Periodic Table of Swearing

[Pitchguest]

Um....what the fuck is their problem, exactly?

All I'm really seeing is that their issue with the quote is that he's......."ignoring privilege"? [I'm ignoring the "speaking for blacks/women" bit, that's just ignant] What the fuck does that even mean? Are they saying that blacks and women should be treated as MORE than people? That they really want non-minority, non-women people [lol, all white men] to prostrate themselves?

I know, I know! I'm being naive right now by thinking that reason could be applied to anything flying out of these idiots' asses, but....

Exactly, it's a bit perplexing to me. Shermer seems to make the case that women and black people ("blacks" by the limitation of twatter) don't want pity from white people simply because they're black and female, but merely thought of as just another person, and that somehow implies a "color/genderblind" bias. Go figure.

[Lsuoma]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an argument about the "gender" of using "cupcake" as an insult to someone once on Pharyngula? I could've sworn I'd read one. Anyway, the Pharyngulite wiki on "cupcake" is, er... well, it's something alright. Caine Flower Power is just insane. I have this nagging feeling that PZ's blog is the only place where she and Nerd of Redhead can espouse their delusions and PZ lets them, because let's face it, he's not really a champion of human rights, is he? Nor of women's for that matter. Maybe a bellydance now and then to keep himself entertained. Ponce.

Ha-haaa - so that's what 'cupcake' means to a Pharygulite. I honestly thought it was just a throwaway insult, given how liberally it's applied. Looking at that list, I think it's fair to assume, as a general rule, that if a baboon refers to you as 'cupcake', it probably means that you are normal.

Seems like a badge of honour to me. For my sins, I've been dungeonated, but as far as I'm aware, no baboon has as yet referred to me as a cupcake. Alas.

Looks like someone doesn't know what the word "open" means in the context of speech:

"you open with "but", for instance: I used to be an atheist, but..."

What a dear little cupcake!

[John Brown]

Apologizes to all for the lame puns and jokes, but lately I've found myself viewing the sheer stupidity of these SJWs to be not worthy of my time. What Mykeru and others said on the Schermer thread is more than enough (and boy, Ben Zvan is such a cunt!)

Ben likes to take his swipes at me on Twitter, but I've just taken the route of reducing everything he says to his sexual proclivities. Namely, I point out that his fetishization of the word "misogyny" must have to do with his power dynamic with Steph.

"Oh, Steph, I'm such a bad boy. I need to be punished."
"That's right, Ben. You're a real MISOGYNIST!"

Not that that's shameful in anyway. That kind of stuff can be a lot of fun with the right person.

But, fuck. Ben has no problem just making shit up and smearing anyone he comes across (Shermer's thread is a great example of this). So, you know...fuck him.

[Lsuoma]

Oh, so it's absolutely horrible and deceitful when people take PZ out of context, but when he does it to others..well, that's just fine.

The point, PZ. You missed it.

This is classic: he judges people by their words, but demands to be judged by his intent.

No intellectual or emotional integrity. An intellectual PORG (trying not to be sizist here).

[JackRayner]

Apologizes to all for the lame puns and jokes, but lately I've found myself viewing the sheer stupidity of these SJWs to be not worthy of my time. What Mykeru and others said on the Schermer thread is more than enough (and boy, Ben Zvan is such a cunt!)

[off-topic]

Dude. By the way. Your new profile pic? Sexy.

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... square.jpg

[Jonathan]

Oh, so it's absolutely horrible and deceitful when people take PZ out of context, but when he does it to others..well, that's just fine.

The point, PZ. You missed it.

This is classic: he judges people by their words, but demands to be judged by his intent.

No intellectual or emotional integrity. An intellectual PORG (trying not to be sizist here).

Hasn't anyone told him that intent isn't magic?

[JackRayner]

Interesting video

GZAxwsg9J9Q

I don't see anyone here boasting about harassing. I am quite sure RW gets hate e-mail much as Jessica Alhquist does but what I don't see is evidence that it is from either atheists or slymepitters

That's the thing, innit? Both of these women are so sure they're dealing with proponents of either the atheist or gaming community, and they never once ask the question if maybe they're making sweeping generalisations or judging matters prematurely. However, I'm beginning to think if TED has begun to wane in importance or at least wane in the measures of quality control, if Anita Sarkeesian of all people is given an opportunity to talk at TED.

Eh. Christopher Ryan [of Sex at Dawn fame] was on TED at least once or twice a while ago, and after reading Sex at Dusk [a counter-argument in the form of a book] I'm pretty much ready to proclaim him a barefaced LIAR. So... http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

[gumby on phone]

What's great is that the FTB idiots are now trapped in a repeating loop. They say something outrageous, stupid, hypocritical or morally reprehensible. They get roundly called out by the wider community. Then they have to go into double-down denial mode in a frantic attempt to absolve themselves from all responsibility for their words. Then the cycle repeats over and over, because they're too trapped by their own laughable dogma to do anything else.

I hope they never figure it out, because Peezus and his Keystone Kops Kult are so damned entertaining.

[Mykeru]

Apologizes to all for the lame puns and jokes, but lately I've found myself viewing the sheer stupidity of these SJWs to be not worthy of my time. What Mykeru and others said on the Schermer thread is more than enough (and boy, Ben Zvan is such a cunt!)

We'll be all around in the net. We'll be everywhere - wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight so people can think, We'll be there. Wherever there's a FTBully beating up a guy, we'll be there. We'll be in the way PZ shits bricks when he doesn't get his way - We'll be in the way Becky chuckles at her rape and death threats knowing the rent is now paid. And when the Ophelia Benson's nonsense is shoved up her cunt like a porcupine with a pineapple shoved up its ass, and the skeptical community can get on with skepticism - We'll be there, too."

-Tom Chode
The Gripes and Laughs

[Dick Strawkins]

Peezus on his thread excusing his sexist behavior at Skepticon3

Yeah, anyone who thinks the fat homely old man in a committed monogamous relationship talking about sex in public on a stage might actually be confused with a pickup artist has some serious perception problems.

But of course!
He's a fat married middle aged man!
How ridiculous of us to even imagine such a person could be sexist!

[acathode]

They remind me of a tribe huddled around the campfire, the leaders are free to invent whatever stories they wish when the listeners are too afraid to wander off and look for themselves.

My impression is slightly different, maybe because my first impression of FTB was during the tf00t debacle. The FTB regulars seemed to me to be not only have developed a deep tribalism, but also a severe, paranoid siege mentality.
It was almost as if they had dug themselves a bunker, where they huddled together, protected in their "safe space" from all the dangerous imaginary trolls and misogynists on the outside.

During the tf00t event, I honestly got the impression that these people reacted almost as if they were at war, the extreme hostility they showed towards everyone and anyone who dared to say anything in tf00ts defense was almost surreal. Polite, civil posts, from Youtube newcomers, were meet with "FUCK YOU!", porcupine-requests and wishes of getting fucked sideways with a rusty knife, and when the newcomers just went "WTF?! calm down?", they were banned for being tone trolls and JAQing off.

[welch]

Uuuuurgh, just reading the comments on that thread is making me doubt the sanity of humanity. Or at least part of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an argument about the "gender" of using "cupcake" as an insult to someone once on Pharyngula? I could've sworn I'd read one. Anyway, the Pharyngulite wiki on "cupcake" is, er... well, it's something alright. Caine Flower Power is just insane. I have this nagging feeling that PZ's blog is the only place where she and Nerd of Redhead can espouse their delusions and PZ lets them, because let's face it, he's not really a champion of human rights, is he? Nor of women's for that matter. Maybe a bellydance now and then to keep himself entertained. Ponce.

by that list, pretty much everyone at FTB, commenters and bloggers alike, are cupcakes.

[JackRayner]

where you know she doesn't take this seriously or at the very least have no idea what she's talking about, is her review of Bayonetta where she outright lies about the plot, no clue as to how the game mechanics work and it's as if she worked

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?
Can you mention any other female gamers who do know what they are talking about?

Here's one. I think it's brief enough;

[youtube]ZueOCLGt1tw[/youtube]

[Trophy]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

[Pitchguest]

I should retract my statement on TED and Anita Sarkeesian getting the opportunity to speak there. It turns out I jumped the gun. She didn't speak at TED, she spoke at TEDx, which is a subtle difference: the intelligent erudite speakers get to speak at TED, but almost anyone can speak at TEDx.

http://www.ted.com/tedx

Crisis averted! Faith in TED restored. That's all that matters.

Also, this Reddit thread is great:

[Dick Strawkins]

PZ responds to Reap's video:

Hmmm. You could argue that I’m a bad comedian, but there’s nothing anti-feminist in any of those clips…that is, unless you think that humor and joking about sex are somehow incompatible with feminism.
It gets worse, though, and Paden left it out — I did have that woman come up on stage so I could have sex with her. Of course, it was in a talk about sex and genetics, where I used a deck of cards to illustrate recombination, so it was a little less provocative than you might think — we swapped cards for a bit. Lasciviously.
And the clip with Rebecca is a bit that John the Other didn’t understand, either — it was Rebecca yanking JT’s chain, and the handler she was “abusing” was in on the joke from day one.
It’s revealing when this is the worst dirt he can dig up on us, isn’t it?

Oh, so it's absolutely horrible and deceitful when people take PZ out of context, but when he does it to others..well, that's just fine.

The point, PZ. You missed it.


What The fuck??! The context?? REALLY??! He has lost his fuckin mind. It doesn't matter if he was there to read books to children or do a cool new dance routine. If anyone else was up there PZ would be jumping their shit. Fuckin lunatic just can't stop takin shit.... boo fuckin hoo

At the same meeting PZ was directly accused of sexual harrassment.
Rebecca wouldn't joke about such a serious topic.
http://skepsheik.blogspot.com/2012/12/p ... t.html?m=1

[Altair]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

http://bit.ly/TXqW1x

[Tigzy]

PZs comment #18 on that thread:

The person in the audience was a volunteer. If she’d shown any reluctance or embarrassment I would have let her step down, no problem.

I lol'ed at this. Imagine if EG had said anything remotely similar.

Ah, that's alright then. Because whenever a purported male feminst and all-round misogyny hater calls up a woman to join him on stage, she can reasonably expect to be the recipient of lewd remarks. I bet she must have been begging for it, eh Peezee.

The double-standard on display here is astonishing, even by the crazed standards I'd already come to expect from the FTB crowd. Remember how Thunderf00t was taken to task over the 'biting of the woman's' leg thing - and how, according to the baboons, that wasn't at all anything like 'banter' and just went to show what a privileged neanderthal Thunderf00t really was. And yet Peezee can subject a woman on a stage to lewd sexual comments. Ah, but that's just Peezee kidding around, you know. Hey, the woman didn't object. If she'd shown any reluctance or embarrassment he would have let her step down.

BTW - Skepticon's harassment policy says this (my bolding):

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments [related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religious identity], deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

http://www.skepticon.org/policy/

Somehow, Peezee knew that the woman from the audience would welcome his sexual attention. Like any dick-swinging PUA dudebro would know, of course.

But nah. I'm being unfair. After all, the woman obviously didn't complain to the conference organisers afterwards. Which means that there was probably no problem with sexism in the atheist community in this instance...right, baboons?

[JackRayner]

"Chivalry arose as a response to the violence and barbarism of the Middle Ages. It cautioned men to temper their aggression, deploying it only in appropriate circumstances—like to protect the physically weak and defenseless members of society. As the author and self-described “equity feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in an interview, “Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.”

To be honest I don't like that quote. The way she worded it, it sounds like it's only masculinity that can be dangerous and lethal without morality and civility, which is not the same as saying "civilization has tamed human nature".

By focusing on "masculinity", even if it made sense in the context of chivalry, she made it sound like men are dangerous and need to be restrained, while women are not.

I like Christina Hoff Sommers a lot, and she has done a lot to counter rad-fem ideology, but she dropped the ball there.

Maybe she did, but it's one quote taken out of an entire interview, without any context. The reader has no idea what her "wider view" is unless they research her other work.

Even so, I agree with this quote. Masculinity without the constraints of civilization is barbarous. Her argument would have been better served had she said "Humans" instead of "Masculinity," but her point is taken.

You say that as if humans aren't the ones with the systemizing brains that created "civilization". :think: And as if "civilized" people have never committed atrocities. This thought you're putting forward seems like it's based on some premises that may need you to give them a little more attention...

And if there's one thing I could easily criticize the quoted for, is that it is pretty Euro-centric. There are plenty of other cultures without this idea of "chivalry", and they seemed to have formed alright. What one "civilization" calls savage or barbarous is often times based on nothing but subjective bias.

[Pitchguest]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

The irony being that she wants to be treated equally in gaming communities, which is ripe with immature teenagers ripping on eachother. They ripped on her, but as soon as they did, with a little bit of sexism thrown in (by some, not most, and certainly not by all) and it's a recipe for misogyny. It never once occured to her to step back and think about the history of the gaming community and how some people engage in gentle ribbing, some of them are teenagers with a computer and internet connection and some of them legitimately concerned. It never once occured to her to think this is their way to "welcome" her into the fold. Oh no. It's "misogyny." Always "misogyny" with these people. The CriticalG is right to make it dramatic.

Hell, I'll be the first to admit the gamer culture isn't all peaches and cream, but for fuck's sake, get a grip. The last thing you should do is make a sweeping generalisation that involves the entirety of gamer culture as Anita did, just because some people in the gaming community are arseholes. It's also very likely to ruffle some feathers, and it did. My guess it was deliberate to trump up her harassment for effect. *sigh*

[JackRayner]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

LOLOLLOL! Nice troll attempt. It's obvious you're kidding. ;)

Anyways, out of all of the critiques that I've seen on Sarkeesian and her stupidity, the pair of videos produced by this gentleman are probably the best, both in production value and in theme. Recommended viewing for anyone at least marginally interested in the subject;

[youtube]p6gLmcS3-NI[/youtube]

[youtube]LpFk5F-S_hI[/youtube]

[ERV]

Upper-class white male (read: privileged) the victim of stalking, murder+castration plot. Perps are three men, unquestionably insane-- all have been in prison, one for the rape and murder of a young girl, has a tattoo of the targeted male on his leg.

My stalker was mentally ill (on numerous medications he apparently was not taking, including lithium), repeatedly tried to get into my apartment when I was/was not at home. He had also spent a significant amount of time in prison. First thing I asked the cops was "Did he rape or kill anyone?" Turns out it was 'only' for beating the shit out of his wives/girlfriends and lots and lots of drunk driving. *whew* :-|

But poor Rebecca Watson, though. Man, her 'stalkers' are 'people on other continents who call her a slut on the internet' and 'guys who live in their parents basement and make bad music'.

I dunno how she can sleep at night, with that kind of terror.

[katamari Damassi]

This same thing happened at the Daily Kos. It was stupid and they were reading any negative words about Hillary as hatred of women in general. Well, I am a woman and I did not want another Bush or Clinton in the White House. I had to hold my nose to vote for Bill Clinton in the first place.
I am glad most of the noisy ones left in a huff. Made is more pleasant.


And I hope the FTB/Skepchick crew boycotts TAM again. I had a blast without them this year.

Not just the Hillary thing-or maybe a part of it-was a ridiculous radfem faux outrage about an ad on the DailyKos that featured look-a-likes of Ginger and Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island having a cat fight. They wanted to boycott both the website and the Yearly Kos convention(sound familiar?)because Markos refused to apologize for an ad he had no control over.

[John Brown]

You say that as if humans aren't the ones with the systemizing brains that created "civilization". :think: And as if "civilized" people have never committed atrocities. This thought you're putting forward seems like it's based on some premises that may need you to give them a little more attention...

And if there's one thing I could easily criticize the quoted for, is that it is pretty Euro-centric. There are plenty of other cultures without this idea of "chivalry", and they seemed to have formed alright. What one "civilization" calls savage or barbarous is often times based on nothing but subjective bias.

Well, no. I believe I addressed this upstream.

Humans created civilization by conquering and taming nature. That's not just physical nature, but animalistic nature as well. Without civilization, we are beastly because it is civilization which defines us as human.

That may seem to be a tautology (and maybe it is), but that's what separates us from all the rest of the animals. Without civilization, the concepts of rape and destruction are meaningless.

Of course civilized people have committed atrocities. Don't be obtuse. But, we only recognize them as atrocities because of civilization, not in spite of it.

[Pitchguest]

Anyways, out of all of the critiques that I've seen on Sarkeesian and her stupidity, the pair of videos produced by this gentleman are probably the best, both in production value and in theme. Recommended viewing for anyone at least marginally interested in the subject;

p6gLmcS3-NI

Wait, wait... what's that he says at the beginning?

"Anita Sarkeesian has two degrees, a Bachelor's Degree in Communications and..."

"Bachelor's Degree in Communications"

"Communications"

:doh:

[Pitchguest]

In case anyone doesn't get the joke,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -and-sing/

The layperson could be wrong, of course, because they’re lacking some deeper understanding and are focusing on superficialities. But even in that case, the proper response isn’t to declare that they should not be allowed to voice that opinion because they don’t have the right credentials, but to address the criticism. And if the layperson is right about the problem, hoo boy, but are you screwing up if you’re trying to silence them.
That’s happening to Rebecca Watson right now. She dared to point out that a lot of pop and evolutionary psychology is bad science, and as a reward, the witch hunt is in raging progress. We’ve actually got people declaring that she only has a bachelor’s degree in communications, therefore she wasn’t qualified to talk about a field of evolutionary biology.

[Trophy]

Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment. So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman. Of course, it is possible her "sexist detector" is kind of biased and is giving her a lot of false positives.

[chillyp]

Is there a Program Guide for the the Conference RW gave her EP speech at? I hunted around the skepticon.org website but could not find a PDF. I would hope the Conference Guide would contain the title of her talk. If it was titled simply "A Skeptics (sic) Guide to Ev. Psych." that would sink the claim that her talk was merely about Media Distortions of Ev. Psych.

I watched Watson's entire talk, and it seemed to me to be a polemic against Evolutionary Psychology in general.

[katamari Damassi]

Wait, wait... what's that he says at the beginning?

"Anita Sarkeesian has two degrees, a Bachelor's Degree in Communications and..."

"Bachelor's Degree in Communications"

"Communications"

:doh:

[youtube]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1AIY5DcCIJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

[katamari Damassi]

Shit! I fucked up the embed.

[katamari Damassi]

Here's the link:

[JackRayner]

Anyways, out of all of the critiques that I've seen on Sarkeesian and her stupidity, the pair of videos produced by this gentleman are probably the best, both in production value and in theme. Recommended viewing for anyone at least marginally interested in the subject;

p6gLmcS3-NI

Wait, wait... what's that he says at the beginning?

"Anita Sarkeesian has two degrees, a Bachelor's Degree in Communications and..."

"Bachelor's Degree in Communications"

"Communications"

:doh:

The gaming community has their very own Watson, I know.

Was it you that mentioned HTArcade just before? He makes some decent videos outlining the current siege that the feminists/females suffering from "hypoagency"/whiteknights are launching against the gaming community.

As Reap and Mykeru [finally got around to listening to that last night....still not done. Passed out drunk shortly after getting about halway] spoke about on the Angry Atheist podcast, anyone who is worth two shits at making insults knows to target their insults. You make insults that you know will cut that individual deep. Whether it is an opponent in a video game, or a person you don't like. Using effectively targeted insults as proof of homophobia or misogyny, or anything else is questionable, in my view.

Targeted insults are at the forefront of what the feminists/general whiny people are bitching about when it comes to the gaming community....a highly competitive bunch. Trying to criminalize these is silly.

[JackRayner]

You say that as if humans aren't the ones with the systemizing brains that created "civilization". :think: And as if "civilized" people have never committed atrocities. This thought you're putting forward seems like it's based on some premises that may need you to give them a little more attention...

And if there's one thing I could easily criticize the quoted for, is that it is pretty Euro-centric. There are plenty of other cultures without this idea of "chivalry", and they seemed to have formed alright. What one "civilization" calls savage or barbarous is often times based on nothing but subjective bias.

Well, no. I believe I addressed this upstream.

Humans created civilization by conquering and taming nature. That's not just physical nature, but animalistic nature as well. Without civilization, we are beastly because it is civilization which defines us as human.

That may seem to be a tautology (and maybe it is), but that's what separates us from all the rest of the animals. Without civilization, the concepts of rape and destruction are meaningless.

Of course civilized people have committed atrocities. Don't be obtuse. But, we only recognize them as atrocities because of civilization, not in spite of it.

I think there might be a breakdown in communication here, so I'll try to rectify it so I can address what you are saying more efficiently: Would you please define "civilization" for me? As succinctly as possibly, and possibly in your own words...

[windy]

“[O]ur research suggests that exposure to colorblindness can actually reduce individuals’ sensitivity to meaningful racial differences. And as a result, when discrimination does occur, individuals with a colorblind mindset often fail to see it as such,” said Apfelbaum.

Bolded/underscore mine. Meaningful racial differences? Acknowledging that we're different biologically, skeletal structure, pigmentation, etc, is important. But emphasising our racial differences in the path to see past race, isn't that counterproductive?

Stupid PsychCentral article lists itself as a reference and doesn't link to original study or press release. Grrr.

The authors may have had a point somewhere along the line, but the way they tested it seems incredibly fucked up:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/ ... rsity.html

In both stories, the narrator championed racial justice, but the colorblind version encouraged the minimizing of race-based distinctions, whereas the value-diversity version encouraged readers to embrace these differences. (“We need to focus on how we are similar to our neighbors rather than on how we are different” versus “We want to show everyone that race is important because our racial differences make us special.”)

Yikes. In other words, they found that spouting racist crap like the above will make kids more sensitive to racism! What the everliving fuck. Do we really want people telling kids that "our racial differences make us special" on the basis that it may increase reporting of racism... counterproductive is just the beginning of it.

And wouldn't it be a lot more relevant to test if colorblindness reduces or increases actual biased treatment, rather than how it affects perception?

Am I barking up the wrong tree here, guys? Am I barking mad? Am I bark? (Stick to wood, not those tin things.)

We were lost, none of us knew where we were. Then Harry starts feeling around on all the trees and he says... "I got it, we're on Pluto" we said, "Harry how can ya tell", and he says, "from the bark, you dummies. From the bark!"

[JackRayner]

Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment. So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman.

Novice internet user, meet Internet Troll.

Of course, it is possible her "sexist detector" is kind of biased and is giving her a lot of false positives.

Ya think? Have you seen a single one of her videos, or a single one of the countless videos criticizing her nonsense?

[JackRayner]

Or, to address your original point, if only briefly:

- Known stupid, sexist, gynocentric person on the internet asks for money so she can continue to bad-mouth a particularly foul mouthed-but-harmless community of people. Foul mouthed community responds with predictable foul-mouthness and targeted insults.

You: "She's being attacked because she's a woman..."

Um...how can I put this? NO.

[John Brown]

You say that as if humans aren't the ones with the systemizing brains that created "civilization". :think: And as if "civilized" people have never committed atrocities. This thought you're putting forward seems like it's based on some premises that may need you to give them a little more attention...

And if there's one thing I could easily criticize the quoted for, is that it is pretty Euro-centric. There are plenty of other cultures without this idea of "chivalry", and they seemed to have formed alright. What one "civilization" calls savage or barbarous is often times based on nothing but subjective bias.

Well, no. I believe I addressed this upstream.

Humans created civilization by conquering and taming nature. That's not just physical nature, but animalistic nature as well. Without civilization, we are beastly because it is civilization which defines us as human.

That may seem to be a tautology (and maybe it is), but that's what separates us from all the rest of the animals. Without civilization, the concepts of rape and destruction are meaningless.

Of course civilized people have committed atrocities. Don't be obtuse. But, we only recognize them as atrocities because of civilization, not in spite of it.

I think there might be a breakdown in communication here, so I'll try to rectify it so I can address what you are saying more efficiently: Would you please define "civilization" for me? As succinctly as possibly, and possibly in your own words...

I believe we're talking past each other as well.

My original point was to clarify that Sommers wasn't talking about "chivalry." She was talking about being "civilized," which implies the overall construct of civilization.

As for the definition of civilization, you're right...it's completely subjective in narrow terms. In broad terms, it just means people getting together to take advantage of a manual division of labor. With that comes any number of regulations, laws, and morals so said labor can be carried out.

In my view, nature must first be conquered before civilization flourishes, but it is the construct of civilization which generally keeps us in check from being brutish. This is why the whole "rape is about power and not sex" trope is complicated (at best) and flatly untrue (at worst). Occurrences of rape do tend to happen when civilization breaks down (as people like Stephen Pinker have pointed out). But, so do other atrocities.

Believe me, I understand we can go down a rabbit hole of semantics very, very quickly in this discussion. We are "civilized" but we engage in wars which have killed tens of thousands of people in the past ten years, for example.

I also agree with your point about Euro-centrism. We have an very nasty habit of viewing most everything through that lens. You wanna talk about atrocities? Just a cursory glance at Chinese (or Asian) history makes everything any European power ever did look like peanuts.

[masakari2012]

Stef McGraw's tweet. This really pisses me off.

[katamari Damassi]

I also agree with your point about Euro-centrism. We have an very nasty habit of viewing most everything through that lens. You wanna talk about atrocities? Just a cursory glance at Chinese (or Asian) history makes everything any European power ever did look like peanuts.

Also native americans waged war on their neighbors, took slaves and sometimes participated in large scale cannibalism, but because there are few native american records of this, the pre-colombian period is often regarded as a golden age by the SJW types and evil was an invention solely of the europeans.

[welch]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

and, she's kind of talking about a field she knows nothing about. Not all her critics are male.

[Miss O Gynist]

Judging by PZ's comments on Reaps youtube video, he's pissed off.

[welch]

Stef McGraw's tweet. This really pisses me off.

I think she's overblowing it, but I get her point. She's been, in a real sense, used as a point by both sides. That kind of sucks. She was also painted in some really poor ways by one side in particular. Again, sucks.

I think the google issue is a bit overblown by many, but could it cause her problems? Sure.

[John Brown]

So she is being attacked not because she is female but because she does not know what she is talking about?

She's being attacked because she's a woman and says things that immature little guys who play stupid video games don't like. Both components are needed. And also, I have little difficulty imagining that a lot of sexist asshole are in the gaming world.

and, she's kind of talking about a field she knows nothing about. Not all her critics are male.

Gamers take that shit seriously. They are heavily invested in game play, how combat works, mods, game control, number crunching, etc... For someone who hasn't invested much of any time (beyond Mario) to come in and start crying "sexist!" at everything seen is of course going to illicit push back.

She has but only cursory knowledge of gaming culture, but she has no problem pretending like she understands it. Generally people understand a scam artist when they see one and they act accordingly.

[Scented Nectar]

I have no link to the article where he gave both their times it takes to come, but I think it was within the last year somewhere.

I misread that as they have both come once in the last year. I wonder if it was in the same month. Poor Mrs Myers.

Well, we don't know. That could be the case too. :D

[Scented Nectar]

And of course, "rape" in French is "viol" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viol

Cultures, languages, the magic of it all...

So, what I'm gathering from this is, that orchestras are rape apology clubs due to their promotion of violas and violins. And now, I think my neighbourhood gardening store must be full of misogynist rapists, because they are selling violets!

We used to only worry about Shroedinger's Rapist, but now we also have to worry about Shroedinger's Violinist. This world is getting unsafer and unsafer by the minute! I can't take it anymore. :cry:

[Altair]

Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment.

But the thing is that everyone who makes themselves a public/important figure receives that kind of mail. Dawkins, for example.
So while agreeing that it's harassment, I don't really think it's sexism.

So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman.

I don't think she has produced any evidence of that. I think that telling a community "you're a bunch of sexist misogynists who don't care about how women are treated! and don't come telling me men are treated in not-so-flattering ways, that's different!" is guaranteed to elicit some negative reactions from said community (applies both to gaming and atheism, actually).

[Altair]

She has but only cursory knowledge of gaming culture, but she has no problem pretending like she understands it. Generally people understand a scam artist when they see one and they act accordingly.

(Bolding mine)

She asked them for money. To buy videogames. So she can play them as "research". And they gave them money. So she could buy a ton of videogames for herself.

I wouldn't be so sure about some's people ability to detect a scam artist.

[lost control]

http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org/MM/ ... GM7_MX.jpg

Wow, that's a cutie.

[John Brown]

She has but only cursory knowledge of gaming culture, but she has no problem pretending like she understands it. Generally people understand a scam artist when they see one and they act accordingly.

(Bolding mine)

She asked them for money. To buy videogames. So she can play them as "research". And they gave them money. So she could buy a ton of videogames for herself.

I wouldn't be so sure about some's people ability to detect a scam artist.

I would postulate that the people giving her money weren't the hard-core gamers.

Just as a side note, someone should make a meme out of this: Social Justice: Giving a middle-class, heterosexual white woman $160,000 to play video games.

Misogyny: A sexual game played between Ben and Stephanie Svan. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

[Al Stefanelli]

Fuck me running, I go away for less than 24 hours and a whole new batch of shit hits the fan...

Reap, damn...

Someone commented about being caught in a loop? To be sure someone here can make loop recordings? Reap?

[Pitchguest]

Sigh! Does Phawrongula have a documentation on when PZ Myers said it was okay to joke about women? If it does, can anyone point me in the right direction?

Because I'm pretty sure he (PZ) has said on several occasions that you can't make jokes about women in any capacity if they're to do with sex or whatever, but I can't find a proper quote to pin it on. I blame my Google-fu. Lance Finney on Reap's video about PZ keeps making concessions about PZ's nature even though he seems ignorant about the subject overall, and I can't just leave it open like that. I need to "close" in, so to speak.

[Trophy]

Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment.

But the thing is that everyone who makes themselves a public/important figure receives that kind of mail. Dawkins, for example.
So while agreeing that it's harassment, I don't really think it's sexism.

That's quite true. Actually, I'm pretty sure Dawkins receives far worse treatments than her, at least through the virtue of being much more famous. I just want to make two points.

First, that not all hostile responses are the same, some could be sexist, some racist, and some just generic insults. And not all kinds of hostile responses are possible in a given situation. For example, when Dawkins is talking about lack of any good evidence for God, it's really hard for a believer to come up with a hostile answer that is sexist; it is possible but it will look stupid. On the other hand, after Dawkins wrote his "Dear Muslima", it was extremely easy for the moron part of FTB to response with hostile and sexist remarks. And by the virtue of being a woman, it's easy for the assholes to come up with sexist insults. Of course, similarly, if you are a white male and you engage in discussions of sexism or racism, it is extremely easy for your opnonents to respond with sexist/racist remarks and it would sting: they just have to say that you are a white male and therfore "privilleged", "sexist" and all the usuals.

Second, an implicit fallacy that is being spread by FTB is that any sexist remark is worse than any non-sexist non-gender specific insult, regardless of the situation. That is really bullshit. Insults hurt different peole differently. So basically, it is possible that Dawkins is receiving worse non-sexist insults than sexist insults of Anita.

[Darren]

Thanks for making me feel better. Shall we give and receive hugs?

Is the right roomthread for hugs?

Stop derailing my support thread!!!111!

[JAB]

I should retract my statement on TED and Anita Sarkeesian getting the opportunity to speak there. It turns out I jumped the gun. She didn't speak at TED, she spoke at TEDx, which is a subtle difference: the intelligent erudite speakers get to speak at TED, but almost anyone can speak at TEDx.

http://www.ted.com/tedx

Crisis averted! Faith in TED restored. That's all that matters.

Also, this Reddit thread is great:

Although it was tremendously stupid of TED to allow its brand to be diluted by letting the TEDx groups set up shop. I've heard a few good talks on TEDx, but the quality has a huge range.

[mordacious1]

Oolon upset because he was trolling and we ignored him:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#comment-7904

The poor baby. Maybe some more kiddie porn would cheer him up.

[Altair]

First, that not all hostile responses are the same, some could be sexist, some racist, and some just generic insults. And not all kinds of hostile responses are possible in a given situation. For example, when Dawkins is talking about lack of any good evidence for God, it's really hard for a believer to come up with a hostile answer that is sexist; it is possible but it will look stupid. On the other hand, after Dawkins wrote his "Dear Muslima", it was extremely easy for the moron part of FTB to response with hostile and sexist remarks. And by the virtue of being a woman, it's easy for the assholes to come up with sexist insults. Of course, similarly, if you are a white male and you engage in discussions of sexism or racism, it is extremely easy for your opnonents to respond with sexist/racist remarks and it would sting: they just have to say that you are a white male and therfore "privilleged", "sexist" and all the usuals.

Dawkins has received insults from theists that I would qualify as "sexist".

From RD's hate mail:

I'm sick of hearing about you, and your theory of evolution. YOU may have evolved from monkies, but leave me out of it! Have you ever tried to make love to a monkey? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you have, since sodomites are now running all our Univercities. But I either way I hope you DO get sodomized by satanic monkies in hell!

The only reason he was down in the bible belt was so that he could fuck his twenty year old grad students and he probably does dream about raping Irish farm girls.

If a woman had received this insult about being sodomized by monkeys in hell, would it generate a different reaction? Are these comments less sexist than they would be if they had been directed to a woman?

My answers to these questions would be Yes and No.

Second, an implicit fallacy that is being spread by FTB is that any sexist remark is worse than any non-sexist non-gender specific insult, regardless of the situation. That is really bullshit. Insults hurt different peole differently. So basically, it is possible that Dawkins is receiving worse non-sexist insults than sexist insults of Anita.

I did a search recently and found that some people had created a flash game called "Beat up Anita Sarkeesian". I agree that's an insult and a pretty disgusting thing to do, but it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's a human being.

I read somewhere that she has been threatened with rape, again, that's a bad thing to tell someone, but not because she's a woman, but because she's a human being (taking into account both genders can be raped).

What bothers me is the assumption (made by many people I've read online, not you specifically, since I don't know if you agree) that any disagreement or insult hurled her way is because she's a woman.

Yes, she has gotten some nasty insults, but I think she got them because she approached a community in a very derogatory and hostile way, and created a project to produce a number of videos to continue to speak badly about them. In my opinion, that's what created the backslash, not the fact that she's a woman.

I agree that insulting her, as insulting anyone, is not cool, but I don't like the repeated point that the insults are caused by her being a woman. As in Rebecca's case, there are actions and statements that have contributed.

[Trophy]

Okay I should clarify. Anita's views are open to criticism just like anyone's so criticising her views are not sexist or whatever. So that's out of the way. However, I do have a beef with people who shove their opinion in somebody else's face. That can be harrassment and/or sexist. If you don't like what I post you can reply to me, disagree with me or whatever. But you can't repeatedly email me random bullshit. That's harrassment. So, Anita's views are open to criticism and some of it is valid but some of the hostile reaction is becaues she is a woman.

Novice internet user, meet Internet Troll.

Of course, it is possible her "sexist detector" is kind of biased and is giving her a lot of false positives.

Ya think? Have you seen a single one of her videos, or a single one of the countless videos criticizing her nonsense?

The existence of internet trolls makes the kind of responses that she get predictable. It doesn't make them okay. For example, if I go to Ophelia's blog and criticise her, I'm expected to get banned but it doens't make it right.

And, no, I've not really dug deep into her videos or her responses. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of sexism in video games but 1) it's not all directed at women. In Dragon Age I all guys have fucking six packs. Literally, any half naked young male has a six pack even if he is a rich royalty who doesn't move his ass. And 2) the worst kind of sexism usually happen in shitty games that I don't play or care about and normally they don't sell very well either.

[Trophy]

First, that not all hostile responses are the same, some could be sexist, some racist, and some just generic insults. And not all kinds of hostile responses are possible in a given situation. For example, when Dawkins is talking about lack of any good evidence for God, it's really hard for a believer to come up with a hostile answer that is sexist; it is possible but it will look stupid. On the other hand, after Dawkins wrote his "Dear Muslima", it was extremely easy for the moron part of FTB to response with hostile and sexist remarks. And by the virtue of being a woman, it's easy for the assholes to come up with sexist insults. Of course, similarly, if you are a white male and you engage in discussions of sexism or racism, it is extremely easy for your opnonents to respond with sexist/racist remarks and it would sting: they just have to say that you are a white male and therfore "privilleged", "sexist" and all the usuals.

Dawkins has received insults from theists that I would qualify as "sexist".

From RD's hate mail:

I'm sick of hearing about you, and your theory of evolution. YOU may have evolved from monkies, but leave me out of it! Have you ever tried to make love to a monkey? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you have, since sodomites are now running all our Univercities. But I either way I hope you DO get sodomized by satanic monkies in hell!

The only reason he was down in the bible belt was so that he could fuck his twenty year old grad students and he probably does dream about raping Irish farm girls.

Oh right. Thet gay insults. Good point. I stand corrected.

I read somewhere that she has been threatened with rape, again, that's a bad thing to tell someone, but not because she's a woman, but because she's a human being (taking into account both genders can be raped).

What bothers me is the assumption (made by many people I've read online, not you specifically, since I don't know if you agree) that any disagreement or insult hurled her way is because she's a woman.

I guess on this point we can agree to disagree. And of course, there's really no way to test it. Even if we could rewind the time and have her video be made by a guy, probably just because of that difference the videol would not have been popular.

So basically, I still think some of the hostile reaction (and not the criticism) is because she is a woman but also because she is an outsider to the gaming community which is again, highly correlated with her being a woman.

[JAB]

I think PZ is once again showing that he's blind to "podium privilege". He showed it the first time when he didn't see the difference in power between RW on stage and Stef in the audience. This time in the video and responses to it he shows it again. The woman from the audience didn't know PZ would be embarrassing her for laughs when she volunteered, and social pressure required her to grin and bear it. How he doesn't see that he trapped her in this awkward situation (more and longer and more publically than EG did to RW on the elevator) is astounding.

[John Brown]

I guess on this point we can agree to disagree. And of course, there's really no way to test it. Even if we could rewind the time and have her video be made by a guy, probably just because of that difference the videol would not have been popular.

So basically, I still think some of the hostile reaction (and not the criticism) is because she is a woman but also because she is an outsider to the gaming community which is again, highly correlated with her being a woman.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine this.

I decide to critique the beauty pageant world. I'm nearly a complete outsider to it, though I do have some cursory knowledge from popular culture and some hands on knowledge because my daughter participated briefly in a circuit when she was younger.

I make a series of videos pointing out how sexist beauty pageants are to men. I do this by fitting every observation into a rubric of overall misandry towards men. Beauty pageants appeal to our basest desires. They teach men that they should desire the unobtainable. They teach men X. They teach men Y. Men are only used as props...as announcers or stylists, while the women get all the glory.

After a series of these videos, I start a Kickstarter campaign and to ask for money so I can continue my "research," which will entail traveling several beauty pageant circles, buying and watching every Miss America Pageant since its inception, etc, etc, etc...

I will then take the *ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE* invective I will get from the beauty pageant world and use it as proof that they all hate men. I will show every sexist comment (and believe me, there will be thousands of them) as proof as to why this "research" is needed. I will block and delete any reasonable disagreement made against my position so only the most egregious troll comments are shown.

Then, after a period of time, I will just ignore my backers as they continually ask what I'm doing with all the money they gave me. In fact, I will use that as *further evidence* of misandry, regardless if the invective is coming from women or men.

Yeah. That would TOTALLY go over well.