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

oolon** wrote: To be clear I don't use any such slurs if I can help it as they can offend, annoy and upset by merely being in the sentence. I'm happy to offend, annoy and upset but achieving that through just using a contentious word to degrade a person seems like a self defeating exercise. It is attacking the irrelevant attributes of person when the ideas should be the target IMO.

I don't see cunt, twat and bitch as being misogynist or offensive to the vast majority of women in general. If somebody calls someone else a dick i wouldn't say (or think) the person a misandrist for doing so. Where I live cunt and twat means a bastard . No gender specifics. For instance I could say "Jimmy Savile appears to be a cunt and the people who suspected him of being a pedophile but never spoke out are twats".

Nigger and faggot are words I doubt I'd use as I believe they have universal connotations of racism and homophobia. However Crommunist is a cunt and Spokesknob is a twat IMO.

oolon (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 400#p16951) asks:

Are you all self censoring for ethnic slurs when you justify misogynistic and homophobic slurs as only being words?

To be fair to you, and us, you need to be more specific, because the definition/specification for racist slurs tends to be fairly clear, whereas the definition/specification for what is considered to be a mysocinstic or homophobic slur is all over the map, both literally and figuratively speaking.

So, if you want a reaslistic answer, I think you need to ask the question word-per-word.

Aslo, using the term "self-censoring" is both inaccurate and loaded. It implies that we would use the "bad-werd" if we had our preferences, but in order to avoid conflict, or keep people happy, or whatever, we are censoring ourselves and not using a word we might ordinarily like to use.

I never ever use the words nigger, or faggot, except in expository or explicatory discourse. That's not self-censorship, it is because those are words I just do not use; they are not part of my everyday vocabulary.

Oh boy. I went looking for a quote from PZ or RW during my little exchange with them and couldn't find it. Too long didn't write: I was nasty about it on twitter, PZ answered me. I apologized for MY behavior and he blocked me. The guy has no integrity.

To be on topic, though, I don't think Matt is going to distance from A+ over this forum thing. He'll chalk it up to a few bad apples and continue on his merry, clueless feminist way.

oolon** wrote: ... If I'm allowed .... A Question ....
Are you all self censoring for ethnic slurs when you justify misogynistic and homophobic slurs as only being words? (You/All = the subset that use/defend the use of slurs)

oolon,

A bit of self reflection would show you that no one here is actually racist, misogynistic or homophobic (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

The question you should be asking yourself is why you see mysogny and homophobia. You should also be asking yourself why you felt it necessary to search for racism.

The above is a clue oolon as to why I enjoy your posts. I have successfully avoided making fun of you in the past, but the earnest lack of clue on your part is so entertaining it has me in stiches.

The ERV slimepit had multiple conversations about the word nigger and other racial epithets, which I'm sure you could trawl back through the archives to find. From memory the conversation was pretty extensive. Generally I think there was some agreement that intent was what mattered in the use of any word.

100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy. He has to step in and try to explain the fucking obvious to them yet again.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 331#p22331

Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

I did not hide my identity looking for a 'gotcha' moment. My intent was to show the detractors (people outside of the forum who claim that reasonable objections are not accepted here) that their criticisms of this forum were incorrect. My intent was to show them exactly how to present a fair, reasonable objection by dealing with the facts and offering suggestions on how to handle these issues in the future. Everything in the original post was absolutely sincere and honest (I do have reservations about that particular ban).

My intent was to prove those people wrong. They're not wrong. They're not entirely right, either. Their complaints are often exaggerated, just as people's perceptions of Curious were.

What's annoying is that instead of acknowledging the problem (some have, and some are fixing these problems), some folks are making excuses, rationalizing, trying to paint me as the attacker they wrongly presumed that I was.

Even now, after the facts have been expressed several times, you've incorrectly claim that I admit to having hid my identity in order to push for a 'gotcha' moment. That's not what happened. You've got it exactly backward.[/quote]

Ah, Matt, now that you've been made a target yourself, you can glimpse what so many of the Baboons' victims have gone through for years now. You're finally seeing the M.O. of these people. You are now seeing the desperate and endless twisting these people will go through in order to always be right, never be wrong, and always paint their target as the transgressor. They exaggerate, they lie, they smear and they defame. You're one of their fucking heroes or something, so you are only getting the barest whiff of the lengths these assholes that you have cast your lot with will go to in order to cast themselves in a holy light.

Can you see this at all Matt? Can you finally start to fucking understand why so many people (and not just the Slimepit) are so utterly contemptuous of these morons? Argumentum ad populum fallacy, yeah yeah I know, acknowledged in advance, but when so many people are so disgusted and dismayed by the FTB/AtheismPlus/Skepchick people, don't you think it's time to put on your skeptic's hat and give a deep ponder as to why? After all, if a not-insignificant portion of the atheist/skeptic communities are calling you a raging asshole, could it be, just maybe, that you actually are a raging asshole?

Come on, man, look at what this is for what it really is: apologetics. That thread, (and the whole AtheismPlus forum, and most of Freethoughtblogs, and Skepchick) you're involved in might as well be full of Christian fundies trying to excuse their own awful behavior by saying that they're "saved" and it's all your fault because you "hate God". You've been guilty of the same "right at all costs" style of argumentation as well. Ever debate fundies online? Sure you have. That's why this surely seems so familiar to you.

Wake up, Dill-man, before it's too late. Be a fan of A+ and FTB, whatever. But at least show you've still got some skeptic stones and call this bullshit out for what it is. Quit pussyfooting around, because right now you look awful fucking weak.

AndrewV69 wrote:

oolon** wrote: ... If I'm allowed .... A Question ....
Are you all self censoring for ethnic slurs when you justify misogynistic and homophobic slurs as only being words? (You/All = the subset that use/defend the use of slurs)

oolon,

A bit of self reflection would show you that no one here is actually racist, misogynistic or homophobic (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

The question you should be asking yourself is why you see mysogny and homophobia. You should also be asking yourself why you felt it necessary to search for racism.

The above is a clue oolon as to why I enjoy your posts. I have successfully avoided making fun of you in the past, but the earnest lack of clue on your part is so entertaining it has me in stiches.

Hehe glad to make you laugh... You really think I'm fishing for racism though? I don't think use of words is proof of misogyny or racism, but I think the FtB'ers have a point that it can be pretty indicative. Like some above I'd not be comfortable with people using the word 'faggot' to describe a gay man so why do you let that happen here with no complaint? Just wondering why the same never occurs for racist terms (use or complaint however) -- is it easier to ignore homophobic and misogynist language (not intent) than racist for you - hence the 'self-censoring' part.

I'm glad your Clouseau 'clue' is that you have got me 'pegged' as I was wondering if you had some nutty conspiracy theory about me like sacha.

Loving this comment from the "Dillahunty sees the truth of A+" thread:
"I don't listen to criticism from complete strangers. You want me to believe you have our best interests at heart? Then hang out, post some food porn, indulge in some conversation, be sympathetic to someone in the support forum, whatever, but attempt to be one of us."

So...Just post some pics of tasty dinner and say you "feel the pain" of any whinging mong who posts a thread up and you are on board with A+! Do all that and they will listen to you. Until then you are a troll and don't you fucking dare claim otherwise.

Has anyone else notice in that thread how they "banned " the user Curious for being a sockpuppet but Matt Dillahunty is still not banned EVEN THOUGH HE ADMITTED he was the Curious sockpuppet? What the fuck is the point in banning the sockpuppet if the actual member is still allowed to post?

Scented, someone's been cruising through your Gender Traitor talking points,

[youtube]7ylZmsV_Ok4[/youtube]

Putting the theism into A+theism

[youtube]kmwNo0_xz7M[/youtube]

Gumby wrote:100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy. He has to step in and try to explain the fucking obvious to them yet again.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/styles/pr ... target.gif

Prospective Aplusser "Jess" is turned off by the forums attitude to new members and explains why in an articulate fashion. Shame the replies don't afford her the same courtesy.

oolon, you are dishonest and disingenuous in these discussions.

For example, I explained in simple terms why your use of such qualifiers as "self-censorship" is dishonest, inaccurate, and manipulative, yet you persist in misrepresenting the dialogue.

There are several other instances where you reshape, restructure, and misrepresent the words, terms, phrases, and entire arguments of others in an attempt to force a conclusion that satisfies your bias.

In a sense, all of your arguments present or structure themselves as a sort of extended version of "When did you stop beating your wife".

And that's really despicable manipulation of the conversation.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... =75#p22200

Sorry! Link fail. Yes I am a retard.

Sorry for the spam but I'm going to bed soon so meh. This from the Matt Dillahunty A+ thread :-
"Related to that is (as Pteryxx phrased it) the notion of Schroedinger's Troll. If we accept that we don't necessarily have the privilege of offering "good faith", we're in a similar position where, for the safety of those here, mods and users have to assume (until evidence is received to the contrary) that any new user is a potential troll and act accordingly. The actions "Curious" took (a new user, zero posts, challenging moderators, disputing a ban, etc.) provided no such evidence of "good faith" and, instead, could easily be construed as troll-type behavior."


ARRRRGGGHHH.... Schrodingers Troll!!!?? What the fuck! Can they twist Schrodinger's thought experiment any more? they are basically using it to say "Well you can never know anything, EVER, so always assume the worst...." Wow. So humanist.

Saint N. wrote:Scented, someone's been cruising through your Gender Traitor talking points,

7ylZmsV_Ok4

Putting the theism into A+theism

kmwNo0_xz7M

I enjoyed those, and I subscribed to the youtuber as well. Is that you?

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Gumby wrote:100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy. He has to step in and try to explain the fucking obvious to them yet again.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/styles/pr ... target.gif

Prospective Aplusser "Jess" is turned off by the forums attitude to new members and explains why in an articulate fashion. Shame the replies don't afford her the same courtesy.

Here's the link, you broke it:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 200#p22200

Jess did do very well, and got fairly shat on for his/her trouble.

Sorry 'bout that - I wanted to comment on the one post and skimmed oolon's and misread it - I didn't realize it until a few minutes later when I stopped for gas (I posted right before I left work). Not sure of an answer on his question - I tend not to use them because they have connotations that the other words don't have. If the baboons want to use "dick" but "twat" is bad - that's hypocrisy. I think, from six years teaching in a public high school in a lower income area, that "nigger" is going the way of "gay" - I hear it more used in so many different ways it was like when I joined the army and found out "fuck" was used in a million different ways and lost the "ooh - bad word" effect. It just became another word. Maybe when the current generation has died out, or even two or three, words like "nigger" will have lost the hate-filled connotations of those who lived through the civil rights era. Unless we keep telling people that the words are bad (and even then, even when explaining, it doesn't sink in to the kids, because they haven't known it only as bad - to them, it's just another word) and they accept that, the meanings will change, along with the connotations, as so many other words have done.

Languages change over time. No big deal.

Gumby wrote:100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy.

Now locked for the night so they can all have a hot chocolate and sleepy time to recover.

One Richard_Austin bleats

Discussing this with Pteryxx elsewhere, a couple of related concepts came up that are really relevant here.

The first is about good faith. The notion that "good faith" should be assumed is a privileged position: it assumes that one is safe and secure enough to take the risk that is inherent in such an assumption. Some people don't have that safety and security - and the history of the forums here proves that this is one such place were "good faith" is extremely costly, given the huge amount of trolling that takes place.

Related to that is (as Pteryxx phrased it) the notion of Schroedinger's Troll. If we accept that we don't necessarily have the privilege of offering "good faith", we're in a similar position where, for the safety of those here, mods and users have to assume (until evidence is received to the contrary) that any new user is a potential troll and act accordingly. The actions "Curious" took (a new user, zero posts, challenging moderators, disputing a ban, etc.) provided no such evidence of "good faith" and, instead, could easily be construed as troll-type behavior.

Such delicate little blossoms! They lack the privilege-power to rise from their fainting couch and do someone the courtesy of assuming – until proven otherwise – that they're not a troll. It's too 'costly' to their 'safety'. Really? What's being expended? What's at risk? They're only burbling to each other on the Web, yet they talk as if they're fighting for their lives.

So, assume everyone is the enemy and get your retaliation in first. Good luck with that as the foundation of your 'movement'. Oh, and 'Schroedinger's Troll', has that been sighted before or is it a new one for the Bestiary? Poor old Erwin, spinning in his grave I expect.

real horrorshow wrote:Poor old Erwin, spinning in his grave I expect.

This is, of course, incorrect. The current contretemps has instead put him into a superposition of face-up and face-down in his grave.

Scented Nectar wrote:

Saint N. wrote:Scented, someone's been cruising through your Gender Traitor talking points,

[youtube]7ylZmsV_Ok4[/youtube]

Putting the theism into A+theism

kmwNo0_xz7M

I enjoyed those, and I subscribed to the youtuber as well. Is that you?

No, it's not me. I just casually stumbled upon the videos and thought some others here would enjoy it as well. I have to say the widescale rejection of A+theism by youtube atheists has brought my attention to a number of vloggers I hadn't heard of before that are definitely worth checking out for their thoughts on other topics too.

Ee, that made me grin, Badger. I still believe pretty firmly that words are not bad and that banning a word gives it a power it doesn't deserve. Yay for the next generation.

Bugger, Parsehole ninja'd me.
Still, at least I can take comfort in the fact that I'm not 'ableist' and oolon wont sniff at me...

Tony Parsehole wrote:any whinging mong...

But wait...

Tony Parsehole wrote:Yes I am a retard.

Oh noes! Caught weilding my non-retard privilege.
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
(How do the baboons keep this up?)

rayshul wrote:Ee, that made me grin, Badger. I still believe pretty firmly that words are not bad and that banning a word gives it a power it doesn't deserve. Yay for the next generation.

Yeah - we are the only ones who can give words power. When you try to tell a kid that a word he uses has meanings he really doesn't associate with it, and expect them to feel it and take it to heart....not smart.

To be fair, there are also a lot of writing, such as Churchill's speech, or FDR's Pearl Harbor, or even a lot of talks I hear nowadays, that resonate with us emotionally and have that kind of power too, so it goes both ways.

oolon** wrote: Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:20 pm
.....
It is one of the best things about the atheist-sceptical community - if we are wrong we can say so and move on as we are not held accountable to any 'absolute truth' or 'greater morality' that taint us. Seems one of the worst aspects of this polarising and 'taking sides' as people cannot do it as it sticks in the craw when apologising to your enemy.

Good points there oolon, particularly about the sticking in the craw, the degree of which seems directly proportional to the extent to which one has invested emotional capital into a particular position. However I have to ask you when we might expect an apology from PZ Myers and Greg Laden for tarring all MRAs with the same brush, for these decidedly categorical statements from them:

The question of whether or not MRAs are sexist misogynist jerks that need not be taken seriously was settled a long time ago.

Why do I despise MRAs? PZ Myers
Because they are narcissistic clueless psychopaths, that’s why.

And that in spite of the semi-retraction by the Southern Poverty Law Centre that there is some justification for some MRA arguments:

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

Particularly in light of Jason Thibeault’s self-identification as a “real MRA” and his support for one of the same causes – reduction of prison rape, mostly of men – espoused by Paul Elam of A Voice for Men. My gosh, if that is not a prima facie case of “guilt by association” - at least as bad as if not worse than Justin Vacula posting on AVfM - then I can’t possibly think of a better one ....

So then oolon, what do you think of the odds of those forthcoming apologies? When pigs fly? On the Second Coming of Christ? ....

real horrorshow wrote:Such delicate little blossoms! They lack the privilege-power to rise from their fainting couch and do someone the courtesy of assuming – until proven otherwise – that they're not a troll. It's too 'costly' to their 'safety'. Really? What's being expended? What's at risk? They're only burbling to each other on the Web, yet they talk as if they're fighting for their lives.

The problem with all of them using the "we're constantly being attacked by trolls, so we can't afford to take even the mildest form of criticism in good faith" line, is that Matt's venture into their forum as 'Curious' gives validity to the argument that their tolerance level for what is and isn't to be considered appropriate is pretty low to begin with. So how do we know that all of these other supposed 'trolls' weren't as equally sincere as Matt in their comments and unjustifiably got the boot from a bunch of oversensitive mods? We don't, we just have to take their word on good faith. A generosity they're not willing to extend to anyone else outside of their established circle of insiders.

As far as the sockpuppetry charge goes, Matt should have know that 'Radial Tire' is the only A+ approved forum nym available.

... there are also a lot of writing, such as Churchill's speech, or FDR's Pearl Harbor, or even a lot of talks I hear nowadays, that resonate with us emotionally and have that kind of power too, so it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't really go both ways. What you are reacting to is not the individual words, possibly not even the individual short phrases. You are reacting to the context, the intent, the circumstance, and the careful construction of the whole.

And that is what these lily pads at Skepchick and FfTB so willfully ignore.

real horrorshow wrote:(How do the baboons keep this up?)

You are either a baboon or you ain't and if you have to ask....You ain't.

real horrorshow wrote:

Gumby wrote:100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy.

Now locked for the night so they can all have a hot chocolate and sleepy time to recover.

One Richard_Austin bleats

Discussing this with Pteryxx elsewhere, a couple of related concepts came up that are really relevant here.

The first is about good faith. The notion that "good faith" should be assumed is a privileged position: it assumes that one is safe and secure enough to take the risk that is inherent in such an assumption. Some people don't have that safety and security - and the history of the forums here proves that this is one such place were "good faith" is extremely costly, given the huge amount of trolling that takes place.

Related to that is (as Pteryxx phrased it) the notion of Schroedinger's Troll. If we accept that we don't necessarily have the privilege of offering "good faith", we're in a similar position where, for the safety of those here, mods and users have to assume (until evidence is received to the contrary) that any new user is a potential troll and act accordingly. The actions "Curious" took (a new user, zero posts, challenging moderators, disputing a ban, etc.) provided no such evidence of "good faith" and, instead, could easily be construed as troll-type behavior.

Such delicate little blossoms! They lack the privilege-power to rise from their fainting couch and do someone the courtesy of assuming – until proven otherwise – that they're not a troll. It's too 'costly' to their 'safety'. Really? What's being expended? What's at risk? They're only burbling to each other on the Web, yet they talk as if they're fighting for their lives.

So, assume everyone is the enemy and get your retaliation in first. Good luck with that as the foundation of your 'movement'. Oh, and 'Schroedinger's Troll', has that been sighted before or is it a new one for the Bestiary? Poor old Erwin, spinning in his grave I expect.

For all the vitriol and bluster these morons sling, they're just too delicate to be on the internet. Go figure.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

real horrorshow wrote:(How do the baboons keep this up?)

You are either a baboon Christian or you ain't and if you have to ask....You ain't.

Same thing. Fucking cults, how do they work?

John Greg wrote:

... there are also a lot of writing, such as Churchill's speech, or FDR's Pearl Harbor, or even a lot of talks I hear nowadays, that resonate with us emotionally and have that kind of power too, so it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't really go both ways. What you are reacting to is not the individual words, possibly not even the individual short phrases. You are reacting to the context, the intent, the circumstance, and the careful construction of the whole.

And that is what these lily pads at Skepchick and FfTB so willfully ignore.

True, but I could have been clearer - what I meant was that words have power that we give them, and that power could be for good or bad, depending on all those things you said. I agree, It really isn't the same thing, but I think there are elements that are shared - for some people, the emotional reaction to the words gives them the power they think they have - but they expect others to have the same reaction. Someone who grew up in the South in the 60s-70s (or before) definitely will have different reactions (and emotions, etc) to the word "nigger" than my students today. I just don't think it right to try to force those kids to have the same reaction that I might have - especially since within (hopefully) 50+ years, I'll be gone and they'll be shaping the world (or their kids or grandkids will), and they'll go in the direction they will. I can try to influence it, but in the end it will be up to them, the same as it was for us and everyone else.

Sorry to get a bit longwinded - we had professional development today, and while that wasn't covered, it did come up earlier in the day so it's been on my mind.

This is a must-see. Someone named Pricsilla Parker is claiming that Greg Laden was completely within his rights to attack Justin Griffith because Justin Griffith deserved it. And they go no to say that Griffith is facing criminal charges for cyberstalking!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126055

Greg Laden was thrown off ftb because he had the audacity to confronted Justin Griffith about his immature and insulting behavior. He was provoked into responding the way he did. Justin Griffith plays the victim time and again and it’s high time he stops being coddled and called on his derisive and harassing tactics. He attacked me, deliberately, on August 26th in a blog that was removed from ftb the same day and then was reposted on rock beyond beliefs website. He is now facing criminal charges for cyberbullying and harassment because after being given several warnings, he refuses to simply remove the blog.

Stephanie, you and others did the right thing defending Mr. Laden. I hope FTB reassess what happened with that situation in light of this. His presence at FTB should be considered an insult to the rest of the bloggers, especially the woman. He is not welcomed in the local atheist community around Fort Bragg because of his behavior and he his presence here should be reconsidered.

Fascinating stuff; endlessly fascinating stuff.

Tkmlac wrote:Apparent indefensible rape apologist & chill girl here -- questioned Rebecca Watson... After she called me a twit, I called her a bitch... Glad to be here.

Welcome.

Post a bit more and I'll send you an invitation to join GTI.

Gumby wrote:

real horrorshow wrote:

Gumby wrote:100 posts into the Dillahunty thread, and they still are trying to excuse themselves and make Dillahunty out to be the bad guy.

Now locked for the night so they can all have a hot chocolate and sleepy time to recover.

One Richard_Austin bleats

Discussing this with Pteryxx elsewhere, a couple of related concepts came up that are really relevant here.

The first is about good faith. The notion that "good faith" should be assumed is a privileged position: it assumes that one is safe and secure enough to take the risk that is inherent in such an assumption. Some people don't have that safety and security - and the history of the forums here proves that this is one such place were "good faith" is extremely costly, given the huge amount of trolling that takes place.

Related to that is (as Pteryxx phrased it) the notion of Schroedinger's Troll. If we accept that we don't necessarily have the privilege of offering "good faith", we're in a similar position where, for the safety of those here, mods and users have to assume (until evidence is received to the contrary) that any new user is a potential troll and act accordingly. The actions "Curious" took (a new user, zero posts, challenging moderators, disputing a ban, etc.) provided no such evidence of "good faith" and, instead, could easily be construed as troll-type behavior.

Such delicate little blossoms! They lack the privilege-power to rise from their fainting couch and do someone the courtesy of assuming – until proven otherwise – that they're not a troll. It's too 'costly' to their 'safety'. Really? What's being expended? What's at risk? They're only burbling to each other on the Web, yet they talk as if they're fighting for their lives.

So, assume everyone is the enemy and get your retaliation in first. Good luck with that as the foundation of your 'movement'. Oh, and 'Schroedinger's Troll', has that been sighted before or is it a new one for the Bestiary? Poor old Erwin, spinning in his grave I expect.

For all the vitriol and bluster these morons sling, they're just too delicate to be on the internet. Go figure.

Listening to Reap on his "angry atheist" podcast, he mentioned internet dramas (this was an older one, not the newest), but as I said before, I used to get so caught up in the forum "scene" that I let it take over my life, and spent hours online, and conflicts online bled over into real life. So I took a break - just stopped posting anywhere, and just got on with my life. Now I'm better and while I still like these things, I try not to take anything with me (except funny stories, things the baboons provide in spades). The A+ forum seems to be a haven for the deranged and damaged, the delicate little snowflakes that are too special to face the Wild West of the internet. It is amazing how their "inclusive" movement is so distrustful of those not already in.

John Greg wrote:This is a must-see. Someone named Pricsilla Parker is claiming that Greg Laden was completely within his rights to attack Justin Griffith because Justin Griffith deserved it. And they go no to say that Griffith is facing criminal charges for cyberstalking!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126055

Greg Laden was thrown off ftb because he had the audacity to confronted Justin Griffith about his immature and insulting behavior. He was provoked into responding the way he did. Justin Griffith plays the victim time and again and it’s high time he stops being coddled and called on his derisive and harassing tactics. He attacked me, deliberately, on August 26th in a blog that was removed from ftb the same day and then was reposted on rock beyond beliefs website. He is now facing criminal charges for cyberbullying and harassment because after being given several warnings, he refuses to simply remove the blog.

Stephanie, you and others did the right thing defending Mr. Laden. I hope FTB reassess what happened with that situation in light of this. His presence at FTB should be considered an insult to the rest of the bloggers, especially the woman. He is not welcomed in the local atheist community around Fort Bragg because of his behavior and he his presence here should be reconsidered.

Fascinating stuff; endlessly fascinating stuff.

This smells like Poe to me.....A bit too enthusiastic maybe? Is the poster a regular? I

oolon** wrote: Hehe glad to make you laugh... You really think I'm fishing for racism though?

I think you need to reread how you phrased your original query and the basis for it. The trap is that no matter how impeccable the logic, if the basic premise is off the mark, the likelyhood for a conclusion congruent with reality is improbable.

In short, Answers are easy. It is the questions that are hard.

oolon** wrote: I don't think use of words is proof of misogyny or racism, but I think the FtB'ers have a point that it can be pretty indicative. Like some above I'd not be comfortable with people using the word 'faggot' to describe a gay man so why do you let that happen here with no complaint? Just wondering why the same never occurs for racist terms (use or complaint however) -- is it easier to ignore homophobic and misogynist language (not intent) than racist for you - hence the 'self-censoring' part.

Speaking for myself, and only for myself, most of the faggots I know refer to themselves as faggots, and have no objection to my using the term either.

As for the word "nigger" or suchlike, most of the blacks I know happen to be Nigerian, and they never use that term (of course they are all elitist, the least educated one has only a BSc) and neither do I, because it simply is not part of our vocabulary.

My Hakka in-laws on the other hand are generally amused every time I refer to myself as a gweilo.

But I can be offensive when I want to be simply for the amusement value. The expressions on people faces when I refer to Obama as Bush in black-face are priceless:

oolon** wrote: I'm glad your Clouseau 'clue' is that you have got me 'pegged' as I was wondering if you had some nutty conspiracy theory about me like sacha.

No no no. I have not thought about you often enough to form any theories about you. I just accept you as you appear to be.

Tony Parsehole wrote:This smells like Poe to me.....A bit too enthusiastic maybe? Is the poster a regular? I

Priscilla Parker is making my Poe-radar beep too, especially as Laden is slutting around the fringes of society again. (I picture him leaving a thread of oozy gunk behind him.) Not suggesting sock puppetry but possibly some form of puppetry. ^_^

rayshul wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:This smells like Poe to me.....A bit too enthusiastic maybe? Is the poster a regular? I

Priscilla Parker is making my Poe-radar beep too, especially as Laden is slutting around the fringes of society again. (I picture him leaving a thread of oozy gunk behind him.) Not suggesting sock puppetry but possibly some form of puppetry. ^_^

Just a friendly troll getting his/her lulz for the day. Can't say I blame 'em.

John Greg wrote:This is a must-see. Someone named Pricsilla Parker is claiming that Greg Laden was completely within his rights to attack Justin Griffith because Justin Griffith deserved it. And they go no to say that Griffith is facing criminal charges for cyberstalking!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126055

Greg Laden was thrown off ftb because he had the audacity to confronted Justin Griffith about his immature and insulting behavior. He was provoked into responding the way he did. Justin Griffith plays the victim time and again and it’s high time he stops being coddled and called on his derisive and harassing tactics. He attacked me, deliberately, on August 26th in a blog that was removed from ftb the same day and then was reposted on rock beyond beliefs website. He is now facing criminal charges for cyberbullying and harassment because after being given several warnings, he refuses to simply remove the blog.

Stephanie, you and others did the right thing defending Mr. Laden. I hope FTB reassess what happened with that situation in light of this. His presence at FTB should be considered an insult to the rest of the bloggers, especially the woman. He is not welcomed in the local atheist community around Fort Bragg because of his behavior and he his presence here should be reconsidered.

Fascinating stuff; endlessly fascinating stuff.

A while back, there was a post - from an atheist soldier - about a woman he had an affair with (he got drunk, one thing led to another) and this led to harassment and stalking by her - and I thought for sure it was Justin. The soldier was married, and I thought there was something about recruiting in there as well. Not sure what Justin is doing now. It was a pretty weird post, and I pretty much ignored it, but if it was Justin, then it is gone now. If, and that is a huge if, since my memory may be completely faulty, it was JG, then I could see this as the person who was stalking him. But, as I said, I could be completely full of it since I didn't save the post or any link to it in my feed, and if it was at Rock Beyond Belief it is gone, but if anyone else remembers reading such a post chime in - this stirred my memory and it won't go away now. If the woman is referring to the same post I am, then it is gone now.

OK - never mind - it has been moved and I've was right. It is the same woman. Just look in the archives for that day.

The post has moved but the comments are still there.

Badger3k wrote:

rayshul wrote:Ee, that made me grin, Badger. I still believe pretty firmly that words are not bad and that banning a word gives it a power it doesn't deserve. Yay for the next generation.

Yeah - we are the only ones who can give words power. When you try to tell a kid that a word he uses has meanings he really doesn't associate with it, and expect them to feel it and take it to heart....not smart.

To be fair, there are also a lot of writing, such as Churchill's speech, or FDR's Pearl Harbor, or even a lot of talks I hear nowadays, that resonate with us emotionally and have that kind of power too, so it goes both ways.

Agreed.

Apropos of which, my earlier comment to rayshul which includes a link to a routine by the comedian Lenny Bruce on the topic of the power we invest in words:

Steersman wrote:

rayshul wrote: ... I'm personally against banning words and I think James Onen has a sweet post on Rational Ugandan about use of swearwords/whether or not they are good/what's to be done... etc...

Generally I agree with you on the banning – I definitely tend to think that that only tends to make the words more vicious; kind of silly in a way, school-yardish, the more they’re whispered about, the more power they have to shock and wound. You might be interested, if you haven’t run across it before, in a routine by an old, now dead, comedian, Lenny Bruce on the topic.

And similarly, a comment on James Onen’s post noted above:

Denying the gods does not allow one to escape rampant human bias. Theism is merely one symptom of our mostly non-rational and irrational primate brains – there are many other symptoms that atheists rarely escape. We, too, are often dogmatic. We, too, abandon reason and evidence to support opinions that just “feel right” to us.

AtheismPlus writ large, although unfortunately not exclusive to them ….

rayshul wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:This smells like Poe to me.....A bit too enthusiastic maybe? Is the poster a regular? I

Priscilla Parker is making my Poe-radar beep too, especially as Laden is slutting around the fringes of society again. (I picture him leaving a thread of oozy gunk behind him.) Not suggesting sock puppetry but possibly some form of puppetry. ^_^

Hmmmm.... the puppetry of the penis?

The post is up at rockbeyondbelief.com/2012/08/27/im-sure-this-will-make-a-nice-blog-fuck-off-and-die/

John Greg wrote:This is a must-see. Someone named Pricsilla Parker is claiming that Greg Laden was completely within his rights to attack Justin Griffith because Justin Griffith deserved it. And they go no to say that Griffith is facing criminal charges for cyberstalking!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126055

Greg Laden was thrown off ftb because he had the audacity to confronted Justin Griffith about his immature and insulting behavior. He was provoked into responding the way he did. Justin Griffith plays the victim time and again and it’s high time he stops being coddled and called on his derisive and harassing tactics. He attacked me, deliberately, on August 26th in a blog that was removed from ftb the same day and then was reposted on rock beyond beliefs website. He is now facing criminal charges for cyberbullying and harassment because after being given several warnings, he refuses to simply remove the blog.

Stephanie, you and others did the right thing defending Mr. Laden. I hope FTB reassess what happened with that situation in light of this. His presence at FTB should be considered an insult to the rest of the bloggers, especially the woman. He is not welcomed in the local atheist community around Fort Bragg because of his behavior and he his presence here should be reconsidered.

Fascinating stuff; endlessly fascinating stuff.

Holy fuck. She sounds like a complete nutcase.

Damn. Beaten to the punch by a long way.

JackRayner wrote:By the way, SPACKlick, The False Pooka blocked me from commenting on his videos after I called him out on his message deleting. I'm planning on making and posting a video on it later. It'll be the first video response I ever make, and it might be the last. [Will probably have to ask GWW to host the response.] Also the first for my current user channel. Had some on a past channel that I deleted, but they were essentially vacation videos. [If videos of me riding the gun turret of a military truck through Iraq with a loaded crew-served weapon could qualify as such...]

Belay this. Just remembered I don't give enough of a fuck to record some audio, fire up after effects and cut a video together just to point out that Pooka is a dishonest cunt. So what if he's a slimy piece of shit who strawmanned me in his video's comments after blocking me so that I couldn't defend myself or my argument. Boo hoo! No one knows who the fuck I am or gives a fuck anyhow. :violin:

Tristan wrote:Damn. Beaten to the punch by a long way.

At least you went the direct way. I just remembered reading it and went searching, but my link wasn't complete I guess (although I did copy it exactly as my browser showed). No harm done. But I agree with you on that.

However, since we are taking the word of a man over that of a woman, I'm sure we are all just victim-blaming MRA tools of the patriarchy. Does this mean that Justin is going to be the new witch o'the week?

oolon - thanks for the lulz.

Isn't Uncle Myers waiting for you to sit on his knee?

Tristan wrote:

John Greg wrote:This is a must-see. Someone named Pricsilla Parker is claiming that Greg Laden was completely within his rights to attack Justin Griffith because Justin Griffith deserved it. And they go no to say that Griffith is facing criminal charges for cyberstalking!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126055

Greg Laden was thrown off ftb because he had the audacity to confronted Justin Griffith about his immature and insulting behavior. He was provoked into responding the way he did. Justin Griffith plays the victim time and again and it’s high time he stops being coddled and called on his derisive and harassing tactics. He attacked me, deliberately, on August 26th in a blog that was removed from ftb the same day and then was reposted on rock beyond beliefs website. He is now facing criminal charges for cyberbullying and harassment because after being given several warnings, he refuses to simply remove the blog.

Stephanie, you and others did the right thing defending Mr. Laden. I hope FTB reassess what happened with that situation in light of this. His presence at FTB should be considered an insult to the rest of the bloggers, especially the woman. He is not welcomed in the local atheist community around Fort Bragg because of his behavior and he his presence here should be reconsidered.

Fascinating stuff; endlessly fascinating stuff.

Holy fuck. She sounds like a complete nutcase.

That's, uh...pretty fucking disturbing. :? Wise to watch how much you drink around certain people, no matter your gender...

Badger3k wrote:The post is up at rockbeyondbelief.com/2012/08/27/im-sure-this-will-make-a-nice-blog-fuck-off-and-die/

Well, wow.

It seems like there's probably some legal issues around what's going on there so maybe not wise to comment on it in a public place... But I think it's really impressive how he's handled the situation, especially while struggling with depression.

oolon wrote:But here in the land of words are just words, intent is king... Racial slurs seem to be absent. (Or at least a Google shows lot of "niggers" but they are all in scare quotes - I realize I've not been reading much here so this could be my error) Are you all self censoring for ethnic slurs when you justify misogynistic and homophobic slurs as only being words? (You/All = the subset that use/defend the use of slurs)

I am in the subset that defends (i.e. doesn't give a shit about) the use of slurs, though I don't use them myself. That's about as amazing as noting that I defend the right of men to cross-dress yet remain in jeans and a T-shirt. They are just clothes, but they're not MY clothes. So, by all means, use the slurs you want to use. If you choose to use them, I will, contra the practice of A+theism, not derail the conversation demanding an apology. A slur has no truth value, so I can't imagine arguing about it would be very fruitful. 'Words are just words' is the only position that makes sense to me.

Also, it's interesting to note that hardcore racists quite often don't use slurs on the internet. Racial slurs are banned at Stormfront. This is also the case with racists who come on Pharyngula. They're generally not typing 'nigger' all over the place; they're more likely to be quoting some paper on racial IQ differences. The word 'kike' is also conspicuously absent from many Holocaust deniers' vocabulary. I think they've figured out that some simple people use slurs as a litmus test for beliefs, so by avoiding slurs they stay under the radar. You just might need an actual functioning brain, and the ability to comprehend english sentences, to determine whether someone in the internet is a racist/sexist.

Badger3k wrote:The post is up at rockbeyondbelief.com/2012/08/27/im-sure-this-will-make-a-nice-blog-fuck-off-and-die/

UUUUuuuurrrrrhhh.... That scared the shit out of me. The video linked to was creepy as fuck. Projecting "you need help, you're overreacting" after knocking him and his family up in the middle of the night to drop a mug off after being told never to contact him again!? Not nice.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Badger3k wrote:The post is up at rockbeyondbelief.com/2012/08/27/im-sure-this-will-make-a-nice-blog-fuck-off-and-die/

UUUUuuuurrrrrhhh.... That scared the shit out of me. The video linked to was creepy as fuck. Projecting "you need help, you're overreacting" after knocking him and his family up in the middle of the night to drop a mug off after being told never to contact him again!? Not nice.

Creepy. She's playing the whole "Im a non-threatening person, youre just being a big meany."

Naturally Stewedfanny Svan would not possibly want someone like that on her blog, and promptly ban such a person?

Haha, jk jk. Im sure there'll be some INABWIHTAMAWIHTAW rationalisations going on.

Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

DownThunder wrote:Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

No thanks - so far, I've avoided posting there, and since I've been here for a while, I'm probably perma-banned anyway, ...and I really don't want to get involved in that mess, except to munch popcorn on the side. If anyone does post, good luck. Justin is a man, and she is a woman, so any bets on who gets believed?

DownThunder wrote:Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

Already done.

Oolon:

Are you all self censoring for ethnic slurs when you justify misogynistic and homophobic slurs as only being words? (You/All = the subset that use/defend the use of slurs)

You must have missed the poster who explained that 'nigger' is seldom used as anything other than a racial slur (except amongst black people), whereas the so-called misogynistic slurs like 'cunt' are not necessarily misogynistic at all. In fact, I have never really seen them as such and neither does anyone I know as far as I can tell. They are simply referring to parts of the anatomy, male or female associated with various secretions. Women are just as likely to call someone a 'twat' or 'cunt' as any man, at least in the cultures I'm familiar with.

I'm curious as to your reasons for posting here. You appear to be working quite hard to find trivial inconsistencies or faults, real or imagined, to score points. I don't grasp how you can take issue with us pointing out the background and reasons for Justin Vacula's doxxing. He explained why he did it and his reasons are understandable. I agree that it was bad form, but not that it was done maliciously. He has no history I'm aware of of doing things out of the desire to injure. Compare that to Laden, Zvan and their ilk. Their actions appear to be motivated by the desire to mess with peoples' lives. Is it that unreasonable to point out the difference?

Badger3k wrote:

DownThunder wrote:Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

No thanks - so far, I've avoided posting there, and since I've been here for a while, I'm probably perma-banned anyway, ...and I really don't want to get involved in that mess, except to munch popcorn on the side. If anyone does post, good luck. Justin is a man, and she is a woman, so any bets on who gets believed?

Hmmmm... well my initial reaction was pretty similar, that it would be regarded as off-topic. But then I thought, I am seeing some realistic points of view in unlikely places.

For example, over at the Spearhead: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/03 ... g-wilting/

Out of the Abrahamic religions, and perhaps all major religions, Islam is the most democratic of faiths. Christianity, on the other hand, is spiritually aristocratic, while Judaism tends to be more legalistic.

And here, over at Feministe nuggets of truth mixed in with the usual http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... e-decline/

Men who request family leave are often viewed as weak or uncompetitive and face a greater risk of being demoted or downsized.

So there is hope. But to be honest, I would not bet on it.

Tristan wrote:

DownThunder wrote:Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

Already done.

You have a link thingy to share?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Tristan wrote:

DownThunder wrote:Ok, way more than creepy. Although Justin is not regarding what she did to him as raping him, she is absolutely a sexual predator.

Anyone want to try and share this problem over at FFTB or A+ or skepchick?

Already done.

You have a link thingy to share?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-126097

Surely with the airing of a case in the atheist community of someone being sexually assualted/violated/stalked/raped (whichever label), surely the usual blog writers would ignite into a fury of posts about the problem?? Surely???

John Greg wrote:Jean Kazez drinking ever more deeply of the intellect-free Flavor-aid:

http://kazez.blogspot.ca/2012/10/guilt- ... ation.html

JackRayner wrote:I assume this is supposed to be in defense of those who claim individual X is a misogynist because they post on a website Y, which is claimed by some to be misogynistic?

I think that before they even attempt to reach a conclusion about individual X, [whose behavior isn't even misogynistic] they first need to prove that website Y is what they claim it is.

that would be too difficult for them. They always go with the easy explanation, which is based on emotion, and logical fallacies.

real horrorshow wrote:Everyone who disagrees with a fembot is a misogynist, you know that! Kazez's entire argument is a nonsense. People are 'guilty' of what they do, not what others do. Even if person A provokes or encourages person B to do a thing, person A is 'guilty' only of the provocation, person B is 'guilty' of whatever they did. Kazez though, isn't even citing provocation. She's saying: 'if you associate with people who do X, you are guilty of X', and that is guilt by association however much she denies it. This woman holds an academic post in philosophy? She couldn't pass basic logic on this evidence!

I don't know if Kazez refers to herself as a sceptic, but she may want to have a quick look at the definition of a logical fallacy before creating her own.

The Diversion Fallacies:

Guilt By Association: An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Red Herring: A red herring is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Straw Man: A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

Ad Hominem:
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
The term “poisoning the well” also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or unpopular.

latter two definitions straight from the website of the SGU - Hi Becci!
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... acies.aspx

Not one of the Baboons are sceptics, and that is one of the two main reasons I continue being a "Pit Bull" (love you, Arnie).

We all know what the other reason is.