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

JAB wrote: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.

mordacious1 wrote: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.

Trophy wrote:

Altair wrote:

Trophy wrote: 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.

Altair wrote: 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 wrote: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.

JAB wrote:Some time loooong ago on this thread, or maybe even at erv, I think it was James Onen that mentioned a study that concluded that women-only groups give status and support to those in the group that show victimhood and lack of agency. And the opposite for men-only groups that give status to lack of victimhood and agency. I think this may play into the colourblindness issue.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

mordacious1 wrote: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.

Poor wittle oowon. I should attempt to shed a tear.

Jan Steen wrote:

Yes Baal, where were you when StevoR was advocating genocide against all Islam just because a few Jihadists operate under its banner? Where were you when the Slymepitters are making rape threats against Rebecca Watson and run intimidation tactics against other women who are well known skeptics? Until you address those problems with you taking them repeatedly to task, and linking to it for our verification, you haven’t a leg to stand on. We will ignore your criticism, since it comes from an obvious HYPOCRITE.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-510630

Did anyone here ever make rape threats against Rebecca Watson?

Or is Psycho of Redhead just lying?

ReneeHendricks wrote:

mordacious1 wrote: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.

Poor wittle oowon. I should attempt to shed a tear.

Wait for it....

Nah. I got nothin'.

AndrewV69 wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

mordacious1 wrote: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.

Poor wittle oowon. I should attempt to shed a tear.

Wait for it....

Nah. I got nothin'.

Well apparently only four people put him on ignore. Speaking for myself only, I kept hopeing (in vain it turned out) he would say something interestng.

Instead, most of the time all I got was some apparently confused/convoluted thought processes that in the end were not worth responding to.

*shrug*

Lsuoma wrote:

JAB wrote:Some time loooong ago on this thread, or maybe even at erv, I think it was James Onen that mentioned a study that concluded that women-only groups give status and support to those in the group that show victimhood and lack of agency. And the opposite for men-only groups that give status to lack of victimhood and agency. I think this may play into the colourblindness issue.

IIRC, someone created a YouTube video (GWW?, WBB?) that was later posted here about the thesis that victimhood and lack of agency empower women. Anyone remember that?

Women deal damage by taking away other women’s victim cred and inflating their own.

Women are socialized to see their potency in terms of their ability to command-control others into doing stuff for them. The less agency they are seen as having, the more victim cred they have and the more ability they have to shame others into doing something for them. (This is also why women’s beauty efforts and social graces function to ape the behavior of juveniles. Children are helpless, looking and behaving like a child evokes that.)

JackRayner wrote:

Trophy wrote:

Dilurk wrote: 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;

p6gLmcS3-NI

LpFk5F-S_hI

KarlVonMox wrote: PZ Brainwashed Christian fundamentalist defines the parameters of what is sexism Christian and what isn't, and it seems he can just change them at will to suit his purposes, even if they contradict each other all the time.

If what PZ did on that stage isn't "exploiting an asymmetrical power/privilege relationship" according to what they have said all year, I want to see a full heartfelt apology to ElevatorGuy.

JAB wrote: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.

Dan wrote:

JAB wrote: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.

She looked uncomfortable to me. That Paul couldn't see it speaks volumes. She couldn't get off stage quick enough.

acathode wrote:

DownThunder wrote: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.

Trophy wrote: 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.

welch wrote: Of course he couldn't. PeeZus is A Proper Feminist. As an APF, nothing he does could ever be anything but fully supportive of women. Therefore, any unease on her part was not correct thinking, and probably a remnant of her programming by the penisocracy. She may even be a Secret Gender Traitor.

Altair wrote:

welch wrote: Of course he couldn't. PeeZus is A Proper Feminist. As an APF, nothing he does could ever be anything but fully supportive of women. Therefore, any unease on her part was not correct thinking, and probably a remnant of her programming by the penisocracy. She may even be a Secret Gender Traitor.

I would love to know "Not a dog"'s opinion on PZ's position on this matter:

Sin título.png

(Via elevatorgate)

Gumby wrote: That tweet, of course, is written with the assumption that sexism only runs in one direction, i.e. men being sexist towards women. Just looking at any number of FtB blogs, or the A+theism forum, is incontrovertible evidence that sexism runs both ways. Sexism is not just "men hatin' on women", no matter what the wannabe dictionary-changers say.

There may also be some posturing regarding who is the biggest victim–which is not about helping people, it’s the female version of a pissing contest. Another common behavior is martyrdom out-maneuvering in which one woman will engage in elaborate and unwanted efforts to ‘help’ others in order to claim the martyrdom high ground and it’s + 50 agility points.

Altair wrote:

Gumby wrote: That tweet, of course, is written with the assumption that sexism only runs in one direction, i.e. men being sexist towards women. Just looking at any number of FtB blogs, or the A+theism forum, is incontrovertible evidence that sexism runs both ways. Sexism is not just "men hatin' on women", no matter what the wannabe dictionary-changers say.

I agree completely, but if PZ wanted to be consistent, he either should stay silent on this issue, or refute Not a Dog's ideas.

Yeah, I know PZ and consistent have never been used in the same sentence before.

Oh right, the first charge fell apart so they dug up something else – “statements critical of Islam and Christianity.” Jeez. I wonder how many centuries in jail I would get if I were in Egypt.

Scented Nectar wrote:

sacha wrote:There are already plenty of men who feel ashamed that being dominant and rough turns them on because they are made to feel ashamed by society, which has succeeded in convincing them that not only is something wrong with them for being sexually aroused by this, but that women, like children, cannot give consent
I'm just glad that I got to experience everything I wanted to try (at least twice) when I was younger, now I want less physical dominance, and more psychological, so I very rarely have any "evidence" left after a particularly enjoyable evening, and I'm very glad that my age preference in men is mid to late 50's, because elder men with more experience are able to read women a hell of a lot better, choose a hell of a lot better, and the men I'm attracted to, not only have a good idea of what sort of person I will be after, but know precisely what will interest me, long before our clothes are shed, and if they ever had any shame about what they like, they lost it years before they met me.

My bold etc. You realize don't you, that you just gave PZ a raging boner?

That is IF, in that video of PZ making poker sex jokes, he was overdoing it pretending the opposite, saying he would submit to having sex with the volunteer. Maybe his real inclinations are quite the opposite to "submitting", and he's all ashamed and extra feminist because of it?

franc wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:My bold etc. You realize don't you, that you just gave PZ a raging boner?

You know what would surprise me less than anything in this world? Pics surfacing of Myers in a dog collar getting pissed on by a gang of east European whores in school uniforms.

sacha wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

sacha wrote:There are already plenty of men who feel ashamed that being dominant and rough turns them on because they are made to feel ashamed by society, which has succeeded in convincing them that not only is something wrong with them for being sexually aroused by this, but that women, like children, cannot give consent
I'm just glad that I got to experience everything I wanted to try (at least twice) when I was younger, now I want less physical dominance, and more psychological, so I very rarely have any "evidence" left after a particularly enjoyable evening, and I'm very glad that my age preference in men is mid to late 50's, because elder men with more experience are able to read women a hell of a lot better, choose a hell of a lot better, and the men I'm attracted to, not only have a good idea of what sort of person I will be after, but know precisely what will interest me, long before our clothes are shed, and if they ever had any shame about what they like, they lost it years before they met me.

My bold etc. You realize don't you, that you just gave PZ a raging boner?

That is IF, in that video of PZ making poker sex jokes, he was overdoing it pretending the opposite, saying he would submit to having sex with the volunteer. Maybe his real inclinations are quite the opposite to "submitting", and he's all ashamed and extra feminist because of it?

PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.

Pitchguest wrote: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.

He says in the original video that you should not talk this way to your students. Admits its a bad idea. Why is that, if they are over 18?

Oh right, the first charge fell apart so they dug up something else – “statements critical of Islam and Christianity.” Jeez. I wonder how many centuries in jail I would get if I were in Egypt.

AndrewV69 wrote:@Lusoma, perhaps this is the video you were thinking of?

[wootube]fulDotdSS0Q[/wootube]

Justalurker wrote:

He says in the original video that you should not talk this way to your students. Admits its a bad idea. Why is that, if they are over 18?

Huh? It's a bad idea because of power differential. Teacher:student. Age has nothing to do with it.

JAB wrote:

Justalurker wrote:

He says in the original video that you should not talk this way to your students. Admits its a bad idea. Why is that, if they are over 18?

Huh? It's a bad idea because of power differential. Teacher:student. Age has nothing to do with it.

Likely because at the university he hasn't got control of the process, the harassment office does. Tenure won't protect you from that sort of thing. There is a power differential in the video of him at the conference, but PZ has control of how the incident is perceived by the group as a whole because there are a lot of his adoring fans there who will believe everything he says. Unfortunate for him that it ended up on youtube and people who aren't his followers can judge him. It's one of the reasons he has to make sure to slander us at every turn.

sacha wrote:PZ is a submissive/masochist. There is not a chance in hell he can be dominant sexually.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

mordacious1 wrote: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.

Poor wittle oowon. I should attempt to shed a tear.

Wait for it....

Nah. I got nothin'.

Well apparently only four people put him on ignore. Speaking for myself only, I kept hopeing (in vain it turned out) he would say something interestng.

Instead, most of the time all I got was some apparently confused/convoluted thought processes that in the end were not worth responding to.

*shrug*

I was one who put him on ignore. He really didn't have much to say that wasn't full of FTB brown-nosing, in my opinion. I have no patience for people like that.

Badger3k wrote: I guess I'm another, then. I got tired of reading his piss-poor attempts, and having to scroll through them on my iPad. He never said anything I considered valuable or funny, and I could follow the conversation from those who did still try to talk to him (or troll him). Life's short, why waste it with losers?

JAB wrote:franc, that's two recent posts where it could be argued that you've added a smilie... if we define it as one of those yellow balls with an emotive face. Are you changing your mind about them?

JAB wrote:franc, that's two recent posts where it could be argued that you've added a smilie... if we define it as one of those yellow balls with an emotive face. Are you changing your mind about them?

HoneyWagon wrote:Too funny not to share. This just happened

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

HoneyWagon wrote:Too funny not to share. This just happened
http://i.imgur.com/kdcAB.png

franc wrote:

JAB wrote:franc, that's two recent posts where it could be argued that you've added a smilie... if we define it as one of those yellow balls with an emotive face. Are you changing your mind about them?

PZ must be rubbing off.

Badger3k wrote:Someone needs to tell Stefunny that it is never OK to joke about Rape. What's wrong with her - has the patriarchy finally gotten to her?

Altair wrote:

Badger3k wrote:Someone needs to tell Stefunny that it is never OK to joke about Rape. What's wrong with her - has the patriarchy finally gotten to her?

I didn't read her whole post and didn't watch the video, but I have to admit I LOL'ed at this comment:

comment.PNG

franc wrote:

JAB wrote:franc, that's two recent posts where it could be argued that you've added a smilie... if we define it as one of those yellow balls with an emotive face. Are you changing your mind about them?

PZ must be rubbing off. The second was a sincere present to those who's lives are hollow and sad without cutesy things wriggling on screen.

Mykeru wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:@Lusoma, perhaps this is the video you were thinking of?

[wootube]fulDotdSS0Q[/wootube]

Or this?

[fooltube]KBgcjtE0xrE[fooltube]

JAB wrote:Thanks franc. Nice to know you care.

Isn’t that great? Needlepoint is a girl thing, atheism is a guy thing. Nothing sexist about that! Nothing to see here folks, go on home, take your needlepoint with you.

<snip quote from Justin Vacula>

Apparently Vacula is completely unaware of the many reports of vicious sexism in gaming, and just can’t imagine why WoW attracts a male population. Just one of those quirky things – guys like World of Warcraft, women don’t like being told “tits or GTFO” – isn’t life mysterious and fascinating.
One of the reasons – only one – what Shermer said was so wrongheaded is the fact that it treats the current situation as something that just happened, randomly, somehow, probably because guys do guy things and women do women things. The reality is that the current situation happened partly because women kept being ignored. Women didn’t get invited to speak at conferences, women didn’t get talked to or about, women didn’t get listened to. That situation is improving now, but it’s just clueless to look around vaguely and say “hmm, not many women around,” and conclude that that’s because “it’s a guy thing.”