Bleeding from the Bunghole

[bovarchist]

This kind of irked me:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slymepit

RationalWiki is a mirror-image version of Conservapedia. It is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

There is no Slymepit entry on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should get on that before the baboons do.

[James Caruthers]

I thought RationalWiki had always been under the control of far-left social justice internet feminists. It isn't very surprising to see dishonesty on a wiki devoted to advancing a worldview.

Refutation and analysis of anti-science and crank ideas; essays on right wing authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism.

Hmm, interesting. No mention of left-wing authoritarianism or similar political problems, and the main links include a Conservapedia reference or two. Nobody except really stupid knee-jerk liberals gives a fuck about Conservapedia, it's a goddamn joke and most people laugh and move on.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Islam

Notice now tame the Islam article is, and how much more confrontational (and complete!) the Conservapedia article is. A few mentions of recent human rights violations, not much else to condemn any of the islamic factions. I wonder what the christianity page looks like. :roll:

So a religion whose extremist followers mutilate, stone and torture people for refusing to adhere to each of its arcane tenets get significantly less hate (one might even call the Islam article friendly) than an internet forum where people bitch about feminist/SJW bloggers.

[James Caruthers]

Oh, and nobody who calls their group "rational" has any claim to rationality. Seriously, all atheists need to fuck off with that shit. Stop saying "logical" or "rational" when referring to your side of a debate, it just pisses off everyone who isn't an egotist.

"Skeptic" is right on that line for me. I consider myself one because I try to examine all my views under the same lens, and look for inconsistencies and problems. I've had to go back on a few beliefs I held because they weren't in line with my commitment to free speech. But there are plenty of people who throw the label around as a substitute for the word "good."

[mikelf]

Lsuoma wrote:

BTW, you seem to get very hot under the collar about stuff like this - might be worth turning the stress down a little: this shit is fucking EVERYWHERE!

We could always suggest that she remove her shirt. That would be the misogynist thing to do! And the 'pit is all about misogyny, innit?

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7772616704/hBB4FAAC3/

[Steersman]

Meh, true. God their 'convictions' and 'principles' are utterly arbitrary.

More self-serving than not, I think. "In-group morality, out-group hostility". Kind of goes with the territory of being human, I expect, but many over there seem to have developed the idea to a fine art.

[Rope apologist]

We’re all bad together here…and proud of it

Possibly the most deluded claim among thousands vying for maximal delusion at FTB.

Mr. Conventional working for the establishment takes up a number of conventional academic politics and tries to pretend to be ahead on those.

Next on Most Colossal Fuckups--complete geek tries to be cool.

[Huehuehue]

Oh, and nobody who calls their group "rational" has any claim to rationality. Seriously, all atheists need to fuck off with that shit. Stop saying "logical" or "rational" when referring to your side of a debate, it just pisses off everyone who isn't an egotist.

"Skeptic" is right on that line for me. I consider myself one because I try to examine all my views under the same lens, and look for inconsistencies and problems. I've had to go back on a few beliefs I held because they weren't in line with my commitment to free speech. But there are plenty of people who throw the label around as a substitute for the word "good."

Genuinely just feels like an egotistical "boast".

"I'm a skeptic, I analyse all the evidence in a balanced manner"

*reach conclusion based on immediate reaction, ignoring the legwork of being a skeptic*

"My conclusion is right, for I am a skeptic and examine all the evidence."

Truly, it is William Lane Craig levels of reasoning.

[Rope apologist]

That's from Pharyngula today, if anyone didn't know.

[Tribble]

For a 'space gamer' the past decade has been pretty shallow. So after years of getting the shaft with crappy 4x games, crappy Star Wars/Star Trek/BSG games and a market full of uninspired 'space fantasy' shit this (and next) year it seems like things are really picking up.

First, for space-sim/god-game freaks (like myself) everywhere:

[youtube]qCSprVVwRR0[/youtube]

I've played X: Beyond the Frontier, X²: The Threat and X³: Reunion (plus the X³: Terran Conflict expac). I enjoyed the hell out of all of them. Even if I never did finish whatever the hell story was... (Kind of like over 1,000 hours I put into Morrowind and never finished that game, either.)

But not only that, we've got Braben rebooting Frontier:Elite, and Roberts is building Star Citizen. We also had the excellent XCOM reboot and XCOM: The Bureau which is a bit more controversial, but a game I really liked.

[Dick Strawkins]

Anyone hear anything so far from Skeptrack at Dragon*Con, going on this weekend?

Skeptrack schedule and speaker list.

Of the names I recognize, there's Watson, Roth, Plait, & Silverman as well as Radford, Shermer, Farley, Grothe, Piglilucci, Drescher, & Gay.

I'm going to go out on a limb & guess that the Skeptrack suite parties probably have a different feel this year.

So much for boycotting DragonCon, huh?

http://skepchick.org/2013/07/dragoncon- ... ed-kramer/

The Ed Kramer situation is interesting. He has been up on a charge of child molestation for about a decade but has been using legal loopholes to keep the trial from progressing. The money that he uses to fund his legal strategy came from DragonCon, a conference that he founded and had a share in the holding company.
So money spent on DragonCon went to an accused child molestor, and was used to help him avoid prison.

But this has been known about for a long time.
And during all that time people, including the Skepchicks, SGU etc, have been happy to support DragonCon (and thus Kramers legal fund)
Does anyone recall a peep from Rebecca and company about this moral dilemma in years past?

So what happened this year to make them suddenly realize that there is a moral question here?
Well someone else decided that paying a child molestors legal fees was not what they wanted to do and they started a movement to boycott DragonCon.
As this began to get a lot of publicity Rebecca suddenly decided that she too had discovered the moral question - and she too was now unsure of whether she would attend or not.
Unsure?
Surely she meant she would never attend if Kramer was getting a cut?
Errr no. Difficult question. Must ponder. (Lots of Surlyramics to get rid of)

Anyway, it's all resolved now. Kramer has been bought out by the other partners and it's safe for the Skepchicks to attend.

What's that you say?

Radford and Shermer will be there?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZ_9iJdDNXI/U ... oooooo.jpg

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

The skepchick website has this (formatting theirs). It's different from the official Con site:

Sunday, Sept. 1, 8:30 pm

Limits of Skepticism: Should skepticism stick with addressing pseudoscience, bunkum, and conspiracy theories, or should it also critically analyze religious claims (such as whether or not God exists)? What are the limits of skepticism? Or are there any limits at all?

Debbie Goddard is on this panel with Matt Lowry (Moderator), Pamela Gay, Margaret Downey, D.J. Grothe,Michael Shermer, and Tim Farley.

http://skepchick.org/2013/08/event-rebe ... dragoncon/

http://www.skeptrack.org/schedule/

[Tribble]

Meh, true. God their 'convictions' and 'principles' are utterly arbitrary.

More self-serving than not, I think. "In-group morality, out-group hostility". Kind of goes with the territory of being human, I expect, but many over there seem to have developed the idea to a fine art.

As far as I can see, it is pure, distilled tribalism at its finest. You could not, in the real world, get a small community to act like they act. Hell, I'm not sure you could get so much in-group/out-group in the most carefully constructed psychology experiment.

[Tribble]

DragonCon:

Friday 1:00 PM Why Mensa Will Never Solve World Hunger Smart folks do and say stupid things. The difference between intelligence & rationality, and how to make use of your own knowledge & be more rational. Barbara Drescher

I really like Barbara Drescher. She rarely posts on her blog anymore, but she was one of the best.

[Huehuehue]

The Ed Kramer situation is interesting. He has been up on a charge of child molestation for about a decade but has been using legal loopholes to keep the trial from progressing. The money that he uses to fund his legal strategy came from DragonCon, a conference that he founded and had a share in the holding company.
So money spent on DragonCon went to an accused child molestor, and was used to help him avoid prison.

But this has been known about for a long time.
And during all that time people, including the Skepchicks, SGU etc, have been happy to support DragonCon (and thus Kramers legal fund)
Does anyone recall a peep from Rebecca and company about this moral dilemma in years past?

So what happened this year to make them suddenly realize that there is a moral question here?
Well someone else decided that paying a child molestors legal fees was not what they wanted to do and they started a movement to boycott DragonCon.
As this began to get a lot of publicity Rebecca suddenly decided that she too had discovered the moral question - and she too was now unsure of whether she would attend or not.
Unsure?
Surely she meant she would never attend if Kramer was getting a cut?
Errr no. Difficult question. Must ponder. (Lots of Surlyramics to get rid of)

Anyway, it's all resolved now. Kramer has been bought out by the other partners and it's safe for the Skepchicks to attend.

What's that you say?

Radford and Shermer will be there?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZ_9iJdDNXI/U ... oooooo.jpg

I lol'd. Fear not, however, I believe the FTB crew have already rationalised this one! At least with Shermer.

You see, they aren't commanding that Shermer be kept away from conferences, just that women be *warned* about him, so they can protect themselves!

What a merry compromise. This way those so valiantly fighting for social justice are able to claim the moral high-ground and at no point actually stand against morally repugnant behavior. I'll admit, it would be a very difficult decision, but the Kramer thing, as you so aptly point out, should not have been a tough call really. Personally I think there's good money to be made in having a "Shermer-cam" which simply follows Shermer and records the mind-numbing awkwardness of him encountering any of the "FTB crew" and friends. That would be pretty good TV.

[Rope apologist]

Meh, true. God their 'convictions' and 'principles' are utterly arbitrary.

More self-serving than not, I think. "In-group morality, out-group hostility". Kind of goes with the territory of being human, I expect, but many over there seem to have developed the idea to a fine art.

As far as I can see, it is pure, distilled tribalism at its finest. You could not, in the real world, get a small community to act like they act. Hell, I'm not sure you could get so much in-group/out-group in the most carefully constructed psychology experiment.

You've heard of North Korea?

Naturally it's a pale imitation, since absolute agreement and bashing of any skepticism can only be enforced on an insipid internet forum, while RL goes on and likely most of them fail to carry their "principles" beyond their special little North Korea. Yet it's ghastly how horribly contrary to skepticism a supposedly pro-skepticism forum can become.

[JackRayner]

Re: Elyse Mofo Ander's 1st rape:

A few weeks after that, the police called me at home.
“Miss Wojnowski?”
“Yes?”
“This is ____ from the Decatur Police Department. Your rape kit came back. No semen was found. Evidently nothing happened. Please let your parents know.”
[click]
“But….”
And that was that. No semen meant no rape.

How old is Elyse? From her pictures I gather she is not that old (, and I had thought she was still a student.)

Am I a hyperskeptical slimeball because

A) I don't believe this happened, at least not in the simplistic manner she details.
B) For a lot of other reasons asshole

She mentioned being roofied. I am under the understanding that they do blood tests on that sort of stuff. If the "I was roofied" part of her current tale isn't just BS she made up after the fact, wouldn't they have found it in her system? Wouldn't that have been, by itself, actionable by the police?

Call me a hyperskeptical slimeball too, but I smell fresh cow manure [and I don't think it's Zvan's]...

[DW Adams]

Huh. David Silverman cancelled at DragonCon. He had a really weird time-slot anyway.

Well, Shermer is about to start talking to a packed room.

https://sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho ... 2951_n.jpg

[AnonymousCowherd]

BTW, I also got what I regard as a pretty good heckle in at Marianne Faithfull sometime in the late '90s. It was her "Weimar Berlin" tour, or whatever, you know songs by Brecht and Weill, etc. It was a pretty small place in Camden, maybe 200-300 people, and she was trying to be gemutlich with the audience. Well, she made some sort of risque comment, and the crowd giggled a bit, and she said "That's why I love playing for London audiences - I love the snickers." Whereupon I (in my fairly drunken state) shouted out "Forget the Snickers, what about the fucking Mars Bar!"

Nearly got thrown out for that one...

Was the venue the Dingwall by any chance? I played there, cool place.

Could well be. I saw a metric shit-tonne of bands at Dingwalls from the seventies through to the nineties.

A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

[JackRayner]

http://i.imgur.com/sk7Nd2L.jpg

I have the strangest boner right now.

Is it an inverted boner, where your dick is trying to hide inside of your body? :|

[AnonymousCowherd]

This kind of irked me:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slymepit

RationalWiki is a mirror-image version of Conservapedia. It is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

There is no Slymepit entry on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should get on that before the baboons do.

Ruh-roh!

[Badger3k]

Meh, true. God their 'convictions' and 'principles' are utterly arbitrary.

I don't think they really are - as suggested, I see them as having two guiding principles -

1) What do I get out of it?
2) What are my friends doing, and how can I benefit from that?

When you look at their actions in that context, they are acting for optimal benefit (as they see it) for themselves, and as we've all seen, they have no hesitation to be hypocritical in their actions, or to throw supposed allies under a bus as soon as it is convenient for them.

[uberfeminist]

Oh yes, DragonCon.

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... abuse.html

She refrained from boycotting DragonCon. Then a few months later, she boycotts CFI.

Maybe if CFI let her dress up like an ewok in public she'd be a lot more reasonable with them?

[bovarchist]

Oh, and nobody who calls their group "rational" has any claim to rationality. Seriously, all atheists need to fuck off with that shit. Stop saying "logical" or "rational" when referring to your side of a debate, it just pisses off everyone who isn't an egotist.

"Skeptic" is right on that line for me. I consider myself one because I try to examine all my views under the same lens, and look for inconsistencies and problems. I've had to go back on a few beliefs I held because they weren't in line with my commitment to free speech. But there are plenty of people who throw the label around as a substitute for the word "good."

Exactly. I've tried pointing out in the past that many Christian arguments are perfectly rational, but that doesn't make them good arguments.

[Al Stefanelli]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

[Al Stefanelli]

One Follower:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfollower.jpg

[uberfeminist]

OMG. The only follower of safe_skeptic? DragonCon.

[uberfeminist]

One Follower:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfollower.jpg

Beat me to it. That's insane.

[JAB]

Meh, true. God their 'convictions' and 'principles' are utterly arbitrary.

I don't think they really are - as suggested, I see them as having two guiding principles -

1) What do I get out of it?
2) What are my friends doing, and how can I benefit from that?

When you look at their actions in that context, they are acting for optimal benefit (as they see it) for themselves, and as we've all seen, they have no hesitation to be hypocritical in their actions, or to throw supposed allies under a bus as soon as it is convenient for them.

I just figured RW's strategy for the con was to stand next to Shermer a lot with an empty wine glass.

[Al Stefanelli]

I thought there was supposed to be a boycott of DragonCon, by the way?

DragonCon CEO feeling pressure from proposed boycott. Many plan to stay away because of event's ties to accused child molester Ed Kramer

[JackRayner]

*cracks knuckles*

Given that only women can be raped we must accept that:-
100% of all rapes involve women. Add in the fact that:-
At least 90% of rapes go unreported/un-prosecuted and we have the startlingly terrifying figure of:-
190% of women have been raped.


You can't argue with facts.

I'm a woman and I've never been raped.

I've been stalked, but not raped.

ZOMG what's wrong with me I must be HIDEOUS!!!??11!!

:whistle:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 34036b.jpg

Not sure if she's being cereal or not, but... [Courtesy of John Brown on Twatter.]

[bovarchist]

BTW, I also got what I regard as a pretty good heckle in at Marianne Faithfull sometime in the late '90s. It was her "Weimar Berlin" tour, or whatever, you know songs by Brecht and Weill, etc. It was a pretty small place in Camden, maybe 200-300 people, and she was trying to be gemutlich with the audience. Well, she made some sort of risque comment, and the crowd giggled a bit, and she said "That's why I love playing for London audiences - I love the snickers." Whereupon I (in my fairly drunken state) shouted out "Forget the Snickers, what about the fucking Mars Bar!"

Nearly got thrown out for that one...

A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

Wow...Google really IS my friend. Snopes too.

[JudgeFudge]

I thought RationalWiki had always been under the control of far-left social justice internet feminists. It isn't very surprising to see dishonesty on a wiki devoted to advancing a worldview.

I just had to check the entry on Patriarchy:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Note the complete absence of references, except to slam MRAs.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

What was that stuff about people hiding behind anonymity to abuse and harass others ont the internet? Surely the Clowncar will start honking at this real soon now?

[BarnOwl]

Not sure if she's being cereal or not, but... [Courtesy of John Brown on Twatter.]

It's unattractiveness-privilege! That explains it!

Speaking of privilege, what's it like to be paid to fly around to conferences, provided with free booze, room, and board, and to nevertheless whinge because some chain restaurant won't deliver to your hotel?

[Badger3k]

PZ has a post up on Evolutionary Psychology: The Rise of the Evolutionary Psychology Douchebag.

The author takes tow cases of fraud and one asshole, and of course, tars the entire field. Basic baboon behavior, and PZ's comment is simply to note that the "evolutionary psychology douchebags" are "nesting in the comments, oblivious to how tired their song is." Project much?

There were some decent comments in there, along with some BS ones, from both sides. The article just seems to be an effort to tar the discipline with guilt by association, and it feeds the anti-evo psych attitudes of PZ. Expect to see this on a few other blogs, all crowing triumphantly.

Whatever.

[Badger3k]

Damn - should have said the link is to the original article. All PZ does is post that and basically make the comment that I gave above. Must be learning from Ophelia.

[mary (abbie's ilk)]

By the time I was 26 or so I stopped dating women younger than me. I ended up marrying my wife who is nine years older than me. Been married 13 years now.

exciting...I know

/carry on

I'm 11 years older than the husband..

still not exciting..

carry on!

[Badger3k]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

What was that stuff about people hiding behind anonymity to abuse and harass others ont the internet? Surely the Clowncar will start honking at this real soon now?

How is that not spam? All the tweets are the same three, repeated over and over.

[Parody Accountant]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

What was that stuff about people hiding behind anonymity to abuse and harass others ont the internet? Surely the Clowncar will start honking at this real soon now?

How is that not spam? All the tweets are the same three, repeated over and over.

If only there was a way to deal with spam on twitter...

[AnonymousCowherd]

PZ has a post up on Evolutionary Psychology: The Rise of the Evolutionary Psychology Douchebag.

The author takes tow cases of fraud and one asshole, and of course, tars the entire field. Basic baboon behavior, and PZ's comment is simply to note that the "evolutionary psychology douchebags" are "nesting in the comments, oblivious to how tired their song is." Project much?

There were some decent comments in there, along with some BS ones, from both sides. The article just seems to be an effort to tar the discipline with guilt by association, and it feeds the anti-evo psych attitudes of PZ. Expect to see this on a few other blogs, all crowing triumphantly.

Whatever.

Well, we've had the rise of the pseudo-journalistic douchbag for years, so I guess this is inevitable.

[Huehuehue]

How come the account says "if you're a woman"? Or are we ignoring Dallas' allegation? I note in Greta and Gabriel's blogs they essentially ignore it. If we are indeed believing survivors then shouldn't everyone at the Con be put on notice?

Lol joke, hypocrisy ftw.

[Al Stefanelli]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

What was that stuff about people hiding behind anonymity to abuse and harass others ont the internet? Surely the Clowncar will start honking at this real soon now?

How is that not spam? All the tweets are the same three, repeated over and over.

Two of the three links go back to FbB...

[Dick Strawkins]

PZ has a post up on Evolutionary Psychology: The Rise of the Evolutionary Psychology Douchebag.

The author takes tow cases of fraud and one asshole, and of course, tars the entire field. Basic baboon behavior, and PZ's comment is simply to note that the "evolutionary psychology douchebags" are "nesting in the comments, oblivious to how tired their song is." Project much?

There were some decent comments in there, along with some BS ones, from both sides. The article just seems to be an effort to tar the discipline with guilt by association, and it feeds the anti-evo psych attitudes of PZ. Expect to see this on a few other blogs, all crowing triumphantly.

Whatever.

io9 is a science fiction blog.
The writer of the piece, Annalee Newitz, is an English major - not a scientist in any shape or form. It's a lazy article aimed at hipsters who consider themselves science fans and it follows all the standard anti-science tropes that you normally expect from the likes of Marcotte and Watson.
Newitz, like Peezus, ignores the fact that evo psych is a diverse field with some decent parts and some crap, and tars everyone with the same brush.

[AndrewV69]

You've heard of North Korea?

Naturally it's a pale imitation, since absolute agreement and bashing of any skepticism can only be enforced on an insipid internet forum, while RL goes on and likely most of them fail to carry their "principles" beyond their special little North Korea. Yet it's ghastly how horribly contrary to skepticism a supposedly pro-skepticism forum can become.

Speaking of North Korea:
Kim Jong-un's ex-lover 'executed by firing squad'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... squad.html

Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend was among a dozen well-known North Korean performers who were executed by firing squad nine days ago, according to South Korean reports.
...

All 12 were machine-gunned three days later, with other members of North Korea's most famous pop groups and their immediate families forced to watch. The onlookers were then sent to prison camps, victims of the regime's assumption of guilt by association, the reports stated.
...

Kim's wife, Ri Sol-ju, was also a member of the Unhasu Orchestra before marriage and one theory is that Ri objected to the continuing high profile of her husband's former girlfriend.

The happy couple:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 13329c.jpg

I expect if they have a boy chances are he may be less of a "girly man" than his dada.

[Lsuoma]

BTW, I also got what I regard as a pretty good heckle in at Marianne Faithfull sometime in the late '90s. It was her "Weimar Berlin" tour, or whatever, you know songs by Brecht and Weill, etc. It was a pretty small place in Camden, maybe 200-300 people, and she was trying to be gemutlich with the audience. Well, she made some sort of risque comment, and the crowd giggled a bit, and she said "That's why I love playing for London audiences - I love the snickers." Whereupon I (in my fairly drunken state) shouted out "Forget the Snickers, what about the fucking Mars Bar!"

Nearly got thrown out for that one...

A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

[Dick Strawkins]

BTW, I also got what I regard as a pretty good heckle in at Marianne Faithfull sometime in the late '90s. It was her "Weimar Berlin" tour, or whatever, you know songs by Brecht and Weill, etc. It was a pretty small place in Camden, maybe 200-300 people, and she was trying to be gemutlich with the audience. Well, she made some sort of risque comment, and the crowd giggled a bit, and she said "That's why I love playing for London audiences - I love the snickers." Whereupon I (in my fairly drunken state) shouted out "Forget the Snickers, what about the fucking Mars Bar!"

Nearly got thrown out for that one...

A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

I had to be reminded of the Mick Jagger connection - yes, excellent heckle.
Did the crowd at the concert get the joke?

[Lsuoma]

[quote="AnonymousCowherd"
A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

I had to be reminded of the Mick Jagger connection - yes, excellent heckle.
Did the crowd at the concert get the joke?[/quote]
About half did...

[robnixxo]

By the time I was 26 or so I stopped dating women younger than me. I ended up marrying my wife who is nine years older than me. Been married 13 years now.

exciting...I know

/carry on

I'm 11 years older than the husband..

still not exciting..

carry on!

I'm 28 and I'm dating a freshly turned 21. She doesn't mind that I'm fat and smell bad all the time. God bless the younger generation.

[16bitheretic]

Shout out to Dick Strawkins for the link to oolon using the word "cunt" on this board while explaining to secular women who self-identify as feminists on Twitter why they are misogynists for using that word. They seemed to get a good laugh out of the hypocrisy as he tries to teach them why their feminism is invalid if they us teh bad werdz!

[Dave2]

io9 is a science fiction blog.
The writer of the piece, Annalee Newitz, is an English major - not a scientist in any shape or form. It's a lazy article aimed at hipsters who consider themselves science fans and it follows all the standard anti-science tropes that you normally expect from the likes of Marcotte and Watson.
Newitz, like Peezus, ignores the fact that evo psych is a diverse field with some decent parts and some crap, and tars everyone with the same brush.

It's up to the same sort of standard as the EP panel PZ appeared on, for example the first complaint is that EPers claim certain groups of people are "inherently smarter than others".

The evidence for this?

A Pinker talk about the prominence of Jewish contributions to science, commerce, law and so on, in which he calls the evidence for genetic influence "circumstantial" and places far more weight on environmental factors - work ethic, respect for educational achievement and so on.

Even when she doesn't mislead like this it's, in the main, cherry picking poor examples and failing to give the context.

[bhoytony]

BTW, I also got what I regard as a pretty good heckle in at Marianne Faithfull sometime in the late '90s. It was her "Weimar Berlin" tour, or whatever, you know songs by Brecht and Weill, etc. It was a pretty small place in Camden, maybe 200-300 people, and she was trying to be gemutlich with the audience. Well, she made some sort of risque comment, and the crowd giggled a bit, and she said "That's why I love playing for London audiences - I love the snickers." Whereupon I (in my fairly drunken state) shouted out "Forget the Snickers, what about the fucking Mars Bar!"

Nearly got thrown out for that one...

A great heckle, wasted on the yoof of da pit, who clealy do not know the significance of Mars bars wrt La Faithfull.

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

I just assumed everybody knew the Mars Bar thing was bullshit.

[Dave2]

The evidence for this?

A Pinker talk about the prominence of Jewish contributions to science, commerce, law and so on, in which he calls the evidence for genetic influence "circumstantial" and places far more weight on environmental factors - work ethic, respect for educational achievement and so on.

Actually I'm being a bit misleading here - listening to it again the theories suggested are more complex and varied than that.

[Lsuoma]

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

I just assumed everybody knew the Mars Bar thing was bullshit.

Yeah, everyone does, but I still maintain the legend is a good basis for the heckle.

[JackRayner]

How many of these people who make the assumption that rape accusations are false (until PROVEN in a court of law….. blah blah), and are so frantic about it feel that way because they don’t want to think of themselves as rapists but there was that time they got a girl really drunk and then fucked her but that wasn’t rape because rape is bad and they aren’t bad.

To those of you who once took a drunken stupor for consent: you are a rapist. Feel bad about it? Good. You should. Are you going to do something about it other than feel bad? I have a suggestion. Help educate people so they no longer think that a drunken stupor means consent. Actively work amongst your friends and relations to make taking rape lightly socially unacceptable. Stand up for both women and men who make such accusations, do not assume they are lying (but keep in mind that very occasionally a rape accusation is false, so no assaulting the accused). You cannot undo what you did and Jesus can’t forgive you because he is either dead or never lived at all. You must carry your guilt. But you can try to work toward making what you did less and less common. That would be a worthwhile thing to do.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... rt-1-math/
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Wow, you've cracked the case, Holmes. The only reason people asked for evidence in the Shermer case was because they liked date-raping drunk women! :roll:

I think this is the stupidest thing I've seen on FTB today.

:doh:

More nonsensical strawmanning. From claims that their opposition are a bunch of menz that feel entitled to sexual favors, to their current claims that their opposition wants "drunken stupor" to equal "consent"? Don't these fuckwits have a single intellectually honest bone in their bodies?!

Here's my argument:

• Premise 1: When you knowingly & voluntary consume alcohol, you are agreeing to expose yourself to its effects. Loss of inhibition, reaction time, short-term memory, etc.
• Premise 2: A blackout isn't a loss of consciousness.
• Premise 3: The inability to recollect your own actions does not mean you are unaccountable for those actions.
• Inference 1: Per P1, you are responsible for any behavior you may engage in while under the influence of voluntarily consumed alcohol, to include driving a motor vehicle, or consenting to and having sex.
• Inference 2: Per P2, and P3, blacking out doesn't mean the consent that you gave was revoked.
• Conclusion: The sex that you consented to and had while drunk, even if you can't remember parts of it, isn't rape.

[Alternate Conclusion: You raped yourself.]

Contrast my argument [or the arguments of anyone here...except maybe Andrew. :P ] with Thibeboob's strawman version of "Person A is drunk, therefore it's OK for me to fuck Person A". World's apart!

Seriously though, getting yourself sloshed and then blaming others for your own behavior is like agreeing to iTunes' Terms and Conditions, and then bitching when Apple attaches your mouth to another person's asshole. :hand:

[bhoytony]

No lie, bwana. Disappointed with the crickets.

I just assumed everybody knew the Mars Bar thing was bullshit.

Yeah, everyone does, but I still maintain the legend is a good basis for the heckle.

Come on, let it go and move on. It was a long time ago. Someone will laugh at your next joke, don't worry.

[yomomma]

BTW, you seem to get very hot under the collar about stuff like this - might be worth turning the stress down a little: this shit is fucking EVERYWHERE!

Doesn't it piss most reasonable people off? If it didn't annoy me, I wouldn't be here.

[Pitchguest]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

Did it get suspended? I can't find it searching Google.

[comslave]

I'm a woman and I've never been raped.

No, the problem is that you have been raped. The problem is that your definition of rape has been artificially limited by The Patriarchyâ„¢.

For instance, every time someone has looked and you with lust, you've been look-raped (because you obviously weren't asked for permission to look at you).

And every time someone has fantasized about having sex with you, you've been thought-raped.

So all you really need is some feminist enlightenment to make you understand how horribly and repeatedly raped you have been and your life will be better...somehow...not sure how but...

[Al Stefanelli]

Wonder who this is:

http://websitesonadime.com/ssfeed31082103.jpg

Did it get suspended? I can't find it searching Google.

As far as I can see, it is still there. It's been reported by a bazillion people, though.

http://www.twitter.com/Safe_Skeptic

[yomomma]

I would like to see an alternative, too. RationalWiki deliberately doesn't have a neutral POV, and while I think it's possible to have an opinion on a particular issue and be even-handed at the same time, I think it's generally better if wikis just present the facts and let the readers form their own opinions, since it doesn't alienate any potential contributors. Since SJW types like distorting the truth to fit their agenda, it would be intrinsically useful to us.

Phawrongula does document some stuff that FtB denizens would rather have memory-holed, but it suffers exactly the same problem as RationalWiki, quite apart from the fact that it's badly maintained (at least last time I looked).

Exactly! You hit the nail right on the head. I would love to see skeptic wiki that doesn't draw from emotion or bias. Obviously both Rational Wiki and Phawrongula have blatant biases. And IMO, it should be called something neutral, to give it credibility. It wouldn't be difficult. Rational Wiki has admitted that they're more about ideology than fact. As long as one sticks to the facts, they have built in cover.