Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20521

Post by Darren »

Tony Parsehole wrote:Maybe this is a silly question for the Pit but I've never actually considered it before and I know I'll get a saner answer here than A+. How exactly does one "check" their privilege (assuming they were inclined to do so)? What the fuck does it mean? "Oh look, I have privilege. Now fuck off slag" I just don't understand what's going on regarding:
A) Checking privilege
B) How an individual admitting to "checking" privilege changes/benefits the discussion.

Gimme your best answers puleease.
This is a tuffie. I don't think many of the A+ers even know what they really mean by this.

Their claim is that everyone has some form of "privilege" which they are, by definition, incapable of perceiving - and that this mysterious privilege alters our perceptions of what is fair and just when it comes to social issues. To simplfy, this is the way the average A+er sees the world:

1. Anyone who is aware of X privilege will agree that Y is the only acceptable answer.
2. The only reason you can't see that Y is the correct answer is because of your X privilege.
3. By definition, you can not possibly be aware of your X privilege.
4. Therefore, you must "check" your privilege by taking our word for it that it exists.

Having "checked" your privilege by conceding that it must exist because they say so, the only option you have is to concede that Y is, indeed, the correct answer, even though you have no idea why.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20522

Post by Jan Steen »

Jan Steen wrote:Chairman Pee Xie Myers is at the Texas Freethought Convention. He “just heard Aron Ra shred the religious, and Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins and Sean Faircloth are coming up.”

I wonder how soon his commentariat will rebuke him for sharing the stage with those vile misogynists and enemies of the marginalised.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -in-texas/
It seems I have bought all that popcorn for nothing. Nobody questioned PZ’s mixing with the white, privileged, cis-gendered old men. Even Dawkins was barely mentioned. Instead the commenters studiously chewed away at a bone thrown at them by PZ: a photo of a nutty picketer at the conference. Somehow the commenters seem aware of the taboo and to respect it.

Don’t mention the war.

In the comments there is also a link to PZ’s speech. It’s the usual anti-creationist rant that almost every atheist could deliver on autopilot; preaching to the choir and not even funny. There’s nothing about A+ in it.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20523

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Badger3k wrote: Just a guess, but I think "check your privilege" means to realize that you have it and to put it aside - basically, try to change who and what you are and become something else for the time. It may be just try to see the other's viewpoint, but that's not the sense that I get when I hear them talk about it. Could be wrong, of course.
Yeah, that's not what I get from it either. Especially when the people telling me to check it are usually in a more "privileged" situation than me.
I usually try and look at an argument from someone else's point of view anyway but no matter how hard I try I can't see how being asked for coffee in an elevator is a terrifying/creepy experience.
I took it they were using it like "Check your hat and coat at the door", but it goes further than that:
(Trigger warning!) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege
And if you are really, really bored;
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20524

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

aweraw wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
aweraw wrote:Patriarchy.
Privilege
Penis.
And for those that need to check their privilege penis at the door...

[youtube]NQBPgJQhQHc[/youtube]

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20525

Post by Jan Steen »

Steersman wrote:Not to mention that several of them, including Xanthë, appear to be a plurality – the Royal “We”? – to begin with ….
Pharyngula commenter Nerd of Redhead is also fond of using "we". In his case it may not be the Royal 'We", however. He appears to believe that he was appointed to speak on behalf of the entire commentariat. He always reminds me of Mrs. Slocombe in Are you being served?, who used to say, "And I am unanimous in that," when she gave her opinion.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20526

Post by Darren »

Jan Steen wrote:He always reminds me of Mrs. Slocombe in Are you being served?, who used to say, "And I am unanimous in that," when she gave her opinion.
Was that before or after she thawed her pussy out?

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20527

Post by Reap »

Jan Steen wrote:
In the comments there is also a link to PZ’s speech. It’s the usual anti-creationist rant that almost every atheist could deliver on autopilot; preaching to the choir and not even funny. There’s nothing about A+ in it.

And in that nothing we can find hope that this shit may very well finally be dead. Now how do we get all the brains back into those people who lost theirs to A+? Eh, fuck em

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20528

Post by cunt »

Did he really haul his carcass across the country just to make that 5 minute speech? There must have been a talk or something later.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20529

Post by Tony Parsehole »

cunt wrote:Did he really haul his carcass across the country just to make that 5 minute speech? There must have been a talk or something later.
Maybe he just wanted to feel important. I was totes expecting PZ to lay into Dawkins for his privilege and misogyny like he does when they are not fact-to-face /sarcasm

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20530

Post by Tony Parsehole »

AnonymousCowherd wrote: I took it they were using it like "Check your hat and coat at the door",
That's exactly as I saw it. Just a standard response to anything. Almost like "Hi".

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20531

Post by Tigzy »

Tony Parsehole wrote:Maybe this is a silly question for the Pit but I've never actually considered it before and I know I'll get a saner answer here than A+. How exactly does one "check" their privilege (assuming they were inclined to do so)? What the fuck does it mean? "Oh look, I have privilege. Now fuck off slag" I just don't understand what's going on regarding:
A) Checking privilege
B) How an individual admitting to "checking" privilege changes/benefits the discussion.

Gimme your best answers puleease.
Seems to me that 'check your privilege' is somewhat like 'don't double down' - an A+ codephrase for 'Agree with me, or else!'. Both are also cousins to the ad-hom fallacy: 'I can ignore your argument, because you are unaware of your privilege or are just doubling down. So 'poof' - dismissed! Blah blah blah...'

As for actually checking one's privilege - dunno about that. What I do know, however, is that I want more. And I think most people do too, in one sphere or another. I can't seriously believe that many of the A+ crowd haven't tried on some clothes before buying them, in the hope that the items in question flatter their shape - in other words, contribute towards the privilege of being attractive. Every day, we probably do a hundred tiny things in the effort of improving on our stock of privileges, whether we're aware of it or not. The Aplussers themselves clearly demand the privilege of being the heeded class, the people that others must take seriously above all. They are of course, failing quite badly in this, in that being so bitter and unpleasant, they come across more as jealous, hypocritical and embittered misfits.

Anyways, I've checked my prvileges as best I can, and though I don't have many, I'm quite pleased with the ones I've got. More economic privilege would be fucking great, and I seriously need to get back working to maintain my health and attractiveness privileges because I haven't been out jogging for a month, and I've started to get a little doughy. My favourite privilege is definitely my ladykiller smile - used to deploy it to make my ex take off her clothes. It was like a superpower. It's a good privilege, and I hope I don't lose it.

I like the privilege of no longer living on a shithole sink estate with all the skanky chavs and inbreds. Though I do also like the privilege of having learned a great deal more than Jason Thimbledoo about the 'underclasses', which means I can laugh at him and his 'champion of the oppressed' ways.

I'd also really fuckin like to be a mason, on the basis that I'm pretty sure it does grant a lot of local influence (damn fine privilege, that one) and you get to go out and have nice dinners, too. Usually in more expensive restaurants tailored to those who are more privileged.

In the spirit of being antithetical to the prevailing attitudes of A+, I'd be interested to hear what privileges the rest of you enjoy, and what privileges you also hanker for.

mutleyeng
.
.
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20532

Post by mutleyeng »

I looked at the schedule and according to that he was the keynote speaker with an hour talk to finish.
Dawkins had 10 minutes in the morning, but think he was just there to sell a few books really.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Ooh, I'm a relationship anarchist!

#20533

Post by Trophy »

Munkhaus wrote:How tedious. [Trigger warning: trying to talk to chimps. You may want to scroll on by.]
Listen Jack; I'm entirely uninterested in the activities of Billy Big Bollocks. "Oh I hate those BSDM amateurs and their mere anal sex (which by some peoples metric isn't even sex btw ahurhur!)"
This guy is a monumental tosser.
....
[again, apologies to everyone else for disrupting the flow of A+ lulz]
My my my, it looks like we have a home-grown talent. I share your enthusiasm for enjoying lolz wherever they pop, Munkhaus: Anal sex is not even considered sex, except that it can give you STDs. What a dumbass! Hahaha! Really high quality lolz!

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20534

Post by Tigzy »

Further to my last post: way I see it with prvilege is if you're not prepared to give up your job, your possessions and comfortable lifestyle to go an live in a third-world manure hut, then you aren't against privilege itself, only those who happen to have more privileges than you.

Couch
.
.
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20535

Post by Couch »

Jan Steen wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:Chairman Pee Xie Myers is at the Texas Freethought Convention. He “just heard Aron Ra shred the religious, and Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins and Sean Faircloth are coming up.”

I wonder how soon his commentariat will rebuke him for sharing the stage with those vile misogynists and enemies of the marginalised.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -in-texas/
It seems I have bought all that popcorn for nothing. Nobody questioned PZ’s mixing with the white, privileged, cis-gendered old men. Even Dawkins was barely mentioned. Instead the commenters studiously chewed away at a bone thrown at them by PZ: a photo of a nutty picketer at the conference. Somehow the commenters seem aware of the taboo and to respect it.

Don’t mention the war
There is this near the end of the comments, but ignored:
permanganater
21 October 2012 at 2:53 am
“…. and Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins and Sean Faircloth are coming up….”

(….crickets…)

(Waves arms and madly points “OMG!! A FUNNY SIGN”.)

Couch
.
.
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20536

Post by Couch »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Badger3k wrote: Just a guess, but I think "check your privilege" means to realize that you have it and to put it aside - basically, try to change who and what you are and become something else for the time. It may be just try to see the other's viewpoint, but that's not the sense that I get when I hear them talk about it. Could be wrong, of course.
Yeah, that's not what I get from it either. Especially when the people telling me to check it are usually in a more "privileged" situation than me.
I usually try and look at an argument from someone else's point of view anyway but no matter how hard I try I can't see how being asked for coffee in an elevator is a terrifying/creepy experience.
I took it they were using it like "Check your hat and coat at the door", but it goes further than that:
(Trigger warning!) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege
And if you are really, really bored;
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
I still don't have a handle on which meaning of 'check' applies, though.

I thought it might be any one of 'examine' or 'inhibit' or 'Check your hat and coat at the door', but I don't get a sense for which.

The meanings of check (culled from a random online dictionary) are:

check1    [chek] Show IPA verb, noun, plural checks or, for 40, chex, adjective, interjection
verb (used with object)
1. to stop or arrest the motion of, suddenly or forcibly: He checked the horse at the edge of the cliff.
2. to restrain; hold in restraint or control: They built a high wall to check the tides.
3. to cause a reduction, as in rate or intensity; diminish: The new measures checked the rapidity with which the epidemic was spreading.
4. to investigate or verify as to correctness: She checked the copy against the original.
5. to make an inquiry into, search through, etc.: We checked the files, but the letter was missing.
Is there a consensus of which sense is meant in the checking of privilege?

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20537

Post by cunt »

Tony Parsehole wrote:Maybe this is a silly question for the Pit but I've never actually considered it before and I know I'll get a saner answer here than A+. How exactly does one "check" their privilege (assuming they were inclined to do so)? What the fuck does it mean? "Oh look, I have privilege. Now fuck off slag" I just don't understand what's going on regarding:
A) Checking privilege
B) How an individual admitting to "checking" privilege changes/benefits the discussion.

Gimme your best answers puleease.
I'd say that involves just taking a step back from the conversation for a second and considering what is being said to you. Trying to place yourself in somebody else's shoes. As a concept I think something like "male privilege" or "white privilege" as described by certain feminists, minority groups and activists is pretty valid and provable. Even though it can sometimes also be self-contradictory, clumsy and is most definitely open to abuse by idiots.

As I see it "checking your privilege" is a valuable tool in your mental toolkit. It shouldn't be used as a weapon in any circumstance, as it is being used on the A+ forums and Pharyngula. To get somebody to actually check their privilege in debate you're going to need patience, intelligence and a decent command of facts.

LouFCD
.
.
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20538

Post by LouFCD »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Because I'm a big promoter of my Middle Gal's art and because she really did a bang-on job with interpreting "ElevatorGate", I submit this to you all:

http://cutemooshi.com/wp-content/upload ... Terror.png
That right there made my morning.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20539

Post by cunt »

Mykeru wrote: [youtube]9YUvmvcC-nk[/youtube]
Pure fucking ownage.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20540

Post by decius »

Tigzy wrote:
Both are also cousins to the ad-hom fallacy:
True, more specifically the poisoning the well fallacy.

curious lurker

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20541

Post by curious lurker »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
curious lurker wrote:
Bella Fortuna wrote:I didn't see that anyone's posted this yet, but I guess you can all stop bombarding PayPal now that Greta's mortgage "and other expenses" are covered for a few carefree months:
The fundraiser has been a thumping success. It has exceeded all my expectations. I will be able to comfortably cover my mortgage and other expenses for a few months, while I recover my health and get my writing and speaking career revved up again afterwards. No further donations or spreading of the word are necessary: I’ve actually gotten somewhat more than I really need, and I’m seriously contemplating donating the overflow — probably to the Light the Night Walk or to Camp Quest. (I feel okay about asking my readers for financial help, but I feel weird taking more than I really need.)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... nd-thanks/
I love the "seriously contemplating donating the overflow bit". Let's see just how seriously she contemplates that idea before deciding to toss it overboard.

Also, let's see how long it takes for her cancer to 'come back' aggressively, once she's run through that first big injection of free moolah.

I'm sorry, but crap like this latest stunt of Re-Greta's tends to bring out the worst of my cynical side.
Cynicism is nothing to apologise for. If your cynicism stops you from getting ripped off then good. I'm cynical as hell about all this too especially as the call for donations was pre-emptive. That comment about "considering" donating the overflow sealed the deal. Why should there be ANY consideration? She asked for financial charity, received a surplus and is wondering whether or not to spend the extra on whatever the hell she likes whilst having the gall to moan about the privilege of others because they were born male. Despicable.
Yeah, my ' sorry' in this instance was more knee-jerk rhetorical than anything else.

Hell, I know I've often enough put my cynicism in park and probably gotten ripped off becuase my sympathy nodules were overstimulated by some particularly adept huckster. I can live with that, because I'd rather not become so thick-skinned as to turn away from all appeals for help just because the odds are that some are clearly fishy or downright fake. But by Thor's hammer, when somebody is as blatant about their actions as I honestly think Greta has been in all this, I cannot in good conscience do anything but blow a loud raspberry in their direction, and let them take their gold-plated begging bowl somewhere other than my doorstep.

I'm in total agreement with you on this, Tony--it was her use of the word 'considering' that was the total dealbreaker for me. There should be absolutely nothing for the woman to consider.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20542

Post by Gumby »

Tigzy wrote:Further to my last post: way I see it with prvilege is if you're not prepared to give up your job, your possessions and comfortable lifestyle to go an live in a third-world manure hut, then you aren't against privilege itself, only those who happen to have more privileges than you.
I once got into an exchange on Twitter with one of the more assholy and vociferous A+/PZ-worshiping fundamentalists, can't remember who now. I basically brought up the Matthew 7:5 argument*, that damn near everyone is privileged in some way to someone else, so stop being a hypocrite and cease the bitching about the privilege of others. To which I was informed "Yes, we [A+ers] know many of us are privileged, therefore we're not using it as an insult, merely as an observation". Um, okay, yeah. SRSLY? ORLY? So then why do I never see you moaning A+ wankers speak of your own privilege, or the privilege of other A+ers? Why is the word "privilege" always, and I mean always, directed at those outside your group? And why do you always, and I mean always, use it in a sneering, contemptuous, derogatory fashion? Lying fuckers.

*Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20543

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

As I was rewiewing the ERV Pit archives (again), I re-stumbled upon that lulzy "debate" about gendered slurs, where Antiphontes asked us to consider replacing the term "women" by "blacks" and "bitch" by nigger", arguing it would show us why the use of such gendered slurs is demeaning to all women.

I was just musing, and correct me if I'm wrong: while I'm quite confident that, outside classic literature such as Huckleberry Finn and such, it would not be so difficult to find social commentaries, newspaper articles and maybe even "racial science" peer-reviewed papers where you could find the terms "white men" vs "niggers". Whereas I'm almost positive it would be hard in such medias to find "men" vs "bitches". Or "cunts", or "twats". Well, maybe in the most extreme of extreme websites these days, but really a minority.

So really, it's a false equivalence. Yeah, I'm late by a year and a half with that thought. My bad.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20544

Post by BarnOwl »

cunt wrote: As I see it "checking your privilege" is a valuable tool in your mental toolkit. It shouldn't be used as a weapon in any circumstance, as it is being used on the A+ forums and Pharyngula. To get somebody to actually check their privilege in debate you're going to need patience, intelligence and a decent command of facts.
I'd always assumed that "checking your privilege" referred to reining it in or reducing it, at least in the presence of people who have less privilege. But then I'm a white woman with a fair amount of privilege, which I recognize and appreciate, and can check to some extent if necessary or appropriate. I'm not going to tell someone else to check their privilege.

Peezus in Austin is too close for comfort. Good thing he's on his way back:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... d05543.png

My travel this week was scientific research work-related and quite different in the tasks required, but air travel is exhausting, and I'm glad I've had the weekend to recover before returning to full-time teaching duties tomorrow. I can't imagine that Myers is 100% effective or engaged as a lecturer after flying around the country every weekend. He's traveling on weekdays much of the time too, which I can't do, as I typically have lab teaching on Mondays and Fridays.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20545

Post by Gumby »

Couch wrote: The meanings of check (culled from a random online dictionary) are:

check1    [chek] Show IPA verb, noun, plural checks or, for 40, chex, adjective, interjection
verb (used with object)
1. to stop or arrest the motion of, suddenly or forcibly: He checked the horse at the edge of the cliff.
2. to restrain; hold in restraint or control: They built a high wall to check the tides.
3. to cause a reduction, as in rate or intensity; diminish: The new measures checked the rapidity with which the epidemic was spreading.
4. to investigate or verify as to correctness: She checked the copy against the original.
5. to make an inquiry into, search through, etc.: We checked the files, but the letter was missing.
Ah, well, there's your problem. You're using a dictionary. Dictionaries are verboten in Pharynguland and APlusWallyWorld. That's because dictionaries have the irritating tendency to try to pin the PZ-weasels down to academically- and societally-agreed-upon definitions of words, and therefore limits their ability to make up any damn new definitions they please to suit whatever agenda they currently have steaming on the floor. Can't have that when you're trying to rewrite reality from the ground up, ya know.

Did you ever see Peezus's foaming at the mouth posts when he was trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist", and spent several posts hysterically screaming at and abusing people who dared use the dictionary definition of "atheist"? Thus was the sneering epithet "dictionary atheist" born. In a way, I think this stunning example of self-righteous wankery on PZ's part was one of the first whispers of the equally laughable A+ "movement" (har, har) that supposedly immaculately exploded out of Jen McCreight's sanctimonious outraged twat many months later - in that A+ is simply a continuation of PZ's lame attempts to redefine atheism.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20546

Post by Gumby »

*vomit*

OMFG I can almost hear the suckling noises coming from "Lofty". This is what PZ has reduced himself to - surrounding himself with mindless worshiping sycophants.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20547

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

BarnOwl wrote:
I'd always assumed that "checking your privilege" referred to reining it in or reducing it, at least in the presence of people who have less privilege. But then I'm a white woman with a fair amount of privilege, which I recognize and appreciate, and can check to some extent if necessary or appropriate. I'm not going to tell someone else to check their privilege.
I think this is a good definition, and not a bad principle at that. I wouldn't flaunt my privilege around people worse off then I am (well, except when it comes to cool tour and festival experiences, but that's because I can be a narcistic bastard at times, and I like to brag).

If this was the initial intent of their use of the definition, though, it badly backfired for it has become, as pointed in a comment above, a trump card to be used at leizure, completely perverting the meaning of it.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20548

Post by BarnOwl »

And of course no one will challenge Lofty with a question about how PZ's talks in Austin will "help mend the world."

What a load of bollocks.

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20549

Post by Dilurk »

cunt wrote:
Mykeru wrote: [youtube]9YUvmvcC-nk[/youtube]
Pure fucking ownage.
It's not just cell phones anymore. I have been rear ended by some clown who chose that moment to start talking to his passenger instead of watching the lights. Any distracted driving in the car is wrong mmm'kay?

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20550

Post by Gumby »

BarnOwl wrote:And of course no one will challenge Lofty with a question about how PZ's talks in Austin will "help mend the world."

What a load of bollocks.
Or for that matter, about how PZ is a "deeply moral being".

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20551

Post by Jan Steen »

Riding on the gravy train can be soo exhausting, with all those free lunches and all.

I wonder if PZ got to talk to Dawkins. Are they still on friendly terms?

RD: "Hello PZ, how are you? Taking a break from Dawkins bashing, are we?"

PZ: "May I kiss your ass again, please?"

RD: "Why would you want to kiss the arse of a horrible misogynist?"

PZ: "O that. I never said that. That's just my stupid commentariat. A bunch of whining assholes. Those hysterical suckers are good for the web traffic, you see. Now if you allow me..."

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20552

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Antiphontes
OH! Snip my pickle and call me Shlomo! It was Antiochus Epiphanes.

acathode
.
.
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:46 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20553

Post by acathode »

Gumby wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Further to my last post: way I see it with prvilege is if you're not prepared to give up your job, your possessions and comfortable lifestyle to go an live in a third-world manure hut, then you aren't against privilege itself, only those who happen to have more privileges than you.
I once got into an exchange on Twitter with one of the more assholy and vociferous A+/PZ-worshiping fundamentalists, can't remember who now. I basically brought up the Matthew 7:5 argument*, that damn near everyone is privileged in some way to someone else, so stop being a hypocrite and cease the bitching about the privilege of others. To which I was informed "Yes, we [A+ers] know many of us are privileged, therefore we're not using it as an insult, merely as an observation". Um, okay, yeah. SRSLY? ORLY? So then why do I never see you moaning A+ wankers speak of your own privilege, or the privilege of other A+ers? Why is the word "privilege" always, and I mean always, directed at those outside your group? And why do you always, and I mean always, use it in a sneering, contemptuous, derogatory fashion? Lying fuckers.

*Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
You have more or less the same reaction when you try to point out the problems with their Schrödinger's Rapist shtick, assuming they can't banhammer your ass and instead keep up the discussion, they always seem to end up with insisting that 1) all the problems you list are null and void, because you don't simply didn't understand SR, and 2) it's not at all meant as a insult or a way to just shut down any discussion.
An excuse that quickly fall apart when you look at the way the A+ers actually use SR, basically throwing it at anyone "who just doesn't get it".

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20554

Post by bhoytony »

I'm going to put my contrarian hat on after reading all these posts from the saintly bikers moaning about the evil car drivers. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had while driving thanks to the stupid shit that some idiots on pushbikes do because the laws of the road don't seem to apply to them. Red lights? Those are for cars.
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.

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20555

Post by Dilurk »

At the risk of annoying folks I present you

http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1897

Look at comment 10. The poor boy does not know what an argumentum ad populum is.

Here, I'll help you. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Just remember, the black death must be right because so many people bought into it.

idiot.

As a further aside.
2. Disengagement – No sanction is to be used against someone for not accepting the principles of this charter, except to disengage from discussion with them, and direct them to this charter as an explanation why.

3. Good Faith – Assume good faith until shown otherwise. Failure to follow the principles of this charter in a debate does not indicate a lack of good faith, so long as a participant at least tries.
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20556

Post by Jan Steen »

CommanderTuvok wrote:A Baboon, Patricia of the Order of the Moron, says:

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

Actually, Patricia, Dawkins rarely mentions Romney at conventions and in his talks. You're confusing that with Twitter - the same place you and your fellow Baboon shitwanks cry about all types of trivial nonsense.

Fuck off, Patricia, you retard.
Erm, it does seem Patricia was right:
Richard Dawkins’ speech was… a little strange to me. Along with a lot of other speakers, Dawkins spoke rather urgently about the upcoming election. He spoke in a lot of cutesy hypotheticals such as “Imagine we have one candidate who thinks X, but another candidate who thinks Y…”, but he was giving an incredibly unsubtle endorsement of Barack Obama.

Now, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that; the ACA has no official position but I personally am a Democrat. However, Dawkins’ argument against Mitt Romney was frankly not that good. Essentially, he said “Suppose one candidate believes that” and then proceeded to list all the ridiculous qualities of Mormonism. The golden tablets, the racist history, the shady background of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, etc… if you’ve ever seen South Park or Book of Mormon then you probably can’t resist singing “dum dum dum dum dum” along with it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/10 ... -thoughts/

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20557

Post by Dilurk »

bhoytony wrote:I'm going to put my contrarian hat on after reading all these posts from the saintly bikers moaning about the evil car drivers. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had while driving thanks to the stupid shit that some idiots on pushbikes do because the laws of the road don't seem to apply to them. Red lights? Those are for cars.
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 do both pushbike (I love that UKism!) and drive a car. You are 100% right. The kids and adults that do not obey the rules of the road give the rest of us a bad name. So many adults learned that a bicycle is a toy rather than a means of transportation.

This entire discussion might make a separate thread worth while on the forum somewhere. Depending on interest.

Here in Ottawa the city council has put in bike lanes downtown, they then have trotted out numbers showing larger use of bicycles here downtown. Ottawa is not exactly a Toronto or Montreal but the grid lock problem is horrible enough. I remember not so fondly having to drive my partner to and from work during a bus strike and sitting in traffic. However, a friend of mine who was involved with the local bicycling organisation is passionately against bike lanes and I can understand why.

um should we go on or move?

mutleyeng
.
.
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20558

Post by mutleyeng »


welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20559

Post by welch »

cunt wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Maybe this is a silly question for the Pit but I've never actually considered it before and I know I'll get a saner answer here than A+. How exactly does one "check" their privilege (assuming they were inclined to do so)? What the fuck does it mean? "Oh look, I have privilege. Now fuck off slag" I just don't understand what's going on regarding:
A) Checking privilege
B) How an individual admitting to "checking" privilege changes/benefits the discussion.

Gimme your best answers puleease.
I'd say that involves just taking a step back from the conversation for a second and considering what is being said to you. Trying to place yourself in somebody else's shoes. As a concept I think something like "male privilege" or "white privilege" as described by certain feminists, minority groups and activists is pretty valid and provable. Even though it can sometimes also be self-contradictory, clumsy and is most definitely open to abuse by idiots.

As I see it "checking your privilege" is a valuable tool in your mental toolkit. It shouldn't be used as a weapon in any circumstance, as it is being used on the A+ forums and Pharyngula. To get somebody to actually check their privilege in debate you're going to need patience, intelligence and a decent command of facts.
Ideally, it's just self-awareness and empathy as you point out. If someone says something I did pissd them off or whatever, instead of rotely dismissing it, take a second and consider how what I did would look to someone not me. I may not have meant it bad, but that doesn't mean it didn't come across as bad. In my communications courses, it was part of a larger point that the receiver determines the message as much, if not more than the transmitter and so you should maybe think more before you transmit.

The version of that A+ pushes is basically drivel.

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20560

Post by bhoytony »

Dilurk wrote:
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Don't worry, as soon as he turns up here again to troll the usual suspects will line up to dance to his tune, all the while claiming that they find him amusing. Not nearly as amusing as I'm sure he finds them. He comes here for attention and they give it to him time and time again after every slimy comment he makes elsewhere to shit on them. I'm not sure who is the most pathetic him or them.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20561

Post by decius »

bhoytony wrote:I'm going to put my contrarian hat on after reading all these posts from the saintly bikers moaning about the evil car drivers. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had while driving thanks to the stupid shit that some idiots on pushbikes do because the laws of the road don't seem to apply to them. Red lights? Those are for cars.
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.
The risk cyclists pose to cars is a few scratches to the paintwork at worst. With increased velocity, volume, mass and momentum comes increased responsibility.
Further, more bicycles on the road entail significant decongestion to traffic, something you car drivers benefit from at no personal cost.
Just visit the Netherlands or Berlin and take a good look around, if you don't believe me.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20562

Post by welch »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
cunt wrote:Did he really haul his carcass across the country just to make that 5 minute speech? There must have been a talk or something later.
Maybe he just wanted to feel important. I was totes expecting PZ to lay into Dawkins for his privilege and misogyny like he does when they are not fact-to-face /sarcasm
Hah! Clearly sirrah, you have missed the strategy employed by the great Myers. By appearing humble, nay, even obsequious to his enemies in person, the Myers lulls them into a false sense of security via his masterfully played false comity. Then, he carefully records their every utterance and action, yea, every misdeed the miscreants perform, which good man are many. Once back in his lair, with a fresh brandy on the desk, his trophy wife at his side, and his mistress perched saucily at the edge of the desk, ready to attend his every need, he begins his takedown.

With full abandon, thundering mightily for however long required, be it long minutes, sometimes nearing even a full hour, the Myers exposes those foul miscreants, those stains upon polite society. Pausing not for food nor medicine, with only the ministrations of his mistress upon his person and more brandy poured by the Trophy Wife as succor, the Myers thunders righteously down upon the wicked, like some ancient god of the fearsome Viking, whose blood still flows within the veins of the Myers. How he doth suffer to protect us from the calumny of those who would oppress us, with no thought of reward beyond the eternal rest which awaits us all.


Or, he's just a rotund coward with Internet balls who is a badass only when miles away and hidden by both distance and tenure.

Either works.

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20563

Post by Dilurk »

welch wrote:

Ideally, it's just self-awareness and empathy as you point out. If someone says something I did pissd them off or whatever, instead of rotely dismissing it, take a second and consider how what I did would look to someone not me. I may not have meant it bad, but that doesn't mean it didn't come across as bad. In my communications courses, it was part of a larger point that the receiver determines the message as much, if not more than the transmitter and so you should maybe think more before you transmit.

The version of that A+ pushes is basically drivel.
They have turned a perfectly good idea and are now misusing it as a weapon of bigotry. We all have privilege of some sort or another, not just that of being a white male. It's a simple idea really, have some empathy for the other side. These people suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect or something.

Idiots.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20564

Post by welch »

Dilurk wrote:At the risk of annoying folks I present you

http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1897

Look at comment 10. The poor boy does not know what an argumentum ad populum is.

Here, I'll help you. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Just remember, the black death must be right because so many people bought into it.

idiot.

As a further aside.
2. Disengagement – No sanction is to be used against someone for not accepting the principles of this charter, except to disengage from discussion with them, and direct them to this charter as an explanation why.

3. Good Faith – Assume good faith until shown otherwise. Failure to follow the principles of this charter in a debate does not indicate a lack of good faith, so long as a participant at least tries.
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Speaking of which, guess who shows up in the comments

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20565

Post by welch »

Shit, commenting before coffee. You were talking about oolon. Doh!

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20566

Post by bhoytony »

decius wrote:
The risk cyclists pose to cars is a few scratches to the paintwork at worst. With increased velocity, volume, mass and momentum comes increased responsibility.
Further, more bicycles on the road entail significant decongestion to traffic, something you car drivers benefit from at no personal cost.
Just visit the Netherlands or Berlin and take a good look around, if you don't believe me.
So if I hit and kill a cyclist who runs a red light, the only damage to me is to my paintwork? How about if I react instinctively to try and avoid him and hit another road user or pedestrian?
As usual you are a whining gobshite.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20567

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

bhoytony wrote:
Dilurk wrote:
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Don't worry, as soon as he turns up here again to troll the usual suspects will line up to dance to his tune, all the while claiming that they find him amusing. Not nearly as amusing as I'm sure he finds them. He comes here for attention and they give it to him time and time again after every slimy comment he makes elsewhere to shit on them. I'm not sure who is the most pathetic him or them.
I have to ask: why are you so pissy these days? Anybody's deciding to engage Oolon here or elsewhere is their decision only, and doesn't need to be called pathetic. I'll engage whomever I want, in any way I want. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt. Seriously Bhoytony, ye ken I likes ya, but this I dun get.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20568

Post by Git »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Badger3k wrote: Just a guess, but I think "check your privilege" means to realize that you have it and to put it aside - basically, try to change who and what you are and become something else for the time. It may be just try to see the other's viewpoint, but that's not the sense that I get when I hear them talk about it. Could be wrong, of course.
Yeah, that's not what I get from it either. Especially when the people telling me to check it are usually in a more "privileged" situation than me.
I usually try and look at an argument from someone else's point of view anyway but no matter how hard I try I can't see how being asked for coffee in an elevator is a terrifying/creepy experience.
a) Its an original sin argument.
b) Its not an argument in good faith. Its a form of kafkatrapping.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
ESR wrote:Good causes sometimes have bad consequences. Blacks, women, and other historical out-groups were right to demand equality before the law and the full respect and liberties due to any member of our civilization; but the tactics they used to “raise consciousness” have sometimes veered into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism.

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.


My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings.

A close variant of the model C is the model P: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} system.” For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.

It is essential to the operation of all three of the variants of the kafkatrap so far described that the subject’s attention be deflected away from the fact that no wrongdoing by the subject, about which the subject need feel personally guilty, has actually been specified. The kafkatrapper’s objective is to hook into chronic self-doubt in the subject and inflate it, in much the same way an emotional abuser convinces a victim that the abuse is deserved – in fact, the mechanism is identical. Thus kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities, and poorly on personalities with a strong internalized ethos.

In addition, the success of a model P kafkatrap depends on the subject not realizing that the group ascription pinned on by the operator can be rejected. The subject must be prevented from asserting his or her individuality and individual agency; better, the subject must be convinced that asserting individuality is yet another demonstration of denial and guilt. Need it be pointed out how ironic this is, given that kafkatrappers (other than old-fashioned religious authoritarians) generally claim to be against group stereotyping?

There are, of course, other variants. Consider the model S: “Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression,…}, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.” Again, the common theme here is that questioning the discourse that condemns you, condemns you. This variant differs from the model A and model P in that a specific crime against an actual person usually is in fact alleged. The operator of the kafkatrap relies on the subject’s emotional revulsion against the crime to sweep away all questions of representativeness and the basic fact that the subject didn’t do it.

I’ll finish my catalog of variants with the verson of the kafkatrap that I think is most likely to be deployed against this essay, the Model L: “Your insistence on applying rational skepticism in evaluating assertions of pervasive {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia, oppression…} itself demonstrates that you are {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…}.” This sounds much like the Model S, except that we are back in the territory of unspecified crime here. This version is not intended to induce guilt so much as it is to serve as a flank guard for other forms of kafkatrapping. By insisting that skepticism is evidence of an intention to cover up or excuse thoughtcrime, kafkatrappers protect themselves from having their methods or motives questioned and can get on with the serious business of eradicating thoughtcrime.

Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable. Notably, if the model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people: (a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and (b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime. No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!

I hope it is clear by now that the particular flavor of thoughtcrime alleged is irrelevant to understanding the operation of kafkatraps and how to avoid being abused and manipulated by kafkatrappers. In times past the kafkatrapper was usually a religious zealot; today, he or she is just as likely to be advancing an ideology of racial, gender, sexual-minority, or economic grievance. Whatever your opinion of any of these causes in their ‘pure’ forms may be, there are reasons that the employment of kafkatrapping is a sure sign of corruption.

The practice of kafkatrapping corrupts causes in many ways, some obvious and some more subtle. The most obvious way is that abusive and manipulative ways of controlling people tend to hollow out the causes for which they are employed, smothering whatever worthy goals they may have begun with and reducing them to vehicles for the attainment of power and privilege over others.

A subtler form of corruption is that those who use kafkatraps in order to manipulate others are prone to fall into them themselves. Becoming unable to see out of the traps, their ability to communicate with and engage anyone who has not fallen in becomes progressively more damaged. At the extreme, such causes frequently become epistemically closed, with a jargon and discourse so tightly wrapped around the logical fallacies in the kafkatraps that their doctrine is largely unintelligible to outsiders.

These are both good reasons for change activists to consider kafkatraps a dangerous pathology that they should root out of their own causes. But the best reason remains that kafkatrapping is wrong. Especially, damningly wrong for anyone who claims to be operating in the cause of freedom.

UPDATE: A commenter pointed out the Model D: “The act of demanding a definition of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} that can be consequentially checked and falsified proves you are {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive}.”

UPDATE2: The Model M: “The act of arguing against the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrates that you are either {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive} or do not understand the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}, and your argument can therefore be dismissed as either corrupt or incompetent.”

Model T: Designated victims of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} who question any part of the theory of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrate by doing so that they are not authentic members of the victim class, so their experience can be discounted and their thoughts dismissed as internalized {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20569

Post by BarnOwl »

Meanwhile, privilege is being checked and the world mended, with wacky sponsored hijinks on the road to yet another skeptic Con:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... e0f706.png

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20570

Post by Dilurk »

decius wrote:
bhoytony wrote:I'm going to put my contrarian hat on after reading all these posts from the saintly bikers moaning about the evil car drivers. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had while driving thanks to the stupid shit that some idiots on pushbikes do because the laws of the road don't seem to apply to them. Red lights? Those are for cars.
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.
The risk cyclists pose to cars is a few scratches to the paintwork at worst. With increased velocity, volume, mass and momentum comes increased responsibility.
Further, more bicycles on the road entail significant decongestion to traffic, something you car drivers benefit from at no personal cost.
Just visit the Netherlands or Berlin and take a good look around, if you don't believe me.
I am on your side actually but it's not a black and white argument. There are cases where mechanised vehicles will still be needed. Examples would include ambulance, fire trucks -- obvious things. The question becomes what can we do to encourage rather than discourage bicycle use in conjunction with the situation we have now? I can tell you from personal experience there are now areas of Ottawa I would find very difficult to cycle given the city has bulked up roads making them rather dangerous. This is the result of transportation engineers not taking bicycles seriously. Keep in mind I believe we have passed peak oil and we will likely see more of the smaller car + hybrid in the foreseeable future which will decrease this dangerous ratio a bit.

Jeff Rubin The end of oil I definitely want to read this book.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20571

Post by decius »

bhoytony wrote:
decius wrote:
The risk cyclists pose to cars is a few scratches to the paintwork at worst. With increased velocity, volume, mass and momentum comes increased responsibility.
Further, more bicycles on the road entail significant decongestion to traffic, something you car drivers benefit from at no personal cost.
Just visit the Netherlands or Berlin and take a good look around, if you don't believe me.
So if I hit and kill a cyclist who runs a red light, the only damage to me is to my paintwork? How about if I react instinctively to try and avoid him and hit another road user or pedestrian?
As usual you are a whining gobshite.
In both cases, the cyclist is culpable, so I can't see what the perceived slight is. Running red lights is sanctioned whatever your vehicle. You drew a false equivalence, since what Dillacunty is doing is perfectly legal, but potentially deadly.

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20572

Post by bhoytony »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
I have to ask: why are you so pissy these days? Anybody's deciding to engage Oolon here or elsewhere is their decision only, and doesn't need to be called pathetic. I'll engage whomever I want, in any way I want. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt. Seriously Bhoytony, ye ken I likes ya, but this I dun get.
I'm exactly as pissy as I ever was. I'm not saying you can't engage with him, just giving my opinion on it. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt.
I'm pretty certain he is not coming here in good faith, he just wants to stir shit and get a reaction. You give him the reaction he wants. That is trolling and as far as I'm concerned if you are taken in by a troll after being told about him by numerous commenters then it is pathetic.
I've said before if he really just wants answers to his when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions then give him his own thread. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't last long as that is not why he's here.
P.S. don't try the the accent thing if you don't know what you are on about. Where I come from we don't really use "ken" much. Try another city.

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20573

Post by Dilurk »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Dilurk wrote:
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Don't worry, as soon as he turns up here again to troll the usual suspects will line up to dance to his tune, all the while claiming that they find him amusing. Not nearly as amusing as I'm sure he finds them. He comes here for attention and they give it to him time and time again after every slimy comment he makes elsewhere to shit on them. I'm not sure who is the most pathetic him or them.
I have to ask: why are you so pissy these days? Anybody's deciding to engage Oolon here or elsewhere is their decision only, and doesn't need to be called pathetic. I'll engage whomever I want, in any way I want. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt. Seriously Bhoytony, ye ken I likes ya, but this I dun get.
HAH! Yes I still believe in everyone's words being heard and I would be willing to engage Oolon again but on a separate thread than here. If anyone can start a new thread, I'd be willing to start one and we can have at it.

What annoyed me, is his seeming to twist words made on here to make himself look good on another forum. However, I think some of us are guilty of doing just that here too. tu quoque. So rather than endure the shunning and attacks on this thread, let's move it.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20574

Post by Al Stefanelli »

So, I live in a city of 10,000 golf carts. They are street legal here, and mine is rather 'unique.' This year, I've entered it into a 'Monster Golf Cart' rally, with prizes and shit. Here's my entry. Note, the snarly mouth is permanently hand-painted, and the eyes and flames are also permanent fixtures.

The first two shots are of the cart as it is entered. The bottom one is how it looks 'normally.'

Of course, the local religious community (who already hates me for threatening to sue the Mayor and City Council for Jebus praying at their official town meetings - that's a whole other story) thinks it's a 'Satanic' vehicle. It's a gas cart, so just to piss them off I installed a VooDoo exhaust system that was modified from a wrecked Ducati, so the fucker is loud, too. Muahahahhahhaaa!!
This is how it always looks:


bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20575

Post by bhoytony »

decius wrote:
In both cases, the cyclist is culpable, so I can't see what the perceived slight is. Running red lights is sanctioned whatever your vehicle. You drew a false equivalence, since what Dillacunty is doing is perfectly legal, but potentially deadly.
What the fuck are you on about? You said the only risk to the car was damage to the paintwork. That's what I commented on. Also I made no reference to Fat Matt so why are you dragging him into my post.

Why don't you go back to tone-trolling and crying about Cunt-Kick?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20576

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

bhoytony wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
I have to ask: why are you so pissy these days? Anybody's deciding to engage Oolon here or elsewhere is their decision only, and doesn't need to be called pathetic. I'll engage whomever I want, in any way I want. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt. Seriously Bhoytony, ye ken I likes ya, but this I dun get.
I'm exactly as pissy as I ever was. I'm not saying you can't engage with him, just giving my opinion on it. I thought that was kind of the idea at the Pyt.
I'm pretty certain he is not coming here in good faith, he just wants to stir shit and get a reaction. You give him the reaction he wants. That is trolling and as far as I'm concerned if you are taken in by a troll after being told about him by numerous commenters then it is pathetic.
I've said before if he really just wants answers to his when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions then give him his own thread. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't last long as that is not why he's here.
P.S. don't try the the accent thing if you don't know what you are on about. Where I come from we don't really use "ken" much. Try another city.
Ok, I see your point. I just found s/h/i/t stimulating at times. I like debating, and these days I realise it more and more as I review the whole ERV Pit archives. Maybe (most probably) Oolon can't be changed, but I always keep the onlookers in mind when I decide to answer. It is not pathetic to me as it doesn't cause me any arm or anger, or even frustration. Just an interest. A hobby, say.

As for the accent, sorry, this is as far as I could go. I learned that pseudo-scottish stuff from the Nac Mac Feegles.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20577

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Addendum about accent: then I'll ask any poster who doesn't have a masterly knowledge of French to avoid posting in (broken) French.

Fair deal?

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20578

Post by Lsuoma »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Addendum about accent: then I'll ask any poster who doesn't have a masterly knowledge of French to avoid posting in (broken) French.

Fair deal?
Of course ah'm Frensh! Wha do you theenk I ave this owtraygeous akksent?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20579

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Lsuoma wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Addendum about accent: then I'll ask any poster who doesn't have a masterly knowledge of French to avoid posting in (broken) French.

Fair deal?
Of course ah'm Frensh! Wha do you theenk I ave this owtraygeous akksent?
Wait 'till I make some other podcast and try to force my French accent. Will be fun...

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20580

Post by decius »

bhoytony wrote:
decius wrote:
In both cases, the cyclist is culpable, so I can't see what the perceived slight is. Running red lights is sanctioned whatever your vehicle. You drew a false equivalence, since what Dillacunty is doing is perfectly legal, but potentially deadly.
What the fuck are you on about? You said the only risk to the car was damage to the paintwork. That's what I commented on. Also I made no reference to Fat Matt so why are you dragging him into my post.

Why don't you go back to tone-trolling and crying about Cunt-Kick?
I stand by it. It's very unlikely that a bicycle can kill someone other than the cyclist himself. I do not condone running red lights, all I'm saying is that, in case of accident, a car is more likely to maim or kill other people. A heightened sense of responsibility should come with that notion, which isn't mitigated by the misconduct of some cyclists.

Locked