Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[Gumby]

Back when I was a casual reader of FTB, if I saw something like Steffie's post, without knowledge of the context, I really would have believed that this is a den of rapists and serial harassers. I am just glad that I came here to see for myself. It is a shame that many people will just take Zvan's post, and posts like it, at face value.

I was a casual FTBer myself, and didn't check the Pit (over at ERV) for quite a while. Just assumed all the bad things said about it were true.

However, when I finally put my skeptic's glasses on when Elevatorgate erupted, one of the things I did was check out the Pit for myself. Of course, I found that Peezus et al were lying their asses off.

The way I see it, both people who are becoming disgusted with FTB and people who are fully indoctrinated into the FTB cult come here to look. Many who were getting sick of FTB and their dishonest malicious bullshit stay here, like I did. The cultists will stay where they are. Some won't like either the Pit or FTB, and just disappear. It would be like that no matter what we posted here.

Whether or not some of the stuff on this site can be considered offensive is really no importance to me. The fact that I can say things or post pics that might be considered offensive to some is very important to me, because that's what makes the Pit the complete opposite of FTB, where every word and link is carefully scrutinized by the pitchfork-wielding villagers for the smallest sign of political incorrectness or deviation from approved athe-fem dogma. The free speech that the FTBers so tellingly mock as "FREEZE PEACH" is the Pit's greatest asset, one that they give up when they choose the FTB side.

If someone that hangs around on FTB wants to take the words of Peezus, Stephalump and Ophie regarding the Pit at face value, like I once did, then so be it. This place continues on regardless.

[Notung]

I took it to mean 'strategy' as well.

The naming of the pit is unfortunate, if we were to view this purely as a propaganda war.

But if people don't care then /shrug

TBH I knew people didn't care after the last time I tried saying this. I actually had a lot more support back then, but it only takes one or two. You have to convince absolutely everyone and, of course, I can't force them to agree - this isn't Pharyngula after all.

I was just venting and making my position on all this clear.

[AbsurdWalls]

“Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.” -Heinlein

Yes, the noted historian R. Heinlein stating his thesis, oh, no, wait...

The words of Lazarus Long, a character of noted SF author R. Heinlein. The same character that, as the oldest human in the universe, gets ahold of a time machine and uses it to go back and fuck his mother, evidently because he grew tired of fucking his daughters.

Does the point of the quote lose it's meaning because it was spoken by a fictional character? If it's possible to ad homenim a fictional character, you just did.

Dumbass

Attributing it to Heinlein implies it was his view on the matter. That is what requires clarification. Otherwise, Edward Norton is in trouble.

This reminds me of when Laurie Penny was accusing the creators of Game of Thrones of being sexist because they chose to create a world in which women were not treated as equals to men...

Yes. That happened.

[EdwardGemmer]

My response to Adam Lee's 'terms'

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ktlald

Fuck that dude. While I'm one to be all whiny about everything, I am tired of people casually calling people rapists. Adam Lee, trivializing rape victims everywhere.

Adam Lee thinks poking fun at someone and raping them is morally equivalent.

[bhoytony]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

[nippletwister]

You should be worried! It is nebulous. Very nebulous. Rape is a difficult thing for everyone, especially in college, where you have a lot of inexperienced people experimenting with sex and alcohol. There is no magic wand that will prevent bad things from happening. I have two girls - I don't want them to get raped because they drank too much. We all have concerns - finding some sort of happy balance is the goal, but I firmly believe there is no bright line rule to this.

When my eldest boy headed off to College, he successfully hid the fact from me for two semesters, that housing had assigned him a girl as a roommate.

I suspected, based on my own experience at York but confined myself to regularly sending him cautionary emails.

His Grandmother "flipped her wig". Apparently she subscribes to the same Sicilian view that

if you put two dogs together they are going to fuck

So, how are you going to react if housing assigns your girls a boy for a roommate? Something I suggest you look into if you have concerns, especially as apparently many young people have never been taught how to handle alcohol.

I dunno, my girls are six and <2 months. I'm sure by the time they go to college there will be an Intro to Fucking 101 class they are all required to take (with a lab!)

That's disgusting and illegal, and I'm reporting you to the SPCA. Non-humans cannot consent!

[bhoytony]

You know what, Stephanie? I see less hate and bigotry in the Manatee pictures than in this blog post of yours.

You don't like to have people posting photoshopped pictures of you? Try not insulting people and calling them damaged and not defending obviously bigoted, hateful and sexist ideas.
Are you offended by some of those posts? Stop offending other people and then I'll care.

Yes, she thinks I'm a potential rapist and I think she is a fat. Which is more offensive?

[Za-zen]

If i recall most of that series of stefy pisstakes were to do with some nutty "slim people shame fatties by existing" sjw tripe she was spurting. Hence the steffy is a fatty sex goddess meme. The name play on zvan is because she goes irrationally ape shit over people miss spelling or shortening her name.

One further, and to my mind most serious point. She misatributed one of the pics as being her and greggy, i swear it's dillahunty in that pic.

With regard to people being turned off the pyt because of "vile content" when i read the freezepage of staffyducks blog i got my laugh for the night, and as long as i keep getting my lulz i couldn't give a shit, i'm not in the business of saving the world, i enjoy laughing at fuckwits. Swan is a fuckwit of the highest order.

[rayshul]

I don't think - given the success of the pit generally - that we really need to change anything.

Ex-A+ers come here because they see it as a safe space.

Ex-FTBers come here because they want to have discussions.

Minorities/women come here because they want to be treated like humans and be judged on their own merits.

Cis heterosexual white males come here because they get to be treated like humans too and not like public enemy number one.

Look, whatever we're doing here, it seems to be working. Outside of FtB, the narrative has dramatically changed - we are not a fringe group, we are part of an increasingly vocal majority. Also. We don't need people to join the 'pit to be successful. We could measure our success by people rejecting the SJW narrative, or applying skepticism to sociological claims... to me that's far more important than promoting the 'pit.

Which we don't really do (outside of the 'pit).

[Gumby]

Also. We don't need people to join the 'pit to be successful. We could measure our success by people rejecting the SJW narrative, or applying skepticism to sociological claims... to me that's far more important than promoting the 'pit.

Yep. I bet there's a lot of people out there who wouldn't be caught dead admitting they read the Pit, but have had their outlook on FTB/A+/Skepchick irrevocably changed by coming here to lurk. That's good enough for me.

[Apples]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

:popcorn:

[bhoytony]

:popcorn:

:whistle:

[nippletwister]

I don't give a fuck!

I know, which is why I don't say this more often. I just usually facepalm to myself, and try to work out why people who seem to hate FTB etc. so much would go to such lengths to help them.

I don't care what they think about it, I don't care what the idiots who blindly swollow everything that FTB feed to them think and I don't care what you think. I'm just fucking about, so you carry on facepalming and looking down your nose at us from your position up there.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you're an immature dumbass dickbag, but I totally agree with your assessment, and completely support your right to be an immature dumbass dickbag.

so fuck off and kiss my ass, blah, blah blah, etc.

And I love the pics. I couldn't give two shits or a rat's ass what those worthless lying idiot shitbags at FTB think, and I hope some of them see this comment as well. If they cry enough, maybe all the tear stains on their shoulders will keep them from going out in public. Then again, they obviously don't care if everyone knows what emotional cripples and black holes they are. Oh well.

[katamari Damassi]

I don't give a fuck!

I know, which is why I don't say this more often. I just usually facepalm to myself, and try to work out why people who seem to hate FTB etc. so much would go to such lengths to help them.

I acknowledge you as my moral superior.

He's talking about strategy (as he sees it), not morality.

Exactly - I can't believe you even had to say that - felt like I was commenting on Pharyngula for a second!

Dem's fightin' words.

My post was a reaction to your remark about skipping over all of the insults and because of that, not even realizing how much of that there is here. That sounded pretty condescending to me.

And to be clear; I wasn't being sarcastic. I acknowledge you as my moral superior, so feel free to take a victory lap and really enjoy it. I'm not in any competition to be the most morally upstanding, or even nicest guy around. I simply do not care about the pwecious fee-fees of the professional victims, or the just plain thin skinned special snowflakes, I do not care what they or their disciples, or you, or most other people think of me. Give no quarter and ask no quarter.
Now if you were genuinely talking tactics, then I still have to disagree. There are no moderates at Almost Diamonds. If there were, and they had an IQ above room temperature(celsius scale),then they would've seen through the Cowntess' schtick and moved on already.

[bhoytony]

I've read enough of your posts to know that you're an immature dumbass dickbag, but I totally agree with your assessment, and completely support your right to be an immature dumbass dickbag.

so fuck off and kiss my ass, blah, blah blah, etc.

And I love the pics. I couldn't give two shits or a rat's ass what those worthless lying idiot shitbags at FTB think, and I hope some of them see this comment as well. If they cry enough, maybe all the tear stains on their shoulders will keep them from going out in public. Then again, they obviously don't care if everyone knows what emotional cripples and black holes they are. Oh well.

There's no need to be crude.

[Tigzy]

So - Peez pops up on Steffy's 'look at these people bein meanz to me' post, in order to point out that certain commentators at t'pit are incorrect to suggest that 'they' (the FTB crowd) get a good living out of the conference circuit:

PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)

maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.

So Peez would have us believe that his speaking gigs are largely in support of his cause rather than his pocket. And, presumably, nothing to do with partying with the skepchicks - but I digress. Anyways, were this statement made in isolation, then maybe I could believe it. Peezus is, after all, about as fanatical enough.

But...well, remember what Greta said? When she had her cancer scare? here, let's look at it again:

I’ve had to cancel my appearance at Skepticon, as well as all my other speaking gigs for the next couple of months — and I already had to cancel several speaking gigs when my dad died. Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... -for-help/

Well, in fairness to Peez, his book isn't out yet, and hasn't been out yet for a long time - so we have no way of knowing how much the speaking gigs are likely to affect his book sales. Nevertheless, Greta still feels that the speaking gigs remain a significant part of her income - which leads me to believe that:

A: Greta must really enjoy abject poverty. 'Splains the Fluevogs I suppose; must feel like a step up from scabby rags. Just.
B: Greta does indeed make a fair bit of cash from the speaking gigs, and Peez is being...disingenuous.
C: Peez deliberately avoids asking for too much cash for his speaking gigs, because it's for the cause. Which does lead one to wonder why he says it's not a great way to make a living, if he's only taken it upon himself not to charge much for his speaking gigs.

In any case, something doesn't add up here; and I'm not talking about Greta's accounts, either.

[Git]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

Yes.

[LMU]

Utoh. Looks like Stephie-pookins is not pleased :D

http://www.freezepage.com/1359839261CBYUSOIJFR

Haha. Who was it that asked if we should put ads on FTB? Why would we? They're giving us all sorts of exposure for free.

I still crack up at "Oh the Huge Svanity!"

[Zenspace]

Zenspace,

Although I agree that parts of Time Enough for Love are great, Heinlein saw sexual liberation fairly narrowly. He positively portrays liberated sexuality for heterosexual sex, female bisexuality, and incest. In the passage you reference about the two doctors it turns out that they are of the opposite sex and the man expresses a sense of relief about that fact. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a defect in his works.

But back to my main point - would you agree, then, that quoting Lazarus Long is pretty meaningless wrt real world sexual equality?

A good question. Heinlein wrote of a highly idealized future nearly 2000 years from now which, even then exhibited some old cultural baggage as demonstrated in our mutual example of the two doctors meeting. Also, while I agree with Heinlein's overall observations regarding sexual taboos, and would hope that society moved in that direction, there is no way in hell you could make that model work in modern society. There would be literal rioting in the streets.

With that caveat, I would be loath to completely discount the possibility of references to specific narrow examples to make a specific point for the purposes of illustration, assuming the point would also be backed by an a academic source.

The Heinlein quote referenced at the start of this is a good example. I think it makes a valid point for discussion. In some respects I agree with it. But there are many areas surrounding the main point that could be discussed endlessly in an attempt to define what feminine equality actually is (for starters).

[Git]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

Yes.

And to repeat: Yes.

Orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs are as bad and as equally misogynistic and barbaric as the hijab.

[Tigzy]

Oh, I forgot option D, as regards my last post: that Greta herself might have been...a tad disingenuous about how much she gets from speaking gigs, let's say.

[somedumbguy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_Girl.jpg
I guess Ophelia still has Nazi Germany on the brain, because, after her post saying, again, that she never made an analogy between TAM and Nazi Germany (she was just comparing Grothe to Goebbels -- it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT ;)) ..... she has a new post up.

In her current post, "When is World Yellow Star Day?" she complains about something called "World Hijab Day" and quotes two ex-muslim girls who still feel family pressure to wear the hijab.

According to the BBC -

Originated by New York woman Nazma Khan, the movement has been organised almost solely over social networking sites. It has attracted interest from Muslims and non-Muslims in more than 50 countries across the world.

For many people, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and divisiveness. It's a visible target that often bears the brunt of a larger debate about Islam in the West.

World Hijab Day is designed to counteract these controversies. It encourages non-Muslim women (or even Muslim women who do not ordinarily wear one) to don the hijab and experience what it's like to do so, as part of a bid to foster better understanding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21283301

Now, the hijab may be stupid and oppressive and patriarchal and religious -- but, especially in this context, it is really not comparable to the yellow star. Good job Ophie -- way to beat that reputation as a knee-jerk godwinner.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -star-day/

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

It's not in the same continuum, it's in a completely different universe.

The yellow star is to designate Jews -- so we can identify them. So we can kill them. Jews did not want to wear that star.

The hijab in the context of world hijab day is a voluntarily worn garment that the wearer believes is empowering and liberating and expresses her commitment to Allah. The wearers want to wear that garment. http://worldhijabday.com/page3/page1.html

Hijab is in fact celebrated in those terms by many feminists AS WELL AS THE ACLU who will tell you what a rapist pedophile wifebeating child abusing MRA you are if you say it is a sign of oppression.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hijab+s ... isting.com

In fact, world hijab day, in context, is not at all like yellow star day but more like kippah day.

And that you and I and many others see it as a sign of oppression to women still does not make it like yellow star day because world hijab day is clearly not about women that are wearing a hijab due to external demands.

Benson is being dismissive and condescending and patronizing and "I know what's best for you ladies" (otherwise known as patriarchal) by equating the two.

[Git]

Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.

[nippletwister]

My response to Adam Lee's 'terms'

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ktlald

Reasonable and honest, and you didn't even get mean or mad at all the ridiculous shit he implied.

I'm sure he'll shit all over you for it, if he mentions it at all. You obviously "just don't get" how badly women are oppressed in a free society. You seem to think they are equals or something, you must need re-education.

[Cunning Punt]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538

[Notung]

My post was a reaction to your remark about skipping over all of the insults and because of that, not even realizing how much of that there is here. That sounded pretty condescending to me.

Well that's just what I do - it's not moral, it's just because I don't find them interesting. I do sometimes find the *jokes* funny - but only the funny ones! I like AngrySkepchick, for instance.

And to be clear; I wasn't being sarcastic. I acknowledge you as my moral superior, so feel free to take a victory lap and really enjoy it. I'm not in any competition to be the most morally upstanding, or even nicest guy around. I simply do not care about the pwecious fee-fees of the professional victims, or the just plain thin skinned special snowflakes, I do not care what they or their disciples, or you, or most other people think of me. Give no quarter and ask no quarter.
Now if you were genuinely talking tactics, then I still have to disagree. There are no moderates at Almost Diamonds. If there were, and they had an IQ above room temperature(celsius scale),then they would've seen through the Cowntess' schtick and moved on already.

Well I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here. Even if they 'deserve it', I don't insult people online because it isn't productive. I usually keep all that inside my head. Regarding tactics: there are moderates who might see a retweet of Zvan's post, or they might have only a passing interest in the 'drama'. Unless they look fairly deeply (which is time-consuming) I can see how an intelligent person who doesn't know any better might think this fight is between feminists fighting for women's rights and evil internet misogynists who hate women.

[Git]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

[AbsurdWalls]

Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.

Completely orthogonal to the actual repression they may be facing? Yes.

Oh, wait...

Yes.

[Submariner]

Zenspace,

Although I agree that parts of Time Enough for Love are great, Heinlein saw sexual liberation fairly narrowly. He positively portrays liberated sexuality for heterosexual sex, female bisexuality, and incest. In the passage you reference about the two doctors it turns out that they are of the opposite sex and the man expresses a sense of relief about that fact. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a defect in his works.

But back to my main point - would you agree, then, that quoting Lazarus Long is pretty meaningless wrt real world sexual equality?

A good question. Heinlein wrote of a highly idealized future nearly 2000 years from now which, even then exhibited some old cultural baggage as demonstrated in our mutual example of the two doctors meeting. Also, while I agree with Heinlein's overall observations regarding sexual taboos, and would hope that society moved in that direction, there is no way in hell you could make that model work in modern society. There would be literal rioting in the streets.

With that caveat, I would be loath to completely discount the possibility of references to specific narrow examples to make a specific point for the purposes of illustration, assuming the point would also be backed by an a academic source.

The Heinlein quote referenced at the start of this is a good example. I think it makes a valid point for discussion. In some respects I agree with it. But there are many areas surrounding the main point that could be discussed endlessly in an attempt to define what feminine equality actually is (for starters).

THANK YOU.

Someone who gets it.

BTW I preferred "I Will Fear No Evil" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" .

[Git]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538

Exactly. Those medieval savages can fuck off and fuck themselves.

[somedumbguy]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

[Git]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.

[Michael J]

Your bias is showing a bit. In your post you used "attacking a person and forcing HER to have sex" when in all other statements you used neutral pronouns.

I'm not attacking you, I'm JAQing off.

I'm a huge fan of JAQing off! But as far as your questions - how drunk is too drunk? I don't know - it's difficult to say. If someone is unconscious, she is too drunk. Not reaching that, I'm not sure, though I am of the strong opinion that if someone is sloppy drunk they shouldn't be a target for sex. If they are both too drunk to consent, well, things have gone wrong.

"Sloppy drunk"= stumbling, slurring speech and so on? There's probably some individual variation, but I've never had the sense of not doing things out of my own volition even when physically impaired.

I have to agree that you're showing a bit of a bias here by assuming that the drunk person is the "target for sex". What if the drunk person is doing the "targeting" as in that Big Bang theory scenario?

I have seen that scenario, a drunk woman more or less demanding sex from drunk guys, many times in my life. I have never seen a man doing the same thing. Somehow, nobody ever thinks that the woman is exhibiting predatory behavior.

I was pretty shy so if I hadn't drunk I'd still be a virgin. I think that it is a tough question. It is a fine line between you and your date drinking to relax you inhibitions and being to drunk to consent.

I've also seen girls target particular guys to get them drunk and into the sack. They mistakenly think that the guy will magically fall in love with them. Usually it just ends up with the same long conversation in the morning.

[windy]

TBH I knew people didn't care after the last time I tried saying this. I actually had a lot more support back then, but it only takes one or two. You have to convince absolutely everyone and, of course, I can't force them to agree - this isn't Pharyngula after all.

No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

My response to Adam Lee's 'terms'

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ktlald

Reasonable and honest, and you didn't even get mean or mad at all the ridiculous shit he implied.

I'm sure he'll shit all over you for it, if he mentions it at all. You obviously "just don't get" how badly women are oppressed in a free society. You seem to think they are equals or something, you must need re-education.

Any preconditions to a conversation, beyond generally accepted terms of debate and general civility within that conversation, are a complete show-stopper for reasoned argument or discourse

If you prescribe that you will not discuss unless XYZ - then you may as well just decline.

As soon as you put XYZ up as things your opponent must concede before you will even talk - you have lost the debate.

[Lurky McLurk]

No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.

Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

[somedumbguy]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.

In other words, you've got no reason to justify your statement about kippah wearers except your own desire to spread atheism.

[AndrewV69]

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I am reasonably certain I can find lots of examples (for example such as forums such as Islam Awakening) where the women would violently disagree and insist that it is their right to wear one, and in fact you are attempting to oppress them by taking away their right to do just that.

Can you cite anything from a fairly credible source that agrees with the position you just made?

Just to clarify, I am reasonably certain you can find women who object to wearing the hijab, but I believe you blunder with your blanket statement about the choice to do so.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.

So call that action out when it happens - until then they (the individual) can decide to wear whatever silly hats they like, or even to delegate their decision of which silly hat to wear to an organisation, religion or church ... it's their head, they can wear exactly what they like on it.

When they tell *me* which silly hat I have to wear, or tell others that they are immoral or evil for not wearing a silly hat - then I'll call them out on it.

[nippletwister]

Voluntary my arse.

As I said before, defending a woman's right to wear a veil is like defending a slave's right to wear leg-irons.

You know, I agree with you that having ANY kind of clothes requirements for everyday use is at least somewhat oppressive, and would be oppressive no matter who was required to wear it. Orthodox Jew Curls on men is stupid and oppressive too, if somewhat less so.

But you just repeating stupid shit you've already said doesn't make it true. While I view head coverings as oppressive, saying it's in the same league with a leg iron is just stupid beyond belief. That's no better than when feminists claim that cat-calling is the same thing as rape, just slightly lower on the scale, or that saying "you look nice" is "claiming ownership" of a woman's body.

There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".

But then, I've already determined that you are a dishonest and hysterical sort who likes to uncharitably over-interpret things to make your dubious points, so I don't know why I'm bothering here....just bored, I guess.

[katamari Damassi]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Well in the Slymepit they punish you if you don't wear a racist hat. At least that's what I heard over at FTB.

[Git]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

Unfortunately, monotheism especially has shown us that it is incapable of leaving anyone else alone. Religion is by its nature a conquering and supremacist virus.

In other words, you've got no reason to justify your statement about kippah wearers except your own desire to spread atheism.

Yes indeed, I am a giant non-fluffy uncompromising arsehole (one might say an utter git) when it comes to religion. I'm not so much a atheist as an anti-theist.

[sacha]

...So, here's the thing why I get so annoyed about victim blaming: I was so stupid to create / get myself into a situation in which I was vulnerable. Totally my fault. Yet, not my fault that I was psychologically scarred due to the actions of someone else. Yep, there's a fucking difference. At least to my feeble mind.

I agree. depending on age.

how is your girl?

[VickyCaramel]

[

Its not directly comparable, but it is on the same continuum. The hijab is a misogynistic hate rag, a death shroud almost up there with a nazi uniform, a symbol of an actual fucking patriarchy.

It appals me how many liberals defend it.

And people no more "choose" to wear it any more than a slave "chooses" to wear leg-irons. Defending one is like defending the other.

Does this include orthodox Jewish hair coverings of scarves and wigs?

Or throwing stones at little girls?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538

I was expecting that to be orthodox Jews throwing stones at Palestinian girls on their way to school in Jerusalem. But I guess as thats an every-day thing, that wouldn't be newsworthy.

[sacha]

Notice: Eucliwood is now permanently banned due to s/h/it almost certainly being the same person as doing what looks like some really unpleasant, stupid and dangerous shit on another online medium. I want s/h/it to have nothing to do with the Pit whatsoever.

ooh interesting drama

[Zenspace]

Zenspace,

Although I agree that parts of Time Enough for Love are great, Heinlein saw sexual liberation fairly narrowly. He positively portrays liberated sexuality for heterosexual sex, female bisexuality, and incest. In the passage you reference about the two doctors it turns out that they are of the opposite sex and the man expresses a sense of relief about that fact. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a defect in his works.

But back to my main point - would you agree, then, that quoting Lazarus Long is pretty meaningless wrt real world sexual equality?

A good question. Heinlein wrote of a highly idealized future nearly 2000 years from now which, even then exhibited some old cultural baggage as demonstrated in our mutual example of the two doctors meeting. Also, while I agree with Heinlein's overall observations regarding sexual taboos, and would hope that society moved in that direction, there is no way in hell you could make that model work in modern society. There would be literal rioting in the streets.

With that caveat, I would be loath to completely discount the possibility of references to specific narrow examples to make a specific point for the purposes of illustration, assuming the point would also be backed by an a academic source.

The Heinlein quote referenced at the start of this is a good example. I think it makes a valid point for discussion. In some respects I agree with it. But there are many areas surrounding the main point that could be discussed endlessly in an attempt to define what feminine equality actually is (for starters).

THANK YOU.

Someone who gets it.

BTW I preferred "I Will Fear No Evil" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" .

You say the sweetest things! :)

I've read both of those as well, but my memory fails me regarding 'No Evil'. I read it too long ago. 'Stranger' I've read several times and is a remarkable book, most notable in my mind for the scene in which Smith finally groks humans in front of the monkey cage. That scene should be made a central part of every social studies class on the planet.

[Git]

There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".

Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the Damane from the Wheel of Time books). Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are brainwashed.

[sacha]

I still don't think s/h/it is a 12-year-old girl: I think an adult male troll, and capable of creating legal liability if engaged with. I really don't want this discussed further on the Pit either in public or PMs, please.

okay, one less point of contention. moving on...

[katamari Damassi]

And kippah wearers can fuck off too. What sort of demented fucking idiot thinks that his imaginary friend will punish him for the rest of existance for [1]not wearing a certain type of hat?[/i]

Who cares? What business is it of yours? How have they stomped on your dick this morning?

If they leave me alone, and are otherwise ethical and moral members of the community, why should I care what the fuck they do?

I see hijab and kipah wearers the way I see surlyramic wearers. They're groupthink identity badges. "Look at my kipah! That means I'm part of an elite group. Hey you're also wearing a kipah! We should be friends." That sort of thing.

[Dick Strawkins]

So - Peez pops up on Steffy's 'look at these people bein meanz to me' post, in order to point out that certain commentators at t'pit are incorrect to suggest that 'they' (the FTB crowd) get a good living out of the conference circuit:

PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)

maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.

So Peez would have us believe that his speaking gigs are largely in support of his cause rather than his pocket. And, presumably, nothing to do with partying with the skepchicks - but I digress. Anyways, were this statement made in isolation, then maybe I could believe it. Peezus is, after all, about as fanatical enough.

But...well, remember what Greta said? When she had her cancer scare? here, let's look at it again:

I’ve had to cancel my appearance at Skepticon, as well as all my other speaking gigs for the next couple of months — and I already had to cancel several speaking gigs when my dad died. Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... -for-help/

Well, in fairness to Peez, his book isn't out yet, and hasn't been out yet for a long time - so we have no way of knowing how much the speaking gigs are likely to affect his book sales. Nevertheless, Greta still feels that the speaking gigs remain a significant part of her income - which leads me to believe that:

A: Greta must really enjoy abject poverty. 'Splains the Fluevogs I suppose; must feel like a step up from scabby rags. Just.
B: Greta does indeed make a fair bit of cash from the speaking gigs, and Peez is being...disingenuous.
C: Peez deliberately avoids asking for too much cash for his speaking gigs, because it's for the cause. Which does lead one to wonder why he says it's not a great way to make a living, if he's only taken it upon himself not to charge much for his speaking gigs.

In any case, something doesn't add up here; and I'm not talking about Greta's accounts, either.

So Peezus admits $4000-$5000 last year.
So who is lying, him or Ophelia

According to her, they get paid nothing!

They have a delusion that she gets paid big bucks for speaking, and that we all do. We get paid ZILCH, just as Ron says. That idea gets recycled a lot, and I suspect that’s why Russell echoed it. That’s odd, in a way, since he would know, as the organized haters don’t, that speakers don’t get paid.

And 'academic conferences'?
What academic conference would want PZ Myers.
Any scientific conference that I've been to would only get speakers who were either actively researching, or who had made huge progress in the field in the past. Myers is neither of these. He's a teacher at a small backwater university. He'd be unlikely to even get a poster accepted, never mind be asked to give a keynote!)

[nippletwister]

No one else has any hilarious nicknames for me? I am disappoint, you guys are horrible at being hateful.

Anyone who owns the Male Git Co. shouldn't expect any better, you hatefully male exploiter of the proletariat.

Meat Logic

Meat Clog I

A Clog Emit

Clam Tie Go

Cat Gem Oil

A Clog Met I

Or as the FTB'ers might tell you:

Male Tic Go

[Git]

I see hijab and kipah wearers the way I see surlyramic wearers. They're groupthink identity badges. "Look at my kipah! That means I'm part of an elite group. Hey you're also wearing a kipah! We should be friends." That sort of thing.

Similar levels of brainwashing involved too.

[Notung]

No, there was a lot of support for the idea that it's better to avoid mocking people for involuntary physical traits- there is less support for the idea that it's possible to stop the "insult mining" that way.

I'm not sure that's right - IIRC on Justin Griffith's now infamous thread, people like Justicar and a few of the newbies (at the time) were saying we're 'cleaning it up' (referring especially to a certain kick, which was being 'insult mined' to high heaven). Then, naturally that plan went out of the window pretty quickly and pissed a few people off.

[sacha]

at this point in my life, I don't want random men knowing that I live alone, out in the woods.

honestly, luv, no one should know that. male or female

[Casual Nemesis]

She was probably prettier when she was young. But, the key to being a successful stripper is purely in one's skill to manipulate. I met plenty of unattractive girls who could keep guys spending money in the bar all night.

If you are at all interested, see if you can watch 'G-string divas' - an old HBO documentary about a group of strippers in Florida. The most successful stripper was average verging on homely - but she knew how to manipulate.

I used to manage an adult club. The girls who made the good money just had to make eye contact, smile, and flirt a little. The others had an attitude where they thought customers owed them something, or wanted to do stupid shit that risked getting us shut down.

I'm glad I'm out of the business; it's overrated.

I was too shy and self-conscious to succeed in the business.

I'm as glad that you're out of it as I am that I'm out of it. It's the only job I've ever had where I've had to calm down a drunk while looking down the barrel of a pistol.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)

maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.

Other explanation ... PZ just isn't worth paying ... capitalism does sort of dictate people get paid what they are worth

[Michael K Gray]

I really, really don't like conflating atheism and skepticism.

Same here. I'm active in a local atheist group, but take the view that atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good. If you're atheist because you hero-worship Marx or Rand or Dawkins or Myers, because you watched Zeitgeist, or because of your parents, there is a damn good chance that you don't give a toss about thinking things through for yourself. Such people are potential skeptics and allies, but they have a ways to go.

I think my take on this is very different than yours, considering I live in Sweden and have first hand experience in what it means to live in a country where most are atheist or irreligious, but not skeptics. I can say for sure that even without skepticism, atheism is still a couple of thousand times more preferable than theism.

Even though we might have plenty of people buying into woo-woo and conspiracy theories, we don't have any crazy creationists with actual, real, political power trying to put God and the Bible into our legislation and classrooms.

Yeah.
Damion is spouting out of his arse here, I agree.
Atheism is not dependent on skepticism any way shape, nor form.

atheism without scientific skepticism does more harm than good

Cites?

Maoism, Kimism, Stalinism, and on the other side, Objectivism. All atheist ideologies freed from the rational constraints of skepticism and the moral constraints of humanism.

Not this tired bullshit "argument" again?
The above ideologies were not based on a lack of belief in a deity at all!
In fact, they are all superb examples of the leaders setting themselves up as a deity!
With the additional bonus bogus that all of them DID practise forms of scientific skepticism!

Bzzt! FAIL.

[Michael J]

Couldn't both be true? Could PZ get nothing because he demands nothing and OB demands a price. Or it could simply be the $5 pa and the extra books she sells make a difference. Not to forget that spending a big portion of the year being fed by other people is worth a lot.

On another point. The only conferences I've been to are the GAC conferences in Melbourne. The thing I found surprising about PZ is that he pretty much wanders around alone. People (me included) stop to say hi and chat for awhile but you don't see him with a phalanx of followers.

So - Peez pops up on Steffy's 'look at these people bein meanz to me' post, in order to point out that certain commentators at t'pit are incorrect to suggest that 'they' (the FTB crowd) get a good living out of the conference circuit:

PZ Myers

February 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm (UTC -6)

maintaining their monopoly of highly paid speaker positions in the US conference circuit

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa!! Heee!

Don’t do that again. My lungs hurt now.

Hot top for people who think this is a way to make living: NONE of the major organizations pay me a penny to come speak. They cover my travel costs, and that’s it. Reason Rally? $0. TAM? $0. NECSS? $0. American Atheists, American Humanists, IEHU? $0. Skepticon? $0. And that’s OK with me.

Smaller meetings will sometimes give me an honorarium, typically $50-$100. Academic conferences where I’ve been a keynote speaker pay more, perhaps $1000. I did close to 30 talks last year, and I probably cleared $4000-$5000 total, none of it from the “atheist/skeptic conference circuit.” Those conferences can get us for dirt cheap, because we’re there to promote the cause, not make a profit.

So Peez would have us believe that his speaking gigs are largely in support of his cause rather than his pocket. And, presumably, nothing to do with partying with the skepchicks - but I digress. Anyways, were this statement made in isolation, then maybe I could believe it. Peezus is, after all, about as fanatical enough.

But...well, remember what Greta said? When she had her cancer scare? here, let's look at it again:

I’ve had to cancel my appearance at Skepticon, as well as all my other speaking gigs for the next couple of months — and I already had to cancel several speaking gigs when my dad died. Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... -for-help/

Well, in fairness to Peez, his book isn't out yet, and hasn't been out yet for a long time - so we have no way of knowing how much the speaking gigs are likely to affect his book sales. Nevertheless, Greta still feels that the speaking gigs remain a significant part of her income - which leads me to believe that:

A: Greta must really enjoy abject poverty. 'Splains the Fluevogs I suppose; must feel like a step up from scabby rags. Just.
B: Greta does indeed make a fair bit of cash from the speaking gigs, and Peez is being...disingenuous.
C: Peez deliberately avoids asking for too much cash for his speaking gigs, because it's for the cause. Which does lead one to wonder why he says it's not a great way to make a living, if he's only taken it upon himself not to charge much for his speaking gigs.

In any case, something doesn't add up here; and I'm not talking about Greta's accounts, either.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Not this tired bullshit "argument" again?
The above ideologies were not based on a lack of belief in a deity at all!
In fact, they are all superb examples of the leaders setting themselves up as a deity!
With the additional bonus bogus that all of them DID practise forms of scientific skepticism!

Bzzt! FAIL.

Totally agree - even 100% perfect scepticism would not prevent you from just being an evil cunt - you would just be a very reasoned, cold, calculating, dispassionate and probably highly effective evil cunt.

[Michael K Gray]

I'm thinking submariner's explanation makes more since, because the decreasing incidence with age would apply roughly equally to both genders.

It likely does not, for sampling reasons that are too complex to go into in this blog.
In any case Leonard explains why it does not, very clearly, in case you are interested in the detailed reasoning.
The submariner might be a good seaman, but his statistical expertise is at below cadet level, I'm afraid.
I know that this comes across as an argument from authority, but both he and I are qualified to make that call.
Sorry, but that is reality.