Periodic Table of Swearing

[HoneyWagon]

[spoiler]Ape+Lust's remark about the dreaful sense of humor of the FTB crowd got me thinking about whether any good joke has come out of their side in the past year and a half.
I mean, people here aren't perfect. Someone on this side must have said or done something silly or hypocritical within that time that could be mocked the way we joke about their carry on.
The closest I could think of is the recent cartoon by Jesus and Mo (Hi Author ;) ) where he pokes fun at Justin Vacula's line about needlework being a girl thing.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2012-12-26.png[/spoiler]

Naturally Ophelia is there in the comments, policing them for correctness.
The thing is, I'm not sure if this joke isn't on two levels.
First, obviously, he pokes fun at Justin Vacula's clumsy remark about needlework.

Second, Ophelia clearly thinks he's making fun of Shermer at the same time.
On this one, however, I think the joke is on her.
Unlike Justin, Shermer used the word "mostly" to indicate that he wasn't talking in exclusive terms - just in terms of percentages.
Yet the joke requires the initial speaker (who was apparently Mo) to NOT say "mostly" - otherwise the whole setup doesn't work. Bringing in the addition of "mostly" and "some" provides the punchline.

Author, if you are reading, were you making fun of Ophelia?
:D

Doesn't Ophelia claims that she friends with the author?
She claims the Barmaid is based on her as well.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... nd-mo-six/
I don't know either way.
I still like the comic even if Ophelia likes it too.

[Dick Strawkins]

Ape+Lust's remark about the dreaful sense of humor of the FTB crowd got me thinking about whether any good joke has come out of their side in the past year and a half.
I mean, people here aren't perfect. Someone on this side must have said or done something silly or hypocritical within that time that could be mocked the way we joke about their carry on.
The closest I could think of is the recent cartoon by Jesus and Mo (Hi Author ;) ) where he pokes fun at Justin Vacula's line about needlework being a girl thing.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2012-12-26.png

Naturally Ophelia is there in the comments, policing them for correctness.
The thing is, I'm not sure if this joke isn't on two levels.
First, obviously, he pokes fun at Justin Vacula's clumsy remark about needlework.

Second, Ophelia clearly thinks he's making fun of Shermer at the same time.
On this one, however, I think the joke is on her.
Unlike Justin, Shermer used the word "mostly" to indicate that he wasn't talking in exclusive terms - just in terms of percentages.
Yet the joke requires the initial speaker (who was apparently Mo) to NOT say "mostly" - otherwise the whole setup doesn't work. Bringing in the addition of "mostly" and "some" provides the punchline.

Author, if you are reading, were you making fun of Ophelia?
:D

Doesn't Ophelia claims that she friends with the author?
She claims the Barmaid is based on her as well.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... nd-mo-six/
I don't know either way.
I still like the comic even if Ophelia likes it too.

I think they are friends.
Author has kept out of the atheist schism business for the most part, after his cartoon making fun of PZ caused a shitstorm with Ophelia.
She really does believe she is the barmaid in the cartoon and having the barmaid not follow the correct feminist path (a gender traitor!) nearly caused her to blow her top.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2011-07-27.png
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/07/27/girls/

[Mykeru]

I think one of the important things to understand about the A+/FTB/SCK/CFI contingent is that they are mostly hipsters and, as we know, hipsters suck.

So, I will just leave this here:

http://www.korsgaardscommentary.com/wp- ... pster1.png

[Ape+lust]

Ape+Lust's remark about the dreaful sense of humor of the FTB crowd got me thinking about whether any good joke has come out of their side in the past year and a half.
I mean, people here aren't perfect. Someone on this side must have said or done something silly or hypocritical within that time that could be mocked the way we joke about their carry on...

I think it's like expecting humor out of the Soviet Union. When you're grim, repressed, and obsessive, you'll see crimes where others see absurdities. That stupid Intent is Not Magic incantation they love explains a lot about their attitudes -- they're waiting on the millions of backlogged apologies the world owes them.

[AnonymousCowherd]

The shoe affair reminds me of a well-know anecdote from the Bible:

The tactics to defend the indefensible haven’t changed. Slander your critics and question their motives (Call Judas a betrayer and a thief and then pretend that this renders his objection invalid. A pure ad hominem argument.) and throw in some special pleading.

But not if the real game plan is otherwise (cue Borges):

God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that the sacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous. To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.

[Ape+lust]

Doesn't Ophelia claims that she friends with the author?
She claims the Barmaid is based on her as well.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... nd-mo-six/
I don't know either way.
I still like the comic even if Ophelia likes it too.

She is the barmaid. The author once confirmed it in a thread on his site.

[UnbelieveSteve]

ShoeGATE or MortgageGATE?

My thoughts.

[Dick Strawkins]

Ape+Lust's remark about the dreaful sense of humor of the FTB crowd got me thinking about whether any good joke has come out of their side in the past year and a half.
I mean, people here aren't perfect. Someone on this side must have said or done something silly or hypocritical within that time that could be mocked the way we joke about their carry on...

I think it's like expecting humor out of the Soviet Union. When you're grim, repressed, and obsessive, you'll see crimes where others see absurdities. That stupid Intent is Not Magic incantation they love explains a lot about their attitudes -- they're waiting on the millions of backlogged apologies the world owes them.

I guess there is a lesson to be learned that if you exaggerate your oponents faults too much (such as saying that the slympit is an organizing center for rape threat harrassment campaigns), then anything you say about them, which isn't just as bad as that, actually works against you - it portrays the opponents in a better light than you intended.

[Ape+lust]

But not if the real game plan is otherwise (cue Borges):

Whoops. That caught me off guard. I almost didn't finish it, since it was the usual horseshit right up to the boffo ending.

[Cupid Stunt]

If I was going to spend that amount on a pair of shoes they sure as fuck better had be magical anti cancer shoes.

Cancer has a nasty habit of coming back, I hope for her sake it doesn't because any goodwill she may have gotten before has been spectacularily pissed up the wall.

I would imagine that should anyone else from that little bunch of clowns get a serious illness and asks for help now the response from a great deal of people will be "sucks to be you".

[Notung]

Strawkins - I thought that J&M comic was funny, but I didn't see it really making fun of anyone in particular- rather it was just referencing the recent drama about 'guy thing'.

By the way, the Author is following me on the Twitters.

[Jan Steen]

[spoiler]

The shoe affair reminds me of a well-know anecdote from the Bible:

The tactics to defend the indefensible haven’t changed. Slander your critics and question their motives (Call Judas a betrayer and a thief and then pretend that this renders his objection invalid. A pure ad hominem argument.) and throw in some special pleading.

But not if the real game plan is otherwise (cue Borges):

God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that the sacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous. To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.

[/spoiler]

Borges is one of my favourite authors. And Judas was a true skeptic (if he actually existed). :)

[Dick Strawkins]

If I was going to spend that amount on a pair of shoes they sure as fuck better had be magical anti cancer shoes.

Cancer has a nasty habit of coming back, I hope for her sake it doesn't because any goodwill she may have gotten before has been spectacularily pissed up the wall.

I would imagine that should anyone else from that little bunch of clowns get a serious illness and asks for help now the response from a great deal of people will be "sucks to be you".

For that type of cancer she has a pretty good chance of being cured for good.
Overall I don't think she did something totally out of order (remember she did request funds to cover living expenses for a few months) but it does look rather inept of her to boast about buying nice shoes this soon after the donation drive, particularly, as people have said, it creates the suspicion that donated money - which some people probably imagined would go towards essential medical treatment - is going towards fashion and in so doing she makes it less likely that people will donate the next time a real emergency occurs - to her or someone else.

[Dick Strawkins]

Strawkins - I thought that J&M comic was funny, but I didn't see it really making fun of anyone in particular- rather it was just referencing the recent drama about 'guy thing'.

By the way, the Author is following me on the Twitters.

He links (HT to OBs place) to the story about Justin, so it's fair to assume he was talking about a specific case, namely Justin Vacula.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... irl-thing/

[Notung]

I'm with Strawkins on this. I don't think it's a big deal, but if I was the sort to donate to bloggers then this would cause me to think twice about it next time. As it happens, I don't donate to bloggers, since you don't know what they're going to spend it on. I don't have a donate button on my blog (and wouldn't implement one even if I became widely read) as I'd feel awkward taking donations, as if I was under pressure to spend it wisely.

[Notung]

He links (HT to OBs place) to the story about Justin, so it's fair to assume he was talking about a specific case, namely Justin Vacula.

I get the reference to him, but I don't see that he's mocking JV or JV's argument - unless I'm not getting the whole joke, perhaps.

[Mykeru]

I'm with Strawkins on this. I don't think it's a big deal, but if I was the sort to donate to bloggers then this would cause me to think twice about it next time. As it happens, I don't donate to bloggers, since you don't know what they're going to spend it on. I don't have a donate button on my blog (and wouldn't implement one even if I became widely read) as I'd feel awkward taking donations, as if I was under pressure to spend it wisely.

May not be a big deal, but it's always fun to point out that Greta Christina is a shallow narcissist obsessed with trivial shit. Not to single her out, of course, it's kind of a club.

[SPACKlick]

Speaking of doxxing

[spoiler]

, Damion, on Skeptic Ink has a post from last week where he asks people where they draw the line.
So far only a couple have replied, Justin Griffiths and myself.

Damion seemed to be arguing for a position where it is fine to doxx an anonymous fellow skeptic if they write an attack piece about you: he provided an example of Brave Hero @ElevatorGate as someone he considers ethically doxxable.
The trouble with this, as I see it, is where exactly you draw the line.
If you are prepared to doxx elevatorgate if he attacks/mocks you then what's to stop you doxxing Natalie Reed if SHE writes a piece critical of you?
My comments there seem to take about two days to appear for some strange reason so I've linked my latest reply below.
I think Damion has raised an important point.
Where do you draw the line over exposing someones online identity?

http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobabi ... ping-docs/

Dick Strawkins said:

Damion, you started this post with the question:

"What general rules ought we to follow when it comes to protecting
pseudonymous posters? What have I missed, and what rules should be added or modified?"

I have tried to make pose a few questions that you seem to be desperate to avoid and instead try to deflect it into a silly and mistaken ad hominem attack.

Let's try again, shall we?

It's probably best that we define terms a little better than you have done in the initial post. "Doxxing" seems to mean different things to different people.

The definitions you linked to were not for the term doxxing. A decent definition I've found on the social engineering wiki is:

"Doxing or Doxxing is the act of identifying a person from one small bit
of information such as an email address. The "Doxer" uses this email
address to find out phone numbers, address, real name etc of the target. Doxing is "legal" as long as you are only finding publicy available information, it becomes illegal if you stalk the person through online chat services, like facebook or msn, or if you hack into their social accounts, like facebook, twitter, gmail hotmail etc".

I certainly do not think that simply linking a pseudonym to a real life name qualifies as doxxing. For example is saying that "ERV" is actually 'Abbie Smith' an example of doxxing? The reason why that would NOT be doxxing but revealing Natalie Reed's RL name WOULD be doxxing is that the former has openly revealed her name online while the latter has not, and indeed Natalie has frequently made public her fear about someone using nefarious means (viewing private emails etc - similar to the social engineering definition I've provided) to expose her RL name.

In other words, if an individual reveals their own name in a public place and links it to theor online pseudonym, reporting this does not, in my eyes constitute doxxing.

In light of your point about Coffee Loving Skeptic being open about his RL name I will say that I was not aware of this (I had never seen his RL name being linked to CLS so I assumed, wrongly, I guess, that others had revealed his name and postings without his permission.) That being the case I withdraw the charge that he was doxxed - although if the rumors are true that people were complaining to his employer then I think he was, himself, the victim of harrassment, rather than doxxing.

As regards Walid Husayen, I think you are shifting the goalposts a little too quickly for my liking. According to wikipedia he was "chatting online using the sarcastic Web name God Almighty" - which, I guess should qualify as an anonymous pseudonym.

And where on earth did you get the idea that "His clever pseudonym 'Waleed Husayen' didn't offer any protection because he was personally known to those who turned him in to Palestinian authorities."

Have you been taking "ethical arguing" classes with Stephanie Svan?

If you do the slightest research on the matter you will see that he was exposed though the actions of a suspicious internet cafe owner.
" Using software to check on what his client was doing, Abu Asab
discovered Husayin's sacrilegious Facebook writings. Abu Asab said he and three friends knew of Husayin's actions and that "maybe somebody informed the authorities"
As for one of his pseudonyms (and clearly he had more than one if he called himself "Almighty God" on some sites) being spelled very similar to his real name, I am not sure that this is much evidence of him being careless or not trying to protect his RL identity. Remember, he wasn't writing in English, the Arabic writing of these names may appear very different to native speakers (for example if you click on the arabic translation on the bottom of the wikipedia page you get a story, in arabic, about a completely different Walid Husayin.) Perhaps you speak and read Arabic and can correct me on this but considering it took keycapture (I presume) software to epose what he was writing - leading to his arrest - I think it is pointless to argue that he exposed himself by using his "real" name.
The method of exposing Husayin (by a suspicious internet cafe owner) is unlikely to affect much of us in the skeptical community. The doxxing danger comes from, as Natalie Reed has said, those who have access to private email addresses (for example blog owners who can see which username links to which registered email address) and who subsequently leak this information online.

I hoped I had been clear previously but if not I will explain my criteria.

IF someone maintains an anonymous online identity with no explicit links by themselves to a RL name then I take the view that they are anonymous by choice and do not think that exposing their RL name is an ethical position.

If they publicise their online identity in connection with their RL name then I view this as their own choice that their pseudonym is not anonymous. They are the ones who made the decision.

I certainly do not regard linking a name to a pseudonym as doxxing in this case (I think a similar case existed with Brownian and Atheist Nexus - where he created a public page that explained that his RL identity was the same as Brownian on Pharyngula - in fact all it took was googling "Brownian" and "Pharyngula" to find it)

So what about exposing people to danger?
Yes, I did say that exposing anonymous individuals may result in unforseen threats. But talking about the words of a non anonymous person may also result in threats to them. We obviously need to draw the line somewhere.

For me - and, I am open to having my mind changed on this, it is still a somewhat grey area to me - the question is one of anonymity. If someone is truly anonymous on the internet and, for example, can only be linked to their RL persona by use of private communications, email or IP addresses, then this is where I draw the line.

It would be wrong of me to expose them online.

So exposing Natalie Reed's RL name is a big NO from me.


If they personally publicise their RL name and link it to their online name then any subsequent exposure of this link is not doxxing.

It is reading and remembering.

This is a fascinating discussion Damion, and it deserves more exposure - I'll link it to the slymepit to see if anyone can help with your Natalie Reed dilemma ;)

[/spoiler]

I think I'd disagree with your definition of Doxing and make it broader. Revealing information about someone to an audience it wasn't intended for is doxxing. I use several handles on the internet, it is on this handle alone (and the one I had banned at a+) that I talk about my experiences of having been raped and falsely accused of rape. There is probably sufficient information, publicly available, to tie SPACKlick to other handles I use, from there to email addresses used to sign up to forums etc. from there you may be able to tie me to a company and shortly thereafter an individual. But you would have to work at it. In some audiences I would be harmed, not significantly harmed, but nevertheless harmed by the confluence of this information. So having to take active steps to link a name and a nym is doxxing pure and simple, unless a name has been revealed to this audience, passing it on is doxxing.

[Ape+lust]

I guess there is a lesson to be learned that if you exaggerate your oponents faults too much (such as saying that the slympit is an organizing center for rape threat harrassment campaigns), then anything you say about them, which isn't just as bad as that, actually works against you - it portrays the opponents in a better light than you intended.

Heh. I think that's true, their ever more lurid warnings about this place has made them ludicrous. We're a nest of Marc Lepines? We'd murder women if we weren't such chickenshits? It'll be fun to see how PZ tops that. And he will, because he has to. When your running crew includes the likes of Anthony K and Redhead, who'd have exploding blue balls if they went 3 days without barking scorn at someone, your opponents had better be singularly EVIL.

[AnonymousCowherd]

But not if the real game plan is otherwise (cue Borges):

Whoops. That caught me off guard. I almost didn't finish it, since it was the usual horseshit right up to the boffo ending.

I think it's just Borges screwing with the old "devil can cite scripture" thang. He usually repays the effort to read him though.

[Dick Strawkins]

I think I'd disagree with your definition of Doxing and make it broader. Revealing information about someone to an audience it wasn't intended for is doxxing. I use several handles on the internet, it is on this handle alone (and the one I had banned at a+) that I talk about my experiences of having been raped and falsely accused of rape. There is probably sufficient information, publicly available, to tie SPACKlick to other handles I use, from there to email addresses used to sign up to forums etc. from there you may be able to tie me to a company and shortly thereafter an individual. But you would have to work at it. In some audiences I would be harmed, not significantly harmed, but nevertheless harmed by the confluence of this information. So having to take active steps to link a name and a nym is doxxing pure and simple, unless a name has been revealed to this audience, passing it on is doxxing.

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?
Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

What exactly is meant by intended audience.
Is revealing your RL name on a public messageboard enough to consider it public knowledge?
There are lots of nuances to this that depend on defining what the words mean in the first place.
(and unfortunately doxxing doesn't seem to be in the dictionary!)

[AnonymousCowherd]

And Judas was a true skeptic (if he actually existed). :)

He even got his own gospel a few years ago. Apparently, Gethsemane was a setup. Jesus had decided to go for glory instead of buggering off to fight another day and asked Judas to set the cops on him while he lolled around waiting to get caught. Whole thing would probably have blown over if that idiot Paul hadn't needed a marketing initiative years later and "resurrected" one obscure Jewish Messiah cult.

Tosser.

[justinvacula]

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

Yah right....Natalie, sticking a flounce?

[justinvacula]

http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/2013/ ... community/

Ugh.

The saddest part is that, as others have observed, Elevatorgate and other incidents haven’t actually caused a rift: they’ve merely exposed it. The feminist vs. MRA framing shows this the most clearly: on the one hand, you have people who are fighting what they see as sexist or even misogynist elements in the skeptic community (like the fact that most visible atheists and skeptics are male, and the demographics of conventions have generally been very male-heavy), and on the other, you have others saying (among other things) that feminism is trying to accomplish something more than equality that disadvantages men. Both sides have a penchant for using hyperbole, and both sides have nutters, which makes it difficult to come down too strongly on one side or the other.

But for my part, I tend to sympathize more with the FTB/feminist section.

[SPACKlick]

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?

Brownian Specifically revealed his RL name in relation to Pharyngula in a location where you would likely expect Pharyngulites to read it. So No.

Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

Details plox, i am not aware of exactly how this shit went down.

[aweraw]

Haha, some butt hurt hipster has gone through the slymepit subreddit and down voted everything.

[justinvacula]

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

Yah right....Natalie, sticking a flounce?

Knew it:

http://i.imgur.com/ZYa9G.jpg

[franc]

[spoiler]

The shoe affair reminds me of a well-know anecdote from the Bible:

The tactics to defend the indefensible haven’t changed. Slander your critics and question their motives (Call Judas a betrayer and a thief and then pretend that this renders his objection invalid. A pure ad hominem argument.) and throw in some special pleading.

But not if the real game plan is otherwise (cue Borges):

God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that the sacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous. To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.

[/spoiler]

Borges is one of my favourite authors. And Judas was a true skeptic (if he actually existed). :)

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

[Dick Strawkins]

Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

Details plox, i am not aware of exactly how this shit went down.

I don't remember the full details but I think it was more along the lines of Wooly using her real name in one post and this was reported on another site (Ophelias?) to let her know that her name was public.
In other words there was little 'active' work involved.
Perhaps others might renember it clearer.
In my opinion neither case involved classic doxxing.

[windy]

The tactics to defend the indefensible haven’t changed. Slander your critics and question their motives (Call Judas a betrayer and a thief and then pretend that this renders his objection invalid. A pure ad hominem argument.) and throw in some special pleading.

Plus a nicely executed cultleader mindfuck - first spend a lot of time making everyone feel guilty with unattainable principles such as "you must give up all your possessions to help poor people". Then when someone actually tries to act according to it, PSYCH!! Fuck the poor, rub some nard on me babe!

[AnonymousCowherd]

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?
Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

What exactly is meant by intended audience.
Is revealing your RL name on a public messageboard enough to consider it public knowledge?
There are lots of nuances to this that depend on defining what the words mean in the first place.
(and unfortunately doxxing doesn't seem to be in the dictionary!)

There's never going to be a neat, agreed, definition of something that involves an element of ethical judgement. People will make that judgement based on all kinds of different grounds, according to their own agendas, so exactly the same behaviour will be OK to some and "bad" (doxxing) to others, and there is no Court to appeal to for a ruling on any given case, other than that of public (internet) opinion. Which is not exactly known for its consistency or its considered, thought out, well-informed, judgements on, well, anything really.

As ever, what is "ethical" is down to us individually, perhaps informed by what we believe others think, and what we can live with in ourselves. E.g. I have never doxxed anyone AFAIK, but I'm happy to comment on the size of Rebecca "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers" Watson's huge tuchis, so should I be forced to become just plain "Cowherd" for that? I mean, I use my real name in other places (including the internet) but I'd never use it here because I don't want to be forever associated with all you arseholes*. Surely that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

*Though I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[Ape+lust]

http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/2013/ ... community/

Ugh.

Oops.

...I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen “Rebitchka Twatson” online in anti-FTB circles...

No he hasn't. That's a nice little tell. He's probably not looked too closely at what's going on and is getting fed his opinions from his favored side (*cough* Ophelia *cough).

[jimthepleb]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA160_.jpg

[mikelf]

http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/2013/ ... community/

Ugh.

Oops.

...I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen “Rebitchka Twatson” online in anti-FTB circles...

No he hasn't. That's a nice little tell. He's probably not looked too closely at what's going on and is getting fed his opinions from his favored side (*cough* Ophelia *cough).

Googles says?

Yeah. And the first appearance of "Rebitchka?"
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... itchka.png

[AnonymousCowherd]

http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/2013/ ... community/

Ugh.

[spoiler]

The saddest part is that, as others have observed, Elevatorgate and other incidents haven’t actually caused a rift: they’ve merely exposed it. The feminist vs. MRA framing shows this the most clearly: on the one hand, you have people who are fighting what they see as sexist or even misogynist elements in the skeptic community (like the fact that most visible atheists and skeptics are male, and the demographics of conventions have generally been very male-heavy), and on the other, you have others saying (among other things) that feminism is trying to accomplish something more than equality that disadvantages men. Both sides have a penchant for using hyperbole, and both sides have nutters, which makes it difficult to come down too strongly on one side or the other.

But for my part, I tend to sympathize more with the FTB/feminist section.

[/spoiler]

Ugh is right.
You left out the next sentences;

Part of this is in seeing the kind of abuse that has often been directed at that group – I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen “Rebitchka Twatson” online in anti-FTB circles – and how that tends to illustrate the problem of sexism so well.

Well, matey, I can tell you. Google has exactly nine results (no doubt ten after this) for that phrase, and one of them is you, five are the "pro FTB" mob you identify with (including Ophelia Benson, who seems to have coined the term), and the rest are quotes of those sources pointing out that the term is just manufactured outrage.

The Woozle is not dead yet, but this maroon want's everyone to be nice again and play together and all agree. With s/h/it, of course.

[Git]

I'm a heartless bastard. Watch where you're fucking going.

"Watch where you're fucking going"!=The human race would be better off if you died. I'm sure the driver told me that too, but that doesn't mean they're like you. Maybe you need to get a heart and change your mind?

Eucliwood, meet Rystefn. He's the resident bastard here:

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/201 ... -Sauce.jpg

[Al Stefanelli]

I've been banned from posting to Reddit for a while, now. I mean, I can physically post there, but my links don't show up anywhere. I haven't been able to get anyone to specifically tell me why, but it started with a ban in r/politics for posting something someone didn't like, apparently. Looks like I'll have to create another account...

[Eucliwood]

I'm a heartless bastard. Watch where you're fucking going.

"Watch where you're fucking going"!=The human race would be better off if you died. I'm sure the driver told me that too, but that doesn't mean they're like you. Maybe you need to get a heart and change your mind?

Eucliwood, meet Rystefn. He's the resident bastard here:

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/201 ... -Sauce.jpg

Aw, he's cute. I think I like him.

[Ape+lust]

I've been banned from posting to Reddit for a while, now. I mean, I can physically post there, but my links don't show up anywhere. I haven't been able to get anyone to specifically tell me why, but it started with a ban in r/politics for posting something someone didn't like, apparently. Looks like I'll have to create another account...

Banned from Reddit? I've known plenty who've been banned from subreddits, but you're the first I've heard of getting banned from the whole site.

Maybe they mistook you for this other badass, the White Authority of Cock:

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/7tiYL.jpg[/spoiler]

[Jan Steen]

I think I'd disagree with your definition of Doxing and make it broader. Revealing information about someone to an audience it wasn't intended for is doxxing. I use several handles on the internet, it is on this handle alone (and the one I had banned at a+) that I talk about my experiences of having been raped and falsely accused of rape. There is probably sufficient information, publicly available, to tie SPACKlick to other handles I use, from there to email addresses used to sign up to forums etc. from there you may be able to tie me to a company and shortly thereafter an individual. But you would have to work at it. In some audiences I would be harmed, not significantly harmed, but nevertheless harmed by the confluence of this information. So having to take active steps to link a name and a nym is doxxing pure and simple, unless a name has been revealed to this audience, passing it on is doxxing.

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?
Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

What exactly is meant by intended audience.
Is revealing your RL name on a public messageboard enough to consider it public knowledge?
There are lots of nuances to this that depend on defining what the words mean in the first place.
(and unfortunately doxxing doesn't seem to be in the dictionary!)

When is doxxing doxxing? I think it depends on the amount of information you would need to be able to do it. If you need either (a) information that is not publicly available, or (b) a combination of various pieces of public information, where the combination is not obvious, then you are probably doxxing. Conversely, if you only need an obvious combination of publicly available information than you are not doxxing. There will always be borderline cases (when is 'obvious' obvious?)

In the case of Brownian all that was needed to find his real name was the combination of his pseudonym and the name of the site on which he frequently commented, Pharyngula. You were then able to find another website on which he openly linked his real name to his pseudonym and to Pharyngula. Not doxxing, I would say.

He also inflicted the pseudo-doxxing upon himself by teasing certain ‘pitters that they were clueless enough to believe that his real name was Ian Brown.

One of them (Real Paden) then wanted to prove that Brownian was himself the clueless one, and did this by calling him Anthony K.

As far as I know, his full name was never published here, although the site where it could be found was linked to. As I said at the time, I couldn’t care less what Brownian’s real name was and I don’t understand why he felt the need to stop posting under that ‘nym. That he immediately started to call himself Anthony K indicates to me more a desire for wannabee victimhood (“look how the evil slympitters doxxed me”) than any real necessity.

I don't know enough about the case of WB to have a valid opinion.

[Lurkion]

Rebitchka sounds like a name made up by people with very little creativity. My guess is Ophelia made that one up to amuse herself.

One thing I know is that the slymepitters are VERY creative.

[Jan Steen]

[spoiler]

I think I'd disagree with your definition of Doxing and make it broader. Revealing information about someone to an audience it wasn't intended for is doxxing. I use several handles on the internet, it is on this handle alone (and the one I had banned at a+) that I talk about my experiences of having been raped and falsely accused of rape. There is probably sufficient information, publicly available, to tie SPACKlick to other handles I use, from there to email addresses used to sign up to forums etc. from there you may be able to tie me to a company and shortly thereafter an individual. But you would have to work at it. In some audiences I would be harmed, not significantly harmed, but nevertheless harmed by the confluence of this information. So having to take active steps to link a name and a nym is doxxing pure and simple, unless a name has been revealed to this audience, passing it on is doxxing.

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?
Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

What exactly is meant by intended audience.
Is revealing your RL name on a public messageboard enough to consider it public knowledge?
There are lots of nuances to this that depend on defining what the words mean in the first place.
(and unfortunately doxxing doesn't seem to be in the dictionary!)

When is doxxing doxxing? I think it depends on the amount of information you would need to be able to do it. If you need either (a) information that is not publicly available, or (b) a combination of various pieces of public information, where the combination is not obvious, then you are probably doxxing. Conversely, if you only need an obvious combination of publicly available information than you are not doxxing. There will always be borderline cases (when is 'obvious' obvious?)

In the case of Brownian all that was needed to find his real name was the combination of his pseudonym and the name of the site on which he frequently commented, Pharyngula. You were then able to find another website on which he openly linked his real name to his pseudonym and to Pharyngula. Not doxxing, I would say.

He also inflicted the pseudo-doxxing upon himself by teasing certain ‘pitters that they were clueless enough to believe that his real name was Ian Brown.

One of them (Real Paden) then wanted to prove that Brownian was himself the clueless one, and did this by calling him Anthony K.

As far as I know, his full name was never published here, although the site where it could be found was linked to. As I said at the time, I couldn’t care less what Brownian’s real name was and I don’t understand why he felt the need to stop posting under that ‘nym. That he immediately started to call himself Anthony K indicates to me more a desire for wannabee victimhood (“look how the evil slympitters doxxed me”) than any real necessity.

I don't know enough about the case of WB to have a valid opinion.[/spoiler]

Sorry, Reap Paden.

[Ape+lust]

Rebitchka sounds like a name made up by people with very little creativity. My guess is Ophelia made that one up to amuse herself.

One thing I know is that the slymepitters are VERY creative.

She did make it up. Abbie caught her out within days of her saying it.

[franc]

Rebitchka sounds like a name made up by people with very little creativity. My guess is Ophelia made that one up to amuse herself.

One thing I know is that the slymepitters are VERY creative.

Of course cobweb cunt made it up. She fabricates virtually every accusation about this place. Also, while she may claim to have never called Abbie names directly, she uses her name + "rape" + "cunt" in the same sentence with sickening frequency; one can assume for no other purpose than slander and reputation poisoning by search engine. Pruney also obsessess about cuntkick because, deep down, she knows its the least she deserves.

[Al Stefanelli]

Well, not really 'shoes,' but it does help me walk.

I needed something for those times in-between when I can sorta get around with my cane and when I need to use one of my wheelchairs. So, my Neurologist wrote me a scrip for something called a 'Rollator.' For those familiar with durable medical equipment and how Medicare works, it took a bit of cajoling to get them to cover this, which is basically about $200.00 or so.

Stupid thing is that all it took was one phone call and a scrip for Medicare to cover the cost of my $6,000.00 electric wheelchair. WTF?

Anyhow, this will be arriving today:

http://alstefanelli.com/rollator.jpg

[Outwest]

If I was going to spend that amount on a pair of shoes they sure as fuck better had be magical anti cancer shoes.

Cancer has a nasty habit of coming back, I hope for her sake it doesn't because any goodwill she may have gotten before has been spectacularily pissed up the wall.

I would imagine that should anyone else from that little bunch of clowns get a serious illness and asks for help now the response from a great deal of people will be "sucks to be you".

For that type of cancer she has a pretty good chance of being cured for good.
Overall I don't think she did something totally out of order (remember she did request funds to cover living expenses for a few months) but it does look rather inept of her to boast about buying nice shoes this soon after the donation drive, particularly, as people have said, it creates the suspicion that donated money - which some people probably imagined would go towards essential medical treatment - is going towards fashion and in so doing she makes it less likely that people will donate the next time a real emergency occurs - to her or someone else.

Actually, her post indicated a "few weeks" not months. She returned to "work" on 21 December. She said she spent the money paying her mortgage "months in advance". Really? For being out of work for only a few weeks, you grab enough donations to pay your mortgage for months in advance? Just another grifter on the intertubes.

[Mykeru]

Yeah. And the first appearance of "Rebitchka?"
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... itchka.png

Fascinating. Like the slur that I was going to shoot Rebecca Watson, just one of many of Benson's slurs against people, and overuse of the word "cunt", a lot of the things supposedly coming from critics actually originates from Ophelia Benson putting words in other people's mouths. Of course, they all do it, but it's particularly a hobby with Benson.

Oh, and here's the last pair of shoes I bought:

Corcoran Men's Side Zipper Boot

Amazon is often the difference between paying $180 USD and much less. $146 USD, I think.

Now, if Greta wanted to be upfront about wanting to buy accessories and unnecessary shit, she should have put the remainder not needed to cover her medical bills/mortgage/whatever excuse she used into a communal pot so it could benefit the next needy medical case like Ed Brayton. Then she could also start an Amazon wish list so her sycophants could buy her shoes.

But that's the problem with a community topped by a bunch of selfish fucks: They don't help each other out. That's why there are peasants.

[Al Stefanelli]

Oh, incidentally, my actual shoes cost close to $500.00, but they are orthopedic/prescription. Thought I'd throw that out there because somewhere in one of my blogs I mentioned this, and I figured I'd get ahead of the 'Al spends $500.00 on HIS shoes.' They're covered by Medicare.

I know, I know. Privilege... Lmfao.

[Outwest]

Well, not really 'shoes,' but it does help me walk.

I needed something for those times in-between when I can sorta get around with my cane and when I need to use one of my wheelchairs. So, my Neurologist wrote me a scrip for something called a 'Rollator.' For those familiar with durable medical equipment and how Medicare works, it took a bit of cajoling to get them to cover this, which is basically about $200.00 or so.

Stupid thing is that all it took was one phone call and a scrip for Medicare to cover the cost of my $6,000.00 electric wheelchair. WTF?

Anyhow, this will be arriving today:

http://alstefanelli.com/rollator.jpg

Where's the V8 go?

[Mykeru]

[spoiler]Well, not really 'shoes,' but it does help me walk.

I needed something for those times in-between when I can sorta get around with my cane and when I need to use one of my wheelchairs. So, my Neurologist wrote me a scrip for something called a 'Rollator.' For those familiar with durable medical equipment and how Medicare works, it took a bit of cajoling to get them to cover this, which is basically about $200.00 or so.

Stupid thing is that all it took was one phone call and a scrip for Medicare to cover the cost of my $6,000.00 electric wheelchair. WTF?[/spoiler]

Anyhow, this will be arriving today:

http://alstefanelli.com/rollator.jpg

Dude, this is what you need:

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp-content ... eton_1.jpg

With custom "WCOA/They Call Me the Cunt Destroyer" lettering airbrushed up the side.

Medicare will cover it.

[ButterCup]

Oh for the love of...

What Melody Hensley Has to Teach You About Professionalism

New Svan post.

[spoiler]http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... sionalism/[/spoiler]

[mikelf]

Now, if Greta wanted to be upfront about wanting to buy accessories and unnecessary shit, she should have put the remainder not needed to cover her medical bills/mortgage/whatever excuse she used into a communal pot so it could benefit the next needy medical case like Ed Brayton. Then she could also start an Amazon wish list so her sycophants could buy her shoes.

But that's the problem with a community topped by a bunch of selfish fucks: They don't help each other out. That's why there are peasants.

Wasn't Natalie Reed experiencing some housing insecurity recently?

Yes, she was.

I bet Greta would totes help her put a security deposit on this place.

http://cdn.stylefrizz.com/img/the-shoe- ... africa.jpg

[Git]

Bloody hell, are we still talking about feckin' shoes?

http://socialeyezer.com/wp-content/uplo ... -Shoes.jpg

[jimthepleb]

matt replies to justicar
[youtube]34q1QfRoeHc[/youtube]

[Al Stefanelli]

[spoiler]

Well, not really 'shoes,' but it does help me walk.

I needed something for those times in-between when I can sorta get around with my cane and when I need to use one of my wheelchairs. So, my Neurologist wrote me a scrip for something called a 'Rollator.' For those familiar with durable medical equipment and how Medicare works, it took a bit of cajoling to get them to cover this, which is basically about $200.00 or so.

Stupid thing is that all it took was one phone call and a scrip for Medicare to cover the cost of my $6,000.00 electric wheelchair. WTF?

Anyhow, this will be arriving today:

http://alstefanelli.com/rollator.jpg

[/spoiler]

Dude, this is what you need:

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp-content ... eton_1.jpg

With custom "WCOA/They Call Me the Cunt Destroyer" lettering airbrushed up the side.

Medicare will cover it.

No fucking WAY! Ha ha ha ha! Somehow I think the manager at my local Kroger might object. :P)

[Al Stefanelli]

matt replies to justicar
[youtube]34q1QfRoeHc[/youtube]

It's only a matter of time:

[youtube]srUv0PG4_RE[/youtube]

[Eucliwood]

[youtube]srUv0PG4_RE[/youtube]

Wow, that's another interesting reason to wear a seatbelt. They never showed an example like ending up in the *backseat* out of the window in classes.

*takes notes*

How the hell do you dose off while driving before getting ultra scared at your sleepiness and deciding to pull over? Seriously wtf o.o

[Scented Nectar]

I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. This person is actually for real. Enjoy!
[spoiler][youtube]8LjosM45eLw[/youtube][/spoiler]

That's crazy Diana Boston, who has mostly stayed out of feminist dramas ever since she recently converted to judaism. She is living in Canada even though she's from the US.

A while back, Diana got really mad that a street person ducked under her umbrella and grinned at her. Instead of realizing that they were just mental or drugged, she figured it had to be that he was a man invading her womenly space. She announced that she was going to start openly carrying a gun. I had to remind her that that is like totally illegal here in Canada, which may have been mentioned in the gun conversation here a while back (I skipped past that topic). I let her know that she's not allowed to do that, in a video and using parts of two convenient songs. It still cracks me up. Here it is.

"Diana's Walking In The Rain And Packing Heat"
[youtube]d5CRXgSAKbw[/youtube]

She's a worse chronic liar than even Watson, if you can believe that's possible. On youtube, even the other feminists hate her, she's that insane and backstabbingly malicious.

[welch]

For people with Adobe IDs and older computers:

http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/01/07/a ... py-of-cs2/

link to adobe's info from the loop looks busted, but a bit of googling should find it.

[welch]

If I was going to spend that amount on a pair of shoes they sure as fuck better had be magical anti cancer shoes.

Cancer has a nasty habit of coming back, I hope for her sake it doesn't because any goodwill she may have gotten before has been spectacularily pissed up the wall.

I would imagine that should anyone else from that little bunch of clowns get a serious illness and asks for help now the response from a great deal of people will be "sucks to be you".

For that type of cancer she has a pretty good chance of being cured for good.
Overall I don't think she did something totally out of order (remember she did request funds to cover living expenses for a few months) but it does look rather inept of her to boast about buying nice shoes this soon after the donation drive, particularly, as people have said, it creates the suspicion that donated money - which some people probably imagined would go towards essential medical treatment - is going towards fashion and in so doing she makes it less likely that people will donate the next time a real emergency occurs - to her or someone else.

Bingo. How clueless do you have to be to not assume this would happen and take steps to mitigate it?