Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Steersman]

Melody Hensley is welcome to call me a small-dicked 3 any time she wants.

You'll post a picture of yourself so she has something to hang her criticisms on? So to speak.

[Brive1987]

And while we are tempting the wrath of Aneris, for the greenhorns:

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

http://i.imgur.com/sM5cNSj.jpg


Amusing poppy has her garter strap passively aggressively over her knickers in lockdown mode

And Rebecca Watson is ugly. And no, innate charisma doesn't excuse you getting behind the wrong end of a video camera.

Not that she has any of that either.

[Steersman]

Here's an obvious example. Take the claim 'Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote for the Republican Party'. Now, I don't believe in the sentiment behind this claim, but I'm guessing many here do. Are they saying Blacks are stupid?

So I think your example is racist and problematic for many reasons. And I certainly I am not saying you are, I know this was just an example.

1) Literally states "Blacks" regardless of how diverse they are in heritage, economics, religion, share some natural agenda. (Ditto Asians, Hispanics, etc.)

2) Dismisses that this very diverse community can legitimately have different opinions.

3) White splains that you know more than any random Black what is in their best interests.

4) Associates Blacks who disagree with being too stupid to understand their best interests. They are not rational agents or knowledgeable about what is best for them. Alternatively, implies Blacks who vote Republican are race traitors.

Rebecca's tweet about women and minorities is legitimately sexist and racist for the same reasons.

Don't see how your argument holds a lot of water, and looks like it is seriously misrepresenting or misinterpreting what jugheadnaut has said. He has said "plenty of blacks", but "plenty" is not all. While your first point (1) - "blacks ... share some natural agenda" - rather clearly insists, erroneously, that he is saying "all". Houston, we have a problem. You might note the last comment of Nugent's I quoted.

[Really?]

And while we are tempting the wrath of Aneris, for the greenhorns:

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

http://i.imgur.com/sM5cNSj.jpg


Amusing poppy has her garter strap passively aggressively over her knickers in lockdown mode

And Rebecca Watson is ugly. And no, innate charisma doesn't excuse you getting behind the wrong end of a video camera.

Not that she has any of that either.

No. NO! That's fucking bullshit, man. You don't put up Poppy without a trigger warning.

This is bullSHIT. I was five strokes in before reading the rest of the comment. Poppy has BLONDE HAIR, right?

Fuck.

Just...fuck. Now I need a palate cleanser.

[another lurker]

It's amazing what good lighting and makeup can do...


http://www.csicop.org/uploads/images/si ... h-both.jpg

[Brive1987]

Ambushed. Hee hee hee. There is an old saying: in the dark every girl is beautiful. Poppy is the exception that proves the rule.

You can't even turn her around, as now you'd see a heaving black pig tattoo rocking in time ....

[JacquesCuze]

Here's an obvious example. Take the claim 'Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote for the Republican Party'. Now, I don't believe in the sentiment behind this claim, but I'm guessing many here do. Are they saying Blacks are stupid?

So I think your example is racist and problematic for many reasons. And I certainly I am not saying you are, I know this was just an example.

1) Literally states "Blacks" regardless of how diverse they are in heritage, economics, religion, share some natural agenda. (Ditto Asians, Hispanics, etc.)

2) Dismisses that this very diverse community can legitimately have different opinions.

3) White splains that you know more than any random Black what is in their best interests.

4) Associates Blacks who disagree with being too stupid to understand their best interests. They are not rational agents or knowledgeable about what is best for them. Alternatively, implies Blacks who vote Republican are race traitors.

Rebecca's tweet about women and minorities is legitimately sexist and racist for the same reasons.

Don't see how your argument holds a lot of water, and looks like it is seriously misrepresenting or misinterpreting what jugheadnaut has said. He has said "plenty of blacks", but "plenty" is not all. While your first point (1) - "blacks ... share some natural agenda" - rather clearly insists, erroneously, that he is saying "all". Houston, we have a problem. You might note the last comment of Nugent's I quoted.

I don't see how "plenty" helps.

The critiques against "women against feminism" look a lot like "Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote Republican". They are not saying all women are stupid enough to be against feminism. They are saying plenty of women are stupid, ignorant about feminism, don't understand oppression against women is still going on, and they know better than the women against feminism what women should be for. If it's David Futrelle saying it, it's even more like the white feminist dudebro telling blacks they are stupid and voting against their interests to vote Republican.

http://i.imgur.com/Y5cFNrS.jpg

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

http://i.imgur.com/fv7kDdd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KbvLZK7.jpg

Also Valenti, accusations of betrayal

But when women come out against gender justice, it feels worse: no matter how fringe, the rise of the anti-feminist woman is not just baffling but a betrayal. Obviously “women” aren’t a monolith, and neither are the issues that they care about or believe in. But anti-feminist organizing is based on a deep hypocrisy and selfishness – an ideology built to assure conservative women that as long as they are doing just fine, other women will make do. And they’re putting up roadblocks to progress right in the middle of a renewed feminist awakening, with retrograde sexism that’s ultimately not too different than that of their male counterparts.

From Bustle

Oh Shailene. Shailene, Shailene, Shailene. Shaliene Woodley, why don’t you understand feminism? I’m sorry to say, but you’ve got it all wrong. I have a lot of respect for you, you emphatic and spritely woodland creature, you. You’re proud of who you are and demand respect for those tenets in your life to which you hold dear, which makes you a gangbuster role model for young women-to-be out there in the world. You’re unabashedly strong-willed-and-minded in addition to refusing to fit into pre-determined societal roles. You are — essentially — a feminist! So, uh, why are you saying you aren’t one? Oh, right — because you’ve got yourself totally screwed up on that definition front. So I’m here to set you straight.

In a recent interview with Time Magazine, when asked point-blank if you were a feminist, you replied:

No because I love men, and I think the idea of “raise women to power, take the men away from the power” is never going to work out because you need balance.
Which is just so egregiously ill-informed that it’s got me pretty pissed off. I don’t know who’s been teaching you Feminism 101, but actively removing men from power because apparently there can only be so many people with it, is 1,000 percent NOT what being a feminist is about. And we’d hate for you to sound so ill-informed on a topic as important but oft-misunderstood as this.

Plenty of Women are Stupid Enough To Be Against Feminism

+ We know better
+ Women need to stick together
+ They are voting against their interests
+ They are betraying us

These criticisms are

+ condescending
+ patronizing
+ stripping these women of rationality

So are those attacks sexist or not?

[zenbabe]

Apologies, not freezepaged/waybacked.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... arassment/

But it's worth a look, if only because it's the Svanatee in all her glory, presenting her propaganda replete with all kinds of catch-phrases and twisting of truth, calling the troops to war. The pit gets a dismissive mention of course, but here's the final bit:

The All Powerful Svan declared orders to CFI thusly: Dearest Center for Inquiry, let me clue you in on one thing: Your employee absolutely has the authority to call for someone who is abusing her to be shut out of opportunities. She doesn’t have the authority to keep everyone in your organization from giving him those opportunities, but she has every right to ask and to ask publicly.

(snip)

Do you really want to be the group that is most visibly hanging one of its female employees out to dry right now over her being attacked by a male speaker?

That’s what you’re setting yourselves up for. Melody developed PTSD in your employ. She was targeted for harassment in large part because she started a very successful feminist conference for your organization. She received no small amount of the abuse that led to the PTSD at her office and on your social media accounts. Every wave of harassment has involved calls to fire her that you haven’t publicly called for an end to.

Now you want to tell her she can’t object to that publicly and say that isn’t an acceptable way to treat women who work for atheist organizations? You want to tell that to the world?

You have no idea how far down the rabbit hole you’ve gone that this didn’t immediately sound like a terrible idea. If you think you can just call harassment over a disability a condition of working in the movement, you need to stop and figure out what choices led you here. Sort out how it is that you decided feminist power needed to be so opposed that you came to say someone egging on harassment needed to be protected over your own employee.

The rest of us don’t care how it happened, but we’re sure as hell not going to take that lying down, for our own sakes as well as Melody’s.

[subbie1957]

MELODY
Do you really want to be the group that is most visibly hanging one of its female employees out to dry right now over her being attacked by a male speaker?

ME
I think that is JREF!

After all, according to Jeff Wagg, if somebody is raped by a male speaker, the best thing to do is nothing.

Would Wagg get a supervisor's job in McDonalds with that attitude?

Who would employ such a person?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Thankfully not. Though it has occasionally caused me to jump out of a wank fantasy. You know, like that feeling when you're just drifting off to sleep, and you suddenly twitch awake because it suddenly feels like you're falling. It's kind of like that.

I think I've read somewhere that the "falling down" thing is just your brain misfiring and perceiving your body going to sleep as dying, so it just jerks you awake.

ie: brains are dicks (which explains a lot).

[Opyt]

zenbabe:
I liked EllenBeth's response:

[zenbabe]

Darn you, CFI, for making Melody tweet all those dreadful tweets over the years, causing so much ruckus that she feared for her very life, yet could not stop tweeting even at home in her fluffy bed with her pug and her chocolates because you MADE her tweet as a part of her job, and she therefore developed PTSD, just like what happens to a victim of child abuse or a war vet!

And now, CFI, you dare to almost kind of obliquely hint that a tweet of hers went over the top, when she, helpless woman that she is, demanded a man be shunned by all con organizations?!

:lol:
Jesus.

Do women have agency as humans or not?
I, with my lady-brain, can't keep the messaging straight.

:lol:

[Opyt]

zenbabe:
I think you only have agency when someone else allows it.
If you are doing it for yourself then clearly you do not have agency.

It's complicated enough to be counter-intuitive.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

jughead - dickhead - if you pay attention you'll note that there's no problem with Phil's English.

I agree that Phil's English is good. Not just for a second language, but good period. However, I thought he misinterpreted those tweets in a rather facile way. So I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was a language issue. In other words, I was trying to be nice.

I was doing what I always do here, taking the piss. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to know this by now.

But if we're going to go in-depth, Watson is stating that people (be they minorities or other) who don't agree with her worldview are stupid. And that shit is not ok in my book. Especially coming from Watson.

[Søren Lilholt]

So you believe it's more likely that JREF was told it was a rape and did nothing and Smith continued to socialize pleasantly with Shermer rather than simply that Smith came to believe it was rape much later on. I'm fascinated with what the intellectual process must be for someone to come to this conclusion. I beg you, fill us in.

Always believe the accuser. Note I did not say 'victim.' So while they say 'victim' with their mouths, their actions, and unwavering credulity, really mean 'accuser.'

So now anyone can be a victim if they say so on the internet, asking for evidence is rape apology, and saying they should go to the police is victim blaming. How exactly are we supposed to make the world safer for women if they never report rape? It's obvious to me they don't want a solution at all. It's all about a never ending war.

Fortunately we don't generally live in a rape culture, but if we did, what would it look like?

Faciltating and covering-up for known rapists? Check.

Acting as if rape never happens and carrying on as normal when it does? Check.

Failing to report rape to the police? Check.

Fucking HELL, these people are fucked up. On the basis of this one (sketchy) incident, their sub-culture looks like an exact microcosm of the rape culture they project to society at large. As Mykeru has already asked - in what respect are these people NOT morally reprehensible?

[zenbabe]

zenbabe:
I think you only have agency when someone else allows it.
If you are doing it for yourself then clearly you do not have agency.

It's complicated enough to be counter-intuitive.

:lol:

Ah man. What a whirlwind the past couple weeks have been.
I'm still like 12 pages behind here!

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Fortunately we don't generally live in a rape culture, but if we did, what would it look like?

Faciltating and covering-up for known rapists? Check.

Acting as if rape never happens and carrying on as normal when it does? Check.

Failing to report rape to the police? Check.

Fucking HELL, these people are fucked up. On the basis of this one (sketchy) incident, their sub-culture looks like an exact microcosm of the rape culture they project to society at large. As Mykeru has already asked - in what respect are these people NOT morally reprehensible?

I have rarely encountered anyone more sexist than the average SJW

I have rarely encountered anyone more racist than the average SJW

I have rarely met anyone more insecure and passive aggressive than the average SJW


This is a group that virtually defines itself by excluding, shunning, disowning, threatening, persecuting and harassing those that disagree with them, regardless of race, gender, politics or pretty much anything else

[comhcinc]

What three solid pages on who we would fuck while I was sleeping?



I would fuck all of you.

[deLurch]

Somewhere posted here there's a picture of MoFo from the late '90s before her life started going to shit, and you won't believe how beautiful she was. Maybe someone can dig it up.

And here's Melody when she was definitely doable.
http://i.imgur.com/Uc1FuRp.png

I wonder if part of the rage some aging feminists feel is at the loss of their sexual power. Which then expresses itself primarily against men, who've gone from tripping over themselves just to buy them a drink to treating them like they're socially invisible. I don't have evidence to think this is a major driving force for most feminists, but for some? Probably.

She should see a doctor about her head being permanently cocked at a 30 degree angle.

Owls tilt their heads to help locate objects through echo location.

[deLurch]

"Caretaker"????
Just how much of a mess is melody

If she can't leave her bed, someone has to ransack the Sara Lee aisle in the grocery store for her.

[Steersman]

[.quote="jugheadnaut"]
Here's an obvious example. Take the claim 'Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote for the Republican Party'. Now, I don't believe in the sentiment behind this claim, but I'm guessing many here do. Are they saying Blacks are stupid?
[/.quote]

So I think your example is racist and problematic for many reasons. And I certainly I am not saying you are, I know this was just an example.
<snip>
Rebecca's tweet about women and minorities is legitimately sexist and racist for the same reasons.

Don't see how your argument holds a lot of water, and looks like it is seriously misrepresenting or misinterpreting what jugheadnaut has said. He has said "plenty of blacks", but "plenty" is not all. While your first point (1) - "blacks ... share some natural agenda" - rather clearly insists, erroneously, that he is saying "all". Houston, we have a problem. You might note the last comment of Nugent's I quoted.

I don't see how "plenty" helps.

Because it qualifies the statement “blacks are stupid” which is clearly racist because obviously not all blacks are stupid. But “plenty of [some] blacks are stupid” is a plausible argument as just as clearly there is some evidence that that is in fact the case for blacks – arguably, Mike Brown - and, mutatis mutandis, all other races, and classes. But note a couple of definitions:

rac•ism noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

And:

sex•ism (skszm) n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

And, from Wikipedia, Stereotype:

In social psychology, a stereotype is a thought that can be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things. These thoughts or beliefs may or may not accurately reflect reality. However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype.

The “stereotype” of “all blacks are stupid” is simply fallacious and thereby racist; the “stereotype” that some are is a simple fact and hence is not. Likewise with your analogy with feminists.

The critiques against "women against feminism" look a lot like "Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote Republican". They are not saying all women are stupid enough to be against feminism. They are saying plenty of women are stupid, ignorant about feminism, don't understand oppression against women is still going on, and they know better than the women against feminism what women should be for. If it's David Futrelle saying it, it's even more like the white feminist dudebro telling blacks they are stupid and voting against their interests to vote Republican. ....

That some "feminists" are saying that those in the "women against feminism" cohort are stupid is still not saying that all women are stupid - unless you think the former are also saying that they themselves are stupid. Which means it is not sexism - narrow-minded, dogmatic, opinionated, and simply wrong in all probability, but not sexist.

So are those attacks sexist or not?

I would say no.

[Kirbmarc]

So now anyone can be a victim if they say so on the internet, asking for evidence is rape apology, and saying they should go to the police is victim blaming. How exactly are we supposed to make the world safer for women if they never report rape? It's obvious to me they don't want a solution at all. It's all about a never ending war.

It's all about providing evidence that everyone else is racist, sexist, a rape apologist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and evil. Everyone but them, of course.

It works exactly like the religious concept of the original syn. You make up a flaw that everyone shares, make them feel guilty, and then quickly offer a solution: follow us and give us the power to do what we want, and you'll be saved.

The flaw in itself cannot be fixed, otherwise the "movement" would die a quick death. People must always feel guilty.

Despite what they claim, the SJWs don't want to end rape. They want to prove that all men are potential rapists and need to be controlled.

[paddybrown]

Anybody prepared to admit to fantasising about Elsie the Mofo? Or Melody?

Somewhere posted here there's a picture of MoFo from the late '90s before her life started going to shit, and you won't believe how beautiful she was. Maybe someone can dig it up.

And here's Melody when she was definitely doable.
http://i.imgur.com/Uc1FuRp.png

Not to mention this shot of Chanty Binx:

http://0.static.wix.com/media/2a5d71_d0 ... e.jpg_1024

popularly known as "Big Red":

http://img.youtube.com/vi/nvYyGTmcP80/hqdefault.jpg

I wonder if part of the rage some aging feminists feel is at the loss of their sexual power. Which then expresses itself primarily against men, who've gone from tripping over themselves just to buy them a drink to treating them like they're socially invisible. I don't have evidence to think this is a major driving force for most feminists, but for some? Probably.

Absolutely. It's the "sexual trade union" theory. The same place most "slut-shaming" (which is mostly done by women) comes from - trying to level the playing field for older and less attractive women by delegitimising the sexual power of younger and more attractive women.

[Badger3k]

Hensley's husband: "There is no "twitter PTSD". Only PTSD.".

Um, tell that to your deranged fraud of a wife, who's been shrieking about online PTSD and Twitter PTSD for years. Idiot.

In any case, she has neither. Makes the whole thing moot.

[JacquesCuze]

You don't have to say all X are Y to make a *ist statement.

Most women would be better off barefoot and pregnant
Most blacks are great basketball players
Most Jews owe their primary loyalty to Israel.

[paddybrown]

Sooner or later he'll figure out that being a male feminist is like being in an abusive relationship. Your partner will make everything about her, blame you for everything including stuff that only exists in her head, and treat you like you're in the wrong whatever you do, until you stop trying to engage with her and just say "yes dear" (i.e. shut up and listen) for the sake of a quiet life. Best get out of there before you've made a commitment you can't get out of.

[Badger3k]

http://secure3.convio.net/cfi/images/co ... 7079822577

Shermer is always smiling confidently about something and it's not his height. Are we sure Alison Smith needed the wheelchair because she was drunk?

Anyone see Shermer and Walter in the same room?

I thought not...

[Steersman]

You don't have to say all X are Y to make a *ist statement.

That does seem to be the definition: a categorical claim about all of a group.

Most women would be better off barefoot and pregnant
Most blacks are great basketball players
Most Jews owe their primary loyalty to Israel.

Maybe each of those statements are in fact true. But they look more like stereotypes that may or may not be true depending on context, circumstances, and individuals targeted. But regardless of that possibility, they are still not assertions about the whole classes in which they are members. Ergo, neither sexist nor racist. At least in my view, and by the definitions I've provided.

[But time to call it a day; night all]

[comhcinc]

Fortunately we don't generally live in a rape culture, but if we did, what would it look like?

Faciltating and covering-up for known rapists? Check.

Acting as if rape never happens and carrying on as normal when it does? Check.

Failing to report rape to the police? Check.

Fucking HELL, these people are fucked up. On the basis of this one (sketchy) incident, their sub-culture looks like an exact microcosm of the rape culture they project to society at large. As Mykeru has already asked - in what respect are these people NOT morally reprehensible?

I have rarely encountered anyone more sexist than the average SJW

I have rarely encountered anyone more racist than the average SJW

I have rarely met anyone more insecure and passive aggressive than the average SJW


This is a group that virtually defines itself by excluding, shunning, disowning, threatening, persecuting and harassing those that disagree with them, regardless of race, gender, politics or pretty much anything else

Here is what blows my mind. In their world there is a very clear good/evil dichotomy going on. There are no shades of grey. Part of that worldview is the need for a big faceless evil. Be it the government or the patriarchy, or even a particular field of science. The point is, for them there has to be this bad guy who, and this is very important, they, no matter how hard they try can never beat. If the big evil could be beat then they would no longer have an enemy to fight, but it's just too big. So instead of facing the big evil directly they attack it's agents. Now hey is the tricky part. These agents almost never know they are in fact minions for the big evil. They need to be educated(while of course being beaten down), while those who do know they work for the big evil are of course just to be beaten down. Now they get to choose what type of minion their enemy is.

Let me give you my favorite example from a couple of years ago. This will require a little bit of background knowledge of me (self doxing here I come)

I am poor white middle aged father of 4. My parents were poor, my wife's parents are poor. We gladly take government assist to help provide food for our children. I grew up in the south and have life a good proportion of my life surrounded by poor people many if not most who was black and or mexican. No body in my family has ever finished college (thought my wife and myself are both working on it) except my father, who frankly never used his education. He was a pretty decent but basically a small time musician. His father was a drunken chicken farmer who having died when I was just a baby I don't know much about other than he was a real abusive prick.

Anyway so I comment on the issues of the black community, issues that are transparent to anyone willing to look, SJWs if they are charitable will inform that due to being white and male I could never understand what is happening. I should be quiet and listen. If they are not in a good mood I am just a racist hick from Alabama. One way of the other either by my "lack of understanding" or my "racism" I am effectively silentance. If I was in a position that could be harmed by these people (say a minor media celebrity) they would gleefully go out of their way to do me some type of harm most likely financial.

So back in the 2004 Bill Cosby gave a speak on the 50th anniversary of Brown v the board of Education. You can read about it here. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/cosby.asp. There was was some up roar from certain (and I hate to use this word) liberal places that ol Bill was wrong and he had internalized racism issues. If he would have given that speak today we would see a lot more vitorale on twitter, youtube, tumblr, etc.

This people world view depend on them being victims that have no ability to ever make their lives better. Is it any wonder why they lash out so much?

[JacquesCuze]

You don't have to say all X are Y to make a *ist statement.

That does seem to be the definition: a categorical claim about all of a group.

Most women would be better off barefoot and pregnant
Most blacks are great basketball players
Most Jews owe their primary loyalty to Israel.

Maybe each of those statements are in fact true. But they look more like stereotypes that may or may not be true depending on context, circumstances, and individuals targeted. But regardless of that possibility, they are still not assertions about the whole classes in which they are members. Ergo, neither sexist nor racist. At least in my view, and by the definitions I've provided.

[But time to call it a day; night all]

Go to sleep and in your dreams think on the errors of your ways, because racist statements do not have to apply to every member of a class, they are beliefs about the class in general allowing for exceptions.

Explore

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... ish/racism

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

That's not saying all Blacks make excellent basketball players. It's saying that the aggregate race of Blacks are better basketball players than whites.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Here's the ADL definition which I think is actually the more accurate of these:

http://archive.adl.org/hate-patrol/raci ... CUtXdXF-3o

Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.

It's a group thing Steers.

[comhcinc]

Anybody prepared to admit to fantasising about Elsie the Mofo? Or Melody?

Somewhere posted here there's a picture of MoFo from the late '90s before her life started going to shit, and you won't believe how beautiful she was. Maybe someone can dig it up.

And here's Melody when she was definitely doable.
http://i.imgur.com/Uc1FuRp.png

Not to mention this shot of Chanty Binx:

http://0.static.wix.com/media/2a5d71_d0 ... e.jpg_1024

popularly known as "Big Red":

http://img.youtube.com/vi/nvYyGTmcP80/hqdefault.jpg

I wonder if part of the rage some aging feminists feel is at the loss of their sexual power. Which then expresses itself primarily against men, who've gone from tripping over themselves just to buy them a drink to treating them like they're socially invisible. I don't have evidence to think this is a major driving force for most feminists, but for some? Probably.

Absolutely. It's the "sexual trade union" theory. The same place most "slut-shaming" (which is mostly done by women) comes from - trying to level the playing field for older and less attractive women by delegitimising the sexual power of younger and more attractive women.

Oh yes big red. I like how her fiery crazy red hair matches her fiery crazy batshit ideas. I would love for her to month me and just angrily call me fuckface during the whole of intercourse.

Once again I like older Melody.

As for the whole sexual trade union thing I don't really by it. I think that is reading way to deeply into the issue. I think these people just don't want you to have an opinion on a subject unless you run it by them first. You are too see them as sexual objects only when they approval it otherwise they are not,

[Brive1987]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a pretty sober paper.

So when I saw a story criticisng the Emma Watson speech I had a look.

Bummer.

In her speech, which has been repeatedly labelled "game-changing", Watson highlighted the impact of gender inequality on boys and men. After providing some very accessible, positive and necessary thoughts on feminism in general, she offered this observation: "We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence."

I'm sorry to be the Grinch who stole Popular Feminism, but this is utter rubbish. Gender inequality comes as a direct result of the enforcement of patriarchal structures. Although men are impacted negatively by it, they are not impacted in the same ways or to the same drastically violent extent as women.

Additionally, men are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of these patriarchal structures, seeing themselves reflected broadly across society as change-makers and power brokers. Whatever benefits Watson's speech may have in regard to inspiring a new generation of young feminists (and that is unquestionably an achievement), it is offensive and farcical to suggest that equality and change will come for women "as a natural consequence" of men being supported to get their feelings in order.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/emma-wats ... z3EPiW2DpS

[comhcinc]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a pretty sober paper.

So when I saw a story criticisng the Emma Watson speech I had a look.

Bummer.

In her speech, which has been repeatedly labelled "game-changing", Watson highlighted the impact of gender inequality on boys and men. After providing some very accessible, positive and necessary thoughts on feminism in general, she offered this observation: "We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence."

I'm sorry to be the Grinch who stole Popular Feminism, but this is utter rubbish. Gender inequality comes as a direct result of the enforcement of patriarchal structures. Although men are impacted negatively by it, they are not impacted in the same ways or to the same drastically violent extent as women.

Additionally, men are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of these patriarchal structures, seeing themselves reflected broadly across society as change-makers and power brokers. Whatever benefits Watson's speech may have in regard to inspiring a new generation of young feminists (and that is unquestionably an achievement), it is offensive and farcical to suggest that equality and change will come for women "as a natural consequence" of men being supported to get their feelings in order.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/emma-wats ... z3EPiW2DpS

No hey I like that author's take on. I don't agree with her worldview but at least she has (dare I say it) the balls to actually plainly state what she believes. I can applaud people like that. People like that tend to be able to discuss the issues.

[comhcinc]

[youtube]oax1wRnjlhs[/youtube]

released a couple of hours ago.

[Pagancat]

What people like Melody need to learn is the word no. No Melody you can't kick people out of humanism because humanism is not your property. No you don't get to demand that people who are against abortion be kicked out of the secular community because you aint in charge. Actually scrub that. What people like Melody need is a slap.

[Tapir]

Your mistake, which lots of people are making, all center around the word rape. Some people believe that any sex where one person is even slightly inebriated is rape, but that doesn't make it a crime. Smith used the word rape, but that doesn't make it a crime.

I don't think anyone here is making that 'mistake'.

Wagg had a duty to evaluate what he was told happened, regardless of Smith's opinion (her use of the word rape is an opinion) of what happened. Based on what he was told happened and what he personally witnessed, which included an assessment of her sobriety when she was being escorted by Shermer back to the hotel, he had a duty to make a judgment.

I disagree - It's not Wagg's duty to play detective. Obviously he will form his own opinion on whether there is any validity to the claim but he is duty bound to report it to the police and the hotel management.

You speak of Wagg's duties - Regardless of whether Wagg believed it was just drunken sex he had a duty of care to the other conference attendees, the hotel staff and residents.

Imagine instead it was one of the hotel janitors to whom Smith reported she'd been raped. Do you think it is for the janitor to evaluate the validity of the claim? Nope - it doesn't matter whether the janitor thinks it's bullshit, a rape report goes straight to the top and as fast as possible.

If that judgment was that there was a rape or assault, it doesn't matter fuck-all what Smith called it. His duty would be to report it to his superiors. Is it their duty to then report it as a crime? Nope.

In my opinion, yes it is their duty.

Like I say, I am not a lawyer so I do not know whether any of those involved were under any kind of legal obligation to report Smith's allegation - but I would strongly argue they had a civic duty to report it to the police regardless of Smith's wishes.

[Tribble]

Here's an obvious example. Take the claim 'Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote for the Republican Party'. Now, I don't believe in the sentiment behind this claim, but I'm guessing many here do. Are they saying Blacks are stupid?

So I think your example is racist and problematic for many reasons. And I certainly I am not saying you are, I know this was just an example.

1) Literally states "Blacks" regardless of how diverse they are in heritage, economics, religion, share some natural agenda. (Ditto Asians, Hispanics, etc.)

2) Dismisses that this very diverse community can legitimately have different opinions.

3) White splains that you know more than any random Black what is in their best interests.

4) Associates Blacks who disagree with being too stupid to understand their best interests. They are not rational agents or knowledgeable about what is best for them. Alternatively, implies Blacks who vote Republican are race traitors.

Rebecca's tweet about women and minorities is legitimately sexist and racist for the same reasons.

This is completely tangential to my point. Not that it's relevant, but I said I actually disagree with the statement I posited. But it's not for the reasons you mentioned. However, my point was entirely that someone making that claim most definitely isn't calling Blacks as a group stupid.

But I'll go into your points anyway because I find them intriguing. Very wrong, but intriguing.

Your first point confuses me, since it strikes me as almost uber-SJW in nature. The statement started with "Plenty of Blacks...". I don't think even typical SJW's would find fault with that. It makes no assumptions about sharing an agenda. "Plenty of Blacks are atheists". "Plenty of Latinos love hockey". Whether true or false, these seem like totally 'unproblematic' statements.

#2 I can dismiss with a single counterexample "Plenty of Blacks are stupid enough to vote against laws that eliminate Black slavery". If indeed there were Blacks voting against such laws, I think we would all agree with the 'stupid' assessment while still respecting diversity of opinion in the Black community. Respect for diversity of opinion doesn't imply that such diversity must necessarily exist on every single issue.

Very SJW again on #3. A white person has every right to have an opinion in this matter. The rightness or wrongness of the statement is not determined by the race of the person uttering it. I guess you're just saying it's inappropriate. That's irrelevant in this context. And why would you assume the speaker is white?

On #4, well sort of. The person making the statement does assume that they know better. But you're making the assumption that a person automatically gets credibility on any opinion about any matter that affects them. In a certain set of cases this is true, like those involving personal preference. If there was a vote on what color to paint a bridge in the neighborhood, this is certainly true. But most things, especially in politics, are far more complex. And just like with anything else, credibility must be earned. To change things up a bit, if someone tells a black person they're totally wrong to be against a school voucher program in their city, they may very well be saying that person is not rational on the subject. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The black person in question doesn't automatically have credibility on the subject simply by nature of being black.

And let me close with one more thing. What if they followed up by saying "but then again anybody who votes for the Republican Party is stupid"? Do you see how you've added a huge amount of racial baggage to the statement that doesn't really exist? I think you lived in L.A. too long. ;)

What Becky was calling them was 'House Niggers' which is reasonably well explained in Wikipedia:

"House Negro" (also "House Nigger") is a pejorative term for a black person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from the historic period of legal slavery in the United States. The term comes from a speech "Message to the Grass Roots" (1963) by African American activist Malcolm X, wherein he explains that during slavery, there were two kinds of slaves: "house Negroes", who worked in the master's house, and "field Negroes", who performed the manual labor outside.

He characterizes the house Negro as having a better life than the field Negro, and thus unwilling to leave the plantation and potentially more likely to support existing power structures that favor whites over blacks. Malcolm X identified with the field Negro. The term is used against individuals,[1][2] in critiques of attitudes within the African American community,[3] and as a borrowed term for critiquing parallel situations.[4]

That's the basic premise of Becky and other SJWs when someone of a minority votes Republican, claims they're not oppressed, discounts the SJW claims on other ethnic social issues and generally doesn't play their victim/identity politics. So when she (or any other one of them) exhibiting the behavior, we see the behavior and call it out.

With Becky, her 'sin' was two-fold. First, she was calling them House Niggers, albeit indirectly, because they dared to 'side with the white man' and point out that gaming is pretty damn egalitarian and merit based (contrary to the SJW claims). Second she was being an ablest cunt by saying it was because they were stupid.

[Tapir]

How come nobody is posting in the JREF thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=279753&page=26

What does it mean for it to be MODERATED? That each post is pre-screened by a mod before it gets published?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

How come nobody is posting in the JREF thread?

Because it's become such a bullshit mess that almost no one cares anymore? Let them go at each others' throats.

[Tribble]

Okay which roles were we to reverse? What were men injecting sexuality into, and how does volleyball fade into the work place? If there are no issues with any of the workplace clothing what is the "side" supposed to fix? Walk me through this.

Well I took it clearly that Yimmy was saying that while some people complain that some men sexualize women's everyday behavior, it could perhaps be that some women could improve the situation by not exposing their secondary sexual characteristics in situations where the equivalent men's clothing does not expose theirs.

IANAC (I am not a Clarence), so while I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, I am saying that it was fairly clearly stated.

look I am willing to admit some fault here, but what you just said is in no way 'clearly ' stated.

Sorry, but it was. And at this point in time, you should just move on...

[Tribble]

I would hope that Wagg and the JREF would very much be liable if it were established they had been informed of a rape and did nothing about it. As the conference organisers the JREF would, I would have thought, have a duty of care to their attendees that at the minimum would compel them to call the police and inform the hotel staff that a rape had occurred and the suspect was still on the premises.

If Wagg had discovered a fire and not bothered to report it would he (or the JREF) be liable for endangering the safety of everyone else?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answer.

"Rape" is a description of what happened, and that description is inaccurate. It wasn't rape. She's welcome to call it that, but it's not an accurate use of the term. They had drunken sex. That's objective. Rape in this case ("date rape" as Smith called it) is subjective, and her story taken at face value doesn't rise to that level.

Your fire analogy is useless. Fire is objectively defined. A match is fire. Should Wagg be required to report a lit match? Of course not. So drop the analogy. It's tortured.

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter if what happened was merely drunken sex. It doesn't even matter if an actual rape took place. A rape was reported to the conference organiser (Wagg) - who, as far as we know, did nothing about it.

'But it wasn't at a JREF sponsored event. That's what people missing when they talk JREF liability and duty. It was a PRIVATE PARTY at a different venue where two people with a common business relationship attended as private citizens on their own time:

The Shaved Ape Motorcycle Club will be hosting its first annual TAM Scotch and Wine Bar (plus cigars) event in a suite at the Caesars Palace Hotel (across the street) from the conference hotel.

When: Thursday Night, 9:00-????
What: Single Malts, Red Wine, Cigars that may be from Communist countries.

Since we will not know the suite number until we check in we will be handing out cards at the TAM reception. Also look for news on the cork-board outside of the main hall (where announcements have been posted in previous years). We will post in this thread as well.

As we are self-funded, donations at the event are appreciated. Hope to see you all there.

We will also be hosting an after-party on Saturday in conjunction with the Skepchicks party (in the same hotel). If they are full, come see us.

So where's the link? And telling JREF is not a link as they are not associated with the party in any legal way. They, as far as I can see, have no legal duty or responsibility in this matter. What's problematic, from a social standpoint, is they kept inviting Shermer back exposing their staff and conference attendees to this alleged behavior.

[Tapir]

'But it wasn't at a JREF sponsored event. That's what people missing when they talk JREF liability and duty. It was a PRIVATE PARTY at a different venue where two people with a common business relationship attended as private citizens on their own time:

Ohhhh....I was under the impression it happened at TAM itself. Thanks for the clarification.

But, as you note, it still doesn't explain why Wagg/JREF continued booking Shermer year after year.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What happens in Vegas should definitely stay in Vegas.

[comhcinc]

'But it wasn't at a JREF sponsored event. That's what people missing when they talk JREF liability and duty. It was a PRIVATE PARTY at a different venue where two people with a common business relationship attended as private citizens on their own time:

Ohhhh....I was under the impression it happened at TAM itself. Thanks for the clarification.

But, as you note, it still doesn't explain why Wagg/JREF continued booking Shermer year after year.

It was during TAM. I have help run operations for a local Sci-Fi con in the past. To me it would still be something that we (the con) organizers would still have reported, because if not for the con that party would not have been happening.

[Tribble]

You're missing the point.


UncaYimmy is being obtuse. I suspect d1m0n3 sockpuppet.

Not really. His point is much better than you guys think. While IANAL, I was an expert witness and I was trained (as all CPAs) in law (it's one-fourth of our exam) but not nearly to the extent of a lawyer. So, I'm no expert and I can make mistakes, but this is fairly bog-standard stuff you get in your lower-division law class:

The Event was a Private Party. (No ER link.)
The Event was not under the control or umbrella of JREF. (No ER link)
The Event happened at a different local. (No ER link)
The Event did not have JREF sponsorship or employees on duty as hosts. (No ER link)
Shermer was not a JREF employee but an independent contractor giving a speech for hire/perks. (No ER link)
Smith was a JREF employee/volunteer but not on duty (it was private time). (No ER link)

If I was attending TAM and I was mugged at a different hotel by Michael Shermer, JREF would not have liability because it was not job related misconduct. These examples may help you understand the difference in the point of law:

Example 1a: A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.

Now, if the employee used his own car, we wouldn't even have the beginnings of discussion in the above example because it would be purely private, like the Shermer/Smith issue. However, if were something official (ie for Company duty/benefit), well, we have different issues:

Example 1b: A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).

There's a crime and a civil fault there and a way to attach it to the employer. But even that can be mitigated as indicated by the 'intoxicated' issue.

HOWEVER, if I made a police report and Shermer was convicted of the mugging and JREF continued to hire him, and he mugged someone else, then we'd have new kettle of fish:

Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment.

....

Example 3: A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer's houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he's been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer's house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.

So, at best, all JREF can do is to not hire him in the future or knowingly sell him tickets. But you can't get JREF for job related misconduct.

[Pitchguest]

It's late (or early, depending on how you look at it) and I'm too tired and too lack-arsed to defend the character assassination that's currently being brought against me on Fogg's.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/whatever+m ... 070367.gif

One comment. One, made in the throes of stupidity, and you're marked. Which is fair enough, but it would be nice if they would at least acknowledge how I owned up to it straight after and made my mea-culpas with humility and charity. (ON THEIR SITE.) I freely admit it was a stupid comment and I said so, clearly, but it's like a permanent black spot on your palm and they have released the Kraken. Anyway. I literally can't because I'm struggling to stay awake.

Have a good night, my pedigree chums. :sleeping-blue:

Where? Link?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014 ... ent-122791

Wow. If “Pitchguest” ever defends you, you can now for absolute certain that you’ve fucked up.
Pitchguest is the slymepitter who openly stated, in reference to Steubenville, that rape is not actually rape if the woman is unconscious. And also that if the victim of a crime is unconscious there is no actual victim, since you can’t remember what was done to you while you were unconscious.

From this thread back in March, 2013,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-78688

First of all, Judgy Bitch does not ridicule or make fun of the violent rape in India.
Second, she was fingered. While this would fall into molestation or sexual assault, it wouldn’t fall into the category of rape. Thirdly, she was passed out cold so I doubt there’s any psychological damage. (No, I’m not defending them, just saying that it most likely won’t affect her mentally.)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_p ... l_pronouns

However, less than fours later I recanted. But this is to be my cardinal sin, apparently. I imagine it will be waved in front of me many more times in the future. Now if only there was a way within the atheist magistrate that I could buy a letter of indulgence to have my sins forgiven. Alas.

Anyway. I'll probably write a dissertation soon on Fogg's. Watch this space.

[Tribble]

OK I got a serious question for my fellow 'pitters:

Is this sexy?

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp8Cz2-IAAA4FFg.jpg

How about this? Hot or not?

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-09 ... 6937-2.jpg

This is a serious question ... none of your dammed snark. TIA.

The ones on top look silly. The one on the bottom likes like he's got a bad case of genital warts or a tumor...

[subbie1957]

OK I got a serious question for my fellow 'pitters:

Is this sexy?

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp8Cz2-IAAA4FFg.jpg

How about this? Hot or not?

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-09 ... 6937-2.jpg

This is a serious question ... none of your dammed snark. TIA.

The ones on top look silly. The one on the bottom likes like he's got a bad case of genital warts or a tumor...

It is just me, but those look like very small bits of cloth. I need more material than that!

[comhcinc]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-09 ... 6937-2.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/8c0oaRi5VfTsa ... crop=1%3A1

I would almost think that was the justicar but don't see where he would keep his gun.

:whistle:

[Tony Parsehole]

SJW's in The Friendly Atheist's comments section, insisting that charitable food donations be halal. Can't linky from my phone.

How did I miss this? LMAO!
Link when you can.

[Tony Parsehole]

That's not underwear. It's a crisp packet and a laggy band.

[AnonymousCowherd]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a pretty sober paper.

So when I saw a story criticisng the Emma Watson speech I had a look.

Bummer.

In her speech, which has been repeatedly labelled "game-changing", Watson highlighted the impact of gender inequality on boys and men. After providing some very accessible, positive and necessary thoughts on feminism in general, she offered this observation: "We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence."

I'm sorry to be the Grinch who stole Popular Feminism, but this is utter rubbish. Gender inequality comes as a direct result of the enforcement of patriarchal structures. Although men are impacted negatively by it, they are not impacted in the same ways or to the same drastically violent extent as women.

Additionally, men are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of these patriarchal structures, seeing themselves reflected broadly across society as change-makers and power brokers. Whatever benefits Watson's speech may have in regard to inspiring a new generation of young feminists (and that is unquestionably an achievement), it is offensive and farcical to suggest that equality and change will come for women "as a natural consequence" of men being supported to get their feelings in order.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/emma-wats ... z3EPiW2DpS

The SMH used to be sober, but these days it is as much a click-bait fest as the FTB, at least outside of the straight local news sections. The Daily Life, Parenting and a lot of Entertainment sections would gladden the heart of the sternest SJW on most days.

Still Emma (or her script writers) for WotW!

[comhcinc]

SJW's in The Friendly Atheist's comments section, insisting that charitable food donations be halal. Can't linky from my phone.

How did I miss this? LMAO!
Link when you can.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... man-right/

[BlueShiftRhino]

Very bad idea to spam Michel Nugent comment section as if this was an Undead Thread.

Point taken. I agree (now) and apologize, especially for diluting your work. :oops:

[Tribble]

'But it wasn't at a JREF sponsored event. That's what people missing when they talk JREF liability and duty. It was a PRIVATE PARTY at a different venue where two people with a common business relationship attended as private citizens on their own time:

Ohhhh....I was under the impression it happened at TAM itself. Thanks for the clarification.

But, as you note, it still doesn't explain why Wagg/JREF continued booking Shermer year after year.

It was during TAM. I have help run operations for a local Sci-Fi con in the past. To me it would still be something that we (the con) organizers would still have reported, because if not for the con that party would not have been happening.

That's not really relevant. But for the Con, people wouldn't have flown in. It doesn't make JREF responsible for plane crashes, lost luggage or maxed-out credit cards.

I would have reported up-channel out of a sense of moral obligation even though there was no legal obligation. I would have done it because I understand that if it were true and I did nothing I would be putting my employer at risk of future liability. BUT, I also understand this was not in my legal bailiwick and going beyond that would be fraught with peril, including participating in making a (possible) false-rape accusation, which would expose them to liability. (There's more than one-side to the report/non-report issue.)

The only smart play Wagg could have made was to encourage Smith to take appropriate legal action, note it in her personnel file, and otherwise buck the issue upstairs (keeping a copy of the email/memo) and let JREFs well paid, well-trained lawyers advise them on the correct course of action.

[BlueShiftRhino]

This was weird. You first get upset because I derided your apparent claim that, if no crime was committed, you can't be held liable for the consequences of your actions or inaction, but then you close with:

Second, there was no crime committed, so they have no liability for not reporting the encounter at the time.

I'd ask you which of your positions you believe, but that would be disingenuous, as I don't care. Plus, it would probably change from the first to last paragraphs of your answer.

[Mykeru]

It doesn't matter if what happened was merely drunken sex. It doesn't even matter if an actual rape took place. A rape was reported to the conference organiser (Wagg) - who, as far as we know, did nothing about it.

Just a fact check:

At the time of the OMFG MASSIVE RAPE what was Jeff Wagg's position in JREF and his relation in the organization to Alison Smith?

That the whole boyfriend-girlfriend/emploer/employee thing is mixed together just goes to show how incestuous this bunch is.

[Mykeru]

Just trying to smooth things over:

[katamari Damassi]

Screen Shot 2014-09-26 at 12.54.01 pm.png

You have to admire her bare faced bravado!

Oafie is upset that Nugent doesn't let her moderate his comments section in the FTB/Soviet style.
What lies is Oafie talking about? That she's a copy/paste blogger? That she twists or reinterprets someone else's words to support her preconceived notions? Why doesn't she refute these lies?

[BlueShiftRhino]

OK I got a serious question for my fellow 'pitters:

Is this sexy?

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp8Cz2-IAAA4FFg.jpg

How about this? Hot or not?

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-09 ... 6937-2.jpg

This is a serious question ... none of your dammed snark. TIA.

No.

Call me old-fashioned, but I really don't like tattoos.