Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
name change and everything?Ape+lust wrote:And CONGRATULATIONS to Renee Kelly, nee Hendricks, who got hitched today!
Jesus wept.Ape+lust wrote:Justice warriors would sooner burn their houses down with their families inside than ever admit to being wrong.
http://imgur.com/02PSW41.png
It's great for casual chat but you've got to be aware of the limitations. It's utterly useless for any kind of depth. Don't listen to anyone talking about the discipline of 140 characters, because that's horseshit. That's why half of these ingrates are yelling at each other, deliberately allowing their finer points to be overlooked.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Deleting my account made my Twitter PTSD go away.Tribble wrote:Not only no, but hell no! And it has nothing to do with Renee, I avoid Twitter like it's a disease.Badger3k wrote:Doesn't anybody read Renee's twitter? She posted it on the 8th.
I don't use twatter, no.Badger3k wrote:Doesn't anybody read Renee's twitter? She posted it on the 8th.
Gee...maybe the guys were upset because they spent the last two weeks hauling sofas or shoveling gravel and you spent two weeks carrying pillows and holding a stop sign...
I have many problems with the survey and Myer's laughable interpretation of it.Tapir wrote:Peezus said...See what he did there? Spot the difference between....Excerpts from the paper reveal that only 24% of men categorically rejected all use of violence against women…so apparently, about 76% of us considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape. That is disturbing.
Also disturbing: only 44% of the women categorically rejected all uses of violence against them. So 56% have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on? Weird.
And...76% of [men] considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape.
Men = Calculating, reasoned.56% [of women] have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on.
Women = Passive receptacles.
According to Peezus' interpretation of the results (where he simply accepts them without question), almost half of the females questioned said that there were circumstances when it was justified for men to force women to have sex (in other words to rape.) In fact it may be more than half if some of the positive respondents to the other categories fall outside the 42% answer.Tribble wrote:I have many problems with the survey and Myer's laughable interpretation of it.Tapir wrote:Peezus said...See what he did there? Spot the difference between....Excerpts from the paper reveal that only 24% of men categorically rejected all use of violence against women…so apparently, about 76% of us considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape. That is disturbing.
Also disturbing: only 44% of the women categorically rejected all uses of violence against them. So 56% have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on? Weird.
And...76% of [men] considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape.
Men = Calculating, reasoned.56% [of women] have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on.
Women = Passive receptacles.
First problem is that these are not 'men' and 'women' but adolescents. Adolescents raised at a time (1978) when such concepts were not so frowned upon in discussion and yet were generally not acted on. It's kind of like when middle-class white kids of today start talking their 'gansta' shit about when it's 'ok to kill someone.' Yet, in reality, when push comes to shove, there's no killing. A lot of bravado and talk. But no killing.
Second, the table isn't a proper extension of yes/no answered questions, but from answers taken from is a 5-point scale which can only be subjectively interpreted. Was the majority of the 'yes' answers really a '2' in that the person generally didn't agree, but wouldn't take an absolute stand? Or were they '5's' because they went' 'all-in?
Third, did they answer the questions HONESTLY. I've taken what I felt were dishonest surveys in the past and have deliberately injected false data. So, did they have internal logic check questions to trip up people and see who may have not been entirely honest?
Fourth, just how subjective were the questions and the subsequent interpretation?
Fifth, did you ask the kids if it was ok to rape?
Sixth, were these people ideologues? Ideologues really can't (at least in my experience) write and interpret surveys in their ideological environment. Susan Brownmiller and her 25% of College Women Are Raped survey results are, I think, not atypical.
I thought wanking to Abbie is just what we DO around here?Tigzy wrote:I'm sure Abbie is overjoyed at hearing this information.Clarence wrote: Sadly, because I've 'yanked it' to Abbie like 20000000000000 times and I'm not into 'chix with dix'.
Or 'Dicksie Chix' :lol:
BTW, I found this, and couldn't help but be reminded of you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21485450
You might be right, but it's disgusting. You know if Dawkins was ever really down to the point he couldn't get back up, PZ would kick him.Tigzy wrote:Well, this looks like it could be fun. Seems something interesting is developing in the comments section :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... rganizers/
Funny how Peez has gone kinda soft on Dawkins recently. My speculation: he's hoping to get a flattering puff from the Dawk on his Happy Atheist pamphlet - cos lord knows, he needs the sales - and is probably going to try to get back in his good books by the time of the 2014 World Humanist Conference.
or maybe manual labor folks have a really rough sense of humor and say shit that other people wouldn't.Really? wrote:Gee...maybe the guys were upset because they spent the last two weeks hauling sofas or shoveling gravel and you spent two weeks carrying pillows and holding a stop sign...
"apparently"? Dude, he's all about kicking down and kissing up even as he tells you that's wrong.Clarence wrote:You might be right, but it's disgusting. You know if Dawkins was ever really down to the point he couldn't get back up, PZ would kick him.Tigzy wrote:Well, this looks like it could be fun. Seems something interesting is developing in the comments section :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... rganizers/
Funny how Peez has gone kinda soft on Dawkins recently. My speculation: he's hoping to get a flattering puff from the Dawk on his Happy Atheist pamphlet - cos lord knows, he needs the sales - and is probably going to try to get back in his good books by the time of the 2014 World Humanist Conference.
What a fucking ass-kissing cowardly charlatan. Apparently the 'judgment' of PZ depends on whether you have power or something else he wants but doesn't have.
And look, he plagarizes Abbie!Tigzy wrote:Well, this looks like it could be fun. Seems something interesting is developing in the comments section :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... rganizers/
Funny how Peez has gone kinda soft on Dawkins recently. My speculation: he's hoping to get a flattering puff from the Dawk on his Happy Atheist pamphlet - cos lord knows, he needs the sales - and is probably going to try to get back in his good books by the time of the 2014 World Humanist Conference.
#11. Take advantage of local talent.
I see a lot of the same faces, drawn from the same big national and international pool of well-known atheists, and effective as they are at being a good draw for an event, it’s also important to grow the local talent pool. Sure, try to get one or three recognizable big names, but don’t make the conference revolve around them — they’ll be leaving the moment the conference ends…or as I’ve seen a few times, they’ll flit in just before their hour lecture, and then they’re off to the airport immediately after.
It’s the locals, or perhaps regional or state-wide people, who are going to hang around and make a difference, and who will be aware of the specific issues your attendees are dealing with. Make a commitment to have at least half your speakers be drawn from the same group as your attendees — and if you want to bring in more atheists from the black community or the poor or the working class, try to bring in speakers from that very same demographic.
That thread is fascinating. PZ is trying to compliment Dawkins...but is careful not to be too flattering. And all of the Horde members are slamming Dawkins because that's what Peezus has taught them to do for the past couple years. Amazing.Clarence wrote:You might be right, but it's disgusting. You know if Dawkins was ever really down to the point he couldn't get back up, PZ would kick him.Tigzy wrote:Well, this looks like it could be fun. Seems something interesting is developing in the comments section :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... rganizers/
Funny how Peez has gone kinda soft on Dawkins recently. My speculation: he's hoping to get a flattering puff from the Dawk on his Happy Atheist pamphlet - cos lord knows, he needs the sales - and is probably going to try to get back in his good books by the time of the 2014 World Humanist Conference.
What a fucking ass-kissing cowardly charlatan. Apparently the 'judgment' of PZ depends on whether you have power or something else he wants but doesn't have.
Wait a minute. 1978? Does this mean PZ took another page from the creationists who use decades old articles, cherry picked normally, to argue their points? Was there no more recent examples of this type of thing to use? Or is PZ just a lazy ideologue who'll use anything that even remotely confirms his ideology? Hmmm...Tribble wrote:I have many problems with the survey and Myer's laughable interpretation of it.Tapir wrote:Peezus said...See what he did there? Spot the difference between....Excerpts from the paper reveal that only 24% of men categorically rejected all use of violence against women…so apparently, about 76% of us considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape. That is disturbing.
Also disturbing: only 44% of the women categorically rejected all uses of violence against them. So 56% have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on? Weird.
And...76% of [men] considered some of those circumstances a possible reason to rape.
Men = Calculating, reasoned.56% [of women] have absorbed the idea that they can be at fault for leading men on.
Women = Passive receptacles.
First problem is that these are not 'men' and 'women' but adolescents. Adolescents raised at a time (1978) when such concepts were not so frowned upon in discussion and yet were generally not acted on. It's kind of like when middle-class white kids of today start talking their 'gansta' shit about when it's 'ok to kill someone.' Yet, in reality, when push comes to shove, there's no killing. A lot of bravado and talk. But no killing.
Second, the table isn't a proper extension of yes/no answered questions, but from answers taken from is a 5-point scale which can only be subjectively interpreted. Was the majority of the 'yes' answers really a '2' in that the person generally didn't agree, but wouldn't take an absolute stand? Or were they '5's' because they went' 'all-in?
Third, did they answer the questions HONESTLY. I've taken what I felt were dishonest surveys in the past and have deliberately injected false data. So, did they have internal logic check questions to trip up people and see who may have not been entirely honest?
Fourth, just how subjective were the questions and the subsequent interpretation?
Fifth, did you ask the kids if it was ok to rape?
Sixth, were these people ideologues? Ideologues really can't (at least in my experience) write and interpret surveys in their ideological environment. Susan Brownmiller and her 25% of College Women Are Raped survey results are, I think, not atypical.
I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Scented Nectar wrote:Anyone else here like building in 3d worlds? Here's a small gallery of some of my activeworlds.com builds.
I happen to be watching this cool and relatively new takedown of Lady Hoop Earrings of Cakedmakeupton.Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
If only I could! :)Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Scented Nectar wrote:Anyone else here like building in 3d worlds? Here's a small gallery of some of my activeworlds.com builds.
Just don't build a tesseract house on a fault line.
He's in for a rude shock if he thinks that's the state of the modern CRPG/Action-RPG market. Today the market is well-populated with gender neutral, top-flight games. And it's not even new. Going back to the 1990s it was becoming more and more common and over the past 10-to-20 years most of the top CRPG franchises have become gender/orientation inclusive unless there is some particular reason they shouldn't be, like The Witcher, Tomb Raider and Assassin's Creed.Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
Yeah, I've always been astonished at the mileage conservatives have managed to get out of hippie-bashing, when the Summer of Love / Chicago was nearly fifty years ago. Now here's old PZ doing the same.Badger3k wrote:Wait a minute. 1978? Does this mean PZ took another page from the creationists who use decades old articles, cherry picked normally, to argue their points? Was there no more recent examples of this type of thing to use? Or is PZ just a lazy ideologue who'll use anything that even remotely confirms his ideology? Hmmm...
I hope they don't try to sell such artifacts of hate on mainstream commerce web sites. Those kinds of things usually get taken down...because people like Beckybooze complain about them.Scented Nectar wrote:Over at http://skepchick.org/2014/01/skepchickc ... voicemail/ , Beccy's auctioning off a hat. Made by Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard, is this adorable, wearable hate sign:
http://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1.wpeng ... 00x242.jpg
Imagine the delight among feminists if the equal-but-opposite were to be sold. Imagine if it said " ♂ MISOGYNY ♂ " instead. That would be good too, right?
Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard need to brush up on their colour-theory. I thought it said MissouriScented Nectar wrote:Over at http://skepchick.org/2014/01/skepchickc ... voicemail/ , Beccy's auctioning off a hat. Made by Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard, is this adorable, wearable hate sign:
http://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1.wpeng ... 00x242.jpg
Imagine the delight among feminists if the equal-but-opposite were to be sold. Imagine if it said " ♂ MISOGYNY ♂ " instead. That would be good too, right?
Actually genius. :handgestures-salute: I salute you, sir.Tony Parsehole wrote:Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/1195 ... 30b9_o.jpg
HAHAHAHAHA!! Parsehole, you are wonderfully bent :lol: :DTony Parsehole wrote:Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/1195 ... 30b9_o.jpg
Yeah, I thought it was some sort of FREE MUSANDAY thing I hadn't heard about.Tony Parsehole wrote:Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard need to brush up on their colour-theory. I thought it said MissouriScented Nectar wrote:Over at http://skepchick.org/2014/01/skepchickc ... voicemail/ , Beccy's auctioning off a hat. Made by Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard, is this adorable, wearable hate sign:
http://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1.wpeng ... 00x242.jpg
Imagine the delight among feminists if the equal-but-opposite were to be sold. Imagine if it said " ♂ MISOGYNY ♂ " instead. That would be good too, right?
So, a Canuck is going to make a videogame based on Japanese mythology, yes? CULTuRAL APPROPRIATION, fucker!Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
So basically, he's making an even more weeaboo version of the Shin Megami Tensei series, minus any actual quality and with a bunch of SJWism stuffed in the sides.Badger3k wrote:Nobody mentions that the Lousy Canuck is going to write a video game?
He even has some standards for it:I'm not surprised he bought the Anita bit - he's not really smart enough to look at it without blinders, but...wow. He is going to run afoul of Anita, though, since he apparently doesn't want the female character to be different from the male character, meaning she would be the same - a pseudo-male (I forgot what term Sarky uses for that). What's wrong with making two (or more) distinct characters, whatever the sex (like, you know, real life)?I actually have most of a plot in mind for the game, too. It will involve mythology, mostly Japanese mythology for the main plot but with a whole hell of a lot of every other mythology for bosses and minibosses and enemies. It will involve skepticism and atheism, because I just can’t help myself. It will feature a female protagonist in the role of generalized, omnitalented badass, because every other game in the world is apparently incapable of letting you be a female protag without also making her somehow stand out from the “default†of male, or throwing her into a dungeon to be rescued or a refridgerator to be plot motivation, or hiding her behind a really expensive goal on the project’s Kickstarter page.
Anyway, considering the talent he has displayed so far, I don't see his game going anywhere. Sad - I'd like to see it in a Sarky video, and watch his head explode trying to justify himself without breaking his ideological blinders.
Good catch. His description might as well apply to any Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, or Tales Of game from the last decade. Much like Anita Sarkeesian's idea of an "acceptable videogame from a feminist standpoint", it has been done much better before.James Caruthers wrote:
So basically, he's making an even more weeaboo version of the Shin Megami Tensei series, minus any actual quality and with a bunch of SJWism stuffed in the sides.
In cases of MISM DRY,Ape+lust wrote:Yeah, I thought it was some sort of FREE MUSANDAY thing I hadn't heard about.Tony Parsehole wrote:Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard need to brush up on their colour-theory. I thought it said MissouriScented Nectar wrote:Over at http://skepchick.org/2014/01/skepchickc ... voicemail/ , Beccy's auctioning off a hat. Made by Sarah Moglia and Debbie Goddard, is this adorable, wearable hate sign:
http://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1.wpeng ... 00x242.jpg
Imagine the delight among feminists if the equal-but-opposite were to be sold. Imagine if it said " ♂ MISOGYNY ♂ " instead. That would be good too, right?
(Guys, don't hang this on Goddard. She's not crazy like the rest. This is Moglia's hat)
They're not done yet. I heard Lousy Canuck is coming out with Feminist Pac-Man:Ape+lust wrote:HAHAHAHAHA!! Parsehole, you are wonderfully bent :lol: :DTony Parsehole wrote:Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/1195 ... 30b9_o.jpg
GAS: spoken like a true cisgendered white supremacist dudebro.
" And I specified that poor PoC would be negatively affected by conservative policies out of proportion to whites because it’s fucking true, and it seemed relevant when people are being told to ignore that somebody is a conservative piece of shit because they are a PoC & had a hard life and whatnot."
Thanks for whitesplaining the truth of PoC’s experiences. A little condescending of you to tell someone which
politics is best for them don’t you think?
"Setar may be a racist sometimes, I know I am. Hopefully knowledge of the ways racism creeps up on the most well-intentioned of progressives helps us change the way we do things and make the world a better place."
Here’s the thing; as a self admitted racist you aren’t interested in learning anything from PoC. Your arrogant attitude proves it “because it’s fucking trueâ€.
If you really are interested in learning something about people from other backgrounds maybe you should listen to them instead of just plugging your ears and say they’re “promoting shit we despiseâ€.
Yes. Instead of munching wafers she runs around eating tampons. And instead of ghosts chasing her it's MRA's with hard-ons.Really? wrote:They're not done yet. I heard Lousy Canuck is coming out with Feminist Pac-Man:Ape+lust wrote:HAHAHAHAHA!! Parsehole, you are wonderfully bent :lol: :DTony Parsehole wrote:Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/1195 ... 30b9_o.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x60 ... 9/p7d4.jpg
I think you need to get the original paper rather than the summaries that were later published, especially since it appears the problematic interpretation begins with the summaries rather than the original study.Guestus Aurelius wrote:Concerning that 1979 conference talk, it looks like the published write-up came in 1983, with only two of the four original contributors as authors (might explain why the FearUs.org person had trouble tracking it down):
Zellman, Gail L., and Jacqueline D. Goodchilds. “Becoming Sexual in Adolescence.†In Changing Boundaries: Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior, edited by Elizabeth R. Allgeier and Naomi B. McCormick, 49–63. Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1983.
Worldcat link: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/503035931
And it appears that the two authors published on that material again in 1984:
Goodchilds, Jacqueline D., and Gail L. Zellman. “Sexual Signaling and Sexual Aggression in Adolescent Relationships.†In Pornography and Sexual Aggression, edited by Neil M. Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein, 233–43. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.
Worldcat link: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10507646
There doesn't appear to be a Google Preview for either article. School's still out of session here, but I should be able to take a look at both volumes within a week or so. Anybody else at an institution with these books?
Unlike stranger rape, acquaintance rape, particularly dating rape, takes place in the context of normal social activity. In 1978, 432 adolescents, ages 14-18, were interviewed in the Los Angeles area. The three major ethnic groups were equally represented, as were males and females. Attitudes toward the opposite sex, sexuality, sex roles, rape, power, and violence were measured along with behavioral expectations, perceptions, norms about dating, and sex differences in the acquisition of attitudes and expectations. Results showed that boys and girls possessed different perceptions of what interpersonal cues signaled sexuality and when, if ever, sexual assault was justified. The fact that males and females attributed different meanings to the same behaviors and contexts is particularly disturbing in light of the finding that adolescents seem relatively accepting of forced sex in certain circumstances. This suggests there may be resolution of such a conflict through the use of force and sets the stage for nonstranger rape. A total of three tables and five references are included. (Author abstract modified)
Nigerian immigrants have the highest education attainment level in the United States, surpassing every other ethnic group in the country, according to U.S Bureau Census data.[14]Dobby wrote:I really wish the comic's author would have provided some sources for her statistics. Sorry, but I find the "likely to be admitted into a university" percentages suspect. Is the author referring to the percentage of people (from a particular ethnicity) who apply or actual acceptance/rejection rates?
Huh what???????Service Dog wrote:All aboard for the Slymepit field trip, to a Chelsea art gallery...
THE ASIAN VERSION OF SCENTED NECTAR?!
I don't "get" modern art. I went to the Baltic in Gateshead once and for the life of me I couldn't work out if they were mocking us uneducated plebs or not.Service Dog wrote:All aboard for the Slymepit field trip, to a Chelsea art gallery...
I bet the feminists loved that.bhoytony wrote:http://www.tomheroes.com/images/ms_pacman2.JPG
"Hi, my name's Lousy, Lousy Canuck". :lol:Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/69BILt4.jpg
The art museum in my locale (quite reputable, actually) once had a modern art exhibit that I attended about 20 years ago or so. The piece that stuck in my mind the most was an oil painting - a white canvas with a red square in the middle. That's fucking it. All the poseurs were oohing and aahing, praising the composition, the contrast between the red square and the white background, and the balance between the two colors. I was grinning ear-to-ear listening to those douchebags, thinking that the artists was having a great joke at their expense.Tony Parsehole wrote:I don't "get" modern art. I went to the Baltic in Gateshead once and for the life of me I couldn't work out if they were mocking us uneducated plebs or not.Service Dog wrote:All aboard for the Slymepit field trip, to a Chelsea art gallery...
" Let's put this chair-lift on a skateboard and attach a spring to this slice of Edam cheese....These fuckers won't know we're taking the piss!"
:clap:Tony Parsehole wrote: Oh, dear god. A Lousy Canuck computer game with a strong female lead. I can see it now.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/1195 ... 30b9_o.jpg
Reminds me of this 1:30 seconds in:Gumby wrote:The art museum in my locale (quite reputable, actually) once had a modern art exhibit that I attended about 20 years ago or so. The piece that stuck in my mind the most was an oil painting - a white canvas with a red square in the middle. That's fucking it. All the poseurs were oohing and aahing, praising the composition, the contrast between the red square and the white background, and the balance between the two colors. I was grinning ear-to-ear listening to those douchebags, thinking that the artists was having a great joke at their expense.Tony Parsehole wrote:I don't "get" modern art. I went to the Baltic in Gateshead once and for the life of me I couldn't work out if they were mocking us uneducated plebs or not.Service Dog wrote:All aboard for the Slymepit field trip, to a Chelsea art gallery...
" Let's put this chair-lift on a skateboard and attach a spring to this slice of Edam cheese....These fuckers won't know we're taking the piss!"
Yeah, I saw that, and it's unclear to me what exactly the 12-page document is. It seems to be available as microfiche at one or two institutions, but I'm not even turning up records of published proceedings from the conference in question. Hell, I'm finding conflicting information about what conferences Goodchilds/Zellman/Johnson/Giarrusso presented their findings at in 1979 (just the Western Psychological Association Meeting at San Diego? or also the Eastern Psychological Association Meeting at Philadelphia? maybe the American Psychological Association Meeting at New York?). So this document is something of a mystery. Anyway, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to track it down—unless any 'pitters happen to live in Canberra (http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153034180) or Kuala Lumpur (http://spcats.umlib.um.edu.my/details.asp?mid=43463).Dick Strawkins wrote:I think you need to get the original paper rather than the summaries that were later published, especially since it appears the problematic interpretation begins with the summaries rather than the original study.Guestus Aurelius wrote:Concerning that 1979 conference talk, it looks like the published write-up came in 1983, with only two of the four original contributors as authors (might explain why the FearUs.org person had trouble tracking it down):
Zellman, Gail L., and Jacqueline D. Goodchilds. “Becoming Sexual in Adolescence.†In Changing Boundaries: Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior, edited by Elizabeth R. Allgeier and Naomi B. McCormick, 49–63. Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1983.
Worldcat link: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/503035931
And it appears that the two authors published on that material again in 1984:
Goodchilds, Jacqueline D., and Gail L. Zellman. “Sexual Signaling and Sexual Aggression in Adolescent Relationships.†In Pornography and Sexual Aggression, edited by Neil M. Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein, 233–43. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.
Worldcat link: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10507646
There doesn't appear to be a Google Preview for either article. School's still out of session here, but I should be able to take a look at both volumes within a week or so. Anybody else at an institution with these books?
The original is available somewhere, I guess, as a 12 page document, containing three tables and five references:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED176161
Interestingly, the abstract from the original study doesn't mention the very high percentages that Peezus wet his pants over.
Unlike stranger rape, acquaintance rape, particularly dating rape, takes place in the context of normal social activity. In 1978, 432 adolescents, ages 14-18, were interviewed in the Los Angeles area. The three major ethnic groups were equally represented, as were males and females. Attitudes toward the opposite sex, sexuality, sex roles, rape, power, and violence were measured along with behavioral expectations, perceptions, norms about dating, and sex differences in the acquisition of attitudes and expectations. Results showed that boys and girls possessed different perceptions of what interpersonal cues signaled sexuality and when, if ever, sexual assault was justified. The fact that males and females attributed different meanings to the same behaviors and contexts is particularly disturbing in light of the finding that adolescents seem relatively accepting of forced sex in certain circumstances. This suggests there may be resolution of such a conflict through the use of force and sets the stage for nonstranger rape. A total of three tables and five references are included. (Author abstract modified)
What irritates me even more than the dishonest statistics is that the bloody thing is outright racist!
Before visiting, I am going to assume that every one of these buildings is extremely phallic, and topped with great big purple domes. :DScented Nectar wrote:Anyone else here like building in 3d worlds? Here's a small gallery of some of my activeworlds.com builds.
Very nice, SN (with a :( included for lack of phalluses).ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Before visiting, I am going to assume that every one of these buildings is extremely phallic, and topped with great big purple domes. :DScented Nectar wrote:Anyone else here like building in 3d worlds? Here's a small gallery of some of my activeworlds.com builds.
Now to go and look...
Melissa McEwanDid anyone else squee when Steve Coogan was on stage with the real Philomena? What a class act.
I have not seen the film yet, but I've heard such good things. Really looking forward to seeing it before The Oscars.
Content Note: Rape "humor"
Modiano Is that the same Steve Coogan who sang a song called "Raped in the Face" in Hamlet 2, and subsequently defended it as good fun? Because, if so, I'm not sure I'd call him a class act.
Please understand: I'm not saying "you're not allowed to like him," or "don't like his work." We all like problematic stuff, etc. I'm just uncomfortable with a rape apologist being designated a "class act" in this space.
If I was wearing a hat right now I would take it off and bow at you.Service Dog wrote:All aboard for the Slymepit field trip, to a Chelsea art gallery...
