Periodic Table of Swearing

[SPACKlick]

snip

I sent Shermer the link. I bet he laughs

He saw it:

Oh cool, I'm the witch of the week at this satirical site

Link or evidence?

[Altair]

These two are good as well, including the responses from other users

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2568841216

PZ: women & blacks don't want prostrate pity of white males; they just want to be thought of as people. Period. Drop the race/sex obsession.

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2893129728

Harriet Hall & Karen Stollznow are Skeptic magazine columnists not because they are women but because they are good at what they do. Period.

Ooooohhh, Harriet Hall! That had to sting.

[Saint N.]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

[Steersman]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

Matt Dillahunty ‏@Matt_Dillahunty
@therajraj Won't be entertaining simplistic exaggerations, oversimplifications and sniping. Bye.

What else is twitter good for?

[John Greg]

Well, it's kind of nice that Shermer actually had a look at Phawrongula (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 250#p36186). But I am not so sure I would call it a satirical wiki. Sure, there is a lot of sarcasm, satire, and sardonic pith in there, but it is not a satirical site, as such.

Ah well. It will increase the profile no doubt, and the sane branch can make its own evaluation while the loonafundies continue their ragey tears and vigorous defamations.

[ERV]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

I literally "LOL!!!"ed really loud at 'Tarot cards'

[John Brown]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

I had Matt Dillahunty pegged for what he is not five minutes after discovering him. This was years ago, way before all of this brouhaha. There's nothing particularly "skeptical" about him. Way back in the day, he memorized all the arguments for the existence of God. Then, he memorized all the arguments against the existence of God.

Atheism is pretty much the absolute lowest hanging fruit on the "skeptical tree." I'm not overly impressed at the claim of "I'm an atheist!" until I hear that person speak on other issues.

When you begin to allow ideology to trump reality, then you are no longer a skeptic. You're an ideologue.

[AndrewV69]

That's how you know you are dealing with a communally reinforced clique of people: When you discover they are absolutely recalcitrant in the face of correction.

No one was taking upskirt pictures, and the poor bastard guy who had a camera on a monopod was apparently somewhere on the autistic spectrum and has received absolutely no apology over a false accusation which consists entirely of some paranoid, sex-obsessed person not being able to imagine what else a man with a camera on a stick might be doing with it.

Bad enough to have had the incident, bad enough having to debunk it but to keep repeating it regardless?

As I recall the one person who tried (repeatedly and in vain to xir credit) to clear up exactly what happened was apparently the source that the witch hunters used to launch their persecution.

Monopod guy subsequently cancelled his next appearance.

*shrug*

So just exactly who are the bullys and harassers and their victims again? Monopod guy and his "victim" just might have a different perspective on exactly who are the ones engaged in despicable behaviour.

If anyone is deserving of a swift kick in the cunt about this, it is not monopod guy or his puported "victim".

[Reap]

I sent Shermer the link. I bet he laughs

He saw it:

Oh cool, I'm the witch of the week at this satirical site

Link or evidence?

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/canvas.png

[Steersman]

ReneeHendricks
It seems *this* has Ophie's knickers in a twist this morning:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A967mqECAAAVSyl.jpg

She sure does seem to be scrambling for shit to blog about.
====
It works, bitches.

http://i.imgur.com/zLi1k.jpg

DING DING DING!

http://i.imgur.com/zLi1k.jpg

You know what? That is a great big hairy naked sexist remark.”

Considering that PZ also said, “A good response would have been to admit that he’d made an unthinking, stupid remark and that he’d like to retract it”, one might wonder whether he ever admitted that about his remark which, apart from apparently being much worse than Shermer’s comment – at least according to FfTB dogma, seems to be prima facie evidence to justify getting “ban-hammered”.

[Dick Strawkins]

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2893129728

Harriet Hall & Karen Stollznow are Skeptic magazine columnists not because they are women but because they are good at what they do.

Typical misogynist!
Can't mention women without bringing their periods into the conversation![/Ophelia]

[Dick Strawkins]

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2893129728

Harriet Hall & Karen Stollznow are Skeptic magazine columnists not because they are women but because they are good at what they do.

Typical misogynist!
Can't mention women without bringing their periods into the conversation![/Ophelia]

Bollocks!
Me and my stubby fingers messed up that joke...

Shermer wrote:
Harriet Hall & Karen Stollznow are Skeptic magazine columnists not because they are women but because they are good at what they do. Period.

[Sulaco]

Ophelia's "threat?"...upskirt photos?

I know I feel threatened. Terrified if you want to know the truth.

[welch]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

I had Matt Dillahunty pegged for what he is not five minutes after discovering him. This was years ago, way before all of this brouhaha. There's nothing particularly "skeptical" about him. Way back in the day, he memorized all the arguments for the existence of God. Then, he memorized all the arguments against the existence of God.

Atheism is pretty much the absolute lowest hanging fruit on the "skeptical tree." I'm not overly impressed at the claim of "I'm an atheist!" until I hear that person speak on other issues.

When you begin to allow ideology to trump reality, then you are no longer a skeptic. You're an ideologue.

My response to someone being an atheist is the same as to them being a chocoholic: "how nice for you". Why the fuck does it even matter. It doesn't make you smart or clever or better looking. It is, honestly, a fairly minor description of how you approach the universe. Pumping it up to some huge indicator of moral/ethical/intellectual fitness, or lack thereof is truly, truly stupid.

I wandered into SciBlogs via an interesting article by Shelley Batts. From her blog, I found Abbie and others. The fact Abbie is an atheist has fuck all to do with why I read her site. The fact she's an engaging writer, and able to explain really complicated stuff in a way non-scientists get, has a sense of humor I find to be great, and all kinds of other reasons are why I think she's cool as hell. What really made me a fan was "PepsiGate" because she was one of the VERY few people on SciBlogs who were not only not being complete tools about it, but actively calling out people for being hypocritical nitwits. I like anyone who is willing to bluntly speak the truth in public as best they can. THAT has far more to do with things than atheism.

Her being an atheist matters in the reasons why I started to, and still read her site as much as her eye color.

[Steersman]

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2893129728

Harriet Hall & Karen Stollznow are Skeptic magazine columnists not because they are women but because they are good at what they do.

Typical misogynist!
Can't mention women without bringing their periods into the conversation![/Ophelia]

And speaking of periods, and before I reach the one at the end of this sentence, Hypatia, Ada Lovelace, and Emmy Noether were also notable for what they did during their own.

Ophelia and others of her ilk really seem to have some difficulty comprehending the idea that noting some differences in the behaviours of both sexes is somehow tantamount to insisting that those behaviours are either intrinsic, categorical, exclusive, or justification for limiting civil rights. Maybe that difficulty is genetic ….

[John Brown]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

I had Matt Dillahunty pegged for what he is not five minutes after discovering him. This was years ago, way before all of this brouhaha. There's nothing particularly "skeptical" about him. Way back in the day, he memorized all the arguments for the existence of God. Then, he memorized all the arguments against the existence of God.

Atheism is pretty much the absolute lowest hanging fruit on the "skeptical tree." I'm not overly impressed at the claim of "I'm an atheist!" until I hear that person speak on other issues.

When you begin to allow ideology to trump reality, then you are no longer a skeptic. You're an ideologue.

My response to someone being an atheist is the same as to them being a chocoholic: "how nice for you". Why the fuck does it even matter. It doesn't make you smart or clever or better looking. It is, honestly, a fairly minor description of how you approach the universe. Pumping it up to some huge indicator of moral/ethical/intellectual fitness, or lack thereof is truly, truly stupid.

I wandered into SciBlogs via an interesting article by Shelley Batts. From her blog, I found Abbie and others. The fact Abbie is an atheist has fuck all to do with why I read her site. The fact she's an engaging writer, and able to explain really complicated stuff in a way non-scientists get, has a sense of humor I find to be great, and all kinds of other reasons are why I think she's cool as hell. What really made me a fan was "PepsiGate" because she was one of the VERY few people on SciBlogs who were not only not being complete tools about it, but actively calling out people for being hypocritical nitwits. I like anyone who is willing to bluntly speak the truth in public as best they can. THAT has far more to do with things than atheism.

Her being an atheist matters in the reasons why I started to, and still read her site as much as her eye color.

I made a big deal of my atheism for about a week way back in the day until I realized how much of a tool I was being about it. Like you, I don't particularly care if a person is an atheist or not. It's analogous to the "you have to listen to the voices of X group." I don't want to listen to your "voice." I want to listen to your arguments.

Hell, I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian (in the anarcho-capitalist sense, not the Ayn Rand, Objectivism sense), and the vast majority of my friends are socialists, leftists, liberals, etc... They are rounded out with my religious friends of every political stripe.

With all that ideology flying around, you'd expect that we would all be at each-others' throats. Nope. Because we fucking respect each other and we come correct.

[masakari2012]

These two are good as well, including the responses from other users

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/stat ... 2568841216

PZ: women & blacks don't want prostrate pity of white males; they just want to be thought of as people. Period. Drop the race/sex obsession.

Exactly. As a non-white person, the skeptic community has always been welcoming. And if there were any problems of actual racism (not mere off-color jokes, or a simple misunderstanding of words/intent), it's only from a few isolated incidents, or few individuals (sometimes mere trolls) when compared to the total, usually with bad grammar who display lesser reasoning skills on other topics. That's to be expected anywhere, and should be dealt with accordingly. Hopefully in a manner to educate them, then forgive them, since the goal is to change their views, not to push them further into defense of their position. Most of the times, I notice it's people who are not actually racist, but perhaps chose the wrong words to express their thoughts. Then the Social Justice Warriors jump all over them, because they feel the need to stomp down people who may have said something slightly wrong, while not trying to understand intent. They seek to make examples out of others so that they can feel good about themselves.

"We don't need equality of outcome. We need equality of opportunities.". The atheist community has always been open. I'd be skeptical of the people who say otherwise. Some people like to play the race/gender/victim card to rally pity parties and lynch mobs, when things don't go their way.

I don't want to see skeptic conventions trying to cater to me by intentionally adding speakers of my race for the sake of gaining more people of that race. People should be focused on the quality of speakers. If the person happens to be of my race, and knows what he's talking about, then that's fine. It's just as fine as if it's someone of another race who is saying the same exact thing. Intentionally trying to gain people of other races who don't arrive to this position based on skepticism will only diminish the skeptic community, like Rebecca Watson does. There are other reasons in particular racial communities which leads to why less people of race "x" don't take part in the skeptic community, mostly because those communities look down on people like us. It's not the fault of whites or other communities in which skeptics are numerous. If the skeptic community keep doing what they were already doing, then eventually the number of skeptics from race "x" will increase.

People of my race are usually prejudice towards me, who consider me a race-traitor, Uncle Tom, or Americanized {as if that's an insult} because I don't subscribe to the nonsense that is expected of me. I guess it's because I am not the typical person of my race, though there are more like me. I don't like their music, traditions, and 99% of the foods, so I'm an outsider. I don't dislike them or make judgments based on their own likes, but they can't look outside of my race to see that I'm an individual person with my own likes and dislikes that is NOT based on my skin color or the racial community which I had no choice but to be born into. I don't want to see the skeptic community take that same path.

[Walter Ego]

My odd position in the atheist/skeptic divide and a puzzling choice of words by JohnTheOther on The Voice For Men Podcast of Sept. 27, 2012 (at the 10:00 minute mark).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceform ... ory-victim

[youtube]ow-IiX5AWeY[/youtube]

[Saint N.]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

Matt Dillahunty ‏@Matt_Dillahunty
@therajraj Won't be entertaining simplistic exaggerations, oversimplifications and sniping. Bye.

What else is twitter good for?

The best thing about matt's last comment is that it undermines his own 'Tarot cards' snipe, made just two comments prior.

[lost control]

All men that disagree with myer's view of feminism are mass murderers and we'll call them Marc Lepine.
Another Quebecois charged today with first degree murder of her 3 children, apparently to spite her estranged husband would make a good analog for PZ and his gender feminist pals. Henceforth they should all be named Sonia Blanchette.

Nitpick: Her Children? Shouldn't that be Québecoise? At least from what I remember from my fucked up French lessons?

[masakari2012]

Yeah, those were great arguments. I guess it's time for me to pack up and go home....

[youtube]-r2hSA6ad10[/youtube]

[Altair]

Exactly. As a non-white person, the skeptic community has always been welcoming. And if there were any problems of actual racism (not mere off-color jokes, or a simple misunderstanding of words/intent), it's only from a few isolated incidents, or few individuals (sometimes mere trolls) when compared to the total, usually with bad grammar who display lesser reasoning skills on other topics.

Being latino, my situation is similar, although not equal because most of my participation in the skeptic community has been online. The physical community in Colombia is very small and sparse since the country has a strong catholic majority.

I think most of the people online don't even know where I'm from, and the ones who know don't seem to find it important. English is my second language and I make mistakes from time to time and I've never received any complaints or attacks for it (unlike the crazies at the A+ forum who almost killed that guy that time).

I have never felt that the skeptic community cared about who someone is, but about the arguments and ideas they provide. That's why all the accusations of privilege and being a white boys club seem so weird to me.

That's to be expected anywhere, and should be dealt with accordingly. Hopefully in a manner to educate them, then forgive them, since the goal is to change their views, not to push them further into defense of their position. Most of the times, I notice it's people who are not actually racist, but perhaps chose the wrong words to express their thoughts. Then the Social Justice Warriors jump all over them, because they feel the need to stomp down people who may have said something slightly wrong, while not trying to understand intent. They seek to make examples out of others so that they can feel good about themselves.

"We don't need equality of outcome. We need equality of opportunities.". The atheist community has always been open. I'd be skeptical of the people who say otherwise. Some people like to play the race/gender/victim card to rally pity parties and lynch mobs, when things don't go their way.

The part about equality of opportunities is the one the SJWs usually miss. When they talk about equality, they want equality of outcome, they want guaranteed outcome just because they are under privileged. That's not how it should work.

I don't want to see skeptic conventions trying to cater to me by intentionally adding speakers of my race for the sake of gaining more people of that race. People should be focused on the quality of speakers. If the person happens to be of my race, and knows what he's talking about, then that's fine. It's just as fine as if it's someone of another race who is saying the same exact thing.

I agree with that. I don't care if the speaker is latino or not, if they have a good presentation, I'll listen to it. I also play videogames without caring if the character is latino or not, and watch movies without caring the nationality or ethnicity of the protagonist.
I think that if you need to make your speaker or your character the same race/gender/nationality as the consumer/customer to get them to watch it, then something is wrong with your conference, game or movie.

[Altair]

Damn, messed up the quotes in the previous post.

This part was written by masakari2012

That's to be expected anywhere, and should be dealt with accordingly. Hopefully in a manner to educate them, then forgive them, since the goal is to change their views, not to push them further into defense of their position. Most of the times, I notice it's people who are not actually racist, but perhaps chose the wrong words to express their thoughts. Then the Social Justice Warriors jump all over them, because they feel the need to stomp down people who may have said something slightly wrong, while not trying to understand intent. They seek to make examples out of others so that they can feel good about themselves.

[Guessed]

This is a great clip of shermer, Harris and Chopra. I especially liked Harris starting around 1:50 saying he would never get on a stage at CalTech and give a talk on Physics because he doesnt know physics.

Anyone we know like that?


snip

This just makes me further embarrassed by the hate-campaign that FtB has against Harris. He is such a well-spoken, reasonable person. I can understand why some people would disagree with his comments in The End of Faith, but to accuse him of being a racist etc. is shameless in my view. As Harris said:

If my daughter one day reads in my obituary that her father “was persistently dogged by charges of racism and bigotry,” unscrupulous people like PZ Myers will be to blame.

It's even more conscienceless given the post on the previous pages where Myers said that people will say things online that they won't in real life. To then treat Harris' objections so facetiously, "Oh, gosh — I have cheesed off Sam Harris!" speaks realms about the quality of Myers' character. I don't know why he thinks we'd laud Shermer as a "brave hero" - when you have Myers displaying such integrity clearly nothing will ever reach that standard.

[lost control]

So, Al, posts a response to PZ's blog post that accuses us all of being serial killers:

Are you fucking kidding me? Really, this is the best you can come up with, comparing a horrendous act of violence with people who do not share your opinion on various social justice issues?

Wow, Godwin would be impressed…

And a few comments down, Stephiie-poo of course HAS to respond:

Al, your new little friends spend a lot of time dehumanizing people and opining that we ought to be made to go away. A number of them are perfectly happy to tell us what kind of violence we deserve. Hang out with them all you want. Don’t act stupid about what kind of people they are.

"new little friends"? I guess she's referring to us.

Ah, fuck it...
Nope, Steffalump InZanity, I don't want you to go away, what else would provide me with lulz, cause I need those, currently?
You twats are so weird, I'm somewhat amused, but very disturbed by your antics. *signed: suffering from recurrent major depressive disorder, currently in recess, but fearing it will fuck me up again so I can't be around for my gal, when she gets out of the hospital, finally.*

And here I sit, not knowing if my gal will undergo full anasthesia tomorrow for a lung exam or not (flushing the lung with medical fluids isn't that bad, but still, fluids in the lung), the nurses (and I so mean that gender inclusive, my brother's officially a nurse) don't know, the docs are still discussing and telling different things, and she's just pissed off once more, cause she's been notified about not ingesting anything tomorrow morning, just in case they manage to get an appointment in the operating room. Yeah, the past week's have been 'fun'.

Actually, I'd like you to get a grip of actual life, you dipshit. (Is at least this one gender neutral enough?) Yeah, recently, I only rant about my gal being in the hospital, but fuck, it kills me that I can't hold her every night.
Furthermore, I'm starting to doubt all those mental issues some of the FfTB idiots are suffering from, most of them seem legit, but Steffalumps don't. Didn't she mention depression? Nope, when depressive, you just don't post blog entries. Or does she mean, she's in recess, but having a hard time?
I actually start thinking, that J McBoobs has real issues, she hasn't managed to update her blog for quite some time, that would fit.

Yeah, I'm an asshole, but my gal manages more of that attitude, those pseudo compliments she told me last weekend gave rise to hope she could go home in the forseeable future, sadly they've been destroyed yesterday, again.

[Lsuoma]

I had Matt Dillahunty pegged

<Completely misleading edit made>

Dude! TMI!!!

[Za-zen]

Dillahunty is an unrepentant fuckwit. Twatson is his friend, and that's all there is to it.

That wankstain even attempted to defend A+theism from its dectractors on the specific point they highlighted to him, and which he experienced first hand. Why?! Because he is commited to the politicsl ideas espoused by the fuckwits that concocted A+.

[Steersman]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

Matt Dillahunty ‏@Matt_Dillahunty
@therajraj Won't be entertaining simplistic exaggerations, oversimplifications and sniping. Bye.

What else is twitter good for?

The best thing about matt's last comment is that it undermines his own 'Tarot cards' snipe, made just two comments prior.

Consistency certainly isn't his strong suit - something he shares with PZ, Benson, and their ilk. Dogma tends to do that, to cloud the thinking processes. You might be interested in a blog post by Will Shetterly, which someone here referenced earlier, who comments about a "debate" he had with an "A-plusser" (sort of like a Scientologist):

Unfortunately, no matter how clearly I tried to express myself, I might as well have been banging my head against a wall. Pwrong, my antagonist, has cocooned himself in fem-plus dogma and simply will not entertain any thought that contradicts that dogma. Nor can he recognize how internally inconsistent this dogma is, or how it is ultimately insulting and infantilizing for women.

Or, as I'm fond of noting, like Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, who said:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg

Damn fucking right, PZ.

Everybody to the fucking barracades. These wankstains need to be taken down a few pegs.

Oh, and PZ Myers is RACIST*.

*he says so himself!

[Za-zen]

Myers does not have a clue about reality, he lives in an ideologically induced delusional state. I wouldn't trust him to perform a study on frogs withut introducing sexism into the conclusion.

[papillon]

Fifteen fookin pages behind! got though most of them though..
Highlights:
Svan's liberation apron - (could only be bettered by an ironing board cover)
Brownian's forced name change - just a regular Tony now.
Hug-gate - (((((WTF?)))))

Lowlights:
Half-fish's seasonal 'gift giving' post.
- "Have my test results come back yet doctor?"
- "Yep"
- "And?"
- "You've been converted"
- "Really?"
- "Yep, you're totes poz, but at least you didn't hurt anyone's fee fee's. Feel free to leave your diagnosis undisclosed to any future partner. It'll be our little secret"

Misc:
An A-Plusser recounting the time xe shat xir pants after a dodgy burger.

From the same thread, some unchecked privilege from mod Mai:

"We ordered the chef's special "Prix Fixe" menu, and proceeded to embark on a culinary adventure that memories are made of...course after amazing course, glass after glass of wine, all served on beautiful china, crystal and flatware, accompanied with the impeccable service typical of a classic French restaurant."

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2518

And this:

PZ called Reap a racist and now it turns out everyone is a racist* including PZ himself.

http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 2022-1.jpg

[skepCHUD]

lostcontrol; I would have written Quebecoise but that would have been sexist.

[CommanderTuvok]

Rey Fox
12 December 2012 at 12:14 pm
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-510180

I pity those fellows. So few safe spaces for them. Just Shermer’s blog, and Coyne’s blog, and Loftus’ blog network, and Dawkins’ blog, and and…so few bolt holes from the ravening femihorde.

Erm, I make that one more than FTB (aka RacistThoughtBlogs), Skepchick, and A+!

The fucking wankstain.

[Spence]

Oof, just catching up here. It takes time to wade through all this vicious misogyny.

Rey Fox
12 December 2012 at 12:14 pm
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-510180

I pity those fellows. So few safe spaces for them. Just Shermer’s blog, and Coyne’s blog, and Loftus’ blog network, and Dawkins’ blog, and and…so few bolt holes from the ravening femihorde.

Erm, I make that one more than FTB (aka RacistThoughtBlogs), Skepchick, and A+!

The fucking wankstain.

Ah, bless. Fox hasn't realised that for those of us who don't need a fainting couch every time we see a magical word on a webpage, the entire internet is a perfectly "safe space" for us.

[sacha]

Wow, that quote from Harriet Hall is a bit depressing, because it indicates to me that people like Ophelia and her Confirmation Bias Commentariat actually have some damaging influence in the skeptiverse.

I had the opposite reaction. If more people like Harriet Hall took a public stance against these imbeciles, they would soon be shunned from the community. If you are a sceptic, and knew only what Watson and PZ are saying, until you heard Shermer and Hall, who do you think are the ones that are going to be taken seriously?

[ReneeHendricks]

Wow. 39 guests? FTBer's here to peruse?

[Mykeru]

Matt Dillahunty, fighting the fight for skepticism...or not,

I had Matt Dillahunty pegged for what he is not five minutes after discovering him. This was years ago, way before all of this brouhaha. There's nothing particularly "skeptical" about him. Way back in the day, he memorized all the arguments for the existence of God. Then, he memorized all the arguments against the existence of God.

I hate the apples and orange mixing of "the atheist and skeptical community" as it's very possible to be an atheist in a non-critical manner with no skepticism at all. I also assume, perhaps wrongly (very wrongly, in fact) that if one is a skeptic one would tend to be an atheist. God is the 900 lb gorilla of skepticism.

And yes, I've always been unimpressed with Dillahunty. The way I've phrased it, was that he spent 20 years spouting stock apologetics learned by rote and then found a new career spouting stock rebuttals to stock apologetics learned by rote. Outside of parroting, he has proved himself a pompous twit incapable of rational thought. What's more, he treats his "flock" like a crap minister.

Fuck Matt Dillahunty.

I would be more than happy to drop "atheist" from the "atheist and skeptical community" as my atheism doesn't inform my skepticism one little bit. I am a skeptic first. And, as we have learned, far too many atheists know fuck all about applying critical thinking.

[CommanderTuvok]

Sacha, yes it would be great if more big names called these cult suckers out for what they actually are.

We WILL prevail.

[John Brown]

I speculate about Ben Svan's predilections.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7794

[Walter Ego]

I'll be logged in on Skype (ID buddhaglass) until about 10:30pm EST for anyone (well, almost anyone) who want to call in and tell me I'm a Nancy Boy.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/LeCh5.jpg

[Reap]

[youtube]5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

[John Brown]

Reading through all those comments over at Shermer's place tells me two things.

-The FTB people don't fare nearly as well when they are forced to come out and fight in public in a space not regulated to their advantage.
-People who have been at the periphery of this whole thing are finally seeing the batshit crazy that is FTB. Ben Svan got his ass handed to him when he made his statement. I think he was so used to being able to say it in a "safe space" (read: echo chamber) that he forgot where he was.

The more they take this fight to the adults, the more they are going to lose.

It's a beautiful thing to see.

[KarlVonMox]

Reading through all those comments over at Shermer's place tells me two things.

-The FTB people don't fare nearly as well when they are forced to come out and fight in public in a space not regulated to their advantage.
-People who have been at the periphery of this whole thing are finally seeing the batshit crazy that is FTB. Ben Svan got his ass handed to him when he made his statement. I think he was so used to being able to say it in a "safe space" (read: echo chamber) that he forgot where he was.

The more they take this fight to the adults, the more they are going to lose.

It's a beautiful thing to see.

Yeah, its quite nice to see. I suspect many of them cant even handle being outside of their regulated, ideological echo chamber where dissenting opinions are not allowed. Their fragile worldviews will shatter when exposed to too many facts or logic - just like a church.

[Miss O Gynist]

[youtube]5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

I think I just heard PZ say Ouch!

[Mykeru]

Reading through all those comments over at Shermer's place tells me two things.

-The FTB people don't fare nearly as well when they are forced to come out and fight in public in a space not regulated to their advantage.
-People who have been at the periphery of this whole thing are finally seeing the batshit crazy that is FTB. Ben Svan got his ass handed to him when he made his statement. I think he was so used to being able to say it in a "safe space" (read: echo chamber) that he forgot where he was.

The more they take this fight to the adults, the more they are going to lose.

It's a beautiful thing to see.

Yeah, its quite nice to see. I suspect many of them cant even handle being outside of their regulated, ideological echo chamber where dissenting opinions are not allowed. Their fragile worldviews will shatter when exposed to too many facts or logic - just like a church.

I will donate a dollar to their future utopia in the exclusion zone.

[KiwiInOz]

Reading through all those comments over at Shermer's place tells me two things.

-The FTB people don't fare nearly as well when they are forced to come out and fight in public in a space not regulated to their advantage.
-People who have been at the periphery of this whole thing are finally seeing the batshit crazy that is FTB. Ben Svan got his ass handed to him when he made his statement. I think he was so used to being able to say it in a "safe space" (read: echo chamber) that he forgot where he was.

The more they take this fight to the adults, the more they are going to lose.

It's a beautiful thing to see.

Yeah, its quite nice to see. I suspect many of them cant even handle being outside of their regulated, ideological echo chamber where dissenting opinions are not allowed. Their fragile worldviews will shatter when exposed to too many facts or logic - just like a church.

I will donate a dollar to their future utopia in the exclusion zone.

Perhaps Lsuoma could add another donate button at the bottom for this charity.

[Outwest]

[youtube]5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

Well done, Reap

[John Brown]

This is my favorite from good old, "Tell me I'm a misogynist, Steph!" Ben Zvan:

"Wherein Michael Shermer trots out MRA buzzwords like "which hunt" and "oppressed" http://bit.ly/SQxCwq "

https://twitter.com/BenZvan/status/278966150099001344

Jesus, what a contemptible little twerp.

[Pitchguest]

I speculate about Ben Svan's predilections.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7794

I'm glad Ben Zvan said this,

Did I say misogynist? I’m sorry. I meant whiny, name-calling, “feminists.”

That means he's issuing us a challenge that he or Stephanie have ever come across as "whiny, namecalling feminists." Right?

Do we know any instances where this might have happened? :shifty:

[Walter Ego]

Does EllenBeth Wachs read the Slymepit?

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7636

EllenBeth surfs the internet looking for mentions of her name so I'm sure she checks in at least once a day.

[sacha]

Yes, because telling women that they can't really consent to acts X, Y, and Z is "a major victory for women".

This is precisely why I have been fighting these people for over three years now. As I've said previously, if they had their rules enforced, I would never have pleasurable sex again.
Related is Mykeru's comment on Reap Sow Radio, with Reap, Al, and Paul Elam where he says something to the effect of: If a woman wants you to bite her ass so hard it leaves marks, perhaps you should consider what she could do with that evidence. (Mykeru, please correct me if I am wrong), and Elam says something about taking responsibility for what may happen. (I can't go back and find the exact quotes on the podcast right now) This is fucked.

I may not be into biting hard enough to leave marks, but there are certainly things I like which fall into the category of rough sex, and yes, there are times I've had "proof" days later. Not an issue, I enjoyed it.
And more importantly I'm not at all vindictive. So he didn't call you the next day, or you have unrequited feelings for him, or he is more interested in someone else. That's life. I'm not saying everyone should have such a thick skin that they shouldn't be disappointed, or hurt, but deal with it. Everyone has been hurt at one time or another.

Attempting to ruin someone's life because they fancy someone else is psychotic behaviour. Self-absorbed, narcissistic and psychotic. I became a MRA very young, even though I did not know what it was called. I was probably aware of siding with men and boys my age as young as 12, and it was directly related to what sort of behaviour other women (and girls) around me cheered on. Needless to say I did not have many girl friends.
I don't know if my brain is wired differently, I wasn't raised to be a Men's Rights Advocate, it just always seemed they had a more level head when dealing with things, and often the girls seemed out of control. The stories of male stalkers were frightening to me, and I saw that behaviour in the women far more than the men. I've been hurt, and it felt dreadful, but my reaction has never been to "get even". If I was hurt, it was because I had feelings for them, and I did not want to see them suffer, just because I was not their choice in women.

I simply cannot imagine ever having that reaction.

If I mentioned to a woman that I was no longer seeing someone, invariably they would respond with something like "yeah, men are pigs", and I would look at them disgusted, and disagree. Even the hardcore players I've slept with, the ones that every women who has been with them despised, stayed my friends. Perhaps part of that is because I was not so bloody stupid as to think it was any more than sex with them. I think women have a responsibility to see what is in front of them, and not some fantasy they create when it comes to the "bad boys" they are attracted to.
As for the men who are no longer interested in having a "flavour of the day", and would like a relationship, but decided that you were not the one, I can understand tears (as long as it isn't emotional blackmail) and I can understand pain, but I cannot understand wanting to hurt them in any way. Lashing out with anger and malice seems like a reaction a small child would have. I just do not understand it.

I also do not understand why the male ex who stalks and harasses their ex-girlfriend, or ex-wife is any different than what these women are doing.

[JackRayner]

Wow. :shock:

You people are almost at 700 pages. I think y'all were on page 220-something last I saw. (School picked up...to the point where I spent every day of the last two weeks or so drawing. I chaffed a bit of skin off of the heel of my palm during a particularly long binge. Had enough time for short youtube breaks, but not enough for the amount of text you folk generate. Just finished this quarter last night, so...)

Well, I'm going to go back and Ctrl+C my name to see if there's anything I should reply to. See you on the other side! D:

[masakari2012]

Yeah. A few months back, I spent a few weeks without reading the Slyme Pit, and the number of pages jumped up drastically. It's too much reading to catch up on.

I added Al Stefanelli to the Witch Of The Week, but it's still incomplete.
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Witch ... 14.2C_2012

[JAB]

Wow. :shock:

You people are almost at 700 pages. I think y'all were on page 220-something last I saw. (School picked up...to the point where I spent every day of the last two weeks or so drawing. I chaffed a bit of skin off of the heel of my palm during a particularly long binge. Had enough time for short youtube breaks, but not enough for the amount of text you folk generate. Just finished this quarter last night, so...)

Well, I'm going to go back and Ctrl+C my name to see if there's anything I should reply to. See you on the other side! D:

Welcome back. To be honest, the number of posts per page was cut in half, so the 220 pages you left at became 440 of the new pages. Still so much to catch up on that I wouldn't bother if I were you.

[CommanderTuvok]

JackRayner, looks like you've come back at the right time - another juicy witch hunt is proceeding.

[Rawrsome]

FlyingFree333 says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:21 am
When will these conferences stop inviting know-nothing bloggers to speak? The problem is giving attention seeking, opinionated, drama queens (and kings) soap boxes to rant from and unnecessary feeding of their already overblown and unjustified egos. Being a blogger does NOT make anyone an expert on anything! Conferences should stick to inviting real experts and professionals with real experience and real credentials as speakers and leave the bloggers to do their small minded ranting on their blogs where the rest of us can ignore them as they deserve.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7613


I think I found my soul mate.

[JackRayner]

I think y'all were on page 220-something last I saw.

Wrong. Just found myself near 450. It's been a while. My B.

Let's see...Jackass, differences between Jack and Leroy, Jack-off, Michael Jackson, straightjacket, 5.3mm Jack, Jackie Chan, hijack, Jack Daniel's (definitely downed some of that during the past month...), something about drunk bashing....

If we say a woman should be granted more protection because she´s physically smaller and weaker, should we grant the same protections to thin short men?

Not sure where you’re coming from with that as I don’t see that Tracy Walker and company are arguing for any changes in any laws.

And wouldn’t that open the door to saying, for example, that women should not be allowed to be firefighters or police officers because they are smaller and weaker?

Again, a case-by-case evaluation: if the women can meet the same physiological demands of a job that men are obliged to meet then of course they should be entitled – by law – to at least apply: some women are likely to be better candidates than some men. I think Jack Rayner and others discussed this point in some detail in the context of women in combat roles.

I remember that. Lively stuff. About a week ago it was revealed that the Marine Corps will, supposedly at some point in the future, change the standards so that female Marines have to be closer in upper body fitness to male Marines. Currently, men have to do a minimum of 3 dead hang pull ups to pass the Physical Fitness Test, and a total of 20 to get the full points for that portion of the test. Women only have to hand on to the bar (which they are helped onto) with their arms at least partially flexed for 70 seconds to get a 100 points.

The change is that women will be required to do a minimum of 3 dead hang pull ups (just like the men), but only do a total of 8 for 100 points. Personally, I think it's progress, and more so if they want to try sticking women in combat roles. Other Marines I know still think it's bullshit, since 8 is still much less than 20. My prediction is that the 6% total of female Marines will drop to an ever lower percentage when this is implemented...

[JackRayner]

Welcome back. To be honest, the number of posts per page was cut in half, so the 220 pages you left at became 440 of the new pages. Still so much to catch up on that I wouldn't bother if I were you.

Interesting! So maybe I wasn't so wrong in thinking that I really had left off near page 220. :think:

JackRayner, looks like you've come back at the right time - another juicy witch hunt is proceeding.

Is it the Shermer fellow? Still need to finish reading that blog post. Jumped straight to the comments after seeing Mykeru mention it on twatter, and then to here from a link he left in a comment.

[CommanderTuvok]

Certainly is, JackRayner.

The Baboons have long disliked Shermer because he happens to be successful with the laydeez. A terrible crime in Baboon Land!