahead and rape, steal, and murder? He knows the answer, he just doesn't like it because he wants "atheism" for his demented faction. Theists don't even try that, they call themselves Catholics and Hindus because "theist" says almost nothing about them.

And he's feeling nostalgic for the happy days of 2005 and 2008, what a disingenuous loon. The "lifelong ardent feminist" could've launched his social justice putsch anytime, but didn't bother until his gin-reeking sugarplum stumbled out of an elevator. He was too busy ogling at bordello parties, I guess, or something else that was more urgent than the paramount concern of our day. It must've been really important, like not getting the shit beat out of him by Hitchens.

[Dick Strawkins]

I notice some people have been criticizing Melody Hensley for not getting much done as the director of the Washington branch of the CFI.

I think it's only fair that we mention her single most positive achievement over the past year.

Melody received criticism for organizing the 'Women in Secularism2' conference that included only one woman from the sciences, namely Elizabeth Cornwell.
This shocking lack of representation of women from the STEM fields has not gone unnoticed.

To her credit Melody has ensured we won't see a repeat.
If you go to WISC3 this May you need not worry about finding only a single female scientist amongst the roster of speakers.

This year there are zero female scientists!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

http://i.imgur.com/3UVFQcm.jpg

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

:doh:

[guest]

Oh, yeah, and from a few weeks back I had a big laugh: Surly telling DJ Grothe to fuck off and leave her alone - after she had referred to him and tagged him in a previous tweet. To his husband. Haha, what? :lol:

don't forget!

These are the same people who prance about with statements

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.”

nod smugley mmmmmmmmmmmmmm herrrrmmmm yessss mmmm we're morally supreriorrr we shkepchicks nod nod nod.

[DJ's husband revealing that Surly threatening to punch JREFer employee Barbara Drescher in the face unless DJ does what she wants isn't much healthy either eiiii?]

[guest]

Oh, yeah, and from a few weeks back I had a big laugh: Surly telling DJ Grothe to fuck off and leave her alone - after she had referred to him and tagged him in a previous tweet. To his husband. Haha, what? :lol:

don't forget!

These are the same people who prance about with statements

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.”

nod smugley mmmmmmmmmmmmmm herrrrmmmm yessss mmmm we're morally supreriorrr we shkepchicks nod nod nod.

[DJ's husband revealing that Surly threatening to punch JREFer employee Barbara Drescher in the face unless DJ does what she wants isn't much healthy either eiiii?]

[Dick Strawkins]

Oh, yeah, and from a few weeks back I had a big laugh: Surly telling DJ Grothe to fuck off and leave her alone - after she had referred to him and tagged him in a previous tweet. To his husband. Haha, what? :lol:

don't forget!

These are the same people who prance about with statements

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.”

nod smugley mmmmmmmmmmmmmm herrrrmmmm yessss mmmm we're morally supreriorrr we shkepchicks nod nod nod.

[DJ's husband revealing that Surly threatening to punch JREFer employee Barbara Drescher in the face unless DJ does what she wants isn't much healthy either eiiii?]

I'd have more respect for the likes of DJ Grothe if he hadn't been pandering to these idiots for years before they finally blew up in his face.
Grothe gave that grant to Elyse Anders to survey vaccination attitudes at mommy conventions.
He hired Carrie fucking Poppy as the director of communications at the JREF!

That last one might have been the most misguided decision ever seen in the skeptical community - except someone recently gave Grimlkin a job writing on teen skepchick :dance:

[Aneris]

It made me laugh, a little.

In my eyes, this isn’t a matter of oversensitivity, or undersensitivity, or privilege-blindness.

[Al Stefanelli]

[.... get a check from the government every month - it's called being "disabled," and people who don't spend the money to build ramps and oversized bathroom stalls to accommodate the small minority of people who are wheelchair-bound get their asses sued under the ADA.

You have a beef with your own government. Maybe try voting for a different party.

Sometimes we have to live with the decisions our fellow citizens have made for a while. It's to do with the fact that we can't demand that the world revolves around us and only us.

If your business is having trouble, do remember that the same rules re access also apply to your competitors, so there may be reasons for lack of competitiveness, apart from payment for disability provision.

No, you're missing my point. I'm not opposed to the government's requiring accommodations for, or providing cash assistance to, people who have the misfortune of being unable to walk. But I'm unwilling to adopt euphemisms the purpose of which is to protect certain handicapped snowflakes' feelings by pretending that disabilities are not disabilities.

There's a meaningful difference between a "wheelchair user" (who might be someone with broken ankles or an old person who has trouble walking long distances and gets wheeled around at the airport) and people like Steven Hawking, who are genuinely "wheelchair-bound."

My point is, if they weren't disabilities, they wouldn't require accommodation or make people eligible for social security checks. And I'm opposed to language-policing on principle, especially around self-esteem. If someone who can't walk is, in addition, so fragile or narcissistic that hearing "wheelchair-bound" is a problem for them, then their problem is not actually other people's language-usage -- it's their own unresolved psychological/emotional issues around their disability.

Anyway, intent is magic, and newspeak should be unnecessary, among people with a modicum of mental health who are actually capable of honest relationships and clear communication.

It incenses certain people when I call myself a 'cripple,' which is primarily why I use it.

[Al Stefanelli]

Well, I've gone over to the dark side.

I've had such horrible performance problems with Windows PCs over the past four years, resulting in having to replace exactly one laptop per year. I've tried using Linux, and was overall happy with the performance of the various flavors I've installed, but the lack of programs and the fact that some of the programs I use just flat out don't work on Linux.

So, yesterday I bought this. Got a very good deal on it. It's my first one, and I am looking forward to getting it next week.

http://www.websitesonadime.com/macmini.jpg

[Lsuoma]

I notice some people have been criticizing Melody Hensley for not getting much done as the director of the Washington branch of the CFI.

I think it's only fair that we mention her single most positive achievement over the past year.

Melody received criticism for organizing the 'Women in Secularism2' conference that included only one woman from the sciences, namely Elizabeth Cornwell.
This shocking lack of representation of women from the STEM fields has not gone unnoticed.

To her credit Melody has ensured we won't see a repeat.
If you go to WISC3 this May you need not worry about finding only a single female scientist amongst the roster of speakers.

This year there are zero female scientists!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

http://i.imgur.com/3UVFQcm.jpg

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

:doh:

Well, Soraya Chemaly has the syllable "Chem" in her name - close enough...

[Al Stefanelli]

Do NOT fuck with this guy's pants.

[youtube]Ef6pAf812y8[/youtube]

[Casual Nemesis]

I. Just ate so much pizza I'm about to toss my surlies.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3671/1259 ... 9c69_o.jpg

I laughed so hard that it brought tears to my eyes.

[real horrorshow]

That's where marketing and reality collide. What they market is the "sisterhood" being attacked by regressive elements, MRAs and trolls. The reality is, much of this crap is simply girl-on-girl violence, without the socially redeeming benefit of a mud wrestling pit, perpetrated by the mean-girls clique.

• Rebecca Watson publicly bashes Steff McGraw
  
  Melody Hensley makes snide remarks about Abbie Smith
  
  Amy Roth has a blubber-fest and demands something be done about Harriet Hall
  
  Stephanie Zvan burns EllenBeth Wachs for heresy
  
  And everyone flings shit and used tampons at Sara Mayhew.

And the very people who claim they need blocking and blacklists because they are such victims, are the perpetrators of all this.

What a crock of STUPID shit.

I bid three hundred quatloos on Abbie, and I'm not even insisting on bikinis and mud!

I notice some people have been criticizing Melody Hensley for not getting much done as the director of the Washington branch of the CFI.

I think it's only fair that we mention her single most positive achievement over the past year.

Spending 14 months in bed?

[Apples]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/desig ... tat-01.jpg

A New Tool That Seals Bullet Wounds in Seconds With High-Tech Sponges

http://www.wired.com/design/2014/02/sea ... und-q-tips

Kinda cool.

[John D]

It made me laugh, a little.

In my eyes, this isn’t a matter of oversensitivity, or undersensitivity, or privilege-blindness.

This just reinforces the fact that I (as a white man) have all the power in this relationship. They cannot get on with their own lives unless they convince me I am blind to my privilege. Haha. (and it is awesomely funny that the choice of words is "ablest".... "blindness"... really? You said "blindness"). Good fun.

[dogen]

Well, I've gone over to the dark side.

I've had such horrible performance problems with Windows PCs over the past four years, resulting in having to replace exactly one laptop per year. I've tried using Linux, and was overall happy with the performance of the various flavors I've installed, but the lack of programs and the fact that some of the programs I use just flat out don't work on Linux.

So, yesterday I bought this. Got a very good deal on it. It's my first one, and I am looking forward to getting it next week.

http://www.websitesonadime.com/macmini.jpg

Awesome -- hope you have fun with it! When I first tried out OS X (migrating from Linux), it took just a week before I was a complete fanboi.

Along the lines of small-footprint/low-power systems, I've recently been playing around with Intel NUC (Next Unit of Computing). Very nice indeed; good performance, minimal noise, and a range of price points. I've got three now; two Celeron-based cheapies running a MythTV PVR system (only 15W each!), and one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-D34010WYK1- ... B00H3YT886

...serving as the wife's desktop. Love being able to mount it on the back of her monitor!

[Ape+lust]

That last one might have been the most misguided decision ever seen in the skeptical community - except someone recently gave Grimlkin a job writing on teen skepchick :dance:

That was wonderful, anyone outside their clubhouse knew it was guaranteed disaster. It only took him/her two months to tell the boss to go eat shit on her own site, which actually might be a record of restraint for an APlusser.

Putting lunatic pinball Elyse in charge of the grounded(!) parenting site is another dumb move.

[real horrorshow]

It incenses certain people when I call myself a 'cripple,' which is primarily why I use it.

I favour 'crip' myself, though my physical problems are trivial (and I might be less keen if I lived in certain parts of certain American cities). Once, my mother had given me some of the zombifying painkillers she hated to use, while I waited for a dental appointment, they helped a lot. I mentioned this to someone at work:

"Great thing about hanging around with crips - really good drugs." It got a very gratifying response.

[Al Stefanelli]

It incenses certain people when I call myself a 'cripple,' which is primarily why I use it.

I favour 'crip' myself, though my physical problems are trivial (and I might be less keen if I lived in certain parts of certain American cities). Once, my mother had given me some of the zombifying painkillers she hated to use, while I waited for a dental appointment, they helped a lot. I mentioned this to someone at work:

"Great thing about hanging around with crips - really good drugs." It got a very gratifying response.

I've used 'crip' occasionally, as well. Another benefit is that I get really, really great parking...

[Casual Nemesis]

Amy, stop making this all about you! SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE OPPRESSED STUPID PEOPLE!

Let's fight this oppression Brothers and Sisters,

SAY IT LOUD, I'M STUPID AND PROUD!

WE'RE STUPID!!

WE'RE HERE!!

HEY, IS THAT PUDDING??!

[Al Stefanelli]

Amy, stop making this all about you! SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE OPPRESSED STUPID PEOPLE!

Let's fight this oppression Brothers and Sisters,

SAY IT LOUD, I'M STUPID AND PROUD!

WE'RE STUPID!!

WE'RE HERE!!

HEY, IS THAT PUDDING??!

[youtube]i6m6bpxkjP4[/youtube]

[Apples]

It incenses certain people when I call myself a 'cripple,' which is primarily why I use it.

I favour 'crip' myself, though my physical problems are trivial (and I might be less keen if I lived in certain parts of certain American cities). Once, my mother had given me some of the zombifying painkillers she hated to use, while I waited for a dental appointment, they helped a lot. I mentioned this to someone at work:

"Great thing about hanging around with crips - really good drugs." It got a very gratifying response.

I've used 'crip' occasionally, as well. Another benefit is that I get really, really great parking...

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MjIxWDYwMA==/ ... ~60_35.JPG

[dog puke]

Ha ha ha… way to go U of Penn Secular Society :clap:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... niversity/

[Ape+lust]

People sometimes have naked-in-public anxiety dreams. Then there's Bjarte...

http://imgur.com/zqoUcVp.png

[deLurch]

I need to address this. First of all, I lol'd at the use of "housebound" in the wake of "wheelchair-bound" being deemed ableist. That gave me a big laugh. Second of all, her PTSD originated on Twitter. How the fuck can she be "housebound" because of that? It's not like she sees Twitter everywhere she goes and besides she keeps fucking using it herself in spite of it. In what universe does a Twitter induced PTSD render one "housebound" if all you have to do to avoid Twitter is to turn off the computer (or the mobile) and go outside?

I wonder how many PTSD veterans are jonesing to get back into the battle fields with gun fire & bomb blasts so much that you just can't keep them away from it.

Finally, why is Melody Hensley still thought of as a leader for a somewhat major secular organization?

If I am not mistaken, she leads the DC branch. And I assume she is in charge of that because before all this high drama started, she had her feet on the pavement doing the dirty drudgery work of recruiting & organizing. Those who do the work, get the job.

What the hell is Ron Lindsay playing at?

First off, she was already in that position before the drama started. Then this shit blows up. Even if, he wanted to axe her, there would be a price to be paid for getting rid of her. That would be worth at least a year's worth of drama or more. Secondly, he would have to replace her. Odds are, that most people who are not sympathetic to Melody's agenda have long since gone from the CFI-DC organization. That leave a very thin recruiting pool. All the people in the local DC org that are left would probably stage a mini-revolt.

Next you have the CFI mission "The Center for Inquiry advocates for science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values through the following specialized policy and political programs"

With a statement like that, firing someone you "disagree" with becomes an ethical dilemma. Do you really stand for freedom of inquiry if you fire someone like that?

[Mykeru]

Melody received criticism for organizing the 'Women in Secularism2' conference that included only one woman from the sciences, namely Elizabeth Cornwell.
This shocking lack of representation of women from the STEM fields has not gone unnoticed.

To her credit Melody has ensured we won't see a repeat.
If you go to WISC3 this May you need not worry about finding only a single female scientist amongst the roster of speakers.

This year there are zero female scientists!

I'm surprised they invited Cornwell at all, considering she"s firmly in the EvoPsych behavioral camp and not in the "it"s all men"s fault" sisterhood to make them comfortable. I like to think she showed up, invited because, well, she's got that vag thing going on, and then opened her mouth to their horror.

I've used 'crip' occasionally, as well. Another benefit is that I get really, really great parking...

I was slowly going through my voice over work, which ain't easy for someone who actually did have a speech impediment (practice, practice and don't talk like you're from Long Island) mostly because the old GERD was bathing my vocal chords in some choice acid and I ewas developing a vocal fry sound.

But the question is, do I get a parking placard for being a gastro-intestinal cripple?

I bid three hundred quatloos on Abbie, and I'm not even insisting on bikinis and mud!

I think strong, canvas bathing suit bottoms are key here, as I have it on good authority that Abbie not only has a clam that's "bearded" in the 19th century style, but it's a real walnut crusher, able to snap the heads off small animals and produce a deep, throaty roar that can travel for miles and make rhinoceroses jump.

No offense intended, of course.

CRACK!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kjCU6omx-EA/T ... /Abbie.jpg

"PECANS, ANYONE?"