If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Dick Strawkins wrote:Novella says this in the comments of that post:

"The issue is not what Dawkins is free to say. It is about the editorial focus and the atmosphere of our conference. We would not, for example, invite someone to NECSS to bash religion, because we are a science conference. That does not mean I don’t respect pointed criticism of religion. It’s just not the proper venue. "

If it is a purely science conference why would they invite Dawkins?
He is better known these days for his atheism activism than anything else and he's never been shy about bashing religion.

As other have said, he is engaging in Olympic level rationalization of a hasty decision. Dawkins starts twitter outrages like this every other week. Why invite him at all if they want to avoid atheism and think a single twitter attack by the professional offendees is justification enough to dump him...

Kirbmarc wrote:

HunnyBunny wrote:
Wrong, Carrier likes to splash his on a woman's face, not in the vagina. So Carrier is denying women an important anti-depressant source to satisfy his fetish. Which by the way, is not degrading to the woman in any way...

Hey, if they're fine with having sex with a narcissist like Carrier they're probably fine with his semen fetish, too.

Jokes aside nothing that his agreed upon is "degrading" per se. I don't really care about what Carrier does with his "girlfriends". I don't even care too much about his lack of boundaries, and his cheating on his wife is a matter between her and him (even though he made it public because he's so egocentric that he thinks that anybody should care about his flaws, regrets and redemptions).

What annoys about Carrier is the fact that he whines about being "oppressed" by "socially constructed monogamy" when he's just horny.

Nobody cares about where Dickie puts his dick as long as they're consenting adults. No laws or authoritarian authorities prohibit him from having many sexual adventures, or taking parts in the swinging lifestyle, or going to orgies, or even starring in porn (he wouldn't even have to change his name, although his average caucasian schlong might disqualify him).

Being horny doesn't mean being oppressed. Anyone who thinks that they're being oppressed because they're called horndogs, made fun of, or rejected by people who prefer monogamy is a whining asshole, and needs to have more sex and talks less about they're oppressed by lack of sex.

comhcinc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Novella says this in the comments of that post:

"The issue is not what Dawkins is free to say. It is about the editorial focus and the atmosphere of our conference. We would not, for example, invite someone to NECSS to bash religion, because we are a science conference. That does not mean I don’t respect pointed criticism of religion. It’s just not the proper venue. "

If it is a purely science conference why would they invite Dawkins?
He is better known these days for his atheism activism than anything else and he's never been shy about bashing religion.

As other have said, he is engaging in Olympic level rationalization of a hasty decision. Dawkins starts twitter outrages like this every other week. Why invite him at all if they want to avoid atheism and think a single twitter attack by the professional offendees is justification enough to dump him...

More to the point if it's a pure science conference why invite PZ, twice. A man who has never been known for his science work.

Plus looking at their currennt list on their site. How about these people?

http://necss.org/speakers/baba-brinkman/
http://necss.org/speakers/hai-ting-chinn/
http://necss.org/speakers/george-hrab/

The facts do not back up his statement at all.

comhcinc wrote:Nothing to do with nothing. Just funny.

The way things are going with Merkel he might have one more chance.

comhcinc wrote:Nothing to do with nothing. Just funny.

The way things are going with Merkel he might have one more chance.

Dick Strawkins wrote: The US skeptic scene is run by a small mafia of individuals who function primarily to promote themselves and prevent others from taking their precious spots on the conference circuit.
You get the same group of people getting the paid invites and speaking gigs year upon year. Just look at the keynote speakers. These are the same people that were doing keynotes ten years ago.
Are we to believe that nobody new has arrived on the scene in the past decade?
What's more they always stick up for each other. Just look at Dave Gorski (Orac) getting shocked by that vile offensive parody song. He thinks nothing of insulting anti-vaxxers or quack medicine (and there's nothing wrong with that, they deserve ridicule - just as much as Big Red and Daddy-sperm guy) in terms just as offensive as anything in this video and yet can still act like he is the moral judge of all that is good and correct.
And look at the diversity of the speakers.
They dare to talk about inclusion while organising a conference that's whiter than a NRA rally at the Bundy ranch?

paddybrown wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:
*SNIP*

What annoys about Carrier is the fact that he whines about being "oppressed" by "socially constructed monogamy" when he's just horny.

Nobody cares about where Dickie puts his dick as long as they're consenting adults. No laws or authoritarian authorities prohibit him from having many sexual adventures, or taking parts in the swinging lifestyle, or going to orgies, or even starring in porn (he wouldn't even have to change his name, although his average caucasian schlong might disqualify him).

Being horny doesn't mean being oppressed. Anyone who thinks that they're being oppressed because they're called horndogs, made fun of, or rejected by people who prefer monogamy is a whining asshole, and needs to have more sex and talks less about they're oppressed by lack of sex.

It's just funny that he's so obliviously frank about his sexual desires when he hangs around with that crowd, for whom everything is problematic and all sex is presumptively rape.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Here's a good idea for a pure science conference. Invite the guy that made this video, I hear he's a scientist.
[youtube]thunderfoot[/youtube]

What's more they always stick up for each other. Just look at Dave Gorski (Orac) getting shocked by that vile offensive parody song. He thinks nothing of insulting anti-vaxxers or quack medicine (and there's nothing wrong with that, they deserve ridicule - just as much as Big Red and Daddy-sperm guy) in terms just as offensive as anything in this video and yet can still act like he is the moral judge of all that is good and correct.

"Just because you sound polite, doesn't mean your words aren't hurtful. Just because you sound acerbic, doesn't mean your words aren't kind." -- Comrade Squinky
"If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to 'ask nicely'." -- Geeksophical
A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument.

The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down.

pro-boxing-fan wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Nothing to do with nothing. Just funny.

The way things are going with Merkel he might have one more chance.

Est Germany or West Germany?

pro-boxing-fan wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Nothing to do with nothing. Just funny.

The way things are going with Merkel he might have one more chance.

Est Germany or West Germany?

comhcinc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote: The US skeptic scene is run by a small mafia of individuals who function primarily to promote themselves and prevent others from taking their precious spots on the conference circuit.
You get the same group of people getting the paid invites and speaking gigs year upon year. Just look at the keynote speakers. These are the same people that were doing keynotes ten years ago.
Are we to believe that nobody new has arrived on the scene in the past decade?
What's more they always stick up for each other. Just look at Dave Gorski (Orac) getting shocked by that vile offensive parody song. He thinks nothing of insulting anti-vaxxers or quack medicine (and there's nothing wrong with that, they deserve ridicule - just as much as Big Red and Daddy-sperm guy) in terms just as offensive as anything in this video and yet can still act like he is the moral judge of all that is good and correct.
And look at the diversity of the speakers.
They dare to talk about inclusion while organising a conference that's whiter than a NRA rally at the Bundy ranch?

I am not sure that is a complete true. Some of the people I linked to are new. They are just not scientist nor do I think they would be qualified to speak about science at science conference as this is being claimed.

I do think you are right that we are seeing a lot of tribalism here.

Yvette d’Entremont launched scibabe.com in fall of 2015, debunking all the BS she could find on the internet with a combination of real science and dirty jokes. The combination took off to a roaring start, and the site had a few viral successes early. Her first professional piece of writing, “The Food Babe Blogger Is Full of Shit,” went massively viral and launched SciBabe into a career. Her first book, SciBabe’s Ten Rules To BS Detection, will be out this winter.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Pretty sure they just got the decade wrong.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Novella says this in the comments of that post:

"The issue is not what Dawkins is free to say. It is about the editorial focus and the atmosphere of our conference. We would not, for example, invite someone to NECSS to bash religion, because we are a science conference. That does not mean I don’t respect pointed criticism of religion. It’s just not the proper venue. "

If it is a purely science conference why would they invite Dawkins?
He is better known these days for his atheism activism than anything else and he's never been shy about bashing religion.

As other have said, he is engaging in Olympic level rationalization of a hasty decision. Dawkins starts twitter outrages like this every other week. Why invite him at all if they want to avoid atheism and think a single twitter attack by the professional offendees is justification enough to dump him...

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Not dancing or spinning, but is it even moving at all?

.gif[/img]

Tigzy wrote:

dog puke wrote:Enough snivelling and whining about free speech and skepticism and other boring shit. Here is some important medical news that we need to discuss. I would be interested in the opinions of our resident experts... Skep Tickle, Screwtape... Scented Nectar...

http://phitimes.com/eating-a-vagna-cure ... t-studies/

:cdc:

(Crudely drawn cocks - like sex and gender - are merely social constructs so this is totally apropos for this post.)

Be interested to know if this applies equally to post-op transwomen as it does to womyn-born-womyn. If the 'pussy beats cancer' idea should ever gain any traction, imagine the mischief that might ensue. :lol:

Spike13 wrote:

Sunder wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Well, I guess trans activists have just ruined real womens' chances of winning the Olympics. If trans-women compete with real women, there is no chance in hell that real women will ever win any awards from now on.

Gymnastics?

I would pay money to see, I don't know , perhaps Danielle Muscato deal with a balance beam or the uneven bars...flop sweat and hair everywhere...

Cunning Punt wrote:Julia Galef weighs in.



Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. Smart lady.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Speaking of such rare newcomers, i noticed the description of someone calling themselves the SciBabe

Yvette d’Entremont launched scibabe.com in fall of 2015, debunking all the BS she could find on the internet with a combination of real science and dirty jokes. The combination took off to a roaring start, and the site had a few viral successes early. Her first professional piece of writing, “The Food Babe Blogger Is Full of Shit,” went massively viral and launched SciBabe into a career. Her first book, SciBabe’s Ten Rules To BS Detection, will be out this winter.

Isn't this what Skepchick could have done if she had the talent and was prepared to put in the effort?
Naught out of two aintis bad.

comhcinc wrote:Nothing to do with nothing. Just funny.

The way things are going with Merkel he might have one more chance.

comhcinc wrote:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Not dancing or spinning, but is it even moving at all?

.gif[/img]

I was going to follow that up with another annoying flashing gif.

I decided to go in a different direction.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bsk5nP_hrQA/U ... unce-4.gif

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:Julia Galef weighs in.



Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. Smart lady.

Holy shit, D.J. Grothe is amazing in the comments against Dan Fincke.

PZ Myers

30 January 2016 at 3:32 pm

Let’s get real. Dawkins is the establishment. He still has all the clout and all the prestige. The leaders of most of the atheist/skeptic organizations are going to continue to suck up to him. The anti-feminists are obsessive and underhanded, and will continue to troll and do their best to undermine any effort to change the status quo. I’m already getting the flood of hatred on social media and email for this.

Nothing will change.

Most galling: I’m getting accused of ‘betraying atheism’ for…it’s not clear what for. Money? Glory? Fame? That’s the thing — I could have gotten much more of that by promoting the dudely white version of atheism. Sex? There’s this dumbass myth that guys only support feminism to get laid. It’s absurd. Supporting women’s autonomy is not a recipe for getting sex slaves. I’m also boringly monogamous, so even if it were true, I wouldn’t be taking advantage.

And then there’s the sad truth that victory for my cause of greater diversity in atheism is going to lead to my abandonment, as an obvious member of the privileged group. I’m going to die someday, and there will be raucous cheering by the regressive side, and a sigh of relief at another obstacle gone by the side I’m championing.

And that’s OK, because I’m an atheist, so I won’t care what people say after I’m dead, and what matters is the cause. And that goes on without me.

comhcinc wrote:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Not dancing or spinning, but is it even moving at all?

.gif[/img]

I was going to follow that up with another annoying flashing gif.

I decided to go in a different direction.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bsk5nP_hrQA/U ... unce-4.gif

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:Julia Galef weighs in.



Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. Smart lady.

Holy shit, D.J. Grothe is amazing in the comments against Dan Fincke.

Really? wrote:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:Julia Galef weighs in.



Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. Smart lady.

Holy shit, D.J. Grothe is amazing in the comments against Dan Fincke.

To paraphrase a great comment from that thread: Rebecca Watson and her friends led public shaming campaigns against hundreds of people and the Novella crew had no similar problem with those.

pro-boxing-fan wrote:
If that girl had a dick, i might have admit to a new fetish.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

PZ Myers

30 January 2016 at 3:32 pm
. I’m going to die someday, and there will be raucous cheering by the regressive side

Gumby wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

PZ Myers

30 January 2016 at 3:32 pm
. I’m going to die someday, and there will be raucous cheering by the regressive side

Why would his own side cheer his demise?

Seriously though, I don't think many people will cheer at PZ's death other than a few trolls. Unlike, say, when Hitch died, and a large number of "PZ's side" could barely contain their vicious glee.

I wish someone would link to the videos of Big Red being horrible cunty for these people. It seems a lot of them are upset that Dawkins called her vile. I don't think they have seen the videos of her.

comhcinc wrote:

pro-boxing-fan wrote:
Why are you assuming she doesn't?

free thoughtpolice wrote:commie wrote:

I wish someone would link to the videos of Big Red being horrible cunty for these people. It seems a lot of them are upset that Dawkins called her vile. I don't think they have seen the videos of her.

I recommend they link the one where she is mocking male suicide and singing Cry Me a River.
Not only does it demonstrate how vile she is, but is a good example of why she deserves to be parodied.

pro-boxing-fan wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

pro-boxing-fan wrote:
Why are you assuming she doesn't?

I demand a proof right now!

I mean ... i DARE you to give me a clear and definitive visual proof. Ideally in the form of a HD video; bonus point for a porn scene. It would erase all doubt and be an automatic win for you. You have 20 minutes; its an ultimatum.

Gumby wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

PZ Myers

30 January 2016 at 3:32 pm
. I’m going to die someday, and there will be raucous cheering by the regressive side

Why would his own side cheer his demise?

Seriously though, I don't think many people will cheer at PZ's death other than a few trolls. Unlike, say, when Hitch died, and a large number of "PZ's side" could barely contain their vicious glee.

Shatterface wrote:

Sunder wrote:Freudian slip?

http://i.imgur.com/Z7jIdiA.jpg

Mid it was about Dawkins previous behaviour why did these cunting retards invite him in the first place?

Looks like they'd already caved in to the SJWs and we're looking for a pretext.

comhcinc wrote:

See the quote below. You are out of luck chuck. :lol:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

See the quote below. You are out of luck chuck. :lol:

I would have this phrase pegged as being exclusively northern England, specifically Lancashire. Where did you pick this up from, if you can remember?

deLurch wrote: That deserves another archive of the comments.
https://archive.is/kfnox

comhcinc wrote:I have a new rule. If you are going to call yourself a feminist then you have to tell me what kind you are.

I am sooooooo tired of people saying not all feminist blah blah blah.

comhcinc wrote:I have a new rule. If you are going to call yourself a feminist then you have to tell me what kind you are.

I am sooooooo tired of people saying not all feminist blah blah blah.

Sunder wrote:

deLurch wrote: That deserves another archive of the comments.
https://archive.is/kfnox

David's killing it over there still.

Also, regarding PZ dying: Pure projection as usual. Completely unsurprising that someone as ghoulish as himself would think that others are just as vile and bitter as he is.

No, Peez, we won't be celebrating your death. Because we're better than you are.

Not to mention, PZ, that your enemies do not want to see you dead. They want to see you humiliated, having lost all the credibility you've ever possessed after spending the past few years proving you never deserved it. Your ideal fate would be to go back to being a nobody ex-scientist teaching at a nowhere school with no more power and authority than that afforded to any other glorified community college professor.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

See the quote below. You are out of luck chuck. :lol:

I would have this phrase pegged as being exclusively northern England, specifically Lancashire. Where did you pick this up from, if you can remember?

Really? wrote:

comhcinc wrote:I have a new rule. If you are going to call yourself a feminist then you have to tell me what kind you are.

I am sooooooo tired of people saying not all feminist blah blah blah.

Same thing for skeptic, "believer in free speech" and "liberal".

Ericb wrote: Or if it's raping up.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Novella says this in the comments of that post:

"The issue is not what Dawkins is free to say. It is about the editorial focus and the atmosphere of our conference. We would not, for example, invite someone to NECSS to bash religion, because we are a science conference. That does not mean I don’t respect pointed criticism of religion. It’s just not the proper venue. "

If it is a purely science conference why would they invite Dawkins?

Really? wrote:

comhcinc wrote:I have a new rule. If you are going to call yourself a feminist then you have to tell me what kind you are.

I am sooooooo tired of people saying not all feminist blah blah blah.

Same thing for skeptic, "believer in free speech" and "liberal".

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Not dancing or spinning, but is it even moving at all?

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Really? wrote:

comhcinc wrote:I have a new rule. If you are going to call yourself a feminist then you have to tell me what kind you are.

I am sooooooo tired of people saying not all feminist blah blah blah.

Same thing for skeptic, "believer in free speech" and "liberal".

Free speech only applies to talking about governments, it doesn't mean you can criticize feminism or islamism.

David's killing it over there still.

Shatterface wrote:
I'll treat his demise with all the respect and solemnity he treated Robin Williams.