Periodic Table of Swearing

[Al Stefanelli]

http://www.wcoa.info/guesswhat.jpg

[Tony Parsehole]

@Parsehole

:lol: Ooley as a middle-class version of 8-Ace.

I'm sorry, my dear lady wife, but I accidentally stopped by Stowells of Chelsea and - gosh, would you believe - the £1.49 you gave me went missing, and I somehow ended up with a half-bottle of 2011 Liebfraumilch in my hand. Er...please don't throw that pan at me, dearest - it is an Anthony Worral-Thompson copper-bottomed signature, after all...

*snigger, chortle*

[Tony Parsehole]

I do not want to be accused of doxing. Ya know?

OK. I feel bad now and here's why:
1) Considering the quality of his blog and online persona.I always imagined oolon as about 15-18 years old. The fact he is a yellow-toothed house owner makes me feel bad for him.
2) He is obviously being forced to hoover his lawn. Whether his wife is making him do it or The Patriarchy, I don't know. My lass makes me cut the grass but never hoover it. Once again, I feel bad for him.
3) I've seen tramps with better fashion sense.
4) He actually LOOKS like a kiddy fiddler.

Whoever this guy is, the only reason he's wearing those shorts is so he has an excuse when a parent asks him what the fuck he's doing sitting on the playground bench and exposing his genitals.

I just want to know why he's hoovering his grass?

[Tigzy]

Maybe he's 'wacky', like Brownian is?

[JAB]

Priceless. Apparently, I inflict "damage" on Ophelia Benson with my tweets and videos. Lil' ol' me.

How many HP does she have left?

HP? Hissy Phits?

[Tony Parsehole]

Maybe he's 'wacky', like Brownian is?

"On my days off I like to hoover my lawn! Once, I flicked an acorn at a badger! I occasionally eat hazelnuts for fun!!!!"

[sacha]

Priceless. Apparently, I inflict "damage" on Ophelia Benson with my tweets and videos. Lil' ol' me.

How many HP does she have left?

HP? Hissy Phits?

I kept thinking of brown sauce. What the fuck is HP?

[Rystefn]

I kept thinking of brown sauce. What the fuck is HP?

Hit Points. *nerd power*

[John Brown]

Priceless. Apparently, I inflict "damage" on Ophelia Benson with my tweets and videos. Lil' ol' me.

How many HP does she have left?

She didn't have her Devout Shoulders on. 33.3% chance (repeating of course) chance of survival.

[real horrorshow]

Thank you oh thank you Sony Corporation for the most patronising and unhelpful error message I have ever seen:

http://i.imgur.com/PfxnF.png

Why is there only an "OK" button when this box obviously needs a "Fuck off" button?

[Guessed]

By the way, Renee, I would be more up for a reasoned discussion with you if you didn’t do things like joining your hate-FTB colleagues in gratuitous contemptuous nicknames – like referring to me as Ophie when you’re sneering at me for example. I think you’re probably a good deal more intelligent than most of that crowd, but one wouldn’t know it from childish crap like that. So I’m not going to be able to take you very seriously.

Lol @ someone at FtB getting on their high-horse about another person using "gratuitous contemptuous nicknames". If you have a problem with sneering, Ophelia, perhaps you and your colleagues should refrain from similar behaviour also.

Regarding her latest post featuring an utterly tame tweet by Renee: I see that it's fine for Benson to single out a female with a different ideology and attempt to deride them. You know, that isn't "targeting" or misogynistic, because Renee obvs deserves to be criticised or w/e. Wait, am I primed now?

[sacha]

forgot about this - advert for trousers 2009:

500x_pants1.jpg

(95.85 KiB) Downloaded 116 times

[Al Stefanelli]

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

<snip>

Anti-rape activist Alyssa Royse sure is gullible. Her friend told her that he didn't know it was rape to stick his penis in a sleeping woman. He swore he had no idea before he went ahead and did it. Royse believed him.

She agrees that her friend committed rape but she maintains that, "The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist." (Tell that to the victim.)

In Alyssa's view, the problem is that our society confuses men about when it's appropriate to stick their penises in women. How ironic that an anti-rape activist is friends with the only person on the planet who doesn't know that sex with an unconscious person is rape.

</snip>

[Lsuoma]

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

<snip>

Anti-rape activist Alyssa Royse sure is gullible. Her friend told her that he didn't know it was rape to stick his penis in a sleeping woman. He swore he had no idea before he went ahead and did it. Royse believed him.

She agrees that her friend committed rape but she maintains that, "The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist." (Tell that to the victim.)

In Alyssa's view, the problem is that our society confuses men about when it's appropriate to stick their penises in women. How ironic that an anti-rape activist is friends with the only person on the planet who doesn't know that sex with an unconscious person is rape.

</snip>

Whaaaaaaa????? Head explodes...

[welch]

By the way, Renee, I would be more up for a reasoned discussion with you if you didn’t do things like joining your hate-FTB colleagues in gratuitous contemptuous nicknames – like referring to me as Ophie when you’re sneering at me for example. I think you’re probably a good deal more intelligent than most of that crowd, but one wouldn’t know it from childish crap like that. So I’m not going to be able to take you very seriously.

Lol @ someone at FtB getting on their high-horse about another person using "gratuitous contemptuous nicknames". If you have a problem with sneering, Ophelia, perhaps you and your colleagues should refrain from similar behaviour also.

Regarding her latest post featuring an utterly tame tweet by Renee: I see that it's fine for Benson to single out a female with a different ideology and attempt to deride them. You know, that isn't "targeting" or misogynistic, because Renee obvs deserves to be criticised or w/e. Wait, am I primed now?

"We. Are Not. Amused."

Benson, Regina, Empress.







could she be ANY more condescending and hypocritical? I don't see how.

[welch]

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

<snip>

Anti-rape activist Alyssa Royse sure is gullible. Her friend told her that he didn't know it was rape to stick his penis in a sleeping woman. He swore he had no idea before he went ahead and did it. Royse believed him.

She agrees that her friend committed rape but she maintains that, "The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist." (Tell that to the victim.)

In Alyssa's view, the problem is that our society confuses men about when it's appropriate to stick their penises in women. How ironic that an anti-rape activist is friends with the only person on the planet who doesn't know that sex with an unconscious person is rape.

</snip>

clearly, her friend didn't live near this handy billboard:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8057/8233 ... 5488_b.jpg

[d4m10n]

I'm sure if we were the ones proposing infecting (sorry, converting) unsuspecting women with out HIV then FTB would be on fire right now.

Kudos to Tigzy (I think) for bringing the lolzy post to our attention.

That's the thing that infuriates me: if you change the word used, you literally change how you view it.

If I'm "infected", we all agree that this is bad. No one wants to be "infected", at least not in the disease sense. "infected" is pretty clear: something is in you that Should Not Be There. The implications are clear, and, it doesn't blame the victim in and of itself.

But "converted", well, that's not bad, right? That's a good thing. We're happy when someone converts, well, at least the folks in the end group are. You convert to Judaism, Catholicism, what have you, and it's considered a good thing. It's also considered the end result of at least some thought and introspection. You don't just wake up on Tuesday and think "Hey, It's "be a jew" tuesday, SHALOM BITCHES!", do you. There's work you have to do. Sometimes even a test. You may even have to learn a new language.

So when you say "They converted to HIV+", it misleads in two ways. First, it sounds happy. "YAAAY! YOU'RE HIV+! GO YOU!" Second, it sounds deliberate. "Bill wasn't infected with HIV+, he converted." Sounds like Bill decided to do that as a deliberate action.

There's nothing about this entire concept that is anything but bad and dangerous. The stigma attached to HIV/AIDS is wrong, it's stupid, but it has nothing, NOTHING to do with the word "Infected" and these social justice warrrriors need to pull their heads outta their fucking assholes on this.

It's worse than that, actually. Switching to the "converted" terminology strongly implies that the "poz" people are trying to get the "neg" people to become "poz." In English, that translated to "they're actively trying to infect more and more people." Tell me again how that's supposed to lesson the bigotry and exclusion?

I do think those terms are borrowed from the "bug-chaser" sub-sub-culture, but still "seroconversion" is a real thing from which the terminology is derived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seroconversion


:hankey:

[welch]

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

<snip>

Anti-rape activist Alyssa Royse sure is gullible. Her friend told her that he didn't know it was rape to stick his penis in a sleeping woman. He swore he had no idea before he went ahead and did it. Royse believed him.

She agrees that her friend committed rape but she maintains that, "The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist." (Tell that to the victim.)

In Alyssa's view, the problem is that our society confuses men about when it's appropriate to stick their penises in women. How ironic that an anti-rape activist is friends with the only person on the planet who doesn't know that sex with an unconscious person is rape.

</snip>

Comedy aside, the problem here is that sex with a sleeping person is one of those "it depends" things. For example, I've always been down with being woken up via hummer. Am I giving my consent EVERY time that happens? well, no, i'm asleep. But waking up via blowjob? There's a really narrow range where that's not okay. Outside of that range, it's never rape, at least not for me. I've dated more than one woman who was quite clear that if I wanted to wake them up with sex, that was quite alright. Others were not into it.

the information in the article is somewhat spare, and so we don't really know the details of what was going on. Had they discussed this previously, even in passing? If so, that could have affected things. This was not so clear cut as a case of strange woman on the couch + "hey, I have a penis!" = SEXY TIMES. They'd been flirting for weeks, and in cases like this, I do think that matters. Did they discuss "wakeage via sex"? Based on the article, we don't know that, and without knowing those details, it's a little...facile(?) to say "IT WAS RAPE" or "IT WAS NOT RAPE".

Sex with a sleeping person is not the same as sex with someone on roofies, or other forms of involuntarily induced unconciousness. From the article, it seems she was there, and sleeping voluntarily. So this really seems like one of those sticky grey areas.If there was an assumption of an physically intimate relationship between them, was it rape, or just a really badly executed idea? From that article, we don't really know, there's just not enough information. I talked about this with Melissa, and she agreed. You can't, as an outsider, say rape or not based on that.


(yes, yes, I know, i just gave A+ and FTBwats YEARS of quote-mining GLORY. Whatever. Life is not neat, clean binary. Life is sticky, convoluted, inconvenient analog, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise just to assuage a bunch of pinheads.)

[franc]

Aaron J. James, eISBN: 978-0-385-53568-7

Excerpt from chapter 1. Sound familiar?

[welch]

That's the thing that infuriates me: if you change the word used, you literally change how you view it.

If I'm "infected", we all agree that this is bad. No one wants to be "infected", at least not in the disease sense. "infected" is pretty clear: something is in you that Should Not Be There. The implications are clear, and, it doesn't blame the victim in and of itself.

But "converted", well, that's not bad, right? That's a good thing. We're happy when someone converts, well, at least the folks in the end group are. You convert to Judaism, Catholicism, what have you, and it's considered a good thing. It's also considered the end result of at least some thought and introspection. You don't just wake up on Tuesday and think "Hey, It's "be a jew" tuesday, SHALOM BITCHES!", do you. There's work you have to do. Sometimes even a test. You may even have to learn a new language.

So when you say "They converted to HIV+", it misleads in two ways. First, it sounds happy. "YAAAY! YOU'RE HIV+! GO YOU!" Second, it sounds deliberate. "Bill wasn't infected with HIV+, he converted." Sounds like Bill decided to do that as a deliberate action.

There's nothing about this entire concept that is anything but bad and dangerous. The stigma attached to HIV/AIDS is wrong, it's stupid, but it has nothing, NOTHING to do with the word "Infected" and these social justice warrrriors need to pull their heads outta their fucking assholes on this.

It's worse than that, actually. Switching to the "converted" terminology strongly implies that the "poz" people are trying to get the "neg" people to become "poz." In English, that translated to "they're actively trying to infect more and more people." Tell me again how that's supposed to lesson the bigotry and exclusion?

I do think those terms are borrowed from the "bug-chaser" sub-sub-culture, but still "seroconversion" is a real thing from which the terminology is derived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seroconversion


:hankey:

Oh seroconversion is a real thing, but to say "converted" is some kind of abbreviation for that? um...da fuck?

[AndrewV69]

(yes, yes, I know, i just gave A+ and FTBwats YEARS of quote-mining GLORY. Whatever. Life is not neat, clean binary. Life is sticky, convoluted, inconvenient analog, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise just to assuage a bunch of pinheads.)

As far as sleep sex is concerned.

To me it is quite simple. If you are sleeping with someone you have already given consent. If I wake up in the middle of the night because she is playing hide the sausage, as far as I am concerned that is par for the course. Likewise if she wakes up to find me rogering her.

If anyone has an issue with that, as far as I am concerned, the solution is also very simple. Do not sleep together. I am going to rear up on my hind legs at this point and tell everyone who does not agree to go fuck off.

(not very polite I agree, but you simply do not negotiate with terrorists cultural marxists PC weenies SJWs ever.).

[sacha]

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

<snip>

Anti-rape activist Alyssa Royse sure is gullible. Her friend told her that he didn't know it was rape to stick his penis in a sleeping woman. He swore he had no idea before he went ahead and did it. Royse believed him.

She agrees that her friend committed rape but she maintains that, "The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist." (Tell that to the victim.)

In Alyssa's view, the problem is that our society confuses men about when it's appropriate to stick their penises in women. How ironic that an anti-rape activist is friends with the only person on the planet who doesn't know that sex with an unconscious person is rape.

</snip>

Comedy aside, the problem here is that sex with a sleeping person is one of those "it depends" things. For example, I've always been down with being woken up via hummer. Am I giving my consent EVERY time that happens? well, no, i'm asleep. But waking up via blowjob? There's a really narrow range where that's not okay. Outside of that range, it's never rape, at least not for me. I've dated more than one woman who was quite clear that if I wanted to wake them up with sex, that was quite alright. Others were not into it.

the information in the article is somewhat spare, and so we don't really know the details of what was going on. Had they discussed this previously, even in passing? If so, that could have affected things. This was not so clear cut as a case of strange woman on the couch + "hey, I have a penis!" = SEXY TIMES. They'd been flirting for weeks, and in cases like this, I do think that matters. Did they discuss "wakeage via sex"? Based on the article, we don't know that, and without knowing those details, it's a little...facile(?) to say "IT WAS RAPE" or "IT WAS NOT RAPE".

Sex with a sleeping person is not the same as sex with someone on roofies, or other forms of involuntarily induced unconciousness. From the article, it seems she was there, and sleeping voluntarily. So this really seems like one of those sticky grey areas.If there was an assumption of an physically intimate relationship between them, was it rape, or just a really badly executed idea? From that article, we don't really know, there's just not enough information. I talked about this with Melissa, and she agreed. You can't, as an outsider, say rape or not based on that.


(yes, yes, I know, i just gave A+ and FTBwats YEARS of quote-mining GLORY. Whatever. Life is not neat, clean binary. Life is sticky, convoluted, inconvenient analog, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise just to assuage a bunch of pinheads.)

Completely ambiguous from the information provided. I'll bet it will be enough to prosecute though.

[sacha]

(yes, yes, I know, i just gave A+ and FTBwats YEARS of quote-mining GLORY. Whatever. Life is not neat, clean binary. Life is sticky, convoluted, inconvenient analog, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise just to assuage a bunch of pinheads.)

As far as sleep sex is concerned.

To me it is quite simple. If you are sleeping with someone you have already given consent. If I wake up in the middle of the night because she is playing hide the sausage, as far as I am concerned that is par for the course. Likewise if she wakes up to find me rogering her.

agreed. and quite nice to be woken up that way. If these people had their way with all of their "rules", I'd never have enjoyable sex again.

[Mr Danksworth]

(yes, yes, I know, i just gave A+ and FTBwats YEARS of quote-mining GLORY. Whatever. Life is not neat, clean binary. Life is sticky, convoluted, inconvenient analog, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise just to assuage a bunch of pinheads.)

As far as sleep sex is concerned.

To me it is quite simple. If you are sleeping with someone you have already given consent. If I wake up in the middle of the night because she is playing hide the sausage, as far as I am concerned that is par for the course. Likewise if she wakes up to find me rogering her.

agreed. and quite nice to be woken up that way. If these people had their way with all of their "rules", I'd never have enjoyable sex again.

Consent froms in triplicate, witnessed and signed by a Notary. These people really know how to suck the air out of a room.

[franc]

Churned out from the FearFactory this week -

http://pinklovesconsent.com/pink/pink.v ... ation.html
http://upsettingrapeculture.com/

Even more gibberish -

http://www.metafilter.com/122777/Consent-is-Sexy

[Dick Strawkins]

From what I can read in that linked article, it appears that Alyssia Rose was not having a sexual relationship with her friend before he did it.
In that case I can't really see it as anything other than rape.

It's far from being the worst case of 'surely you must realize that is wrong' that I've read, though.
That would probably be the 'penis-cream' rape case.
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... o_sex/?s=s

[real horrorshow]

Who is SharkCried? Halffish?

HaifischGeweint is German for "Shark" (Haifisch) and "Cried" (Geweint) so translated directly it's "Shark Cried".

But Half Fish works too. Seriously, though, this site is doing a huge service right now to the scientific community. Except for that whole caveat that we're misogynist, sexist, privileged, 'splaining creeps. :dance:

I may have bragging rights on this. When I saw s/h/it's first guest post my tired (not to mention incredulous) eyes saw the name as Halfish Gwent, which had me puzzling over Welsh Mer-folk. Also, Half-fish put me in mind of (a muthafucken) Gay fish. I posted as much and it's caught on with other piss-taking bastards. What can you do?

[AndrewV69]

Re:

Anti-Rape Activist Alyssa Royse Duped By Rapist

Not enough information for me to determine if it was rape or not. However I am willing to grant that it could look like someone is pulling a Svanity for an Osama Bin Laden.

Also :

the 'penis-cream' rape case.

If any of that is true, it just yet another example that some people are too stupid to breathe on their own, without checking the instructions stapled to an appendage.

[Mr Danksworth]

[youtube]hqEF9w2xRVI[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

hqEF9w2xRVI

OK I laughed.

But I could just see the SJWs taking this as a serious example of a "teachable moment" and pontificating upon the misogny, sexism etc. etc. etc. and the 2,384+ comments arguing the fine points.

Then I rendered a credible imitation of Justicar trying to comment on "hugsgate" before I completely lost it and started barking (and there is not fulll moon in sight).

Fuck U Danksworth! I swear on a stack of bibles and all that is holy, that someone is going to pay for this (hopefully you).

[real horrorshow]

Or, if you prefer something a little more elastic:

http://www.wcoa.info/crypt_keeper.jpg

Proof that really ancient and powerful vampires have no fear of the sun.

Though on another level, I have a certain sneaking admiration for the sheer amount of 'fuck you' on display here.

[real horrorshow]

I think Brownian might be one of those Ebay reflecto-porn fetishists.

For sale. One cat...

One used cat. Oh yes, used, used and cast aside!

[real horrorshow]

I think he deliberately posed with a cat hiding his genitals and you're all buying into one of his devious schemes.

Yes. Just like Oolon downloading kiddy porn and therefore trolling the shit out of us.

Where is oolon anyway? I miss him.

Take better aim.

[rayshul]

I'm enjoying the oolon free zone.

[Skep tickle]

I seem to be blocked at FtB. (Tried Pharyngula and I don't remember what, maybe Zvan or Blag Hag this weekend, Ophelia's blog just now at 2 posts.)

Oh, darn. Hehe.

Ophelia is complaining about some folks she thinks are FGM-splaining: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... fications/

She starts off her gripes against a Hastings Center report by objecting to terminology: "They’re not surgeries. If you’re walking down the street and someone tears your arm off for the fun of it, that’s not surgery." IMO a stupid and misguided analogy; it's nothing like that.

And apparently she thinks FGM should just END. Nice idea, but hopelessly naive.

I tried to link the WHO definition of FGM and to the UNFPA page with info on FGM to fact-splain that what's done is a "procedure" and it's institutionalized in cultures. There are people (often older women, or sometimes medical personnel) who have the role of performing these procedures, and until the cultural norm is changed these procedures will continue (underground, if outlawed). But no luck. She'll have to read it here. ;)

Does she think that unyielding disapproval is going to end the practice? In response to a line from the Hastings Center Report that "We recommend that journalists, activists, and policy-makers cease using violent and preemptive rhetoric" she helpfully airs her culturally sensitive approach as: "No. No I’m not going to seek out ”better representation” of the perspectives and experiences of African women who value female genital surgery mutilation. I’m not going to do that any more than I would in the case of foot-binding. No I’m not going to combine “parental and children’s rights” in that way when it’s a question of cutting up children’s genitals. Parents don’t have a “right” to do that in the absence of medical necessity. No, no, no."

People actually working against FGM, particularly those working against it in their own cultures, would be the first to tell her that coming in with a judgmental attitude isn't helpful when trying to change an ingrained cultural practice. See, for example, [ur=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world ... .html?_r=0]the story of Senegal's success against FGM[/url], which includes these sections:

But here in Senegal, Tostan, a group whose name means “breakthrough” in Wolof, Senegal’s dominant language, has had a major impact with an education program that seeks to build consensus, African-style, on the dangers of the practice, while being careful not to denounce it as barbaric as Western activists have been prone to do. Senegal’s Parliament officially banned the practice over a decade ago, and the government has been very supportive of Tostan’s efforts. ...

...The group aims broadly to improve health and spread awareness of human rights. Women in village classes themselves raised the issue of genital cutting. They told of daughters and sisters who had hemorrhaged and sometimes died from botched circumcisions.

That June [1986], Professor Mackie, then a research fellow at Oxford, was proctoring an exam when he read an article in The International Herald Tribune about what Tostan had done. “My heart was pounding,” he said. ...

Professor Mackie contended that genital cutting, unlike rape or wife beating, was a convention parents followed out of love for their daughters. He likened it to foot binding, which had disfigured Chinese girls over centuries.

A Western woman — Alicia Little, a British novelist — had played a catalytic role in ending foot binding in China, much like Ms. Melching was doing with genital cutting.

Mrs. Little had written literary depictions of Victorian mothers who raised their daughters to win wealthy husbands, and after moving to China in 1887, she researched foot binding and discovered that a congregation’s public pledge to end the practice had worked. Parents pledging neither to bind their daughters’ feet nor to allow their sons to marry women with bound feet ultimately ended the practice within a generation, Professor Mackie wrote.

Foot-binding didn't end quickly just because of this one effort. It took about 75 years, apparently starting with Christian missionaries and persisting through several attempts to ban the practice before this public pledge approach worked (apparently in concert with a ban on the practice).

But, hey, why bother giving any air time, much less consideration, to the nuances of a situation like this, including the cultural meaning and relevant history? She feels her side and her view are right, dammit, so anything else is no, no, no.

[real horrorshow]

[youtube][/youtube]

"You didn't even know what a 'chaise lounge' was."
Maybe she knows what a chaise longue is though. 'Chaise lounge' is a term devised by monoglot illiterates too lazy to look up 'chaise longue' in a fucking dictionary.

Otherwise I liked it.

[Skep tickle]

Well, it's like beating a dead horse, but here's one from Setar at A+ forum:
The victim-blamers are the harassers

Opening post, with link to http://www.livescience.com/13654-victim ... sment.html

Postby Setar » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:05 am
In other news, water is wet. I mean, seriously, who wasn't expecting this?

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:05 am
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Postby Kassiane » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:06 am

Setar wrote:In other news, water is wet. I mean, seriously, who wasn't expecting this?

I am dying of not surprise.

Postby Lovely » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:44 am
Shocking! Also, coming up in a special report, bears shit in the woods.

The link in OP is to an April 2011 Live Science writeup of a small study published online on April 1 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. (But it seems not to have been an April Fools Joke.) The article says the subjects were male college students; the abstract says, in part (emphasis added):

One hundred nineteen male participants read hypothetical harassment scenarios and responded to Bartling and Eisenman’s...1993...Sexual Harassment Proclivities scale. Results revealed that men high in the proclivity to harass blamed harassers less and victims more than did low-proclivity men.

This study does not prove Setar's sweeping claim in the title that "the victim-blamers are the harassers". These were research subjects, presumably volunteers and probably eligible for the study solely or largely because they were male and they were students or student-age. They were given hypothetical situations to judge and a rating scale for their responses. This study did not look at the actual behavior of the subjects, nor did it establish - nor did it try to establish (from the information I can access without a credit card) - that any of them was IRL a "victim-blamer".

But maybe because they were privileged college students, and men, it's okay (in the A+ worldview) to make unwarranted generalizations about them, and from one limited study (because the headline feeds your confirmation bias).

As a subset of his/her/xir failure to acknowledge any actual substance from the link or the paper itself, Setar & xir echo chamber also fail to acknowledge a quote attributed to one of the authors in the linked article: "Hopefully, this just adds to the knowledge that we need to target the whole system sometimes and not just these men."

[real horrorshow]

Re:

the 'penis-cream' rape case.

If any of that is true, it just yet another example that some people are too stupid to breathe on their own, without checking the instructions stapled to an appendage.

Two thoughts came to my mind:

1. A man learns that a woman has "a rash of white spots between her legs" and his first thought is to have sex with her. Someone this stupid is a pilot?
2. A woman is persuaded that the treatment for her rash is ointment, applied intra-vaginally, with a penis. Someone this stupid is a teacher?

[Steersman]

Well, it's like beating a dead horse, but here's one from Setar at A+ forum:
The victim-blamers are the harassers

Opening post, with link to http://www.livescience.com/13654-victim ... sment.html
....
As a subset of his/her/xir failure to acknowledge any actual substance from the link or the paper itself, Setar & xir echo chamber also fail to acknowledge a quote attributed to one of the authors in the linked article: "Hopefully, this just adds to the knowledge that we need to target the whole system sometimes and not just these men."

Interesting study and comments, although, at least on a related study that was linked in that first Live Science article on “Sexual Harassers Are Often Harassers”, I think you have to colour me very skeptical. For instance, that first article asserts that:

Even subtle sexual harassment can harm a woman's performance on the job. In one study, women who were ogled by men did worse on a math task.

And that article in turn claims that:

The results revealed that men’s scores were not affected whether or not they got an objectifying glance from a woman before the math test. But women whose male partners objectified them scored lower than those whose partners didn't gaze at their bodies. The non-objectified women scored an average of 6 out of 12 questions correct, while objectified women scored an average of just under 5.

One has to wonder, particularly as I didn’t see any link to the specific study, how statistically significant the results were – the averages of 6 versus 5. In addition one has to wonder how carefully the researchers compensated for any diffences in the capabilities of the individuals in the first place.

Lies, damned lies and statistics …. Methinks there’s some possibility that someone has their thumbs on the scales ….

[ScooterKPFT]

People whom refuse vaccination should be charged with child endangerment if they are within one hundred feet of any child under the age of three years old whom has not been fully immunized.

[real horrorshow]

Well, it's like beating a dead horse, but here's one from Setar at A+ forum:
The victim-blamers are the harassers

Opening post, with link to [url]http:// ... sment.html

Actually, a quick skim suggests precise the reverse conclusion i.e. The harassers are the victim-blamers. Which is such an obvious result it's barely worth testing for. A group pre-selected for "a high proclivity toward sexual harassment" turned out not to consider the behaviour they had "a high proclivity" for to be blame-worthy. Of course not, no one thinks they're the baddie.

It's this pre-selection process that intrigues me though.

The survey doesn't ask men directly whether they harass women, but rather asks about attitudes associated with harassment, such as whether women use sex to their advantage or are flattered by sexual advances

OK, firstly the bit in blue is, in the original document, a hotlink. When clicked it takes you to another Live Science article which explains that, while they've toughened up latterly, Disney Princesses are not feminist icons. Why this utterly un-surprising observation is "associated with harassment" the article does not explain. Maybe they screwed up the link.

Now the other bit. I'll test myself:
1. Do women use sex to their advantage? Yes (sometimes).
2. Are women flattered by sexual advances? Yes (sometimes). As a species we'd better fucking hope so!

Oh dear, I suspect that my answers to these questions would establish me as having "a high proclivity toward sexual harassment" in the minds of the researchers. Which is a shame, because such a conclusion is wrong. Well, I might have a "proclivity", I suppose, but if I do it's keeping very quiet, and I don't actually sexually harass anyone.

Next, the men read eight short vignettes about instances of sexual harassment...
Unsurprisingly, the men with a high proclivity toward sexual harassment, as rated from the initial survey, said they felt more similar to the fictional harassers.

Riiight. I'm starting to think that his piece of 'scientific' 'research' was actually more like this:
1. Make a list of the things we don't like about the guys we don't like.
2. Ask some other guys about the things we don't like.
Conclusion: Guys who are like the guys we don't like, are also guys we don't like. (Especially when they fuck the girls we do like but don't dare speak to.) This is not science.

Only college students were studied, Key and Ridge wrote, so further research needs to be done to understand attitudes in other age groups.

College students who might have an idea that Dr Colin Key is the whiniest mangina on campus, and took the opportunity to jerk his chain?

"As a woman, when I get blamed, maybe I shouldn't give a crap about what that guy thinks," Key said. "Because maybe he's the kind of guy who would do this to me, too."

Colin, you're not a woman. You do know that don't you?

[JayTeeAitch]

There's a pic of Ooley here: http://www.longparish.org.uk/l2sotm/results/200709/ Scroll down, last picture. This fine specimen of an urban social justice warrior is the one on the right.

Has this pic been linked to on the pit before? I've seen it before but can't remember if I saw it here.

[Notung]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

[Notung]

I should say what it is - it's Shermer responding to claims he's an evil misogynist. First comment from him on the whole skeptidrama phenomenon.

[Reap]

I should say what it is - it's Shermer responding to claims he's an evil misogynist. First comment from him on the whole skeptidrama phenomenon.

Dear Ophelia
I didn't want to do this but absolute stupidity must be with absolute unstupidity (also known as logic and reason to most people). - smack down- There you will thank me for this later, now stop being a dick. Oh, and in the future try to get more parts right than wrong, you know at least 50/50. Consider it a challenge.

Michael

PS shut up stupid

[Ape+lust]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

Nice, thanks for bringing that in. Good timing, too. Ophelia just put up a thread ridiculing Renee as a "cool kid." Harriet Hall nailing Benson as one of the tribal inquisitors will roast her skullcap.

As well, as in witch hunts of centuries past, we should be cautious of making charges against others because of the near impossibility of denial or explanation after the accusation. (Just read the comments about me in the forum section of Benson’s blog, where I’m called a “jackass,” a “damn fool,” and other descriptors that have become commonplace in the invectosphere. Is there anything I could say that would not confirm readers’ beliefs? Denial is what true witches (and bigots, racists, and misogynists) do. Many other examples abound. Harriet Hall, M.D., the SkepDoc columnist for Skeptic magazine (one of two women columnists of our three, I might add, the other being Karen Stollznow), who lived through and helped bring about the first-wave feminist movement, told me she “was vilified on Ophelia’s blog for not following a certain kind of feminist party line of how a feminist should act and think. And I was attacked there in a disturbingly irrational, nonskeptical way.” I asked her why she didn’t defend herself. She wrote in an email (12/08/12):

“I did not dare try to explain my thinking on Ophelia’s blog, because it was apparent from the tone of the comments that anything I might say would be misinterpreted and twisted to use against me. I have always been a feminist but I have my own style of feminism. And I have felt more oppressed by these sort of feminists than by men, and far less welcome in that strain of feminism than in the atheist or skeptical communities.”

[franc]

I should say what it is - it's Shermer responding to claims he's an evil misogynist. First comment from him on the whole skeptidrama phenomenon.

"A Secular Malleus Maleficarum"

Oh, this is good.

[Reap]

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzstop.png


Soooo. It's okay for PZ to label people as racists, misogynists, sexist, and any other -ist he wants and trash them in a public forum for no good reason but he is against exposing the real names of anyone who is hiding. Really consistent there PZ par for the course. How many people have you judged here without knowing jack shit about them? How many members of the slymepit are there now? Your behavior is just as bad if not worse PZ. How did he ever get a job doing more than cleaning toilets?

[BarnOwl]

Wow, that quote from Harriet Hall is a bit depressing, because it indicates to me that people like Ophelia and her Confirmation Bias Commentariat actually have some damaging influence in the skeptiverse. But good on Shermer for writing a rational take-down and providing evidence.

On a lighter note, here's a snippet of unchecked privilege on Twitter:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... c24c47.png

Why do I get the feeling that the primary driving force in Rebecca's life is the quest for free booze and junk food?

[Trophy]

What's up with the StevOr thing? Anyone following that potential LOLz mine?

[justinvacula]

Lousy Canuck authored a new post in his "Atheism is not enough" series in which he talks about the [non-] importance of his 'atheist identity' when compared to other labels and the atheist community. In the comment section, Crommunist weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-92961

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

EllenBeth Wachs too!

http://i.imgur.com/3fh2s.jpg

[Cunning Punt]

Re:

the 'penis-cream' rape case.

If any of that is true, it just yet another example that some people are too stupid to breathe on their own, without checking the instructions stapled to an appendage.

Two thoughts came to my mind:

1. A man learns that a woman has "a rash of white spots between her legs" and his first thought is to have sex with her. Someone this stupid is a pilot?
2. A woman is persuaded that the treatment for her rash is ointment, applied intra-vaginally, with a penis. Someone this stupid is a teacher?

Imagine the children they would have.

[Cunning Punt]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

Denial is what true witches (and bigots, racists, and misogynists) do.

MISOGYNIST! MISOGYNIST! MISOGYNIST!

[justinvacula]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-st ... 06356.html

Jeremy Stangroom - Drunken Sex: A Moral Dillemma

Maybe he'll soon be labeled as a rape apologist if they aren't busy enough flaying Shermer...

[Altair]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

He's getting asked in the comments about his phrase "It's a guy thing". If I remember correctly, Notung also mentioned that point on Twitter.

I'd like to have other people's opinions, but the way I'm reading it, he didn't say atheism or skepticism were a guy thing, he said that "standing up and talking about it, going to shows about it, being intelectually active about it" was a guy thing.

He was stating/implying that men tend to be more active about things than women, tend to go to more conventions and speak more about it.
Is it true? I don't know, we could probably apply some (insert scary lightning) Evo pscyh to the question.

But whether it's true or not, I think his answer has been mis-read by some people.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Well, it's like beating a dead horse, but here's one from Setar at A+ forum:
The victim-blamers are the harassers

Opening post, with link to http://www.livescience.com/13654-victim ... sment.html
....
As a subset of his/her/xir failure to acknowledge any actual substance from the link or the paper itself, Setar & xir echo chamber also fail to acknowledge a quote attributed to one of the authors in the linked article: "Hopefully, this just adds to the knowledge that we need to target the whole system sometimes and not just these men."

Interesting study and comments, although, at least on a related study that was linked in that first Live Science article on “Sexual Harassers Are Often Harassers”, I think you have to colour me very skeptical. For instance, that first article asserts that:

Even subtle sexual harassment can harm a woman's performance on the job. In one study, women who were ogled by men did worse on a math task.

And that article in turn claims that:

The results revealed that men’s scores were not affected whether or not they got an objectifying glance from a woman before the math test. But women whose male partners objectified them scored lower than those whose partners didn't gaze at their bodies. The non-objectified women scored an average of 6 out of 12 questions correct, while objectified women scored an average of just under 5.

One has to wonder, particularly as I didn’t see any link to the specific study, how statistically significant the results were – the averages of 6 versus 5. In addition one has to wonder how carefully the researchers compensated for any diffences in the capabilities of the individuals in the first place.

Lies, damned lies and statistics …. Methinks there’s some possibility that someone has their thumbs on the scales ….

As you say, however, no statistics. And words remain the most available, and easiest medium to lie in. Especially about statistics.

Anywho, there just isn't enough information on those reports to tell if the study (studies?) was legit or not. From the commentary given, it looks like a pile of shite but, who knows, maybe there are hidden depths in the published works. <Fails to hold breath.>

Seriously, how did that get past any competant superviser/grant approval etc etc? I don't even know where to begin with that stuff. Oh, yes I do. How the hell do you know that (a) there is an effect (b) it has anything to do with your supoosed independent variable and (c) it bears any veridical relationship to the real world? Must be the "my leanings as fixed effect fallacy".

Also:

Gervais and her colleagues trained research assistants to do a quick up-and-down look at a person's body and to train their gaze at the other person's chest for a consistent period of a few seconds during conversations. It was harder than it sounds, Gervais said.

"For people that are doing this — even the men who are presumably doing this pretty frequently — actually having to slow down and do it is pretty hard," Gervais said. It was also somewhat awkward, she added.

After the assistants had undergone close to 30 hours of gaze-training apiece, the researchers asked 67 women and 83 men, all college students, to come to the lab.

You had to train people men to ogle and it took thirty hours!?

[ERV]

I'd like to have other people's opinions, but the way I'm reading it, he didn't say atheism or skepticism were a guy thing, he said that "standing up and talking about it, going to shows about it, being intelectually active about it" was a guy thing.

He was stating/implying that men tend to be more active about things than women, tend to go to more conventions and speak more about it.

Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why. I, personally, dont *like* speaking at conferences, or even debating Creationists. I do it out of a sense of obligation (tax-payers are funding my degree, the very least I can do is do some presentations on science to give back):

Friend at the Steve Kern debate: OHMYGOSH YOU WERE SO GOOD!
Me: Im glad you liked it! I was terrified the whole time...
Friend: You couldnt tell at all!
Me: *lifts up arms to show EXTREME sweat marks*
Friend: AH!!!!!

Are women more prone to stage-fright? Google indicates women have higher rates of social anxiety.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Are women more prone to stage-fright? Google indicates women have higher rates of social anxiety.

That would explain why acting classes have a 5:1 ratio of women to men (/bullshit stats).

Depends on the "social". Talk to 1500 people - no problem. Talk to 25, bit more hassle. Talk at your wedding, say. Not easy, and no women required to speak. Talk at your parent's funeral. No. Fekkin. Way.

YM, of course, MV.

[Keating]

Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why.

That was Paula Kirby's opinion too:

My background is in business. I have lost count of the number of times I have been present at meetings when the women said nothing and left it all to the men. I’ve been guilty of it myself, many a time. Was it because the men weren’t willing to listen to the women? I don’t think it was. Did the men dismiss our comments if we made them? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stop us making them? No, they didn’t do that either. Were the women lacking in ideas? No, of course not. We just didn’t speak up. Crucially, many of us didn’t speak up, even when openly invited to do so.

Similarly, I spent 7 of the last 10 years organizing events for business people: conferences, seminars, workshops, that kind of thing. Over and over again, I tried – how I tried! – to find women speakers. Over and over again, other delegates, both male and female, would tell me they’d like to hear from more women speakers. So the desire was there on the part of the audience to listen to what women had to say, and it was there on the part of the organizers too. And we didn’t just invite: we encouraged, we offered support, we offered coaching, we changed the format of events to make them feel less daunting: we went out of our way, event after event after event, to encourage women to take a more prominent part. And almost always to no avail. There were two or three who were already happy to do it anyway and didn’t need our encouragement. Another finally agreed to do it after her initial panic at the very idea and, despite being very nervous on the day, afterwards said it was the best thing she’d ever done. But otherwise, it was all for nothing. Try as we might, try as I might, most women we approached simply refused to even consider it, saying “Oh no, I couldn’t possibly.”

So I have to ask: Who was holding those women back? They weren’t just being given equal access to prominence as speakers – they were being positively encouraged in ways that male speakers were not. But ultimately, there was something in their own heads that was stopping them. It wasn’t that men didn’t want to listen to them, it wasn’t that they weren’t being given the opportunities, it wasn’t that they weren’t respected, it wasn’t that no one thought they had stories worth telling and valuable contributions to make. They just didn’t feel confident enough to do it – even when offered coaching to help them prepare.

[Pitchguest]

Churned out from the FearFactory this week -

http://pinklovesconsent.com/pink/pink.v ... ation.html
http://upsettingrapeculture.com/

Even more gibberish -

http://www.metafilter.com/122777/Consent-is-Sexy

The comment that brings it all to a close is this one, small comment, made by one Egg Shen in the last url:

The irony being that they didn't ask Victoria's Secret's consent before hijacking their name.

That was irony, right?
posted by Egg Shen at 1:28 PM on December 11 [1 favorite]

Indeed.