Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.Billie from Ockham wrote:Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
I'd suggest he read this before anything else,James Caruthers wrote:He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
Joke fail.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.Billie from Ockham wrote:Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?
Eh, not your failure. The Cpt can be a little dense sometimes, according to reputable sources.Billie from Ockham wrote:Joke fail.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.Billie from Ockham wrote:Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?
I was suggesting that Steersman might not read the whole Wikipedia entry ... just the abstract and the parts below that support his argument.
Com, just keep your eyes open & stay on point. Watch her. When you see the red hair dye & glasses, do not hesitate.comhcinc wrote:Easy J makes my current position look better. Fuck. That is saying a lot.
Unlike steersman.
Lol that doesn't work with my wife. She has always had awesome hair and glasses.Easy J wrote:Com, just keep your eyes open & stay on point. Watch her. When you see the red hair dye & glasses, do not hesitate.comhcinc wrote:Easy J makes my current position look better. Fuck. That is saying a lot.
Unlike steersman.
Seems like that might be a worthwhile addition to my reading list - thnks.Bourne Skeptic wrote:I'd suggest he read this before anything else,James Caruthers wrote:He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Make-Bigger ... 1118704967
Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.comhcinc wrote:Not to go all steersman here but I am watching the daily show and they are talking about the confederate flag thing. I know this is connected to that shooting but I don't know how. Anyway I want to make a point.
This is the confederate battle flag that everyone is talking about.
http://www.bndflagpoles.com/750_500_csu ... 1747286463
This is the stars and bars.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gacgr/starbars.jpg
If you are going to be high and mighty about this shit take five minutes to search wikipedia and get your facts straight.
Don't see that there's any great necessity for me to do so - particularly with increasingly limited time. My point, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't or isn't that you don't have a right to your opinion - regardless of how wrong it might be. It was that I don't have to read it all, or even much of it, to realize that your opinion isn't particularly consistent with a great many others - philosophers, historians, etc., etc. - who seem to have a great deal more credibility than you do. Rather disingenuous or clueless - at best - for you and, apparently, CaptainFluffyBunny to ignore that argument.James Caruthers wrote:He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
When I was a child around 6 my favorite shirt was one I got at the local music store. It was the Pink Panther with a rebel flag. Kinda like thisNoGodsEver wrote:
Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.
Might be a useful addition to the reading list, although I wonder what point you think it makes that is particularly relevant or weighty. But, as a quid pro quo, I want you to read Melvin Smith's Our home or native land? : what governments' aboriginal policy is doing to Canadafree thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
"That's racist!"free thoughtpolice wrote:Coin this phrase, forked tongue land stealing white eye demon: Way to victim blame shitlord.Steersman wrote: Maybe you didn't notice that I conceded (above) that "Canada has periodically or frequently treated "first nations" people rather shabbily"? But recognizing that shouldn't preclude a fair assessment of the argument, as above, that many in the First Nations communities have contributed substantially to their own difficulties. Complex issue, and not at all easy to disentangle all of the factors. But I don't think it helps at all for either "side" - there or in any dispute - to refuse to consider that they, or their attitudes and values, may be more a part of the problem than of the solution - to coin a phrase. ;-)
Yes, that is undoubtedly true - to some degree - for all of us as individuals. However, the point of that book of Melvin Smith's I just recommended (if I'm not mistaken as it was some years since I read it) is that aboriginal policy by governments, as well as attitudes and values of First Nations, are both part of the problem because they affect many individuals in a systemic way. And, relative to the latter, while I don't have any evidence for this at the tip of my tongue, though I've read more than a few articles, it seems that First Nations communal attitudes to owning property is a major contributing factor for the dire straights of many aboriginals.free thoughtpolice wrote:Did you read what I wrote? If so it didn't appear to sink in. Everyone contributes to their own misfortune to some degree. The attitudes and values of the Indians I know are pretty much the same as everyone else I know.
There are some from that "side" that could use a leg up and some help to catch up with the modern world?
I think so.
I'm watching The Pink Panther Strikes Again at this very moment.comhcinc wrote:When I was a child around 6 my favorite shirt was one I got at the local music store. It was the Pink Panther with a rebel flag. Kinda like thisNoGodsEver wrote:
Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.
https://img0.etsystatic.com/037/1/74376 ... 4_dwk9.jpg
[youtube]kBiS4qTsjCg[/youtube]Myers wrote:There was a recent debate on British television between Milo Yiannopoulos and Emily Grossman on Sexism in Science. I have no idea why Yiannopoulos was even invited; he’s got no qualifications at all to be talking about this stuff. I guess he was the representative for sexism, while Grossman was there to represent science.
2) Emily seemed to be referring to this view of a larger study/report: Girls lack self-confidence in maths and science problems, study finds (Guardian, 3/2015) - that's reporting on one portion of, & recommendation from, this nearly 200 page report: The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behavior, Confidence (OECD, 3/2015). Chapter 3 is “Girls’ Lack of Self-Confidenceâ€, but there's more to it than that. From the Executive Summary:...validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and (DC). In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships… Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. …the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.
This, from page 31 of the OECD report, seems to relate to the specific portion Emily referred to as "a study (that) came out"; bolding added:The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence tries to determine why 15-year-old boys are more likely than girls, on average, to fail to attain a baseline level of proficiency in reading, mathematics and science, and why high-performing 15-year-old girls still underachieve in areas such as mathematics, science and problem solving when compared to high-performing boys.
This page from a American Psychological Association publication (newsletter?) from 2010 seems relevant: Math + culture = gender gap? - Here's one section:OECD wrote:Girls also lag behind boys when they are required to explain phenomena scientifically (Table 1.11b). ... On average across OECD countries, boys outperform girls in this specific skill by 15 score points. The gender gap is particularly large in <snip 5 countries>, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom (21 points) (Table 1.11b).
...high-performing girls’ underachievement in mathematics and science, particularly in tasks that require them to formulate problems mathematically or to explain phenomena scientifically, may have a lot to do with girls’ confidence in their own ability in these subjects. When students are more self-confident, they give themselves the freedom to fail, to engage in trial-and-error processes that are fundamental to acquiring knowledge in mathematics and science. Girls tend to be more fearful of making mistakes, perhaps because they cannot distinguish, psychologically, between “I made a mistake†and “I am mistakenâ€.
Self-confidence is also what enables high-achieving students to reach their potential and not choke under pressure. ...at every level of performance, girls tend to have much lower levels of self-efficacy and self-concept in mathematics and science. ...while girls have less self-efficacy and lower self concept, they tend to be highly motivated to do well in school and to believe that doing well at school is important (Table 2.15). They also tend to fear negative evaluations by others more than boys do, and are eager to meet others’ expectations for them. Given girls’ keen desire to succeed in school and to please others, their fear of negative evaluations, and their lower self-confidence in mathematics and science, it is hardly surprising that high-achieving girls choke under (often self-imposed) pressure.
In fact, women in the United States now earn 48 percent of bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and 30 percent of the doctorates, says Hyde. “If they can’t do math, how are they doing this? They can do math just fine.â€
That doesn’t mean, however, that just because girls and women can do the math, they want to. When Vanderbilt University psychologist David Lubinski, PhD, and his colleagues interviewed a group of more than 5,000 intellectually precocious girls and boys they’d followed from childhood into their mid-30s, they noticed that while men and women earned equal proportions of advanced degrees, there were gender differences in the areas people decided to study.
He found that just as many women as men started college planning to go into physical sciences and math. However, women more than men later switched to humanities and social science majors. Every one of these study participants had the ability to succeed in math-related careers, but many of them were more likely to choose law school or medicine, Lubinski says.
“The sexes are making different choices,†he says. “But when we look at how satisfied these people are with their career choices, they’re equally satisfied and equally successful.â€
Steersman wrote:
<snip longer Steers>
Aboriginals or native Indians with the former seeming to be well within the pale, so to speak, since there's the APTN - the Aboriginal Public Television Network - in this neck of the woods that seems pretty acceptable. Not sure if there's anything equivalent to the Australian "abbo" or "boonga", but I expect there are a few that may or may not have some applicability depending on circumstances. Reminds of having read a book sometime ago on some aboriginal issues here in Canada - "Our Home? Or Native Land?", I think - that included a bit from a routine from an aboriginal comedian who was taking some quite justifiable shots at the relatively high levels of fraud perpetrated by various "Chiefs and Council" on native reserves. Maybe there's an epithet that might be applicable, or maybe one could be coined on the fly - "Scalpers"?Couch wrote:[Steers, how do you refer to the indigenous where you're from?
I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.Couch wrote:[What do you think it is acceptable to call indigenous Australians? The casual slurs of my youth are abhorrent to me now; and feel almost unutterable now I know a thing or two about the last 220 years. As a society, our refusal the use or defend those racial epithets and slurs are, in part, a black armband signifying our recognition of the displacement, prejudice and suffering wrought upon a people. But 'Abo' is just an abbreviation of 'Aborigine' you say?
:) Oy! I'm cut to the quick - ask of me tomorrow and you'll find me a grave man.Couch wrote:[Fuck off, Cunt (I'll let you can divine what usage of cunt I'm employing here) ;)
But there again, I think you're engaging in some highly questionable if not actually hypocritical "reasoning". Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.
Was he actually in a position of responsibility?EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.
MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…
Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….
b) Here's what they saw as their key finding:Attempts Analysis of the number of items attempted revealed that women attempted somewhat fewer math problems (M = 24.90) than did men (M = 26.26), β= .15, p < .06. In addition, the contrast of male vs. female fictitious name was significant, β= −.16, p < .05, indicating that participants (regardless of their own gender) using a female fictitious name attempted significantly more items (M = 26.58) than those using a male fictitious name (M = 24.78). ... These patterns are themselves not meaningful, but because there was some systematic variation in the number of questions answered, we focused on accuracy (i.e., the number of correct answers out of the number attempted) as our primary measure of performance.
Accuracy Women’s and men’s accuracy scores (along with other dependent variables of interest) for each condition are presented in Table 1. Regression analyses of accuracy yielded a main effect of gender, β = .22, p < .01 (men outperformed women), and a main effect of own vs. fictitious name contrast, β = .22, p < .02, which was qualified by the predicted interaction between gender and own vs. fictitious name contrast: β = −.17, p < .03. Specifically, women who used their own name were less accurate (M = .44) than men who used their own name (M = .61), β = .31, p = .001. However, women who were assigned a fictitious name (M = .51) performed significantly better than those using their own name, β = .17, p < .05, and equivalently to men in the fictitious name conditions (M = .60), β = .10, p > .20. Men’s performance was unaffected by the use of a different name, β = −.07, p > .30.
Is there a difference? (women v. children)Guest wrote:Thank you Ms. Tickle,
I've been curious this whole time just what Tim Hunt's daily responsibilities were.
This here from a year ago says he is group leader emiritus:
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_12/caredit.a1400147
most other accounts describe his position as honorary professor.
So academics and medicos, what would his responsibilities be?
Does he supervise groups?
Does he direct research?
Does he do research?
Does he hire or fund researchers or their research?
Was he actually in a position of responsibility?EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.
MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…
What was it about Hunt or what he said that made the joke require the witch of the week treatment?
Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….
People in massive, clean, suburban American houses can also be destitute!Really? wrote: PZ is clearly a friend of the poor, destitute black man and woman because he has a picture of Africa in his home office inside his massive, clean, suburban American house.
'Emeritus' kind of means 'retired, but still comes in every now and then and too famous for us to push out the door'.Guest wrote:Thank you Ms. Tickle,
I've been curious this whole time just what Tim Hunt's daily responsibilities were.
This here from a year ago says he is group leader emiritus:
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_12/caredit.a1400147
most other accounts describe his position as honorary professor.
So academics and medicos, what would his responsibilities be?
Does he supervise groups?
Does he direct research?
Does he do research?
Does he hire or fund researchers or their research?
Was he actually in a position of responsibility?EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.
MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…
What was it about Hunt or what he said that made the joke require the witch of the week treatment?
Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….
These words were reported as being a serious proposal by Hunt and his initial response to the growing media storm was not very clear."Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?"
There is some contention over the transcript. I don't know that anyone has actually seen it. The contents have been leaked, but the details of who made it, how it was made, etc., still seem to largely unreported, and the journalists who were there say the transcript is not accurate, and Hunt never said "now seriously" and they seem to have other witnesses claiming that too.Dick Strawkins wrote:Hunt's remarks do portray him as some kind of sexist dinosaur that would be hell for a young woman to have to face in her career so it is reasonable for people to take issue with him and if he really does behave as his remarks suggest then he would not be a good person to have power over the careers of women.
HOWEVER...
It turns out that there is more to the story than this.
If you look at a transcripts of his remarks you will notice that the very next words he said following the sexist statement were: "Now seriously,"
indicating that his words were meant as a joke, not a proscriptive verdict on women in science.
That throws things into a completely different light. In addition, many women have come forwards who have worked with Hunt in the past and described him as being very supportive of them and of women in science in general.
Taking all this into account it appears that the most likely conclusion here is that Hunt is not a sexist dinosaur - he is a crap comedian (one of the women defending him made this very point and recalled one similarly rubbish joke he had made at a previous conference.)
Oh great! A cliff hanger!!!Skep tickle wrote:Blech, in the math test / name paper there were more key findings than just math test solution accuracy. I was inaccurate in saying that was the key finding - but it was one of them.
'Night, all.
Sort of, yes. The intro often is.Billie from Ockham wrote:Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!free thoughtpolice wrote:By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt
Wouldn't it be funny if all the SJWs were trolls? Like in The Man Who Was Thursday. Rachel Dolezal and Bahar Mustafa and Amanda Marcotte and David Futrelle and Arthur Chu are all in deep cover. Hugo Shwyzer's meltdown was to allow troll central command to evacuate him before his cover was blown.feathers wrote:Explains a lot. And perhaps Melissa McEwan?Parody Accountant wrote:I'm tony queershoop and pz myers
Rebuttal of your point by Croom himself in another articleThe Endless Arguer also known as Steersman wrote:I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.
The part in bold is the key to understand Croom's point.Adam Croom wrote:Slurs possess interesting linguistic properties and so have recently attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers of language. For instance the racial slur nigger is explosively derogatory, enough so that just hearing it mentioned can leave one feeling as if they have been made complicit in a morally atrocious act.
(Jennifer Hornsby has suggested that slurs might count as “hate speech†and so raise questions “about the compatibility of the regulation of [hate] speech with principles of free speech†(2001, p. 129). Chris Hom further suggests that, “the use of an epithet may count as a literal threat, and hence no longer merit freedom of speech protection under the First Amendment†(2008, p. 440).
A close analysis of slurs is clearly required before we can make informed decisions about this serious issue.) Indeed, the very taboo nature of these words makes discussion of them typically prohibited or frowned upon. Although it is true that the utterance of slurs is illegitimate and derogatory in most contexts, sufficient evidence suggests that slurs are not always or exclusively used to derogate.
In fact, slurs are frequently picked up and appropriated by the very in-group members that the slur was originally intended to target. This might be done, for instance, as a means for like speakers to strengthen in-group solidarity.
So an investigation into the meaning and use of slurs can give us crucial insight into how words can be used with such derogatory impact, and how they can be turned around and appropriated as vehicles of rapport in certain contexts among in-group speakers.
In this essay I will argue that slurs are best characterized as being of a mixed descriptive/expressive type. Next, I will review the most influential accounts of slurs offered thus far, explain their shortcomings, then provide a new analysis of slurs and explain in what ways it is superior to others.
Finally, I suggest that a family-resemblance conception of category membership can help us achieve a clearer understanding of the various ways in which slurs, for better or worse, are actually put to use in natural language discourse (note that in this article slurs will be mentioned but not used. Although I have considered not even mentioning such a derogatory term as nigger in the first place, I chose it because on the one hand there is a substantive literature on the term upon which to draw to aid in the analysis of slurs in general, and on the other hand, this term highlights the fact that slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect to their employment).
Another relevant article.Wikipedia wrote:In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation or reclamation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims—re-appropriates—terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. For example, since the early 1970s, attempts have been made to reappropriate terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay and (to a lesser extent) queer and poof.
"Cunt" isn't used as a slur. It's against men and women in equal measure. Language use defines meaning.Steersman wrote:Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.
My very own corpora analysis.Tim Rayer wrote:Wittgenstein’s shift in thinking, between the Tractatus and the Investigations, maps the general shift in 20th century philosophy from logical positivism to behaviourism and pragmatism. It is a shift from seeing language as a fixed structure imposed upon the world to seeing it as a fluid structure that is intimately bound up with our everyday practices and forms of life. For later Wittgenstein, creating meaningful statements is not a matter of mapping the logical form of the world. It is a matter of using conventionally-defined terms within ‘language games’ that we play out in the course of everyday life. ‘In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use’, Wittgenstein claimed, in perhaps the most famous passage in the Investigations. It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it, and the context in which you say it. Words are how you use them.
Do read ALL of this AND THEN come back with a rebuttal.Kirbmarc wrote:Total: On a sample of 1283 uses of word "nigger" in both British and American English, only in 14 cases the word is used by a speaker, writer or POV character to identify themselves, and only in 9 cases as a term of endearment.
On the other hand on a sample of 200 uses of the word "cunt" in both British and American English the word is used with the meaning "rude term for vagina" in 59 cases, and with the meaning "rude, obnoxious or pathetic person" (either in a joking or serious way) 119 times, out of which 59 referred to someone clearly identified as male.
In lights of these numbers if we assume that BNC and COCA corpora are good samples of the contemporary use of English in both the USA and the UK it's really hard to argue that "cunt" is a sexist slur, since it has at least two different meanings: rude term for vagina (neutral or slightly negative connotation; anyway, not a slur, since a vagina isn't a person) and obnoxious person (negative connotation, but pretty gender neutral in the UK, where 49 out of the 73 uses of this nature refer to males; in the US the majority of the uses of this kind refer to women but 10 out of 46 of them refer to males).
There's no doubt, on the other hand, that the number of times where "nigger" is not necessarily used as synonym of "black person" (because the skin color of the speakers or the addressee is not known) and also with a neutral or positive connotation are very rare: 23 out of 1283.
TFIFY.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him by a deranged aspie who sits over the page 24/7, not letting anyone else correct their bias and outright lies.Billie from Ockham wrote:Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!
Worse than victim blaming, it's mob rule apology.paddybrown wrote:Right, caught up after a gruelling rehearsal schedule. First off, my condolences to SN, sounds like a horrible situation.
Second, in checking out Avery Richmann on Twitter (no way he's genuine), I discovered that in response to this tweet from the Dawk:
The Oaf said:
Um, "victim blaming" anyone?
<snip>
:clap:Kirbmarc wrote:I'm a masochist, a glutton for punishment, I've contradicted my own suggestion, I know this going to hurt me, but seeing the Steersbot misinterpreting Croom again triggered this post. Sorry.
Rebuttal of your point by Croom himself in another articleThe Endless Arguer also known as Steersman wrote:I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.
The part in bold is the key to understand Croom's point.Adam Croom wrote:Slurs possess interesting linguistic properties and so have recently attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers of language. For instance the racial slur nigger is explosively derogatory, enough so that just hearing it mentioned can leave one feeling as if they have been made complicit in a morally atrocious act.
(Jennifer Hornsby has suggested that slurs might count as “hate speech†and so raise questions “about the compatibility of the regulation of [hate] speech with principles of free speech†(2001, p. 129). Chris Hom further suggests that, “the use of an epithet may count as a literal threat, and hence no longer merit freedom of speech protection under the First Amendment†(2008, p. 440).
A close analysis of slurs is clearly required before we can make informed decisions about this serious issue.) Indeed, the very taboo nature of these words makes discussion of them typically prohibited or frowned upon. Although it is true that the utterance of slurs is illegitimate and derogatory in most contexts, sufficient evidence suggests that slurs are not always or exclusively used to derogate.
In fact, slurs are frequently picked up and appropriated by the very in-group members that the slur was originally intended to target. This might be done, for instance, as a means for like speakers to strengthen in-group solidarity.
So an investigation into the meaning and use of slurs can give us crucial insight into how words can be used with such derogatory impact, and how they can be turned around and appropriated as vehicles of rapport in certain contexts among in-group speakers.
In this essay I will argue that slurs are best characterized as being of a mixed descriptive/expressive type. Next, I will review the most influential accounts of slurs offered thus far, explain their shortcomings, then provide a new analysis of slurs and explain in what ways it is superior to others.
Finally, I suggest that a family-resemblance conception of category membership can help us achieve a clearer understanding of the various ways in which slurs, for better or worse, are actually put to use in natural language discourse (note that in this article slurs will be mentioned but not used. Although I have considered not even mentioning such a derogatory term as nigger in the first place, I chose it because on the one hand there is a substantive literature on the term upon which to draw to aid in the analysis of slurs in general, and on the other hand, this term highlights the fact that slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect to their employment).
What's happening is that Croom is arguing for reappropriation:
Another relevant article.Wikipedia wrote:In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation or reclamation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims—re-appropriates—terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. For example, since the early 1970s, attempts have been made to reappropriate terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay and (to a lesser extent) queer and poof.
"Cunt" isn't used as a slur. It's against men and women in equal measure. Language use defines meaning.Steersman wrote:Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.
A relevant article.
My very own corpora analysis.Tim Rayer wrote:Wittgenstein’s shift in thinking, between the Tractatus and the Investigations, maps the general shift in 20th century philosophy from logical positivism to behaviourism and pragmatism. It is a shift from seeing language as a fixed structure imposed upon the world to seeing it as a fluid structure that is intimately bound up with our everyday practices and forms of life. For later Wittgenstein, creating meaningful statements is not a matter of mapping the logical form of the world. It is a matter of using conventionally-defined terms within ‘language games’ that we play out in the course of everyday life. ‘In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use’, Wittgenstein claimed, in perhaps the most famous passage in the Investigations. It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it, and the context in which you say it. Words are how you use them.
Do read ALL of this AND THEN come back with a rebuttal.Kirbmarc wrote:Total: On a sample of 1283 uses of word "nigger" in both British and American English, only in 14 cases the word is used by a speaker, writer or POV character to identify themselves, and only in 9 cases as a term of endearment.
On the other hand on a sample of 200 uses of the word "cunt" in both British and American English the word is used with the meaning "rude term for vagina" in 59 cases, and with the meaning "rude, obnoxious or pathetic person" (either in a joking or serious way) 119 times, out of which 59 referred to someone clearly identified as male.
In lights of these numbers if we assume that BNC and COCA corpora are good samples of the contemporary use of English in both the USA and the UK it's really hard to argue that "cunt" is a sexist slur, since it has at least two different meanings: rude term for vagina (neutral or slightly negative connotation; anyway, not a slur, since a vagina isn't a person) and obnoxious person (negative connotation, but pretty gender neutral in the UK, where 49 out of the 73 uses of this nature refer to males; in the US the majority of the uses of this kind refer to women but 10 out of 46 of them refer to males).
There's no doubt, on the other hand, that the number of times where "nigger" is not necessarily used as synonym of "black person" (because the skin color of the speakers or the addressee is not known) and also with a neutral or positive connotation are very rare: 23 out of 1283.
That is one nasty collection of lies! How the fuck can they be that delusional?CuntajusRationality wrote:From the comments at Lousy Canuck's latest, replete with pit references and Thibeault's hyperbolic nonsense: https://archive.is/XWwge
Charlene Johnson wrote: The one aspect of this that John Oliver completely missed and that you just barely touched upon its the extent of the terroristic harassment of male feminist allies by the slimepit dudebros. I would like to commend you for being a good ally, Jason. The amount of bullshit you have to deal with sometimes is incredible. They lengths that the slimescum terrorists have gone to try to terrorize you into silence are despicable. They disrupted your online conference by trolling, and they have even affected your blogging, by bombarding you with their hate filled comments. Please don’t stop blogging, I don’t want to see the terrorists win again.
You are not the only one they have tried to bully, and they have won far too many times. One of my favorite bloggers here was Avicenna, and they successfully silenced him with their false rape allegations and lies about his blog. They lied about him because he stood up to their bullshit, and I am still shaking with anger because. he was silenced by malicious lies. There is no lie too awful for the misogynistic terrorists to use.
Please don’t stop fighting Jason. The slimey MRA dudebros will not stop trying to silence good people like you with their misogyny and discursive violence. Don’t ever let them win. It certainly doesn’t help that the atheist c community has terrorist supporters like Hemant Mehta encouraging the harassers by pretending to care about journalistic integrity.
One minor quibble though. Can you reword the part about “possessing a white penisâ€? That is extremely heteronormative and erases trans experiences. I know you didn’t intend harm but please correct it.Jason Thibeault wrote: I’m not sure how to reword it other than how I already did, with “being perceived to be suchâ€, which I thought would help considering how un-nuanced Oliver’s throwaway phrase (for laughs, of course) was. Considering being trans on the internet is a subversion of that, in that some women do have white penises but get none of the benefits of being part of perceived-as-male because of the ambiguity, it’s obviously going to be problematic.
I get it, though. Penis != male. Male != penis. The problem people seem to have with non-white-males on the internet doesn’t map exactly to non-owners-of-white-penis. It’s a close map, but not exact. And where it fails, seems to be exactly where the harassers are no longer sure about the penis-having. Do you have any recommendations for better wording, other than the notes here?
As for Avicenna, he actually plagiarized a good many pieces of writing. His heart was in the right place generally, but he was willfully ignorant of the actual problem of plagiarism even after it was pointed out. Avicenna got what he deserved in being kicked off FtB.
He did NOT deserve the slime pit, though. His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulzâ€-mongers targeting them for years on end.
There is a line I don't recognize: "From far and wide". Probably time and bad memory. I haven't sung the anthem for about 40 years. :)Steersman wrote:Faith and bejesus, it is :-) :Scented Nectar wrote:Back when I was a school brat, I used to change the lyrics when being made to sing the national anthem. I turned "our home and native land" into "our stolen from the natives land". I'm a bit out of touch with the times, but is that line still in there? It seems like something they should have fixed by now.And from the horse's mouth.O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free! ...
Interesting if problematic and fractious concept. I've periodically thought that none of us own any land, or that we all own all of it together. But then there's the other side of the coin that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" - with the other tenth being a bit of a sticky wicket.
My ex and I used to "own", or lease, a piece of native reserve land - "surrendered" for use by non-natives - and I was less than impressed with some of the terms, more in hindsight than not: beneficial in some aspects, problematic (for all concerned) if not odious in others. Which led me to raise some objections to them in the context of the debate over the Nisga'a Treaty - even had a letter to my MP on the topic read in the House of Commons! :ugeek: :)
But in general and to address your point, while I'm willing to concede that Canada has periodically or frequently treated "first nations" people rather shabbily - as in the Indian residential school system - I kind of get the impression that rather too many aboriginals - and non-natives - don't really appreciate the benefits they've derived from western "civilization" (such as it is). While there is maybe some remote justification for that "stolen" characterization, many don't see or appreciate the improvements that have been made - or maybe they'd all like to go back to living in teepees and seeing their kids dying of preventable diseases. Which tends to make it doubly risible that, at least here in BC, all of the tribes here are claiming something like 110% of the province.
Sticky wicket and some apparently intractable problems. But I don't see that it helps that many are apparently too quick to ignore some important aspects.
I only generally follow graduate trends in law, and then only in Australia. It's now 64/36 female/male graduates, a reversal of the position in the early 80s.AndrewV69 wrote:Oh great! A cliff hanger!!!Skep tickle wrote:Blech, in the math test / name paper there were more key findings than just math test solution accuracy. I was inaccurate in saying that was the key finding - but it was one of them.
'Night, all.
I want it back! :)deLurch wrote:I think I know who stole your last 1%.Scented Nectar wrote:Well, all that's left then is to retrieve my tits from wherever Gravity has hid them and my sex drive from wherever Time has hidden it. Then, we're partying! :lol:
I think that means that the Pit has the biggest balls on the internet. :)comhcinc wrote:Scented Nectar wrote: Ok, fair enough, but I will remain a pervert while doing so. Ahem...
There are places where the big ones are best enjoyed, but let's not forget the place where it's the micro ones that are the best (damn gag reflex!). And let's not forget the average ones, the jacks of all trades, so to speak. There's a place in my heart, ok maybe not my heart but some other places, for all sizes and shapes of penises (or is that penii). Hang on, that's human ones only please. I wouldn't know what to do with one of those corkscrew-shaped duck cocks.
Donald Duck: Hey, Scented, wanna fuck?
Me: No, but could you open these wine bottles?
I never speak of my penis. There is nothing awesome about it. My balls on the other hand are a sight to see!
Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.Jason Thibeault wrote:His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
Everyone's ever been the subject of criticism and mockery on FTB or Skepchick could say the exact same words.Jason Thibeault wrote:None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulzâ€-mongers targeting them for years on end.
Easily fixed. :)rayshul wrote:It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.Tigzy wrote:Beating the same drum, mended or otherwise.free thoughtpolice wrote:Nice to see that Pharyngula has turned the page on the Thunderdome with The Mended Drum. Starting at comment 348:
https://archive.is/4JjpH
Thanks. I'm probably going to go back to the condo today to check on things. A friend told me that in these sort of cases, the coroner's office sends out a team to clean up, so that's good. Means there won't be whatever gross stuff is left behind when a body has decayed for a couple of weeks.paddybrown wrote:Right, caught up after a gruelling rehearsal schedule. First off, my condolences to SN, sounds like a horrible situation.
Kirbmarc wrote:Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.Jason Thibeault wrote:His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.
Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck.
Everyone's ever been the subject of criticism and mockery on FTB or Skepchick could say the exact same words.Jason Thibeault wrote:None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulzâ€-mongers targeting them for years on end.
But no doubt according to Canuck those people do deserve the "stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulzâ€-mongers" because they're Evil. While FTB is Good.
Thibeault's point is that he and the people he likes should be above criticism because they're fighting the fight for Good.
Christ, I knew as soon as rayshul said this, that Scented Nectar would be all over it like it was a large penis. :snooty:rayshul wrote:It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.
I don't know either what's wrong with them. Writing 15 articles on Jaclyn Glenn in a week: acceptable. Writing over months and to clean up smears: obsessive. They can unleash their unmitigated hatred all the time, in particular counting comment sections, and can do so in highly visible blogs: acceptable. But posting criticism and crude comments in an obscure forum: harassment. They lie about everything: acceptable, but when you don't mention that their comment sections have “improved†by a tiny degree, omg, you are spreading horrible myths!Kirbmarc wrote:Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.Jason Thibeault wrote:His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.
Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck. [...]
NO.So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.
I do not know but I see no reason why not. Damn what a useless post, I am proud of myself.katamari Damassi wrote:Is it possible to have 2 colds simultaneously? Remember a couple of weeks ago I was suffering from a bad cold? The congestion went away but I still had a persistent sore throat and cough. Now it's back to stuffed up head and runny nose. It feels like a whole new cold.
Yup. In reality all of this shit is exactly the same. I think one could make an argument that the world would be a better place if none of this existed...if we cared a whole lot less about what other people say or do. But, that's not the world we live in. And unfortunately, bad ideas spread if they're not pushed back against.Aneris wrote:I don't know either what's wrong with them. Writing 15 articles on Jaclyn Glenn in a week: acceptable. Writing over months and to clean up smears: obsessive. They can unleash their unmitigated hatred all the time, in particular counting comment sections, and can do so in highly visible blogs: acceptable. But posting criticism and crude comments in an obscure forum: harassment. They lie about everything: acceptable, but when you don't mention that their comment sections have “improved†by a tiny degree, omg, you are spreading horrible myths!Kirbmarc wrote:Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.Jason Thibeault wrote:His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.
Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck. [...]
Another telltale “target him for a very long time†[Avicenna]. How was he targeted? Two or three people who also have an account here on occasion discussed in Avicenna's comment section, entirely by the rules. Keep in mind that Jason Thibeault also believes that even though Avicenna copypasted his articles, that he did not fake mails he allegedly received from trolls and which he quoted and discusssed on his blog. Somehow the trolls he cited also copypasted their mails, in an idententical manner as Avicenna himself wont to do it, because according to Thibeault (and PZ Myers), trolls — being trolls — do this kind of thing. Inconceivable that Avicenna invented the mails and copypasted them together just like everything else! Jason Thibeault needs trolls and feeling threatened like a authoritarian and totalitarian politicians who need terrorists to keep the guard up, maintain control and to coerce people to profess solidarity with the ingroup.
Black Magic!? That's racist!Karmakin wrote:The Magic:The Gathering community is going through that shit right now, with people not understanding that egalitarianism/individualism isn't wanting to keep the "status quo"...it's a different idea on how best to move forward that you really should deal with intellectually instead of entirely dismissing it.
Fucking Pack Rats...Aneris wrote:Black Magic!? That's racist!Karmakin wrote:The Magic:The Gathering community is going through that shit right now, with people not understanding that egalitarianism/individualism isn't wanting to keep the "status quo"...it's a different idea on how best to move forward that you really should deal with intellectually instead of entirely dismissing it.
I do it for PZ. He really likes them. :DDaveDodo007 wrote:Christ, I knew as soon as rayshul said this, that Scented Nectar would be all over it like it was a large penis. :snooty:rayshul wrote:It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.
Help help! My brain's not working. It's getting harder and harder to translate the third-person exaggerated southern slang and intentional misspellings. And google translate is not cooperating either. :)Billy The Hillbilly wrote:Lately Billy bin studyin' them there "Hegel'yan Dia-lick-dicks", and tryin' t' apply itta ev'ryday situations. Billy also found out 'bouta Jacky Glen posin' inner underpants fur PlayBoy; Billy also know thatta O-feel-ya Benson hate Jacky Glen witta venom.
Thesis: Jacky Glen
AntiThesis: O-feel-ya Benson
That one's easy. Next one lil' harder, but Billy settle onna answer
Thesis: PlayBoy
AntiThesis: Reader's Digess
So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.
Don't look at me. I just find the shit annoying.Scented Nectar wrote:Help help! My brain's not working. It's getting harder and harder to translate the third-person exaggerated southern slang and intentional misspellings. And google translate is not cooperating either. :)Billy The Hillbilly wrote:Lately Billy bin studyin' them there "Hegel'yan Dia-lick-dicks", and tryin' t' apply itta ev'ryday situations. Billy also found out 'bouta Jacky Glen posin' inner underpants fur PlayBoy; Billy also know thatta O-feel-ya Benson hate Jacky Glen witta venom.
Thesis: Jacky Glen
AntiThesis: O-feel-ya Benson
That one's easy. Next one lil' harder, but Billy settle onna answer
Thesis: PlayBoy
AntiThesis: Reader's Digess
So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.
katamari Damassi wrote:Is it possible to have 2 colds simultaneously? Remember a couple of weeks ago I was suffering from a bad cold? The congestion went away but I still had a persistent sore throat and cough. Now it's back to stuffed up head and runny nose. It feels like a whole new cold.
