Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Shatterface as Guest]

Nick Cohen on Clarkson but getting a few digs in on the PC left first:

The politically correct damn you for raising your voice to ask relevant questions. Wonder if, for instance, the pay gap can be explained by women taking career breaks for child birth, and the facts are pushed aside and you are a sexist. Your critics turn a wider truth – that misogyny still flourishes – into a reason to suppress specific arguments.

Their condemnations reek of conspiracy theory. You are only raising this subject because you are sexist/racist/homophobic. Your supposedly honest inquiries and relevant questions are not what they seem. They are masks that hide your true motives.

The pervasive cult of victimhood completes this sanctimonious trinity. The put upon and discriminated are survivors of abuse. You cannot expect them to engage in vigorous argument or accept the consequences of their actions, but must treat them as children instead. If you do not, your cruelty reinforces the case for the prosecution.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen ... the-right/

[Steersman]

what is the term sea lioning? I've seen it used to describe Nugent I believe. Something about politeness?

googling is hard

You might check out one of Nugent's posts on the topic:
On satire, sea lions, civility and smears – please support the primacy of reasonable dialogue

And, FWIW, you can also do a Google search of his site or any other one by entering this into the Google search bar:

Code: Select all

site:http://www.michaelnugent.com/ sealion

[Steersman]

Racist, as well.

At least he didn't call you "toots".

:lol: Presumably a reference to me calling Josh – “the Official Spokesgay” – that on a Pharyngula thread. They’re great ones for throwing out insults at other people; not so great for handling the rejoinders.

Though I’m not sure where that “racist” from Phil is coming from. But if it was relative to my “after you Alphonse”, plausible since his response was immediately after my comment, then I figure that is a swing and a miss. Wikipedia’s discussion:

… but the catchphrase "After you, my dear Alphonse" lived on.[1] It continues to the present day, spoken in situations when two people are being overly courteous to each other, or when a person receives a dare to do something difficult or dangerous or both; the catchphrase returns the dare to the person who made it. ….

[deLurch]

The latest TAM (The Amazing Meeting) lineup is interesting.
In this climate, having all speakers/presenters be dudes but one, and all speakers/presenters be white but one seems quite odd.
https://www.amazingmeeting.com/

TAM lost the hardcore SJWs who hated DJ Grothe in 2012. He was fired after the 2014 TAM in a way sure to cause hard feelings amongst his supporters.

So I was wondering if this upcoming TAM they were going to try and attract the SJW set...and this lineup tells me no.

The ONLY attraction I know that might pull in people from great distances is that this is possibly Randi's last TAM. The Bacon Donut party is unknown. Penn did them to benefit Randi, so he might still do it, but he currently is a vegan so who knows if he even wants to...

This is in mid-July.

Meanwhile, check out the line-up for the Skeptic Society Conference in late May:
http://www.skeptic.com/lectures/confere ... year-2525/

Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Lawrence Krauss, Esther Dyson, John McWhorter, Ian Morris, Carol Tavris, Greg Benford, David Brin, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero

If people have travel a long way, I know which one I would rather go to.

Clearly have stopped giving a fuck about all things social justice. You welcome them in and all they end up doing is shitting all over the carpet.

[Brive1987]

As it happens, most of the few bans I handed out here were reversed within a day when I realized I'd been a dick.

I haven't been around to witness any bannings, and come up at a loss trying to figure out what someone would have to do to get one (barring illegal activity or doxxing) given the kind of fuckery that goes on unmolested here.

Funny, I read that as:

I .. do .. illegal activity or doxxing ..

:o

[MacGruberKnows]

The latest TAM (The Amazing Meeting) lineup is interesting.
In this climate, having all speakers/presenters be dudes but one, and all speakers/presenters be white but one seems quite odd.
https://www.amazingmeeting.com/

TAM lost the hardcore SJWs who hated DJ Grothe in 2012. He was fired after the 2014 TAM in a way sure to cause hard feelings amongst his supporters.

So I was wondering if this upcoming TAM they were going to try and attract the SJW set...and this lineup tells me no.

The ONLY attraction I know that might pull in people from great distances is that this is possibly Randi's last TAM. The Bacon Donut party is unknown. Penn did them to benefit Randi, so he might still do it, but he currently is a vegan so who knows if he even wants to...

This is in mid-July.

Meanwhile, check out the line-up for the Skeptic Society Conference in late May:
http://www.skeptic.com/lectures/confere ... year-2525/

Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Lawrence Krauss, Esther Dyson, John McWhorter, Ian Morris, Carol Tavris, Greg Benford, David Brin, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero

If people have travel a long way, I know which one I would rather go to.

Clearly have stopped giving a fuck about all things social justice. You welcome them in and all they end up doing is shitting all over the carpet.

Yeah yeah, lineups are important, but what about ballpits?

[Brive1987]

The latest TAM (The Amazing Meeting) lineup is interesting.
In this climate, having all speakers/presenters be dudes but one, and all speakers/presenters be white but one seems quite odd.

Well I for one would like to cast a vote of appreciation:

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

TAM would appear to be a "must see" event straight off the blocks.

[bhoytony]

Hey, fuckers, I'm blootered. I've spent the last couple of hours tanning a load of red wine and Magners cider and watching a terrific film. I'm going to recommend it to you all. If you haven't already seen it get hold of A Most Violent Year and watch it, it's great.
Carry on.

[Shatterface as Guest]

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

Sherlock approves.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9dsksFHHm1qc67tw.gif

Shatterface

[Gefan]

The latest TAM (The Amazing Meeting) lineup is interesting.
In this climate, having all speakers/presenters be dudes but one, and all speakers/presenters be white but one seems quite odd.

Well I for one would like to cast a vote of appreciation:

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

TAM would appear to be a "must see" event straight off the blocks.

From the "About" section of Krystyn Lambert's official website:

[She]caught the eye of Criss Angel, who has taken her as his protégé.

No doubt.

[MacGruberKnows]

The latest TAM (The Amazing Meeting) lineup is interesting.
In this climate, having all speakers/presenters be dudes but one, and all speakers/presenters be white but one seems quite odd.

Well I for one would like to cast a vote of appreciation:

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

TAM would appear to be a "must see" event straight off the blocks.

From the "About" section of Krystyn Lambert's official website:

[She]caught the eye of Criss Angel, who has taken her as his protégé.

No doubt.

"Gee Mr. Angel, that's not a rabbit, and you didn't pull it out of your hat."

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/1Bhw1P1.jpg

[AndrewV69]

I was then amused at how I was then ignored by all and sundry despite even going so far as to include a sgian dubh.

How did you get through security with that? After 9/11 I was once stopped for having a pewter musket charm on my keychain. Seriously. The woman in charge wanted to know if I had it because I was law enforcement. It was at that point, seeing first hand the line of defense against the next terrorist attack, that I realized we were all fucked.

I did not go through security as I was picking up people.

[jet_lagg]

Courtesy of Welch's Twitter feed:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBOKMA4UgAAiFOF.png

Is that Shiva raping Dick Grayson? I haven't been following batman for years now.

[Steersman]

Some sources (mostly US) say he was a newly converted Muslim.

I would take that with a grain of salt...

Wait. Are you talking about the co-pilot or Steersman?

:lol: Are you saying something mean about the Holy Prophet Pinker [PBUH]? ;-)

[Shatterface as Guest]

I can no longer tell the difference between creepy and beautiful.

[youtube]98lOJGTe1M0[/youtube]

Shatterface

[Steersman]

IIRC, Steers, nobody claimed that Carrier "coerced" or "harassed" anybody.

That seems to be a significant part of the argument that Shermertron & TheYeti were making, that because Carrier raked Shermer over the coals for what appeared to be some egregious behaviour on his part (the "Grenade" post) Carrier himself was guilty of hypocrisy in his poly activities for presumably having done the same thing. How else can he be guilty of hypocrisy otherwise? But, as I argued, those seem rather clearly consensual, and no one, that I know of, has yet come forward claiming that Carrier took advantage of them.

"That seems to be..." isn't a good start. Perhaps you could show where someone actually claimed that Carrier is guilty of "coercion" or "harassment."

The charge of hypocrisy has nothing directly to do with rape, sexual assault, coercion, or harassment.

I did say “seems” for a reason – i.e., it is rather difficult to boil down a lengthy and convoluted post with vague and frequently unsupported accusations into a reasonably accurate summation. But I wonder whether you read that post of TheYeti’s yourself, notably the bit pertaining to the above. The relevant portion:

Carrier’s hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness are absolutely astounding. Carrier has admitted to multiple extramarital affairs, and admitted that many of them were with people who were also married. Furthermore, by his own admission, Carrier was engaging in that behavior at the time that he wrote this article! Carrier implies that extramarital affairs make a person more likely to be a rapist, but gives no reasoning to support that claim. Do Carrier’s affairs mean that he is likely to be a rapist as well? By associating extramarital affairs with rape, was Carrier trying to tell us something about himself?

While I’ll concede that at least TheYeti didn’t explicitly accuse Carrier of “coercion or harassment”, one might suggest that the underlined portion is at least an insinuation that Carrier was guilty of that. Since there’s an explicit charge of hypocrisy there on the table from TheYeti, and since Carrier, in the post of his linked to by TheYeti, rather clearly states that he has no intrinsic objections to “multiple extramarital affairs”, and since I see nothing else there on the “bill of particulars” that TheYeti has presented to us, one might ask what else can there be to TheYeti’s case, in that instance, other than that insinuation?

The charge of hypocrisy has nothing directly to do with rape, sexual assault, coercion, or harassment. Rather, it's about Carrier's general with-us-or-against-us moralizing in contrast to his serial cheating on and lying to his wife, and, more specifically, it's about his treatment of Shermer's alleged infidelitous womanizing ….

I quite agree that Carrier’s “with-us-or-against-us moralizing” is, in itself, rather odious to say the least for any number of reasons, and I’ll agree that that looks rather inconsistent with “his serial cheating”. “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” and all that. However, while I’ve argued this at some length earlier, and won’t belabour the point (much), I might note the following from his “Coming Out Poly” post:

Several years ago, after about seventeen years of marriage, I had a few brief affairs, because I found myself unequipped to handle certain unusual circumstances in our marriage, which I won’t discuss here because they intrude on my wife’s privacy.

Considering that “usual” covers a fair bit of ground, one might suggest that “unusual circumstances” might provide some justification for his actions.

As for “Shermer's alleged infidelitous womanizing”, considering that, as mentioned, Carrier explicitly stated that he doesn’t object to that on principle, I would say that putting much weight on that point looks like a boat-load of red herrings. You can’t sustain a charge of hypocrisy, at least in this case, unless the “defendant” is guilty of the same behaviour he is accusing others of. Which is clearly not the case as far as the “infidelitous womanizing” goes.

[JackSkeptic]

This may have already been linked but I think the following article clearly illustrates how hateful, vicious and irresponsible SJW's are. Myers gets a call out.:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03 ... gilantism/

[JackSkeptic]

@Steersman. I do think you are sometimes very bad at reading between the lines and understanding the intent of what someone writes or says. Everyone has motives and once you know what they are the interpretation of their words and actions can hold a different meaning. But you do seem to ignore that which is perhaps why some here get exasperated with you.

1. Carrier got caught with his trousers down.

2. He is covering up for it rather than coming clean.

3. He is covering up as he is terrified of what his fellow SJW's would do if they knew the truth.

4. He is also covering up as he is a narcissist who is unable to accept wrongdoing.

5. His cover up (surprise surprise) is done in SJWspeek. All that polyamourous stuff is complete bullcrap. Most of what he says I do not believe.

6. He is a complete hypocrite who accused others of doing exactly what he did himself which is shagging around. The fine detail does not matter. Rather than say 'Yeh, I like pussy, so what?' he comes out with some tall tale.

7. He memory holes and rewrites history on a whim. He deletes posts to maintain 'intellectual integrity' His thinking is black and white and highly judgmental. He wants anyone who does not agree with him to be socially punished. Do you trust what a person like that actually says? Seriously?

That's all there is to it, everything he writes is with the above in mind and just written to fool the gullible and the willfully ignorant. He also seems to be fooling you.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I did say “seems” for a reason – i.e., it is rather difficult to boil down a lengthy and convoluted post with vague and frequently unsupported accusations into a reasonably accurate summation. But I wonder whether you read that post of TheYeti’s yourself, notably the bit pertaining to the above. The relevant portion:

Carrier’s hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness are absolutely astounding. Carrier has admitted to multiple extramarital affairs, and admitted that many of them were with people who were also married. Furthermore, by his own admission, Carrier was engaging in that behavior at the time that he wrote this article! Carrier implies that extramarital affairs make a person more likely to be a rapist, but gives no reasoning to support that claim. Do Carrier’s affairs mean that he is likely to be a rapist as well? By associating extramarital affairs with rape, was Carrier trying to tell us something about himself?

While I’ll concede that at least TheYeti didn’t explicitly accuse Carrier of “coercion or harassment”, one might suggest that the underlined portion is at least an insinuation that Carrier was guilty of that. Since there’s an explicit charge of hypocrisy there on the table from TheYeti, and since Carrier, in the post of his linked to by TheYeti, rather clearly states that he has no intrinsic objections to “multiple extramarital affairs”, and since I see nothing else there on the “bill of particulars” that TheYeti has presented to us, one might ask what else can there be to TheYeti’s case, in that instance, other than that insinuation?

"One might suggest" that you've badly misread the subtext there.

The charge of hypocrisy has nothing directly to do with rape, sexual assault, coercion, or harassment. Rather, it's about Carrier's general with-us-or-against-us moralizing in contrast to his serial cheating on and lying to his wife, and, more specifically, it's about his treatment of Shermer's alleged infidelitous womanizing ….

I quite agree that Carrier’s “with-us-or-against-us moralizing” is, in itself, rather odious to say the least for any number of reasons, and I’ll agree that that looks rather inconsistent with “his serial cheating”. “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” and all that. However, while I’ve argued this at some length earlier, and won’t belabour the point (much), I might note the following from his “Coming Out Poly” post:

Several years ago, after about seventeen years of marriage, I had a few brief affairs, because I found myself unequipped to handle certain unusual circumstances in our marriage, which I won’t discuss here because they intrude on my wife’s privacy.

Considering that “usual” covers a fair bit of ground, one might suggest that “unusual circumstances” might provide some justification for his actions.

"One might suggest" that if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

As for “Shermer's alleged infidelitous womanizing”, considering that, as mentioned, Carrier explicitly stated that he doesn’t object to that on principle, I would say that putting much weight on that point looks like a boat-load of red herrings. You can’t sustain a charge of hypocrisy, at least in this case, unless the “defendant” is guilty of the same behaviour he is accusing others of. Which is clearly not the case as far as the “infidelitous womanizing” goes.

Would you prefer "double standards"?

[Steersman]

@Steersman. I do think you are sometimes very bad at reading between the lines and understanding the intent of what someone writes or says. Everyone has motives and once you know what they are the interpretation of their words and actions can hold a different meaning. But you do seem to ignore that which is perhaps why some here get exasperated with you. ....

Yes, I quite agree that we all have motives. But it seems "understanding intent", and "knowing ... the interpretation", are largely built on inferences, on frequently questionable assumptions and biases. And that are frequently asserted to be the case with diddly squat in the way of evidence.

Maybe apropos of which, I had an "interesting" conversation recently with Hornbeck on the related concept of "theory of mind":

HJ: Nor will you, because this view allows you to play the Golden Mean card and paint yourself as the moderate to my extremism.
Steersman: I think your “theory of mind” (1) absolutely sucks. Probably because it’s predicated on an over indulgence in playing video games, most of which are probably of the “zero-sum” variety.

HJ: This is, what, the third time you’ve linked to something without understanding what it actually says?
Steersman: In your opinion. Which I’m beginning to realize is largely not worth a tinker’s damn.

HJ: You accuse me of being unable to understand that other people have thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and your prime evidence for this is a time I tried to guess your thoughts, feelings, and emotions.
Steersman: I didn’t say that you didn’t have a “theory of mind”; I said it absolutely sucked. You might note that that entails a significant difference, and that the Wikipedia article goes on to say:
Wikipedia: Having a theory of mind allows one to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others, to predict or explain their actions, and to posit their intentions.

Steersman: I was basically saying that your ability “to predict or explain [other’s] actions” was apparently predicated on some rather silly premises that seem to derive from a very questionable and limited understanding of game theory. Ergo, it sucks.

Seems we all have that theory, but whether it is well-developed and accurate is frequently the $64,000 question.

That's all there is to it, everything he writes is with the above in mind and just written to fool the gullible and the willfully ignorant. He also seems to be fooling you.

Maybe. Although, maybe of some note, I am currently in the midst of having a bit of a conversation with him on some of those issues. Battle for the hearts and minds and all that. :-)

[Shatterface as Guest]

Maybe apropos of which, I had an "interesting" conversation recently with Hornbeck on the related concept of "theory of mind":

I think this is the first time I've seen you use quatation marks appropriately.

Shatterface

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Steerstroll exists to argue. Like a fairy who will cease to exist if you stop believing in them, Steerstroll will poof out of existence if you don't argue with him. All it knows is troll, all it does is troll. Relentlessly. Interminably.

[Steersman]

Maybe apropos of which, I had an "interesting" conversation recently with Hornbeck on the related concept of "theory of mind":

I think this is the first time I've seen you use quatation marks appropriately.

Shatterface

:) "Ever onward and upward".

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

http://imgur.com/1Bhw1P1.jpg

Brilliant by the way. One suggestion would be to post the Carrier image separately here so that it may be placed over any (in)appropriate image. This may be a thing.

[Lsuoma]

Steerzo has just outignored oolon. Only Ol' Neccers and Jewsper outrank him now. And he's 150% of what Wonderbore achieved.

[Steersman]

....
While I’ll concede that at least TheYeti didn’t explicitly accuse Carrier of “coercion or harassment”, one might suggest that the underlined portion is at least an insinuation that Carrier was guilty of that. Since there’s an explicit charge of hypocrisy there on the table from TheYeti, and since Carrier, in the post of his linked to by TheYeti, rather clearly states that he has no intrinsic objections to “multiple extramarital affairs”, and since I see nothing else there on the “bill of particulars” that TheYeti has presented to us, one might ask what else can there be to TheYeti’s case, in that instance, other than that insinuation?

"One might suggest" that you've badly misread the subtext there.

Or maybe you're reading between the lines and seeing stuff that isn't there? Or, as William Blake put it:

Socrates taught what Meletus
Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse,
And Caiaphas was in his own mind
A benefactor to mankind.
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.

Or, more colloquially, "spinning dancer cognitive illusion".

....
Considering that “usual” covers a fair bit of ground, one might suggest that “unusual circumstances” might provide some justification for his actions.

"One might suggest" that if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Do note the "might" - i.e., defined as "Used to express possibility or probability".

As for “Shermer's alleged infidelitous womanizing”, considering that, as mentioned, Carrier explicitly stated that he doesn’t object to that on principle, I would say that putting much weight on that point looks like a boat-load of red herrings. You can’t sustain a charge of hypocrisy, at least in this case, unless the “defendant” is guilty of the same behaviour he is accusing others of. Which is clearly not the case as far as the “infidelitous womanizing” goes.

Would you prefer "double standards"?

Hardly a "double standard" if Carrier doesn't criticize Shermer for "infidelitous womanizing". Which is the case. Maybe you have some explicit statements to the contrary?

[Steersman]

Steerzo has just outignored oolon. Only Ol' Neccers and Jewsper outrank him now. And he's 150% of what Wonderbore achieved.

Hawt damn! And my mother said I'd never amount to much ....

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/1Bhw1P1.jpg

Brilliant by the way. One suggestion would be to post the Carrier image separately here so that it may be placed over any (in)appropriate image. This may be a thing.

Thanks Capt!

One standalone mushcap with Carrier attached:

http://imgur.com/z48Zkbw.png

[The Yeti]

Steersman: you are being deliberately obtuse, and simply being a tedious pain in the ass. It is abundantly clear in both my post and the ensuing comments that I am not accusing Carrier of rape. I was using rhetorical questions to make a point about his hypocrisy. Just like verbosity is a huge component of your writing style, rhetorical questions are a big party of mine.

As to his position on Shermer, I did not misrepresent it. He clearly implied that Shermer's womanizing and metre alcohol consumption at social events were evidence that he was guilty of the rape that he was accused of. I can't help it that carrier is such a muddled thinker that he contradicted himself within a 7000+ word post. I am beginning to think he contradicted himself on purpose, so that he could accuse any critics of misrepresenting him.

Although I was already well aware of carrier's lack of integrity, the event of the lying and dishonesty in his recent rant actually surprised me. Anyone who reads my article after reading his rant can clearly see that he is a lying sack of shit. What he relies on is the fact that the baboons won't even bother to follow the links and read for themselves. My WordPress stats certainly show that is the case here.

[The Yeti]

Event= extent, metre=mere
Fucking android autocorrect

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Though I’m not sure where that “racist” from Phil is coming from. But if it was relative to my “after you Alphonse”, plausible since his response was immediately after my comment, then I figure that is a swing and a miss. Wikipedia’s discussion:

… but the catchphrase "After you, my dear Alphonse" lived on.[1] It continues to the present day, spoken in situations when two people are being overly courteous to each other, or when a person receives a dare to do something difficult or dangerous or both; the catchphrase returns the dare to the person who made it. ….

Nah, no worries. You've just been getting on my nerves lately. I couldn't care less about "Alphonse", "cheese-eating surrender monkey" or "freedom fries".

No hard feelings.

[James Caruthers]

Steerstroll exists to argue. Like a fairy who will cease to exist if you stop believing in them, Steerstroll will poof out of existence if you don't argue with him. All it knows is troll, all it does is troll. Relentlessly. Interminably.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lziz ... o1_500.gif

Nailed it.

[Steersman]

Steersman: you are being deliberately obtuse, and simply being a tedious pain in the ass. It is abundantly clear in both my post and the ensuing comments that I am not accusing Carrier of rape.

True. That's why I said that those comments of yours were an insinuation.

I was using rhetorical questions to make a point about his hypocrisy.

Except that your accusation of hypocrisy, in that instance and least, doesn't hold any water as he rather clearly is not at all condemning Shermer for his "infidelitous womanizing".

As to his position on Shermer, I did not misrepresent it. He clearly implied that Shermer's womanizing and mere alcohol consumption at social events were evidence that he was guilty of the rape that he was accused of.

Except "implication" is only in your head, not on any type of hard copy that provides objective confirmation of your hypothesis.

Although I was already well aware of carrier's lack of integrity, the event of the lying and dishonesty in his recent rant actually surprised me.

My recent comments on his last blog post [The Shermertron Denouement] gives some support for that contention at least. But the jury is still out ....

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Except "implication" is only in your head, not on any type of hard copy that provides objective confirmation of your hypothesis.

Did Steers just pull a Nerd Of Redhead?

[Steersman]

Though I’m not sure where that “racist” from Phil is coming from. But if it was relative to my “after you Alphonse”, plausible since his response was immediately after my comment, then I figure that is a swing and a miss. Wikipedia’s discussion:

… but the catchphrase "After you, my dear Alphonse" lived on.[1] It continues to the present day, spoken in situations when two people are being overly courteous to each other, or when a person receives a dare to do something difficult or dangerous or both; the catchphrase returns the dare to the person who made it. ….

Nah, no worries. You've just been getting on my nerves lately.

"Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" ....

I couldn't care less about "Alphonse", "cheese-eating surrender monkey" or "freedom fries".

Didn't think you would be offended by such.

No hard feelings.

Likewise.

[Steersman]

Steerstroll exists to argue. Like a fairy who will cease to exist if you stop believing in them, Steerstroll will poof out of existence if you don't argue with him. All it knows is troll, all it does is troll. Relentlessly. Interminably.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lziz ... o1_500.gif

Nailed it.

I'm cut to the quick ... ’tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door, but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o' both your houses!
[with apologies to Will. Or Edward as the case may be]

[James Caruthers]

Except "implication" is only in your head, not on any type of hard copy that provides objective confirmation of your hypothesis.

Did Steers just pull a Nerd Of Redhead?

They're more alike than different, although Nerd is much stupider.

I don't think William Lane Craig is a stupid man. I think he is dishonest and loves to misdirect and play hypothetical bullshit games that don't apply to the particular point he's arguing for (when he can be bothered to argue for or against any point at all-he often chooses to play gotcha games and hide his real thesis so that he can bring it up at his conclusion after gaming his opponent with hypothetical garbage, and then act as though his conclusion is logically linked to his arguments, even though it isn't.)

But he's not a stupid man.

[Jan Steen]

Except that your accusation of hypocrisy, in that instance and least, doesn't hold any water as he rather clearly is not at all condemning Shermer for his "infidelitous womanizing".

Now you are not only being obtuse as usual, you are just a lying sack of shit who deliberately ignores evidence.

I recently wrote a post showing that Carrier quite clearly condems Shermer for his womanizing. Or do you think "skirt chasing" could be read in a positive light?

[AndrewV69]

Steerzo has just outignored oolon. Only Ol' Neccers and Jewsper outrank him now. And he's 150% of what Wonderbore achieved.

Hawt damn! And my mother said I'd never amount to much ....

LMAO well I did giggle at any rate. Simple things and all that.

[AndrewV69]

BTW ... What is it with the Horde? Are they on a break or something? I would have thought that they would have come up with some additional entertainment by now.

I am starting to get concerned about the duration of this current dry spell.

[feathers]

I can no longer tell the difference between creepy and beautiful.

[youtube 98lOJGTe1M0 /youtube]

Shatterface

Brilliant!

Cue BBC copyright complaint in 3, 2, ...

[AndrewV69]

This may have already been linked but I think the following article clearly illustrates how hateful, vicious and irresponsible SJW's are. Myers gets a call out.:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03 ... gilantism/

Not to mention a whole bunch of Lefties are now regularly reading Breitbart ... what the ever living fuck?

[The Yeti]

I think the funniest part of Carrier's ridiculous rant (aside from his characterizing me as a "wigga") is his statement that he thinks Shermertron and I might be the same person. I think Shermertron's blog is great, but our writing styles couldn't be more different. Carrier is a historian who mostly deals with interpreting historical writings. If he really can't tell the difference between my writing and Shermertron's them that reflects pretty poorly on his professional competence.

[Ape+lust]

Steerstroll exists to argue. Like a fairy who will cease to exist if you stop believing in them, Steerstroll will poof out of existence if you don't argue with him. All it knows is troll, all it does is troll. Relentlessly. Interminably.

http://imgur.com/9LGqpih.png

Nailed it.

[Badger3k]

BTW ... What is it with the Horde? Are they on a break or something? I would have thought that they would have come up with some additional entertainment by now.

I am starting to get concerned about the duration of this current dry spell.

Not much, but PZ has an Ophelia-style post that makes very little sense. It's about some CNN documentary, and they have an article with added interviews from the people in it. (archive of PZ post here). The whole post is simple:

CNN has followed up on their documentary about atheists with a set of interviews. The money quote:

"The biggest misconception about atheism is that atheists are a just a bunch of angry white men who want to destroy religion and who don’t have high opinions of most religious people. A relative handful of atheists fit that description, and they make a lot of noise, but that’s not representative of atheists."

Who did they interview, you may ask?

Must you ask?

Four white men, of course.

Please, atheists, try to be a little more media savvy.

I am not sure what he even thinks he means. Does he want the people who were interviewed by CNN to have refused? David Silverman? The political hack (he even brings up the stupid cis-het crap in the interview, gah) turn down an interview? Did he want them to say "No, CNN, don't interview me, here are some others though"? Can anyone imagine PZ saying no to an interview on CNN, angry white male that he is? How can an atheist, by being media savvy, decide who someone else wants to interview?

I think the real reason is the quote - I mean, can anyone think of anybody who fits the "angry white male" profile? Who might they have been referring to? :think:

[Eskarina]

:laughing-lmao:

[feathers]

http://imgur.com/1Bhw1P1.jpg

Ape! Naughty, naughty ape!

There goes the boner.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

BTW ... What is it with the Horde? Are they on a break or something? I would have thought that they would have come up with some additional entertainment by now.

I am starting to get concerned about the duration of this current dry spell.

Not much, but PZ has an Ophelia-style post that makes very little sense. It's about some CNN documentary, and they have an article with added interviews from the people in it. (archive of PZ post here). The whole post is simple:

CNN has followed up on their documentary about atheists with a set of interviews. The money quote:

"The biggest misconception about atheism is that atheists are a just a bunch of angry white men who want to destroy religion and who don’t have high opinions of most religious people. A relative handful of atheists fit that description, and they make a lot of noise, but that’s not representative of atheists."

Who did they interview, you may ask?

Must you ask?

Four white men, of course.

Please, atheists, try to be a little more media savvy.

I am not sure what he even thinks he means. Does he want the people who were interviewed by CNN to have refused? David Silverman? The political hack (he even brings up the stupid cis-het crap in the interview, gah) turn down an interview? Did he want them to say "No, CNN, don't interview me, here are some others though"? Can anyone imagine PZ saying no to an interview on CNN, angry white male that he is? How can an atheist, by being media savvy, decide who someone else wants to interview?

I think the real reason is the quote - I mean, can anyone think of anybody who fits the "angry white male" profile? Who might they have been referring to? :think:

Myers is so denying his whiteness he might be a honorary Steersman.

[Steersman]

Except that your accusation of hypocrisy, in that instance and least, doesn't hold any water as he rather clearly is not at all condemning Shermer for his "infidelitous womanizing".

Now you are not only being obtuse as usual, you are just a lying sack of shit who deliberately ignores evidence.

I recently wrote a post showing that Carrier quite clearly condems Shermer for his womanizing. Or do you think "skirt chasing" could be read in a positive light?

Chuck you Farley.

I read that post of yours on TheYeti's blog, and you might have a point about the characterization of ElevatorGate as harassment by the different parties. But I still think Carrier's criticisms of Shermer go a lot further than just his "womanizing" - as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.

[Steersman]

Steerzo has just outignored oolon. Only Ol' Neccers and Jewsper outrank him now. And he's 150% of what Wonderbore achieved.

Hawt damn! And my mother said I'd never amount to much ....

LMAO well I did giggle at any rate. Simple things and all that.

:lol: I kind of stole that from Noel Plum's response to being characterized by PZ as "the soul of the patriarchy". Which I see someone here has used as a signature. Though I expect the phrase has some currency elsewhere too.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Linky to said post?

[Steersman]

Steerstroll exists to argue. Like a fairy who will cease to exist if you stop believing in them, Steerstroll will poof out of existence if you don't argue with him. All it knows is troll, all it does is troll. Relentlessly. Interminably.

[.img]http://imgur.com/9LGqpih.png[/img]

Nailed it.

[.img][/img]

:lol:

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum
Drink and the devil be done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Hey, who stole my music sheet?

Though I wonder whether you had something else in mind ....

[Steersman]

Linky to said post?

Which? The one with Noel Plum?

If so I might be able to find it fairly quickly.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.

That one.

[Steersman]

as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.

That one.

Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other)

Of maybe some interest, I see that Noelplum weighed-in in one of the comments though I didn't have time to read it.

[Time to call it a day though; night all]

[Kirbmarc]

I read that post of yours on TheYeti's blog, and you might have a point about the characterization of ElevatorGate as harassment by the different parties. But I still think Carrier's criticisms of Shermer go a lot further than just his "womanizing" - as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.

I have to say that Steersman is actually right on this specific point. In the original blog post about Shermer ("Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other") Carrier writes:

Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind. (This has nothing to do with opposing sex.)

What troubles me (and ought to trouble you) are the elements of victimization, exploitation, and insensitivity that are bubbling to the surface in some of the accounts of Shermer’s behavior.

So on this specific point it's hard to accuse him of hypocrisy. Sure, you might say that his standards for "creepy behavior" are ill-defined and that he's self-serving, but he doesn't seem to argue that Shermer's cheating or cheating in general) is morally wrong or evidence of being a rapist/sexual harasser/sleaze.

It’s a basic rule of being a nice person: it is the moral responsibility of anyone at a social event to make sure, so far as they are able, that anyone in their immediate presence is reasonably comfortable, and not to make them uncomfortable without moral cause. And that’s what people have a right to expect (otherwise they wouldn’t go to social events at all). Even when we violate that pact inadvertently (and that often happens), we apologize and make it right (whatever that reasonably entails, as the offended party will inform you).

This part is more problematic, because cheating does make people uncomfortable, and it's debatable whether "lack of sex" is a "moral cause" or a "justification".

(IMHO it isn't. The problem with cheating is the breach of trust, not the sex. If you have a problem with your sex life within your relationship, don't do things behind their back, but talk to your SO about it and try to come to a reasonable compromise- which as well might be an "open relationship" or employing the services of a professional if you're both happy with it, just like it might be a different approach to sex, psychotherapy or something else entirely. If they won't budge and won't accept any reasonable compromise but insist that you grin and bear it while they don't pull their weight, maybe the relationship isn't worth the effort and it's time to let it go.)

[Dick Strawkins]

I read that post of yours on TheYeti's blog, and you might have a point about the characterization of ElevatorGate as harassment by the different parties. But I still think Carrier's criticisms of Shermer go a lot further than just his "womanizing" - as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.

I have to say that Steersman is actually right on this specific point. In the original blog post about Shermer ("Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other") Carrier writes:

Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind. (This has nothing to do with opposing sex.)

What troubles me (and ought to trouble you) are the elements of victimization, exploitation, and insensitivity that are bubbling to the surface in some of the accounts of Shermer’s behavior.

So on this specific point it's hard to accuse him of hypocrisy. Sure, you might say that his standards for "creepy behavior" are ill-defined and that he's self-serving, but he doesn't seem to argue that Shermer's cheating or cheating in general) is morally wrong or evidence of being a rapist/sexual harasser/sleaze.

It’s a basic rule of being a nice person: it is the moral responsibility of anyone at a social event to make sure, so far as they are able, that anyone in their immediate presence is reasonably comfortable, and not to make them uncomfortable without moral cause. And that’s what people have a right to expect (otherwise they wouldn’t go to social events at all). Even when we violate that pact inadvertently (and that often happens), we apologize and make it right (whatever that reasonably entails, as the offended party will inform you).

This part is more problematic, because cheating does make people uncomfortable, and it's debatable whether "lack of sex" is a "moral cause" or a "justification".

(IMHO it isn't. The problem with cheating is the breach of trust, not the sex. If you have a problem with your sex life within your relationship, don't do things behind their back, but talk to your SO about it and try to come to a reasonable compromise- which as well might be an "open relationship" or employing the services of a professional if you're both happy with it, just like it might be a different approach to sex, psychotherapy or something else entirely. If they won't budge and won't accept any reasonable compromise but insist that you grin and bear it while they don't pull their weight, maybe the relationship isn't worth the effort and it's time to let it go.)

I disagree with you on this one.
Read the following paragraph:

The details involved alcohol. Given things others have said online (revisit the timeline), it’s possible Shermer has a habit of getting women drunk and having sex with them (or trying to). Several people online claim to have witnessed his skirt-chasing in general (even propositioning a married woman while her husband was elsewhere in the same room) and evidence of his propensity to have multiple simultaneous ongoing affairs (some of which one source claims his wife eventually became aware and was looking online for others…I don’t know if Shermer and his wife are still married). I’ve been hearing other rumors like this for years, so this isn’t a suddenly new thing. It’s just spilling out into public now.

That is not a neutral description.
It clearly makes assumptions about Shermers behavior.
What exactly is "a habit of getting women drunk"?
Do the women involved have no idea what is happening?
Is Shermer giving them fruit juice laced with liquor and telling them it is alcohol free?

Or, is it the case that Shermer used to go to skeptic events, after which parties tended to occur - and during which people made their own decisions about what to drink and how much, and who to have sex with.

Carrier has himself admitted that he has had sexual relationships with women he has met at exactly this type of situation.
Does that mean Carrier also has a habit of getting women drunk and having sex with them?

The use of a term like 'skirt-chasing' is also hardly neutral.
Do you think for a second Carrier would apply that to his own current situation.

"Now that I am getting divorced from my wife I fully intend to go skirt-chasing at future skeptic events!"

Of course he wouldn't because he knows it is a negative way of describing a male seeking sexual relations with women.
He is basically slut shaming Shermer.

It's true that the rest of he essay makes it appear that he is fine with consentual sexual relations, even affairs, but there can be no denying that the above paragraph seems designed to portray Shermers consentual relations in a bad light.
Just because a careful reading of Carriers piece reveal he is being contradictory doesn't allow him to escape criticism.
He WAS being negatively judgemental about Shermers behavior at a time we now know he was behaving in a similar way himself.

[Hunt]

Been kind of a tough week for SJWs. Ellen Pao's lawsuit went down in a ball of flames and Joe Murphy won a retraction/apology from his accusers. Just goes to show that you can beat them if you fight them. But you have to fight *cough* Michael Shermer *cough*.

[Jan Steen]

He is basically slut shaming Shermer.

It's true that the rest of he essay makes it appear that he is fine with consentual sexual relations, even affairs, but there can be no denying that the above paragraph seems designed to portray Shermers consentual relations in a bad light.
Just because a careful reading of Carriers piece reveal he is being contradictory doesn't allow him to escape criticism.
He WAS being negatively judgemental about Shermers behavior at a time we now know he was behaving in a similar way himself.

Exactly.

Like I said, Carrier actually wants to have it both ways. He wants to paint Shermer as a vile womanizer and a cheat, as a prelude to characterizing him as being either a sleaze or a rapist, and at the same time wants to whitewash his own, similar behaviour. When Shermer does it it is skirt-chasing, when Carrier does it it is polyamory. It's how he was born, he can't help himself.

It's okay when we do it.