Periodic Table of Swearing

#20821

CommanderTuvok wrote:
mutleyeng wrote:if anyone missed The Atheist Experience last night - very funny moment about 1hr 23 mins in

Linky to Doormat.

Thanks! Haven't watched TAE for ages.

#20822

mutleyeng wrote:if anyone missed The Atheist Experience last night - very funny moment about 1hr 23 mins in

@1:23 they're in a really long argument with a a pantheist. I can't watch the whole thing. Is there a correct time point? Or has it been snipped out for youtube?

#20823

its just a couple on mins further...start at 1:24 and wont have long to wait

#20824

I like the way he's so caught off guard he forgets what secularism is. Did anyone call him up and ask about road safety?

#20825

Dick Strawkins wrote:
cunt wrote:
rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.

Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate

You will be shocked, SHOCKED! to find out who was right there, leading the online harrassment campaign against the blogger for that post.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... con-abuse/

I'm trying to figure out which one she is, in the original pictures! :popcorn:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Sometimes, something it so not surprising, it sort of becomes surprising that it's...erm...not surprising. I think. Anyways...

Sasha Wiley: Shit poet. Pretentious twerp. But I do fear her womb. Oh yes.

Though it's still not as scary as Zvan's moony-womb power.

And there is much room in Zvan for her moon-power infused womb.

So much so that I fear Zvan's womb might lead to our doom.

Especially if Greg gets at that poon.

Without protection.

Crap, I know. But still much better then CreepyBitterGrrl's, I'd wager. She's a living cliche.

#20826

Luckily, we don't have to worry that Creepybittergrrl is making children mental by her teaching, because:

Sasha Wiley is an adult ed teacher/union activist,

Phew! Oh, and in addition to that, she's:

a part-time slam poet.

Which makes me wonder if it's actually possible to be a full-time slam poet. Still, I'm guessing that if she ever feels the need to challenge her ecomonic privilege, she can give it a try.

(from http://libcom.org/library/importance-de ... asha-wiley - tl;dr version: some radleft identikit opinion piece about patriarchy and misogyny and stuff)

#20827

papillon wrote: To the 'Merkins; Y U NO STOP EXPORT THIS SHIT

Conspiracy road trip:
[youtube]Oju_lpqa6Ug[/youtube]

Say that again...

http://www.atlantaskeptics.com/wp-conte ... 07/ham.jpg

#20828

Ken Ham: The Marbl'd Ape.

Sorry. It's been one of those Mondays...

#20829

Halloween WIN!

http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/r ... kin-01.jpg

#20830

I was wondering... is there a good equivalent to Godwin's Law regarding A+?

E.g. Zvan's Law: "The chance of being called a privilege-blind misogynist has a direct correlation with the number of factual arguments you make."

#20831

JackRayner wrote:
papillon wrote: To the 'Merkins; Y U NO STOP EXPORT THIS SHIT

Conspiracy road trip:
[youtube]Oju_lpqa6Ug[/youtube]
Say that again...

http://www.atlantaskeptics.com/wp-conte ... 07/ham.jpg

And:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jGtwnW3fmAk/T ... na+tab.png

#20832

Does today's xkcd remind you of anyone or group?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/law_of_drama.png

#20833

real horrorshow wrote:
bhoytony wrote:I'm surprised that, as we seem to be involved in an episode of I Love 1975 crossed with a road safety campaign against Dangerous Drivers, nobody has brought up that most cliched shorthand for the '70s, the Raleigh Chopper. Come, on some original thinker must mention it.
I will see your Chopper (fnarr fnarr) and raise you a Chopper Sprint:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8328/8107 ... d6e2d1.jpg
I actually had one just like that - Fire Bronze - for a short while. They were always rare and apparently are quite valuable now. I'm glad to trade being a Sprint owner now though for something worth far more: Having been a Sprint owner as a child and not being dead!

Head down, arse up, centre of gravity who knows where. If you hit a matchstickon that thing at any speed, you were straight over the bars. Think the bike's ugly? Wait 'til you see what it makes of your face!

I just noticed in the pic: The bars are a maximum height, the seat at minimum. Someone's tried to make that thing safe to ride. wont work. Looks like a genuine 70s carpet too!

http://global-4-lvs-turing.opera-mini.n ... GZg/images

Nice Wheels!
I had a Raleigh Tomahawk (hope the pic comes out ok... on mobile)
The front wheel was so small in comparison with the rear that if you exceeded 'cruising' speed the handlebars would be uncontrollable for puny child arms. Cracked skull and broke teeth on that little beauty.

#20834

JackRayner wrote:Maybe Mykery hasn't posted this here because he feels like he's pimping his stuff too often, [or maybe he's sleeping because he's got an early day tomorrow...like I do] so I'll do it for him:

[youtube]Yy0gryjLIsU[/youtube]

Seriously though. This is fucking uncanny. Like, I know she had already shown herself to be a bit on the crazy side when she told John the Other that he hated women, only to act as if she never said anything other than "don't talk to me" an instant later, but....wow. IRL Creepy Bitter Grrl is fucking crazy. :?

Pimping you say?

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/stat ... -pimp1.JPG

#20835

JackRayner wrote: Say that again...
http://www.atlantaskeptics.com/wp-conte ... 07/ham.jpg

Oh shit, forgot about him.

#20836

Oh FFS - Comfort as well.
Still, they've all ended up in creationism's Mecca.

#20837

Dick Strawkins wrote:
cunt wrote:
rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.

Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate

You will be shocked, SHOCKED! to find out who was right there, leading the online harrassment campaign against the blogger for that post.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... con-abuse/

I'm trying to figure out which one she is, in the original pictures! :popcorn:

"A flaw in this patriarchal society is that male partners do not even know that fat is attractive."

Damn, you men. You don't get to decide what you like.

http://shii.org/mediawiki/images/7/74/Zz_fatsex1.jpg

Of course, once we start fattening the women up because it's sexy...guess what happens then?

I mean, aside from the bed frame collapsing.

#20838

AnimalAndy wrote:I was wondering... is there a good equivalent to Godwin's Law regarding A+?

E.g. Zvan's Law: "The chance of being called a privilege-blind misogynist has a direct correlation with the number of factual arguments you make."

I wish my first post was as epic as that. Welcome.

#20839

AnimalAndy wrote:I was wondering... is there a good equivalent to Godwin's Law regarding A+?

E.g. Zvan's Law: "The chance of being called a privilege-blind misogynist has a direct correlation with the number of factual arguments you make."

The legitimacy of your argument is inversely proportional to your net privilege.

BTW - Hi,welcome. I've not been on here long either.
We could hold hands?

#20840

Tigzy wrote:Luckily, we don't have to worry that Creepybittergrrl is making children mental by her teaching, because:

Sasha Wiley is an adult ed teacher/union activist,
Phew! Oh, and in addition to that, she's:

a part-time slam poet.
Which makes me wonder if it's actually possible to be a full-time slam poet. Still, I'm guessing that if she ever feels the need to challenge her ecomonic privilege, she can give it a try.

(from http://libcom.org/library/importance-de ... asha-wiley - tl;dr version: some radleft identikit opinion piece about patriarchy and misogyny and stuff)

Could that be any more dumb? I don't see how.

#20841

Tony Parsehole wrote:
AnimalAndy wrote:I was wondering... is there a good equivalent to Godwin's Law regarding A+?

E.g. Zvan's Law: "The chance of being called a privilege-blind misogynist has a direct correlation with the number of factual arguments you make."
I wish my first post was as epic as that. Welcome.

Mykeru's Law: "As any progressive movement grows and achieves success, the probability of it being co-opted by women who want to make it all about their vagina approaches 1"

#20842

welch wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Luckily, we don't have to worry that Creepybittergrrl is making children mental by her teaching, because:

Sasha Wiley is an adult ed teacher/union activist,
Phew! Oh, and in addition to that, she's:

a part-time slam poet.
Which makes me wonder if it's actually possible to be a full-time slam poet. Still, I'm guessing that if she ever feels the need to challenge her ecomonic privilege, she can give it a try.

(from http://libcom.org/library/importance-de ... asha-wiley - tl;dr version: some radleft identikit opinion piece about patriarchy and misogyny and stuff)
Could that be any more dumb? I don't see how.

I think that's my next video. I was in Occupy DC and my concern was, as someone who does survival skills, keeping people (mostly the homeless who hold down the fort while the trust fund revolutionaries fuck off) from freezing. Sasha's concern in MOTHERFUCKING CANADA WITH WINTER FAST APPROACHING TO PUCKER THE COLLECTIVE ASS is misogyny.

Outstanding.

#20843

papillon wrote:Oh FFS - Comfort as well.
Still, they've all ended up in creationism's Mecca.

:lol:

The United States is definitively the place to be if peddling creationism is your trade, I'll give you that. :P

Mykeru wrote:
cunt wrote:
Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.

Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
"A flaw in this patriarchal society is that male partners do not even know that fat is attractive."

Damn, you men. You don't get to decide what you like.

Da fuq? It seriously fucking says that. Is that what's next? Choice shaming?

"You choicist FUCK. Why are you dating that self-objectifying, beauty-conformist chill gurl?! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO! Fuck the Patriarchy!!!!1"

No, no, no. This is a Poe, right?

Right?!

#20844

JackRayner wrote: Da fuq? It seriously fucking says that. Is that what's next? Choice shaming?

"You choicist FUCK. Why are you dating that self-objectifying, beauty-conformist chill gurl?! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO! Fuck the Patriarchy!!!!1"

No, no, no. This is a Poe, right?

Right?!

I have heard this type of crap before. Zinnia Jones' partner Heather had a video up on Youtube bemoaning the fact that fat women must be content with "pity fucks". I mean what the fuck? Any sane person would go: "Hmmmm....I want to attract a partner but my obesity is unattractive to all but a select few. Maybe I should lose the weight if I wiant a relationship?"
But a feminist thinks: "I'm a fat cunt and I want sex so the rest of the world better change their views on fat people and start thinking I'm attractive or....Or....Or...."
Arrogance doesn't cover it.

#20845

JackRayner wrote:
Da fuq? It seriously fucking says that. Is that what's next? Choice shaming?

"You choicist FUCK. Why are you dating that self-objectifying, beauty-conformist chill gurl?! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO! Fuck the Patriarchy!!!!1"

No, no, no. This is a Poe, right?

Right?!

Pro-Choice...is bad. It's all about the context people.

#20846

Tony Parsehole wrote:
JackRayner wrote: Da fuq? It seriously fucking says that. Is that what's next? Choice shaming?

"You choicist FUCK. Why are you dating that self-objectifying, beauty-conformist chill gurl?! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO! Fuck the Patriarchy!!!!1"

No, no, no. This is a Poe, right?

Right?!
I have heard this type of crap before. Zinnia Jones' partner Heather had a video up on Youtube bemoaning the fact that fat women must be content with "pity fucks". I mean what the fuck? Any sane person would go: "Hmmmm....I want to attract a partner but my obesity is unattractive to all but a select few. Maybe I should lose the weight if I wiant a relationship?"
But a feminist thinks: "I'm a fat cunt and I want sex so the rest of the world better change their views on fat people and start thinking I'm attractive or....Or....Or...."
Arrogance doesn't cover it.

My son asked me about this not long ago, because he saw a logic issue with "you should like people for their minds" namely "you can't fucking see a mind". What I told him:

Kiddo, here's the deal: yes, you should absolutely care as much about what's inside than out. But, as you point out, you can't see that. What you're stuck with, that makes you want to start talking to them is well, superficial. most of the time, you think they are physically attractive, and that motivates you to talk to them. if you're in earshot, you may be able to hear them talking at the same time, and so get more insight, but most of the time, what gets you to walk across the room is the outer shell. If that's not something you find interesting, you're not going to bother in most cases.

This isn't good or bad, it just is. There are as many things people find "attractive" as there are people, and your qualifications are going to be unique to you, even if they're similar to someone else's. The trick is, don't JUST be about the shell. There are a lot of awesome women out there you'll never have sex with, you may not even find them attractive that way. They're just as awesome regardless of their "stick it in" rating. But, when it comes down to it, if you're thinking of the sexin', well, there does have to some physical component for both sides. It's just how it works. There's no shame in only wanting to have sex with people you find sexually attractive, just don't be a dick about it.

The idea that letting physical attraction be a factor in your intimate relationships is a bad thing is astoundingly stupid.

#20847

Tony Parsehole wrote: I have heard this type of crap before. Zinnia Jones' partner Heather had a video up on Youtube bemoaning the fact that fat women must be content with "pity fucks". I mean what the fuck? Any sane person would go: "Hmmmm....I want to attract a partner but my obesity is unattractive to all but a select few. Maybe I should lose the weight if I wiant a relationship?"
But a feminist thinks: "I'm a fat cunt and I want sex so the rest of the world better change their views on fat people and start thinking I'm attractive or....Or....Or...."
Arrogance doesn't cover it.

That's right.
And when a big feminist girl meets a guy who happens to be particularly interested in lardy ladies, he'll be berated for not seeing past her body type and fetishising her.
Quick to get on the feminist gravy-train, not so quick to give up the gravy.

#20848

papillon wrote: Quick to get on the feminist gravy-train, not so quick to give up the gravy.

Sweet!

#20849

papillon wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote: I have heard this type of crap before. Zinnia Jones' partner Heather had a video up on Youtube bemoaning the fact that fat women must be content with "pity fucks". I mean what the fuck? Any sane person would go: "Hmmmm....I want to attract a partner but my obesity is unattractive to all but a select few. Maybe I should lose the weight if I wiant a relationship?"
But a feminist thinks: "I'm a fat cunt and I want sex so the rest of the world better change their views on fat people and start thinking I'm attractive or....Or....Or...."
Arrogance doesn't cover it.
That's right.
And when a big feminist girl meets a guy who happens to be particularly interested in lardy ladies, he'll be berated for not seeing past her body type and fetishising her.
Quick to get on the feminist gravy-train, not so quick to give up the gravy.

And, of course being grossly overweight, or looking like human skeleton, or looking healthy and maybe athletic has absolutely nothing at all with what's going on "inside".

Because all of that external stuff just happens.

#20850

Actually its still pro choice. Pro my choice to tell you what to think, do and say so that I never have to feel bad.

#20851

That's right, I CHOOSE to be fat.

#20852

@Phil, Recent events in France:
http://galliawatch.blogspot.ca/

Bouchaib Kamali, president of the Regional Council of the Muslim Religion: "My first reaction is condemnation of this act. It does not respect our republican values of libertÃ©, egalitÃ©, fraternitÃ©. We are in a new situation, a new provocation."

@Our resident Scandanavians:
http://eivindberge.blogspot.ca/

I can possibly thank the editors of Kuiper magazine for my freedom right now. This spring, they invited me to write an article (in Norwegian) on gender issues for their literary magazine, and so I did. It was supposed to appear alongside articles by feminists who were also invited to contribute. But as it turned out, the feminists didn't complete their work, and the editors did not want to publish my article on its own without any arguments from the opposing side. This is the excuse I received for not publishing my article:

Vi har nÃ¥ bestemt hva som skal vÃ¦re med i Kuiper-nummeret, og har dessverre ikke funnet plass til din tekst likevel.
Det er det to grunner til: Da vi ba deg om Ã¥ skrive en tekst, var tanken at vi skulle ha en debatt-seksjon i dette nummeret, hvor vi la skjÃ¸nnlitteraturen til side og skrev om mannen i samfunnet. De to andre tekstene vi hadde tenkt at skulle stÃ¥ til din tekst, blir heller ikke trykket. Den ene var for dÃ¥rlig, og den andre ble aldri levert. Slik er det noen ganger nÃ¥r man lager et tidsskrift uten penger til Ã¥ betale bidragsyterne vÃ¥re for arbeidet de skal gjÃ¸re.
Vi vurderte Ã¥ trykke din artikkel pÃ¥ egen hÃ¥nd, men flere i redaksjonen var motvillige til Ã¥ gjÃ¸re det pÃ¥ grunn av innholdet - og da sÃ¦rlig nÃ¥r din artikkel fikk stÃ¥ uimotsagt, uten det motsatte perspektivet. Jeg beklager at det ble slik.

All because Kuiper declined to publish my piece on the gender war, or more accurately because some feminists couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to write decent articles, I am at large today and free to pursue more activism. So it all works out for the best, even though I was somewhat disappointed at the time.

This article may or may not constitute criminal incitement if it were published in print media. The cops certainly believe it does, as they included it in the case documents in their attempt to prosecute me, and the lowest court (and only the lowest court) agreed with the cops and found probable cause sufficient for pretrial detention. But at any rate, as the Supreme Court has ruled, whether it would fit the criminal definition of incitement by Â§140 or not, everything I have written is legal for now as long as it is only published on the Internet. And thanks to Kuiper, I haven't published anything in print. The medium, rather than the content, makes all the difference and keeps me out of jail. So here is the link again for those interested in more than the satirical treatment of my views they may get on TV: "Mannskamp."

So what was it that was so terrible about what he wrote that they threw him in jail in the first place? I do not read Norwegien, so can anyone tell me?

#20853

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: ....
Beg to differ on that. For those of us who have been banned or have found the level of invective or hypocrisy intolerable on FTB I would say that the SlymePit qualifies as a very credible alternative. Where else could people voice opinions so critical of FTB if not here? Where else could discussions take place that lead to the collating of those cases of hypocrisy if not here? [Thanks to Abbie/Lsuoma]
There are probably hundred other places where you can post with this attitude, not just the Pyt (AtBC, The Friendly Atheist...etc). We don't have the monopole of rational discourse, thus we are not the alternative. An alternative, maybe.

Yes, Iâ€™ll concede the point. Although it was Rayshul who said that â€œThe â€˜pit is not an alternative and never has beenâ€. To which I responded with â€œBeg to differ â€¦ an alternative doesnâ€™t have to be of the same typeâ€.

But as far as Oolon is concerned, it was he who said â€œâ€¦ this place has been going for years promoting itself as the 'alternative' to the horrible hegemony of FtBsâ€ so heâ€™s wrong as far as â€œtheâ€ is concerned. And likewise with the â€œyearsâ€. Although I still think those are relatively minor points in comparison to his criticism of the CLSâ€™s claim that Jenâ€™s â€œnew idea wasnâ€™t well-receivedâ€ â€“ particularly considering the fact that the claim is relative to reception at time of launch, the bloom having largely disappeared off that rose since then.

#20854

AndrewV69 wrote:
So what was it that was so terrible about what he wrote that they threw him in jail in the first place? I do not read Norwegien, so can anyone tell me?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M6CSO1QDAAQ/T ... g_1982.jpg

Always read the Norwegian.

#20855

Dick Strawkins wrote:I just read that Paul Kurtz has died.
Although he went a bit nutty towards the end he did a lot of good for the skeptical community in his life.

You might be interested in this essay/obituary on Kurtz by Joseph Hoffmann, notably this passage:

Paul Kurtz was never really comfortable with the â€œnew atheistâ€ doctrines that began to appear in the early twenty-first century. While cordial to everyone, he deplored direct frontal assaults on religion as being out of keeping with the â€œhumanistâ€ side of his philosophy. Authentic humanism, he believed, must be radically secular.

Part of the reason, I think, why Hoffmann hasnâ€™t been particularly popular with people like PZ Myers and Richard Carrier, and to a much lesser extent, Jerry Coyne. Somewhat apropos you might be interested in Hoffmannâ€™s post on movement humanism. I think Hoffmann tends to be too much of a purist as far as movements are concerned â€“ both atheist and humanist â€“ but I also think he has some credible criticisms of both, particularly the former.

#20856

Mykeru wrote:
papillon wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote: .... Arrogance doesn't cover it.
That's right.
And when a big feminist girl meets a guy who happens to be particularly interested in lardy ladies, he'll be berated for not seeing past her body type and fetishising her.
Quick to get on the feminist gravy-train, not so quick to give up the gravy.
And, of course being grossly overweight, or looking like human skeleton, or looking healthy and maybe athletic has absolutely nothing at all with what's going on "inside".

Because all of that external stuff just happens.

Exactly. While there are, apparently, extenuating circumstances, it also seems apparent that â€œgrossly overweightâ€ qualifies as a serious deficiency of self-restraint, at the very least; a case of going â€œhog wildâ€ â€“ so to speak â€¦.

And while such deficiencies manifest themselves in other behaviour patterns â€“ various addictions to alcohol, drugs, sex, golf; you name it â€“ that that deficiency in moral character is deprecated in those cases provides some justification for doing likewise in the case of being overweight.

#20857

If anybody is interested here's that video by Zinnia Jones' partner Heather.
Trigger warnings for droning voice, feminist claptrap/arrogance, eyes like a monkeys arsehole.
[youtube]mlTZtnayx6M[/youtube]

#20858

And Zinnia Jones response video to Heather's detractors. Trigger warnings for butthurt and comment pwnage

[youtube]abNadiQVSrs[/youtube]

#20859

Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.

#20860

Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

#20861

Tony Parsehole wrote:If anybody is interested here's that video by Zinnia Jones' partner Heather.
Trigger warnings for droning voice, feminist claptrap/arrogance, eyes like a monkeys arsehole.
[youtube]mlTZtnayx6M[/youtube]

blah, blah, blah...I couldn't even make it to the 2 minute mark.

Guest · #20862

On the "fat-loving" stuff: I've always assumed that it was just self-loathing and shame disguised as its opposite. What they're asserting is that the body is an irrelevancy and that a transcendent "attractiveness" exists that a more superior person would be aware of, and further if a person is not aware of this transcendent "attractiveness" then that person is to blame for their spiritual (if you will) inadequacies. In other words - the body is evil and icky and possesses no validity as an object, and the superior person is the one who can transcend merely physical attractiveness or desire - which is of course the ideological heart and soul of Victorian sexual repression.

On some level I think begins in a true place. Every relationship I've ever been in I've been cognizant of some flaw in the other person that in a weird way heightened my affection for them. Very often conventional beauty repulses me - I assume that there's some emptiness somewhere behind it, or at least insufferable arrogance (and usually I'm right).

But on another level I think that what an individual who is morbidly obese and who chooses to embrace said obesity is doing when they coopt "self-affirming" language is effectively asserting (though they do not think so themselves), not the love of their own bodies - but their hatred of all bodies. And in that sense I think it's quite at home with a lot of the more superficial forms of feminism - the feminist who doesn't really understand the concepts at play here simply repackages the older, sexually-repressed Victorian cult of womanhood dressed up in new form, but carrying all of the same amounts of shame and self-loathing that the Victorians possessed.

Which is perhaps the same lesson to be learned from virtually all would-be revolutionaries that don't bother to think deeply about the things they say - generally they're merely reaffirming the very old and backward but dressing it up as new and revolutionary.

#20863

Tony Parsehole wrote:If anybody is interested here's that video by Zinnia Jones' partner Heather.
Trigger warnings for droning voice, feminist claptrap/arrogance, eyes like a monkeys arsehole.
[youtube]mlTZtnayx6M[/youtube]

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/i ... msfest.jpg

/Ticket to hell, punched.

#20864

Why is a fat woman like a moped?

They're both fun to ride until someone sees you.

#20865

Tigzy wrote:Why is a fat woman like a moped?

They're both fun to ride until someone sees you.

Q. What's the difference between a girlfriend and a wife?

A. About 50 lbs.

#20866

welch wrote:
My son asked me about this not long ago, because he saw a logic issue with "you should like people for their minds" namely "you can't fucking see a mind". What I told him:

Kiddo, here's the deal: yes, you should absolutely care as much about what's inside than out. But, as you point out, you can't see that. What you're stuck with, that makes you want to start talking to them is well, superficial. most of the time, you think they are physically attractive, and that motivates you to talk to them. if you're in earshot, you may be able to hear them talking at the same time, and so get more insight, but most of the time, what gets you to walk across the room is the outer shell. If that's not something you find interesting, you're not going to bother in most cases.

This isn't good or bad, it just is. There are as many things people find "attractive" as there are people, and your qualifications are going to be unique to you, even if they're similar to someone else's. The trick is, don't JUST be about the shell. There are a lot of awesome women out there you'll never have sex with, you may not even find them attractive that way. They're just as awesome regardless of their "stick it in" rating. But, when it comes down to it, if you're thinking of the sexin', well, there does have to some physical component for both sides. It's just how it works. There's no shame in only wanting to have sex with people you find sexually attractive, just don't be a dick about it.
The idea that letting physical attraction be a factor in your intimate relationships is a bad thing is astoundingly stupid.

Spot on. Someyimes it happens the other way too. You meet a lass and don't find her attractive one bit. Get to know her, realise she's cool and then start thinking she's hot. It happened to me before anyway.

Another awesome video BTW. Wooly has the flu and she still delivers epic pwnage. That lass has an acid tongue.
[youtube]7przyk1BJ7k[/youtube]

#20867

Uncle Fester! That's it!!!! I was thinking for ages who she reminded me of.

#20868

Tigzy wrote:Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.

Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.

#20869

justinvacula wrote:Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

I see the Prune asserts that she is not a public figure. That would be because of the blog she writes which is viewable to the public, the conferences where she speaks in front of assorted members of the public, and the book she co-wrote which can be bought and read by the public. I note that none of these things are by special invitiation only.

But perhaps she has a point - maybe she isn't a public figure. Her words are very much in the public domain, though. And if she be damn't by them, then too fuckin bad.

Typical behaviour - wants all the benefits of being able to sound off on the public stage, but with a special exemption from criticism by the public.

#20870

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.
Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.

Another odd thing about Zinnia Jones' way of speaking is this - earlier, I said that in that spliced Rebecca watson video, it didn't sound as if her voice has been spliced at all. Well, with Zinna, somehow the inverse seems to apply.

#20871

Time allowed 3 hrs.

Attempt all questions.

If you do not know the answer to a particular question attempt to look at someone else's paper by knocking your biro onto the floor and having a quick shufty while you lean over to retrieve it.

You are allowed one visit to the toilet to look at the answers you wrote on the wall yesterday.

After ten minutes, request more paper to frighten the other candidates into thinking that you must have worked your arse off.

Attempt to introduce the one or two facts you are reasonably sure of into the answers to every question.

At 4.30 exactly, everybody cough to make the invigilator jump.

With three minutes to go, suddenly realise there are 4 more questions on the back of the page that you haven't spotted.

Section A (50%)
1. Explain why the best women's football team in the world wouldn't stand a chance against you and ten of your mates. Include in your answer:
a) Why they are unable to kick a ball straight
b) What you wouldn't mind doing with them in the bath after the match, though.

2. Pamela Anderson's tits are plastic but look good in photographs. Compare and contrast the relative merits of plastic and real tits for recreational purposes.

3. It is a long established fact that fat lasses are more grateful for it. Outline some of the reasons why this is so, and explain why all feminists are fat, ugly lesbians.

4. Write a critique of any ONE of the following films you have watched at your mates house while his parents were away for the weekend. a) Sex Boat b) Three Into One Will Go c) King Dong d) Speared by Zulu Lovers

5. Women drivers, eh? Discuss.

Section B (50%)
1. Describe an experiment to impress a girl by lighting a fart. What apparatus would you require? What risks would you run in lighting a fart and what are the benefits? Write a balanced chemical equation to describe the reaction that takes place when an eggy fart is lit in a pub with a match.

2. Name something a woman has invented.

3. On average, women live 7 years longer than men yet get their pension 5 years earlier. Explain why this isn't fair, making reference to your lazy old granny who lived to be 100 and your poor granddad who worked 52 years down the pit and died the day before he retired.

4. Argue heatedly over the respective merits of the Lamborghini Diablo and the Ferrari Testarossa without ever having seen, let alone driven, either.

5. Discuss the philosophical implications of this statement; "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

#20872

justinvacula wrote: I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

To them it's victim blaming. Only to them.
They are attempting to conflate victim blaming with making people take responsibility for their actions. Just because you have a right to something does not make you immune to the consequences of your actions. Write your blogpost and fuck anybody who says you're victim blaming.

#20873

Tigzy wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Zinnia Jones' creepy robot voice gives me the chills.

I heard she was in earshot of Stephen Hawking at a conference once, and he thought the AI on his speech software had become self-aware.
Which Stephen thought pretty cool until the software started berating him for his male privilege.
Another odd thing about Zinnia Jones' way of speaking is this - earlier, I said that in that spliced Rebecca watson video, it didn't sound as if her voice has been spliced at all. Well, with Zinna, somehow the inverse seems to apply.

I may splice one of her videos and see if she sounds normal.
There is something deeply wrong with Zinnia's voice. It's empty. No love, no hate, no compassion, no humanity. Just.....The Nasal Void.

#20874

Lsuoma wrote:Time allowed 3 hrs.

Attempt all questions.

If you do not know the answer to a particular question attempt to look at someone else's paper by knocking your biro onto the floor and having a quick shufty while you lean over to retrieve it.

You are allowed one visit to the toilet to look at the answers you wrote on the wall yesterday.

After ten minutes, request more paper to frighten the other candidates into thinking that you must have worked your arse off.

Attempt to introduce the one or two facts you are reasonably sure of into the answers to every question.

At 4.30 exactly, everybody cough to make the invigilator jump.

With three minutes to go, suddenly realise there are 4 more questions on the back of the page that you haven't spotted.

Section A (50%)
1. Explain why the best women's football team in the world wouldn't stand a chance against you and ten of your mates. Include in your answer:
a) Why they are unable to kick a ball straight
b) What you wouldn't mind doing with them in the bath after the match, though.

2. Pamela Anderson's tits are plastic but look good in photographs. Compare and contrast the relative merits of plastic and real tits for recreational purposes.

3. It is a long established fact that fat lasses are more grateful for it. Outline some of the reasons why this is so, and explain why all feminists are fat, ugly lesbians.

4. Write a critique of any ONE of the following films you have watched at your mates house while his parents were away for the weekend. a) Sex Boat b) Three Into One Will Go c) King Dong d) Speared by Zulu Lovers

5. Women drivers, eh? Discuss.

Section B (50%)
1. Describe an experiment to impress a girl by lighting a fart. What apparatus would you require? What risks would you run in lighting a fart and what are the benefits? Write a balanced chemical equation to describe the reaction that takes place when an eggy fart is lit in a pub with a match.

2. Name something a woman has invented.

3. On average, women live 7 years longer than men yet get their pension 5 years earlier. Explain why this isn't fair, making reference to your lazy old granny who lived to be 100 and your poor granddad who worked 52 years down the pit and died the day before he retired.

4. Argue heatedly over the respective merits of the Lamborghini Diablo and the Ferrari Testarossa without ever having seen, let alone driven, either.

5. Discuss the philosophical implications of this statement; "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

Now where have I seen this before? Viz?

#20875

Guest wrote:On the "fat-loving" stuff: I've always assumed that it was just self-loathing and shame disguised as its opposite. What they're asserting is that the body is an irrelevancy and that a transcendent "attractiveness" exists that a more superior person would be aware of, and further if a person is not aware of this transcendent "attractiveness" then that person is to blame for their spiritual (if you will) inadequacies. In other words - the body is evil and icky and possesses no validity as an object, and the superior person is the one who can transcend merely physical attractiveness or desire - which is of course the ideological heart and soul of Victorian sexual repression.

Snip
.

It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows. Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

#20876

Lsuoma wrote: 2. Name something a woman has invented.

The partiarchy.

#20877

I reckon that if you ran Zinnia Jones' voice backwards, you'd get reasonable and interesting messages.

Oh, some nice pwnage on the Prune's post mentioned above:

Eshto says:
October 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Great, now apply this reasoning to Stephanie Zvanâ€™s ridiculous and over-the-top petition against Justin Vacula. And all the other public smears that have graced the pages of FTB and Skepchick.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-317547

Oh, and another little tattletroll from Oolon spotted in the wild there, too.

I'm actually thinking of making some Top Trumps from Oolon's missives: each message could have a score based on:

Vacuity
Lies
Troll factor
Racism
Homophobia

So that one - let's see...

Vacuity: 90/100 (cos it's a pointless post, as ever)
Lies: 95/100 (we're, uh, stalkers, appreantly)
Troll Factor: 100/100 (will it be anything but?)
Racism: 0/100 (makes a nice change)
Homophobia: 5/100 (the 'meatspace stalker' thing suggests latent homphobia)

I also reckon there should be a score for 'sucking Myers' gross derrier in the hope being let back into the treehouse'.

#20878

justinvacula wrote:Ophelia Benson authors blog post concerning a Facebook status of mine which linked my post disceting Stephanie Zvan's cyberstalking post and was a kind of response to Ophelia's recent post concerning trolling -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... the-world/

She totally misses the point and doesn't seem to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...

I hope to author a blog post touching on conflation of criticism with abuse and responsibility and the internet (if you can't take the heat, don't engage in drama or cause conflict - but, you know, advocating for reasonable responsible action is 'victim blaming').

They ban people who disagree on their blog, and so when someone writes a criticism on their own blog then they need another way of silencing them. A good way of doing that is to accuse them of stalking.

Seriously - I want people to read and disagree with my blog. If I have a 'stalker' (in other words, someone who reads my blog and writes about it - even if they disagree) then I'm delighted.

This 'stalking' tends to be in response to posts that do have a public effect - accusing TAM of not being 'safe', attacking Harriet Hall for saying she's not a 'Skepchick', finding status updates on private Facebook pages and unethically publicising them...

I notice that those examples are all examples of defence. Someone is being attacked - someone writes a post defending them and then the latter is accused of 'stalking'.

Guest · #20879

peterb wrote:
It seems to me that underlying the feminist approach here is some kind of assumption that the body and mind are separate. Modern neuroscience appears to be moving towards the viewpoint that no such separation exists. We don't *have* a body; we *are* a body. I wonder how the feminist viewpoint will shift as this idea grows. Personally, I find little use for the question (in any context): "do you like me for my body or my mind?"

I don't know how clearly enunciated the division is in the minds of the people who advocate it (not very, I assume), but the underlying thought seems to assume the very old prejudice toward a mind-body duality that would be, I think, the least revolutionary assumption one could make. Then again, to me it just seems like the old prejudice, divorced entirely from the old context which gave it meaning (religious/spiritual beliefs relating to the evil of the body, the goodness of a transcendent soul), and simply being coopted to affirm whatever you want it to affirm at the moment. In this instance my right to eat junk food, neglect my health and remain physically attractive to my partner regardless.

The other explanation is that they've just made selfishness and personal neglect into a virtue by inappropriately coopting discourse related to eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and other serious health issues, and tacked them onto a context where they are completely inappropriate. Quelle suprise - par for the course for Internet Social Justice warriors it would seem.

#20880

quote="Phil_Giordana_FCD"]

Dave wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?
Whether deserved or not, outside of Texas, Austin has a reputation amoung some as a liberal holdout in the middle of the ignorant, republican-voting, wimmen-hating, immigrant-shooting, science-denying rest of Texas. A little blue dot in the middle of a red sea as it were. I would think thats what PeeZus was referring to.

They do have the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, which redeems them a bit.[/quote]

Bzzzzttt. The Johnson Space Center is in Houston, not Austin.

Consider the current mayors of three of the largest Texas cities. All are Democrats, so we can't distinguish them on the basis of political party affiliation.

San Antonio mayor - son of a Chicano political activist, gave a keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

Houston mayor - lesbian who has been with her domestic partner for 20+ years and has several adopted children

Austin mayor - ex-military, former Delta Fucking Airlines* pilot

Remind me which city is a little liberal blue dot in a sea of red again?

* Source of my recent FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS!!111!!!