The Refuge of the Toads

#30241

CuntajusRationality wrote:Today's lesson for feminists: be careful what you wish for.

http://news.wgcu.org/post/defense-bill- ... ster-draft

This is going to be sooo much fun. Watch them wiggle and squirm about how they're totally not eligible for draft because reasons.

#30242

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.
I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

Ask the intellectual artillery of Atheism+

#30243

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

Carrier himself encouraged this attitude with his arguments about "kicking C.H.U.D.S. out of the atheist movement" and his Bayesian analyses of Shermer's behavior which "proved" he was a sleaze and possibly worse.

I'm sorry for Carrier, too, but he had more than a hand in creating the monster that is now going after him. I hope that SJWs will now realize why "innocent until proven guilty" is a better standard than "believing the victims".

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

In Social Justice all "crimes" are equal. If you make a woman somewhat uncomfortable then you're "Schrodinger's rapist". If you're publicly accused of creepy behavior then the "Schroedinger" part disappears.

There's not just rape rape, you know. There's regretted drunken sex rape, and stare rape, and word rape (because words hurt you like actions) and innuendo rape, and flirting rape, and "I don't like you, so get out of my way, loser" rape, and "Oh my God I cheated on my boyfriend" rape, and "Why did you break up with me?" rape, and "Oh my god my parents can't know I'm sexually active" rape, and "Why did you prefer her to me?" rape (like in the UVA rape case) and "You insulted me while I was working as a stripper and I'm insane" rape (the Duke Lacrosse rape case).

As we all know rapes cannot be graded, so the cute guy who rejected your advances after smiling at you in a such sexy way (and lying to you with that lying smile, the bastard!) is just as bad as Ted Bundy or Josef Friztl.

After all guys who are accused of rape should always take it as a chance to ask themselves questions, and go in a corner and really think hard about what they've done. And listen and believe more in the future.

#30244

I keep reading Amy Frank as Ann Frank. Some very strange images have been floating round my head in the last hour.

#30245

Kirbmarc wrote:First Marjianovic, then Carrier. No man is the FTB and SJW circles is beyond the suspicion of the leaders of Operation:Missing Stair. The only question is: who's going to be next?

Place your bets!

I have no idea who is next except it will be a penis bearer. Having a penis is apparently the SJW version of Original Sin. Which means that a man is guilty of something.

All that remains is for his sin to be revealed at the appropriate time. As for Carrier, we all know a long time ago what was going to happen to him.

So who is next on the list? I dunno. I do not care. Pardon the mixed metaphors here (and if not piss off) but one by one all the penis bearers are going to be burned at the stake.

The 1st stone will be case by some woman who is having a bad hair day and then remembers an incident when some pathetic pussy begger indicated some interest after imbuing enough alcohol to stun a goat, that he wanted to have some sex with her body, preferably without her mind witnessing said event.

Then she recalls that she tried to get in the proper frame of mind (which would have to be non compos mentis) to achieve said same, and she while she might get a lift at the thought that she is really attractive enough after all, for some penis bearer to consider raping her (because all sex is rape), she can not help recalling exactly why she had to drink so much in the first place.

Then she will be filled with self disgust at the thought, as she visualizes the guy in question, and reconsiders that he is really not worthy of her, and engage in a campaign to get revenge for being triggered when she spots him trying the same with some chickie who is slightly better looking than she is, or just a bad, and possibly worse, even further down the totem pole on account of she fell higher out of the ugly tree than she did, and every branch on the way down.

Whatever Man. Fuck (Die Antwoord)

#30246

AndrewV69 wrote:I have no idea who is next except it will be a penis bearer. Having a penis is apparently the SJW version of Original Sin. Which means that a man is guilty of something.

Unless you engage in a little trans-substantiation.

#30247

Sunder wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:I have no idea who is next except it will be a penis bearer. Having a penis is apparently the SJW version of Original Sin. Which means that a man is guilty of something.
Unless you engage in a little trans-substantiation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. And that stuff you quoted? It was not me. I know this because Carrier says that you can say shit, then deny it, cause it was not you, because reasons.

Also Bayesian numbers that I pulled out of my urethra says so.

#30248

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

We don't know that it was sudden.

The pills usually take around half an hour to kick in.

#30249

I might go to bed right now. I am trying to watch Straight Outta Compton (2015) and it is currently paused at 93:30.

I am finding it boring to tell the truth. So I took a break, came to the Slymepit to grace you with what passes as my wit and charm, and now find myself reluctant to get back to.

I have three books on the go. I might just go back to one of them.

#30250

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

In SJW land, when a man makes an unwanted pass that IS basically rape. A man may only proposition a woman if she wants him to.

It is a man's duty to always know exactly in advance what the outcome of his approach will be, and a womyn's perogative to have a blatant, impossible double-standard because yay feminism.

#30251

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

Apropos of nothing much in particular, something from a post by James Lindsay (author of "Everybody is Wrong About God" (except Lindsay)) over at AllThink titled Gorillas, Rape, Guns, Islam: The Insatiable Internet Justice Mob:

Two weeks ago, the Internet suddenly became the world's most bloviating self-declared expert on gorillas, parenting, and zoo management; last week it was on the criminal consequences of a rape case; this week it is on Islamism and guns; and next week it will be something else. The only consistent themes are absolute conviction, vilification of any expertise that disagrees with one's knee-jerk moral intuitions, and blinding indignation, unless we count that within a few days it will nearly all be forgotten when the pitchforks are turned on yet another half-comprehended, viral moral outrage.

#30252

Went to Twatter instead of going to sleep. At this rate I may as well stay up till suhoor.

Anyway

You have got to be kidding!!!

When Social Justice Education Is Mandatory, But Math Is Not

At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, studying "social justice" is a prerequisite for graduation.

Students are required to take two diversity courses, according to The College Fix. One of the purposes of these courses is to encourage students to "create change toward social justice," according to UMass-Amherst's website.

The College Fix is also reporting that Wayne State University, a public university in Detroit, has abolished its college-wide math requirement. At the same time, faculty at the university are proposing a mandatory 3-credit diversity course.

If students would rather study diversity than math, that should be up to them. And for some students who want to become social justice activists, the former sort of classes is probably more important. But it really does seem strange to make the study of math less of a priority than the study of narrow left-wing activism. Is the purpose of college to equip students with useful skills, or to brainwash them?

Burn it down. Kill it with fire. All of it.

Follow the link shitlords. The text has links in it to other shit, but I am not going to enact the labour because the sun is going to be up in two hours and I have stuff to do before then.

#30253

Awwwww!

That is too cute.

#30254

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

Something to do with a rape switch. Apparently we all have them. Ask Laden.

#30255

Doing the rounds on twatter...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClD0r2_UgAIPrqg.jpg

#30256

#30257

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/an ... asite.aspx

It's all over for us Kiwis

A mysterious parasite is eating kiwis from the inside out – and no one knows exactly what it is.

#30258

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

It's right that you have compassion, as decent people do, but at times I think it's best to take the Nat. Geographic stance: SJWs will peck apart their own children if they're nicked by blood. They often freely admit that even family is not above ideology. Just stay in the Land Rover and don't roll down the window.

#30259

Shatterface wrote:
rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".
Something to do with a rape switch. Apparently we all have them. Ask Laden.

What if you have a rape switch but the fuse is blown?

#30260

HunnyBunny wrote:
Sunder wrote:
Cnutella wrote: I think there's about as much evidence to support the Shermer story as there is the Carrier story.
Shermer at least isn't known to boast about his sexual prowess and "many girlfriends" on blogs and social media, so Carrier's definitely got extra creep points in his corner.
Carrier has way more creep points. He has repeatedly shown that he has no understanding of personal boundaries, either on the internet or off it.

Starting with his A+ CHUD speech, moving on through his cheating and ultimate public humiliation of his ex-wife when he announced his poly-ness (I followed some interesting leads today which indicate that Carrier's oft-claimed parting as friends badge is waaaay off the mark), his advertising for a date on his blog, including the desire to have free sex with a prostitute, his semen fetish splatter all over Ophelia Benson's blog, his confession post of inappropriate flirting with people he was in a position of power over, his constant personal life updates that require a TMI trigger warning. And many incidents that those in closer proximity have been keeping to themselves. He simply does not recognise that his actions are inappropriate. He is that guy you knew at college who always made you cringe with the totally weird shit that he would say and do, and who you voted most likely to be in prison at age 50.

Shermer is not comparable to Carrier, he's not even in the same league. Carrier has long since graduated with distinction for his sleaziness.

I think Carrier is that kid in college who had no freedom in high school so hasn't learned how to moderate their behavior when freed from their parents' clutches.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

#30261

HunnyBunny wrote:So it seems that people have known about Carrier's sleaziness for a long time.

Richard Carrier turned me into a newt once.

#30262

Looks like Hyena was doing more sleuthing than fishing
http://i.imgur.com/dtfe6Ev.jpg

#30263

Kirbmarc wrote:
rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.
Carrier himself encouraged this attitude with his arguments about "kicking C.H.U.D.S. out of the atheist movement" and his Bayesian analyses of Shermer's behavior which "proved" he was a sleaze and possibly worse.

Don't forget Radford:

http://archive.is/s4fQU

#30264

Steersman wrote:
rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".
Apropos of nothing much in particular, something from a post by James Lindsay (author of "Everybody is Wrong About God" (except Lindsay)) over at AllThink titled Gorillas, Rape, Guns, Islam: The Insatiable Internet Justice Mob:
Two weeks ago, the Internet suddenly became the world's most bloviating self-declared expert on gorillas, parenting, and zoo management; last week it was on the criminal consequences of a rape case; this week it is on Islamism and guns; and next week it will be something else. The only consistent themes are absolute conviction, vilification of any expertise that disagrees with one's knee-jerk moral intuitions, and blinding indignation, unless we count that within a few days it will nearly all be forgotten when the pitchforks are turned on yet another half-comprehended, viral moral outrage.

That's an excellent quote. Sums things up quite nicely. Thanks for sharing it (I'm serious this time).

#30265

rayshul wrote:Is this phase 2 of Orbit's attempt to bring down FtB?

I mean, fair play, but why didn't they go whole hog and accuse PZ? Death by a thousand fucking cuts.

Perhaps that's what they're doing, and Carrier is just the next cut.

#30266

feathers wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:So it seems that people have known about Carrier's sleaziness for a long time.
Richard Carrier turned me into a newt once.

He stopped my hens laying.

And my neighbours calf was stillborn.

#30267

Has Opie commented on Carrier yet?

#30268

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016061 ... 604910.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Guest_90e366ed · #30269

Scholarly scholar-work where Bayes theorem is used on the Carrier incident has already been produced and are hereby submitted for peer review. I can't post images or urls so if anyone find it amusing please repost:

s31(dot)postimg(dot)org(slash)53043wqe3(slash)title_Copy(dot)png

www(dot)docdroid(dot)net(slash)xyItgvz(slash)index-copy.pdf.html

A book may be in the works.

#30270

Dick is tightening the screws, Amy is now distrustworthy:

Richard Carrier says
June 16, 2016 at 9:03 am
Update: Amy now says she wants the SSA to have published the accusation. They didn’t have to, because I did. In Doing Wrong Right. Within two months. So the information was actually made public. By me.
Though it was of unrelated incidents (as I had not in fact done anything as bad as those with Amy; and was thus still mistakenly assuming the complainant was someone else), those match well enough what she would have wanted the public told (assuming she isn’t making this all about her, but really sincerely means what’s good for the movement). I do not see what more she could honestly have wanted done.
But there is even more to that. Her behavior now contradicts her behavior then. And this has now become crucial information:
When I was drafting that Doing Wrong article (and at the time still thought the complainant was the other woman, the one I actually had wronged), I asked officers at the SSA to help me make sure privacy was respected and the information was accurate in my account, and we also agreed to seek the permission of the complainant. They did. And in an email of 8 May 2015, the SSA wrote to me (exact quote):

I heard back from the student and they are ok with this but are concerned that you’re “martyring” yourself and they don’t want you to do that. But they are supportive of this concept if they think it will make the movement better.

I had offered them to let her vet a draft first, writing them that, “If she wants to read the whole draft piece (the PDF I sent you), she is welcome to,” and that “you can offer that right up front” (email to SSA, 5 May 2015).
I publish this now because it contradicts her story of somehow having been ignored and the SSA trying to bury this, when in fact we asked her permission to publish it, and I was told she was supportive of that happening (she also evidently did not want to be identified or contribute to the piece; I’m sure I would have been told of either, and would have happily obliged).
Moreover, her comment relayed back to me tells me she was not an aggrieved victim then, but actually not sure I should even make this public, and that doing so would unfairly “martyr” me. And that she actually didn’t want me to go public with it for that reason, except that she agreed my doing so would benefit the movement. And so I went ahead and did it. This completely contradicts what she’s saying now.
I suspect this can be supported by internal SSA emails with Amy (unless the SSA was communicating by voice, or wasn’t accurately relaying to me what she said, but I doubt the latter even more than the former). But I have no control over what they can say or release publicly (their lawyers are probably as risk-averse as any; in my experience, lawyers always advise doing nothing). And I was not privy to that side of the communication. All I can do is report what I received. I can verify this in established email records.
Similarly, I was told then, and witnesses present and involved in helping her file the complaint (even on her comment thread) concur, that she did not say anything about touching or anything of that kind, simply that I had asked her out, and that that was in violation of policy (though evidently she also claimed to have expressed dislike of the advance, which did not occur). Her story now has changed, to the point of surprising and startling the original witnesses (to both our public interaction and the original complaint).
This is two more items that lead me to distrust her even more. And as both are now supported by documentation, this is no longer he-said/she-said.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160616130 ... ives/10267

#30271

Guest_90e366ed wrote:Scholarly scholar-work where Bayes theorem is used on the Carrier incident has already been produced and are hereby submitted for peer review. I can't post images or urls so if anyone find it amusing please repost:

s31(dot)postimg(dot)org(slash)53043wqe3(slash)title_Copy(dot)png

www(dot)docdroid(dot)net(slash)xyItgvz(slash)index-copy.pdf.html

A book may be in the works.

http://s31.postimg.org/53043wqe3/title_Copy.png

https://www.docdroid.net/xyItgvz/index-copy.pdf.html

#30272

Oh Richard.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... JpHxcOijgQ

#30273

I've just noticed something odd. The RichardCarrierWiki twitter account, which Dr Carrier himself claimed to not be running, has not made a tweet since Dr Carrier's miraculous appearance on twitter on his own account. https://twitter.com/RickCarrierWiki

There's something odd regarding the timing of the disappearance of one actor, and the arrival of a supposedly completely new one. I can't quite put my finger on it...

#30274

Brive1987 wrote:Looks like Hyena was doing more sleuthing than fishing
http://i.imgur.com/dtfe6Ev.jpg

"Gossiping bitches are rarely wrong" < The author of "A Skeptic Guide to Islam".*

*Coming "soon".

#30275

feathers wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:Today's lesson for feminists: be careful what you wish for.

http://news.wgcu.org/post/defense-bill- ... ster-draft
This is going to be sooo much fun. Watch them wiggle and squirm about how they're totally not eligible for draft because reasons.

You want to bet that happens? I bet no. All the women I know who call themselves feminist believe women should be on the the draft. Not that it means a thing in any real sense, as it's a hangover from a time when the US actually drafted people into the army. Which I am betting will never happen any time soon.

I hope it happens. Plus it will give MRAs one less thing to piss and moan about.

#30276

HunnyBunny wrote:Dick is tightening the screws, Amy is now distrustworthy:

Richard Carrier says
June 16, 2016 at 9:03 am
Update: Amy now says she wants the SSA to have published the accusation. They didn’t have to, because I did. In Doing Wrong Right. Within two months. So the information was actually made public. By me.
Though it was of unrelated incidents (as I had not in fact done anything as bad as those with Amy; and was thus still mistakenly assuming the complainant was someone else), those match well enough what she would have wanted the public told (assuming she isn’t making this all about her, but really sincerely means what’s good for the movement). I do not see what more she could honestly have wanted done.
But there is even more to that. Her behavior now contradicts her behavior then. And this has now become crucial information:
When I was drafting that Doing Wrong article (and at the time still thought the complainant was the other woman, the one I actually had wronged), I asked officers at the SSA to help me make sure privacy was respected and the information was accurate in my account, and we also agreed to seek the permission of the complainant. They did. And in an email of 8 May 2015, the SSA wrote to me (exact quote):

I heard back from the student and they are ok with this but are concerned that you’re “martyring” yourself and they don’t want you to do that. But they are supportive of this concept if they think it will make the movement better.

I had offered them to let her vet a draft first, writing them that, “If she wants to read the whole draft piece (the PDF I sent you), she is welcome to,” and that “you can offer that right up front” (email to SSA, 5 May 2015).
I publish this now because it contradicts her story of somehow having been ignored and the SSA trying to bury this, when in fact we asked her permission to publish it, and I was told she was supportive of that happening (she also evidently did not want to be identified or contribute to the piece; I’m sure I would have been told of either, and would have happily obliged).
Moreover, her comment relayed back to me tells me she was not an aggrieved victim then, but actually not sure I should even make this public, and that doing so would unfairly “martyr” me. And that she actually didn’t want me to go public with it for that reason, except that she agreed my doing so would benefit the movement. And so I went ahead and did it. This completely contradicts what she’s saying now.
I suspect this can be supported by internal SSA emails with Amy (unless the SSA was communicating by voice, or wasn’t accurately relaying to me what she said, but I doubt the latter even more than the former). But I have no control over what they can say or release publicly (their lawyers are probably as risk-averse as any; in my experience, lawyers always advise doing nothing). And I was not privy to that side of the communication. All I can do is report what I received. I can verify this in established email records.
Similarly, I was told then, and witnesses present and involved in helping her file the complaint (even on her comment thread) concur, that she did not say anything about touching or anything of that kind, simply that I had asked her out, and that that was in violation of policy (though evidently she also claimed to have expressed dislike of the advance, which did not occur). Her story now has changed, to the point of surprising and startling the original witnesses (to both our public interaction and the original complaint).
This is two more items that lead me to distrust her even more. And as both are now supported by documentation, this is no longer he-said/she-said.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160616130 ... ives/10267

I'm surprised that Carrier didn't argue that sending a draft of his "article" to his accuser via SSA didn't qualify the "article" as having passed peer review.

#30277

I missed this wee fact earlier. Something smells well dodgy, and it's not Dick's used tissues.

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

#30278

rayshul wrote:I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

Right around 7 hours ago, when Tim Branin weighed in.

http://archive.is/Hk3DL

#30279

deLurch wrote:
Guest_90e366ed wrote:Scholarly scholar-work where Bayes theorem is used on the Carrier incident has already been produced and are hereby submitted for peer review. I can't post images or urls so if anyone find it amusing please repost:

s31(dot)postimg(dot)org(slash)53043wqe3(slash)title_Copy(dot)png

www(dot)docdroid(dot)net(slash)xyItgvz(slash)index-copy.pdf.html

A book may be in the works.
http://s31.postimg.org/53043wqe3/title_Copy.png

https://www.docdroid.net/xyItgvz/index-copy.pdf.html

"June 15, 2015"? Let's not waste time on old hat. It must be proven beyond a doubt by now.

#30280

deLurch wrote:
Guest_90e366ed wrote:Scholarly scholar-work where Bayes theorem is used on the Carrier incident has already been produced and are hereby submitted for peer review. I can't post images or urls so if anyone find it amusing please repost:

s31(dot)postimg(dot)org(slash)53043wqe3(slash)title_Copy(dot)png

www(dot)docdroid(dot)net(slash)xyItgvz(slash)index-copy.pdf.html

A book may be in the works.
http://s31.postimg.org/53043wqe3/title_Copy.png

https://www.docdroid.net/xyItgvz/index-copy.pdf.html

:clap:

Guest_90e366ed · #30281

The user "this is me" has posted this book-length description of her romantic involvement with Carrier on his blog:

This is all very confusing, as the accusations don’t match anything I’ve known about you. You’ve never claimed to work for Camp Quest, so that’s my first (and biggest) red flag that something is wrong here. If you’ve never claimed to work for them and they’ve never claimed to have you on staff, and they have no other jurisdiction over you, then why is your supposed “employment” with them such a focal point in the accusations? The entire complaint, according to the original post, is that the organizations are affiliated with you when all parties concerned have denied any affiliation. I mean, she specifically says that it’s not about you being inappropriate, it’s about the organizations’ associations with you but those associations are denied on all sides. If the main point of contention is wrong, then the whole thing is just confusing and strange. The other part of my confusion is that this doesn’t at all describe my experience with you.
I met you at a conference. We engaged in hours-long conversation covering a wide range of topics. One of those topics was polyamory. Another was human sexuality, specifically how sexuality is regarded and policed in American culture. Even though both of those subjects could have been used as openings to take the conversation in a more personal or flirtatious direction, the topics remained purely academic.
Later in the evening, after two venue changes and after I became aware of my growing interest in you, I still couldn’t get a good read on you. I wasn’t receiving any clear signals that you might be interested in me, and certainly not any overt advances. So I practiced my philosophy of just putting my interest out there with no attached expectations, in the hopes that it wouldn’t make you uncomfortable. I told you that I was crushing on you, with no expectation that you had to respond or reciprocate. You very shyly admitted the feeling was mutual. But then you still kept the conversation light and academic. I was the one to initiate physical contact, with subtle knees-touching-under-the-table and elbows-touching-along-the-bar. You didn’t pull away, which I regarded as a good sign, but you still didn’t behave in a way that I could clearly and definitively say was “flirting” and definitely not “hitting on” me.
Much, much later, we finally found ourselves in private where it would have been appropriate for one of us to make a move on the other. I’m not really one for conference hookups, as I prefer more time to vet my prospective partners, so I’m sure I had been giving out some mixed signals. But you asked permission to touch me, first in an intimate but platonic way, to which I agreed. Then you asked permission to kiss me, and I again agreed. Then you asked me to confirm that I was, indeed, into what we were doing, probably because of my earlier ambiguity. I said that I was very much into what we were doing, I just hadn’t yet determined where I wanted things to go from there. So you reiterated to me that my boundaries were important to you and that you didn’t want to do anything to make me uncomfortable, so you asked me (pretty reasonably, IMO) to give you clearer signals so that you wouldn’t misread anything, and even to take a hand at more obvious initiating so that you didn’t come across as an aggressor or overstep your bounds.
As I learned way after the fact, after we had developed enough rapport for you to feel safe in admitting it, the interest was definitely reciprocated, and you had even been interested in me even before I boldly went up and introduced myself to you. But you had not initiated even an introduction at that point, because it would have been out of the blue, which, as you said, is one of those things that tend to make women at conferences uncomfortable. You wanted to wait until there was a more organic method of meeting me, so that you wouldn’t impose on me. You also confessed to me later that you deliberately did not ask me out during that conversation because it was too soon and, again, you were concerned that I would find it pushy and out of place. You waited for me to indicate that I would be interested in continuing the conversation at a later time, and then you only asked for more conversation, not a date, not a hookup, not my room number. You kept the conversation within the context of the conference and my initial ice-breaker subject, even though you were actually already somewhat interested in me at that point (which I reciprocated, hence the reason for introducing myself to you in the first place).
This abundance of caution was such a welcome relief from so many other encounters I’ve had! I can only name a handful of others in my rather … abundant experience who have viewed my consent and my space so considerately. In fact, my most successful relationships (present and past) have been with people exhibiting that level of consideration. Your behaviour was the deciding factor on whether or not I was going to give you a chance. I mean, I’ve had lots of good conversations with people, but good conversation alone isn’t enough for me to want to hook up with someone. And every interaction I’ve had with you since that night has been more of the same, even though we’ve now had enough interactions and enough conversations about what kind of relationship we have developed that most people (IME) would start to take some things for granted by now.
I suppose it’s possible there’s some kind of Jekyll and Hyde thing going on, and I suppose it’s even more possible that you have not been as careful with people’s boundaries in the past and I got the benefit of your learned experience, but the person described in the accusations and the behaviour of the organizations’ staff members just don’t match up with my experience with either. Patterns are important, and especially since part of the accusation includes the claim that you’re a repeat offender, nothing I’ve seen or experienced with either you or the organizations in question have any of the patterns I’m accustomed to seeing from other repeat offenders or organizations with poor histories of dealing with offenders.
People who habitually harass others tend to be boundary pushers who then rely on manipulating social etiquette to escape accountability. The “but I’m socially awkward / on the spectrum” excuse, for instance, that hurts everyone on the spectrum or with other issues, or the alcohol excuses. They don’t tend to be so incredibly careful and cautious that nothing might ever have come of it had it not been for the other person initiating. That’s kind of the opposite of harassment. They don’t tend to continue to be that cautious even when given a green light from ongoing partners, for another instance. So far I’ve seen none of the patterns of behaviour that I’ve witnessed in people I know to be harassers or abusers, even at later gatherings we have both attended, directed towards other people.
Things just don’t add up here. And, for the record, I have ended a long-term relationship with someone over his atrocious behaviour towards another of his partners – someone I thought would be a life-long partner at the time. At first, her claims seemed outlandish, but there was a pattern that could be seen with how he treated all of his other partners, just milder. Mild enough that they didn’t stand out until the more extreme claims were made, which is how he was able to keep getting new partners. But once the claim was made, the patterns became obvious. I’m not seeing corroborating patterns here, I’m seeing one report that conflicts with multiple sides. So it just doesn’t make sense.

#30282

d4m10n wrote:
rayshul wrote:I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".
Right around 7 hours ago, when Tim Branin weighed in.

http://archive.is/Hk3DL

Whoops, that was when, not how. The how part was by leveraging Schrödinger's rapist allegations and blackout drunk memory erasure.

#30283

HunnyBunny wrote:I've just noticed something odd. The RichardCarrierWiki twitter account, which Dr Carrier himself claimed to not be running, has not made a tweet since Dr Carrier's miraculous appearance on twitter on his own account. https://twitter.com/RickCarrierWiki

There's something odd regarding the timing of the disappearance of one actor, and the arrival of a supposedly completely new one. I can't quite put my finger on it...

If you're trying to put your finger on it, you're doing it wrong. You put your whole hand inside. :)

#30284

rayshul wrote:I feel sorry for Carrier.

I don't understand how "being creepy and weird" suddenly turned into "rapist".

I was reading FtB last night and their criticism of the pit and all the filthy things said here. Frankly I couldn't see what they were moaning about, but I suppose they have much higher standards than we do. But that's the point isn't it, we are pointing out their hypocrisy and double standards.

In the last few pages we have posted arab porn and jokes about Orlando, that's only creepy by their standards not ours.

Ironically, Carrier wrote something (which I can't be bothered to go get the quote for, but somebody already has above) about behaviour that makes people feel "uncomfortable". Until fairly recently, this was how society worked, young men especially, were taught to act and treat people in a way which would make them feel at ease, comfortable and to make life as pleasant as possible by fitting in. This involved being very tolerant of others behaviour and behaving in a way that allowed them to be tolerant of you. They are trying to create a society with impossibly high standards where no deviation is tolerated. Should you make somebody uncomfortable, an apology isn't sufficient, you must be purged, forever unforgiven (unless you are a child molester).

The reason I can't stand Carrier and the reason I think he is a "wrongun" is that he seems completely incapable of treating his academic ~~peers~~ betters with any kind of respect or courtesy.

#30285

Guest_90e366ed wrote:The user "this is me" has posted this book-length description of her romantic involvement with Carrier on his blog:

This is all very confusing, as the accusations don’t match anything I’ve known about you. You’ve never claimed to work for Camp Quest, so that’s my first (and biggest) red flag that something is wrong here. If you’ve never claimed to work for them and they’ve never claimed to have you on staff, and they have no other jurisdiction over you, then why is your supposed “employment” with them such a focal point in the accusations? The entire complaint, according to the original post, is that the organizations are affiliated with you when all parties concerned have denied any affiliation. I mean, she specifically says that it’s not about you being inappropriate, it’s about the organizations’ associations with you but those associations are denied on all sides. If the main point of contention is wrong, then the whole thing is just confusing and strange. The other part of my confusion is that this doesn’t at all describe my experience with you.

{snip}

If you're looking for Bayesian-level proof that Carrier wrote that comment, himself, check to see if he up-voted it.

#30286

Nate Carr is picking on poor Peez.

#30287

deLurch wrote:
Guest_90e366ed wrote:Scholarly scholar-work where Bayes theorem is used on the Carrier incident has already been produced and are hereby submitted for peer review. I can't post images or urls so if anyone find it amusing please repost:

s31(dot)postimg(dot)org(slash)53043wqe3(slash)title_Copy(dot)png

www(dot)docdroid(dot)net(slash)xyItgvz(slash)index-copy.pdf.html

A book may be in the works.
http://s31.postimg.org/53043wqe3/title_Copy.png

https://www.docdroid.net/xyItgvz/index-copy.pdf.html

Magnificent Bastard. :clap:

#30288

Kirbmarc wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Looks like Hyena was doing more sleuthing than fishing
http://i.imgur.com/dtfe6Ev.jpg
"Gossiping bitches are rarely wrong" < The author of "A Skeptic Guide to Islam".*

*Coming "soon".

I need to revisit the alien abduction phenomenon. With that much smoke there has to be fire right?

#30289

News just coming in from the UK at the moment is that a Labour MP has just been shot and stabbed in Leeds, and that the attacker apparently shouted 'Britain First'. For those not in the know, Britain First is a supremely nasty far-right org notable for garnering over a million likes for its facebook page - albeit via largely underhand sharing of puppy pics.

If there's any truth as to what the attacker said, then this whole referendum thing is gonna get a whole lot nastier - Jo Cox, the victim, was a prominent Remainer. Britain First, unsurpsingly enough, aren't exactly fans of the Remain camp.

Of course, some cunts have already been unable to contain their excitement:

#30290

From the book quote above.

This made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

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

#30291

What immediately jumps out that this isn't about Carrier at all. Amy Frank is keen on discrediting various organisations, and Carrier is only the vehicle to implicate them via the SJW-honed weapon of association — real or imagined. Of course this is bad news for Carrier, and the SJW hatemob will do what they always do with such leads: rationalise and burn bridges as is momentarily affordable (to send a costly signal, but not too costly). In each of these events, they expose themselves as wholly irrational actors who seem to indulge in being dissolved in a religious group experience, where they let go and become a force of “social justice” in their own imagination that expungs some moral evil. Intersectionality Vult!

#30292

Carrier thinks his update is a game winner.

#30293

Though I must add, if they acted differently this time around, it would be hypocritical and seen as the usual double standards. They already did that since they held back on what they knew for such a long time, despite shrieks of “WE MUST PROTECT WOMEN” two years ago, where they finally brough up accusations (then Shermer) that were already years old. That reasoning never made much sense, and only the faithful are known to cling to such flimsy excuses.

#30294

Brive1987 wrote:From the book quote above.

This made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

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

When I look back on and rewrite my own sexual experiences, I often do this from the woman's point-of-view and make her the fumbling and awkward participant, while I become a gallant mixture of irresistible and hesitant. Of course, I'm doing these revisions to events that happened 30+ years ago (instead of last summer) and I don't publish them while claiming that I didn't write them.

#30295

Sadiq Khan bans adverts which promote "unrealistic" body images

Brendan O'Neill wrote:He has instructed Transport for London to stop running ads that indulge in body-shaming. Like last year’s Protein World ad that asked commuters ‘Are you beach body ready?’, next to a picture of a svelte woman in a yellow bikini, which elicited a frankly bonkers response from feminist campaigners: they defaced it, marched against it, and got 70,000 signatures calling for its destruction, as if it were the embodiment of evil, the destroyer of women’s souls. Now Sadiq says TfL must refuse all such ads, because they can ‘demean people, particularly women’.

Brendan O'Neill wrote:Censorship was once demanded with the cynical rallying crying of ‘Won’t someone think of the children?!’; now it’s enacted with the cry, ‘Won’t someone think of the women?!’ The censoring of imagery to protect women’s sensibilities sets back women’s lib by decades.

Brendan O'Neill wrote:It’s clear why there’s been so little backlash. It’s because Sadiq is justifying his ban in feminist lingo, and feminist censorship is the most acceptable form of censorship these days. Once, we had religious censorship, then ideological censorship, and now we have feminist censorship — censorship justified as a means of taming men’s rapaciousness (see the arguments for getting rid of Page 3 or putting lad’s mags in black bags) and preserving women’s self-esteem. What a double-whammy of misanthropy: men depicted as satyrs who must be controlled and women as wallflowers in need of moral chaperoning as they negotiate public life.

This is an incredibly authoritarian move, but everyone's happy: the radfems love censoring images of beautiful women (which make them feel bad), Muslims love censoring images of women in bikini (which offend Allah).

Of course the leftist media praise Khan to high hell for tackling the plague of "unrealistic beauty standards", and no one mentions the fact that by doing so he's setting a precedent for banning "offensive" ads. A precedent which the Muslim groups which supported Khan (the man who attacked an Ahmadi Muslim political opponent as "not a real Muslim") will likely exploit later.

Radfems and Muslims: united to make the world a more authoritarian place.

#30296

Shatterface wrote:
feathers wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:So it seems that people have known about Carrier's sleaziness for a long time.
Richard Carrier turned me into a newt once.
He stopped my hens laying.

And my neighbours calf was stillborn.

PZ sowed many new blog-seedlings and said that his fields were healthier than ever, and yet his Alexa ratings still withered and his harvest is failing no matter how hard he works. Richard Carrier is in league with Mother Benson, who is not only a spinster but, as we all know, was exiled for witchery and being in league with TERFs. None can deny that he performed an act of public desecration on her blog to please his master Satan and his many imps.

#30297

Ninja'd by Brive but since it's still in my copy buffer fuck it - here it is again....

But you asked permission to touch me, first in an intimate but platonic way, to which I agreed. Then you asked permission to kiss me, and I again agreed. Then you asked me to confirm that I was, indeed, into what we were doing, probably because of my earlier ambiguity. I said that I was very much into what we were doing, I just hadn’t yet determined where I wanted things to go from there. So you reiterated to me that my boundaries were important to you and that you didn’t want to do anything to make me uncomfortable, so you asked me (pretty reasonably, IMO) to give you clearer signals so that you wouldn’t misread anything, and even to take a hand at more obvious initiating so that you didn’t come across as an aggressor or overstep your bounds.

/shudder

It reads like a passage from Barbara Cartland's My Autistic Professor.

How these people can function remains beyond me.

#30298

katamari Damassi wrote:So Sadiq Khan is now the mayor of London. When does sharia begin?

Apparently now. It's dressed up with radfem tropes, though.

#30299

MacGruberKnows wrote:George Takei on MSNBC, great spokesman for the LGBT community. Shame he didn`t come out years earlier. I really think him coming out and getting married was a huge turning point for a lot of people. Who the hell can not like George Takei

John Cho.

#30300

Tigzy wrote:News just coming in from the UK at the moment is that a Labour MP has just been shot and stabbed in Leeds, and that the attacker apparently shouted 'Britain First'. For those not in the know, Britain First is a supremely nasty far-right org notable for garnering over a million likes for its facebook page - albeit via largely underhand sharing of puppy pics.

If there's any truth as to what the attacker said, then this whole referendum thing is gonna get a whole lot nastier - Jo Cox, the victim, was a prominent Remainer. Britain First, unsurpsingly enough, aren't exactly fans of the Remain camp.

Of course, some cunts have already been unable to contain their excitement:

I blame the NRA . Britain needs to tackle it's rampant gun culture.