Aye.Mykeru wrote:
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.
------------------Ape+lust wrote:Any of you Murkins remember the PUMAs of election 2008? That's short for "Party Unity, My Ass."
When Hillary Clinton broke as frontrunner in the primaries, many feminists were jubilant. History in the making! Problem was, there was another history-maker who could fight as dirty as Hillary. Her minions would lob "sexist" bombs at him and get buried under the "racist" return fire.
At Democratic Underground ("Vote Democratic or die"), this caused a huge schism. Many long-time regulars who had been snarling enforcers of the dictum that a third party vote is a vote for GOP ruin, suddenly saw Obama's refusal to roll over as the misogynistic core of the Democrats bursting open. We watched quitting members turn up at PUMA sites.
PUMA was nothing more than a movement for vengeance. You won't give us Hillary? We'll give you McCain. In other words, by their own measure, they'd rather burn the country to the ground than cede to not-Hillary.
So, if we'd used PZ's nostrum, "just listen to the women," who should we have listened to? The squalling bunch who wanted the party purged of "misogyny and hate" right fucking NOW, or the women who stayed and worked for the nominee?
He can insist until he's purple, but that handful of pampered pop tarts he surrounds himself with cannot speak for all women.
OT, but I was at that debate at CalTech. Jean Houston....no words. Had no business being there. Added nothing. I thought I had heard Chopra suggested her. She embarrassed me as a female.Outwest wrote: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?
[youtube]ryqwvh5FsCc[/youtube]
Makes perfect sense! I mean, we all know that heterosexual intercourse is rape, and the erect penis is an invention of The Patriarchy whose only purpose is to oppress womyn-kind.CommanderTuvok wrote:Certainly is, JackRayner.
The Baboons have long disliked Shermer because he happens to be successful with the laydeez. A terrible crime in Baboon Land!
I agree, and its absurd. The sexism charge is lobbed around way too easily when its wholly without merit. I just heard it this morning being used to describe whats going on with Susan Rice, the Obama potential appointee for Secretary of State that's getting a lot of GOP resistance. Its naked partisanship and obstructionism, but sexism? Not in the slightest.HoneyWagon wrote:------------------Ape+lust wrote:Any of you Murkins remember the PUMAs of election 2008? That's short for "Party Unity, My Ass."
When Hillary Clinton broke as frontrunner in the primaries, many feminists were jubilant. History in the making! Problem was, there was another history-maker who could fight as dirty as Hillary. Her minions would lob "sexist" bombs at him and get buried under the "racist" return fire.
At Democratic Underground ("Vote Democratic or die"), this caused a huge schism. Many long-time regulars who had been snarling enforcers of the dictum that a third party vote is a vote for GOP ruin, suddenly saw Obama's refusal to roll over as the misogynistic core of the Democrats bursting open. We watched quitting members turn up at PUMA sites.
PUMA was nothing more than a movement for vengeance. You won't give us Hillary? We'll give you McCain. In other words, by their own measure, they'd rather burn the country to the ground than cede to not-Hillary.
So, if we'd used PZ's nostrum, "just listen to the women," who should we have listened to? The squalling bunch who wanted the party purged of "misogyny and hate" right fucking NOW, or the women who stayed and worked for the nominee?
He can insist until he's purple, but that handful of pampered pop tarts he surrounds himself with cannot speak for all women.
This same thing happened at the Daily Kos. It was stupid and they were reading any negative words about Hillary as hatred of women in general. Well, I am a woman and I did not want another Bush or Clinton in the White House. I had to hold my nose to vote for Bill Clinton in the first place.
I am glad most of the noisy ones left in a huff. Made is more pleasant.
And I hope the FTB/Skepchick crew boycotts TAM again. I had a blast without them this year.
Nah. She just has lots of google alerts. She's waaaaaay too lazy to do all the work of looking for her nameWalter Ego wrote:EllenBeth surfs the internet looking for mentions of her name so I'm sure she checks in at least once a day.ReneeHendricks wrote:Does EllenBeth Wachs read the Slymepit?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7636
I'm pretty sure he's trolling just about everyone with that Brave Hero shtick. At least, I hope he is, cause when looked at in that light, it's pretty hilarious.Notung wrote:Just woke up to the predictable outcome that Shermer's post has caused some ripples. What I didn't expect wasthe Spanish Inquisitionthat Shermer would tweet a link to 'Phawrongula'!
By the way, I think Myers is confused. The 'brave hero' stuff is '@ElevatorGATE', and he doesn't post on the Slymepit. People who write 'brave hero' here seem to mostly be mocking it (well I certainly am).
"Extroverts" vs. "introverts". I detest speaking to any more than 2 or 3 people at a time. There is much more of a case to be made for "discrimination" against introverts - though introverts are thankful for the exclusion.welch wrote:I wish I knew, but I think in this, you'd have to talk to women about it. I get a huge rush out of speaking in public, so I don't even get being afraid at all.Altair wrote:Why does this happen? Not a snarky or facetious question, I'm actually interested. Is there a perception that men will go after the women who speaks at the conference? Fear of not being taken seriously? Something else entirely?welch wrote:So yeah, I actually CAN see how women are intimidated by speaking at a conference in a situation where they're in a rather severe minority.
I'm as introverted as they come. In fact, when I take the Myers Briggs test, I pretty much always score 100% introvert.franc wrote:
"Extroverts" vs. "introverts". I detest speaking to any more than 2 or 3 people at a time. There is much more of a case to be made for "discrimination" against introverts - though introverts are thankful for the exclusion.
The context, if I recall correctly, was the false accusation against the sportscaster Marv Albert. Apparently, the bite marks on the woman's behind that were used as evidence were a result of her proclivity for asking partners to do that kind of thing. It's analogous to someone into S&M using their pinked fanny as evidence of non-consensual sex.sacha wrote:Wild Zontargs wrote: 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'm the same way. It's odd, but then I read that a number of actors are the same way. Maybe it is due to a controlled environment? Plus I get a rush from it.John Brown wrote:I'm as introverted as they come. In fact, when I take the Myers Briggs test, I pretty much always score 100% introvert.franc wrote:
"Extroverts" vs. "introverts". I detest speaking to any more than 2 or 3 people at a time. There is much more of a case to be made for "discrimination" against introverts - though introverts are thankful for the exclusion.
That being said, the idea of talking to three or four people on their own makes me break out into a cold sweat. I stammer. I stumble. I just...freeze up.
But, get me in front of a crowd of dozens or hundreds, and I'm right at home. In fact, I volunteer for the occasion anytime I can (briefings at work, etc...).
My girlfriend is a complete extrovert. I do well in small groups with her because she will allow me to "play off of her" in order to make a connection with other people. She sets me up for some great one-liners or full conversations and when the conversation lags (because I suck at small talk) she gently nudges it in the right direction.Sulaco wrote:I'm the same way. It's odd, but then I read that a number of actors are the same way. Maybe it is due to a controlled environment? Plus I get a rush from it.John Brown wrote:I'm as introverted as they come. In fact, when I take the Myers Briggs test, I pretty much always score 100% introvert.franc wrote:
"Extroverts" vs. "introverts". I detest speaking to any more than 2 or 3 people at a time. There is much more of a case to be made for "discrimination" against introverts - though introverts are thankful for the exclusion.
That being said, the idea of talking to three or four people on their own makes me break out into a cold sweat. I stammer. I stumble. I just...freeze up.
But, get me in front of a crowd of dozens or hundreds, and I'm right at home. In fact, I volunteer for the occasion anytime I can (briefings at work, etc...).
It's my bolding, which shows that Svan knows that this copy of the movie is not a legal one (ie her watching it gives no money to the creators), but does not give a shit.This Thursday, on December 13, it will be Yor, the Hunter from the Future. How can we resist? Well-oiled caveman with 80s hair meets dinosaurs and laser beams. Come on. You’d do it too. In fact, you can, as long as it doesn’t get pulled before we get to it.
ScooterKPFT wrote:People whom refuse vaccination should be charged with child endangerment if they are within one hundred feet of any child under the age of three years old whom has not been fully immunized.
:(ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:FfTB sanction (and proudly flaunts) ignoring the laws of copyright.
Now, forget for a moment how plain fucking pathetic a person's life must be to spend an evening watching a cheaply-made movie just so you and three other halfbreeds can mash out some cutting comments about how you can totally see that the alien mask is made from cardboard and jism.
Greg Laden, defender of tweens.HoneyWagon wrote:[iminge]http://i.imgur.com/nKYKO.jpg[/iminge]
And he's a libertarian.CommanderTuvok wrote:Certainly is, JackRayner.
The Baboons have long disliked Shermer because he happens to be successful with the laydeez. A terrible crime in Baboon Land!
Don't worry, cunt I'm sure you criticize bad movies within a healthy environment. As I said, Svan's group is just herself and "three other halfbreeds".cunt wrote::(ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:FfTB sanction (and proudly flaunts) ignoring the laws of copyright.
Now, forget for a moment how plain fucking pathetic a person's life must be to spend an evening watching a cheaply-made movie just so you and three other halfbreeds can mash out some cutting comments about how you can totally see that the alien mask is made from cardboard and jism.
Never heard of MST3K? Only reason I don't do this is because I don't have any friends.
And all sex is heterosexual.JackRayner wrote:Makes perfect sense! I mean, we all know that heterosexual intercourse is rape...
Is the rightcunt wrote:Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?
Are you not worth of hugs?Git wrote:Is the rightcunt wrote:Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?roomthread for hugs?
Bolded/underscore mine. Meaningful racial differences? Acknowledging that we're different biologically, skeletal structure, pigmentation, etc, is important. But emphasising our racial differences in the path to see past race, isn't that counterproductive? Beyond the mostly superficial, to quote Shakespeare, if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? (Sorry for that highly cheesy moment, but it needed to be said. We all bleed red after all. Also, that quote concerns the differences between Jews and Christians, so I'm not going to use it as a vantage point.) By the way, the bolded in red is just a bizarre aside. I don't even know. Admittedly they do say it's an encouraging sign, but "most alarming"?“[O]ur research suggests that exposure to colorblindness can actually reduce individuals’ sensitivity to meaningful racial differences. And as a result, when discrimination does occur, individuals with a colorblind mindset often fail to see it as such,†said Apfelbaum.
“Teachers were less likely to see the need for intervention because the students’ descriptions in the colorblind condition played down the race-related nature of the transgressions.
“In a real-world situation, bullying on the basis of race could go unnoticed by onlookers or be mistaken for ordinary misconduct by teachers who receive insufficient information to recognize it as discrimination.â€
The researchers believe the study gives reason to explore the effectiveness of value-diversity efforts.
“Despite good intentions to promote egalitarianism through colorblindness, our findings show that doing so sometimes elicits the exact opposite outcome, permitting even explicit forms of racial discrimination to go undetected and unaddressed,†said Apfelbaum.
“Perhaps most alarming, on the surface, colorblindness appears to work quite well — reported incidents of bias do decrease. In spite of such encouraging signs, however, our study suggests that colorblindness may not reduce bias as much as it adjusts the lens through which bias is perceived.â€
I hope you're right, sacha, and that it's just my lack of experience with the atheists/skeptics community and conferences that leads me to be pessimistic (and, hopefully, wrong in this case).sacha wrote: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?BarnOwl wrote: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.
Doesn't seem to have the requisite amount of wall padding ....Git wrote:Is the rightcunt wrote:Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?roomthread for hugs?
We are going to need to hammer out some hug room protocols and policies. Safety and non-offence to everyone deemed worthy.Steersman wrote:Doesn't seem to have the requisite amount of wall padding ....Git wrote:Is the rightcunt wrote:Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?roomthread for hugs?
The article has a point, but it's kind of trivial: If you look for racism, you'll find it. By not being colorblind, you might be able to detect more incidents of racism. You might get a bunch of false positives as well - whereas if you aim for colorblindness you could get false negatives. I think the authors are saying that colorblindness could lead to under-reporting of racist incidents - hence 'alarming.' It's all done from a social programming point of view: what stories can we tell our children to increase reporting of racist incidents?Pitchguest wrote:Meaningful racial differences? Acknowledging that we're different biologically, skeletal structure, pigmentation, etc, is important. But emphasising our racial differences in the path to see past race, isn't that counterproductive? Beyond the mostly superficial, to quote Shakespeare, if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? (Sorry for that highly cheesy moment, but it needed to be said. We all bleed red after all. Also, that quote concerns the differences between Jews and Christians, so I'm not going to use it as a vantage point.) By the way, the bolded in red is just a bizarre aside. I don't even know. Admittedly they do say it's an encouraging sign, but "most alarming"?
Am I barking up the wrong tree here, guys? Am I barking mad? Am I bark? (Stick to wood, not those tin things.)
A question: We accept that women are more likely to be religious, yes? Do any of the people claiming to be increasing female participation in the community actually spend time going to the religious women and try to convince them?BarnOwl wrote:I hope you're right, sacha, and that it's just my lack of experience with the atheists/skeptics community and conferences that leads me to be pessimistic (and, hopefully, wrong in this case).sacha wrote: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?BarnOwl wrote: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.
If Myers et al. were really serious about including more women and underrepresented minorities as speakers at conferences, it seems to me that there's a very simple way to at least begin to address this. When invited to speak at a conference, he could say "Look, I go to a lot of meetings and I really need to stay home and work instead, but here's a list of 10 people with science backgrounds who can give lucid, entertaining talks on evolution, human genetics, climate change, environmental toxicology, etc., and I think you should give one of them a chance to speak in my place."
Her pruniness is becoming a bigger cunt with every post, soon she will envelope all of fftb with it.Mykeru wrote:Are you not worth of hugs?Git wrote:Is the rightcunt wrote:Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?roomthread for hugs?
And I would like to thank everyone who took part in the festivities on Shermer's article on (paraphrasing here) why Ophelia Benson is a cunt, which proved:
1. FTBullies are shit useless unless they control the venue
2. Damn, they are dumb
3. Cunt.
Seems more or less spot-on to me. Certainly inappropriate to say the least to limit civil rights on the basis of genetic differences. But not particularly wise to deny those differences – for one thing, it tends to be rather problematic in some cases such as, for example, the one discussed here earlier about tailoring medical interventions on the basis of race. A difference that many ideologues seem to have some difficulty wrapping their heads – pointed, priapic, or otherwise – around.Pitchguest wrote:Ashley Miller still wants to associate herself with Greg Laden?
Also, what is "gender/colorblind bias"? I would have thought that looking past someone's "race" would be a good thing? The wish of saying "that person" instead of "that black person" somehow implies a prejudice of some sort? Because it "ignores privilege and oppression"? What does that mean? As for "oppression", do people want to think of themselves as powerless victims or do they want to rise above it? In which case, if more and more people looked past race and gender, it wouldn't an issue, would it? Nor any privilege to speak of. So I don't get it. Is it a legitimate term that has any scientific bearing to back it up, or is it just another brand of fearmongering?
....
Am I barking up the wrong tree here, guys? Am I barking mad? Am I bark? (Stick to wood, not those tin things.)
Now of course many ideologues are going to react in horror to that: “Oh no! You, you, racist!†While clutching their pearls and availing themselves of the fainting couch in a great show of histrionics. But they fail to realize – maybe not surprisingly as population genetics seems not to be common knowledge – that whatever gene or allele undergirds that capability, if it exists, is probably only marginally more prevalent in that culture than any other one – maybe, for the sake of argument, 1.793% in the case of Jews and maybe 1.694% in gentile ones. Just that the cultural values might tend – probably do, apparently do tend – to amplify, to magnify those slight differences.Prigogine’s central point was that self-organization depends on self-reinforcement: a tendency for small effects to become magnified when conditions are right.
Outwest wrote:Wow. There are a lot of "guests" on this site. I've noticed this afternoon as many as 35. If you like this site, why not just sign up and let yourself be known? There's no banning here, there's no recriminations for anything you might say. You might have to take some ribbing. But that's about it.
and I thought that the slime pit was composed of six people and the rest were socks. Can six people "come out in force"?Lsuoma wrote:Michael Shermer is a BRAVE HERO!!!Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Well, obviously Altair just doesn’t realize that words such as “cunt†can turn those hearing them catatonic or into quivering bowls of jello. Or that it apparently affects some that way so it is of course natural for them to assume that similar words are going to have those effects on everyone else ….sacha wrote:hahaha!Altair wrote:
I highly doubt that a person who is actually RAPING someone is going to say "Shit, I was totally ready to rape this woman, but now that I see her panties saying 'No means No' I realize the wrongness of my actions and I'm going to stop right now".
"Gender Traitor" has been around a lot longer than SkeptifemPitchguest wrote:Ahhhh shit, I shouldn't have continued reading the comments. I'm going to give myself an aneurysm one of these days. Now skeptifem has joined in, and I'm constantly confused as to why this person is still given quarter at this place. One commenter said in response to Josh's idiocy of Cara's "feminity" that she was hot, and skeptifem busts out this fucknugget:
Says the woman who coined the term "gender traitor." A word of advice, skeptifem: shut the fuck up.A woman in public isn’t begging for your assessment by existing, so its gross when you give out such information without solicitation. No one cares what gives you a boner.
We will, of course, have to set up a whole bunch of committees to decide on worthiness – checking everyone’s privilege, who’s been naughty – or just knotty – and who’s been nice ….Mr Danksworth wrote:We are going to need to hammer out some hug room protocols and policies. Safety and non-offence to everyone deemed worthy.Steersman wrote:Doesn't seem to have the requisite amount of wall padding ....Git wrote:Cunt said:
"Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?"
Is the rightroomthread for hugs?
DataNotDogma wrote:Outwest wrote:Wow. There are a lot of "guests" on this site. I've noticed this afternoon as many as 35. If you like this site, why not just sign up and let yourself be known? There's no banning here, there's no recriminations for anything you might say. You might have to take some ribbing. But that's about it.
I've been reading through old posts. Came across this and figured I'd say hi. Hi.
We will, of course, have to set up a whole bunch of committees to decide on worthiness – checking everyone’s privilege, who’s been naughty – or just knotty – and who’s been nice ….Steersman wrote: We are going to need to hammer out some hug room protocols and policies. Safety and non-offence to everyone deemed worthy.
I will have to insist that any such hugging will have to be proper lingering ones where it's like this ][ and not like this /\... if you catch my drift.
Rawrsome wrote:http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7613FlyingFree333 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.
I think I found my soul mate.
DataNotDogma wrote:As the newest member I feel I have the least privilege and therefore am most deserving of hugs.
Sorry, don’t really get the meaning there; feeling a little obtuse myself at the moment – getting rather late.TheMan wrote:I will have to insist that any such hugging will have to be proper lingering ones where it's like this ][ and not like this /\... if you catch my drift.Steersman wrote:We will, of course, have to set up a whole bunch of committees to decide on worthiness – checking everyone’s privilege, who’s been naughty – or just knotty – and who’s been nice ….Mr Danksworth wrote: We are going to need to hammer out some hug room protocols and policies. Safety and non-offence to everyone deemed worthy.
And then we should take all those volunteering for those committees and put them on the Ark B ….
Matt Dillahunty wrote:When you talk about Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, as the Premier [of atheist activism], yes they are all white guys...and so what? It is not racist or sexist to identify the most popular people as top tier.
Gross! Actual physical hugs? I e-hug only.Reap wrote:DataNotDogma wrote:As the newest member I feel I have the least privilege and therefore am most deserving of hugs.
Then go hug your mother :D
/\ is a cis straight bro hug, where the groins don't touch. Shoulders/chest only.Steersman wrote: Sorry, don’t really get the meaning there; feeling a little obtuse myself at the moment – getting rather late.
One might infer that “/\†has some “pointed†meaning, but I draw a blank on “][†– maybe, at a stretch, something to do with “bra-ket†notation [which I know all about having read the first half-chapter in Quantum Physics for Dummies ….]
P.S. You might want to use the Preview function to check the nesting of quotes. :-)
Ah, so it has! My bad. Then, I'll revise: says the woman who's fine using the term "gender traitor" to describe other women. I'll stand by my previous statements of her shutting her trap, though. :Dsacha wrote:"Gender Traitor" has been around a lot longer than SkeptifemPitchguest wrote:Ahhhh shit, I shouldn't have continued reading the comments. I'm going to give myself an aneurysm one of these days. Now skeptifem has joined in, and I'm constantly confused as to why this person is still given quarter at this place. One commenter said in response to Josh's idiocy of Cara's "feminity" that she was hot, and skeptifem busts out this fucknugget:
Says the woman who coined the term "gender traitor." A word of advice, skeptifem: shut the fuck up.A woman in public isn’t begging for your assessment by existing, so its gross when you give out such information without solicitation. No one cares what gives you a boner.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. The marvels and intricacies of communications, updated for new media ….KiwiInOz wrote:/\ is a cis straight bro hug, where the groins don't touch. Shoulders/chest only.Steersman wrote: Sorry, don’t really get the meaning there; feeling a little obtuse myself at the moment – getting rather late.
One might infer that “/\†has some “pointed†meaning, but I draw a blank on “][†– maybe, at a stretch, something to do with “bra-ket†notation [which I know all about having read the first half-chapter in Quantum Physics for Dummies ….]
P.S. You might want to use the Preview function to check the nesting of quotes. :-)
I imagine that ][ is a hug that merges into special sexy time with the appropriate partner, or just frottage more generally.
A whole bunch over there that let their spleens get the better of their brains.Pinker wrote:Pharyngula's comment section: Where the only winning move is not to play
The very first comment on that article is someone who wants to spit in Shermer's face.
I don't understand how any outsider could read these sorts of things and still want to be a part of that group. Yet they are concerned about attendances and outreach? Pfft.
I will use the preview more often in future. Been missing it lately and the quote confidence I'd downer than usual.Steersman wrote:Ah, thanks for the clarification. The marvels and intricacies of communications, updated for new media ….KiwiInOz wrote:/\ is a cis straight bro hug, where the groins don't touch. Shoulders/chest only.Steersman wrote: Sorry, don’t really get the meaning there; feeling a little obtuse myself at the moment – getting rather late.
One might infer that “/\†has some “pointed†meaning, but I draw a blank on “][†– maybe, at a stretch, something to do with “bra-ket†notation [which I know all about having read the first half-chapter in Quantum Physics for Dummies ….]
P.S. You might want to use the Preview function to check the nesting of quotes. :-)
I imagine that ][ is a hug that merges into special sexy time with the appropriate partner, or just frottage more generally.
Hadn’t been aware that I had been giving or receiving any hugs. Although maybe I missed the bulletins on protocols and policies.TheMan wrote:...Steersman wrote:Ah, thanks for the clarification. The marvels and intricacies of communications, updated for new media ….KiwiInOz wrote: ....
/\ is a cis straight bro hug, where the groins don't touch. Shoulders/chest only.
I imagine that ][ is a hug that merges into special sexy time with the appropriate partner, or just frottage more generally.
Kiwi got it. You need to hug more Steerzo and be aware how you hug.
I completely agree and have mentioned this to numerous male friends, and implored other men to heed my warning. There are not many women I trust, and I can spot a vindictive personality within minutes.Mykeru wrote:The context, if I recall correctly, was the false accusation against the sportscaster Marv Albert. Apparently, the bite marks on the woman's behind that were used as evidence were a result of her proclivity for asking partners to do that kind of thing. It's analogous to someone into S&M using their pinked fanny as evidence of non-consensual sex.sacha wrote:Wild Zontargs wrote: 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.
In fine "blame-the-victim" fashion I was of the opinion that may be the case, but Marv Albert was a fucking idiot for putting himself in that sort of situation with an unbalanced women by biting her ass just because she liked that sort of thing...
"Bite you on the ass, hard? Oh Okay" Marv said without having the presence of mind to think "You know, this could end up badly". I mean, why not, right Al? The woman is nice enough to bang you, and it's impolite and just plan misogynistic to entertain the thought that she might have some mental problems that could turn on you.
Guys really have to start thinking in terms of not being so accommodating and toss a bone to self-preservation.
