Periodic Table of Swearing

[Rystefn]

My family kept slaves. Fucking everyone did. That's how shit got done. That said, African slavery was more like indentured work. (Well. Sometimes. ^_^)

Everybody is descended from both slaves and slave keepers. There are two reasons for this:

1. Slavery/indenture/vassalage, call it what you like has existed all over the globe since we stopped being hunter-gathers and built permanent settlements (and it still does). For most of recorded history, the only way to produce enough of a food surplus to support a tiny minority of aristocracy/priesthood/merchants was for more than 95% of the population to be engaged in agriculture or related trades as un-free labour.

2. Slave owners fuck slaves.

I can get very irritated indeed when Black Merkin academics -and their lick-spittles - go whittering on about "slavery" as if the African slaves bought by N American land owners in the 18th and 19th centuries are the only slaves there have ever been.

I actually had a fucking textbook in a college-level course that claimed slavery was invented in Virginia in the 1600s. I wish I was making that shit up.

[Eucliwood]

Ahahahahaha. You mean well, Eucli, but in this case we (as in the slymepit) have had a lot of history with JF. He's possibly more A+ then the A+ers. Check our archives.

You're kidding, right? S/h/it's just like Steerzo in wanting everyone to spoon-feed s/h/it.[/quote]
Lsuoma, how the hell is inviting someone to the forum wanting everyone to spoon-feed someone?

OHH... I get it. How dare I ask a question about someone you guys are talking about that I don't even know. Look, I don't know about any archives, and I'm not going to assume there's information set up somewhere with files already on him. I've not heard of him here. And if you have that attitude toward me even asking if someone should invite him here, why even put it in archives? Everyone should stalk the shit out of the person until they have the answers themselves right? No one should ever ask someone who knows them if they suck or not!

I've never behaved like this. If I mention someone from somewhere else X doesn't know, and they ask a simple question about them, I'm not going to go "omg, look it up, you want me to spoon feed you information about someone you've never heard of. It's like facts on subjects - google etttt." I'm just going to answer the god damn question and accept that someone doesn't know who the fuck it is. It's not like I asked them for a god damn profile or biography of them. Fuck you, Lsuoma. You go too far with this "spoon feed" crap. You exaggerate just about any question. Any wondering of information can be twisted into "asking omgeveryone to spoon feed you information."

I didn't ask you, Lsuoma. I know it's a terrible idea, so I will never ask you anything unless it has to do with yourself. So don't worry about it.

[Gumby]

Fuckin' histrionics, how do they work?

[Skep tickle]

Thread on "The dictionary atheist debate" begun today by hyperdeath at a+ forum: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3520

(So I guess "debate" isn't a ban-inducing word there...yet.)

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

[Spence]

Real horrorshow, it appears you are applying different changes to this hypothetical than I did.

Well, what are the parameters of your hypothetical? You mentioned Einstein getting killed by the Nazis and General Relativity. I don't see Einstein, ensconced in the US, as being in much danger. Even if he was killed, he wasn't the only physicist in the world, General Relativity would have been developed anyway. Clue me in.

Not the first time I've seen this, although I've resisted commenting up to now. Einstein's theoretical foundation of general relativity was largely completed by 1915. How would the Nazi's change that? Build a time machine?

[somedumbguy]

Reasonably minor point: the title he chose for these videos, "Why 'Feminism' ..." seems off to me. I hear him addressing "How 'Feminisim"....", not "Why".

I have considered this exact same point and wondered if it was a UK English thing as opposed to a US English thing.

On other issues, I disagree with Thunderf00t in this regard.

I do think it is fair for PZ to close off comments on YouTube. I think it is reasonable for him to say, come to my blog to comment. For PZ, his blog his primary, for Thunderf00t, YouTube is primary.

What I think is unreasonable of most bloggers/youtubers most times is to

a) Then run the designated commenting place as unfairly as PZ does and claim you support speech
b) To ban have a promiscuous, easy ban policy of banning people willy nilly and claim "well they can comment on their own blog, I haven't taken away free speech". No, but you have made it much more difficult, if not impossible for them to be part of a conversation and dialog with your ideas. It's a disingenuous claim to allow a conversation of 97% supporters of your ideas, toss out the dissenters, and claim you are having a conversation, or dialog, and are interested in speech, and that you're not just monloguing.

[Mykeru]

The way twitter works, there's no difference in where you put the @-nick. The end result is the same, and arguing intent changes this is simply incorrect. If you want to mention her by name just don't use the @-nic, and you're golden.

Ok, how about I put two tweets in sequence:

First, the last tweet made by Hensley after I unequivocally told her goodbye:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8355 ... 8a58_o.jpg

And then her next tweet 6 hours later, during which the only thing that happened was her being included in a tweet directed at Laden:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8078/8351 ... 1c08_o.jpg

[Edina Monsoon]

Re "Up Drunk and Personal with Rebecca Watson"

Watson says...

We had talked about that on Skepchick actually because we had found that a blogger was criticizing the way some women were dressed at a conference and I think the point on Skepchick was made that yeah, let's, you know, yeah she didn't dress the way that you feel is appropriate for your job or whatever or for this conference, it's not within your safety zone. But she's expressing herself, she's legal, she's not walking around naked, what's the harm? Let her be. And I think that's a good point. I think that we need to be accepting.

Okie dokie!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _shirt.jpg

[Mr Danksworth]

Oh man! This is an awesome bit on how to counter "check your privilege":

Dc6SLxOPRrs

Thanks for that, Renee. Having been on the receiving end of the 'check your privilege brigade', I can hardly wait to use this technique the next time it pops up.

[EdgePenguin]

Thread on "The dictionary atheist debate" begun today by hyperdeath at a+ forum: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3520

(So I guess "debate" isn't a ban-inducing word there...yet.)

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

He is right about dictionaries; what words mean depend on the understanding of particular speakers and listeners. If a speaker and a listener can't agree what a word means, they just shout at each other. Dictionaries don't often help with that, because they only cover the most general meaning of a word, outside of any context. Dictionary based arguments are the most retarded arguments in existence.

[ReneeHendricks]

Oh man! This is an awesome bit on how to counter "check your privilege":

Dc6SLxOPRrs

Thanks for that, Renee. Having been on the receiving end of the 'check your privilege brigade', I can hardly wait to use this technique the next time it pops up.

You bet. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. I'm amazed more of us haven't thought of *exactly* this when being on the receiving end of that crap.

[dougal445]

This is hilarious!

http://skepchick.org/2013/01/thats-not-bullying/

Can I just 'pull a Greta Christina' and say that there's so much wrong with this I don't have the time to comment?

Pull a PZ and pull a random comment from it without reading the post itself or any of the other comments... and then ascribe everything that commenter said to the writer.

Wow! I hadn't paid skepchick that much attention. Reading the comments this is atheism+ grade crazy. Perhaps as the third corner of the bermuda triangle of skeptism, skepchick should receive the same scrutiny here as FTB? What you guys think?
Sorry i'm way behind, desperatly trying to catch up. Seems you guys are writing quicker than i can read!

[ReneeHendricks]

Thread on "The dictionary atheist debate" begun today by hyperdeath at a+ forum: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3520

(So I guess "debate" isn't a ban-inducing word there...yet.)

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

He is right about dictionaries; what words mean depend on the understanding of particular speakers and listeners. If a speaker and a listener can't agree what a word means, they just shout at each other. Dictionaries don't often help with that, because they only cover the most general meaning of a word, outside of any context. Dictionary based arguments are the most retarded arguments in existence.

And yet, I'll happily continue to be called a "dictionary atheist". Because that's what atheism is - simply a lack of belief in gods. Adding on to that actually changes the basic meaning of the word.

[Steersman]

Julian has flounced -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/0Dkt3.png[/spoiler]

And this... just because it screamed to be screencapped -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/CGiOQ.png[/spoiler]

Would he be a good recruit?

Ahahahahaha. You mean well, Eucli, but in this case we (as in the slymepit) have had a lot of history with JF. He's possibly more A+ then the A+ers. Check our archives.

You're kidding, right? S/h/it's just like Steerzo in wanting everyone to spoon-feed s/h/it.

Fuck off Lymphoma. It’s Jim or Steersman.

And if you hadn’t put your head in the sand – or some other place where the sun don’t shine – by putting me on ignore – you might have noticed that I’m a long way from wanting to be spoon fed. Conventional wisdom and group think – how do they work? Dickhead.

[real horrorshow]

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Predictably, a total failure to check up on, or even think about, an assumption plucked out of the air. The daddy of all dictionaries the OED does not and never has given a shit about "the amount of space available in a printed dictionary". By 1884 it was publishing unbound "fascicles" because it was a work in progress, not completed until 1928 and published in ten volumes. The second edition came out in 1989 in twenty volumes. The third edition will never be printed because it's now gone on-line. Yes, if you want your own paper copy in a reasonably affordable and manageable size, there will be compromises, but the main project has always attempted to be comprehensive. No word is taken out, for example, marked 'obsolete' or 'archaic' maybe, but not removed.

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

My emphasis:

The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective.

If you're ever rushed to hospital for any reason you'd better hope that's not true. It is typical of the po-mo bullshit that SJWs thrive on though. To quote you a joke popular in the common room in my undergrad days:

How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb?
That depends on what you mean by 'lightbulb'.

[real horrorshow]

Real horrorshow, it appears you are applying different changes to this hypothetical than I did.

Well, what are the parameters of your hypothetical? You mentioned Einstein getting killed by the Nazis and General Relativity. I don't see Einstein, ensconced in the US, as being in much danger. Even if he was killed, he wasn't the only physicist in the world, General Relativity would have been developed anyway. Clue me in.

Not the first time I've seen this, although I've resisted commenting up to now. Einstein's theoretical foundation of general relativity was largely completed by 1915. How would the Nazi's change that? Build a time machine?

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/s6vGv.jpg[/spoiler]

[Steersman]

linking one Sacha Wiley-Shaw to the great poster tear-down extravaganza?

I did a search for "sacha" to see if there was a comment directed towards me, so I could respond.

Wiley-Shaw spells it SASHA

it's bad enough we share the same first name.

Sorry about that Chief. I had looked in several places, but couldn’t find anything for certain within the time I had so went with what at least sounded right.

[16bitheretic]

Dictionary atheism is fine with me. All of the social issue stances I hold now (non-discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc) I held while I was a believer. If there turned out to be a god of some kind that revealed itself I wouldn't suddenly change my mind on whether we should allow all people in society equal rights.

As a dictionary atheist I feel I can tell someone what I am and they'll have a general idea that I don't buy into their god/gods. But if this Atheism+ shit redefines words to mean atheism has some built in dogma then the very idea of atheism becomes as pointless as feminism. I once called myself feminist because only backwards assholes believe in subjugation and oppression of women and I sincerely believed that anybody who believed women were equal to men were feminists by default. Once I actually started to pay attention to feminism, and specifically the feminists at the usual places mocked freely here, I began to realize that the word feminist was redefined from what I originally thought it was. I used to think feminism was simply equality and respect for women (perhaps at one time in history it was that), but when I read and listen to these modern feminist speakers and writers and am amazed at the nebulous social pseudo-science bullshit, the conspiracy theories, the professional victimhood for page hits and money and the desire to stamp out all opinions they don't like, I am reminded of the mindset I saw all too often in my religious days.

[Steersman]

BTW, Mykeru, I did warn everybody that Steersboy is a "Baboon piece of shit" as soon as he arrived. Actually, he has improved a bit since then, but the Baboonitis occasionally nips at him.

Ah, there’s Cabin-Boy Toothless Fuck acting like a dickhead again. A charge of “Baboonitis” is really rich coming from the guy who flung the turd that Lousy Canuck was homophobic because he happened to make some mildly off-colour comment that D.J. Grothe (I think) wasn’t much interested in women’s vaginas.

Comrade Myers would be proud of you; take a bow.

He's BACK!!! I follow the Blackford/Vacula POV regarding Canuck. Thanks anyway.

:whistle:

And if none of you have any more evidence - you know, the stuff that is supposed to differentiate "us" from "them" [creationists, baboons, etc.] - than that - and I've asked and none has been forthcoming - then you can all take a bow. If the foo shits ....

[ReneeHendricks]

Dictionary atheism is fine with me. All of the social issue stances I hold now (non-discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc) I held while I was a believer. If there turned out to be a god of some kind that revealed itself I wouldn't suddenly change my mind on whether we should allow all people in society equal rights.

As a dictionary atheist I feel I can tell someone what I am and they'll have a general idea that I don't buy into their god/gods. But if this Atheism+ shit redefines words to mean atheism has some built in dogma then the very idea of atheism becomes as pointless as feminism. I once called myself feminist because only backwards assholes believe in subjugation and oppression of women and I sincerely believed that anybody who believed women were equal to men were feminists by default. Once I actually started to pay attention to feminism, and specifically the feminists at the usual places mocked freely here, I began to realize that the word feminist was redefined from what I originally thought it was. I used to think feminism was simply equality and respect for women (perhaps at one time in history it was that), but when I read and listen to these modern feminist speakers and writers and am amazed at the nebulous social pseudo-science bullshit, the conspiracy theories, the professional victimhood for page hits and money and the desire to stamp out all opinions they don't like, I am reminded of the mindset I saw all too often in my religious days.

Brilliantly stated and I completely agree.

[mordacious1]

Can I just to say what a pleasure it is to witness the slow, lingering death of Atheism+.

It's already dead and it's nice that the body is still hanging upside down at the Esso station at the Piazzale Loreto for all to see.

[Mykeru]

News Flash:

On a trip to Russia, the Skepchick bus crashes

[Skep tickle]

Dictionary atheism is fine with me. All of the social issue stances I hold now (non-discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc) I held while I was a believer. If there turned out to be a god of some kind that revealed itself I wouldn't suddenly change my mind on whether we should allow all people in society equal rights.

As a dictionary atheist I feel I can tell someone what I am and they'll have a general idea that I don't buy into their god/gods. But if this Atheism+ shit redefines words to mean atheism has some built in dogma then the very idea of atheism becomes as pointless as feminism. I once called myself feminist because only backwards assholes believe in subjugation and oppression of women and I sincerely believed that anybody who believed women were equal to men were feminists by default. Once I actually started to pay attention to feminism, and specifically the feminists at the usual places mocked freely here, I began to realize that the word feminist was redefined from what I originally thought it was. I used to think feminism was simply equality and respect for women (perhaps at one time in history it was that), but when I read and listen to these modern feminist speakers and writers and am amazed at the nebulous social pseudo-science bullshit, the conspiracy theories, the professional victimhood for page hits and money and the desire to stamp out all opinions they don't like, I am reminded of the mindset I saw all too often in my religious days.

Not only from what you thought it was, but also from what most dictionaries give as their definition of "feminism". It's commonly given as:
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

That's part of the minefield. PZ, for example, calls his detractors MRAs and "anti-feminists" (presumably with a straight face) when they disagree with how "feminism" is being used/understood/applied (differently than the dictionary definition), while claiming that his use of feminism is the same as the dictionary definition.

[Lsuoma]

Julian has flounced -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/0Dkt3.png[/spoiler]

And this... just because it screamed to be screencapped -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/CGiOQ.png[/spoiler]

Would he be a good recruit?

Ahahahahaha. You mean well, Eucli, but in this case we (as in the slymepit) have had a lot of history with JF. He's possibly more A+ then the A+ers. Check our archives.

You're kidding, right? S/h/it's just like Steerzo in wanting everyone to spoon-feed s/h/it.

Fuck off Lymphoma. It’s Jim or Steersman.

And if you hadn’t put your head in the sand – or some other place where the sun don’t shine – by putting me on ignore – you might have noticed that I’m a long way from wanting to be spoon fed. Conventional wisdom and group think – how do they work? Dickhead.

Roger that, Steerzo. Cunt.

[AnimalAndy]

Oh man! This is an awesome bit on how to counter "check your privilege":

[youtube]Dc6SLxOPRrs[/youtube]

Thank you for this. Sometimes it just needs someone to point out the obvious. I always felt "check your privilege" was a bad rhetorical device, but now I know which. Dammit, I should have figured that one out myself.

[drolrev0]

Any Anal Cunt fans here?........*crickets*..........oh, right.

I spent all my money on drugs, and couldn't afford to fly. I took a greyhound bus and your brat sat next to me. It wouldn't shut up... so I lit it on fire. For 30 seconds it was louder, and then it shut up. :goatse:

[Michael K Gray]

Does the Slymepit maintain a Lexicon of Atheism+ newspeak? Reading some of their car-crash threads I've noticed they've defined "doubling down" as "Not immediately kowtowing to the judgement of the resident powers"

A bit long in the tooth, but how about this for a start?
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 73&p=20576
Subsequent additions/alterations appear later.

[Michael K Gray]

Does the Slymepit maintain a Lexicon of Atheism+ newspeak? Reading some of their car-crash threads I've noticed they've defined "doubling down" as "Not immediately kowtowing to the judgement of the resident powers"

A bit long in the tooth, but how about this for a start?
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 73&p=20576
Subsequent additions/alterations appear later.

And a FAR more extensive list here:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... els#p23348

[Jan Steen]

Can I just to say what a pleasure it is to witness the slow, lingering death of Atheism+.

Since we all predicted this well in advance, do we get Randi's prize? How will we split it up?

Some pharyngulites, such as commenter Rorschach, are still flogging the dead horse and even believe that it can win the derby:

Why can’t we just resolve this???

In my view we are resolving it. People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward. “Resolving it” to me means getting rid of those who think ankle-gnawing and being sexists is a right or a free speech issue.

It's hilarious that s/h/it even uses the maoist expression 'leaps forward'. Pro tip: When standing on the edge of an abyss it is not a good idea to make a leap forwards.

See also http://i.imgur.com/TJ7F4.jpg.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-526590

[Steersman]

@Steersman
...
And why you're trying to forge some equivalence between Mykeru going, 'Hey, that's Sasha Wiley, well known for etc. etc.' in his vid, and Greg Laden attempting to dox Mykeru by giving out what he thought was his home address, is beyond me. If I recall correctly, no one here has attempted to post the address of this cretinous harpy. All that's known about her is what is readily available from a good number of blogs and news reports.

Sort of a thought experiment trying to decide whether Mykeru is being hypocritical or not – which has some relevance, I think, in deciding whether he’s a credible leader or shaper of public opinion and values, or not. It also has a great many ramifications as indicated in Michael Nugent’s post, on which Noelplum happens to have some cogent observations. But interesting article here on cyberbullying which is apparently criminalized in at least some States:

Common tactics used by cyberstalkers are performed in public forums, social media or online information sites and are intended to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. ….

Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send e-mails or text messages harassing someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. It may also include public actions such as repeated threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech) or defamatory false accusations), ganging up on a victim by making the person the subject of ridicule in online forums, hacking into or vandalizing sites about a person, and posting false statements as fact aimed a discrediting or humiliating a targeted person. ….

Cyberbullies may disclose victims' personal data (e.g. real name, home address, or workplace/schools) at websites or forums or may use impersonation, creating fake accounts, comments or sites posing as their target for the purpose of publishing material in their name that defames, discredits or ridicules them.

While I’m certainly not a lawyer, my impression is that “disclosing victim’s personal data” could cover a lot of ground which might well encompass doing so in any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission. Which would then, methinks, cover virtually all cases I’ve discussed: Amy, Brownian, Laden, Melody, Mykeru, Sasha, U of T protesters, Zvan, etc., etc., etc. But maybe you’re an international lawyer yourself and would be prepared to provide – pro bono – a detailed and authoritative judgement on the matter.

However, considering that people on both sides have, apparently, been both victims and victimizers, one might be forgiven for thinking that the pot is as black as the kettle and that the sanest response is to say, “a pox on both your houses”.

Tigzy wrote:

Steersman wrote:
[spoiler]Mykeru wrote:Also, you're a dick.

Actually, FWIW, it’s Jim.

Please, please don't tell me you're Noelplum. Lie to me if you have to.

:lol:
Well, you see I had wanted to comment here on this site as I had heard bad werdz about it, but didn’t want my fame to colour the responses so I thought to use this pseudonym that I had had floating about ….[/spoiler]
No, not really. Although I’m greatly flattered that you would apparently think there were similarities other than the first name.

'Apparently' is the operative word here, Jim.

Seems rather a large leap to be taking then simply on the basis of a name, particularly since it is rather a common one.

[16bitheretic]

A+ continues to "leap forward"?

Their so-called leaders have all but abandoned the community, with the only support seeming to come from PZ and Greta posting the A+ logo on their blogs. The forum itself is down to about 90% of the posts being made by maybe 10-15 people and the subreddit's actual posting activity is miniscule, with any cross-posted content referring to or approved by the fascist A+ moderators not even getting more than 1 or 2 upvotes on the larger /r/atheism platform. A+ is on it's final legs, though certain FTBloggers and Skepchick are popular enough to continue to take up the slack for our comedic enjoyment since I predict the A+ website won't exist after their first year of hosting ends (since most internet hosts offer yearly deals, that's probably what the admins paid for), which should be around what, August or September?

[HoneyWagon]

Ed Clint on Skeptically Yours rights now
http://www.youtube.com/user/ArdentAthei ... 5BirhVIjoA

[Gumby]

People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward.

Have you actually read the A+ Communications Central, Rorschach?

[youtube]Gq_bjaI0NTo[/youtube]

Yep! Leaping forward!

[Al Stefanelli]

People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward.

[youtube]esxBWMyjrJ4[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

While I’m certainly not a lawyer, my impression is that “disclosing victim’s personal data” could cover a lot of ground which might well encompass doing so in any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission. Which would then, methinks, cover virtually all cases I’ve discussed: Amy, Brownian, Laden, Melody, Mykeru, Sasha, U of T protesters, Zvan, etc., etc., etc. But maybe you’re an international lawyer yourself and would be prepared to provide – pro bono – a detailed and authoritative judgement on the matter.

[youtube]aPQ9TE78aXo[/youtube]

Skip to 14:15 for "disclosure of personal information".

[Al Stefanelli]

http://wcoa.info/caine.jpg

:eusa-liar:

[lurktard]

Oh god, are you serious? They seriously sit there in the thread moaning about "underprivilege" and "privilege" as if that means that they're wrong. How dare someone even consider that it's a split in half thing! THAT BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ROAD. HOLYSHIT. THAT'S VICTIM BLAMING! BLAMING PEDESTRIANS! NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT A PEDESTRIAN IS AT FAULT... BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AREN'T IN A CAR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO END UP MEATPILES!

Splitting responsibility in half is wrong. Car drivers carry a huge amount of the responsibility compared to pedestrians. And I can explain without invoking patriarchy or privilege. Only premise to accept: Everybody is responsible for the damage he causes.

In case of traffic accidents it's physical damage to objects. Physical objects are damaged by "throwing" energy at them. And here is the amount of energy (E) each traffic participant (good old Newtonian mechanics): E=1/2*m*v²

The mass (m) of the car is at least 10 times that of a pedestrian, and if the driver has only twice the speed (v) as the pedestrian, he'd already be driving very slowly by car standards. These very low example numbers mean, the car driver is in control of 40 times more energy than the pedestrian. And it is exactly THAT energy, that does the actual physical damage. Nothing else is able to cause the damage. You have to look at, who is in control of what amount of energy.

Moving speed is the key. Bumping into a standing pedestrian is exactly as avoidable as driving into a tree. Nobody would give fault to the tree. Moving pedestrians change the game, but only slightly. And physics still apply: Actual damage is caused by kinetic energy. And the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian is really low in comparison to driving car.

[ReneeHendricks]

http://wcoa.info/caine.jpg

:eusa-liar:

Funny. I've just been tweeting about this whole rape threat thing.

I've been on the 'net since around 1990. Early on I had my own web site when they first became "fashionable" (and doable) and started blogging way before a lot of these women were even remotely aware of the Internet. I've posted on thousands of forums, used dozens upon dozens of different social media outlets and in all this time, I've not received 1 single rape threat.

I'm not particularly nice and have engaged some serious theist assholes. The worst I've ever received? "You're a shitty mother" or "You're a bitch". Yeah. Still no rape threat. And I wouldn't even call these comments harassment. I block/ban/wtf-ever and move on.

[Oneiros666]

Latest awesome video from Tf00t:

[youtube]ApozFPboUAQ[/youtube]

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

http://wcoa.info/caine.jpg

:eusa-liar:

Their e-meters were picking up on the rape threats that you were thinking at them.

A+ continues to "leap forward"?

Their so-called leaders have all but abandoned the community, with the only support seeming to come from PZ and Greta posting the A+ logo on their blogs. The forum itself is down to about 90% of the posts being made by maybe 10-15 people and the subreddit's actual posting activity is miniscule, with any cross-posted content referring to or approved by the fascist A+ moderators not even getting more than 1 or 2 upvotes on the larger /r/atheism platform. A+ is on it's final legs, though certain FTBloggers and Skepchick are popular enough to continue to take up the slack for our comedic enjoyment since I predict the A+ website won't exist after their first year of hosting ends (since most internet hosts offer yearly deals, that's probably what the admins paid for), which should be around what, August or September?

There is nothing wrong with the Atheism Plus; it's condition is improving every day. Any reports of it's lack of effectiveness are
totally unfounded, and the result of delusional "spin" assaults from the fanatic, elitist, liberal media. Atheism Plus has served honorably,
and anything you say undermines the enlightening effect and hurts its ego. Why do you hate freedom?

People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward.

Atheism plus isn't sinking. It's soaring, just like the Hindenburg!

[codelette]

While I’m certainly not a lawyer, my impression is that “disclosing victim’s personal data” could cover a lot of ground which might well encompass doing so in any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission. Which would then, methinks, cover virtually all cases I’ve discussed: Amy, Brownian, Laden, Melody, Mykeru, Sasha, U of T protesters, Zvan, etc., etc., etc. But maybe you’re an international lawyer yourself and would be prepared to provide – pro bono – a detailed and authoritative judgement on the matter.

[youtube]aPQ9TE78aXo[/youtube]

Skip to 14:15 for "disclosure of personal information".

I"m gonna disclose some personal data about that Lloyd Thrasher dude...

Thrasher, who became notorious last year after being convicted of brutally stabbing and killing a dog he stole from a parked car, represented himself during proceedings in territorial court last week.

http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2 ... 12crt.html

[Al Stefanelli]

I'll just drop this off, here:

http://wcoa.info/gervaiscunt.jpg

[Al Stefanelli]

Shameless promotion of my latest video...

"All Believers Are Not Equal"

[youtube]fzQ7SP_VdPs[/youtube]

[Mark Neil]

@Steersman
...
And why you're trying to forge some equivalence between Mykeru going, 'Hey, that's Sasha Wiley, well known for etc. etc.' in his vid, and Greg Laden attempting to dox Mykeru by giving out what he thought was his home address, is beyond me. If I recall correctly, no one here has attempted to post the address of this cretinous harpy. All that's known about her is what is readily available from a good number of blogs and news reports.

Sort of a thought experiment trying to decide whether Mykeru is being hypocritical or not – which has some relevance, I think, in deciding whether he’s a credible leader or shaper of public opinion and values, or not. It also has a great many ramifications as indicated in Michael Nugent’s post, on which Noelplum happens to have some cogent observations. But interesting article here on cyberbullying which is apparently criminalized in at least some States:

Had you not attempted to rationalize Melody's "you know about the government, don't you" comment and defend her position, reading her posts charitably and Myeru's posts harshly, this assertion might have flown. But you did. There was no need to for this thought experiment, as whether Melody was guilty of a threat or not plays no bearing on Mykeru's actions, but you did it anyways. And in doing so, you went from a thought experiment to adversarial.

While I’m certainly not a lawyer, my impression is that “disclosing victim’s personal data” could cover a lot of ground which might well encompass doing so in any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission. Which would then, methinks, cover virtually all cases I’ve discussed: Amy, Brownian, Laden, Melody, Mykeru, Sasha, U of T protesters, Zvan, etc., etc., etc. But maybe you’re an international lawyer yourself and would be prepared to provide – pro bono – a detailed and authoritative judgement on the matter.

Except Mykeru didn't disclose the information, it was disclosed in a news clip with CBG's permission (I'd even argue to her elation). He may have pointed to two video's and said, hey look, same likeness, same actions same politics, same city, same person. But none of the information provided was hidden from view, it was all there, in video footage, for all to see. CBG's name, politics and actions are a matter of public information, by HER choice. What was provided by Mykeru was made available by HER choice.

It's also telling that you would refer to her as a "victim" of cyberbullying and harrassment (terms used by them to garner sympothy moreso than to actually describe their interactions) for showing newsclips she herself provided the information for to the news agencies.

However, considering that people on both sides have, apparently, been both victims and victimizers, one might be forgiven for thinking that the pot is as black as the kettle and that the sanest response is to say, “a pox on both your houses”.

As pointed out, the attempt to make an equivalence between showing video clips that have the same likeness committing similar acts based on the same politics in the same area, where one or more of the clips show her identifying herself.... and finding someones name through a business transaction, somehow learning which human of that name is associated with the moniker being targeted, finding their personal information (address, employment, etc), and threatening them based on that information... the attempt to make these equivalent in order to call both sides black is dishonest, to say the least. And clearly demonstrates a bias.

[welch]

I'll just drop this off, here:

http://wcoa.info/gervaiscunt.jpg

So now is it bad when he does it?

Or is it just a personal choice, and as long as he's consistent, carry on.

[16bitheretic]

[
There is nothing wrong with the Atheism Plus; it's condition is improving every day. Any reports of it's lack of effectiveness are
totally unfounded, and the result of delusional "spin" assaults from the fanatic, elitist, liberal media. Atheism Plus has served honorably,
and anything you say undermines the enlightening effect and hurts its ego. Why do you hate freedom?

Atheism plus isn't sinking. It's soaring, just like the Hindenburg!

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

[HoneyWagon]

I'll just drop this off, here:

http://wcoa.info/gervaiscunt.jpg

So now is it bad when he does it?

Or is it just a personal choice, and as long as he's consistent, carry on.

What I take from this is RG does not react to trolls (unless it will entertain him of course)

[Gumby]

I've been on the 'net since around 1990. Early on I had my own web site when they first became "fashionable" (and doable) and started blogging way before a lot of these women were even remotely aware of the Internet. I've posted on thousands of forums, used dozens upon dozens of different social media outlets and in all this time, I've not received 1 single rape threat.

I'm not particularly nice and have engaged some serious theist assholes. The worst I've ever received? "You're a shitty mother" or "You're a bitch". Yeah. Still no rape threat. And I wouldn't even call these comments harassment. I block/ban/wtf-ever and move on.

Well yeah, what did you expect? Caine and the rest are lying out of their asses in order to demonize those who call them out on their horseshit. They know it, we know it, they know we know it. Yet they persist in their libelous ways, because they have nothing else. Spreading this lie of all these "rape threats" also allows them to look like brave heroes, fighting against the odds in the face of horrible danger. Caine et. al. are about the worst filth on the internet.

[Eucliwood]

I certainly make no apologies for pretty much outright hating the majority of the wealthy.

I have to deal with the fact that I have pretty much no future, that I will never likely be self-sufficient, that I will ALWAYS be at their mercy, and that this is intentional, that they design it this way. The rules are set up so they're allowed to cheat and I'm not, and they tell us that it's fair and right this way... But oh no my hatred for them hurts their poor widdle feefees and that's just as bad?

Fuck each and every one of them. They make me wish Hell actually existed.

I make no apologies for hating them.

Wow, fuck each and every one of the wealthy people just because they have a big advantage over you? Um, not right. I would hate to be wealthy and have people automatically hate me just because of what I CAN do. Hellfuckinglo, I'm an individual person too! I'm more than my money! judge me by my individual character, not what others with the same amount of money as me do! What a hateful bastard. Seriously. "I hate you because my life is shitty and you have all this shit and all these advantages and all these things you can do!"


The comment about them making him wish Hell actually existed is sick. It's very sick and inexcusable. It's sick when religious folks start talking about hell and hint or say that you're going there, and haha, they aren't, and it's fucking sick for someone who isn't religious to say something like that. That's some intense hate there. He's just a shitty person. He reminds me of those people I saw talking about suicides committed by rich people - how they don't give a fuck and how it's just one less rich brat on this earth - that they suicided because they were too spoiled and bratty. Sickening. I wouldn't put it above him to say something like that, either. Even if he doesn't, he's as sickening for the things he *does* say.

Well, I guess that's one thing to be glad about in terms of not being wealthy - I don't have disgusting people who wish Hell existed for me. (haha... NON-WEALTHY PRIVILEGE? Just trollin'. Don't throw tomatoes at me.) That's no more shitty than blacks back in the day hating whites just because of the huge amount of advantage they had with them - hello... you hate those that indulge in the behavior they are allowed to do, not all whites for having it.


God, I can't believe I was friends with this douche. I think I need to cleanse myself or something. I'd ring him up later if he changed... but atm, he's just a shitty hateful person.

[Rystefn]

Oh god, are you serious? They seriously sit there in the thread moaning about "underprivilege" and "privilege" as if that means that they're wrong. How dare someone even consider that it's a split in half thing! THAT BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ROAD. HOLYSHIT. THAT'S VICTIM BLAMING! BLAMING PEDESTRIANS! NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT A PEDESTRIAN IS AT FAULT... BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AREN'T IN A CAR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO END UP MEATPILES!

Splitting responsibility in half is wrong. Car drivers carry a huge amount of the responsibility compared to pedestrians. And I can explain without invoking patriarchy or privilege. Only premise to accept: Everybody is responsible for the damage he causes.

In case of traffic accidents it's physical damage to objects. Physical objects are damaged by "throwing" energy at them. And here is the amount of energy (E) each traffic participant (good old Newtonian mechanics): E=1/2*m*v²

The mass (m) of the car is at least 10 times that of a pedestrian, and if the driver has only twice the speed (v) as the pedestrian, he'd already be driving very slowly by car standards. These very low example numbers mean, the car driver is in control of 40 times more energy than the pedestrian. And it is exactly THAT energy, that does the actual physical damage. Nothing else is able to cause the damage. You have to look at, who is in control of what amount of energy.

Moving speed is the key. Bumping into a standing pedestrian is exactly as avoidable as driving into a tree. Nobody would give fault to the tree. Moving pedestrians change the game, but only slightly. And physics still apply: Actual damage is caused by kinetic energy. And the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian is really low in comparison to driving car.

Bullshit. Pedestrian walks into the fucking street without looking, the pedestrian is responsible for the damage the car does, not the driver.

[Al Stefanelli]

Oh god, are you serious? They seriously sit there in the thread moaning about "underprivilege" and "privilege" as if that means that they're wrong. How dare someone even consider that it's a split in half thing! THAT BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ROAD. HOLYSHIT. THAT'S VICTIM BLAMING! BLAMING PEDESTRIANS! NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT A PEDESTRIAN IS AT FAULT... BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AREN'T IN A CAR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO END UP MEATPILES!

Splitting responsibility in half is wrong. Car drivers carry a huge amount of the responsibility compared to pedestrians. And I can explain without invoking patriarchy or privilege. Only premise to accept: Everybody is responsible for the damage he causes.

In case of traffic accidents it's physical damage to objects. Physical objects are damaged by "throwing" energy at them. And here is the amount of energy (E) each traffic participant (good old Newtonian mechanics): E=1/2*m*v²

The mass (m) of the car is at least 10 times that of a pedestrian, and if the driver has only twice the speed (v) as the pedestrian, he'd already be driving very slowly by car standards. These very low example numbers mean, the car driver is in control of 40 times more energy than the pedestrian. And it is exactly THAT energy, that does the actual physical damage. Nothing else is able to cause the damage. You have to look at, who is in control of what amount of energy.

Moving speed is the key. Bumping into a standing pedestrian is exactly as avoidable as driving into a tree. Nobody would give fault to the tree. Moving pedestrians change the game, but only slightly. And physics still apply: Actual damage is caused by kinetic energy. And the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian is really low in comparison to driving car.

Bullshit. Pedestrian walks into the fucking street without looking, the pedestrian is responsible for the damage the car does, not the driver.

As well, the pedestrian is also responsible for the damage to the vehicle...

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

Funny. I've just been tweeting about this whole rape threat thing.

I've been on the 'net since around 1990. Early on I had my own web site when they first became "fashionable" (and doable) and started blogging way before a lot of these women were even remotely aware of the Internet. I've posted on thousands of forums, used dozens upon dozens of different social media outlets and in all this time, I've not received 1 single rape threat.

I'm not particularly nice and have engaged some serious theist assholes. The worst I've ever received? "You're a shitty mother" or "You're a bitch". Yeah. Still no rape threat. And I wouldn't even call these comments harassment. I block/ban/wtf-ever and move on.

I will kidnap you in the night and do terrible, terrible, things to you, Renee. There. Do you feel sufficiently threatened now?

[Eucliwood]

Well yeah, what did you expect? Caine and the rest are lying out of their asses in order to demonize those who call them out on their horseshit. They know it, we know it, they know we know it. Yet they persist in their libelous ways, because they have nothing else. Spreading this lie of all these "rape threats" also allows them to look like brave heroes, fighting against the odds in the face of horrible danger. Caine et. al. are about the worst filth on the internet.

LOL, are they claiming that there's a universal rape threat issue all across the net? I would love to poll that shit. Just plain poll. Don't even mention A+ or FtB or what it's for. Just a question, "Have you ever received a rape threat? If so, how often do you receive rape threats?" And take % confirming/% polled.

[Tigzy]

@Steersman

Yeah, pretty much what Mark Neil said.

Seems rather a large leap to be taking then simply on the basis of a name, particularly since it is rather a common one.

Actually, Mr Logic pedant pain in the arse, 'Jim' is actually a short form for the name 'James', and not in of itself a name as such. Be it common or otherwise.

[Rystefn]

Bullshit. Pedestrian walks into the fucking street without looking, the pedestrian is responsible for the damage the car does, not the driver.

As well, the pedestrian is also responsible for the damage to the vehicle...

True. That damage is sometimes significant, too.

[Steersman]

While I’m certainly not a lawyer, my impression is that “disclosing victim’s personal data” could cover a lot of ground which might well encompass doing so in any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission. Which would then, methinks, cover virtually all cases I’ve discussed: Amy, Brownian, Laden, Melody, Mykeru, Sasha, U of T protesters, Zvan, etc., etc., etc. But maybe you’re an international lawyer yourself and would be prepared to provide – pro bono – a detailed and authoritative judgement on the matter.

(youtube:aPQ9TE78aXo)

Skip to 14:15 for "disclosure of personal information".

I did say “any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission”. Sasha Wiley-Shaw provided that in the context of the June incident and in the above video, but, as far as I know, not the September poster incident. Brownian provided his in the context of, I think, Atheist Nexus, but not in the one of posting on Pharyngula. The U of T protesters in, presumably, other locations, but not in that of the protest itself. And, finally, your own statement of your own name in the tweets I’ve referred to earlier, but not in the context of your tweets with Melody.

Maybe you can argue that if one’s name is released in one public venue then anybody can use it another public one. Which then seems to cover Melody’s use of your name in her tweets. But if you wish to insist on a more narrow and specific definition of venue – which might have some justification as there is no guarantee that you actually got the same Sasha, or codellete got the same “Lloyd Thrasher”, there being a potentially problematic case of mistaken identity, an example of which I think Al referred to here not long ago – then your linking of Sasha’s name with the woman in that poster incident is likewise not really cricket.

Really looks to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe that principle is not quite as sharp as Occam’s razor, but one has to start somewhere.

[Mykeru]

As pointed out, the attempt to make an equivalence between showing video clips that have the same likeness committing similar acts based on the same politics in the same area, where one or more of the clips show her identifying herself.... and finding someones name through a business transaction, somehow learning which human of that name is associated with the moniker being targeted, finding their personal information (address, employment, etc), and threatening them based on that information... the attempt to make these equivalent in order to call both sides black is dishonest, to say the least. And clearly demonstrates a bias.

Mark, while I appreciate your defense, I think you are missing the larger point. My failing was in doing. We have a lot of people here who are bloggers and YouTubers, activists and generally engaged in the issues being discussed. By doing one automatically opens oneself up to criticism, even making mistakes.

Steersman is like the God with no moving parts. As any action on his part would cause him to move away from his resting state of pure perfection, he exists in a state of perfect apathy, only rousing himself to perform the thankless task of, on an ad hoc basis, pointing out what others should have done (ignoring the inherent corruption of doing) had they the benefit of his of his enlightened inertia.

Steersman is not just a Slymepit adversary, he is not just one who knows all, he is He Who Sleeps, who exists in a state of eternal potential energy.

I think it would behoove ourselves to take a good long hard look at ourselves, provide it doesn't take too much effort, and dedicate ourselves to the task of giving up the tyranny of doing and form ourselves in a circle, puffing on our pipes, and fiddling with our tillers so we all sail in a perfect circle that goes absolutely no where.

And then point out how everyone else is doing it wrong.

[justinvacula]

A little research turned up this...

[Up drunk and personal Watson video

I made a video response - something which I should have made some time ago...perhaps this one was also inspired by Mykeru!

[youtube]VHIBHfV6iJo[/youtube]

[ReneeHendricks]

Funny. I've just been tweeting about this whole rape threat thing.

I've been on the 'net since around 1990. Early on I had my own web site when they first became "fashionable" (and doable) and started blogging way before a lot of these women were even remotely aware of the Internet. I've posted on thousands of forums, used dozens upon dozens of different social media outlets and in all this time, I've not received 1 single rape threat.

I'm not particularly nice and have engaged some serious theist assholes. The worst I've ever received? "You're a shitty mother" or "You're a bitch". Yeah. Still no rape threat. And I wouldn't even call these comments harassment. I block/ban/wtf-ever and move on.

I will kidnap you in the night and do terrible, terrible, things to you, Renee. There. Do you feel sufficiently threatened now?

Actually, kinda turned on (oooo - lurkers have fun with *that* one).

[Eucliwood]

And then point out how everyone else is doing it wrong.

Me practicing my general demonization (does not indicate that FtB does this brand): Mykeru, it is so insulting of you, in that last post, to switch into TALKING ABOUT STEERSMAN AS IF HES NOT THERE. EHMAGAWD. That's dehumanizing of you.

Reply: Aw, don't say he's an adversary... he's our little devil's advocate. If you can get him to retract a statement, you get a MovingtheStubborn medal from me.