If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

James Onen wrote:for Franc:

For James: you'll need to call your boss over before you click this, they'll really like it too -

Ophelia goes pushbike riding in Amsterdam

KarlVonMox wrote:Its time for parrots to get the recognition and justice they deserve, especially against the tyranny of dogs and cats. We should start a Parrots Rights Activist (PRA) movement.

You mean PRA+. Or do you hate women?

Aha! Found it. Astrokid this is the other non-normative society I could not remember the name of. Here we are, The Nayar of India.

I found the reference here Ref: E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature" and the Wikipedia entry is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair

Historically, Nairs lived in large family units called tharavads that housed descendants of one common female ancestor. These family units along with their unusual marriage customs, which are no longer practiced, have been much studied. Although the detail varied from one region to the next, the main points of interest to researchers of Nair marriage customs were the existence of two particular rituals — the pre-pubertal thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham - and the practice of polygamy in some areas. Some Nair women also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area.

Compare and contrast to the Muso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

Dilurk wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

JAB wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

JAB wrote:bird news... my silly bird is right now building a nest on top of my clock to, once again lay unfertilized eggs. She keeps trying.

Cuckoo?

Heehee...no. It's a grandfather clock I inherited when my dad died a few years ago. I had stopped the pendulum when I was away last week and hadn't nudged it started again. Now I'll likely have to do without the chimes for a month while she lays eggs then sits on them until she gives up again. This is her fourth clutch ever and her second one this summer... silly bird.

I was skeptical when someone told me that her grandfather's grandfather-clock stopped the exact moment that he died.
Turns out she was right. It fell on him.

It is after all a timeless joke.

Nyuk, nyuk. I've gotta hand it to you.
Time enough to dial up the chronometer puns?
Or are you just winding me up, to while away the hours?

Darren wrote:...Julian chymed in on exactly this issue:

Hah! At least someone knows the true meaning of the archaic "chyme".
Golf clap!

Steersman wrote:He generally argues that far too many women have bought into the myth of Cinderella, but have generally corrupted it – and frequently the men in their lives – by seeing the Prince and the Castle as their virtual birthright

Ah yes, the Cinderella Myth. The one I'm familiar with is a bit different. An interesting hypothesis of cause and effect regarding many unhappy, bitter and unfulfilled women, and the reason they treat the men they are married to with emotional abuse and contempt.

I wrote a long piece about it a long time ago, and I do not know if I have a copy saved, but the core of it is an examination of how little girls are so enthralled with the idea that a wealthy prince will come riding up on his white horse, she will immediately fall in love with him, he will rescue her from anything that isn't easy or unpleasant, take her to his castle, and they will live happily ever after, that even when they get older, they secretly still believe it will happen to them, and as they grow up and logically understand that fairy tales do not come true, they continue to believe that their prince ("soul mate") will come along, and rescue them from their tedious, unexciting, and sometimes trying lives, all of their troubles will magically disappear, their love for each other will never waver, and they will live happily ever after.

This is why the idea of a "soul mate" or one person out there made especially for them with the same views, interests, and world view, is such a prevalent a belief of many women, and often they simply wait for him to arrive, without ever learning how to create their own happiness, be alone without being lonely, be confident in who they are and what they stand for, and know how to take care of themselves.

The way to counteract the Cinderella Myth is to teach the little girl from a very early age that life isn't easy, one needs emotional strength and a thick skin to get by in this world, don't depend on anyone to rescue you, work your way out of it, no one will be riding up on their white horse, time alone does not have to be lonely, that relationships need constant work in order to survive, have your own interests separate from his, give each other space, and enjoy the time apart, no one is responsible for your happiness, but you, and no one will ever live up to the idea of a perfect husband, and the way to set yourself up for a lifetime of misery is to believe in fairy tales.
(This is basically what my mum considered feminism.)

The basic premise of a feminist to my mum, was a woman who takes responsibility for her own life, is no victim, and is not dependent on others to solve her problems or rescue her. A woman far more like GWW (perhaps with a focus other than men's rights) who exudes strength of character and confidence, does not allow others to crack her composure, stands up for what she believes in, and refuses to be silenced, or intimidated. (Clearly times have changed)

Quite obviously there are not a lot of girls being raised this way, they believe they deserve it all, that they can do no wrong, and should be treated like royalty, and so they grow up with the expectation of getting everything they want, including a bizarre fantasy idea of the man they will marry, and an unrealistic view of what marriage entails.

Once they realise their lives are not perfect, their husbands are not what they expected, (they don't worship the ground they walk on like daddy said they should) and marriage is difficult, there is only denial, and the inability to admit any fault, and so they blame the men for their misery, and all their rage is directed at them.

Evan wrote:If Jen's father ever becomes king, Seattle residents may want to move elsewhere.
http://kingmccreight.blogspot.com/2011/ ... false.html

...When I am King I am making my daughter Princess of Seattle.

Mission Accomplished.
She is the most precious "Little Princess" of her age that I have ever witnessed.
No wonder Jen is so fucked-up.
I nearly felt a microscopic pang of pity for her.

Michael K Gray wrote:

Evan wrote:If Jen's father ever becomes king, Seattle residents may want to move elsewhere.
http://kingmccreight.blogspot.com/2011/ ... false.html

...When I am King I am making my daughter Princess of Seattle.

Mission Accomplished.
She is the most precious "Little Princess" of her age that I have ever witnessed.
No wonder Jen is so fucked-up.
I nearly felt a microscopic pang of pity for her.

The Cinderella Myth in action. All this "offense" at nothing is part of that as well.

Michael K Gray wrote:

Evan wrote:If Jen's father ever becomes king, Seattle residents may want to move elsewhere.
http://kingmccreight.blogspot.com/2011/ ... false.html

...When I am King I am making my daughter Princess of Seattle.

Mission Accomplished.
She is the most precious "Little Princess" of her age that I have ever witnessed.
No wonder Jen is so fucked-up.
I nearly felt a microscopic pang of pity for her.

Probably started young. The first time she showed her parents a few bits of pasta noodle stuck to a piece of cardboard, they probably acted like it was a Rembrandt.

That generous over inflation of ones abilities and accomplishments seems to have carried over into adult life.

Lost Moose wrote:

Steersman wrote:But the actual accusation really doesn’t seem to fall under the definition for “sexual harassment” itself – at least from the brief bit of the article that I read.

Read the second paragraph on your Wikipedia link,

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.

Or sexual history.

Maybe. But if that is the actual way the term is used and the way the law is applied then I would say it is a rather blunt instrument more likely to be abused than not. For instance, the following is Katie Graham’s tweet which was apparently blocked by Melody Hensley. Although I should mention I had mistakenly assumed this came from Sara Mayhew (still learning to parse tweets):

.@MelodyHensley You know what my job calls accusations of using male attn to climb the ladder? Sexual harassment. @saramayew

More specifically, sexual harassment as per the definition I provided is “the inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favours”and it is, I think, typically applied to men doing the promising and the women doing the providing of the “favours”. Whereas Graham is referring to a hypothetical case in which some woman is accusing another woman of at best using no more than “male attention” and at worst – the implication – of offering sexual favours in exchange for assistance in “climbing the corporate ladder”.

I don’t know about you, but to me those two cases look like very different kettles of fish. And one might even argue that the second hypothetical woman is, hypothetically, being accused of solicitation, aka prostitution. Nothing wrong with that in essence of course, although the hypothetical company involved might be less than impressed and would probably have just cause for firing both the “solicitor” and the “solicitee”….

While I generally agree with Mayhew’s post and think that there is some justification for Graham’s criticisms of Hensley, I would still say that Graham has mischaracterized Hensley's comments as “sexual harassment”.

In other news, someone else who agrees with me that Fukuyama is full of shit. He also reinforces why I see that multiculturalism as currently practised in the West will eventually lead to sectarian violence (I hope to be wrong about this).

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/arti ... ed-lessons

The adherents of secular progress narratives, however, can plead no such justification. To the contrary, the claims of a Fukuyama or of the contemporary ideologues of the global human rights movement—in many ways, the most powerful and influential of all contemporary utopian progress narratives—insist that however much their views have a component of hope, their confidence in the rightness of these views is based on the empirical evidence.

Reminds me of the baboons. Fingers stuck in their ears, la la la la la (in Arabic that means no no no no no) I can not hear you.

Nothing could be further from the truth. For if empirical criteria and historical evidence are the grounds on which intelligent people base their understanding of which direction the world is going in, it is surely just as plausible to claim that sectarianism has been as defining of modern history as universalization has been, and even that, at least in some parts of the world, sectarianism, in a broad sense that would include tribal, ethnic, racial, religious, and, within particular religions, confessional identities and loyalties, has played as central a role as globalization. The fact that this does not seem obvious—or, more precisely, that, at least in the West, the political and intellectual ruling classes seem to have to “rediscover” sectarianism every time it crops up (which, of course, is often) only to forget about it again until the next crisis imposes yet another rude awakening—is a reoccuring mystery of modern world affairs.

This time much closer to home. Of course the fuckers who formulated and implemented these policys will be long gone, it will be their grand children that will have to deal with the fallout.

I suggest you read the rest. I may have mentioned at some point that I disagreed very much so with Hitchens on Iraq. Events have proven me correct.

In other news, I am still putting off reading Pinker's latest work. I have it ready to go in Calibre. I really do not want to confirm my suspicion that on this subject, Steve is just as full of shit as Fukuyama and Hitchins.

Do not have idols people. They all have feet of clay.

Steersman wrote:While I generally agree with Mayhew’s post and think that there is some justification for Graham’s criticisms of Hensley, I would still say that Graham has mischaracterized Hensley's comments as “sexual harassment”.

[channels the Reddit/MRA asshole]

Dood! It is a cat fight. And that is how they do it. Rip their clothes off and expose their tits. Rip the hair out. It is as simple as that.

DownThunder wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

Evan wrote:If Jen's father ever becomes king, Seattle residents may want to move elsewhere.
http://kingmccreight.blogspot.com/2011/ ... false.html

...When I am King I am making my daughter Princess of Seattle.

Mission Accomplished.
She is the most precious "Little Princess" of her age that I have ever witnessed.
No wonder Jen is so fucked-up.
I nearly felt a microscopic pang of pity for her.

Probably started young. The first time she showed her parents a few bits of pasta noodle stuck to a piece of cardboard, they probably acted like it was a Rembrandt.

That generous over inflation of ones abilities and accomplishments seems to have carried over into adult life.

My father (my mum wasn't around when I grew up) always belittled me for anything I did. For this I am very grateful...

AndrewV69 wrote:

Steersman wrote:While I generally agree with Mayhew’s post and think that there is some justification for Graham’s criticisms of Hensley, I would still say that Graham has mischaracterized Hensley's comments as “sexual harassment”.

[channels the Reddit/MRA asshole]

Dood! It is a cat fight. And that is how they do it. Rip their clothes off and expose their tits. Rip the hair out. It is as simple as that.

LoL! :-)

Yes, more than some justification for looking at it that way – catty, is what I called it earlier. One might reasonably argue that a large portion of the blame for the rather juvenile level these discussions have degenerated to might be laid at the doorsteps of women like Rebecca and Amy … reminds me of Dylan’s Wicked Messenger who “multiplied the smallest matter” ….

sacha wrote:The basic premise of a feminist to my mum, was a woman who takes responsibility for her own life, is no victim, and is not dependent on others to solve her problems or rescue her.

My parents, also.

I think identity politics have basically shit on everything.

sacha wrote:

Steersman wrote:He generally argues that far too many women have bought into the myth of Cinderella, but have generally corrupted it – and frequently the men in their lives – by seeing the Prince and the Castle as their virtual birthright

Ah yes, the Cinderella Myth. The one I'm familiar with is a bit different. An interesting hypothesis of cause and effect regarding many unhappy, bitter and unfulfilled women, and the reason they treat the men they are married to with emotional abuse and contempt. ...

I periodically think that such unhappy marriages are the breeding grounds for the next generation of failed Cinderellas – a process which has, if I’m not mistaken, its echoes in various various biological pathologies. But maybe with the father relying too much on the affection of the daughter to replace the lack from the mother. Or the mother pushing the daughter to grab what she was “cheated”of.

Complex psychologies that happen inside families, not all of it particularly edifying or admirable – the play and movie The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds providing, I think, a particularly stark and powerful portrayal of that ….

Quite obviously there are not a lot of girls being raised this way, they believe they deserve it all, that they can do no wrong, and should be treated like royalty ….

Would be interesting to know the statistics on that. You obviously have more than a few anecdotes that support that argument and Wylie – a close student of human nature and a prolific writer – did likewise. But the 40% divorce rate is at least suggestive of many people going into it with highly questionable attitudes – not that I’m in a position to throw many stones ….

Oh, and translation of my French sentence:

Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at the menu.

DownThunder wrote:...Probably started young. The first time she showed her parents a few bits of pasta noodle stuck to a piece of cardboard, they probably acted like it was a Rembrandt.

Yeah, I am guilty of a bit of that too, with my daughter.
If only by default.
But I do remember mixing encouragement (NOT praise!) with instruction by example. (With the sole exception of Ballet!)
She grew up on a country farm, and that (I think) is a large element of what made her as tremendously robust and independent as she remains.

DownThunder wrote:That generous over inflation of ones abilities and accomplishments seems to have carried over into adult life.

Again, mea culpa in the early years with her (0~2).
She grew up with all of the Aladdin/Princess tales, but saw them equally as fictional as goblins, Klingons, Little Ponies, Honest Politicians, Marine-Boy, Unicorns, perfect marriages, honourable parasitism, lazy dole bludgers.
(One of those is not true. Post the answer on the back of a Minke Whale, and send to:-
The BBC Complaints Dept, Alton Towers, West Uganda, Q2304)

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, and translation of my French sentence:
Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at the menu.

Arigato Goziamashita, Sensei.

Steersman wrote: The attitude behind this post from there seems to be a contributing factor:

Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle wrote:September 9, 2012 at 3:37 pm

noelplum99 wrote:… in the threads I have become involved in I really don’t know how I could have been more civil.

When the sum total of your “argument” is bitches ain’t shit, no matter how “civil” your wording, you’re an incredible dipshit if you think no one notices.

Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

Yep, a big old insane temper tantrum right in the middle of the thread. Funny that none of the baboons noticed it.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, and translation of my French sentence:

Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at the menu.

Learn something new every day – and I now see from my French-English dictionary that “regime” is used in the context of diets. But I did suggest that mine was a bit of a stab in the dark ….

Michael K Gray wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, and translation of my French sentence:
Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at the menu.

Arigato Goziamashita, Sensei.

Domo arigato, young padawan!

Steersman, oh my Steersman:

It's not an easy turn of phrase, so the (very few) mistakes are forgiven. Hell, I had a bit of a hard time translating it myself, and it's not a 100% accurate translation. maybe this would be closer: "It is not because you are on a diet that you don't have the right to look at the menu".

Yep, that one is 100% accurate, albeit grammatically ugly to read.

cunt wrote:

Steersman wrote: ....
Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

Yep, a big old insane temper tantrum right in the middle of the thread. Funny that none of the baboons noticed it.

Exactly – seems to be some sort of standard operating procedure I think. My first real exposure to that was a real hissy-fit thrown by Josh, THE Official SpokesGay … bunch of prima donnas ….

cunt wrote:Yep, a big old insane temper tantrum right in the middle of the thread. Funny that none of the baboons noticed it.

It is abundantly clear that whomever is the anonymous infantile coward: "Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle", xe exhibits continuous symptoms of insolently thuggish conceited INSANITY, sufficient to be locked away for life in a civilised country.
But not the USA, it seems.

And a happy birthday to Justin Vacula. Dude, get awfully drunk please!

xe exhibits continuous symptoms of insolently thuggish conceited INSANITY,

What was that? Can't we stick the the good ol' "they"? This "xe, xir, hir..." shit makes me cringe.

Evan wrote:If Jen's father ever becomes king, Seattle residents may want to move elsewhere.

Seattle already has a King, so I expect McCreight's pronouncements may go unheeded.

http://www.tremendousupsidepotential.co ... 0felix.jpg

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, and translation of my French sentence:
Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at the menu.

Arigato Goziamashita, Sensei.

Domo arigato, young padawan!

Steersman, oh my Steersman:

It's not an easy turn of phrase, so the (very few) mistakes are forgiven. Hell, I had a bit of a hard time translating it myself, and it's not a 100% accurate translation. maybe this would be closer: "It is not because you are on a diet that you don't have the right to look at the menu".

Yep, that one is 100% accurate, albeit grammatically ugly to read.

Yes, the difference between literal and colloquial translations can be quite entertaining and amusing – not that I’m familiar with many of them. I’m reminded of a discussion I had with my ex – from Quebec – when we were discussing a somewhat crude joke of some guy telling a woman to either put out or walk home. And she laughed and said there was a similar story in French with a nautical twist (I guess) and a punch line (I will probably mangle this as it was a long time ago and it’s too late to check the dictionary) “debarque puis de marche” ….

What was that? Can't we stick the the good ol' "they"? This "xe, xir, hir..." shit makes me cringe.

Exactly – massive silliness in my view; how many thousands of variations should we consider?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

xe exhibits continuous symptoms of insolently thuggish conceited INSANITY,

What was that? Can't we stick the the good ol' "they"? This "xe, xir, hir..." shit makes me cringe.

Ha! Fell for my crafty trap like the poor porn-pawn that you are, dancing to my endless puppeteer's relentless dance.
Mwoo-har-har!
(Thunder, Donner und Kebab!)
Igor! Ze sturm ist at its PEAK!
SThrow ze svitch!
(Damn. Gotta replace those fuses someday)
Hey, Igor: Vanna go to ze Chateau und look at my etchings of G. Christina?
(No pressure, mien liddle-von.)

some guy telling a woman to either put out or walk home. And she laughed and said there was a similar story in French with a nautical twist (I guess) and a punch line (I will probably mangle this as it was a long time ago and it’s too late to check the dictionary) “debarque puis de marche” ….

This would roughly translate as "unboard and to walk" (the "de" is useless here, thus the "to" in the translation). The closest I see to the punchline as far as I'm concerned would be "Make out with me, or go away", and it doesn't translate well in French.

"Cunt" is "con", also. Or "connard", or "connasse". Very common words around here. Aaaahh, culture...

FWIW, my comment on Cristina Rad’s post on A response to GirlWritesWhat on the DMCA drama + more since it is still in moderation some 24 hours after I posted it. Maybe she simply hasn’t got around to releasing it, but then again she may have decided to go along with the other FTB sites in banning me ….

Certainly an interesting video for many reasons and you make many very good points and many will no doubt sympathize with your comments about all of the drama over this and related issues. And I rather like the closing clip of John the Other which at least raises the question of to what extent GWW might be “banging on the bongo-drum of ‘look, how much of a victim I am’” – “Drums Along the Mohawk”.

But, having let that cat out of the bag, maybe we can all agree that at least some on each side of this “drama” tend to over-play the “victim card”. Seems to me that feelings don’t always give a true representation of reality; part of our criticisms of the religious if I’m not mistaken: the feelings are certainly real enough but their correspondence to objective reality is anything but a foregone conclusion. Maybe, like good skeptics, we should all be asking for evidence and be prepared to provide it on request – and without reacting frequently with the shedding of copious quantities of crocodile tears and with charges of “troll!” and the like ….

And, speaking of evidence, while I very much question many of GWW’s arguments since many of them appear to be, as you suggest, largely speculations based on a liberal use of a crystal ball, that doesn’t appear to be the case for all of them. For instance, while the following links provide some evidence in support of the argument that the differential prevalence of “gendered roles” may have contributed to the fall of the Neaderthals and the rise of homo sapiens, they also show that that is only one possibility among several, agriculture likely to have been a major one: Wikipedia; Science Daily. In addition I would say, have said, that considering the prevalence of such roles even in lower primates, it is a bit of a stretch to argue that that wouldn’t still have been the case even with the Neanderthals.

Although, in passing, while you credibly use hypotheticals in some cases – “looks” deliberate as hell [8:49] – one might also argue that you too are apparently “guilty” of periodically relying overmuch on a crystal ball: shameless manipulation [5:14]

However, my primary criticism of your video is based on your comments about my own comment [5:22] about the difference between “may” and “must”, apropos of which is this salient definition of the latter:

must 1 (mst):
v.,v.aux.
5. a. Used to indicate inevitability or certainty: We all must die.
b. Used to indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty: If the lights were on, they must have been at home.

So while I will concede that, as you suggested in this video, your characterization of GWW’s argument in the previous video – the FreeThoughtSkepchickBlog (??) must be responsible for GirlWritesWhat getting DMCA-ed – and the use of “must” in it is certainly consistent with the second definition (5b), I might be so bold as to suggest that that argument is rather disingenuous to say the least. Seems to me that if you really intended “presumptive certainty” then you would have had no need for that statement in the first place since that “presumptive certainty” is essentially the relevant defintion of the word “may” which GWW actually used. Really not cricket – or wise – to change one’s horses in midstream, or one’s definitions in mid-argument.

Steersman wrote:FWIW, my comment on Cristina Rad’s post on A response to GirlWritesWhat on the DMCA drama + more since it is still in moderation some 24 hours after I posted it. Maybe she simply hasn’t got around to releasing it, but then again she may have decided to go along with the other FTB sites in banning me ….

A 3rd alternative presents its-self:
She can't be arsed to wade through the impenetrable sludge that is your quite unnecessarily prolix prose?
You could have distilled that verbiage down to a half-of-a-paragraph, sonny-jim.
You seem to forget that English is her second or even third language.

Michael K Gray wrote:

Steersman wrote:FWIW, my comment on Cristina Rad’s post on A response to GirlWritesWhat on the DMCA drama + more since it is still in moderation some 24 hours after I posted it. Maybe she simply hasn’t got around to releasing it, but then again she may have decided to go along with the other FTB sites in banning me ….

A 3rd alternative presents its-self:
She can't be arsed to wade through the impenetrable sludge that is your quite unnecessarily prolix prose?
You could have distilled that verbiage down to a half-of-a-paragraph, sonny-jim.
You seem to forget that English is her second or even third language.

Word to the wise ….

You might well have a point – something I’ve tried to correct, but apparently still a ways to go ….

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And a happy birthday to Justin Vacula. Dude, get awfully drunk please!

Thanks! :)

justinvacula wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And a happy birthday to Justin Vacula. Dude, get awfully drunk please!

Thanks! :)

Ah, to be Jung again.
"Vacula".
The surname fascinates me from an etymological standpoint, and has done so for as long as I have known you, sir.
(But have only imbibed enough Dutch-Courage to sufficiently armor me to enquire forthwith)

As you well know, the "v" in most(?) Spanish accents is pronounced as though it were the English "b".
Thus, rendered in Spanish, it becometh "Bacula", or Latin for mammalian "Penis Bones".
PLURAL!! of Baculum¹.

Are you able to confirm or deny this rumor, Senator?
__________________________
¹ Thus the logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Baculum, or argument from being beaten by a dick-stick.
(A ploy regularly entertained by one M. Laden.)

rayshul wrote:

sacha wrote:The basic premise of a feminist to my mum, was a woman who takes responsibility for her own life, is no victim, and is not dependent on others to solve her problems or rescue her.

My parents, also.

I think identity politics have basically shit on everything.

I have been saying it all along haven't I? Identity politics shits all over the place.

Steersman wrote:

cunt wrote:

Steersman wrote: ....
Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

Yep, a big old insane temper tantrum right in the middle of the thread. Funny that none of the baboons noticed it.

Exactly – seems to be some sort of standard operating procedure I think. My first real exposure to that was a real hissy-fit thrown by Josh, THE Official SpokesGay … bunch of prima donnas ….

I'm beginning to think of them as Cenobites (appropriately deriving from cœnobite: A member of a religious order living in a community). Like those imaginings of Clive Barker they are as merciless and unforgiving as they are repulsive. The only regret I would have with this comparison is that the original Cenobites are rather charming in their way, whereas the baboon sort are utterly charmless.

Maybe I shouldn't have exposed McCreight senior to the wider internet by posting the link to his blog post here.
Learn to be civil on the internet. Or I'll punch you in the mouth!
Still, the comments he's picking up are funny. I hope he joins in the thread.
http://kingmccreight.blogspot.se/2012/0 ... ility.html
:popcorn:

Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

: Effects of not having privilege
by Garnet » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:58 am

Because I am obese, I am labeled as lazy.
Because I am obese, I am told that I have no discipline.
Because I am obese, I am considered to be stupid and stinky.
Because I am obese, I am simultaneously the most visible and the most invisible person anywhere.
Because I am obese, I am verbally abused, taunted and bulled, often times by complete strangers.
Because I am obese, I have been repeatedly sexually harassed because "fat girls are easy."
Because I am obese, I have been told that I should just die so normal people don't have to look at me.
Because I am obese, I am the "Fat Friend" and the "Last Choice."
Because I am obese, it is culturally acceptable to denigrate and marginalize me based solely on my appearance.
Because I am obese, I am of little worth except as a convenient target.

[youtube]VKs0oEIVOck[/youtube]

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

I just read all of it.

[youtube]7mfA1jNiqoU[/youtube]

That privilege thread has me wondering why they haven't thought to recuit Bob Ducca to be the face of Atheism plus yet.

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Fuck sake! That thread has got to be the most nauseating display of self pity I've ever seen. I think that pedophile is for real too.

Guest wrote:

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Fuck sake! That thread has got to be the most nauseating display of self pity I've ever seen. I think that pedophile is for real too.

Looks like they've noticed that. From the original post:

Edit 2: Further Trigger warning to beware of skepticallyinclined's completely out of line post, hopefully a mod will remove it

Guest wrote:

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Fuck sake! That thread has got to be the most nauseating display of self pity I've ever seen. I think that pedophile is for real too.

I know that Greta Christina has defended pedophelia in the past (at least forms of pedophelic pornography that don't involve actual child abuse - for example photoshopping pictures of children or animated child characters that are shown having sex with adults.
Perhaps this is their new policy:
Atheismplus - a safe place for child molesters! :shock:

Guest wrote:

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Fuck sake! That thread has got to be the most nauseating display of self pity I've ever seen. I think that pedophile is for real too.

But is SkepticallyInclined taking the piss out of them? Or are they really that fucked up. (Sorry, its gotten so I cant tell the players anymore without a scorecard. Yes, I see the "Edit 2" but still: a whiner who went to far or a parody? You cant tell with these guys.)

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Hmmmmm. A real pity party going on i see. So a bunch of them are establishing themselves as victims and hence entitled to some sort of future dispensation/compensation/license?

http://i.imgur.com/cWjVN.jpg?1

From Skepsheik

Because I have one testicle bigger than the other I have to put up with gentlemens outfitters laughing in the cutting room.
Because the world is round I have to go round it instead of going in straight lines
Because I have ginger hair I have to lead a lonely unshaggable existence

right....off ye go...

Dick Strawkins wrote:Perhaps this is their new policy:
Atheismplus - a safe place for child molesters! :shock:

Hmmm.

Well if it is the same guy who was soliciting advise on the baboon board, he said then he is a non-practitioner, but he is scared of seeing a shrink because of what may happen afterwards. Assuming that all of this is true he does have a problem.

(this was when PeeZuss was having a hissy fit about comments in rot13 and so on in the comments).

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

Because I am male, people think I am a rapist.
Because I am male, I have to cross the street when I see a woman.
Because I am male, I cannot breast feed. (Not that it has stopped infants from trying.)
Becasue I am male, I am discouraged from caring for kids.
Because I am male, I cannot wear a skirt.

Because I am rich, people assume I can lend them money.
Becuase I am rich, I have to pay others to do my taxes.
Because I am rich, my house costs more to heat.
Because I am rich, people want to tax me more.
Because I am rich, I am expected to join a country club.

Because I am sarcastic, I have to write posts like this.

Dave wrote:

Guest wrote:

franc wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

franc wrote:Effects of not having privilege(Trigger Warning: Oppression)

Post by Catherine » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:45 am

So gender traitor chill girls and 'misogynists', like Dawkins and Russell Blackford, are not welcome in Atheism plus, but pedophiles are fine :shock:

Fucking really. If any of them were animals, and you didn't put them to sleep and out of their misery, it would be animal cruelty.

Fuck sake! That thread has got to be the most nauseating display of self pity I've ever seen. I think that pedophile is for real too.

But is SkepticallyInclined taking the piss out of them? Or are they really that fucked up. (Sorry, its gotten so I cant tell the players anymore without a scorecard. Yes, I see the "Edit 2" but still: a whiner who went to far or a parody? You cant tell with these guys.)

Looks genuine to me - that person has made 12 posts there & none of the others look like piss takes.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Perhaps this is their new policy:
Atheismplus - a safe place for child molesters! :shock:

Hmmm.

Well if it is the same guy who was soliciting advise on the baboon board, he said then he is a non-practitioner, but he is scared of seeing a shrink because of what may happen afterwards. Assuming that all of this is true he does have a problem.

(this was when PeeZuss was having a hissy fit about comments in rot13 and so on in the comments).

They all say they are non-practitioners!
Thinking about it a bit more I wonder how it could be serious - pedophiles are notorious for hiding their desires from others.
Would a real pedophile just open up on the Atheismplus messageboard?

clod wrote:Because I have one testicle bigger than the other I have to put up with gentlemens outfitters laughing in the cutting room.

You get your bollocks out at the tailor's? Suit you sir!

Dick Strawkins wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Perhaps this is their new policy:
Atheismplus - a safe place for child molesters! :shock:

Hmmm.

Well if it is the same guy who was soliciting advise on the baboon board, he said then he is a non-practitioner, but he is scared of seeing a shrink because of what may happen afterwards. Assuming that all of this is true he does have a problem.

(this was when PeeZuss was having a hissy fit about comments in rot13 and so on in the comments).

They all say they are non-practitioners!
Thinking about it a bit more I wonder how it could be serious - pedophiles are notorious for hiding their desires from others.
Would a real pedophile just open up on the Atheismplus messageboard?

No idea. I do not know much about them at all. I find the subject distasteful, and as I have kids my reactions are visceral.

Dick Strawkins wrote: [...] pedophiles are notorious for hiding their desires from others.

Can't imagine why that would be!

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Would a real pedophile just open up on the Atheismplus messageboard?

If they use Tor or something, and leave out identifying personal details, I believe it would be quite possible. Some of the remarks in that post struck me as being non-troll-like—of course, it could be the work of a clever troll.

Dick Strawkins wrote:I know that Greta Christina has defended pedophelia in the past (at least forms of pedophelic pornography that don't involve actual child abuse - for example photoshopping pictures of children or animated child characters that are shown having sex with adults.
Perhaps this is their new policy:
Atheismplus - a safe place for child molesters! :shock:

I, too, am inclined to believe that the paedophile is real. First, a paedophile is not a child-molestor until he/she has molested a child. Please don't conflate the two.

Having read some popular books, articles, etc. on neuroscience, I am not surprised if there really are people who, not by their own choice, are sexually attracted to children - they are just 'cursed' with such neurobiology. Most of the time, they know sex with children is wrong and their frontal lobes are doing a wondrous job of inhibiting them from acting on their impulse.
Cited in this brilliant essay* is a case of a brain tumour patient developing uncontrolled paedophilia. Unfortunately, the link to the original article on Newscientist no longer works.

Regardless of whether the paedophilia is in-born or not, let's not demonize the person so hastily before we are even sure that he/she has committed a crime. After all, we agree that people shouldn't be convicted for thought crime.

*Those who follow the link might notice the author of the article is Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism, one of the vocal supporters of FTBaboons and skepchicks. I found him a clear thinker and a superb writer whose writing was instrumental in my deconversion, so I was extremely disappointed and disillusioned when I found out that he has a massive blind spot when it comes to feminist doctrine.