Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Now THAT would make a great t-shirt...bhoytony wrote:While I'm here posting I'd like to congratulate the genius at freethoughtblahgs who came up with
If you’re not whining about the made-up problem then you’re part of the made-up problem
Like I said, genius.
Actually, I was going to ask them a serious question but having read up to comment #170, I think i will leave it for another day. They are working themselves up in a tizzy over there.Tigzy wrote:@AndrewV69
For some reason, the baboons really hate it if you don't take them seriously. Can't think why. :lol:
Reasonabel has been going great guns over there, though - clearly getting the idea that the baboons are not to be discussed with, only dissed. Doing a great job of it, too.AndrewV69 wrote:Actually, I was going to ask them a serious question but having read up to comment #170, I think i will leave it for another day. They are working themselves up in a tizzy over there.Tigzy wrote:@AndrewV69
For some reason, the baboons really hate it if you don't take them seriously. Can't think why. :lol:
And I'm sure it will be better if none of the FC5 and their groupies and associates turn up.RebeccaB wrote: As for me, I'm going to start saving my pennies right now, so I can go to TAM next year. It'll be lovely to feel perfectly safe.
Agree. This is kind of what I meant to say, although I'm pretty sure Dilurk said it much clearer a while back. If you're trying to make a point about Amy's claim of harassment and its veracity/ridiculousness level, saying "her art sucks" does nothing to help make the point.John Greg wrote: Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.
However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.
Have you ever weaved a basket?? Thats fucking HARD! *FOUR-H MOTHER FUCKAHS!!!*John Greg wrote:It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.
Let's get a grip here.
+1. I was thinking more or less the same as I sat coiling one out this morning. I'm not saying that nobody would find it attractive or wish to purchase it.John Greg wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to say that all this blather about not criticising Amy's "art" is fucking thought police 101.
In a very real sense, one of Art's reasons for existence is to be criticised. If we cannot criticise so-called art, then what thoughts and opinions can we have?
Art is for judging; criticising; valueing, etc., ad infinitum. That's what art is all about.
Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.
However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.
And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.
Let's get a grip here.
How can you say this is not art? You philistine.John Greg wrote:
And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.
Let's get a grip here.
I take the point that being critical of her art could be taken as a proxy for being critical of the Surly persona itself.bhoytony wrote: How can you say this is not art? You philistine.
John Greg wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to say that all this blather about not criticising Amy's "art" is fucking thought police 101.
In a very real sense, one of Art's reasons for existence is to be criticised. If we cannot criticise so-called art, then what thoughts and opinions can we have?
Art is for judging; criticising; valueing, etc., ad infinitum. That's what art is all about.
Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.
However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.
And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.
Let's get a grip here.
Is that...a threat?Tigzy wrote: So far, the omens are...not good for her.
Do you still care what the baboons or any of the other sides think of you? If so, you havent been at this long enough.AndrewV69 wrote: I take the point that being critical of her art could be taken as a proxy for being critical of the Surly persona itself.
Oops! Nope - not a threat at all. Just saying that if she's the type who gets upset about some words on a t-shirt, then she is going to have a seriously rough time in coping with criticism of her creative efforts.Lsuoma wrote:Is that...a threat?Tigzy wrote: So far, the omens are...not good for her.
Thats a threat. Tigzy. Thats a threat. Say it 10 times and you will internalize it. Ever heard of Listen to the assertion fallacy?Tigzy wrote: Oops! Nope - not a threat at all. Just saying that if she's the type who gets upset about some words on a t-shirt, then she is going to have a seriously rough time in coping with criticism of her creative efforts.
Seems obvious to me. It's fine to say Amy is a terrible person because of what she does, not her art. Her art may suck but that's not what makes Amy a terrible person, though it could show the bigoted portions of her psyche through her art. Go crticise the art. knock yourself out, just don't claim she is a terrible person because of it, unless the nasty parts of her are directly shown in her art.Caede wrote:Agree. This is kind of what I meant to say, although I'm pretty sure Dilurk said it much clearer a while back. If you're trying to make a point about Amy's claim of harassment and its veracity/ridiculousness level, saying "her art sucks" does nothing to help make the point.John Greg wrote: Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.
However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.
Feel free to critique and/or make fun of her artwork outside of that scope, though. (Or within that scope, if you feel it necessary; I personally just consider it an ad-hominem-type low blow. Everyone's mileage may vary.)
Indeed. None of it is fine art, I've recently seen the Van Gogh exhibit here in Ottawa at the National Gallery, now that was fine art. Her stuff is craft work, not fine art compared to say Van Gogh, and totally adequate for a fridge magnet.ERV wrote:Have you ever weaved a basket?? Thats fucking HARD! *FOUR-H MOTHER FUCKAHS!!!*John Greg wrote:It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.
Let's get a grip here.
And I love Amys art! Very colorful, but needs more glitter! I would totally put it up on the fridge*!
*Ive been hanging out with a 6 and 8 year old a lot lately, so my ruler might be a bit skewed...
Agreed. I haven't seen it either. Can we move on please? *ahem*bhoytony wrote:could somebody please point me to the place where somebody has said Surly is wrong because her "art" is shite. It hasn't happened, so I wish people would stop acting as if it had. Is this FfTB?
Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.
She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
To anyone interested in linguistics, the nonsense of brain sex has been debunked on language log The first comment in your linked article about women supposedly speaking more than men, has been shown to be wrong using phone records. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 03836.html for example.Optimus Primate wrote:I'm just gonna leave this here: Sometimes, talking about sexism IS the problem.
I am so glad you said it and not me, I was far too polite. Whiff. I've been to conventions/conferences and if she didn't wash that out each night, I don't want to think about it.Caede wrote:Did I see that someone made a comparison between Surly Amy's 'harassment' and Jessica Ahlquist? I'm thinking I must reside on a different planet from some people.
I think the reaction to the t-shirt was majorly over-the-top-whiny. If a shirt makes you feel uncomfortable, unless it's revealing something you don't want to see (I'm thinking major manboobs here)... ignore it and move on. That's no more harassment than someone with a bumper sticker that espouses a view contrary to mine or mocks a group I belong to.
If she was really put under the type of surveillance by JREF that she claims (after she reported harassment), I could see being made uncomfortable by that rather than feeling more secure. The t-shirt business is crap, though.
I do think it was a little unclassy for Hall to wear it three days in a row, unless she had three of them. Come on, can you really wash a t-shirt each night that fast? There must have been some smell going on there.
I say, put one of your coils up on Etsy and see if anybody bites. I think it's all in the presentation, really.Lsuoma wrote:I was thinking more or less the same as I sat coiling one out this morning. I'm not saying that nobody would find it attractive or wish to purchase it.
Ok, that's what I was going for.Dilurk wrote:
meh As I said, only if we say Amy is a nasty person because her art works sucks. It's fair game to criticise anyone's art.
Hey, thanks. I wonder how those people manage to get through the day with that level of impotent rage.Lsuoma wrote:Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.
She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
This is a much more congenial place...
Good going there, Reasonabel - you did an admirable job in sticking with it.reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.
She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
Actually, I wonder how they would manage to get through the day without that level of impotent rage.reasonabel wrote:Hey, thanks. I wonder how those people manage to get through the day with that level of impotent rage.Lsuoma wrote:Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.
She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
This is a much more congenial place...
Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me don’t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
I love the smell of narratives being framed in the morning!Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377
Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me don’t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
I like it.Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377
Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me don’t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
What 'personalized items', exactly? Jesus, given that she took a few very ordinary words on a t-shirt as a personal attack, it could be bloody anything. Like what you get on a fire extinquisher, for instance: 'In case of fire, strike knob.' - 'Oh noes, that is like a totes MRA extinguisher, because only menz have knobs!!!11! This is a personal colour-blind insult to me as a womyn waaaah etc.'Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377
Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me don’t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
We shouldn't bring attention to those horrible people who really upset me, because thats not important right now. Somebody wore a t-shirt and made me cry but thats not important either if you're critical of that.bhoytony wrote:I like it.Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377
Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me don’t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
Lots of other people did lots of other things to me, but you don't need to know the specifics, just accept it as true.
I really like this scepticism stuff, it's great.
astrokid.nj wrote: Do you still care what the baboons or any of the other sides think of you? If so, you havent been at this long enough.
And within the SlimePit, how many of us here cant tell the difference between the different types of criticism?
Right...so if I'm reading this correctly, a man she didn't know tried to hug her, and she had to put out a hand to stop it from happening. Given that she would no doubt have made it quite clear if the man would have ignored the hand, I think it's safe to assume the guy took the hint.uajamie
18 July 2012 at 4:41 pm
Thanks for all the support, everyone.
I would like to clarify that they have been taking my report of the original harassment incident very seriously. It was quite minor (a man I didn’t know tried to hug me without warning and I had to actively back up and put my hand out to stop it from happening). However, the security consultants made it clear that any unwanted touching is considered assault and they considered me a victim and would investigate the incident fully. Now, honestly “assault†seems like a strong word for what happened, but it’s clear that they are taking it seriously. They have been going over security footage and have inquired about witnesses. They made it clear they’re going to try to identify the man involved.
If anything, they are going a bit overboard. Their treatment of me has been disrespectful, but saying that, they are clearly taking reports, even minor ones, very seriously and following up and investigating. They also have made it clear that I did nothing wrong and was right in reporting it. They never made me feel like I was being blamed for the harassment.
It’s the stressful way they dealt with me that I’m still pretty upset with, not the handling of the case.
This is the sloppy language of the fanatic at work. How could someone's presence be diminished, I wonder? I assume she means 'influence'. In which case - of course. In fact, one stated goal of JREF is to diminish the influence of the irrational, so TAM seems to be a resounding success, at least on one front.This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence
I didn't cut the last and first bits because I wanted to leave the context, but take a look at the middle, because that's the core FTB position: For Dr Hall to make a factual statement, about herself, (I am a skeptic not a "skepchick") constitutes an attack on anyone else to whom that statement does not apply even if that is not Dr Hall's intention! They get to decide what other people mean by what they say.Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
18 July 2012 at 12:20 pm
That’s right, Woo. Chickenshit Tigzy, being the boring, garden-variety misogynist, just wants the bitch to stop bitching about mere ‘words on a t-shirt’.
He called ‘vacuous’ my pointing out that while he insists on being a lying asshole and erasing the context of the situation, the shirt explicitly said the word ‘skepchick’ which, being the TITLE OF AMY’S BLOG, explains – in part – why she took it personally. Whether Hall meant it like that or not.
Since he then couldn’t refute me, and I pointed out how he’s too chickenshit to own up to that, he called me vacuous. You know, cuz bitches are dumb when whiny ass D00d loses an argument. LOL
What's the plan here? Some Laden-style tactics perhaps? Going to JREF's sponsors and trying to fuck things up? Surely not!sisu
18 July 2012 at 9:33 am
@Gnumann:
I’m not too familiar with transparency rules for USAian NGOs. Is there a public list of sponsors of JREF anywhere?
The IRS requires 501c3 orgs (nonprofits) to file a form called a 990 – it’s the equivalent of a tax return – and they’re publicly available. There’s a number of “charity review†websites that collect and publish them – here’s JREF’s 2011 990. Apparently they don’t have to list out individual donors the way that some other types of orgs do (like PACs and things). I’m no tax law expert!
A nonprofit will, though, typically list its biggest sponsors/financial supporters on its website/other marketing material but I couldn’t find it on randi.org, which really surprises me. Odd.
Anyone see the problem with his "shirt"?Hmmm. I could legitimately get a t-shirt like this:
I’m a doctor
Not a “skepdocâ€
Not a “doctoral skepticâ€
Just a skeptic
But that would be petty and an obvious snipe at an intelligent and well-spoken person who goes by the name “skepdocâ€, so I can’t imagine why I would.
Unless I really wanted to be an asshole.
That's half of it.Za-zen wrote:Is it mandatory when joining skepchicks that you are self absorbed, batshit crazy, emotionally unstable attention whore?
