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

In the old testmemt kicking in the genital ws acceptable, we're under the new testament now, where words depicting the female genitals are forbidden

Horace wrote:I cannot keep up with everything on this thread and so am only an occasional poster (as I was over at Abbie's).

Three points

-I posted the material below on Laden's blog. It is my position on disputes about gender that we have had in the Atheist world. Please comment on it here and do not post your thoughts on Laden's blog as he was reasonably polite to me by Ftb standards.

I don’t think that the problem is that Ftblogs talks about feminism too much; the problem is that one side (PZ and Watson) will not accept any difference of opinion on this matter.

In general I agree with Jean Kazez's take on this entire situation http://kazez.blogspot.com/2011/08/femin ... heism.html
Please read the entire article, it is very good and balanced. (Thank you Jean for being one of the sane ones)
Here is a small quote from her article:

PZ Myers has defended Watson on grounds that she was "civil" to McGraw and "polite and respectful" to Kirby, but he confuses the question of delivery with the question of content. Yes, her delivery is pleasant and in fact funny. She doesn't froth at the mouth. But the content is insulting. Instead of engaging with the ideas of people she disagrees with, she finds fault with the people themselves--they're too ignorant, too privileged, too unfamiliar with feminism 101, too wealthy, too whatever.

I do not believe I am quoting out of context, you can read the entire thing and decide for yourself.

You cannot expect us to be as certain about the question of how serious a problem sexism is and how to combat it as we are about the non-existence of god. This is also the case for a number of other issues: climate change, race, the question of govt debt, healthcare, gun control…

Free thought blogs is becoming reflexivly left wing/progressive. I do not think that you can assume that an intelligent atheist will be left wing/progressive on every issue.

As a Canadian, of course I have been born left leaning ;) I do not believe that political leaning is be the core problem at all.

I personally have said it before:

http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/women ... ction4.php
There are like a gadzillion branches of feminism out there.
Blu and I are closer to equity feminism, liberal feminism etc.
Read the note " Often at odds with radical feminism."

There are many differing variants of feminist thought, some feminists are now calling themselves transhumanist.
In any case, seeing as some branches are fighting tooth and nail with each other outside of the so-called atheist community it seems to me totally illogical to mix feminism with atheism.

When you look back at political debate 100 or 200 years ago you will see that often both sides believed things that we now think wrong and argued about questions that we find irrelevant. What are the chances that now, finally, at this particular point in human history either the left or the right are correct on every issue ?

Freethinkers should try to extend their skepticism to both sides of the political scene. We should also be able to differ with each other without rancor.

Of course, that's the problem here. Rancour over disagreements.

Best wishes from the slimepit.


[/i]


-if you want to see what I meant by saying that Laden is polite by Ftb standards see what the Pharyngulites are doing to "Reasonablefellow" on the following thread. These guys are getting crazier and crazier as their behaviour reinforces itself.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments


#169 on the final page is particularly ironic.


-Hola Munckhouse. Ojala que un dia nos vemos en Bogota.

Nice letter and compliments from Canada

Lsuoma wrote:

Evan wrote:A banned Pharyngula commenter documents his experience:

https://sites.google.com/site/pzmyersisaliar/

Somehow this does not surprise me.

From the linked doc:

Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 8:52 PM
You want to snark at me, that's one thing; you come over here and snark at my daughter, and I call that cowardice.
Bugger off, Ramsey. Go sneer at her to her face, so she can kick you in the balls herself.

Can someone remind me whether cunt kick is worse than kicking some guy in the balls? I kinda forgot...

If you have to ask, you just don't get it, you misogynist! :lol:

Being a cisgendered Y-chromosomed individual, I would think that a kick in the balls would hurt more, but that might just be my unconscious male privilege speaking.

What kind of father would encourage his daughter to respond to someone's verbal description of her as "immature" with physical violence (besides PZ Myers, of course)? That would prove the commenter's point.

Thanks, I'm from Canada as well.


Best part of the link that you posted me was the final two paragraphs:



To speak a little more personally--I'm just one woman, and it's not clear to me which of my attitudes are gender-related and which aren't, but Watson is quite wrong about what makes me reluctant to come out to atheist events. I don't want any contact with neanderthal debaters like you see at many atheist blogs. It's got nothing whatever to do with fearing overt sexism or sexual harassment. I just don't want to run into Kevin, who wrote this about me at an atheist blog a little while back (with no complaint from the moderator)--

Jean: Let me clue you into something.
You’ve failed.
You will never win.
You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Live with failure every single minute of every single hour of every single day of the rest of your life.
I have no use for someone of your “intellect” telling me what I can or cannot say or learn.
And you will have to live with that abject failure forever.

Since the atheist blogosphere is full of Kevins, I'm a little reluctant to get any closer to "movement" atheists. I suspect more women would feel like me about this than men, and so--I'd like to suggest--it's not just overtly sexist epithets we should be worried about, as feminists. The whole style of interaction at atheist blogs is a problem.

You don't have to be a woman to agree with this.

Horace wrote:I cannot keep up with everything on this thread and so am only an occasional poster (as I was over at Abbie's).

Three points

-I posted the material below on Laden's blog. It is my position on disputes about gender that we have had in the Atheist world. Please comment on it here and do not post your thoughts on Laden's blog as he was reasonably polite to me by Ftb standards.

I don’t think that the problem is that Ftblogs talks about feminism too much; the problem is that one side (PZ and Watson) will not accept any difference of opinion on this matter.

You cannot expect us to be as certain about the question of how serious a problem sexism is and how to combat it as we are about the non-existence of god. This is also the case for a number of other issues: climate change, race, the question of govt debt, healthcare, gun control…

Free thought blogs is becoming reflexivly left wing/progressive. I do not think that you can assume that an intelligent atheist will be left wing/progressive on every issue.

When you look back at political debate 100 or 200 years ago you will see that often both sides believed things that we now think wrong and argued about questions that we find irrelevant. What are the chances that now, finally, at this particular point in human history either the left or the right are correct on every issue ?

Freethinkers should try to extend their skepticism to both sides of the political scene. We should also be able to differ with each other without rancor.

Best wishes from the slimepit.





-if you want to see what I meant by saying that Laden is polite by Ftb standards see what the Pharyngulites are doing to "Reasonablefellow" on the following thread. These guys are getting crazier and crazier as their behaviour reinforces itself.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments


#169 on the final page is particularly ironic.


-Hola Munckhouse. Ojala que un dia nos vemos en Bogota.

Whoa - you posted even a hint that there is disagreement about gun control on Laden's blog? I won't go there unless I'm sure it won't count as a hit (I do use Safari with Ghostery and Adblock), but I'd be amazed if he doesn't get rid of you after calling you all sorts of names. He's pretty pathological about any kind of guns (unless it's to ban them completely).

Dilurk - I remember someone posting that most of PZs readership is in the 18-25 bracket. I wouldn't be surprised if that fit her followers as well. It would definitely fit with the multi-colored hair and attempts to feel sex (and drinking).

Evan wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

Evan wrote:A banned Pharyngula commenter documents his experience:

https://sites.google.com/site/pzmyersisaliar/

Somehow this does not surprise me.

From the linked doc:

Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 8:52 PM
You want to snark at me, that's one thing; you come over here and snark at my daughter, and I call that cowardice.
Bugger off, Ramsey. Go sneer at her to her face, so she can kick you in the balls herself.

Can someone remind me whether cunt kick is worse than kicking some guy in the balls? I kinda forgot...

If you have to ask, you just don't get it, you misogynist! :lol:

Being a cisgendered Y-chromosomed individual, I would think that a kick in the balls would hurt more, but that might just be my unconscious male privilege speaking.

What kind of father would encourage his daughter to respond to someone's verbal description of her as "immature" with physical violence (besides PZ Myers, of course)? That would prove the commenter's point.

As a mother and grandmother myself, (yes, sample size of 1, not scientific at all) I think we can get awesomely (over) protective towards our own children. I guess it's evolution at work, it kinda gets built into you as a parent. From that viewpoint I could almost excuse it as a verbal outburst though I am surprised to see him put it in print. The evolutionary (over)protectiveness build into parents can cause us to say stupid things.

Damn you to hell Lsuoma, you've just made me defend PZ. *grumble* (I did warn you 'bout my dry sense of humour I hope.)

Still, I agree with you on the hypocrisy shown here. You cannot claim it ok to suggest a kick to anyone's genitals but then try to claim that threats of genital kicking is what the slymepitters say all the time and that is a bad thing.

BTW I do have an over-the-top dry sense of humor which does seem to confuse Americans somewhat, I do try to sprinkle more smilies now than I used to because of that, but perhaps that is not needed here.

Lsuoma wrote:Can someone remind me whether cunt kick is worse than kicking some guy in the balls? I kinda forgot...

YES IT IS, you filthy, misogynist, sexist MRA rape enabler!!! :)

Horace wrote:Thanks, I'm from Canada as well.

I'm in Ottawa.

Best part of the link that you posted me was the final two paragraphs:



To speak a little more personally--I'm just one woman, and it's not clear to me which of my attitudes are gender-related and which aren't, but Watson is quite wrong about what makes me reluctant to come out to atheist events. I don't want any contact with neanderthal debaters like you see at many atheist blogs. It's got nothing whatever to do with fearing overt sexism or sexual harassment. I just don't want to run into Kevin, who wrote this about me at an atheist blog a little while back (with no complaint from the moderator)--

Jean: Let me clue you into something.
You’ve failed.
You will never win.
You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Live with failure every single minute of every single hour of every single day of the rest of your life.
I have no use for someone of your “intellect” telling me what I can or cannot say or learn.
And you will have to live with that abject failure forever.

Since the atheist blogosphere is full of Kevins, I'm a little reluctant to get any closer to "movement" atheists. I suspect more women would feel like me about this than men, and so--I'd like to suggest--it's not just overtly sexist epithets we should be worried about, as feminists. The whole style of interaction at atheist blogs is a problem.

You don't have to be a woman to agree with this.

Yes, I remember that part well. It is part of the reason I am still semi-anonymous. I have (as previously mentioned) been stalked in real life by a crazy and considering the crazy fanatics that are around, I have no wish for a repeat. Jean summed it up right there, some of the "movement" atheists remind me of the crazy guy that stalked me. 'nuff said.

Hey Badger,

did you used to post on a martial arts discussion group several years ago. You do some kind of strange Kung Fu ?
Dragonwalking ??? A brit in Canada ?

appologies if this is not the case.

Dilurk, I was also against a lot of the language that was used against Rebecca Watson. I am with
the slimepitters as we do not do the sort of pile on abuse that you can see with pharyngula (see
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments) and we do allow
a very broad spectrum of opinion (i.e. we have our share of lunatics, but they are harmless lunatics).

I am polite to non slimepitters though as I am representing us. Laden has not given me any stick about
guncontrol, he is polite but not friendly.

BTW. I thought that we were slimepitters, when did we become slymepitters ? This could be material for
our first schism.

Horace wrote:Hey Badger,

...

Dilurk, I was also against a lot of the language that was used against Rebecca Watson. I am with
the slimepitters as we do not do the sort of pile on abuse that you can see with pharyngula (see
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments) and we do allow
a very broad spectrum of opinion (i.e. we have our share of lunatics, but they are harmless lunatics).

I am polite to non slimepitters though as I am representing us. Laden has not given me any stick about
guncontrol, he is polite but not friendly.

I'm polite, after all, I'm Canadian.

BTW. I thought that we were slimepitters, when did we become slymepitters ? This could be material for
our first schism.

I'm very new here, and the link is http://slymepit.com no?
So ergo it is the slymepitters yes our first schism. New churches have been formed because of less.

Dilurk,

trouble with my password, so I can't log in as Horace. Am from near Ottawa too.

logging off now.

Dilurk wrote:

Horace wrote:Hey Badger,

...

Dilurk, I was also against a lot of the language that was used against Rebecca Watson. I am with
the slimepitters as we do not do the sort of pile on abuse that you can see with pharyngula (see
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments) and we do allow
a very broad spectrum of opinion (i.e. we have our share of lunatics, but they are harmless lunatics).

I am polite to non slimepitters though as I am representing us. Laden has not given me any stick about
guncontrol, he is polite but not friendly.

I'm polite, after all, I'm Canadian.

BTW. I thought that we were slimepitters, when did we become slymepitters ? This could be material for
our first schism.

I'm very new here, and the link is http://slymepit.com no?
So ergo it is the slymepitters yes our first schism. New churches have been formed because of less.

Well, could we call the heretics "slymesplitters"?

I have a different idea to put forth for discussion on what drives the PZ horde.

I need to start by introducing Bob Altemeyer. He is a retired psych prof from University of Manitoba and spent his career studying the followers of authoritarians. He developed a questionare that would produce a number on how likely the respondant would be to give up their decision making to authority figures. When he retired he wrote a book on the topic that is accessible to those of us not in the field, but couldn't find a publisher. He didn't care too much since he had a good pension, so he just put it on line for free download. You should read it. (google search finds him easily or the wiki page for him has a link to the pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer )
Anyway, naturally enough, the fundamental christians score high on his index, as do republican voters although that may be mostly the effect of those in both groups.

My postulate here is that the horde is a bunch of such folk who have enough intellect to realize there is no god, but still want to follow a leader so they don't have to do the hard work of thinking for themselves; ie they would score high on the index. PZ is of course no mystery. Altemeyer didn't study why people want to be authoritarian leaders... the motivation of people to acquire power over others is no mystery.

Discuss. ;)

Well, this is very interesting. It seems to me that Rachel's (formerly Zinnia), gf is an equity feminist. That's very different than the brand of feminism I am seeing from PZ/RW et. al.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ut-choice/

Interesting.

[quote="Evan"]

Being a cisgendered Y-chromosomed individual, I would think that a kick in the balls would hurt more, but that might just be my unconscious male privilege speaking.[quote]

One can kill a man by kicking him in the genitals. I've seriously bruised my vagina numerous times (excluding sex), including trying to climb over a fence that was just barely too tall for my legs, and crashing with my full weight directly on the top of the top of the fence with my crotch. It fucking hurt, but nowhere near as much as I've seen quite strong and touch men double over with a tenth of the pressure that my falling on the fence had. The "it's no different" argument is complete bullshit. We have ours not only tucked neatly inside, but it is made to take a lot of friction and pressure. Testicles are not protected and not meant to take any sort of touch other than gentle.

tough men, not touch men.


for fuck's sake.

JAB wrote:I have a different idea to put forth for discussion on what drives the PZ horde.

I need to start by introducing Bob Altemeyer. He is a retired psych prof from University of Manitoba and spent his career studying the followers of authoritarians. He developed a questionare that would produce a number on how likely the respondant would be to give up their decision making to authority figures.
...
My postulate here is that the horde is a bunch of such folk who have enough intellect to realize there is no god, but still want to follow a leader so they don't have to do the hard work of thinking for themselves; ie they would score high on the index. PZ is of course no mystery. Altemeyer didn't study why people want to be authoritarian leaders... the motivation of people to acquire power over others is no mystery.

Discuss. ;)

You aren't the first to point out how the horde resembles a religious cult. Your postulate fits pretty well. I'd also suggest that as followers grow up a lot of them are able as they grow up to leave this cult. But there are always younger ones to take their places.

I'm so pleased to see you, James.

A banned Pharyngula commenter documents his experience:

https://sites.google.com/site/pzmyersisaliar/

My impression of Myers a year ago was of an honest, slightly naive man with a blind spot. Now I think that he is a either stupendously arrogant, intensely defensive and possessed of Zero self-awareness, or he is dishonest and malicious. Note the deriding of Ramsey as "obsessive", "whining" and asking to be un-banned. Think of the way Myers disingenuously defended RW when she was caught making a bullshit claim (I forgot about whom) to have been called a cunt (I think) by pretending that people were just whiny at being blocked by RW on Twitter. It is so clear now that these are standard tactics for Myers and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberate.

Horace wrote:
BTW. I thought that we were slimepitters, when did we become slymepitters ? This could be material for
our first schism.

A couple of reasons:

1. I didn't want to arrogate the name slimepitters - that really belongs to Abbie
2. slimepit.com wasn't available; slymepit.com was

You can call yourselves whatever you want, AFAIK (apart from Baboons or Baboollies...)

Talking about independent thought, this might be an appropriate thing to watch right now:

[youtube]LQqq3e03EBQ[/youtube]

sacha wrote:One can kill a man by kicking him in the genitals. I've seriously bruised my vagina numerous times (excluding sex), including trying to climb over a fence that was just barely too tall for my legs, and crashing with my full weight directly on the top of the top of the fence with my crotch. It fucking hurt, but nowhere near as much as I've seen quite strong and touch men double over with a tenth of the pressure that my falling on the fence had. The "it's no different" argument is complete bullshit. We have ours not only tucked neatly inside, but it is made to take a lot of friction and pressure. Testicles are not protected and not meant to take any sort of touch other than gentle.

I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Think of the way Myers disingenuously defended RW when she was caught making a bullshit claim (I forgot about whom) to have been called a cunt (I think) by pretending that people were just whiny at being blocked by RW on Twitter. It is so clear now that these are standard tactics for Myers and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberate.

That would be the incident involving Tony Ryan, the Coffee Loving Skeptic.

In other news, Skepchick.org is down at the moment.

Lsuoma wrote:Talking about independent thought, this might be an appropriate thing to watch right now ....

Wow. I guess you noticed the link Abbie gave in her post about the slymepit moving. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chu ... 04800.html

All I can say is respect

Evan wrote:I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

I have heard that this is the ultimate proof that God is a woman...

h/t to Wonderist for pointing this out, BTW.

Evan wrote:

sacha wrote:One can kill a man by kicking him in the genitals. I've seriously bruised my vagina numerous times (excluding sex), including trying to climb over a fence that was just barely too tall for my legs, and crashing with my full weight directly on the top of the top of the fence with my crotch. It fucking hurt, but nowhere near as much as I've seen quite strong and touch men double over with a tenth of the pressure that my falling on the fence had. The "it's no different" argument is complete bullshit. We have ours not only tucked neatly inside, but it is made to take a lot of friction and pressure. Testicles are not protected and not meant to take any sort of touch other than gentle.

I wish God had spent more time intelligently designing the male genitalia.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Think of the way Myers disingenuously defended RW when she was caught making a bullshit claim (I forgot about whom) to have been called a cunt (I think) by pretending that people were just whiny at being blocked by RW on Twitter. It is so clear now that these are standard tactics for Myers and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberate.

That would be the incident involving Tony Ryan, the Coffee Loving Skeptic.

In other news, Skepchick.org is down at the moment.

Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

I second the suggestion of reading Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/: I also was thinking that it reminded me of the Baboon's behaviour. Altemeyer discusses at length the amazing hypocrisy that one sees in authoritarians as well as their lack of self-awareness -- the similarity seems obvious to me.

Badger3k wrote: Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

Definitely. There's enough bad will and paranoia around that we don't need any more due to that sort of shit.

Lsuoma wrote:

Badger3k wrote: Hopefully the site is down for maintenance or the like. It would be bad if it were some moron attacking the site - that crap is wrong no matter who does it. Plus, it would make them actual victims instead of pretend victims.

Definitely. There's enough bad will and paranoia around that we don't need any more due to that sort of shit.

Getting DDoS'd sucks bad. It is puerile behaviour.

Slither wrote:I second the suggestion of reading Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/: I also was thinking that it reminded me of the Baboon's behaviour. Altemeyer discusses at length the amazing hypocrisy that one sees in authoritarians as well as their lack of self-awareness -- the similarity seems obvious to me.

Thanks, Slither. I've created a sticky thread over here to capture recommendations for less-know resources: can you add your recommendation to the thread, please, changing the subject line to the name of the book?

According to skepchick's hosting service, their system status is normal, so it doesn't seem like a DDOS attack.

Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

can you add your recommendation to the thread, please, changing the subject line to the name of the book?

Done. Thanks!

CommanderTuvok wrote:Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

Yikes - if the IDiots can successfully get people to believe that Twatson and the FC5 are important players in freethought and atheism, things would get a lot worse: they're almost impossible to parody. They'd be the gift that would keep on giving to the IDiot movement...

Nice [youtube]8gGzn0jSsdA[/youtube] by C0nc0rdance. Sums it up well. Paraphrasing he says "The best result would have been peaceful coexistence" Well, why not? confused

It also appears the horde is attacking him in the comments.

Lsuoma wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:Queen Bee and Black Svan have tweeted this:

Haha, Thunderf00t & creationists teaming up! RT @rebeccawatson trashed by sexist creationist

This refers to Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ ... ationists/) having an article detailing Watson, Dawkins, and shaftgate, etc. It appears that TF's YT video provided them with the inspiration/information. But that is where the link seems to end. So, what is the truth behind this traiterous behaviour from Thunderf00t? Well, there is no truth whatsoever. Of course, it is a bit of snark from Queen Bee (not unusual).

:roll:

Yikes - if the IDiots can successfully get people to believe that Twatson and the FC5 are important players in freethought and atheism, things would get a lot worse: they're almost impossible to parody. They'd be the gift that would keep on giving to the IDiot movement...

I'm assuming this is a post by Slimy Sal Cordova, with a "ht - Thunderf00t" type ending, causing one poster elsewhere to maybe suggest a conspiracy (or at least collusion). I wasn't sure if that's what he meant, so I did ask, bringing up the point that perhaps he keeps track of his opponents (TF in this case) like we keep track of the IDiots, Baboons, and others. Plus, it's all around the internet and on twitter - not surprising others have heard of it.

I am amused that the DU would go on the attack at their spiritual cousins - they both use the same type of censorship and tactics. Isn't there room under the big tent for them all? (Ok, that was all snark, I'm not amazed - even though the tactics are the same, they are still on opposite sides - disclaimer for the reasoning impaired)

This is off topic of what's being discussed now, but on topic generally, so pardon me if I disrupt the flow. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, what people perceive as threats. So...let's do a scale of 1 through 10, 10 being a severe threat (like someone pointing a gun at you asking for your money or your life. And just for fun, I'll throw in a "not nice" scale too.

Case 1: Someone asks you back to their room for coffee in an elevator. Threat level 0, not nice: 2. Now this could become threat level 10 rather quickly if the person doesn't take no for an answer and tries to get physical or verbally abusive.

Case 2: If I was a girl, I'd kick you somewhere. Or, If I was a bird, I'd peck your eyes out. Or, the famous: Mr. Churchill, if I was your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee. For all these scenarios, threat level 0 (because of the "IF", in all these cases, impossible). Not nice level: 3

Case 3: I hope someone rapes you (or beats you up, whatever). Threat level 1 (since it's wishful thinking, like I hope you get hit by a bus). Not Nice level: 5

Case 4: Why don't you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger? Threat level 5, Not nice: 8. Why five on threat? Because there are fragile people on the internet, some of whom suffer from depression or whatever and if you first get them in an emotional argument and then say that, well something bad could happen. This also applies, IMO, to rape yourself sideways with a rusty knife. You're suggesting someone, who may be fragile, hurt themselves. This is something PZ and others allow on their blogs, but not Case 2, that is a mistake on their part.

Case 5: If you don't agree with me, I'm going to try to get your blog shut down (loss of income) or get you in trouble with your boss. Threat Level: 7 Not nice: 10. If you actually contact their boss, it's goes to Threat Level 8.

Case 6: Next time I see you at a conference, I'm going to kick your ass, or harm you in another manner. Threat Level: 9 Not nice: 10

I could think of some more cases, but that covers the main ones ( I think).

@ mordacious1 (right above)

I'd agree with your analysis on Case 1, 2, 5, and 6. But I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Case 3 & 4. Couldn't the argument be made that people who are in a fragile enough state of mind would just as much be psychologically affected by the statement "I hope someone rapes you" as "Why don't you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?". To me, both sound like (very hostile) cases of wishful thinking, and I don't understand how the description you made about Case 4 (i.e. "Because there are fragile people on the internet, some of whom suffer from depression or whatever and if you first get them in an emotional argument and then say that, well something bad could happen.") couldn't be defensible applied to Case 3 (depending on an individual person's perspective and state of mind, of course).

Please don't take this comment as antagonism against the broader point you're making (on that we largely agree), I'm just curious about your response to my question.

I suppose you could make the argument that a fragile person could be damaged psychologically by any negative comment (you're a jerk!). But the difference in these two cases is that in one, you need a third party (rapist) to commit the act of violence (or a wayward bus). The odds of that are slim, whereas telling someone to harm themselves and them carrying it through might actually happen.

Oh, I could have made another case regarding that email OB got which supposedly made her pull out of TAM. Threat: 0 Not Nice: 0 Weird: 4. Overreaction on her part: 8

Dilurk wrote:Well, this is very interesting. It seems to me that Rachel's (formerly Zinnia), gf is an equity feminist. That's very different than the brand of feminism I am seeing from PZ/RW et. al.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ut-choice/

Interesting.

If its the same individual, you may wish to consider further evidence:



This heather character did not seem particularly reasonable to me then.

It occurs to me that case 2 and all it's resulting bs could have been avoided if english had a subjunctive tense. It would be harder to quote mine that this is a threat when it's obvious in the verb tense that the action is hypothetical. (note.. I think technically we have a subjunctive but almost always identical to the past or present... in fact the only one I can think of is when you should say "I wouldn't do that if I were you" instead of "I wouldn't do that if I was you" and even the improper second quote seems to be gaining ground so we're losing the subjunctive)

mordacious1 wrote:This is off topic of what's being discussed now, but on topic generally, so pardon me if I disrupt the flow. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, what people perceive as threats. So...let's do a scale of 1 through 10, 10 being a severe threat (like someone pointing a gun at you asking for your money or your life. And just for fun, I'll throw in a "not nice" scale too.

The classic movie mystery scenario is the one where "You were heard telling the victim 'I'm going to kill you!'". People do this all the time, make silly threats verbally they'd never ever carry out, but in the heat of the moment. Again and again it comes down to people missing verbal clues, facial expressions that are simply not there in textual form. How many of us are good writers like Jean Kazez, who can communicate what they mean in a dispassionate to the facts way, without adding emotionally laden words?

So now we have the Internet, before then we had Bitnet and UUCP mail, young geeks who "kin barley spel" let alone write, are writing e-mails. The rest I leave up to your imagination. It has only gotten worse, anyone can set up a blog these days, the syndrome of chinese whispering (oh am I racist now?) makes claims mutate into unimaginable form. "Rebecca Watson was nearly raped in an elevator! She managed to fight him off by reading him Vogon poetry!"

What I believe we have here, is a group of young primarily male geeks who are full of piss and vinegar wanting to change the world, with older father figures they can rally around. Sadly, they may be atheists but they are not of the sceptical variety, being sceptical in the Bertrand Russell sense can be difficult when you are younger. As I have mentioned before, it does not matter to me whether RW was accosted or not in the elevator, she is entitled (logically) to feel nervous about that scenario. I would feel nervous about being alone in an elevator late at night with a fluffy kitten. However, I doubt the fluffy kitten could proposition me, unless I was very very drunk. I would agree with others here, I also find it difficult to understand why she cannot remember the face, but I would give her the benefit of the doubt. How many of us can remember details after a night of drinking?

What I find disheartening is we have atheists who are using their young followers for political reasons, they are not at all Free Thinkers or sceptics in any sense of the term. These people are not learning how to think critically, they are not learning how to be logical. This is the real tragedy here, the bullying can be dealt with by shunning this tiny part of the community.

Apologies @mordacious1, I hope I did not derail your thoughts too much.

JAB wrote:I have a different idea to put forth for discussion on what drives the PZ horde.

I need to start by introducing Bob Altemeyer. He is a retired psych prof from University of Manitoba and spent his career studying the followers of authoritarians. He developed a questionare that would produce a number on how likely the respondant would be to give up their decision making to authority figures. When he retired he wrote a book on the topic that is accessible to those of us not in the field, but couldn't find a publisher. He didn't care too much since he had a good pension, so he just put it on line for free download. You should read it. (google search finds him easily or the wiki page for him has a link to the pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer )
Anyway, naturally enough, the fundamental christians score high on his index, as do republican voters although that may be mostly the effect of those in both groups.

My postulate here is that the horde is a bunch of such folk who have enough intellect to realize there is no god, but still want to follow a leader so they don't have to do the hard work of thinking for themselves; ie they would score high on the index. PZ is of course no mystery. Altemeyer didn't study why people want to be authoritarian leaders... the motivation of people to acquire power over others is no mystery.

Discuss. ;)

Interesting take. Ive read Altemeyer's work. What I find most amusing about your take is that the baboonboarders are quick to reference Altemeyer themselves when trying to discredit others. (One Icythic (sp?) does this very often. I see him on Brayton's blog, the only part of FTB I look at any longer, but recall him being a frequent poster on PZ's site, back when I did read it.) So they are obviously well aware of his work, although, it often doesnt seem that they really understand it, any more than they understand Dunning Krueger, its become more of a way to dress up a tribal marker in science sounding terms.

Dave wrote: Interesting take. Ive read Altemeyer's work. What I find most amusing about your take is that the baboonboarders are quick to reference Altemeyer themselves when trying to discredit others. (One Icythic (sp?) does this very often. I see him on Brayton's blog, the only part of FTB I look at any longer, but recall him being a frequent poster on PZ's site, back when I did read it.) So they are obviously well aware of his work, although, it often doesnt seem that they really understand it, any more than they understand Dunning Krueger, its become more of a way to dress up a tribal marker in science sounding terms.

I didn't know it came up there often, but that may be where I first heard about it. Too bad none of them actually took the questionaire and answered truthfully and honestly reported the answers to their bretheren.

On a personal note, last time I was in Winnipeg, my sister and I were at an event and she introduced me to someone we met as Rob. My sister and I were later talking about random things and somehow ended up talking about Altemeyer, and that's when she told me that the Rob she'd intoduced me to was his son the politician.

Although, now that I think about it, they might actually enjoy the label authoritarian follower, since they have such a knee jerk hate on for anything libertarian.

mordacious1 wrote:I suppose you could make the argument that a fragile person could be damaged psychologically by any negative comment (you're a jerk!). But the difference in these two cases is that in one, you need a third party (rapist) to commit the act of violence (or a wayward bus). The odds of that are slim, whereas telling someone to harm themselves and them carrying it through might actually happen.

Ok, gotcha. I see what you mean now, thanks for the clarification.

Science2.0 has another good chuckle at baboon central -

Free Thought Blogs Closet Sexism Trips Feminista Greg Laden

sacha wrote:Abbie has written. She needed a break from all of this. She deserves as long as she needs.

"I sprung this on everybody pretty much overnight. I didnt even have my own thoughts together. No one here is behaving maliciously-- Only concerned and confused, and that second part is all my fault."

Abbie, there is not a single thing about any of this is your fault.

So Abbie dumps us with a "it's not you, its me".

Talk about tacky!

mordacious1 wrote: Case 5: If you don't agree with me, I'm going to try to get your blog shut down (loss of income) or get you in trouble with your boss. Threat Level: 7 Not nice: 10. If you actually contact their boss, it's goes to Threat Level 8.

Case 6: Next time I see you at a conference, I'm going to kick your ass, or harm you in another manner. Threat Level: 9 Not nice: 10

I could think of some more cases, but that covers the main ones ( I think).

I've pointed out a few times that "they" have a habit of using imagined unethical/illegal behavior to justify the real thing.

If you study abnormal psychology this is actually very, very common amongst criminals. Many (most?) criminals imagine themselves as victims in one way or the other and then use that as justification for their bad behavior.

What I personally find somewhat amusing is their stoic refusal to "name names" of known harassers. I suspect they rationale being that they know at some level they are full of shit and their natural instinct of self-preservation is kicking in.

Someone should mirror this before it disappears: (it's been flagged, so you need a youtube or gmail account to view).

Watson is the one filming, at about 0:50 we see how much of a problem she really has with sexual objectification at her own skeptic's convention.

And before I'm accusing of cyberstalking anyone, the video was linked to by some commenter on the Skepchickcon thing referenced above.

Apologies for being vague in my earlier post about the details of the CoffeeLovingSkeptic episode. The details are incidental as the PZedly defence strategy was what I wanted to emphasize.

You will find it difficult, if not impossible to get the filth flingers to admit to their faults. The religious are always accusing atheists of dogmatism and the Pharynguloid type defence is now so reflexive that it has become alien to their nature to stop and do a reality check. They can't see criticism as anything other than weaseling sophistry because that is what they are used to seeing. They are cultural pseudo-skeptics with traditions, rituals and cliched one-line putdowns.

Maryam Namazie corrects PZ Myers, regarding her atheist category:

I am an atheist not because the atheist movement cares about rights (it doesn’t) or has been overly supportive (which it hasn’t) but because I despise religion and Islam.

The first part of that sentence sums up nicely my primary reason for avoiding involvement with the atheist community: the movement doesn't care about social justice, human rights, environmental justice, environmental issues, access to healthcare, or disability rights and access. Sure, individual atheists care about those issues, and may in fact be very involved and engaged activists addressing specific problems, but the movement as a whole Does. Not. Care. If you want to do something and participate to address, say, environmental issues, or to rectify social injustices, then the atheist movement is not the route to choose. The skeptics and freethought groups are not any better. Just look at how they pat themselves on the backs for addressing "social justice," when their activism and righteous indignation extends no further than their own conferences. Yes, a balanced anti-harassment policy at a skeptics/freethought conference is a good and (arguably) necessary thing, but it's pretty limited in its scope, and I fail to see how it addresses "social justice issues" beyond a very small group of privileged individuals. If you've any doubt how narrow the focus of their concerns is, just listen to Rebecca Watson in the "Don't Feed the Trolls" video, or read anything that Ophelia Benson has written. It's all about meeeeeeeeee!!!!

PZ has a post up about his experiences at CONvergence, and on the whole I think he makes some very good points and is (unusually) largely positive about SF & F conferences. It does sound like fun, and I agree it's important to introduce some science into a group that will be receptive, yet possibly not well-informed. PZ is certainly one of the best on teh interwebz at popularizing evolutionary biology topics. But I disagree that any time atheists (or groups of atheists) participate in some communal event, it counts as "outreach." He gives a rather ridiculous example of Pharyngula regulars attending the NY Sheep and Wool Festival (Rhinebeck):

where they will conform to the mores and conventions of that community, while representing their other interests as well. Not abrasively, not proselytizing, not even aggressively — and we weren’t any of those things at CONvergence, either — but being themselves and participating.
That’s outreach. That’s making people comfortable with atheism. That’s community expanding. We need more of it, in all kinds of venues.

Please. People at Rhinebeck will be stampeding the Verdant Gryphon booth or obsessing over handmade spindles and quiviut and heritage breed fleeces, not worrying whether someone is an atheist or skeptic or if Rebecca Watson is going to talk. Funny, I've been to a few Sheep and Wool shows locally ... never seen an anti-harassment policy. Wonder if they will demand one for Rhinebeck?

Franc:

Science2.0 has another good chuckle at baboon central -

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fre ... aden-91735

He's having a dig at everyone.

BarnOwl wrote:Maryam Namazie corrects PZ Myers, regarding her atheist category:

I am an atheist not because the atheist movement cares about rights (it doesn’t) or has been overly supportive (which it hasn’t) but because I despise religion and Islam.

The first part of that sentence sums up nicely my primary reason for avoiding involvement with the atheist community: the movement doesn't care about social justice, human rights, environmental justice, environmental issues, access to healthcare, or disability rights and access.

And that is exactly what being an atheist is, nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, some who happen to be atheist go nuts when the Islamic religion is attacked, suddenly we are Islamaphobes or something. Maryam Namazie needs our support.

Sure, individual atheists care about those issues, and may in fact be very involved and engaged activists addressing specific problems, but the movement as a whole Does. Not. Care. If you want to do something and participate to address, say, environmental issues, or to rectify social injustices, then the atheist movement is not the route to choose.

Then you may fit the humanist movement better.

The skeptics and freethought groups are not any better. Just look at how they pat themselves on the backs for addressing "social justice," when their activism and righteous indignation extends no further than their own conferences. Yes, a balanced anti-harassment policy at a skeptics/freethought conference is a good and (arguably) necessary thing, but it's pretty limited in its scope, and I fail to see how it addresses "social justice issues" beyond a very small group of privileged individuals. If you've any doubt how narrow the focus of their concerns is, just listen to Rebecca Watson in the "Don't Feed the Trolls" video, or read anything that Ophelia Benson has written. It's all about meeeeeeeeee!!!!

Aieeee! Do not conflate people who may call themselves free thinkers and/or sceptics with the real thing please. Please don't. Freethought blogs are anything but Freethinkers and sceptics.

PZ has a post up about his experiences at CONvergence, and on the whole I think he makes some very good points and is (unusually) largely positive about SF & F conferences. It does sound like fun, and I agree it's important to introduce some science into a group that will be receptive, yet possibly not well-informed. PZ is certainly one of the best on teh interwebz at popularizing evolutionary biology topics. But I disagree that any time atheists (or groups of atheists) participate in some communal event, it counts as "outreach." He gives a rather ridiculous example of Pharyngula regulars attending the NY Sheep and Wool Festival (Rhinebeck):

Oh B.S. I've been to my share of SF & F cons, I will also grudgingly admit to running one or two in my youth. Never ever ever has there ever been any need for paternalistic goofy anti harassment policies. Never. You are new to SF crowds aren't you? The overlap between SCA, Wiccans, geeks, SciFi types is amazing. You've never seen the hall costumes I have seen, where all sorts of things are seen, but never ever any problems with harassment. The only harassment I heard about was a wedding party that had got drunk one the same night as one of the Con nights. The hotel threw them all out. And as far as science goes? There is nothing quite like having a nuclear or rocket scientist giving a talk.

where they will conform to the mores and conventions of that community, while representing their other interests as well. Not abrasively, not proselytizing, not even aggressively — and we weren’t any of those things at CONvergence, either — but being themselves and participating.
That’s outreach. That’s making people comfortable with atheism. That’s community expanding. We need more of it, in all kinds of venues.

Please. People at Rhinebeck will be stampeding the Verdant Gryphon booth or obsessing over handmade spindles and quiviut and heritage breed fleeces, not worrying whether someone is an atheist or skeptic or if Rebecca Watson is going to talk. Funny, I've been to a few Sheep and Wool shows locally ... never seen an anti-harassment policy. Wonder if they will demand one for Rhinebeck?[/quote]

Oh dear. No kidding. Young people full of piss and vinegar being led like sheep themselves I'd say.

@ Dilurk -

Never been to a SF&F conference, but I've been to a few Renaissance Festivals/SCA events, lots of craft shows and folklife festivals, and scientific conferences, large and small, in my field(s). No problems with harassment myself at any of those, ever, so you're probably right - it's just not necessary to have an anti-harassment policy. All of the events I've attended have a male:female ratio that is better balanced than that of the atheists/skeptics etc. conferences, and all are more diverse in just about any category you care to choose. One of the things that strikes me about the photos and accounts of atheists/freethinkers meetings are how homogenous they appear to be. Apart from the fact that the attendees are predominantly female, the International Quilt Festival has more diversity, FFS.

Hands down (hands off??) the most persistent and pervasive sexual harassment I've experienced has been in the workplace, particularly in hospitals (beginning at age 16) and medical schools (still happening, middle age). And these are places that have strongly-worded, supposedly progressive policies in place. Do they work? Not in my opinion or experience. An MD friend who now works in primary care was the only woman in her medical school (and probably the state, at the time) to be accepted into a general surgery residency. The Chief of Surgery called her "Dr. C***" every single day, several times a day, in front of other residents, medical students, OR staff, other surgeons, everybody. She persisted, and was a successful surgeon for many years, until all that time standing in the OR took a toll on her body. Makes Ophelia's paranoia and pearl-clutching seem utterly bathetic (and yes I mean the B not the p :mrgreen: ).