The Slymepit

by **Ape+lust** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:10 am • [Post 40051]

Tkmlac wrote:28% of 16,000 is over 4,000. I don't know how you got 280.

$15,000 exemption.

by **Notung** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:11 am • [Post 40052]

cunt wrote:Brown has already done this.
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/claim-claim-2/

Cheers - that's a useful link.

Oh, it's already New Year here in the East. Happy New Year!

by **Stretchycheese** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:12 am • [Post 40053]

Stretchycheese wrote:
AchronTimeless wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Most important, in the long term, is when we can transition from being the opposition to a bunch of idiots to just doing an end run around them, show that they aren't the faces of the atheist and skeptical movement, rather they are a perversion of it. To do that, as Welch says, we have to offer something other than opposition.

Damn good point. The question is, how best to go about it?

Satire is quite an effective messaging tool. Much like how Jon Stewart's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report rip a new one out of Fox News on a regular basis. The Slymepit already uses a lot of satire (Jan Steen's work, for instance). The use of satire can be used to thwart FTB/A+ memes, dogmas and newspeak.

It's interesting that FTB/A+ crowd seldom try to use satire against their critics. Sanctimonious Idealogies and political correctness don't mix well with humour, apparently.

Speaking of FTB memes, remember that bizarre A+ propaganda poster art showing women trying to charge up a hill, trying to block boulders thrown by misogynists at the top with umbrellas? If someone has the right artistic skills, I'd love to see a satirical re-framing of that poster.

Hmm, I guess that's still a form of opposition. I guess the best I can say is use language such as "egalitarian" rather than "feminist".

by **Reap** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:15 am • [Post 40054]

Ok I need everyone to list your TOP 5 jerk-face, moron, fuck-wad,A+ idiots or FTB assholes for my end of the year list. No need to give reasons why and if you think that more than 1 can fit in as number 1, thats ok. I'm not sure the best way to tally it. List it here unless it gets messy I guess? Or if you cant risk posting it here then hit me up on FB (Reap Paden) Polls close at 11:59pm pst Jan 1

by **welch** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:16 am • [Post 40055]

Mykeru wrote:
AchronTimeless wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Most important, in the long term, is when we can transition from being the opposition to a bunch of idiots to just doing an end run around them, show that they aren't the faces of the atheist and skeptical movement, rather they are a perversion of it. To do that, as Welch says, we have to offer something other than opposition.

Damn good point. The question is, how best to go about it?

Well, as someone who has sat in enough meetings to realize that most of the time formulating a plan is just a means for people to talk at each other until everyone loses the will to live, I don't have a "plan". I didn't have one when I came across this schism and started doing stuff.

Just do stuff.

If you want to see different people speaking, apply to speak. If you want to have different POVs when talking about what happened at a conf., go to that conference and talk about it. It's really not that difficult, nor does it require coordinated action. If you see something you want changed, take the steps to change it.

by **Zenspace** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:22 am • [Post 40056]

comslave wrote:
tfoot wrote:okay, so its over 48 hrs since I put the video up, ~50k views and a 95 % approval rating,

Or are they saving it up for some devastating ad hominim 'we must drive TF out of the community like a pariah' type shit? FYI the last time they plotted as a group to do that... where they all conspired to release their blogs at the same time to be as devastating as possible, it resulted in me losing ~300 out of 150 000 subscribers. Wow, that blogging network is soooo powerfully influential!

There's only one thing that matters in this debate: Analytics. The advertisers know on a minute by minute basis whether FTB traffic is going up or down. This is why I've been avoiding the site since this shitstorm started.

Although I'm not a censor. They're free to publish their batshit rantings, I'm free not to read it. What you people do is your own business.

But if enough people dump the site, their profit declines. Note: Unless Freezepage can disable tagging, I'm not sure that's going to stop ad revenue.

This. That is precisely the reason I never, ever knowingly click a link to an FtB page or anyone associated with them. I've removed all bookmarks and cleaned house. The pit has proven a far better place to keep an eye on them anyway. You guys seem to find all the meaty bits. :popcorn:

by **Tkmlac** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:26 am • [Post 40057]

I got picked on mercilessly for being "four-eyes" and now these dumbasses wear glasses to look "cool." Shouldn't they put some trigger warning up after all the pain I was put through?

BAN WEARING FAKE JEWEL-I MEAN GLASSES AT CONFERENCES!!!

by **Reap** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:29 am • [Post 40058]

somedumbguy wrote:
justinvacula wrote:New post from Karla Porter:

http://karlaporter.com/relationship-man ... onferences

10 Thoughts on Inappropriate Sexual Behavior at Conferences

I am not sure who Karla Porter is, but she seems to know who Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers are.

Karla Porter on The Angry Atheist podcast She is cool

by **comslave** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:30 am • [Post 40059]

Tkmlac wrote:I got picked on mercilessly for being "four-eyes" and now these dumbasses wear glasses to look "cool." Shouldn't they put some trigger warning up after all the pain I was put through?

BAN WEARING FAKE JEWEL-I MEAN GLASSES AT CONFERENCES!!!

AARGH! I just had a flashback.

Just for that, I'm throwing in one more pallette cleanser before I go to work to keep the feminists away.

by **Tigzy** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:31 am • [Post 40060]

Re: the spec stylings of the Social Justice Amazons:

I dunno, I guess the 'Olive from On The Buses' look must be the current trend with that crowd.

'Gaw Blimey Stan, I don't fancy yours much!'

by **BarnOwl** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:34 am • [Post 40061]

Ape+lust wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Thing is, with the exception of Sasha Wiley-Shaw, I don't see a lot of distortion through the lens, so they are either really low correction non-prescription or just clear lens accessories like this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8330 ... 5677_z.jpg

Fashionable nonsense.

Hensley needs them to keep the Kabuki lacquer affixed to her head.

Yeah, way to be Beauty2K compliant, and support the Cosmetic Industrial Complex, Melody.

Bet she gets her nails done at a salon, too. Way to oppress the underclass with toxic substances.

/sinus headache

/grumpy

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:35 am • [Post 40062]

Notung wrote:
cunt wrote:Brown has already done this.
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/claim-claim-2/

Cheers - that's a useful link.

Oh, it's already New Year here in the East. Happy New Year!

Happy new year mate. To be fair to Brown I think you should probably amend the post to reflect that he has gone to great efforts to criticise and debunk NLP. Which you'd have known if you'd read Tricks of the mind. It can probably wait till the 3rd though.

I might come over and fuck up some of your commenters but that can also wait for the 3rd.

by **real horrorshow** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:47 am • [Post 40063]

comslave wrote:
Oneiros666 wrote:This may have been commented on earlier, but fuck it, I am drinking whisky and as such I become lazy:

What is the deal with these radical feminists all wearing these god-awful glasses? I mean, it's like they go out of their way in order to look as bitchy as possible..oh right.

AAAARGH!!!
My EYES!

I need pallette cleanser!

It's time Greta realised that's she's gone past po-mo "irony", and out the other side, to resemble an early-years Dame Edna. Dressing like a granny loses it's hipster cool once you're old enough to be one.

by **somedumbguy** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:58 am • [Post 40064]

Regarding PotentialProstitutes (PP).

PP is out an out extortion, and badly done, and yes, based on:

1) Anonymous sources
2) Shaming of women (mostly)
3) Unaccountable / No verification of claims of prostitution
4) No way to take photos or a page down (except for paying some amount of money)
5) PP does this to enrichen its owners through extortive payments.

PP is very bad. Should be shut down. Should be prosecuted.

Then there is ihollaback.org (HB)

Founded in 2010 or so, with much fanfare and applause from all the usual feminists and feminist sites, ihollaback.org, to fight against street harassment, encouraged anyone to send in anonymously cell phone photos of men harassing them on the street. The photos were presented publicly as well as descriptions of the behaviors of the men.

1) Anonymous sources
2) Shaming of men
3) Unaccountable / No verification of claims of harassment / easily gamed / no way - no form - no phone number to complain
4) No way to take photos or a page down, at all.
5) HB claims to do this for women, but the huge press fanfare and plaudits sure does a grrrl good on her resume and media presentation

Potential Prostitutes: loudly decried
iHollaback: You go girl!

When I have pointed this out at various websites, I have of course been told what I rapist I must be.

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:59 am • [Post 40065]

Top 5 baboons:

1: pz for obvious reasons
2: rw for obvious reasons, 1 and 2 are pretty much interchangeable, but pz nicks it because his fuckwittery isn't as expected as the mediawhore
3: carrier for introducing himself as a baboon in such magnificent style.
4: Ophelia because, well because she is just plain fucking stupid and has to be on the list.
5: this has to go to tittywobble for the mutant child she birthed and then abandoned, her "i can't cope with reality" flounce and the wanker episode.

by **real horrorshow** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:02 pm • [Post 40066]

dinkum wrote:Is it out of line to request that people stop reposting those fucking mugshots? I'm about to hurk up my cheese sandwich.

A valid point. Because we don't have any guidelines beyond the BB Code for Dummies thing. I'll post this here:

When quoting a long post and/or one with pics. embedded video etc. Only quote what you have to, to show what you're talking about. This helps with your loading time and reduces wear and tear on the scrolling finger.

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:02 pm • [Post 40067]

cunt wrote:I might come over and fuck up some of your commenters but that can also wait for the 3rd.

By the way, lurkers, that was a joke. Happy New Years to everyone on the pit.

by **Maximus** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:03 pm • [Post 40068]

Ape+lust wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Thing is, with the exception of Sasha Wiley-Shaw, I don't see a lot of distortion through the lens, so they are either really low correction non-prescription or just clear lens accessories like this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8330 ... 5677_z.jpg

Fashionable nonsense.

Hensley needs them to keep the Kabuki lacquer affixed to her head.

Odd how all the ones who see potential rapists and misogynists everywhere all wear cheap ugly glasses ... I think MISOGINY, is was written on the inside of the lenses, as some sort of Chinese revenge for having to make all our iphones. It's the only thing that makes sense. :dance:

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:04 pm • [Post 40069]

Who the duck fot the 40,000 post?! All you assholes discussing stupid baboon shit, and you missed the really important stuff. Shit.

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:10 pm • [Post 40070]

real horrorshow wrote:
comslave wrote:
Oneiros666 wrote:This may have been commented on earlier, but fuck it, I am drinking whisky and as such I become lazy:

What is the deal with these radical feminists all wearing these god-awful glasses? I mean, it's like they go out of their way in order to look as bitchy as possible..oh right.

AAAARGH!!!
My EYES!

I need pallette cleanser!

It's time Greta realised that's she's gone past po-mo "irony", and out the other side, to resemble an early-years Dame Edna. Dressing like a granny loses it's hipster cool once you're old enough to be one.

Keep it up guys. Each posting of these pics just makes my homosexuality stronger. And if there were a comment of the day award; Real Horror Show would get it for the above.

by **Lsuoma** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:12 pm • [Post 40071]

Za-zen wrote:Who the duck fot the 40,000 post?! All you assholes discussing stupid baboon shit, and you missed the really important stuff. Shit.

Who's been posting here faster than bullets from Puff the Magic Fucking Dragon?

by **mikelf unplugged** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:13 pm • [Post 40072]

Za-zen wrote:Who the duck fot the 40,000 post?! All you assholes discussing stupid baboon shit, and you missed the really important stuff. Shit.

Who do you think you are? Steersman? Look it up for yourself.

Peezus Christ!

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:16 pm • [Post 40073]

BarnOwl wrote:
Gumby wrote:Off to my mother's to see what the fuck is wrong with her TV. God forbid she should miss any reality TV shows

Hundreds of channels, and still nothing but crap on TV. How did that happen? /first world problems

I'm glad I didn't upgrade my Uverse so that I could get the Planet Green channel. Foolishly, I thought there would be programs about recycling, green homes, renewable energy, gardening, climate change, etc., but instead the offerings seem to be A Haunting and American Hot Rods. WTF?

Yeah, I gave up on Discovery and similar channels when shit like Cash Cab, Ancient Astronauts, ghost shows and the like started taking over. Unfortunately it's what the American TV audience wants. It really, really sucks. Yesterday Cosmos, today Real Housewives of New Jersey. :puke-huge:

I don't even have cable anymore, I ditched it two years ago. Why should I pay close to 80 bucks a month for 200 channels of drivel? Now I just stream what I want through Netflix for 8 bucks a month, and also have a largish Blu-Ray collection and over 700 documentaries on DVD. That's plenty. Added bonus, no commercials or political ads.

by **Reap** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:25 pm • [Post 40074]

tfoot wrote:okay, so its over 48 hrs since I put the video up, ~50k views and a 95 % approval rating,

and yet this is greeted by complete silence from baboon central. That's unprecedented!

Do they realize that they have been damned by their own words and the best thing they can do is ignore it and hope no one sees their stupidity/ hypocrisy?

Or are they saving it up for some devastating ad hominim 'we must drive TF out of the community like a pariah' type shit? FYI the last time they plotted as a group to do that... where they all conspired to release their blogs at the same time to be as devastating as possible, it resulted in me losing ~300 out of 150 000 subscribers. Wow, that blogging network is soooo powerfully influential!

Hmmm, kobolds, the one creature who everyone can laugh at without fear of reprisal!
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivat ... 486800.jpg

tfoot I would like to get you on the podcast.
signed
Your driver in DC

by **Reap** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:30 pm • [Post 40075]

just sayin

by **Maximus** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:31 pm • [Post 40076]

Top 5:

1- Steve Novella SGU, for not adressing any of the shit Rebecca does, and allowing such a spectacular non skeptic on the show.

2- Rebecca Watson. What a slug of human being.

3- PZ. For obvious reasons.

4- Ophie. Paranoid much?

5- Matt Dillahunty. Not being able to apply skepticism to his sacred cows.

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:38 pm • [Post 40077]

Za-zen wrote:Who the duck fot the 40,000 post?! All you assholes discussing stupid baboon shit, and you missed the really important stuff. Shit.

John Brown.

by **welch** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:39 pm • [Post 40078]

Reap wrote:Ok I need everyone to list your TOP 5 jerk-face, moron, fuck-wad,A+ idiots or FTB assholes for my end of the year list. No need to give reasons why and if you think that more than 1 can fit in as number 1, thats ok. I'm not sure the best way to tally it. List it here unless it gets messy I guess? Or if you cant risk posting it here then hit me up on FB (Reap Paden) Polls close at 11:59pm pst Jan 1

Laden
Zvain
Beiber
ReGreta
Setar

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:39 pm • [Post 40079]

My Top 5:

1: Laden
2: PZ
3: Zvan
4: Thibeault
5: Ophelia

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:40 pm • [Post 40080]

Titty wobble has announced on twatter in response to our own demon, that she can't stand atheists anymore, even liberal ones! Lol.

by **JTC** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:44 pm • [Post 40081]

Hey guys, Jerry here.

1. Opehie
2. Setar et all elf genderqueer princess of Atheism+
3. Zvan
4. RW
5. Surly crybaby Amy.

by **welch** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:44 pm • [Post 40082]

I know I should stop, but holy fuck that thread about the mods being...whatever at A+ is like crack. I can't stop going back and looking.

by **ReneeHendricks** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:50 pm • [Post 40083]

Reap wrote:Ok I need everyone to list your TOP 5 jerk-face, moron, fuck-wad,A+ idiots or FTB assholes for my end of the year list. No need to give reasons why and if you think that more than 1 can fit in as number 1, thats ok. I'm not sure the best way to tally it. List it here unless it gets messy I guess? Or if you cant risk posting it here then hit me up on FB (Reap Paden) Polls close at 11:59pm pst Jan 1

1. "Who The Fuck Is" Ed "Git" Brayton
2. Ophelia "You're Damaging My Online Rep" Benson
3. Stephanie "I Love Analyzing Greggie-poo" Zvan
4. "HalfFish Is My Bud" Crommunist
5. PZ "Dungeon Master" Myers

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:50 pm • [Post 40084]

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:55 pm • [Post 40085]

Gumby wrote:

Yeah i tweeted her asking if that meant she wasn't an atheist anymore. Lol, it hurts, it hurts so bad.

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:56 pm • [Post 40086]

My five:

5) Crommunist for declaring he was all in with the baboons, he's the biggest disappointment
4) Cry Baby Amy
3) A tie! Twatson/PeeZus
2) The Cowntess Szvan Zepplin
1) bin Laden

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:57 pm • [Post 40087]

Ape+lust wrote:
Tkmlac wrote:28% of 16,000 is over 4,000. I don't know how you got 280.

$15,000 exemption.

Just realised. That applies to the millionaire earner as well. They don't get $720,000 per year to live on. It's $735,0000. Phew!

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:58 pm • [Post 40088]

Za-zen wrote:Yeah i tweeted her asking if that meant she wasn't an atheist anymore. Lol, it hurts, it hurts so bad.

Oh, I'm sure she still identifies as a liberal atheist, but it's her type of liberal and her type of atheist. You know, the correct kind.

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:59 pm • [Post 40089]

Gumby wrote:

She's not entirely stable, though she belongs in one.

When asked if she was a still an atheist, did she say "NAAAAAY!"?

by **Tkmlac** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:01 pm • [Post 40090]

cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:
Tkmlac wrote:28% of 16,000 is over 4,000. I don't know how you got 280.

$15,000 exemption.

Just realised. That applies to the millionaire earner as well. They don't get $720,000 per year to live on. It's $735,0000. Phew!

Oooooh. Okay, that makes sense. "Make 15000? no tax! Make 16000? Taxed for the whole thing!" haha. I'm dense.

by **Dick Strawkins** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:02 pm • [Post 40091]

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:03 pm • [Post 40092]

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Yeah i don't get the reference.

by **Tkmlac** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:05 pm • [Post 40093]

My issue with a flat tax is that the cost of living and the burden that food and housing puts on lower incomes is higher than those with more income. Some think a flat tax is fair because everyone is paying the same percentage but the gas bill, food bill and housing is going to be a lot higher percentage of income for the poor than for the rich.

by **lurker4now** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:06 pm • [Post 40094]

That would explain a lot. When I re-engaged with the community in an attempt to figure out what the hell was going on, I recall getting the very distinct impression that the FtB etc. bunch really, really believed their own hype that they were a big enough presence to actually take down the likes of Dawkins - with the unstated but clearly implied goal that they would fill the resulting vacuum.

Yes!! The New Statesman article in August announced Atheism+ as "a reaction against the 'New Atheism' of Richard Dawkins."

I distinctly remember seeing two conversations around the same time: One might have been on Twitter, it was a bit of giggling over what hoops they'd make Dawkins jump through in order to join, and how much fun that would be. The other was on FTB, about Atheism+'s proposed 'Official Safe Space' designation for conventions which would not only require anti-harrassment policies, gender and ethnic diversity, etc., but also speakers like Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers.

They really believed Atheism+ was going to be such a Thing that Dawkins - Dawkins! - would come crawling to them, and atheist/skeptic conventions all over the world would bend over backwards to earn the "safe space" designation, including letting A+ dictate their speaker lineup! It might explain, at least in part, why Myers and Watson haven't openly participated in A+ (I believe Myers has pointed out several times that he's not a member). It wouldn't be seemly to be making demands like "To get my organization's stamp of approval you must hire and pay me as a speaker."

by **Steersman** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:06 pm • [Post 40095]

katamari Damassi wrote:
Steersman wrote:However, I can’t help but notice – “sore thumb” caliber – that Brayton still seems to be unclear on a concept or two which sort of belies his disputing that he hasn’t actually “started a cult”:
[spoiler]
While we’re at it, can we also stop with the constant and moronic references to witch burnings and inquisitions? Michael Shermer is not a poor persecuted soul being chased by villagers with torches and pitchforks, he’s a guy who said something very sexist and stupid and is being criticized for it. He had an opportunity to say, “Yeah, that was really dumb and sexist. I’d like to apologize for that and work with others to see if we can come up with a solution to make secular communities more inclusive and welcoming to women.” He chose instead to double down on the problem and make it considerably worse.
[/spoiler]The thing is Ed, you haven’t actually proven that Shermer’s comments qualify as sexism. They may appear to be that way to you, but to insist that everyone else has to accept that interpretation – particularly when there is a notable dearth of evidence – tends to qualify as peddling dogma – sort of a salient attribute of cults. Q.E.D.

Ed does have a point here. I don't think anyone said that Shermer should be drummed out of the community and made forever a pariah, ergo the witch hunting allegations are silly.

I don’t see that Shermer’s original comment about Ophelia being on some sort of a witchhunt against him is at all unreasonable – particularly given her scouring through his articles in Scientific American to find damning evidence of his nefarious sexism.

The problem seems to be – as was discussed in some detail here (I think) and elsewhere – that many seem to have some difficulties with analogies – that drawing a parallel between two scenarios means that both have a complete one-to-one correspondence.

For instance, witch-hunt has a pefectly reasonable and applicable definition – an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views – that doesn’t entail any implications of thumb-screws and burning people at the stake – except figuratively. And likewise with Ophelia Benson’s use of a parallel between TAM and Nazi Germany: I certainly didn’t take that to mean that she was implying that TAM was engaging in genocide. And similarly with Paula Kirby’s use of feminazi and grammar-nazi – as she suggested about the latter, that shouldn’t lead most sane people to think that they had plans to invade Scotland for butchering the Queen’s English. A distinction that is apparently lost on many people including Benson.

But, considering the banning by PZ and others simply for presenting arguments contrary to the conventional wisdom or simply for being from the “wrong” side of the tracks, tends to give further credibilty to the charge of witch-burnings and inquisitions which are looking uncomfortably close if not precursors to the real thing.

by **Tigzy** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:08 pm • [Post 40096]

katamari Damassi wrote:
Gumby wrote:

She's not entirely stable, though she belongs in one.

When asked if she was a still an atheist, did she say "NAAAAAY!"?

Listen to the Houyhnhnm.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/houyhnhnm

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:08 pm • [Post 40097]

Tkmlac wrote:My issue with a flat tax is that the cost of living and the burden that food and housing puts on lower incomes is higher than those with more income. Some think a flat tax is fair because everyone is paying the same percentage but the gas bill, food bill and housing is going to be a lot higher percentage of income for the poor than for the rich.

It's quite blatantly unfair. I mean you'd really have to be a complete fuckwit to think otherwise.

by **Gumby** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:10 pm • [Post 40098]

lurker4now wrote:I distinctly remember seeing two conversations around the same time: One might have been on Twitter, it was a bit of giggling over what hoops they'd make Dawkins jump through in order to join, and how much fun that would be. The other was on FTB, about Atheism+'s proposed 'Official Safe Space' designation for conventions which would not only require anti-harrassment policies, gender and ethnic diversity, etc., but also speakers like Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers.

It would be great to have screenshots of that!

by **mikelf unplugged** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:11 pm • [Post 40099]

cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:
Tkmlac wrote:28% of 16,000 is over 4,000. I don't know how you got 280.

$15,000 exemption.

Just realised. That applies to the millionaire earner as well. They don't get $720,000 per year to live on. It's $735,0000. Phew!

$724,200 actually.

/pedant

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:12 pm • [Post 40100]

mikelf unplugged wrote:
cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:
Tkmlac wrote:28% of 16,000 is over 4,000. I don't know how you got 280.

$15,000 exemption.

Just realised. That applies to the millionaire earner as well. They don't get $720,000 per year to live on. It's $735,0000. Phew!

$724,200 actually.

/pedant

I thought of that about a second after I posted. Knew some fucker would pick it up.

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:16 pm • [Post 40101]

A flat tax rate is sold by the rich to poor fuckwits who are too stupid to understand how things work. Think your average working guy in the states who buys and votes for the republican party.

Flat tax rates rock especially when you can afford an accountant who ensures you don't pay any fucking tax. I have one.

by **Rystefn** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:16 pm • [Post 40102]

Mykeru wrote:
welch wrote:
Another point I'd like to make, and note: ONLY DO THIS IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE TOPIC. (I *completely* get off the bus if you're talking about trolling a conference.) If you see a conference calling for speakers, AND you think you have a decent topic to talk about and might do a good job, submit. There's no better way to be able to alleviate the influence the dipshits have than creating your own. Again, don't do this just to be a tit. But if you have something topic appropriate to talk about, submit a session. If you're accepted, give a talk on your topic, do a good Q&A, and if you feel like it, submit again.

Demonstrate the difference between idiots like benson et al and good speakers by being one.

And it's the year for starting that. We've done our due diligence trying to accommodate the Potemkin Skeptics, trying to figure out what it is they want and how we can make their boo-boos better. This year is going to be, I think, total push-back.

I would like to see more topics in skepticism, but considering that a lot of the FTB/SCK loons would give talks on how to blog and use social media, for fuck's sake, so the bar isn't all that high. Hell, if Rebecca Watson can give keynote speeches on how people were mean to her on the internet, then I doubt there is a bar. Yes, I do realize that anyone who isn't one of the approved incestuous cool kids will be helf to a higher standard in keeping with P.Z. Meyers-level rampant hypocrisy, but might as well start poking away.

Remember that analysis done a while back comparing Atheism Plus to The SlymePit that noted posters here tend to have disproportionate influence? Time to start cashing that shit in. We have a number of "famous on the internet" YouTubers here. In fact, I would recommend people link to The SlymePit on their video lowbars because, unlike the oh-so-important and talent-less SWJs, if anyone wants to interact with their favorite YouTuber, this is the place to do it. One of the remarkable things is the disparity between the high profile of people like Woolly Bumblebee and Thunderfoot and their lack of self-importance.

Oh, on my own front I have one that is now moving forward. I seem to have gone over the tipping point of using new software from "This sucks, I don't know how to do X like in the old program" to "Oh, this is actually better than the old program".

I was talking with Ikonographer on Skype and we noticed that Thunderf00t seems to have paid attention to some of the work other people have been doing and incorporated that into his video, notably the P.Z. Meyers "pick a card and fuck me" clip and the whole Melody Hensley incident. Which is great if true, as he presented a nice, concise, punch-in-the-face version. We seem to work on an open license with each other. That is, we've got no Amy Roth's whining about appropriation. There's no ownership here. We should be building on each others work. I mean, if someone found any of the stuff I've done useful, run with it, let's build on what each other are doing.

Most important, in the long term, is when we can transition from being the opposition to a bunch of idiots to just doing an end run around them, show that they aren't the faces of the atheist and skeptical movement, rather they are a perversion of it. To do that, as Welch says, we have to offer something other than opposition.

That's it. I'm going to get all boozed up tonight, but after the partying is done, I'm going to start pitching talks at cons and shit. Fuck, I can't be worse than Twatson, right? I'll even supply my own booze. Life's too short to drink cheap vodka anyway.

by **Pitchguest** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:18 pm • [Post 40103]

5. Ophelia of doc-drop fame Benson
4. Ed "ERV is a cesspit" Brayton
3. Rebecca "You'd have to make everything up to make it interesting" Watson
2. Simpleflower of A+ fame, "If I am not deserving of hugs in this community, I'm going to leave"
1. Shark Cried, of "If you were infected with HIV during sex, it's your fault for not begging the question, not the one with HIV (or "poz")"

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:19 pm • [Post 40104]

Steersman wrote:I don’t see that Shermer’s original comment about Ophelia being on some sort of a witchhunt against him is at all unreasonable – particularly given her scouring through his articles in Scientific American to find damning evidence of his nefarious sexism.

The problem seems to be – as was discussed in some detail here (I think) and elsewhere – that many seem to have some difficulties with analogies – that drawing a parallel between two scenarios means that both have a complete one-to-one correspondence.

For instance, witch-hunt has a pefectly reasonable and applicable definition – an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views – that doesn’t entail any implications of thumb-screws and burning people at the stake – except figuratively. And likewise with Ophelia Benson’s use of a parallel between TAM and Nazi Germany: I certainly didn’t take that to mean that she was implying that TAM was engaging in genocide. And similarly with Paula Kirby’s use of feminazi and grammar-nazi – as she suggested about the latter, that shouldn’t lead most sane people to think that they had plans to invade Scotland for butchering the Queen’s English. A distinction that is apparently lost on many people including Benson.

But, considering the banning by PZ and others simply for presenting arguments contrary to the conventional wisdom or simply for being from the “wrong” side of the tracks, tends to give further credibilty to the charge of witch-burnings and inquisitions which are looking uncomfortably close if not precursors to the real thing.

Sorry my sarcasm didn't come through as well as I hoped. My point in paraphrasing Ed about making TF00t "forever a pariah" was that it takes a lot of chutzpah for him to claim that allegations of witch hunts are just the result of silly paranoia.

by **Tkmlac** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:19 pm • [Post 40105]

It is a witch hunt, otherwise they'd be blogging and smearing the people that actually are saying dipshit things to them or threatening them. Instead, they go after big names so they can try and supplant them with their own internet fame. It's stupid.

I envy the real activists in the real world who don't spend a lot of time on the internet who look at me and say, "PZ who?" I always say "nevermind," because I don't want to spoil it for them.

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:24 pm • [Post 40106]

Tkmlac wrote:It is a witch hunt, otherwise they'd be blogging and smearing the people that actually are saying dipshit things to them or threatening them. Instead, they go after big names so they can try and supplant them with their own internet fame. It's stupid.

I envy the real activists in the real world who don't spend a lot of time on the internet who look at me and say, "PZ who?" I always say "nevermind," because I don't want to spoil it for them.

Bingo.... Its just unfortunate that meat space con organisers are suckers for internet celebrity

by **ReneeHendricks** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:24 pm • [Post 40107]

Tkmlac wrote:It is a witch hunt, otherwise they'd be blogging and smearing the people that actually are saying dipshit things to them or threatening them. Instead, they go after big names so they can try and supplant them with their own internet fame. It's stupid.

I envy the real activists in the real world who don't spend a lot of time on the internet who look at me and say, "PZ who?" I always say "nevermind," because I don't want to spoil it for them.

Which ties in nicely with my "If I were to walk outside and talk to 200-300 people and ask them if they knew who Ophelia Benson is, I'd get 'Ophelia Who?' every time" bit

by **real horrorshow** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:27 pm • [Post 40108]

1. Watson - Among the worst of the FC(n) as an individual specimen. Also most damaging to the principals of reason and scepticism.

2. Laden - Lacks Watson's influence, fortunately, but an obscene mockery of sentience. A buboe ripe for lancing.

3. PeeZus - Watson's clownish toy. Supposedly a scientist and educator who has betrayed these callings, and his dignity, for the sake of the dull throbbing of his withered knacker-sack.

4. Stephalump - Laden's most abject, lick-spittle apologist, lost to all shame, blind to all reason. Best re-cycled as cheap industrial lubricant.

5. TiBo - After Laden, after Stephalump, when you thought there was no lower to sink, this was spawned of their vile union. A thing scorned by ticks.

by **Rystefn** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:28 pm • [Post 40109]

On the subject of flat taxes: I am around 6'4". Because of this, I get things off the top shelf. Is it fair? Who gives a fuck. I can reach it and other people can't. Rich people bitching about progressive taxes are the same as if I shouted in people's faces "Go to the fucking store and buy a goddamned ladder if you want that book, asshole!"

Pretending it's punishing people for being rich is outright bullshit, and thinking about it for three seconds would disabuse any sane person of the notion. I'm being punished for being tall, the guys that are stronger than average are being punished when people ask them to help move that heavy desk. People with trucks are being punished when they're asked to help their friends move. Fuck you, no one's being punished, you're just being asked to fucking contribute to the community in the way you can that other people can't. Quit your fucking whining and do your part, bitch.

by **cunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:33 pm • [Post 40110]

Za-zen wrote:A flat tax rate is sold by the rich to poor fuckwits who are too stupid to understand how things work. Think your average working guy in the states who buys and votes for the republican party.

It honestly amazes me. You want to pay 1/3 of your shitty salary to the government and make your wife take a second job or you think that guy with 5 italian sports cars in his garage could possibly give one up.

We'll... hurr... da american dream! *loses house*

by **Steersman** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:42 pm • [Post 40111]

katamari Damassi wrote:
Steersman wrote:I don’t see that Shermer’s original comment about Ophelia being on some sort of a witchhunt against him is at all unreasonable – particularly given her scouring through his articles in Scientific American to find damning evidence of his nefarious sexism.

[spoiler]The problem seems to be – as was discussed in some detail here (I think) and elsewhere – that many seem to have some difficulties with analogies – that drawing a parallel between two scenarios means that both have a complete one-to-one correspondence.

For instance, witch-hunt has a pefectly reasonable and applicable definition – an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views – that doesn’t entail any implications of thumb-screws and burning people at the stake – except figuratively. And likewise with Ophelia Benson’s use of a parallel between TAM and Nazi Germany: I certainly didn’t take that to mean that she was implying that TAM was engaging in genocide. And similarly with Paula Kirby’s use of feminazi and grammar-nazi – as she suggested about the latter, that shouldn’t lead most sane people to think that they had plans to invade Scotland for butchering the Queen’s English. A distinction that is apparently lost on many people including Benson.[/spoiler]But, considering the banning by PZ and others simply for presenting arguments contrary to the conventional wisdom or simply for being from the “wrong” side of the tracks, tends to give further credibilty to the charge of witch-burnings and inquisitions which are looking uncomfortably close if not precursors to the real thing.

Sorry my sarcasm didn't come through as well as I hoped. My point in paraphrasing Ed about making TF00t "forever a pariah" was that it takes a lot of chutzpah for him to claim that allegations of witch hunts are just the result of silly paranoia.

Sorry – as several here have pointed out, I tend to be sarcasm/pop-culture challenged (which has its pluses, at least the latter) ….

And I had forgotten about that “pariah” reference until seeing several quotes here about that incident with Thunderfoot.

by **JackRayner** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:02 pm • [Post 40112]

AndrewV69 wrote:
KacyRay wrote:@skep tickle

Again... thanks for confirming that I'm not insane.

I guess it's true... in an insane world, a sane man would appear insane.

I am tempted to go over there myself and deposit some of my thoughts on the subject, but I suspect that several aneurisms would result.

In any event, many/most of you are probably aware that the trope of "rape culture" appears to have started to become popular in certain circles back in the '70s. For example you can reference Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. ISBN-10: 0449908208 ISBN-13: 978-0449908204

I recommend that you read the book if you have not already done so (one of the things I got out of it was that Brownmiller was obsessed with her rape fantasies BTW).

Ah....good 'ol rape fantasies. Apparently they're pretty common [A Voice for Men, who I receive my marching orders from, did a podcast on it a little while ago. They cover several interesting dilemmas..]. I knew a girl several years back that felt comfortable enough to tell me about hers. Apparently, she had wet dreams that featured her being gang raped on a regular enough basis. I was young so I didn't think to follow up on it and ask her if it was something she'd like to try...

Can't say I hold it against people if they feel extremely uncomfortable about the topic though. People tend to want to rush to apply some moral value to it, or to carry a lot of shame concerning their own fantasies. There are very "dark" sides to our sexuality, and they definitely do not conform social mores...

by **Eucliwood** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:04 pm • [Post 40113]

cunt wrote:
Za-zen wrote:A flat tax rate is sold by the rich to poor fuckwits who are too stupid to understand how things work. Think your average working guy in the states who buys and votes for the republican party.

It honestly amazes me. You want to pay 1/3 of your shitty salary to the government and make your wife take a second job or you think that guy with 5 italian sports cars in his garage could possibly give one up.

We'll... hurr... da american dream! *loses house*

cunt, do you have some sort of problem with 5-car guys giving up some dough, or was this posted in agreement to Za zen? If so, you can have a thumbs up.

by **Dilurk** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:06 pm • [Post 40114]

An anti A+ post from http://jennaisme.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/escapism-and-transgenderism-mocking-atheism-plus-lying-politicians-and-the-source-of-creativity/

.. Which is that feminism, the radical feminists are poisoning atheism. Most notably, the atheism plus fiasco.
And i mean, just listen to some of those stupid comments from Rebecca, where she just out right sounds like a fucking cultist. “Oh, i didn’t use to notice the misogyny and harassment going on around me, and i know a lot of women say that it doesn’t happen, but it does. Boohoo”

I don't think Natalie Reed is too enamoured of A+ either, so that makes four gender outlaws that I know of that dislike A+.

by **d4m10n** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:10 pm • [Post 40115]

HoneyWagon wrote:Hey. Any of you looking for work?

The toilets at CFI-DC are on the fritz.

by **Oneiros666** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:13 pm • [Post 40116]

I am sitting here with my bottle of scotch, my beers, my hhhhhhhorrible tasting piece of shit tequila and I am feeling very sorry for posting those terrible pics of the feminazis. I understand this has caused acute erectile dysfunction and/or chronic dryness. To atone for my sin, here is my top three sexy ladies of 2012:

by **Gefan** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:14 pm • [Post 40117]

Oneiros666 wrote:This may have been commented on earlier, but fuck it, I am drinking whisky and as such I become lazy:

What is the deal with these radical feminists all wearing these god-awful glasses? I mean, it's like they go out of their way in order to look as bitchy as possible..oh right.

Hensley:

Wiley:

Watson:

La Pièce de résistance, Christina:

You forgot the blond baboon in the Thunderfoot video.
On a completely gratuitous note, I think someone once mentioned that Greta Christina is a former sex worker. Based on the above photo, presumably that means she used to mop up the beat-off booths in a smut shop.

by **Al Stefanelli** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:17 pm • [Post 40118]

It's out!

Al Stefanelli’s Top Ten Websites For 2012

by **Cunning Punt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:17 pm • [Post 40119]

My top 5:

5.Thimbledick, for consistent mediocrity and "me too-ism";
4.Laden for his Facebook farce;
3.Surly Amy for feeling harrassed by a T-shirt;
2.OB for trolling through Shermer's past writing output for things to get mad about;
1.Watson for her Evo-psych talk

by **ReneeHendricks** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:18 pm • [Post 40120]

Woohoo for the Lois Griffin pic! My guy and I have a cartoon we created where he's Peter and I'm Lois cuz I can do the Lois voice on occasion...when *realllly* drunk

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:22 pm • [Post 40121]

Al Stefanelli wrote:It's out!

Al Stefanelli’s Top Ten Websites For 2012

Gotta disagree with you on your choice of douchebag Eberhard. He was unreadable at FTB, and over at Patheos he joined in the FTB attack on Justin Vacula. Also his idea of activism is to play retro video games with Thimbledick.

by **Za-zen** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:22 pm • [Post 40122]

Thumbs up Al

by **Gefan** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:24 pm • [Post 40123]

Mykeru wrote:
welch wrote:
Another point I'd like to make, and note: ONLY DO THIS IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE TOPIC. (I *completely* get off the bus if you're talking about trolling a conference.) If you see a conference calling for speakers, AND you think you have a decent topic to talk about and might do a good job, submit. There's no better way to be able to alleviate the influence the dipshits have than creating your own. Again, don't do this just to be a tit. But if you have something topic appropriate to talk about, submit a session. If you're accepted, give a talk on your topic, do a good Q&A, and if you feel like it, submit again.

Demonstrate the difference between idiots like benson et al and good speakers by being one.

And it's the year for starting that. We've done our due diligence trying to accommodate the Potemkin Skeptics, trying to figure out what it is they want and how we can make their boo-boos better. This year is going to be, I think, total push-back.

I would like to see more topics in skepticism, but considering that a lot of the FTB/SCK loons would give talks on how to blog and use social media, for fuck's sake, so the bar isn't all that high. Hell, if Rebecca Watson can give keynote speeches on how people were mean to her on the internet, then I doubt there is a bar. Yes, I do realize that anyone who isn't one of the approved incestuous cool kids will be helf to a higher standard in keeping with P.Z. Meyers-level rampant hypocrisy, but might as well start poking away.

Remember that analysis done a while back comparing Atheism Plus to The SlymePit that noted posters here tend to have disproportionate influence? Time to start cashing that shit in. We have a number of "famous on the internet" YouTubers here. In fact, I would recommend people link to The SlymePit on their video lowbars because, unlike the oh-so-important and talent-less SWJs, if anyone wants to interact with their favorite YouTuber, this is the place to do it. One of the remarkable things is the disparity between the high profile of people like Woolly Bumblebee and Thunderfoot and their lack of self-importance.

Oh, on my own front I have one that is now moving forward. I seem to have gone over the tipping point of using new software from "This sucks, I don't know how to do X like in the old program" to "Oh, this is actually better than the old program".

I was talking with Ikonographer on Skype and we noticed that Thunderf00t seems to have paid attention to some of the work other people have been doing and incorporated that into his video, notably the P.Z. Meyers "pick a card and fuck me" clip and the whole Melody Hensley incident. Which is great if true, as he presented a nice, concise, punch-in-the-face version. We seem to work on an open license with each other. That is, we've got no Amy Roth's whining about appropriation. There's no ownership here. We should be building on each others work. I mean, if someone found any of the stuff I've done useful, run with it, let's build on what each other are doing.

Most important, in the long term, is when we can transition from being the opposition to a bunch of idiots to just doing an end run around them, show that they aren't the faces of the atheist and skeptical movement, rather they are a perversion of it. To do that, as Welch says, we have to offer something other than opposition.

You know, I never once thought they could be accommodated. I can't stand the appeasement analogy (or the Churchill cult that worships an alcoholic who, even when sober, needed to kept as far away as possible from all forms of military planning) but sometimes you're stuck with it.
I did sort of hope they'd go away if ignored and left to turn on each other but appeasing them was never even possible. Conceding to every last one of their demands would, at best have made it interesting to see where they went next.
They're like the jihadists, there just isn't anything to discuss with them. One side or the other is going to win here and at least we have humor on our side.

by **mutleyeng** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:29 pm • [Post 40124]

Al Stefanelli wrote:It's out!

Al Stefanelli’s Top Ten Websites For 2012

I cant see anyone having a problem with that

Stefaneli-> :teasing-poke:

by **katamari Damassi** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:32 pm • [Post 40125]

And I'd like to point out that not only did JT join in the attacks on Vacula but the motherfucker knowingly and gleefully spread the lie that Vacula maliciously doxxed Crybaby Amy and did not provide any of the context.

The Slymepit

Who is online