Periodic Table of Swearing

[sacha]

Sacha, I wasn't able to sit quietly though as planned. Ended up making a video and a blogpost teasing PZ about his commentors. Oh well, what can I say? I couldn't resist.

I was referring to commenting on his blog. You are still quiet as far as I am concerned. PZ singing that song is creepy.

[justinvacula]

[youtube]ODjrroGgWlo[/youtube]

Monkeys in a cage, you say?

[Badger3k]

I posted this on Rationalia in response to a poster (who I think may post over at FftB). I was really struck by the first reply to me - trying to edit for clarity, my edits in all CAPS: from here

MiM wrote:
Badger3k wrote:
MiM - I think part of what you are missing is that if you want to have standards of decency, you should have them the same across the board.

Why Who sais you have to ask the same behaviour of your friends as of your enemies. There certainly was a phase of this brawl when razzians didin't apply those standards.

Anyone who doesn't want to be a hypocrite, especially if you want to claim some kind of moral high ground. You can't preach for others to do things that you yourself fail to do.

ME:
When PZ's commenters find something as unacceptable, they go out into full attack mode, often using the same (or worse) behavior they say they are against.
MIM: as did the Razz.

Riiiiiight. Who was calling for outing? Who was saying that PZs commentors were rape apologists? Who was saying everyone over there supported rape? Hmm.

ME: Seeing a "rape threat" where there is one might be understandable, and saying Rape Jokes are NEVER ok is fine, except that PZ makes a twitter rape joke and isn't called on it (in fact, some were saying it was just a point taken to it's absurd conclusion, but how that absurdity is not a form of humor, I don't get). It's the hypocrisy, as well as the attempts to define what is acceptable for other people.

MIM: This is actually one of my major problems with this whole discussion. Don't you guys really see the wast difference between Pappas "joke", and the comments made by PZ? In Pappas post there was a very real concealed threat (at leas for everyone who didn't know Pappa, or didn't have prior knowledge of the tone of this forum) PZ:s batman/rape tweats had no flavour of threat at all. The difference is wast. PLEASE GET THIS EVERYONE, and stop making yourself stupid by trying to equate those with each other.

See, there your wrong, again. Please, for once, will somebody please point out, in specific, the "threat" in that joke. I'm sorry, still can't see any threat. No one is responsible for what someone sees in their own head. Please, let some people take responsibility for their own delusions and stop trying to make things what they are not. I've had real threats made against me, usually in person, sometimes with weapons. I would have loved for some of them to be jokes with "concealed" threats. I would have given them the response they deserved - a laugh. Before I happened to catch wind of PZs hysterics, I had never heard of Pappa. Never knew him from Adam. I went and looked at the thread, said "Meh" and that was it. Never saw any kind of threat. I suspect you feel differently because you know some of the people involved from the other side. All I know of PZ is what I've learned from reading his blog for the last, hell, I don't know - 7-8 years maybe. The only difference between our points of view is that I see both as jokes - I just hold them to the standards that they themselves espouse. Pappa defends speech even when it is tasteless and rude. PZ wants to control speech that is done by others, but holds a double standard for his friends. That's cheap and morally despicable. It's moral and intellectual cowardice.

There is no difference at all between PZs jokes about the murders in Aurora and his Official Raper and Pappa's. None. Hypocrisy is a nasty word, but you seem fine with double standards in this case. Why? If all you have is, there is a difference, then I can't see continuing this conversation, since it will go nowhere.

Edited to try to fix formatting, but unable to. Not sure why.

----------------

Seriously, the first part is extremely fucked up. Who says you need one standard? WTF? Hypocrisy is fine? Later there is a post that, if posted by someone here, would be called Victim Blaming, but according to this person, it's fine when done by your friends, because you don't need to practice what you preach.

WTF?

The victim blaming is here

This is all I will say on the subject.

To all - if you are going to support your friend's right to stir shit, then expect ANYTHING to happen - whether or not you think the reaction is out of proportion still makes Pappa the one responsible. So take your licks and stop blaming other guy, and wallowing in your victimhood and hypocrisy. Pappa was the one responsible.

Mai, I find this quite disturbing. This is precisely the reasoning many around the world used to blame the Danish cartoonists for the violent response to their work; also to blame Rushdie, etc.

[Scented Nectar]

Sacha, it's just enhancing the natural creepiness from within him. Ugh!

[Tigzy]

@badger3k

It's interesting that this MIM character advances the argument that PZs jokes were not meant in such an offensive context, and that other people were effectively 'reading them the wrong way'. And yet, what's the idiom that Pharyngulites frequently trot out? 'Intent isn't magic.'

Except when it concerns their and PZs intent, naturally.

[Dilurk]

...

Dilurk: "I don't know franc, just maybe some of them might come to their senses. Laden I see no hope for, he is a scumbag going after people's jobs as Abbie said "Taking the Internet into the meatspace" (paraphrasing her original "Do not bring MySpace drama into MeatSpace")"

Again, Dilurk? How many times are you going to post things like this. You don't need us to agree, go engage! Be polite and kind and calm. We will still be here. No one is going to attack, or stop speaking to you, for doing what you think is best for you.

I wonder if you remember what they did to Franc. He isn't going to agree with you, but he won't turn his back when you return, either.

PZ claiming franc was dangerous and suggesting GAC should be contacted. deep.. I had forgotten. You guys are absolutely right, there is no redeeming PZ, he can join Laden. At the time, I kept hoping franc was in the organizing committee. That would have been fun.

mea culpa etc. etc.

[Badger3k]

@badger3k

It's interesting that this MIM character advances the argument that PZs jokes were not meant in such an offensive context, and that other people were effectively 'reading them the wrong way'. And yet, what's the idiom that Pharyngulites frequently trot out? 'Intent isn't magic.'

Except when it concerns their and PZs intent, naturally.

The absolutism and mind reading is amazing. PZ's clearly were jokes, but Pappa's had a "concealed threat" that everyone who didn't know him, like me, would see. I have to be blind. Maybe it's my privilege. I have been jumped by gang bangers, but not sexually assaulted, even though I went to Catholic schools. So I am completely blind to it? Meh.

[BarnOwl]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

[Badger3k]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

She asks why philosophy as a discipline has less women then men. She says sexism. I always thought it was that women were smarter than that. Maybe women were more concerned with reality than a lot of the mental masturbation that goes on in philosophy. Yeah, I have little respect for the discipline. It has it's uses, but when they try to assert things without evidence or relationship to reality, I draw the line.

[Scented Nectar]

I interrupt your regular schedule for a...

Watson Joke - Groaner Warning!
[youtube]HjsWTuNB310[/youtube]

I'm on a roll today.

[Badger3k]

I interrupt your regular schedule for a...

Watson Joke - Groaner Warning!
[youtube]HjsWTuNB310[/youtube]

I'm on a roll today.

Ouch

Well, you're on something.... :lol:

[Tigzy]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

Well, a comment below names a 'Shermer' as being rumoured to be promiscuous. Michael Shermer, I'm guessing. *shrugs* Wouldn't be surprised if that's who Ophelia was going on about anyway. In her book, a promiscuous hetero male no doubt bears evil equivalent to that of Pol Pot.

[Badger3k]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

Well, a comment below names a 'Shermer' as being rumoured to be promiscuous. Michael Shermer, I'm guessing. *shrugs* Wouldn't be surprised if that's who Ophelia was going on about anyway. In her book, a promiscuous hetero male no doubt bears evil equivalent to that of Pol Pot.

They need to be careful. If they went around naming names without evidence, that opens them up for some legal liability. I doubt speculation in comments is actionable, but... who knows. Anytime you have an issue like this, you either have evidence, in which case name the names, or you have speculation that you milk for blog hits and sympathy.

[sacha]

not to worry, I do see you have been back and forth on this issue. PZ also contacted the authorities in regards to Franc, and he and Beccy tried to get me banned from a sceptic event, saying I was a threat to Beccy's safety, and what they did to Abbie is unforgivable...

...

Dilurk: "I don't know franc, just maybe some of them might come to their senses. Laden I see no hope for, he is a scumbag going after people's jobs as Abbie said "Taking the Internet into the meatspace" (paraphrasing her original "Do not bring MySpace drama into MeatSpace")"

Again, Dilurk? How many times are you going to post things like this. You don't need us to agree, go engage! Be polite and kind and calm. We will still be here. No one is going to attack, or stop speaking to you, for doing what you think is best for you.

I wonder if you remember what they did to Franc. He isn't going to agree with you, but he won't turn his back when you return, either.

PZ claiming franc was dangerous and suggesting GAC should be contacted. deep.. I had forgotten. You guys are absolutely right, there is no redeeming PZ, he can join Laden. At the time, I kept hoping franc was in the organizing committee. That would have been fun.

mea culpa etc. etc.

[sacha]

indeed

Sacha, it's just enhancing the natural creepiness from within him. Ugh!

[Dilurk]

Cristina Rad (Zomgitscriss) has a new video saying that she couldn't back up that old video she took down. Thing is, that old video said things that I KNOW there have been studies proving what she said. Maybe some any MRAs here can help me with links?

Scented, you know by now that MRAs have long given up any discussion with feminists. Heck.. even conservative scholars like Hoff

That is exactly why some feminists have given up with the label and adopted humanism as a label.

[youtube]LlFAd4YdQks[/youtube]

I have seen similar before, but thanks for this one. Let me reiterate, as an old fashioned feminist this is not acceptable, as a new fashioned humanist this is not acceptable. If there is equality there is equality.

You badly misunderstood my position previously.

[BarnOwl]

@ Tigzy and Badger3k: I agree that they should be careful with accusing specific people of harassing behavior, even in the comments - the one that mentions Shermer's name indicates that there's no direct accusation, other than of promiscuity. It just seems disingenuous to imply that choice speaking gigs in the skeptics/atheists communities are being given to "known harassers," and then to provide no evidence that such individuals actually exist.

Also, this:

In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.

... is hardly surprising. Someone actually got research money and a publication out of it? :lol:

[DW Adams]

[youtube]1iCSEokcS-4[/youtube]

Fixt

[Dilurk]

not to worry, I do see you have been back and forth on this issue. PZ also contacted the authorities in regards to

sacha, I have the horrible failing of always remembering what Bertrand Russell had to say.

...Ask yourself only what are the facts...

and

love is wise, hatred is foolish

PZ, Laden and the nut cases are far away from me. I cannot hate them sacha, that is a waste of my time and energy. I won't be inviting them to my house any time soon, but hate? That is too strong a word.

Franc, and he and Beccy tried to get me banned from a sceptic event, saying I was a threat to Beccy's safety, and what they did to Abbie is unforgivable...

Indeed.

[Dilurk]

I interrupt your regular schedule for a...

Watson Joke - Groaner Warning!
[youtube]HjsWTuNB310[/youtube]

I'm on a roll today.

ya. A real corker.

[Badger3k]

@ Tigzy and Badger3k: I agree that they should be careful with accusing specific people of harassing behavior, even in the comments - the one that mentions Shermer's name indicates that there's no direct accusation, other than of promiscuity. It just seems disingenuous to imply that choice speaking gigs in the skeptics/atheists communities are being given to "known harassers," and then to provide no evidence that such individuals actually exist.

Also, this:

In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.

... is hardly surprising. Someone actually got research money and a publication out of it? :lol:

Considering Shermer is also a Libertarian (I've been in on "discussions" on that, especially his Rand conversion story), as well as, until recently, an AGW denier, I'm not surprised to see his name mentioned.

[Tigzy]

@ Tigzy and Badger3k: I agree that they should be careful with accusing specific people of harassing behavior, even in the comments - the one that mentions Shermer's name indicates that there's no direct accusation, other than of promiscuity. It just seems disingenuous to imply that choice speaking gigs in the skeptics/atheists communities are being given to "known harassers," and then to provide no evidence that such individuals actually exist.

Oh well, I had to ask her. Curiosity got the better of me on this one...

[Scented Nectar]

ya. A real corker.

Is that anything like a corny joke, because it was indeed a corny joke. :lol:

[BarnOwl]

Well done, Tigzy - nice and direct. Watch OB spin a straightforward question into something malignant and victim-blaming though. :roll:

I'll admit I'm reluctant to post on FfTB, in large part because I think it's pointless to try to discuss anything with most of them, and I'd likely get the ban-hammer pretty quickly. Although the recent flouncing has been amusing from an inveterate rubbernecker's perspective, it worries me a bit that some of the flouncers have lost an outlet for their fury. Early Flouncer Aquaria is especially worrying, because she's batshit, armed, and lives in my city. :o

[Guest]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

Well, a comment below names a 'Shermer' as being rumoured to be promiscuous. Michael Shermer, I'm guessing. *shrugs* Wouldn't be surprised if that's who Ophelia was going on about anyway. In her book, a promiscuous hetero male no doubt bears evil equivalent to that of Pol Pot.

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca. I think she expected something in return. But it also could be Krauss-- he's flirtatious and has a friend that has been accused of child sex trafficking or something-- this pisses off the skepchicks. So does Penn Jillette, whom they see as sexists and who may be promiscuous as well. And he uses the word "cunt" without apology.

But Shermer has long been my guess.

[Tigzy]

Oh well, got my reply from her ladyship herself:

tigzy – what a ridiculous question.

To be honest, I didn't have the highest of hopes for a straight reply, but there you go.

[Badger3k]

I suspect Ophelia is just being coy again, but has she (or any of the others) ever named a specific name? Who is the "top dude, known to harass," in skepticism/atheism* circles?

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. (reads on) No, I don’t see that. Strange.

* I refuse to give the FC6 the benefit of the doubt about humanism. They love to yammer on about addressing social justice issues, and have now added racism to their accusations (perhaps because they've milked the anti-feminist/misogyny teat nearly dry). Much of their outrage was looking pretty self-serving, and so now they want the pretense of promoting diversity and social justice in a broader context. I could have a protracted rant about the hypocrisy regarding social justice issues, but I'll spare you that. ;-)

Well, a comment below names a 'Shermer' as being rumoured to be promiscuous. Michael Shermer, I'm guessing. *shrugs* Wouldn't be surprised if that's who Ophelia was going on about anyway. In her book, a promiscuous hetero male no doubt bears evil equivalent to that of Pol Pot.

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca. I think she expected something in return. But it also could be Krauss-- he's flirtatious and has a friend that has been accused of child sex trafficking or something-- this pisses off the skepchicks. So does Penn Jillette, whom they see as sexists and who may be promiscuous as well. And he uses the word "cunt" without apology.

But Shermer has long been my guess.

Shermer and Watson. Now there's something to take me off sex forever. What cannot be unseen.... bleach for my brains. My kingdom for bleach for my brain! :lol:

[BarnOwl]

Shermer and Watson. Now there's something to take me off sex forever. What cannot be unseen.... bleach for my brains. My kingdom for bleach for my brain! :lol:

I've got a wire brush for visual cortex scrubbing, if you'd like to borrow it. :D

[Tigzy]

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca. I think she expected something in return.

Is there any evidence that Shermer and Watson *trigger warning* made the beast with two backs?

[Dick Strawkins]

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca.

Excuse me while I go poke out my mind's eye. :shock:

[John Greg]

Oh well, got my reply from her ladyship herself

Who did you ask what to? Remember, links are your friend.

Is there any evidence that Shermer and Watson *trigger warning* made the beast with two backs?

No, not so far as I know. Also, I have never seen any such suggestion, except on this thread.

On the other hand, it has been speculated for some time now that the high level skeptic who likes to have sex with younger women is indeed Shermer. However, there has not only been no proof provided, but there has also been a wholesale overlook of the fact that even if Shermer does like to have sex with younger women, they, the younger women that is, are apparently fully and enthusiastically willing partners. So, I suspect that is why that general loopy accusation more less died a wholesome death.

[Tigzy]

Oh well, got my reply from her ladyship herself

Who did you ask what to? Remember, links are your friend.

Ophelia, casting aspersions with very little in the way of facts to back them up. I asked her who she was talking about, but my question was apparently too ridiculous for her to answer: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -to-avoid/

[John Greg]

Ah, I see. More fine examples of Ophelia's profound respect for and understanding of proof, intellectual integrity, and the lack of validity in anecdotal claims:

Tigzy says:

Ophelia, who is the ‘top dude’ you are referring to here?

Ophelia says:

tigzy – what a ridiculous question.

I'd cry if it weren't so boringly familiar and ridiculous.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236131

Ophelia, you are indeed a wizard of intellectual integrity.

[sacha]

What a difference two years make:

I attended the TAM she is referring to

"From a quick glance at the program, it seems like men definitely outnumber women. Not hugely so, which is an improvement, but it was still noticeable. Now, I don't think you can necessarily blame TAM or even the skeptical movement for this."

"I have to note that I absolutely loved all the female speakers, and that seriously is not me being biased. I'm not the type to like someone by default just because they have certain genitalia or chromosomes or hormones or whatever"

"Talking about rape and sexism for two hours can be taxing on anyone, so it was nice to have some light hearted humor injected in. Two, it forced the audience to form small groups. While we were in groups, we discussed a skeptical issue that was assigned to us and how it affected women. After craft time was over, everyone had to share what they discussed. Without this fun activity, it would have been very difficult to force people to participate.

I think, though, it may have been a little too silly at times. For example, after each major serious topic, Rebecca inserted silly cat photos to lighten the mood. I'm all for silliness, but random lolcats after seriously discussing rape just didn't sit well with me. Make your serious point without undermining it, and then inject humor later. From the awkward half-laughter in the audience, I think others agreed with me. The lady sitting next to me even commented, "Great, who's going to take feminists seriously now?" after the first lolcat. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree that it was a bit in bad taste."

"Before I went, I admit I was a little nervous. I had been warned about the low number of women, some sexist jokes, and hordes of creepy stalker guys that would follow me around. Maybe it's because I started with my guard up or maybe it's because TAM is improving, but I really didn't think it was that bad. At least, not any worse than any non-theist club meeting or biology conference I've been to (...which probably isn't much of an endorsement after all, hmm). I'm definitely looking forward to going back in the future. And I'm sure with the way things are quickly improving and all the hard work the JREF is putting in, it'll be even more awesome and comfortable for women next year."

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/07/women-an ... -tam8.html

also notice what she says about Harriet Hall...

[Badger3k]

Oh well, got my reply from her ladyship herself

Who did you ask what to? Remember, links are your friend.

Is there any evidence that Shermer and Watson *trigger warning* made the beast with two backs?

No, not so far as I know. Also, I have never seen any such suggestion, except on this thread.

On the other hand, it has been speculated for some time now that the high level skeptic who likes to have sex with younger women is indeed Shermer. However, there has not only been no proof provided, but there has also been a wholesale overlook of the fact that even if Shermer does like to have sex with younger women, they, the younger women that is, are apparently fully and enthusiastically willing partners. So, I suspect that is why that general loopy accusation more less died a wholesome death.

I wonder how long it'll take before the Shermer-Watson conjecture (stated by a guest here) is trumpeted as some kind of hate speech - rumor mongering from the people here. I probably should have asked for evidence, but the images were a bit too much for my fragile little mind. I blame Canada.

For myself, as long as both partners are willing and in their right minds, whatever that may mean, and of legal age, then who cares? That also assumes they are either uninvolved or in an open relationship. I haven't been concerned with that aspect of the conventions, so I have heard nothing. The most I heard was the one case of buyers remorse by the woman who says she got the speakers book as some kind of consolation prize afterwards (my words).

[Tigzy]

Ah, I see. More fine examples of Ophelia's profound respect for and understanding of proof, intellectual integrity, and the lack of validity in anecdotal claims:

Tigzy says:

Ophelia, who is the ‘top dude’ you are referring to here?

Ophelia says:

tigzy – what a ridiculous question.

I'd cry if it weren't so boringly familiar and ridiculous.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236131

Ophelia, you are indeed a wizard of intellectual integrity.

Has to be said, I'm not 100% clear on whether Ophelia was implying a particular person, or offering her particular concept of a 'top-dude-gets-away-with-it' type male. She can be (self) conveniently obscurantist at times, can Ophelia.

[Badger3k]

Ah, I see. More fine examples of Ophelia's profound respect for and understanding of proof, intellectual integrity, and the lack of validity in anecdotal claims:

Tigzy says:

Ophelia, who is the ‘top dude’ you are referring to here?

Ophelia says:

tigzy – what a ridiculous question.

I'd cry if it weren't so boringly familiar and ridiculous.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236131

Ophelia, you are indeed a wizard of intellectual integrity.

Has to be said, I'm not 100% clear on whether Ophelia was implying a particular person, or offering her particular concept of a 'top-dude-gets-away-with-it' type male. She can be (self) conveniently obscurantist at times, can Ophelia.

That's her philosofee background. She iz a mistress of it, after all. And an expert. Just ask her.

[John Greg]

And of course that raging lunatic sociopathic misandrist freak skeptifem has to escalate the whole thing. Way-to-go, skeptifem. Way-to-fucking-go.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236207

[Tigzy]

And of course that raging lunatic sociopathic misandrist freak skeptifem has to escalate the whole thing. Way-to-go, skeptifem. Way-to-fucking-go.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236207

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

/popcorn

[Trophy]

I've always wondered why a capitalist somewhere (they're so evil and selfish, I hear) doesn't just hire all these women who are allegedly willing to do the same work as men but for less money, and save a lot of money in the process. This capitalist would surely out-compete all his rivals, who would have to spend more money to get the equivalent amount labour and productivity from men. We are repeatedly told that all capitalists care about is money, so the fact that you don't tend to see this tells me things aren't as straight-forward as we're being told, by feminists, who seem to suggest that discrimination is the sole cause of the disparity in wages.

Are you thick or something? 1) The gender gap is about women already getting paid less while having the same qualifications, so yeah, it's already happening 2) The income gap is not so huge that the company will "save so much money to out-compete all his rivals" and 3) that if a company is more efficient in *one* aspect then it would automatically out-compete its rivals is a capitalist fantasy which doesn't happen in real life.

Where I work - its a combination of ratings, output, individual merit, how you negotiate your remuneration, and how long you've worked there, that determines what you get paid. Most of the women who have shows on the radio station I work at out earn all the men, besides me of course 8-). It would be funny for my other male colleagues, who all get paid less than the female presenters, to demand to be paid the same money as them just because they all also work equivalent daily 4-hour shifts, and point to gender discrimination should their demands not be met. That would simply be ridiculous. There are several other factors, besides the fact that we all essentially are doing that same thing, that impacts our individual market value, and consequently, salary. The wage-gap grievance mill seems not to take such things into consideration, however. I now kind of get why liberals in the US often get called communists :D.

Right. Just because you don't think it happens in your work place does not mean it does not happen anywhere else either.

[DW Adams]

And of course that raging lunatic sociopathic misandrist freak skeptifem has to escalate the whole thing. Way-to-go, skeptifem. Way-to-fucking-go.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-236207

I went there to screenshot, while you were posting this.

http://atheiststoday.com/images/skeptifem_comment.jpg

[DW Adams]

http://atheiststoday.com/images/skeeve_reply.jpg


I doubt it will make it past Moderation.

[CommanderTuvok]

Shermer was "outed" as one of the people on the "blacklist" that Opheliar and co talked about several months ago. The general accusation been that Shermer can be a bit a playa. Shocking. :lol:

If it is true that Shermer and Watson got it on, are we to assume Queen Bee hits on people at conventions, or is it only "skeezy men", who, after the thoughtcrime of finding a member of the opposite sex attractive, are obviously misogynistic potential rapists?

[CommanderTuvok]

I don't think this will last long at The Cesspit that is Opheliar's, so here is what I just posted over there...

Ophelia:

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

There is another guy, not a dude (he's too much of a loser), known to bully and harass by sending threats of violence via email, known among many in the skeptic/atheist community as someone to avoid, but STILL gets invited onto panels and is STILL top buddies with some FTB writers, such as Ophelia.

I think we know who we are talking about...

I just love pointing out double standards.

[Tigzy]

^ :lol: screencapped it, just in case.

[Dilurk]

I don't think this will last long at The Cesspit that is Opheliar's, so here is what I just posted over there...

Ophelia:

Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.

There is another guy, not a dude (he's too much of a loser), known to bully and harass by sending threats of violence via email, known among many in the skeptic/atheist community as someone to avoid, but STILL gets invited onto panels and is STILL top buddies with some FTB writers, such as Ophelia.

I think we know who we are talking about...

Does he threaten people's bosses too?

I just love pointing out double standards.

[Guest]

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca. I think she expected something in return.

Is there any evidence that Shermer and Watson *trigger warning* made the beast with two backs?

It was TAM 5 or 6 I think... and it was general knowledge to attendees-- at least the skepchicks and those who hung around them. There have been other skeptics who "disappear" with Michael Shermer for the night. He's very flirtatious. You notice how he has stayed completely out of elevatorgate... I think Rebecca expected him to take her side because they had been together. Shermer had a wife that came to one TAM-- and kids-- so I was surprised-- but they are either divorced now or have an open relationship. (I think Penn may be in a polyamorous marriage.) Even Rebecca's weird wedding at TAM seemed a sort of an attention grab. I wondered at the time if in her mind this was a dig at Michael Shermer for sleeping with other women as casually as he slept with her. Remie V(Alison from Jref) was rumored to be one of his conquests after Rebecca which probably freaked her out. For all I know, Amy is too-- but I have no knowledge of that-- however her need to have skeptic men support her cause made me wonder.

Rebecca tends to drink a lot at TAM and doesn't (didn't) mind "non-creepy" guys hitting on her. Nothing I've seen looks like harassment-- just adults hooking up at conventions. But I've seen adults who have hooked up (including males) get angry when someone they've hooked up with in the past doesn't seem to treat them special... especially when that person was a bit of a celebrity. I don't know how to prove it... but it was most definitely common knowledge amongst the people who hung out with the skepchicks in the early days and/or appeared in their calendars. You'll notice that many of those people never mention skepchicks any more.

[CommanderTuvok]

Dilurk - you've got him!

[Tigzy]

My guessed Shermer too since he is known to sleep with convention attendees-- including Rebecca. I think she expected something in return.

Is there any evidence that Shermer and Watson *trigger warning* made the beast with two backs?

It was TAM 5 or 6 I think... and it was general knowledge to attendees-- at least the skepchicks and those who hung around them. There have been other skeptics who "disappear" with Michael Shermer for the night. He's very flirtatious. You notice how he has stayed completely out of elevatorgate... I think Rebecca expected him to take her side because they had been together. Shermer had a wife that came to one TAM-- and kids-- so I was surprised-- but they are either divorced now or have an open relationship. (I think Penn may be in a polyamorous marriage.) Even Rebecca's weird wedding at TAM seemed a sort of an attention grab. I wondered at the time if in her mind this was a dig at Michael Shermer for sleeping with other women as casually as he slept with her. Remie V(Alison from Jref) was rumored to be one of his conquests after Rebecca which probably freaked her out. For all I know, Amy is too-- but I have no knowledge of that-- however her need to have skeptic men support her cause made me wonder.

Rebecca tends to drink a lot at TAM and doesn't (didn't) mind "non-creepy" guys hitting on her. Nothing I've seen looks like harassment-- just adults hooking up at conventions. But I've seen adults who have hooked up (including males) get angry when someone they've hooked up with in the past doesn't seem to treat them special... especially when that person was a bit of a celebrity. I don't know how to prove it... but it was most definitely common knowledge amongst the people who hung out with the skepchicks in the early days and/or appeared in their calendars. You'll notice that many of those people never mention skepchicks any more.

Thanks for the response - but to me, it looks to be no more than hearsay and gossip. The same kind of stuff that got the supposed 'upskirt camera' guy into so much unwarranted trouble.

[CommanderTuvok]

I have to say that the hysteria over people hooking up and having sex is very strange coming from a community (atheist, liberal, left, etc. ) that is usually criticised by the Conservative Right for their "open" attitudes on such issues. The Skepchicks and Baboons are acting very Fox News-like on this issue. They should set up their own fucking Puritan community camp and dress up in niqabs.

Of course, Watson would be exempt from such stifling personal restrictions - she would be allowed to continue her usual late-night drinking, flirting with "non creepy" guys (translation: guys who are not ugly, not introverted, not financially poor, etc.), writing lewd terms on men's bodies, and hitting on people. She would even have her own elevator!!!

Fucking troublemakers.

[CommanderTuvok]

Thanks for the response - but to me, it looks to be no more than hearsay and gossip. The same kind of stuff that got the supposed 'upskirt camera' guy into so much unwarranted trouble.

Yes, that would be the INNOCENT "upskirt camera guy". I have a feeling UCG was probably not a part of the clique, not a member of their gang, not handsome and charming enough for them, so obviously he was "creepy" and a sexist pervert, or summat.

Cliques can be very nasty and can dictate narratives for large numbers of people. If you notice, Rebecca is ALWAYS right in the middle of a troublemaking clique.

[Guest]

Shermer is probably the most attractive of the celebrity atheists at these events... at least among the single and heterosexual-- and he has a lot of groupees (male and female)-- He's very cordial and talks to everyone. He will advertise his availability by staring at women just a second too long. It sends the message that if they are interested, he'll talk with them... and I don't know what happens after they start talking-- but I bet he's not the one making the suggestion that they go to his room. I don't think he is doing much seducing-- just advertising his availability to those groupees who might be interested. He sends out a lot of "feelers". I think most women find it flattering-- not creepy. However, if they slept with Shermer and then he treats them like another notch in his belt as he moves on-- it might make them rewrite what happened in their heads. Most women don't want to be just another conquest.

[justinvacula]

GJ, Commander, for calling out Laden.
I am astonished that got past moderation.

When I brought Laden up on Twitter under the #ftbullies thread, people responded to me 'why no rebuke' with 'Oh, he was fired' as if that makes up for speaking engagements and the continued fraternizing.

[Tigzy]

CommanderTuvok - your post has gone. Touched a nerve there, I think. I got a screencap, just in case you didn't get one.

[CommanderTuvok]

Tsk. I think it got a good 20 minutes up there. Presumably Opheliar was having another hissy fit somewhere.

Tigzy, feel free to post that cap.

[CommanderTuvok]

Sili says:
July 29, 2012 at 5:33 pm

This is the first time I’ve heard Shermer mentioned in all of this.

Thank you, jonathanray. Your rumourmongering has now been filed away – however unconsciously – in my mind, and in future I’m likely to always have a bad feeling about Shermer when he comes up in conversation.

Well, there we have it folks - the power of whispers and insinuations without the need to produce evidence. Confirmation that their techniques work fine and dandy.

The Baboon Narrative Department must be so proud...

[Tigzy]

CommanderTuvok's very funny post which was deleted by Ophelia on this thread: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -to-avoid/

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

[Guest]

Thunderfoot linked this video earlier



And I think it's pretty accurate.

If elevator guy had been someone "not creepy"-- Rebecca might well have been flattered by the invitation.
If he exist anyhow.

[Dilurk]

Dilurk - you've got him!

Good job!

[KiwiInOz]

I have to say that the hysteria over people hooking up and having sex is very strange coming from a community (atheist, liberal, left, etc. ) that is usually criticised by the Conservative Right for their "open" attitudes on such issues. The Skepchicks and Baboons are acting very Fox News-like on this issue. They should set up their own fucking Puritan community camp and dress up in niqabs.

Of course, Watson would be exempt from such stifling personal restrictions - she would be allowed to continue her usual late-night drinking, flirting with "non creepy" guys (translation: guys who are not ugly, not introverted, not financially poor, etc.), writing lewd terms on men's bodies, and hitting on people. She would even have her own elevator!!!

Fucking troublemakers.

Obviously all future conferences require the services of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices.