Periodic Table of Swearing
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Ok, I really hate sundays! Can't you people not get a life and post on here instead?
Or at least go sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/secular ... of-the-sca
Or at least go sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/secular ... of-the-sca
-
- .
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
- Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
- Contact:
Re: Mars vs Venus
You're making the classic mistake of confusing the now popularized "bonobo handshake" with reproductive sex. All of this "sex" that bonobos have become popular for is not only just done when some sort of tension easing is needed, (it's not some constant orgy) but it is also not done until ejaculation.Trophy wrote:I call total and absolute bullshit on it. Reproductive strategies are way too complex to be summarized in one or two sentences. First of all, the asymmetry in pregnancy costs exists in pretty much all mammals, namely in bonobos and don't tell me bonobos have "reluctance to mate". The high death rate at childbirth also exist in spotted hyenas where females dominate males all the time and where submissive males have a much higher rate of getting laid. So no, what you say does not compute.Michael K Gray wrote:One vital issue in male/female interactions (that should be obvious) is that of the vastly differential cost of pregnancy for males and females....
Females pay dearly for pregnancy, males nary a jot.
It must be instinct in females, 'born' over eons of dying in childbirth, that they intrsinsically couple coitus with a good potential of having it kill them after 9 months. Scary stuff, even if only subliminally.
And that is only the start of the fretfulness: 8/12/18 years of having to feed the bastard, knowing that one might well be knocked-up by a passing cavemen to make yet another grave threat.
Yet males don't have to give a tinker's cuss about such worries.
For females who suspect that they may be fertile, this is the ultimate source of female infantilisation, of reluctance to mate, demands for special treatment & cetera.
It is, I think, the "Elephant in the Room", as far as these feminista discussions go.
They have all ignored this ultra-basic, concrete, scientific fact.
Discuss.
No more than 500 words, double-spaced, due by 5pm Tuesday.
Poke submissions into the pigeon-hole of Ass Prof Myers.
The way that I would summarize why differing sexual strategies, to include mate choice, between the males and females of any specific species exist, is this: Parental Investment.
-
- .
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
- Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
- Contact:
Re: Mars vs Venus
I made some corrections to make one of those sentences easier to read. So, uh, read my above quote instead.JackRayner wrote:You're making the classic mistake of confusing the now popularized "bonobo handshake" with reproductive sex. All of this "sex" that bonobos have become popular for is just done when some sort of tension easing is needed, (it's not some constant orgy) and it is not done until ejaculation.Trophy wrote:
I call total and absolute bullshit on it. Reproductive strategies are way too complex to be summarized in one or two sentences. First of all, the asymmetry in pregnancy costs exists in pretty much all mammals, namely in bonobos and don't tell me bonobos have "reluctance to mate". The high death rate at childbirth also exist in spotted hyenas where females dominate males all the time and where submissive males have a much higher rate of getting laid. So no, what you say does not compute.
The way that I would summarize why differing sexual strategies, to include mate choice, between the males and females of any specific species exist, is this: Parental Investment.
-
- .
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
- Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Her concern and her admonition is petty. Before even reaching any level of "hypocrisy", let's look at [this interpretation of] her "point" and see if it's got anything worth "respecting";Trophy wrote:The point could be "too many people only appreciate women for their looks so let's be very careful when we post things online". You might not agree with it but it's another point of view and as I said, I would respect that point of view as long as it is maintained consistently.JackRayner wrote:What point? That because "too many people" only appreciate women for their looks making any joke about it is an issue? All that amounts to is "I didn't like the joke". That's actually a pretty uncompelling "point". Or maybe I'm missing something? :think:
I don't care. And I won't presume to have the right to tell others what they're allowed and not allowed to appreciate others for, be they men or women. That's their business, and what I appreciate women for and would prefer to be personally appreciated for is mine."too many people only appreciate women for their looks..."
And to her I would say no. It's absurd asking others to adjust their behavior—which, if I were the one that made the joke, I would argue was as harmless as a gentle breeze—simply because Person A believes that it communicates attitudes that they disagrees with. I'm not waiting to take the next elevator just because someone thinks a rapist would do the opposite, just as I'm not going to abstain from commenting—jokingly or not—on women's looks just because some people believe women's only worth is their looks. I have no control over the rest of the world, and in fact, the people that hold these attitudes (Can she read minds, anyhow?) are the ones she should take it up with if she cares that much."...so let's be very careful when we post things online."
So, in my opinion, which I feel is well reason, the "point", even before reaching any level of hypocrisy, has little worth respecting. It's just pointless whining. A weak attempt at manipulation, which I think would show negatively on the blogger over at Pantheos if he fell for it...
-
- .
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Justin
Ha...I signed the pro-Justin petition, but used the same email that I used to sign the anti-Justin petition, so it automatically changed "mordacious1" to "Ima Prune" (which made sense on the 1st petition, but not on the second). Oh well.
-
- .
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
WineGate
It goes to credibility, your honor.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'll cut Watson some slack on this plane&winegate. Not really relevant at the moment, I think.
I'm more concerned about the attacks on Justin, and wonder if there would be some ground for legal action. Looks like pure libel to me.
[objection overruled]
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Excellent! I like this: 'FfTB synchronised individuality'Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Franc's latest:
http://greylining.com/2012/10/01/stefan ... is-broken/
Quite brilliant and hilarious, as always, when Franc is in blog mode.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I don't see PZ being confronted on anything he says because I don't see PZ interacting with people who are likely to challenge him on this stuff. He seems to be insulating himself away from critics (say a polite word of objection to his behavior on twitter or anywhere else and you'll be banned/blocked with nothing more than a condescending wave of the hand). Disabling comments on his youtube is just another indication that he's not listening to a word that's being said, and equates every reasonable objection made as "vile hate speech" that's unworthy of being addressed. I would love for someone to tape a one on one with him, where he can't hide behind the banhammer pulpit (in person, he sounds like a very soft-spoken and tame man), but I can't imagine him daring to step outside of the 'safe zone' he's made for himself.Reap wrote:I'm just sitting around thinking about some of the comments that have been made about people on a personal level. For example say......PZ Myers doing what can only be described as 'shit talking' on his blog. I wonder if PZ has ever considered the fact that some people do not, take kindly, to such behavior. That leads me to wonder if PZ is ready to defend such remarks when face to face with someone who has an issue. When you talk shit about someone and then need to back it up while looking into their eyes it is much different than just pecking on some buttons and giggling to yourself. I mean how long does he think he can go slandering and not be confronted about it? I know whenever I write a blog or do a podcast I always keep in mind never to say anything I wouldn't be willing to say to a person's face in rl. Maybe PZ does the same. I guess time will tell.
As I see it, for the last few years PZ has made a name for himself as someone who doesn't skip on the insults when it comes to people he disagrees with. This indifference to people's hurt feeling made him popular amongst online atheists (where being harsh with people for the lulz is always an attribute), and its also the mode of discourse that he promoted on his blog (Watson was the same way). None of this I could care less about (PZ and anyone else is welcome to talk to people however the hell they see fit, and I can respond in kind if I so choose), the problem is that after creating an environment where 'shit talking' is the norm, he's suddenly demanding sensitivity from these same atheists on issues that he is emotionally invested in (like his political leanings). Worse still, he (and the FTB regulars) are demanding for a group of people who identify as skeptics to not be skeptical just because it doesn't serve some greater good that they have decided to promote. This of course has caused a lot of push back that he didn't expect from people he thought were his 'loyalists' (as someone already said, take a look at the number of comments pharyngula gets now compared to 2/3 years ago. The majority of past contributors have left, leaving him with a fraction of his former following).
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Jt is at it again, second lunge at Vacula and SCA
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... er-edwina/
Funny how SCA had Vacula speak at their 2012 conference obviously approving him as speaker. The SSA opinion is different than jt who used to work for them. Interesting.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... er-edwina/
Funny how SCA had Vacula speak at their 2012 conference obviously approving him as speaker. The SSA opinion is different than jt who used to work for them. Interesting.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I don't see PZ being confronted on anything he says because I don't see PZ interacting with people who are likely to challenge him on this stuff.
I would love for someone to tape a one on one with him, where he can't hide behind the banhammer pulpit (in person, he sounds like a very soft-spoken and tame man), but I can't imagine him daring to step outside of the 'safe zone' he's made for himself.
As I see it, for the last few years PZ has made a name for himself as someone who doesn't skip on the insults when it comes to people he disagrees with. This indifference to people's hurt feeling made him popular amongst online atheists (where being harsh with people for the lulz is always an attribute), and its also the mode of discourse that he promoted on his blog (Watson was the same way). None of this I could care less about (PZ and anyone else is welcome to talk to people however the hell they see fit, and I can respond in kind if I so choose), the problem is that after creating an environment where 'shit talking' is the norm, he's suddenly demanding sensitivity from these same atheists on issues that he is emotionally invested in (like his political leanings).
I agree with you on most points except the "safe zone" I've spoken to him numerous times, had him guest on my podcast. I even sat and drank a beer with him. There has never been a problem engaging him. I never had any problem with him during those interactions but I do have a problem with him now as do numerous others. It will be interesting to hear what he says when he is asked to clarify some of his statements. I know for a fact there are some people who aim to do exactly that . It will be even more interesting when a group of people he has been running off at the mouth about show him the same respect he has shown them while he is speaking. I'm not saying that is what should happen I am saying that is going to happen because atheists are not like creationists who can be put down just by yelling "stupid" at them over and over. When I get yelled at I yell back louder. He does seem to have taken his popularity and drove it into the ground. It's a shame because I think his blog was interesting and fun to read at one time, now it's a waste of time mostly....oh the tangled web an ego can weave, and then light on fire, crash, and burn in a raging inferno leaving no survivors.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
** oolon, slimy turd as my login is not working for some reason - email recover ain't doing it either atm - probably yahoo problem.Steersman wrote:I assume you mean JV? Though I’ll agree to the extent that I think he’s very wide of the mark with this comment over there:CommanderTuvok wrote:He's still wrong about JC. I couldn't care less if he gives the Pit the benefit of the doubt.Steersman wrote:I figure Oolong, among a few others apparently, at least tries to give the SlymePit the benefit of the doubt and is not as quick as many others to tar us all with the same brush ....
That there might be more than a few “nuts who hang out there†is hardly justification for arguing that Justin’s post was in any way reflective or consistent with the comments from them. Rather sloppy thinking on oolon’s part methinks ....As for the petition, well I have reservations painting the slimepitters as all unremittingly awful but I wouldn’t want Vacula as a leader of any group I was involved in. His writing for a voice for men alone would rule that out. How could he read the comments from his ‘readers’ on that post and not retch? I don’t doubt some of the extreme hate for people like Amy come from the nuts that hang out there. So for encouraging that I voted him down one…
Steersman got me there I didn't put a lot of thought into it... Gut feelings of dislike towards people can do that to you.
However I know where it emanated from, I think the 'Vacuous Shitbag Troll' thread was the one where I decided I didn't like him and nothing that has occurred since has changed that impression.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-229775
... Just yuk! I know I say stupid things in comments but for determining leadership qualities well, bleurgh. That is the badly thought out gut dislike part but even cold rational analysis and it is a pretty crappy sentiment.
You are a leader of a movement, you need to represent all the members of that movement. Justin's comment here shows that he will minimise and put down peoples experience of harassment unless they meet *his* definition of a *real* incident. You lot may see it as a trolling attempt like PZ, but I personally see it as a vacuous shitbag comment but not trolling. I mean what is up with someone who says that while also adding that they consider themselves a 'leader' who can shelter the poor little diddums from her nasty harassers.
" ...please contact me and I’ll honestly be one of those people in leadership positions to do something. Seriously."
That just screams shitbag to me I'm afraid, and I can just see his face in the pic he uses here with that condescending grin... Oops back to irrational dislike again! I'm pretty certain all this was well before he posted on here. I wouldn't take that as any influencing factor on me not liking him.. Although what he posts here obviously is and posting someone's address on here that he was involved in an online feud with was, as Tuvok said, a mistake.
I'm sure a lot here can sympathise with me not wanting someone representing 'the movement' that I personally have a strong dislike of and consider to be somewhat less than the perfect atheist-sceptic?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
At least one commenter so far made a reasonable response, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... ment-25918Baron wrote:Jt is at it again, second lunge at Vacula and SCA
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... er-edwina/
Funny how SCA had Vacula speak at their 2012 conference obviously approving him as speaker. The SSA opinion is different than jt who used to work for them. Interesting.
Mike LaFontaine wrote:Well, I’d respectfully submit that you have missed her point:
<blockquote.We are willing to work with as many affiliated and allied groups and individuals as possible. We are seeking volunteers in the states and are thankful to those that are willing to assist.
Like him or not, Justin has been on the front lines of the war against religious hegemony in a way that most skeptic bloggers have not. It is one thing for people to sit in the comfort of their home and blog their outrage. It is another thing altogether to act in the public square. Speaking for myself, I’d rather associate with imperfect, but action oriented, people rather than those pure of heart individuals who can’t seem to leave arms length of their keyboards.
Re: Mars vs Venus
I think she has?Michael K Gray wrote:One vital issue in male/female interactions (that should be obvious) is that of the vastly differential cost of pregnancy for males and females.
I have waited and waited for the usually perspicacious Girl-Writes-What to slam this observation down on the table as an a priori given.
But she hasn't yet.
[youtube]KBgcjtE0xrE[/youtube]
It seems to deal with almost exactly the things you bring up, or did I completely misunderstand you?
Re: Mars vs Venus
I think she has? [/quote]acathode wrote: But she hasn't yet.
cheers, I was just about to go look for that video to post here.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
oolon,Guest wrote:** oolon, slimy turd as my login is not working for some reason - email recover ain't doing it either atm - probably yahoo problem.Steersman wrote:...
That there might be more than a few “nuts who hang out there†is hardly justification for arguing that Justin’s post was in any way reflective or consistent with the comments from them. Rather sloppy thinking on oolon’s part methinks ....
Yes, quite agree; somewhat similar to what apoplexy did to Rebecca Watson as indicated by her “My rage blinded me ...†tweet during Galileo-Gate and as reflected in her Twitter photo from that time onwards.Steersman got me there I didn't put a lot of thought into it... Gut feelings of dislike towards people can do that to you.
Well, I sort of see his analysis of Amy’s demand for censorship based on her feelings and Ophelia’s “misjudgement†of the seriousness of that “threat†as being more or less spot-on. Or maybe you think, in the former case, that satire is a tool or a weapon that only one segment of the atheist community is entitled to use? Or, in the latter case as Justin suggested, that simply saying “We don’t like internet trolling and condemn it?†is going to be any more effective than King Canute commanding the tides not to come in? Acknowledging the existence of a problem is something entirely different from coming up with a workable solution. And grabbing one out of a hat, particularly when one is motivated more by emotions than reason, tends to be counterproductive.Justin's comment here shows that he will minimise and put down peoples experience of harassment unless they meet *his* definition of a *real* incident.
Although I’ll agree that his comment about “those people in leadership positions†may have been somewhat pretentious or arrogant. However as I don’t know what he might have been able to do in such cases that is a somewhat tentative judgement. But it seems to me, in passing, that the only really effective way of dealing with that type of problem is to ensure or demand that everyone use their own names or real IP addresses – a non-trivial technical problem, if I’m not mistaken.
Are you saying that you’re a member of the SCA? In addition, one might suggest that if you’re waiting around for a “perfect†representative, you might be waiting for a lot longer to find one .... accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative as my sainted grandmother used to say ....I'm sure a lot here can sympathise with me not wanting someone representing 'the movement' that I personally have a strong dislike of and consider to be somewhat less than the perfect atheist-sceptic?
And to digress slightly for a moment, you might actually ask Zvan and Jason Thibeault for the evidence for their claims on which Zvan bases her petition, in particular that Justin was insisting that Jason was making homophobic remarks about D.J. Grothe as I certainly haven’t been able to find any such. Here’s a copy in this thread of my post on the topic on Zvan’s site since she still has me in moderation – not something that reflects terribly well on her or on FTB, but maybe you think otherwise ....
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Benson is now saying that Watson accused Justin V of (who knows what) "activities" in the q & a section after a speech in Florida.
Yet another abuse of her speaking position, using the time instead to try and demonize people in our community undeservedly.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ote]During the q&a Rebecca described Vacula’s activities for the audience, and she reports that there was an audible gasp and then things got very quiet.[/quote]
Yet another abuse of her speaking position, using the time instead to try and demonize people in our community undeservedly.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ote]During the q&a Rebecca described Vacula’s activities for the audience, and she reports that there was an audible gasp and then things got very quiet.[/quote]
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Watson: "justin vacula eats babies"
Audience: gasp.
Twatson the professional bullshitter spouts shit and lies, its pretty much her whole cv. What else did she talk about? The latest book she read, and how she already had all the ideas in it, but never published them.
Audience: gasp.
Twatson the professional bullshitter spouts shit and lies, its pretty much her whole cv. What else did she talk about? The latest book she read, and how she already had all the ideas in it, but never published them.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Yes, I certainly think there is more than a little justification for that argument. And they frequently need a gang to back them up. But fascinating if obscure psychology, I think anyway, wrapped up in that process though. And part of it seems to be a process of demonizing “The Other†for which categorical statements – “four legs good; two legs bad†– are ideally suited. Reminds me of PZ’s recent condemnation of, apparently, all MRAs and for which WBB took him to task. And similarly with Rebecca Watson’s older comment:cunt wrote:All bullies are cowards in their hearts.
No, not quite Rebecca. Sometimes some people call others – men and women – cunts or pricks simply because they are being obnoxious, because, for example, their self-aggrandizement, their anti-sociability, is getting the better of them ....And similarly, they can continue to call me a cunt. After all, they derive so much joy from it, and to me it only makes things clearer. “Cunt†is what misogynists call outspoken women with contrary opinions, in an attempt to silence them.
And that type of behaviour – of wrapping oneself in the flag or some other group totem such as some common salient physical attribute – also seems rather indicative of bullies ....
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
[/quote]Scented Nectar wrote:Benson is now saying that Watson accused Justin V of (who knows what) "activities" in the q & a section after a speech in Florida.
Yet another abuse of her speaking position, using the time instead to try and demonize people in our community undeservedly.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ote]During the q&a Rebecca described Vacula’s activities for the audience, and she reports that there was an audible gasp and then things got very quiet.
I noticed that Laden is there with the first comment.
He obviously senses an opportunity to slither his way back into the FTB fold (and, most importantly, income stream.)
Obviously Ophelia hasn't spotted his comment yet as it is still there at the top of the comments.
We all know that, given her commitment to ending online harassment and threats of violence that there is simply no way on Earth that she could let a comment by the trailer park thug stand because that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy.
Indeed it would indicate to the world that Ophelia doesn't, in fact, give a damn about ending harassment. That she would be prepared to give voice to a known violent freak like Laden while criticizing others , well...
That couldn't be the case, could it?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I'd be really curious to know what type of person travels to these conferences and is still unable to spot blatant appeals to emotion and guilt by association fallacies.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I noticed that Laden is there with the first comment.Dick Strawkins wrote:Scented Nectar wrote:Benson is now saying that Watson accused Justin V of (who knows what) "activities" in the q & a section after a speech in Florida.
Yet another abuse of her speaking position, using the time instead to try and demonize people in our community undeservedly.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ote]During the q&a Rebecca described Vacula’s activities for the audience, and she reports that there was an audible gasp and then things got very quiet.
He obviously senses an opportunity to slither his way back into the FTB fold (and, most importantly, income stream.)
Obviously Ophelia hasn't spotted his comment yet as it is still there at the top of the comments.
We all know that, given her commitment to ending online harassment and threats of violence that there is simply no way on Earth that she could let a comment by the trailer park thug stand because that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy.
Indeed it would indicate to the world that Ophelia doesn't, in fact, give a damn about ending harassment. That she would be prepared to give voice to a known violent freak like Laden while criticizing others , well...
That couldn't be the case, could it?[/quote]
Laden smells the well being poisoned. He lives for that sort of thing. And horrid though he is, Ohfillya will welcome him because he has the same proclaimed 'enemies' as she does. Her thinking does not go too deep.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Silent ones. Maybe they find themselves at a conference that is infested with femtheists, and they don't want to be bullied or publicly piled on. They shut up and/or leave early, I suspect.cunt wrote:I'd be really curious to know what type of person travels to these conferences and is still unable to spot blatant appeals to emotion and guilt by association fallacies.
How did the Florida conference allow themselves to be talked into bringing in so many of them? Did they actually ask the self-promoting-for-speaker-roles Secular Woman? SW offers speaker recommendations to conference organizers. Hmmm, very intere$$$ting.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
She has nothing if one subtracts all the claims of sexism. Nothing at all.Za-zen wrote:Watson: "justin vacula eats babies"
Audience: gasp.
Twatson the professional bullshitter spouts shit and lies, its pretty much her whole cv. What else did she talk about? The latest book she read, and how she already had all the ideas in it, but never published them.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Well documented phenomenon with groups. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be too much stuff (that I can access) about whether or not a bully type, or just a dominant personality within the group is necessary for the demonisation process to occur. I'm guessing that just being in that type of group naturally spurs people to take on the role.And they frequently need a gang to back them up. But fascinating if obscure psychology, I think anyway, wrapped up in that process though. And part of it seems to be a process of demonizing “The Other†for which categorical statements – “four legs good; two legs bad†– are ideally suited. Reminds me of PZ’s recent condemnation of, apparently, all MRAs and for which WBB took him to task. And similarly with Rebecca Watson’s older comment:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Quoth Laden:
What did Watson, Myers et al. actually accomplish at the Florida meeting this weekend? What about this A+ social justice activism grass roots movement?
Methinks a lot of drinking and eating and pearl-clutching went on, but precious little activism.
So sayeth the bully-master of violent internet threats, hitting and punching and pushing.This is all why the SCA has to be hit very very hard on this. This can not stand.
What did Watson, Myers et al. actually accomplish at the Florida meeting this weekend? What about this A+ social justice activism grass roots movement?
Methinks a lot of drinking and eating and pearl-clutching went on, but precious little activism.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
***Anonymous OOLON ***
No idea about the homophobic stuff, I think I have outlined my reasoning such as it is. Even if I don't agree with everything in the petition but do agree with its aims that is enough for me.
I probably disagree with many on here about the impact of hateful trolling and how it should be dealt with. "Threat" is the term they use for only a part of the issue, hate and haters are the main problem. How a person who is subject to a barrage of hate and ridicule on the internet (Regardless of how justified you think it is) feels towards an anonymous declaration of hoping they burn in a fire or get raped and die or whatever is up to them. Personally I don't think it takes much empathy to side with the target in that case regardless of how you feel about them. Whether they choose to blog about it to highlight what is clearly an issue is up to them.Steersman wrote: Well, I sort of see his analysis of Amy’s demand for censorship based on her feelings and Ophelia’s “misjudgement†of the seriousness of that “threat†as being more or less spot-on. Or maybe you think, in the former case, that satire is a tool or a weapon that only one segment of the atheist community is entitled to use? Or, in the latter case as Justin suggested, that simply saying “We don’t like internet trolling and condemn it?†is going to be any more effective than King Canute commanding the tides not to come in? Acknowledging the existence of a problem is something entirely different from coming up with a workable solution. And grabbing one out of a hat, particularly when one is motivated more by emotions than reason, tends to be counterproductive.
I have had a lot of people say that FtBs and Atheism+ are dangerous because people will see them as representing 'the atheist movement' whatever that is. Seems pretty unlikely to me but Justin Vacula will be representing an actual atheist movement so it is at least as relevant to express my dislike of him being in that position. I'm not getting obsessive about it, just posting a few comments :-) I haven't even managed to whip up any hate for him, just a bit of dislike. Maybe slimepitters could 'accentuate the positive' about Rebecca Watson a bit more? What are her most endearing qualities would you say...?Steersman wrote: Although I’ll agree that his comment about “those people in leadership positions†may have been somewhat pretentious or arrogant. However as I don’t know what he might have been able to do in such cases that is a somewhat tentative judgement. But it seems to me, in passing, that the only really effective way of dealing with that type of problem is to ensure or demand that everyone use their own names or real IP addresses – a non-trivial technical problem, if I’m not mistaken.Are you saying that you’re a member of the SCA? In addition, one might suggest that if you’re waiting around for a “perfect†representative, you might be waiting for a lot longer to find one .... accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative as my sainted grandmother used to say ....I'm sure a lot here can sympathise with me not wanting someone representing 'the movement' that I personally have a strong dislike of and consider to be somewhat less than the perfect atheist-sceptic?
And to digress slightly for a moment, you might actually ask Zvan and Jason Thibeault for the evidence for their claims on which Zvan bases her petition, in particular that Justin was insisting that Jason was making homophobic remarks about D.J. Grothe as I certainly haven’t been able to find any such. Here’s a copy in this thread of my post on the topic on Zvan’s site since she still has me in moderation – not something that reflects terribly well on her or on FTB, but maybe you think otherwise ....
No idea about the homophobic stuff, I think I have outlined my reasoning such as it is. Even if I don't agree with everything in the petition but do agree with its aims that is enough for me.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Not to say a “frocked†one? :-)rayshul wrote:Fucking stupid shit. Particularly after the Nude Revolutionary Calendar, which was actually pretty fucking amazing and I thought it made quite an important point.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Is Hemant really that naïve?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... calendars/
Although for my money the best calendar is a clothed one.
http://calendarioromano.org/
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Right now, her location - nowhere near me...oolon** wrote:Maybe slimepitters could 'accentuate the positive' about Rebecca Watson a bit more? What are her most endearing qualities would you say...?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
What has twatson actually ever done that you could claim warrants praise?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
You know something, i'd have a lot more sympathy for this argument if it weren't for the existence of Pharyngula. There is a place, the "anchor-store of the FTB mall" as PZ puts it, that actively encourages hatred and animosity as a matter of routine. A primary reason for it's continued limping existence. You don't get to encourage people to post day-in and day-out about how people should stick sharp things up their arseholes and die painfully in fires only to turn around and declare that it's really unacceptable when somebody does the same thing to you or your friends. No. Fuck that shit. Fuck you.oolon** wrote:***Anonymous OOLON ***
I probably disagree with many on here about the impact of hateful trolling and how it should be dealt with. "Threat" is the term they use for only a part of the issue, hate and haters are the main problem. How a person who is subject to a barrage of hate and ridicule on the internet (Regardless of how justified you think it is) feels towards an anonymous declaration of hoping they burn in a fire or get raped and die or whatever is up to them. Personally I don't think it takes much empathy to side with the target in that case regardless of how you feel about them. Whether they choose to blog about it to highlight what is clearly an issue is up to them.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
What I am curious about is what, exactly, are these, what must be truly horrific, crimes that Vacula has committed to have engendered so much hostility?
I mean, seriously, what did he do? Rape a teenage virgin or something? I mean with the level of vitriol that the Usual Suspects are vomitting forth, you would think his crime must be at least that bad. I cannot even determine what it is that they seem to be so deeply convinced he did that was so bad. I will admit to not looking very closely, but so far as I can tell, their claims amount to "Justin did bad things; we do not like him; he must be shunned, shamed, and repeatedly Shibolethed". And not much at all in the way of pointing to anything he actually did ... oh, other than apparently writing something on a site that has been defined as a hate site; I note that no one has said Vacual actually supports the hate site, just that he "wrote something"; something that has not been defined or described, so far as I can tell.
As per usual, I do not get it.
Oh, and Jason (Fartytowels) Toiletbowl is ranting yet again about how truly eeevil we are, and yet again, as the master of Doublethink and Newspeak, he is lecturing his sycophants on how the lack of actual modetration here is in fact hidden moderation and censorship magically rolled up into one grand echo chamber; He also rants on about how eeevil we are for carrying on vile witch hunts of the underplivileged.
The toad is fucking delusional.
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ing-fires/
I mean, seriously, what did he do? Rape a teenage virgin or something? I mean with the level of vitriol that the Usual Suspects are vomitting forth, you would think his crime must be at least that bad. I cannot even determine what it is that they seem to be so deeply convinced he did that was so bad. I will admit to not looking very closely, but so far as I can tell, their claims amount to "Justin did bad things; we do not like him; he must be shunned, shamed, and repeatedly Shibolethed". And not much at all in the way of pointing to anything he actually did ... oh, other than apparently writing something on a site that has been defined as a hate site; I note that no one has said Vacual actually supports the hate site, just that he "wrote something"; something that has not been defined or described, so far as I can tell.
As per usual, I do not get it.
Oh, and Jason (Fartytowels) Toiletbowl is ranting yet again about how truly eeevil we are, and yet again, as the master of Doublethink and Newspeak, he is lecturing his sycophants on how the lack of actual modetration here is in fact hidden moderation and censorship magically rolled up into one grand echo chamber; He also rants on about how eeevil we are for carrying on vile witch hunts of the underplivileged.
The toad is fucking delusional.
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ing-fires/
Re: vandalising posters
I have said it before that I am not a fan of Mona (to put it mildly). A lot of the time she makes the right progressive noises but if you like her all I am going to suggest that you are going to be pretty disapointed one day.JackRayner wrote:Saw that a few nights ago. By the actions of people like this, you'd figure plenty is justified if you feel strongly enough about it...astrokid.nj wrote:Vandalism is ok as long as you have "progressive politics" on your side. Its "freedom of expression". Mona says so.
[youtube]
Not much difference, when compared to religion. At least a lot theists have the fear of eternal hell fire for not complying with their dogma. In my opinion, non-religious ideologues like this, who adhere to their dogma fervently, to the point of unlawful, morally reprehensible behavior, are even worse. It's why I've become almost completely disinterested in theists since I jumped into this ordeal (the endless drama factories that are Skepchick, FftB, and so on) earlier this year. There's just something wildly interesting about seeing self-proclaimed skeptics and champions of reason fail so fucking hard!
Saying that I'm just here for the LOLs wouldn't really cover it all...
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Bit of a sticky wicket that, I think. Curious that PZ and Benson (recently), for examples, seem to think that a no-holds barred policy is acceptable when dealing with the religious but kid-gloves has to be de rigueur when talking about FTB & Skepchick. Although, to be sure, I think that gratuitous profanity [has to be paid for upfront in my opinion] is generally beyond the pale.oolon** wrote:***Anonymous OOLON ***How a person who is subject to a barrage of hate and ridicule on the internet ...Steersman wrote: Well, I sort of see his analysis of Amy’s demand for censorship based on her feelings and Ophelia’s “misjudgement†of the seriousness of that “threat†as being more or less spot-on. Or maybe you think, in the former case, that satire is a tool or a weapon that only one segment of the atheist community is entitled to use? Or, in the latter case as Justin suggested, that simply saying “We don’t like internet trolling and condemn it?†is going to be any more effective than King Canute commanding the tides not to come in? Acknowledging the existence of a problem is something entirely different from coming up with a workable solution. And grabbing one out of a hat, particularly when one is motivated more by emotions than reason, tends to be counterproductive.
I figure I’ve done my bit, as have a few others here, to see that she isn’t unfairly “crucified†[To criticize harshly; pillory] with some limited success. Although her recent shenanigans with the “expensive French wine†and those some time ago while possessing moderator privileges on the JREF forum [franc posted a revealing screen shot not too long ago] doesn’t say a lot about her basic integrity. But I have to admit to feeling some sympathy for her over the amount of sexual harassment she’s apparently received. And maybe she’s had the unenviable position of being the lightning rod, inadvertently or by design, for a bunch of sexism that illuminates the scope of the problem – even if it happens to extend into her own camp.Maybe slimepitters could 'accentuate the positive' about Rebecca Watson a bit more? What are her most endearing qualities would you say...?
But, speaking of “empathy to side with the target†and “endearing qualities†maybe you could write a similar essay [paragraph] about what Abbie had to deal with from Zvan and Laden and which seems far more egregious than anything dished out from this side of the fence ....
So you’re going to sign your name to a petition, regardless of whether there’s any evidence for the claims and in spite of some suggestions that at least some of it is entirely bogus? Without spending any effort to track down any of it? Doesn’t sound terribly skeptical to me ....Even if I don't agree with everything in the petition but do agree with its aims that is enough for me.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Saying "just ignore the trolls" is most emphatically not siding with the trolls, or showing a lack of empathy for their victims. It's saying, based upon an entire Internet's worth of evidence, that if you shit in one hand and publicly complain about the trolls in the other, what you'll have is one handful of shit and twice as many trolls as before.oolon wrote:I probably disagree with many on here about the impact of hateful trolling and how it should be dealt with. "Threat" is the term they use for only a part of the issue, hate and haters are the main problem. How a person who is subject to a barrage of hate and ridicule on the internet (Regardless of how justified you think it is) feels towards an anonymous declaration of hoping they burn in a fire or get raped and die or whatever is up to them. Personally I don't think it takes much empathy to side with the target in that case regardless of how you feel about them. Whether they choose to blog about it to highlight what is clearly an issue is up to them.
More succinctly: complaining about trolls is giving them exactly what they want. Saying to ignore them is the act of an empathic person trying to help. Demonising them as the exact opposite is... well, par for the A+Theism course, really.
-
- .
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:54 pm
- Location: Atheist MRA MGTOW
Edwina's reply on JT's blog
JT.. le grouch.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Edwina's reply on JT's blog
Sensible folk like Edwina and other respected members of the atheist and skeptic communities who are actually WORKING for it, should simply ignore FfTB. They have yet again shown themselves to be a nasty, vindictive, spiteful group of bullies. Always frightened one-on-one, they are only comfortable when they have the whole of FfTB behind them - hence the attacks are ALWAYS coordinated from several different bloggers.astrokid.nj wrote:JT.. le grouch.
Re: Edwina's reply on JT's blog
Yeah, theyre totally going to take criticism of Vacula seriously now. Smooth move, JT.astrokid.nj wrote:JT.. le grouch.
#owngoal
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mars vs Venus
She deals with a minor subset of the topic at 13min+, but avoids the point of the staggeringly significant risk of dying in childbirth! (Amongst the many other physiological hazards during pregnancy)acathode wrote:I think she has?Michael K Gray wrote:One vital issue in male/female interactions (that should be obvious) is that of the vastly differential cost of pregnancy for males and females.
I have waited and waited for the usually perspicacious Girl-Writes-What to slam this observation down on the table as an a priori given.
But she hasn't yet.
KBgcjtE0xrE
It seems to deal with almost exactly the things you bring up, or did I completely misunderstand you?
It is precisely this risk that I am proposing affects female instinctual psychology.
GWW does not deal with this huge risk in any meaningful way, but insouciantly assumes that a healthy child will be born, and then goes on to discuss the attendent consequences of mate choices from there on.
Having the best partner in the world will not save a female from breech birth, septicemia, auto-abortion, internal bleeding, etc.
No!
She doesn't address "it" here, nor anywhere else that I have seen.
If you still think that she does; then can you please give me a bookmark time in that long video?
I thought that I had made myself crystal clear, but it seems that I need to work on making myself even more plain in the future.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
You notice how they are still repeating their contention that The Slyme Pit is a horribly misogynist site full of people who are anti-women?
This is from the people who have bullied women, doc-dropped one of them, and attempted to meddle in the employment of one of them. Yet still, their accusation is not backed with evidence.
This is from the people who have bullied women, doc-dropped one of them, and attempted to meddle in the employment of one of them. Yet still, their accusation is not backed with evidence.
-
- .
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:54 pm
- Location: Atheist MRA MGTOW
Re: Mars vs Venus
The nearest I can find is this...Michael K Gray wrote: She deals with a minor subset of the topic at 13min+, but avoids the point of the staggeringly significant risk of dying in childbirth! (Amongst the many other physiological hazards during pregnancy)
It is precisely this risk that I am proposing affects female instinctual psychology.
GWW does not deal with this huge risk in any meaningful way, but insouciantly assumes that a healthy child will be born, and then goes on to discuss the attendent consequences of mate choices from there on.
On Objectification
Now, you don't hear the kind of moaning and caterwauling over the sexual objectification of men that we ALWAYS seem to hear over the slightest hint of the sexual objectification of women. And the difference not that men have male privilege--it's that men who are UNable to be seen as sexual objects by women because they fail to meet the criteria are seen as losing out, while women who ARE objectified usually feel threatened.
And THAT can be attributed to the differing biological costs and benefits of sex depending on whether you're a man or a woman. Now, for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that we're living 20,000 years ago, before the pill and abortion and slutwalks and the sexual revolution and all that, because 20,000 years ago is the environment our instincts think we're living in.
Unwanted sexual attention--that is, sub-par men or men who haven't been vetted ogling a woman--feels threatening to a woman because the biological cost (pregnancy) of that attraction carried too far (rape) is extremely high.
Getting pregnant by a sub-par man was a biological disaster for a woman. She'd waste one of her finite, timed shots at the reproductive target, risk her health and life, and might have 4 years of decreased fertility from breastfeeding before she'd be able to try again, all of it thrown away on a sub-par child, sired by a man who at the very least had not proven to her in advance that he'd stick around and help her raise it.
That's a HUGE set of risks and costs, so *unwanted* sexual attention from a man she feels doesn't measure up makes her uneasy. But she can't get any sexual attention at all, even from the men she does want, unless she presents herself as a sexually attractive woman, can she? So when she's applying all that make-up and pulling on that snug t-shirt, she's instinctively (but maybe not consciously) aware of why she's doing it--to be attractive to an awesome guy, which will make her feel sexy--but when non-awesome or non-vetted men express unwanted or premature interest in her, she's made uncomfortable and she buries the agent/object conflict under an illogical tangle of rationalization wherein she deems men should NOT objectify her even when men objectifying her was her goal, and wherein none of it has anything to do with HER or anything she is or does--it's all the fault of those men and the dicks they're led around by.
This is one of the reasons why male behavior around women was always bound by strict rules of courtesy, and why even as recently as my grandfather's time, a man could get his lights punched out for offending a woman by using vulgar language in her presence. And it's why women are still the group with the most power to control discourse and rules of politeness--they set the limits of what is acceptable speech and behavior, and pretty much everyone caters to their lowest common denominator of comfort level.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Ophelia has a post that links to this picture from the Syrian Atheists.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 2061_n.jpg
She then says: Now, I interprete this as meaning the Syrian Atheists can't be Islamophobic because they are Syrians - ie the same ethnicity as most Muslim Syrians. Actually, it is actually very possible for Syrian Atheists to be Islamophobic, ie bigoted to towards Muslims. I don't believe this is the case of course, but it does show how confused Ophelia's thinking is.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 2061_n.jpg
She then says: Now, I interprete this as meaning the Syrian Atheists can't be Islamophobic because they are Syrians - ie the same ethnicity as most Muslim Syrians. Actually, it is actually very possible for Syrian Atheists to be Islamophobic, ie bigoted to towards Muslims. I don't believe this is the case of course, but it does show how confused Ophelia's thinking is.
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Oh, fuck. Meyers is really showing his desperation today. Firstly, he closed comments on his YouTube vids and linked to his own blog (my comment upthread).
Now, despite repeatedly boasting that he would never debate a creationist, he has invited some Twitter person to come to his blog andthus make his many Twitter followers visit his blog several times looking for a response debate with him.
This is so fucking pathetic. Don't give up on your NatGeo account, Meyers!
Now, despite repeatedly boasting that he would never debate a creationist, he has invited some Twitter person to come to his blog and
This is so fucking pathetic. Don't give up on your NatGeo account, Meyers!
OK, I’ll bite
September 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm PZ Myers
A creationist on twitter is pestering me to ‘debate’ her. Here’s a sampling of her arguments and style.
No way can we have a conversation about that in a 140 character limit. So I’m telling her to come here and expand on her ideas, if she can.
But first, I’d like her to answer a little quiz to see if she’s worth wasting time on.
[... questions...]
I’m going to tell her on Twitter to come here and address these very simple questions. Anyone want to take bets on whether she bothers?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Ye Gods, that's an uninspired piece of lunacy. Still, at least Canuck didn't go full Carrier. To paraphrase Tropic Thunder - Never go fullJohn Greg wrote: Oh, and Jason (Fartytowels) Toiletbowl is ranting yet again about how truly eeevil we are, and yet again, as the master of Doublethink and Newspeak, he is lecturing his sycophants on how the lack of actual modetration here is in fact hidden moderation and censorship magically rolled up into one grand echo chamber; He also rants on about how eeevil we are for carrying on vile witch hunts of the underplivileged.
The toad is fucking delusional.
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ing-fires/
I don't credit Thimbledoo with enough intelligence to assume he's being ironic when he says this:
Still friends with Greg Laden, Jase?The bad guys don’t think they’re bad guys. They never do.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mars vs Venus
Thanks for the transcript, I really appreciate it. (Femscribe+ ?!)astrokid.nj wrote:The nearest I can find is this...Michael K Gray wrote: She deals with a minor subset of the topic at 13min+, but avoids the point of the staggeringly significant risk of dying in childbirth! (Amongst the many other physiological hazards during pregnancy)
It is precisely this risk that I am proposing affects female instinctual psychology.
GWW does not deal with this huge risk in any meaningful way, but insouciantly assumes that a healthy child will be born, and then goes on to discuss the attendent consequences of mate choices from there on.
On Objectification
That merely reinforces my previous concern, in that GWW assumes that the pregnancy & childbirth presents a negligible cost, and concentrates on what the costs are after a magically healthy infant is then born without fuss or problems!
The terrible historic medical hazards presented by the 9 months of pregnancy, and the often fatal parturition process appears to be off her radar.
It is these hazards that females in primitive tribes get to see on a regular basis, (even today), that must surely play on their psyche to an enormous extent.
Seeing one's sisters, one's mother, aunts etc, slowly but surely dying during a very painful birth, or giving birth to monsters, or dying mid-term through auto-abortions, was (and still is) a regular occurrence away from effective medical care.
I would have thought that THESE ever-present fatal hazards are far more costly than giving birth to a healthy child to an absent beta male!
I was correct: GWW has not addressed this huge issue at all.
The HUGUMGOUS differential health COSTS & fatal risks of pregnancy & childbirth is the elephant in the room as far as the attitudes of potentially fertile females versus males toward fucking.
Far more profound than mating with a beta male.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Evidence of that elusive wraith please?CommanderTuvok wrote:... Ophelia's thinking...
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
She can drink a lot of aclohol.Za-zen wrote:What has twatson actually ever done that you could claim warrants praise?
Re: Mars vs Venus
Well, apparently I did completely misunderstand you, sorry for that! Though, tbh, you really did not only speak about dying from childbirth, but also about the fact that females need to nurture their child for years after birth, and about the infantilization of women, something that I certainly think her video did talk about.Michael K Gray wrote:She deals with a minor subset of the topic at 13min+, but avoids the point of the staggeringly significant risk of dying in childbirth! (Amongst the many other physiological hazards during pregnancy)
It is precisely this risk that I am proposing affects female instinctual psychology.
GWW does not deal with this huge risk in any meaningful way, but insouciantly assumes that a healthy child will be born, and then goes on to discuss the attendent consequences of mate choices from there on.
Having the best partner in the world will not save a female from breech birth, septicemia, auto-abortion, internal bleeding, etc.
No!
She doesn't address "it" here, nor anywhere else that I have seen.
If you still think that she does; then can you please give me a bookmark time in that long video?
I thought that I had made myself crystal clear, but it seems that I need to work on making myself even more plain in the future.
Not going to try to "defend" GWW though, partially because I'm not very familiar with her videos/posts, partially because I don't agree 100% with the stuff I've seen from her, the reason I posted the video was just because I remember having watched it a while ago and thought it was what you were asking for.
With that said, I don't agree with you when you say:
I think that a good partner that cares, protect and feeds for his pregnant mate is likely to significantly reduce the chances of her suffering from fatal complications.Having the best partner in the world will not save a female from breech birth, septicemia, auto-abortion, internal bleeding, etc.
ps. Reading your last post, that you posted while I was writing this, I think that maybe the most constructive thing would be if you tried talking about this with GWW? Drop her a mail or a comment or something, she seems to discuss things with her commentators on youtube quite frequently.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Oolon:
Justin Vacula is not trying to launch a new wave of atheism tailored to his own political and social beliefs. No parallels there. Why should people who think RW is an arsehole accentuate the positive? I find her inability to conduct a civil discussion, her near instantaneous recourse to non-sequiturs and poorly aimed shit-flinging at the slightest whiff of criticism to be distasteful. Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson that same question? surely goes double for her.
How do you not understand that the major issue is with using receipt of rape threat and "die in a fire" emails as justification for bashing people who are not guilty of said offenses. People are entitled to feel however they want about threats or ridicule. What they are not entitled to do is use receipt of those threats to silence criticism. It doesn't help that Jen, Zvan etc. have set the bar for hate and harassment so low that there is little else to do but laugh. It would be easier to have sympathy if they didn't splatter accusations of misogyny, homophobia and racism around with wild abandon. They give no respect and consequently don't get much.I probably disagree with many on here about the impact of hateful trolling and how it should be dealt with. "Threat" is the term they use for only a part of the issue, hate and haters are the main problem. How a person who is subject to a barrage of hate and ridicule on the internet (Regardless of how justified you think it is) feels towards an anonymous declaration of hoping they burn in a fire or get raped and die or whatever is up to them. Personally I don't think it takes much empathy to side with the target in that case regardless of how you feel about them. Whether they choose to blog about it to highlight what is clearly an issue is up to them
I have had a lot of people say that FtBs and Atheism+ are dangerous because people will see them as representing 'the atheist movement' whatever that is. Seems pretty unlikely to me but Justin Vacula will be representing an actual atheist movement so it is at least as relevant to express my dislike of him being in that position. I'm not getting obsessive about it, just posting a few comments I haven't even managed to whip up any hate for him, just a bit of dislike. Maybe slimepitters could 'accentuate the positive' about Rebecca Watson a bit more? What are her most endearing qualities would you say...?
Justin Vacula is not trying to launch a new wave of atheism tailored to his own political and social beliefs. No parallels there. Why should people who think RW is an arsehole accentuate the positive? I find her inability to conduct a civil discussion, her near instantaneous recourse to non-sequiturs and poorly aimed shit-flinging at the slightest whiff of criticism to be distasteful. Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson that same question? surely goes double for her.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I obviously forgot the scare quotes.Michael K Gray wrote:Evidence of that elusive wraith please?CommanderTuvok wrote:... Ophelia's thinking...
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Alas, that would be challenging the narrative. A trip to a Siberian gulag for re-education would await Oolon.Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson that same question? surely goes double for her.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
CommanderTuvok wrote:Alas, that would be challenging the narrative. A trip to a Siberian gulag for re-education would await Oolon.Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson that same question? surely goes double for her.
I'm not so sure. It might happen, but they already know he posts here - I think he's their token, so they can say they don't hate everyone who posts here (although I haven't heard that said, so I may be completely wrong).
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Dang! Missed that point .... :-)Tigzy wrote:Ye Gods, that's an uninspired piece of lunacy. Still, at least Canuck didn't go full Carrier. To paraphrase Tropic Thunder - Never go fullJohn Greg wrote: Oh, and Jason (Fartytowels) Toiletbowl is ranting yet again about how truly eeevil we are, and yet again, as the master of Doublethink and Newspeak, ....
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ing-fires/retarCarrier.
I don't credit Thimbledoo with enough intelligence to assume he's being ironic when he says this:Still friends with Greg Laden, Jase?The bad guys don’t think they’re bad guys. They never do.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mars vs Venus
There must be anthropological studies that provide these figures, and will answer it one way or the other.acathode wrote:With that said, I don't agree with you when you say:I think that a good partner that cares, protect and feeds for his pregnant mate is likely to significantly reduce the chances of her suffering from fatal complications.Having the best partner in the world will not save a female from breech birth, septicemia, auto-abortion, internal bleeding, etc.
I will have a rummage around for them.
(Laden is an anthropologist of some 'note', isn't he?)
As for the idea that males 'feed' their wives, this is not borne out by any tribe of which I am familiar.
In traditional Australian tribes, it is the other women who bring in and prepare most of the food and provide care & protection for pregnant females.
I highlighted your use of "significantly", it is this superlative which is in contention.
Agreed, superior diet & less physical strain can have some effect on reproductive medical accidents, but I doubt very much that it is "significant".
I would go as far as to say it is vanishingly minor, given that aunts & sisters actually provide most of this attention.
And in any case, no amount of care by a husband will prevent a breech-birth: what was a very common exit path for many a primitive¹ woman.
What a sterling idea! Thanks.acathode wrote:ps. Reading your last post, that you posted while I was writing this, I think that maybe the most constructive thing would be if you tried talking about this with GWW? Drop her a mail or a comment or something, she seems to discuss things with her commentators on youtube quite frequently.
I am kicking myself right now!
______________________
¹ I use the term "primitive" in its true sense: 1) Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Stupid or ignorant?CommanderTuvok wrote:Ophelia has a post that links to this picture from the Syrian Atheists.
]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 2061_n.jpg
She then says:
]Ophelia_Islamophobia.jpg
Now, I interprete this as meaning the Syrian Atheists can't be Islamophobic because they are Syrians - ie the same ethnicity as most Muslim Syrians. Actually, it is actually very possible for Syrian Atheists to be Islamophobic, ie bigoted to towards Muslims. I don't believe this is the case of course, but it does show how confused Ophelia's thinking is.
The Syrians I knew were all secular (the ones who were nominally Islamic were from Lebanon). You would have to be pretty stupid to extrapolate that to all Syrians.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Wait, Jason is claiming that Justin Vacula gave out Surly Amy's home address ? Is this true ?Steersman wrote:Dang! Missed that point .... :-)Tigzy wrote:Ye Gods, that's an uninspired piece of lunacy. Still, at least Canuck didn't go full Carrier. To paraphrase Tropic Thunder - Never go fullJohn Greg wrote: Oh, and Jason (Fartytowels) Toiletbowl is ranting yet again about how truly eeevil we are, and yet again, as the master of Doublethink and Newspeak, ....
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ing-fires/retarCarrier.
I don't credit Thimbledoo with enough intelligence to assume he's being ironic when he says this:Still friends with Greg Laden, Jase?The bad guys don’t think they’re bad guys. They never do.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Last I checked, he's still quite active on YouTube:Horace wrote:Sorry could you give a quick reference to what happened with Justicar ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/integralmath
The last video was 5 days ago, so I'm not sure if you're asking for a more recent update.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Yes...AKAHorace wrote: Wait, Jason is claiming that Justin Vacula gave out Surly Amy's home address ? Is this true ?
...sort of - what he actually did was post a link to a publicly accessible site which gave the address.