Periodic Table of Swearing

[ERV]

Honestly. I'm still stunned about it. "Violent masculinity at the heart of whiteness." Jesus fucking Christ.

I actually lost a real-life friend over her post today.

Friend posted a link with no comment on Facebook.

Me: Is this article supposed to be satire?
Him: No, why?
Me: "violent whiteness whatever", wtf?
Him (he is Central American, looks tan American white dude if you dont know it): It is true based off my observations of American Football!
Me: LOL!!!! You put on a Boca jersey and sit in the River stadium and you enjoy the peace and serenity of non-American-football fans. Did someone hack your account?
Him: Thats not fair because those people are lower class! Its middle class liberals calling for blood at American Football games!
Me: ROFLOLOL! One of the reasons for the Boca/River rivalry is that Boca fans are Average Joes and River fans are rich bitches! Why did you say that??
Him: IM NOT RACIST YOURE RACIST BECAUSE YOU THINK SOUTH AMERICANS ARE MORE VIOLENT THAN AMERICAN FOOTBALL FANS! YOURE RACIST BECAUSE OF YOUR AMERICAN CULTURE!!! THEY ACT LIKE PRIMATES!!!111!!ONE!!! THEIR GUNS ARE PENISES!!!
Me: I can name, like, one American football team. Just because you grow up in the US doesnt mean you know jack shit about football. And you know I got a gun because of my stalker, but somehow thats me expressing my penis envy?
Him: IM NOT RACIST YOURE RACIST!!!
Me: lol "How the heck does this dumb white Okie know more about international soccer clubs than me?? It must be a dirty Jew trick!" Do your white students know you look on them with such disdain? Isnt your wife white? And you are a scientist- How can you use the word 'primate' as an insult. We ARE primates. Your race never played a role in our interactions. Its a shame I was just a dumb white primate who lost her fur and found a gun to you.

I would just copy/paste the convo, but he unfriended-->blocked me.

Im assuming 1) I knew he was having trouble finding work. Im guessing that is not because everyone in science is having trouble finding work, but WHITEY!!! now, and 2) probably having trouble with his wife.

Ive literally been friends with this man since 2007. He was one of the nicest, soft-spoken, intelligent gentlemen Ive interacted with here in OK (though there are tons of nice folks in OK). But thanks to that fucking article, he flipped the fuck out. I have *never* seen him behave that way before (it was worse than I conveyed, I cant remember things word-for-word).

Sad.

[papillon]

I'm thinking that if I were a dark-skinned, asian hermaphrodite, I'd have covered all the bases. Then I could say whatever I want and no one would dare accuse me of "white male privilege" whatever that still means.

Even if you somehow covered all possible bases, in a perfect SJW shangri-la (Shangri-la-la-land) your complete lack of privilege would give your opinions added weight, and thus your importance in society would be elevated, perversely, to a position of privilege..rendering the whole concept of total societal equality a self defeating exercise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

It seems like the privileged are weighed down by the guilt of their privilege and are desperately trying to renounce it and claim victimhood in a bizarre a scramble for the coveted low ground.

From the Black Skeptics Panthers comments:

I rather like that phrase, “violent masculinity at the heart of whiteness.”[.....]
[.....]I think it’s such a nice, succinct summary of some of the scarier things about being a white person and a white woman. It’s been my experience that it’s hard, in white culture, to even have conversations without some sort of violence entering the conversation.

[ERV]

SUPRISE!!!!!

Rebecca the Undead ‏@rebeccawatson

New post! Twitter Users Sad To Hear They May Be Rapists

[KiwiInOz]

Ive literally been friends with this man since 2007. He was one of the nicest, soft-spoken, intelligent gentlemen Ive interacted with here in OK (though there are tons of nice folks in OK). But thanks to that fucking article, he flipped the fuck out. I have *never* seen him behave that way before (it was worse than I conveyed, I cant remember things word-for-word).

Sad.

That sucks. Sounds like he has other stuff going on in his life and this was either a trigger or an opportunity to shout and get upset.

Hopefully he'll come around when he is in a better frame of mind (and apologise).

[Steersman]

I have to say, I didn't know Watson was such an ardent follower of Dvorak.

Don’t follow that at all. Did he/she/they develop the bait-and-switch technique?

Methinks either she’s drunk now – or most of the time – or she’s a piss-poor communicator or she’s a fraud ….

[Jan Steen]

http://i1342.photobucket.com/albums/o76 ... 558104.jpg

[Lsuoma]

Over 1 million thread views...

[John Greg]

Wow!

[Dilurk]

Over 1 million thread views...

You are such a trouble maker you know?


Thanks.

[Punker]

Radfems have been defining rape downward until nearly everyone has been and has(by their definition)raped. Anything other than "enthusiastic consent" is rape.

There was enthusiastic consent in the video that started RapeGate

Penny: come with me.
Leonard: Where are we going?
Penny: we are going to have sex!

[youtube]DATlxa7PwWE[/youtube]

There's now a post on Skepchick about it, titled "Twitter Users Sad To Hear They May Be Rapists". PZ Myers and Greg Laden have already chimed in. Ed Clint is copping the worst of the slander.

[CommanderTuvok]

Ah. That post by Twatson sounds like revenge over Ed having the audacity to call out her bullshit.

Ed really should have realises Queen Bee must be obeyed and never questioned.

[ERV]

WTF is up with Myers and his 'Brave Hero' phrase?

[Outwest]

Ah. That post by Twatson sounds like revenge over Ed having the audacity to call out her bullshit.

Ed really should have realises Queen Bee must be obeyed and never questioned.

I couldn't finish reading it. After several sentences, all I kept seeing was "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit".

[John Greg]

In the interest of ongoing open information, a link to the Skepchick Rage Fest: http://skepchick.org/2012/12/twitter-us ... e-rapists/

They sure do a good job of misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with them, and revising history.

Watson is now defining drunk as "the common definition ... someone whose faculties are impaired, e.g., slurred speech, stumbling, etc.," and she links to a google definition that is not what she said, nor is it so specific: https://www.google.com/search?q=drunk+d ... e=UTF-8Woo! Long link.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 126734.jpg

[Steersman]

I'm thinking that if I were a dark-skinned, asian hermaphrodite, I'd have covered all the bases. Then I could say whatever I want and no one would dare accuse me of "white male privilege" whatever that still means.

Even if you somehow covered all possible bases, in a perfect SJW shangri-la (Shangri-la-la-land) your complete lack of privilege would give your opinions added weight, and thus your importance in society would be elevated, perversely, to a position of privilege..rendering the whole concept of total societal equality a self defeating exercise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

It seems like the privileged are weighed down by the guilt of their privilege and are desperately trying to renounce it and claim victimhood in a bizarre a scramble for the coveted low ground. ….

Certainly “privilege” is a rather bizarre concept or at least its application is in the hands of some SJWs – who bear some resemblance to just the JWs. But it seems that the problem is a little more complex than just a “perverse incentive” – although there are certainly some similarities – and appears to have something to do with the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics: it is one thing to say that someone has some privilege by virtue of having been born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths and quite another to say, for example, that their right to vote or to speak in public forums should be enhanced or diminished as a result of that fact.

However, I would say that there appears to be something in it or its SJW use that is suggestive of various logical paradoxes, notably the Barber paradox, although the Grelling–Nelson paradox is a little more water-tight and comprehensible, an example of which is found in the article on Russell’s paradox, more specifically a discussion of various catalogs in libraries.

But, in any case, the use of the concept really does suggest some rather sloppy thinking on the part of various SJWs which doesn’t add much lustre to their reputations as skeptics.

[CommanderTuvok]

WTF is up with Myers and his 'Brave Hero' phrase?

He's trying to link any legit criticism of him or Rebecca to the ramblings of elevatorGATE, who started the whole "brave hero" stuff.

BTW, has PZ ever had sex with someone who had a beer? One glass of beer can impinge on one's faculties, and therefore, "informed consent" can go out of the window after just one glass. I guess that makes PZ a rapist as well as a potential rapist and a racist.

Of course, we will now see Twatson try and move the goalposts and redefine what "drunk" means. I've seen people labelled as drunk after a pint of weak cider, driven home (under the legal limit), and then had sex. THAT MUST BE RAPE!!!

We've got Watson walking the plank on this one. Don't let her get away with it. Rebecca Watson will always be labelled as a rapist from now on.

[franc]

Rebecca watson, has applied her indepth understanding of the nature of consent to determine, that having sex with someone who is drunk, is always rape.

If both people are drunk, have they raped each other?

Feminists are extra stupid pushing the idea that drinking means you can't understand consent.

This is so unbearably stupid. Let's extend their argument. You are pulled over for drunk driving. "But officer, I was incapable of deciding that I didn't want drive because I was drunk..."

[CommanderTuvok]

Rebecca now has a huge problem.

Rebecca has had sex with lots of guys who were drunk or tipsy, and were not in a position to give "informed consent".

That makes Rebecca Watson a rapist. Couldn't happen to a nicer woman! Rebecca essentially admits she is a rapist, while PZ admits he is a racist. Yes, wonderful people, these FTbers, aren't they. Kicking these arseholes out of our community can't come soon enough.

PS - You can tell by how quickly PZ and Osama Greg Laden posted on Twatson's new shitpiece, just how enraged they were with Clint's takedown of her bullshit. Love it!

[Steersman]

WTF is up with Myers and his 'Brave Hero' phrase?

Seems to be a piece with his recent criticism of Shermer:

And he especially doesn’t get to complain because right now his comment section is full of the very same people who obsess over these women and who spew the most disgusting sexist insults at them…and they now see him as a fellow hero fighting against feminist tribalism.

And while I think that the invective directed at people like Benson and Watson is frequently quite a bit over the top, one is amused to note that Benson used the descriptor “Booly Wumblebee” after which she complained about “Ophie” while Watson giggled and joked over a cartoon about some man being emasculated as well as suggesting that some male politician go fuck a blender. Not a lot to justify a claim to the moral high ground.

[welch]

I have to say, I didn't know Watson was such an ardent follower of Dvorak.

Don’t follow that at all. Did he/she/they develop the bait-and-switch technique?

Methinks either she’s drunk now – or most of the time – or she’s a piss-poor communicator or she’s a fraud ….

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... r-traffic/

Here's what Becky did, and does all the time:

She makes a vague, yet inflammatory statement - If you have sex with a woman who's drunk, she can't consent, you're a rapist.

Now, there are two sensible responses:

1) Oh, becky's trolling the internet again, ignore.
2) "hey, how are you defining "drunk"? It's kind of important"

No one does that with her, ever. instead, she gets what she wants. "OMG Y U CALL TAHT RAYPEOMGWTFBBQKHAAAAAN"

Then, once she collects enough?

"Oh look, guys angry they can't rape women who are blotto"

Game, set, match.

She does this over and over.

The FTBwats try this to a certain extent, but the difference is, they BELIEVE. She, like Dvorak, just wants to manipulate the masses to get the result she wants. That's why she's *much* better.

It's like her talk. OF COURSE it was vague, that's the fucking point. If it's vague, she bears no responsibility. Her defenders jump into the fucking fire yet again, along with her detractors and she does fuck all for work.

WHy do you think I kept talking about the talk itself? You are never going to nail her down on point, that's the game she wants you to play. So, seeing that ignoring her won't work either, your options are limited. I go after the quality of her talks. Don't give a fuck about content, just point out she's kind of a shit public speaker who wastes her audience's time with pointless rambling idiocy. I have just described most of her talks for the last 4 years.

The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap. When she makes another statement, look ahead to how she can manipulate the responses once people have committed, and call her out on that. If she pulls it, oh look, your point that she's a cynical manipulative bitch is proven. If she doesn't, then she has to scramble to find a new point.

There's a reason Angry Mac Bastards goes after stupidity the way we do. We KNOW what they're doing. We're just giving voice to the rage people feel when they read that shit. We don't think we're going to change a fucking thing, but if we can hold them up to ridicule via extreme profanity, (and really, if someone AMB'd these weaklings, they'd be fetal in the corner, covered in their own urine, trembling), then we show them for the ridiculous manipulative assclowns they are. We also try to show when people do it right. It's kind of like training a crocodile. You gotta establish who's the fucking boss, and right now, the crocodile is noshing on your fucking spleens.

Becky is Dvoraking the entire community.

[SkepticalCat]

Over 1 million thread views...

I think we can safely say that this thing has been a huge success. Thanks and congratulations, Lsuoma! :P

[CommanderTuvok]

Becky is Dvoraking the entire community.

She's also raped the entire community, from what I've heard.

[CommanderTuvok]

Over 1 million thread views...

I think we can safely say that this thing has been a huge success. Thanks and congratulations, Lsuoma! :P

Hear, hear!!! Hear's to the next million. Hear's to the next million shouts of the oppressed against the bullies.

[sacha]

...consent given whilst drunk (even if one regrets it in the morning) is still consent. An alcohol impaired misjudgement of a situation is no excuse when facing a drunk-driving charge, for example.

If one is willingly consuming alcohol, or drugs, and willingly had sex, even if they are so pissed, that walking is difficult, and the other person is a sober teetotaler, at the very most the clear-headed person could be considered less than honourable.

If an adult is in public, or at a party, or around anyone that isn't a very close friend, or significant other who is willing to babysit, and gets so drunk that someone else has to make decisions for them, I have no sympathy when they are taken advantage of. none.
An adult takes responsibility for their decisions. This is just another way to infantalise women.

It's also yet another puritan way of thinking. When (most) men fuck some chick while wearing beer-goggles, that they would not have while sober, it's shrugged off. If their friends know, they may have to endure a bit of piss take for a few weeks, all in fun, because every man in the group has been there at least once... but women are delicate beings and their pussies are a precious gift they may be willing give to the right guy, and they will be emotionally damaged beyond repair if someone other than their Knight in Shining Armour has been anywhere near their genitals.

For fuck's sake.

[Steersman]

I have to say, I didn't know Watson was such an ardent follower of Dvorak.

Don’t follow that at all. Did he/she/they develop the bait-and-switch technique?

Methinks either she’s drunk now – or most of the time – or she’s a piss-poor communicator or she’s a fraud ….

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... or-traffic.
….
The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap.

I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve argued several times now that her talk on evo psych was basically her talking out of both sides of her mouth, either by intent or through carelessness. But, as part of those comments, I had conceded her points that at least some of the field is crap or used inappropriately or without justification.

Although I’ll generally agree with most or many of your other observations, and thanks for the link to the Dvorak conversation.

[skepCHUD]

Sikivu Hutchinson is disappointing, she can identify a racist remark when Newt Gingrich makes it but is blind to her own bias.
You would think that someone that identifies with skeptical,rational thought and teaches it(?) might be more self aware.
To paraphrase Jebus: Preacheth not to remove the splinter from thine eye when thou hast such a giant chip on thine shoulder.

[CommanderTuvok]

Sikivu Hutchinson is disappointing, she can identify a racist remark when Newt Gingrich makes it but is blind to her own bias.
You would think that someone that identifies with skeptical,rational thought and teaches it(?) might be more self aware.
To paraphrase Jebus: Preacheth not to remove the splinter from thine eye when thou hast such a giant chip on thine shoulder.

I think we have identified that the Baboons are to Skepticism what Hitler was to World Peace.

[real horrorshow]

WTF is up with Myers and his 'Brave Hero' phrase?

It's something Elevatorgate uses to describe himself and those who take on the FC(n) in ways he likes. So Myers is trying to hijack it.

[decius]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

[CommanderTuvok]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

Ahem. When you "nailed"......

[Tigzy]

In the interest of ongoing open information, a link to the Skepchick Rage Fest: http://skepchick.org/2012/12/twitter-us ... e-rapists/

They sure do a good job of misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with them, and revising history.

Watson is now defining drunk as "the common definition ... someone whose faculties are impaired, e.g., slurred speech, stumbling, etc.," and she links to a google definition that is not what she said, nor is it so specific: https://www.google.com/search?q=drunk+d ... e=UTF-8Woo! Long link.

:lol: - and I see that both Peezee and tomato-face Laden are in like Flynn* on the comments page.

*Probably not the best expression to use in this context - considering that Becky, in her usual fashion, has probably already had a few yoo-hoos...

[real horrorshow]

I think we have identified that the Baboons are to Skepticism what Hitler was to World Peace.

Nah, more like what shipworm was to global exploration.

[nippletwister]

Oh, seems Sick-fu has done a Prune and deleted your post, Pitchguest.

Pitchguest clearly neglected to check his white male privilege. Sickifoo did the only thing she could do under the circumstances. You can't blame her. If you enter a mosque you take your shoes off; if you enter FTB you check your privilege. What was he thinking?

I don't think the comment I left there will make it out of moderation. My response to Sikivu's idiocy was :

"Is this a parody meant to "raise consciousness" Whiteness as a source of violence? The violent masculinity at the heart of whiteness? Sikivu, you are every bit as much of an ignorant, unscientific, racist and sexist scumbag as the inbred rednecks who bleat on about "black thugs"...except that there are apparently otherwise rational people who take you seriously. Then again, looking at your commenters here, I don't see a whole lot of rationality. Just a lot of justifications for hatred of whites and men.

The minuscule percentage of the population that become mass-murderers do not represent white people, or the larger cultures of white people, as any kind of a whole or group, except in the warped minds of professional victims like yourself, just as black violence, even when common in a given place and time, does not define blacks or their larger culture. As far as the white perception of black crime, that is not just a "white" phenomenon. A native distrust, blaming, shaming, or "othering" of people who don't look the same as the image that members of a society identify themselves with is an ancient and world-wide phenomenon, one which many people in western societies have made a great effort at reducing in recent decades and even earlier. But you go ahead and make YOUR ridiculous, bigoted generalizations pulled right out of your ass....it's totes OK when you do it. Historically illiterate, anti-scientific, and willfully blind, but totally cool.

Fuck you, you disgusting parasite. Go find another group of dead children to vampirize for your agenda of hate, you idiot shitbag."

I don't usually go off with so much language and name-calling, but that post was just incredibly shitty tragedy-mongering, with heaps of racism and sexism as a bonus. Ugly fucking shit. So....am I a racist, over-privileged asshole?

[decius]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

Ahem. When you "nailed"......

He was drunk.

[welch]

Don’t follow that at all. Did he/she/they develop the bait-and-switch technique?

Methinks either she’s drunk now – or most of the time – or she’s a piss-poor communicator or she’s a fraud ….

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... or-traffic.
….
The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap.

I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve argued several times now that her talk on evo psych was basically her talking out of both sides of her mouth, either by intent or through carelessness. But, as part of those comments, I had conceded her points that at least some of the field is crap or used inappropriately or without justification.

Although I’ll generally agree with most or many of your other observations, and thanks for the link to the Dvorak conversation.

you just happened to reply :-) Not actually targeted at you.

[Tigzy]

Pretty epic post there, Nippletwister. Pity Sick-fu isn't likely to let it loose on her blog page. Still, you never know...

[welch]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

Not with a stolen dick.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

Not with a stolen dick.

I wouldn't nail that with welch's stolen dick, double-bagged and foil-wrapped.

[nippletwister]

I have to say, I didn't know Watson was such an ardent follower of Dvorak.

Don’t follow that at all. Did he/she/they develop the bait-and-switch technique?

Methinks either she’s drunk now – or most of the time – or she’s a piss-poor communicator or she’s a fraud ….

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... r-traffic/

Here's what Becky did, and does all the time:

She makes a vague, yet inflammatory statement - If you have sex with a woman who's drunk, she can't consent, you're a rapist.

Now, there are two sensible responses:

1) Oh, becky's trolling the internet again, ignore.
2) "hey, how are you defining "drunk"? It's kind of important"

No one does that with her, ever. instead, she gets what she wants. "OMG Y U CALL TAHT RAYPEOMGWTFBBQKHAAAAAN"

Then, once she collects enough?

"Oh look, guys angry they can't rape women who are blotto"

Game, set, match.

She does this over and over.

The FTBwats try this to a certain extent, but the difference is, they BELIEVE. She, like Dvorak, just wants to manipulate the masses to get the result she wants. That's why she's *much* better.

It's like her talk. OF COURSE it was vague, that's the fucking point. If it's vague, she bears no responsibility. Her defenders jump into the fucking fire yet again, along with her detractors and she does fuck all for work.

WHy do you think I kept talking about the talk itself? You are never going to nail her down on point, that's the game she wants you to play. So, seeing that ignoring her won't work either, your options are limited. I go after the quality of her talks. Don't give a fuck about content, just point out she's kind of a shit public speaker who wastes her audience's time with pointless rambling idiocy. I have just described most of her talks for the last 4 years.

The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap. When she makes another statement, look ahead to how she can manipulate the responses once people have committed, and call her out on that. If she pulls it, oh look, your point that she's a cynical manipulative bitch is proven. If she doesn't, then she has to scramble to find a new point.

There's a reason Angry Mac Bastards goes after stupidity the way we do. We KNOW what they're doing. We're just giving voice to the rage people feel when they read that shit. We don't think we're going to change a fucking thing, but if we can hold them up to ridicule via extreme profanity, (and really, if someone AMB'd these weaklings, they'd be fetal in the corner, covered in their own urine, trembling), then we show them for the ridiculous manipulative assclowns they are. We also try to show when people do it right. It's kind of like training a crocodile. You gotta establish who's the fucking boss, and right now, the crocodile is noshing on your fucking spleens.

Becky is Dvoraking the entire community.

I've been trying to describe this for months!

This is a standard operating procedure for all of the FTB SJW's, skepchicks. Say something stupid (or at least debatable), ignore or belittle any rational criticism, scoop up all the troll droppings for public display and call it a win! Ophelia does it, Svan does it, Greta does it, PZ does it (although he often tries to look like he's actually responding to criticism), Canuck does it, McCreight does it, pretty much every dedicated feminist on the internet does it.....Crommunist is the only one who is any good at acting like he's playing fair, but he's still unwilling to concede a point pretty much ever. Just keep regurgitating the "oppression" jargon and splitting hairs until everyone thinks it's all settled. Watson is the most over-the-top and obvious about it, yet still gets away without any real criticism from the SJW's.

And yet if anyone dares to point out that "elevatorgate" or any of these bullshit "issues" are purely manufactured controversies with little relation to reality, they are "part of the problem".

[Steersman]

….
No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... or-traffic.
….
But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap.

I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve argued several times now that her talk on evo psych was basically her talking out of both sides of her mouth, either by intent or through carelessness. But, as part of those comments, I had conceded her points that at least some of the field is crap or used inappropriately or without justification. ….

you just happened to reply :-) Not actually targeted at you.

Thanks for the clarification as I hadn’t wanted to be tarred with that particular brush. I too have a reputation to uphold here, you know, along with those who, for example, claim to be foes of hypocrisy or who might have an inordinate susceptibility to sentiment …. ;-)

[Al Stefanelli]

Priest Off: The sexual abuse of children by ordained clergy can now be easily combated by using this simple spray repellent.

[youtube]v=EpuYoK6wv[/youtube]

[Al Stefanelli]

Priest Off: The sexual abuse of children by ordained clergy can now be easily combated by using this simple spray repellent.

[youtube]EpuYoK6wv_Y[/youtube]

[nippletwister]

Just wanted to say, I just registered for the Slymepit today.

I've been reading all(or most of) the popular atheist/skeptic blogs for years now, but I only comment on a few....and the last two years have been a special kind of annoying hell. I don't take it personally, it doesn't really affect my daily life at all, but it has often been painful watching some great liberal/atheist blogs and bloggers slide down the road to professional victim insanity. I used to love pharyngula, even the most insane femi-socialists could put up a good argument when they wanted to. Adam Lee used to not be such a smug and patronizing twit. The commenters at Friendly Atheist were once mostly sane, and I think Hemant has done a good job of not letting things get too out of hand.

It seems to me that the amount of in-group tribalism, echo-chamber perceptions of reality, and hostility to all people who don't tow the far-left SJW lines has really exploded. I haven't seen teen-age drama bullshit like this since grade school....fuck that, grade school was nothing near so bad. I never really commented at ERV, but I lurked a goodly bit. I've seen all the demonizing the FTB crowd does relating to the Slymepit, but you all seem like relatively sane, intellectually honest folks.

I hope nobody minds another newbie who has hit the bottom of the burn-out barrel with all the Oppression Olympics bullshit in the atheist/skeptical blogosphere these days. Some of those people are just plain old fucking nuts.

I noticed that the Slymepit seems to be getting new people registering every day....I'll take that as a sign of sanity, I need all the hope I can get.

[Mykeru]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1936/blotto.png

The way she "summarizes" a lot of thought-out and for the most part polite questions and rebuttals to her stupid ideas as "people being mad because they can't fuck someone who's blotto" annoys me to no end. How her supporters will take her word for it instead of going and reading the conversation annoys me too.

Also notice how now she's using the word blotto (previously unknown to me, but which apparently means "unconscious, esp through drunkenness") instead of the word she used before, "drunk", to avoid the "degrees of drunken-ness" counter-argument.

What a cunt.

Did to really expect any other outcome? Negative attention is like oxygen to her. Expect this to feature prominently in her new keynote speech.

Yes, where she will characterize it as she always does "I was harassed for speaking out against rape" and then the followers will pick it up and some utter fool like EllenBeth Wachs will introduce her as having taken a stand against rape which will be canon in the bubble.

Blah, blah fucking blah.

Rebecca at her best is a con artist, but mostly she's just a troll. One can propose good click-for-cash reason why she pops up to say something just stupid enough to piss people off, but is malleable enough to be another brave stand against.

That doesn't change that she's a troll.

[franc]

http://i.imgur.com/R3fYP.png

[CommanderTuvok]

STEVE NOVELLA - are you witnessing Rebecca Watson's latest behaviour? You know what to do, Steve. Kick her off the SGU podcast.

[Steersman]

Just wanted to say, I just registered for the Slymepit today.

I've been reading all(or most of) the popular atheist/skeptic blogs for years now, but I only comment on a few....and the last two years have been a special kind of annoying hell. I don't take it personally, it doesn't
really affect my daily life at all, but it has often been painful watching some great liberal/atheist blogs and bloggers slide down the road to professional victim insanity. I used to love pharyngula, even the most insane femi-socialists could put up a good argument when they wanted to. ...

I hope nobody minds another newbie who has hit the bottom of the burn-out barrel with all the Oppression Olympics bullshit in the atheist/skeptical blogosphere these days. Some of those people are just plain old fucking nuts.

I noticed that the Slymepit seems to be getting new people registering every day....I'll take that as a sign of sanity, I need all the hope I can get.

Welcome aboard – quite liked your post on Hutchinson’s blog, although you might want to consider grabbing screen shots. But while I might think some of the language was maybe a little extreme, I can certainly sympathize – it doesn’t take much effort to see some of her comments as being rather egregiously racist. For examples:

“Deranged” loners who came from lower to upper middle class nuclear families, their murder sprees forever shattered white suburbia’s veneer of normalcy.

So “white suburbia” only has a “veneer of normalcy”, but under that it consists entirely of a seething cauldron of depravity? She has a great future as a demagogue.

And this is a real hoot:

According to a 2010 Blair-Rockefeller survey, many whites in post-racial America believe that blacks and Latinos are more lazy, unintelligent, and untrustworthy than either whites or Asians. If white Middle America views people of color as not having “white” values and “white” aptitude levels, then it’s no mystery why mainstream media pathologize people of color as naturally criminal and violent.

Someone might want to point out to her, that, at least according to Wikipedia, blacks are about 40% of the US prison population but only comprise about 14% of the general population. Now while I will readily concede that there might be a significant part of that first number that is due to anti-black racism, it seems rather much of a serious stretch, particularly for those who might wish to claim the title of “skeptic”, to insist that all of it is. Far more credible to argue that just maybe there might be some entirely problematic values and perceptions that are endemic to that demographic. Particularly when I seem to remember that at President Obama’s inauguration, he had suggested or alluded to that very point.

[Angry_Drunk]

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... r-traffic/

Here's what Becky did, and does all the time:

She makes a vague, yet inflammatory statement - If you have sex with a woman who's drunk, she can't consent, you're a rapist.

Now, there are two sensible responses:

1) Oh, becky's trolling the internet again, ignore.
2) "hey, how are you defining "drunk"? It's kind of important"

No one does that with her, ever. instead, she gets what she wants. "OMG Y U CALL TAHT RAYPEOMGWTFBBQKHAAAAAN"

Then, once she collects enough?

"Oh look, guys angry they can't rape women who are blotto"

Game, set, match.

She does this over and over.

The FTBwats try this to a certain extent, but the difference is, they BELIEVE. She, like Dvorak, just wants to manipulate the masses to get the result she wants. That's why she's *much* better.

It's like her talk. OF COURSE it was vague, that's the fucking point. If it's vague, she bears no responsibility. Her defenders jump into the fucking fire yet again, along with her detractors and she does fuck all for work.

WHy do you think I kept talking about the talk itself? You are never going to nail her down on point, that's the game she wants you to play. So, seeing that ignoring her won't work either, your options are limited. I go after the quality of her talks. Don't give a fuck about content, just point out she's kind of a shit public speaker who wastes her audience's time with pointless rambling idiocy. I have just described most of her talks for the last 4 years.

The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap. When she makes another statement, look ahead to how she can manipulate the responses once people have committed, and call her out on that. If she pulls it, oh look, your point that she's a cynical manipulative bitch is proven. If she doesn't, then she has to scramble to find a new point.

There's a reason Angry Mac Bastards goes after stupidity the way we do. We KNOW what they're doing. We're just giving voice to the rage people feel when they read that shit. We don't think we're going to change a fucking thing, but if we can hold them up to ridicule via extreme profanity, (and really, if someone AMB'd these weaklings, they'd be fetal in the corner, covered in their own urine, trembling), then we show them for the ridiculous manipulative assclowns they are. We also try to show when people do it right. It's kind of like training a crocodile. You gotta establish who's the fucking boss, and right now, the crocodile is noshing on your fucking spleens.

Becky is Dvoraking the entire community.

I've been trying to describe this for months!

This is a standard operating procedure for all of the FTB SJW's, skepchicks. Say something stupid (or at least debatable), ignore or belittle any rational criticism, scoop up all the troll droppings for public display and call it a win! Ophelia does it, Svan does it, Greta does it, PZ does it (although he often tries to look like he's actually responding to criticism), Canuck does it, McCreight does it, pretty much every dedicated feminist on the internet does it.....Crommunist is the only one who is any good at acting like he's playing fair, but he's still unwilling to concede a point pretty much ever. Just keep regurgitating the "oppression" jargon and splitting hairs until everyone thinks it's all settled. Watson is the most over-the-top and obvious about it, yet still gets away without any real criticism from the SJW's.

And yet if anyone dares to point out that "elevatorgate" or any of these bullshit "issues" are purely manufactured controversies with little relation to reality, they are "part of the problem".

The good news is that this is a solvable problem.

Back when Welch and I started Angry Mac Bastards we were two of a very small group of people calling out this behavior in the tech blogging world. Most people tried to enagage the New Media Douchebags as if they were arguing on a level playing field. Now, almost 4 years later, the NMD's are regularly called out by major publications. The key, though, is understanding that tying to play by the "rules" with jackholes like Meyers & Watson is a losing game.

[Al Stefanelli]

Just wanted to say, I just registered for the Slymepit today.

I've been reading all(or most of) the popular atheist/skeptic blogs for years now, but I only comment on a few....and the last two years have been a special kind of annoying hell. I don't take it personally, it doesn't really affect my daily life at all, but it has often been painful watching some great liberal/atheist blogs and bloggers slide down the road to professional victim insanity. I used to love pharyngula, even the most insane femi-socialists could put up a good argument when they wanted to. Adam Lee used to not be such a smug and patronizing twit. The commenters at Friendly Atheist were once mostly sane, and I think Hemant has done a good job of not letting things get too out of hand.

It seems to me that the amount of in-group tribalism, echo-chamber perceptions of reality, and hostility to all people who don't tow the far-left SJW lines has really exploded. I haven't seen teen-age drama bullshit like this since grade school....fuck that, grade school was nothing near so bad. I never really commented at ERV, but I lurked a goodly bit. I've seen all the demonizing the FTB crowd does relating to the Slymepit, but you all seem like relatively sane, intellectually honest folks.

I hope nobody minds another newbie who has hit the bottom of the burn-out barrel with all the Oppression Olympics bullshit in the atheist/skeptical blogosphere these days. Some of those people are just plain old fucking nuts.

I noticed that the Slymepit seems to be getting new people registering every day....I'll take that as a sign of sanity, I need all the hope I can get.

Well said, and welcome to The Pit.

[welch]

No, it's based on a conversation that John C. Dvorak, tech pundit and master troll had with Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. Videos and background here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/10/john-d ... r-traffic/

Here's what Becky did, and does all the time:

She makes a vague, yet inflammatory statement - If you have sex with a woman who's drunk, she can't consent, you're a rapist.

Now, there are two sensible responses:

1) Oh, becky's trolling the internet again, ignore.
2) "hey, how are you defining "drunk"? It's kind of important"

No one does that with her, ever. instead, she gets what she wants. "OMG Y U CALL TAHT RAYPEOMGWTFBBQKHAAAAAN"

Then, once she collects enough?

"Oh look, guys angry they can't rape women who are blotto"

Game, set, match.

She does this over and over.

The FTBwats try this to a certain extent, but the difference is, they BELIEVE. She, like Dvorak, just wants to manipulate the masses to get the result she wants. That's why she's *much* better.

It's like her talk. OF COURSE it was vague, that's the fucking point. If it's vague, she bears no responsibility. Her defenders jump into the fucking fire yet again, along with her detractors and she does fuck all for work.

WHy do you think I kept talking about the talk itself? You are never going to nail her down on point, that's the game she wants you to play. So, seeing that ignoring her won't work either, your options are limited. I go after the quality of her talks. Don't give a fuck about content, just point out she's kind of a shit public speaker who wastes her audience's time with pointless rambling idiocy. I have just described most of her talks for the last 4 years.

The other thing, and this is *crucial* is that if/when she makes a valid point, you publicly agree with that. It sticks a knife in the "HER DETRACTORS ARE BLINDLY AGAINST HER" shit.

But for the love of cthulu, stop trying to use logic and shit with her. You may as well be arguing with Ken Fucking Ham if THAT'S how you approach it. Call out her bullshit for what it is: manipulative crap. When she makes another statement, look ahead to how she can manipulate the responses once people have committed, and call her out on that. If she pulls it, oh look, your point that she's a cynical manipulative bitch is proven. If she doesn't, then she has to scramble to find a new point.

There's a reason Angry Mac Bastards goes after stupidity the way we do. We KNOW what they're doing. We're just giving voice to the rage people feel when they read that shit. We don't think we're going to change a fucking thing, but if we can hold them up to ridicule via extreme profanity, (and really, if someone AMB'd these weaklings, they'd be fetal in the corner, covered in their own urine, trembling), then we show them for the ridiculous manipulative assclowns they are. We also try to show when people do it right. It's kind of like training a crocodile. You gotta establish who's the fucking boss, and right now, the crocodile is noshing on your fucking spleens.

Becky is Dvoraking the entire community.

I've been trying to describe this for months!

This is a standard operating procedure for all of the FTB SJW's, skepchicks. Say something stupid (or at least debatable), ignore or belittle any rational criticism, scoop up all the troll droppings for public display and call it a win! Ophelia does it, Svan does it, Greta does it, PZ does it (although he often tries to look like he's actually responding to criticism), Canuck does it, McCreight does it, pretty much every dedicated feminist on the internet does it.....Crommunist is the only one who is any good at acting like he's playing fair, but he's still unwilling to concede a point pretty much ever. Just keep regurgitating the "oppression" jargon and splitting hairs until everyone thinks it's all settled. Watson is the most over-the-top and obvious about it, yet still gets away without any real criticism from the SJW's.

And yet if anyone dares to point out that "elevatorgate" or any of these bullshit "issues" are purely manufactured controversies with little relation to reality, they are "part of the problem".

The good news is that this is a solvable problem.

Back when Welch and I started Angry Mac Bastards we were two of a very small group of people calling out this behavior in the tech blogging world. Most people tried to enagage the New Media Douchebags as if they were arguing on a level playing field. Now, almost 4 years later, the NMD's are regularly called out by major publications. The key, though, is understanding that tying to play by the "rules" with jackholes like Meyers & Watson is a losing game.

Oh yeah, at's the trick. You can't fight by their rules, or on their battlefield. You'll always lose. You pretty much have to go way orthogonal. Absurdism is not a bad choice, but the idea is ridicule. The worst thing for these twats is ridicule and people laughing at them. It's the one form of attention they cannot take. Once you do that, they lose their shit. The fake shrinkydinks were a great idea, but combine them with some of the better anti-WBC stuff from comicon, at least in terms of style.

And when they play the various card like "o noes, bad werds"? Fuck with them some more.

Ophelia calls you a misogynist? "If I'm such a misogynist, why the fuck did I let you out of th kitchen?" Seriously, there is no reason to engage with these idiots in any other manner than to relentlessly ridicule them.

Also, never try to engage them at all on their site. Create your own and fire from there. It's their tactic, may as well use it. Don't hassle them directly on twitter, make them come to you. They will. You make them look consistently stupid, they will fucking come to cry. Hell, Macworld has a fictitious character called the Macalope, who does this. The target of one of his latest columns, who really did write just the stupidest fucking load of monkey ammo, imploded all over twitter about HE CAN IMPUGN MY NAME WHILE I CANNOT KNOW HIS.

It was GLORIOUS.

Stop treating these halfwits like they are your debate opponents. They are attention whoring assclowns, nothing more. They have no real power other than what you give them. Point, and laugh.

[katamari Damassi]

WTF is up with Myers and his 'Brave Hero' phrase?

He's trying to link any legit criticism of him or Rebecca to the ramblings of elevatorGATE, who started the whole "brave hero" stuff.

BTW, has PZ ever had sex with someone who had a beer? One glass of beer can impinge on one's faculties, and therefore, "informed consent" can go out of the window after just one glass. I guess that makes PZ a rapist as well as a potential rapist and a racist.

Of course, we will now see Twatson try and move the goalposts and redefine what "drunk" means. I've seen people labelled as drunk after a pint of weak cider, driven home (under the legal limit), and then had sex. THAT MUST BE RAPE!!!

We've got Watson walking the plank on this one. Don't let her get away with it. Rebecca Watson will always be labelled as a rapist from now on.

I didn't think there was enough beer in the world to make someone have sex with PeeZus.

[Notung]

I blogged about all this: http://skepticink.com/notung/2012/12/19 ... o-consent/

[Secular Steve]

Welch has nailed Twatson better than anyone else.

Was she drunk at the time of said nailing?

[welch]

Oh dear fucking lord, okay, because I'm not a part of any of these fucking groups:

what the fuck is it with "skeptics" and atheists being generally shitacular at dealing with blunt criticism? They aren't thin-skinned, they're a fucking Claire Higgens body double. I have never seen any group of people who cannot deal with blunt force conversation like "skeptics". Do they seriously think that the rest of the world is going to one day take up their Marquis of Queensbury debate rules or something? I used to think that the FTBwats and A+-ers were outliers. Now, I'm not so fucking sure.

"YOU HURLED INSULTS AT MEEE, I DEFRIEND YOU"

"Fuck off ya cunt, i was right, you were fulla shit, and rather than admit it, you cry about bad werds. You're not only a stupid cunt, but you're weak too."

I think there are a lot of "skeptics" who should never leave the house.

[welch]

I blogged about all this: http://skepticink.com/notung/2012/12/19 ... o-consent/

I love you man.

Why are you taking her seriously?

[Notung]

I'm taking that statement seriously. That doesn't mean I think that her blog post was an important philosophical paper!

[rayshul]

Apparently I've never had consensual sex.

Good times, guys, good times.

[welch]

I'm taking that statement seriously. That doesn't mean I think that her blog post was an important philosophical paper!

no, it was her usual manipulative idiocy. I mean, why are you doing what she wants?

[welch]

here, a longer version of what I'm on about: http://dissentionisnothate.wordpress.co ... ca-watson/