/nudgeScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.
Lunch (& "crack" coffee)
You owe me.
Just a wee reminder :D
/nudgeScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.
all i can easily find is blu talking about itScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.welch wrote:Wait, really? Where?Scented Nectar wrote:Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:Aneris wrote:He's right. Team A consists of 100% Named Persons. Team B only of 50%*. Check Mate, Team B!Apples wrote:Mr. Schach's integrity and observational powers are a hallmark of his posting history at Pharyngula:
http://i.imgur.com/UbkVBYu.jpg
Let's move the stuff over to Jacks dedicated thread.
viewtopic.php?f=29&p=80728#p80728
*That Team B has twice as much Named Person shall not count.
Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!
Ok, but don't be slipping any colloidal silver in my mug. I don't want to turn blue like you and Diana. I swear Diana Boston looks blue as a corpse these days. :PBhurzum wrote:/nudgeScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.
Lunch (& "crack" coffee)
You owe me.
Just a wee reminder :D
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-594483Cerberus: Fucking Oppression, Man wrote:That’s because they want one true “movement†that they can use as a personal badge. Something that’s safely a “He Man Women Hater’s Club†and thus not tainted by non-white, non-normative, and/or female participants. Where, in fact, said minority members know better than to even try to belong if they aren’t spending the entire time praising the “real movement†for what intellectual dexterity it takes to not believe in things that those group members were not personally raised in.
Because, by having been at one time a white male dominated group, they invested in it as a source of alternative masculinity in the toxic masculinity sense. What I mean is that by the rules of toxic masculinity, this group was feeling pressure and reduction and so invested in atheism a sort of alternative way of separating themselves from femininity and arguing that belonging to this male-dominated group made them way smarter than everyone and totally manly because everyone knows that only men are smart and so on.
In other words, they’re having a tantrum because they were using atheism to try and go to toxic masculinity “hey, we might not be jocks, but we’re still willing to kick the women and hang out in homosocial-only spaces! So we still count as manly enough to be considered ‘men’, right?†and now there are all these chicks running around wanting to talk about girly shit and making them feel dumb and very similar to the people they were lording over because on certain issues they are almost exactly the same.
I wish I had a link. I just remember at the time wondering how she came up with 'Zvan', like maybe she wanted something that would often be last alphabetically or something.Guest wrote:all i can easily find is blu talking about itScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.welch wrote:Wait, really? Where?Scented Nectar wrote:Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:
Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!
http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011 ... minati.htm
considering all zvan's comments over time, would be REALLY interested in the truth of it
Guest wrote:
http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011 ... minati.htm
considering all zvan's comments over time, would be REALLY interested in the truth of it
A typo that stuck?Scented Nectar wrote: I just remember at the time wondering how she came up with 'Zvan', like maybe she wanted something that would often be last alphabetically or something.
I found this, where she excuses 'durable' pseudonyms (meaning herself?), from http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... k-puppets/Scented Nectar wrote:I wish I had a link. I just remember at the time wondering how she came up with 'Zvan', like maybe she wanted something that would often be last alphabetically or something.Guest wrote:all i can easily find is blu talking about itScented Nectar wrote:I don't have the link, but she said it quite a while back, like over a year ago.welch wrote:Wait, really? Where?Scented Nectar wrote:Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:
Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!
http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011 ... minati.htm
considering all zvan's comments over time, would be REALLY interested in the truth of it
As DrugMonkey has pointed out in prior discussions of online identity, the situation is different when dealing with a durable pseudonym. Over time, that pseudonym accretes history the same way any other name would online. It develops a reputation that follows it around. This reputation doesn’t generally attach itself to the person behind the pseudonym, but there are good, bad and indifferent reasons why that might be desirable. The pseudonymous themselves are generally approximately as mixed a bag of humanity as the rest of us, and we deal with them individually based on the reputation they built by their actions.
Thaumas Themelios
April 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Wonderful post, EllenBeth. Thank you so much for your courage in standing your ground and speaking out! It is so important, but it can be very difficult to do, and I don’t blame the many people who’ve taken similar abuse and given up in disgust over it. That said, *someone* needs to stand up to this stuff. I’m glad you’ve chosen to be one of them. :-)
Thanks also for taking the time and effort (and FSM knows it takes a lot of time and effort) to organize your thoughts and the quotes and screenshots to fully support your position. That, too, is extremely important. Evidence-based reasoning will *eventually* get us out of this mess, but it’s going to take time and persistence to work its stuff. Eventually, as evidence continues to mount, the tide will turn. It’s been happening to creationism, it’s been happening to religion in general, and it’s going to happen to these rumour-generated myths of evil spectres haunting the atheist/skeptic community. Skeptics just need to get back to being skeptics again, and *self*-skepticism is a crucial part of that. That old gem:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.†~ Richard Feynman
Indeed. And with CoE's departure, FTB now has six zombie-blogs on its front page, including C. Rad. Plus a few more that have a new post at a rate of less than one per month. :dance:Tfoot wrote:Hi Fellas,
1) the donations widget on pharyngula hasnt moved AT LEAST since the beginning of this year (and I suspect a LONG time before that too). Its on $17 177. NOT ONE CENT in at least 3 months!
2) Myers and the art of bad timing.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/117zj9l.jpg
Yeah, that graph does look like his book will be released almost at the same time he 'crashes n burns'.
Still find it incredibly ironic that the guy who rose to 'fame' by offending peoples feelings, expects everyone else to behave in a way he thinks will not hurt certain womens feelings (dongle jokes etc).
If they synchronize, can we call it their "bad week" or something like that?Apples wrote:Indeed. And with CoE's departure, FTB now has six zombie-blogs on its front page, including C. Rad. Plus a few more that have a new post at a rate of less than one per month. :dance:
Assuming you're serious about Jack's statement, feedback would be greatly appreciated. I was also involved in hammering out some of the grammar/wording/etc. We had our reasons for phrasing things in particular ways, I assure you, some of them intentionally obfuscated in order to keep things relatively short (an important consideration which takes a *lot* of work to accomplish, and could always be improved; eventually you have to compromise and go with 'good enough' rather than 'perfect'), as well as to stimulate further discussion.John Greg wrote:As I previously posted, I have entered a comment on Zvan's blog, and one (yet to pass moderation) on Nugent's blog, responding to the initial statments from both Jack and Zvan. However, I have not yet passed moderation on Nugent's blog ... time? locale? ... I don't know.
Anyway, LeftSidePositive (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222421), who is without doubt one of the most virulent, angry, and offensive of the FfTB sociopathic ideologues, has, of course, iviscerated me, to the core, while ignoring almost all of my actual points.
Typical, I guess.
I have had, er, ah, arguments and confrontations with LeftSideDeficient before, and it ... no sorry, sh/i/t is not an individual who is overly gifted with reading comprehension.
Last note, I think that Jack's statement is really poorly written, and I truly wish he/she had asked someone with professional writing experience to proof it. His statement is overflowing with sentence structure errors, grammatical errors, logic errors, and so on. And such flaws really weaken the argument. Pah. Very, very disappointing.
Hmmm I actually agree with her on durable "nyms". Although I call them "tags" but whatever. I was wondering what's the oldest post of mine I could find on the internet and this is what I found.Scented Nectar wrote: I found this, where she excuses 'durable' pseudonyms (meaning herself?), from http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... k-puppets/As DrugMonkey has pointed out in prior discussions of online identity, the situation is different when dealing with a durable pseudonym. Over time, that pseudonym accretes history the same way any other name would online. It develops a reputation that follows it around. This reputation doesn’t generally attach itself to the person behind the pseudonym, but there are good, bad and indifferent reasons why that might be desirable. The pseudonymous themselves are generally approximately as mixed a bag of humanity as the rest of us, and we deal with them individually based on the reputation they built by their actions.
I found this, where she excuses 'durable' pseudonyms (meaning herself?), from http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... k-puppets/Scented Nectar wrote:I wish I had a link. I just remember at the time wondering how she came up with 'Zvan', like maybe she wanted something that would often be last alphabetically or something.Scented Nectar wrote: all i can easily find is blu talking about it
http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011 ... minati.htm
considering all zvan's comments over time, would be REALLY interested in the truth of it
[/quote]As DrugMonkey has pointed out in prior discussions of online identity, the situation is different when dealing with a durable pseudonym. Over time, that pseudonym accretes history the same way any other name would online. It develops a reputation that follows it around. This reputation doesn’t generally attach itself to the person behind the pseudonym, but there are good, bad and indifferent reasons why that might be desirable. The pseudonymous themselves are generally approximately as mixed a bag of humanity as the rest of us, and we deal with them individually based on the reputation they built by their actions.
I know, eh? :roll: It's so booorrring. So tedious. It kind of sucks the wind right out of the debate. When can we get the excitement and drama back?! This shit is seriously a drama killer!!!!1Michael K Gray wrote:Am I alone in considering all of this dreadfully strained & obviously faux 'pussy-footing-around' with polite etiquette & excruciatingly restricted & embarrassingly laboured ceremonial language somewhat hard to stomach?Jack wrote:Not to my knowledge. It would be interesting to know but if people wish to stay discreet I'm OK with that.Submariner wrote:@ Jack:
I didn't see the cast for the FfTB "side" of the discussion posted anywhere, but a commenter from there mentioned "all named people" on their side.
Have they released the participants nyms/names yet?
The Slimepit was (in part) evolved to avoid such indirect speech against circumlocuitous "Jane Austen" style bullshit.
"Oh, Mr. Darcy! How uncharitable, kind sir."
versus
"You are deliberately lying, you deceptive cunt."
I go for the latter, every time.
(But perhaps that is merely a reflection of my extreme age, experience, and lack of tolerance for hypocrisy?)
Perhaps 'tis for the best that I did not volunteer for Nugent's Fools Errand.
It is not my style at all.
"Have at it" is my motto.
Being polite did not work with cultish theists, (after a 4,500+ year trial), and I doubt that it will work with the FTB cultists whose behaviour I oppose.
Hmm, I think you think we think this is about convincing Zvan or anyone on 'their side' of anything. We don't. At least, I don't. I'm not writing *for* Zvan (only), though I might write *to* Zvan. I'm writing for the hundreds of other people (perhaps thousands with this Nugent thing, who knows?) who might possibly read my stuff ever, now or in the future. Those are the people I'm focused on reaching. Zvan may eventually get our message, she might not. That's up to her, and I have no control over that. I only have control over what I say, and to the extent that it will ever influence any reasonable person to read it, I have a tiny bit of control over that (adjusting probabilities up or down, depending on what I say and how I say it). It's not accommodationism, it's mere fact. Some ways of expressing the same idea work better than others, depending on the context and the audience. Pure pragmatism.Michael K Gray wrote:Perhaps I am not being blunt enough here.Jack wrote:...Arguments win or fail on their merits.
Nugent's garden party, serving accommodationist scones, after a wait of several months, and the sweet tea of "common goals", can be dispensed with in seconds: It is transparently clear as to what are our common agreements.
This has been hashed and re-hashed for years.
Hmmm, I think you think that large numbers of self-identified skeptics don't need the occasional reminder of core skeptical and ethical principles. The whole EG and A+ debacle should have woken you up from that delusion long ago. Isn't is *transparently obvious* to you that a lot of usually-reasonable people have got sucked into a thoroughly *unreasonable* dogma? Don't you think it would be a good thing if we tried to highlight that problem and vaccinate those 'skeptics' out there who are still reachable, but prone to buying into it? I do.What is at issue, and this is VITAL: is where 'we' disagree! (And why)
For fux-sake, re-iterating these already common principles gets no-one anywhere save, perhaps, for a warm wave of smugness in the mind of Nugent.
Who gives a tinker's cuss about rabbiting on and on in genteel language about the common ground?
WTF is the point?
What's to resolve?
Did you miss the several weeks we spent doing that at Nugent's blog threads? You're about 3 or 4 weeks behind the strategy. We've got the hypocrisy well and truly documented. We've collected the evidence. Now we need to present the case to the jury of the wider, mainstream, secular/rationalist/atheist/skeptical communit(ies). That requires laying some groundwork on principles. That's why Nugent's point 1 is about laying this groundwork of common agreement, as a baseline from which to highlight the areas of disagreement. I suppose you missed that memo: http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/agenda/Get on with where the 2 "sides" disagree:
1) Hypocrisy
2) Hypocrisy
3) Hypocrisy
Yup. My sympathy for EBW is as close to zero as it's possible to get.Tigzy wrote::clap:ERV wrote:Yup. Welcome to my experience two years ago, EBW. Forgive me for having zero sympathy for you.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Im also not about to give EBW a pass-- I only 'encountered' her through friends Facebook feeds. I didnt say a word to/at/about her, however I immediately blocked her because I saw *her* being aggressive/confrontational/combative (not Pharyngula commentors, nor was she just going along with Pharyngula commentors). *She* was being batshit, and loving it.
Not interested in taking her off block.
I don't have much sympathy for EllenBeth 'Don't be fooled by his game when he rapes your daughter' Wachs either. The biter got bit, that's all, and she's butthurt over getting what she's dished out to others. Too bad.
Context, cunt.Michael K Gray wrote:Says it all, really.Jack wrote:...We were bending over backwards to avoid words...
Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
I'm guessing googlability. Either so she can track mentions, or so, like in Soviet Russia: Mention tracks you!Scented Nectar wrote:Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:
Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!
Cerberus must own a brain so completely filled with radfem clichés that there is no room left for connections to reality. :DApples wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-594483Cerberus: Fucking Oppression, Man wrote:That’s because they want one true “movement†that they can use as a personal badge. Something that’s safely a “He Man Women Hater’s Club†and thus not tainted by non-white, non-normative, and/or female participants. Where, in fact, said minority members know better than to even try to belong if they aren’t spending the entire time praising the “real movement†for what intellectual dexterity it takes to not believe in things that those group members were not personally raised in.
Because, by having been at one time a white male dominated group, they invested in it as a source of alternative masculinity in the toxic masculinity sense. What I mean is that by the rules of toxic masculinity, this group was feeling pressure and reduction and so invested in atheism a sort of alternative way of separating themselves from femininity and arguing that belonging to this male-dominated group made them way smarter than everyone and totally manly because everyone knows that only men are smart and so on.
In other words, they’re having a tantrum because they were using atheism to try and go to toxic masculinity “hey, we might not be jocks, but we’re still willing to kick the women and hang out in homosocial-only spaces! So we still count as manly enough to be considered ‘men’, right?†and now there are all these chicks running around wanting to talk about girly shit and making them feel dumb and very similar to the people they were lording over because on certain issues they are almost exactly the same.
This. This. A thousand times - what?
Tony Parsehole wrote:Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Arguments from a man can be dismissed because "mansplaining"? They really do live on another planet don't they?
*clicks link*Tfoot wrote:Hi Fellas,
1) the donations widget on pharyngula hasnt moved AT LEAST since the beginning of this year (and I suspect a LONG time before that too). Its on $17 177. NOT ONE CENT in at least 3 months!
2) Myers and the art of bad timing.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/117zj9l.jpg
Yeah, that graph does look like his book will be released almost at the same time he 'crashes n burns'.
Still find it incredibly ironic that the guy who rose to 'fame' by offending peoples feelings, expects everyone else to behave in a way he thinks will not hurt certain womens feelings (dongle jokes etc).
No, nothing rong. Just slower than typical moderation due to the fact that it is collaborative moderation, not unilateral. And 8 time zones.BarnOwl wrote:I'm only seeing a couple of comments on either Strand over at the dedicated site for this discussion. Am I doing something RONG?Jack wrote: Hey I'm British so I can be deeply insulting without someone even realising it :)
It's 'Team' as in Zvan and a mod for their side. No others have been announced. I originally assume 5 from there but if I were to guess that hasn't happened. That does not mean people are not assisting her or helping in some way. That is the same for us. I see no issue with that and it's a good sign if that is happening. It is silly for people to say we want as many as possible then demand arbitrary limits on that. It's being bloody minded for the sake of it. I don't care if they have an army of thousands helping out. Arguments win or fail on their merits.
Zvan makes some good points and I see that as a good thing. I agree with most of her statement and it is in line with ours (although you wouldn't think that from some comments over there) She's grasped this is about common ground and resisted the urge we all have to go on the attack from the start. She gets my respect for that.
Hence the need for a 'structured dialogue' to prevent that kind of tactic. Hence the need for a step 1, where we reach agreement that such tactics are not valid, before the dialogue proper begins.Also, arguments should win or fail on their merits, but we've seen arbitrary dismissal of arguments by FtBers many times. FLOOSH!
But what will happen to Nerd of Redhead when Pharyngula is forced to shut down? Is there such a thing as a retirement home for worthless orphaned bots?Tfoot wrote:Hi Fellas,
1) the donations widget on pharyngula hasnt moved AT LEAST since the beginning of this year (and I suspect a LONG time before that too). Its on $17 177. NOT ONE CENT in at least 3 months!
2) Myers and the art of bad timing.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/117zj9l.jpg
Yeah, that graph does look like his book will be released almost at the same time he 'crashes n burns'.
Still find it incredibly ironic that the guy who rose to 'fame' by offending peoples feelings, expects everyone else to behave in a way he thinks will not hurt certain womens feelings (dongle jokes etc).
I sure wouldn't want one of these puzzle-piece thingies as a support net when things go wrong. Much prefer a more solid foundation to rest upon:BarnOwl wrote:Also, the chartjunk on Zvan's post reminds me of the clipart that is used in Powerpoints by administrative touchy-feely types in academia. Might be common practice in the business world, but makes acolytes of Edward Tufte (like myself) cringe.
I knew, I knew.Submariner wrote:*reply
danmed edit button.
Read quoted post CAREFULLY.Tony Parsehole wrote:I knew, I knew.Submariner wrote:*reply
danmed edit button.
SJW use various memes that are cringeworthy. I laugh at their stupidity whenever I read about "doubling down" and "unpacking the privilege knapsack".Tony Parsehole wrote:Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Arguments from a man can be dismissed because "mansplaining"? They really do live on another planet don't they?
I honestly think he'd kill himself. Hopefully in an ironic fashion like cutting his throat with a broken record.Jan Steen wrote:
But what will happen to Nerd of Redhead when Pharyngula is forced to shut down? Is there such a thing as a retirement home for worthless orphaned bots?
He can *Floosh** himself.Jan Steen wrote:But what will happen to Nerd of Redhead when Pharyngula is forced to shut down? Is there such a thing as a retirement home for worthless orphaned bots?Tfoot wrote:Hi Fellas,
1) the donations widget on pharyngula hasnt moved AT LEAST since the beginning of this year (and I suspect a LONG time before that too). Its on $17 177. NOT ONE CENT in at least 3 months!
2) Myers and the art of bad timing.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/117zj9l.jpg
Yeah, that graph does look like his book will be released almost at the same time he 'crashes n burns'.
Still find it incredibly ironic that the guy who rose to 'fame' by offending peoples feelings, expects everyone else to behave in a way he thinks will not hurt certain womens feelings (dongle jokes etc).
You may laugh but I shudder at the crime of being "cis-gendered" or "heteronormative".codelette wrote:SJW use various memes that are cringeworthy. I laugh at their stupidity whenever I read about "doubling down" and "unpacking the privilege knapsack".Tony Parsehole wrote:Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Arguments from a man can be dismissed because "mansplaining"? They really do live on another planet don't they?
Very helpful comment, Corylus, thanks. Didn't want to quote your whole comment, but it's here in case anyone wants to reference it: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&start=13425#p80963Corylus wrote: Most mediators seem to act in stages, Michael. The number of stages do vary, but here is a good document that shows them clearly.
Interesting first couple of assumptions you mention. I suppose that's true, I pretty much assume that as well: Pragmatism, equality, reason/science.Conversely, Jack's statement is deeply practical and based on the assumption that what works is generally helpful for all parties. There is a view that egalitarian systems are actually good for all, and that common goals can be uncovered via evidence based investigation, as opposed to the short-term balancing of individual concerns. There is also a laudable willingness to put some work in displayed throughout. There may be an underestimation of the, generally irrational, nature of the populace in there however.
I'm definitely INTP, primarily. Sometimes a tad INTJ, but not sustained. Tested myself several different times with different tests, and each time, same result, INTP.
Neurodiverse.Tony Parsehole wrote:You may laugh but I shudder at the crime of being "cis-gendered" or "heteronormative".codelette wrote:SJW use various memes that are cringeworthy. I laugh at their stupidity whenever I read about "doubling down" and "unpacking the privilege knapsack".Tony Parsehole wrote:Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Arguments from a man can be dismissed because "mansplaining"? They really do live on another planet don't they?
Exxxcellent...Apples wrote:Yeah, this whole thing is turning out to be as exciting as a slap-fight between snails with chronic fatigue syndrome.cunt wrote:Nope.Am I alone in considering all of this dreadfully strained & obviously faux 'pussy-footing-around' with polite etiquette & excruciatingly restricted & embarrassingly laboured ceremonial language somewhat hard to stomach?
Rape-apologist (sounds like somebody who says "sorry" after jumping out of a bush and sticking his dick in you).codelette wrote:Neurodiverse.Tony Parsehole wrote:You may laugh but I shudder at the crime of being "cis-gendered" or "heteronormative".codelette wrote:SJW use various memes that are cringeworthy. I laugh at their stupidity whenever I read about "doubling down" and "unpacking the privilege knapsack".Tony Parsehole wrote:Mansplaining. Of all the stupid SJW memes and ideas mansplaining takes the fucking biscuit.codelette wrote:PS. Just finished reading EBW blog post. Glad that she noticed how ironic was that Peezus was "mansplaining" shit to her while trying to also act like a feminist warrior.
Arguments from a man can be dismissed because "mansplaining"? They really do live on another planet don't they?
Assuming it's not an April Fool's double-gotcha:Apples wrote:Hank Fox is decamping for Patheos:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/bluecollara ... s-oh-wait/
That reminded me of palsy pals: La Marcotte and Hugo Schweyzer. La Marcotte declares the Duke students racist rapists (even after accusation proven false); yet she sides with Hugo and John Edwards. One confessed trying to kill his gf. The other a womanizer. Funniest thing was when Hugo acted as La Marcotte's knight in shinning armor when she was accused of racism by brown feminists.CommanderTuvok wrote:We all know there are plenty of (fringe) feminists who will no doubt be skeptical of PZ and JT's claims of false accusations. Ironically, they are the (fringe) feminists who PZ and company looked up to for "advice" about all things feminism.
However, PZ can have no complaints about being falsely accused - after all, men are POTENTIAL RAPISTS.
BUT WHY DON'T YOU AGREE THAT WOMEN ARE PEOPLE?Angry_Drunk wrote:I've had an epiphany! How could I have been so wrong for so long. Instead of exposing the flawed logic and lack of rational thinking on the part of woo-addled religionists I should have been focusing on enumerating the things we agree on. Let's get started:
- The sky is blue.
- Water is wet
...
Hells, we'll have this problem licked in no time.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222565I see Renee Hendricks is one of the authors of that piece…she of the great ‘there are some jobs that women just can’t do, and I know because I’m doing one of them’ argument*, and the petty and vicious ‘how dare Greta use her own money to buy shoes!’ debacle**. Doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that this is going to be productive.
But we’re not going to hear any new arguments from them regardless of who’s involved, are we? It’s just going to be the same old shit about how calling out sexism is worse than sexism itself, with added bits of their individual petty grudges.
I barely consider people "people"Tony Parsehole wrote:BUT WHY DON'T YOU AGREE THAT WOMEN ARE PEOPLE?Angry_Drunk wrote:I've had an epiphany! How could I have been so wrong for so long. Instead of exposing the flawed logic and lack of rational thinking on the part of woo-addled religionists I should have been focusing on enumerating the things we agree on. Let's get started:
- The sky is blue.
- Water is wet
...
Hells, we'll have this problem licked in no time.
Jack: I've posted several responses to the opening statements and have received an e-mail response from the Moderation Team on one of them. I just responded by e-mail and just got back this error message:Jack wrote: <snip>
A problem on my end or something with e-mail addresses for the moderators? I'll probably pass this along to Michael as well, but I wonder, could you maybe look into it as well? Thanks.The following message to <REDACTED> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.2 - Bad destination host 'DNS Hard Error looking up REDACTED (MX): NXDomain'
*sigh*Apples wrote:Interesting Twitter convo re: cunt, etc.
Sure. I'll let Skeptickle know.Steersman wrote:Jack: I've posted several responses to the opening statements and have received an e-mail response from the Moderation Team on one of them. I just responded by e-mail and just got back this error message:Jack wrote: <snip>
A problem on my end or something with e-mail addresses for the moderators? I'll probably pass this along to Michael as well, but I wonder, could you maybe look into it as well? Thanks.The following message to <REDACTED> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.2 - Bad destination host 'DNS Hard Error looking up REDACTED (MX): NXDomain'
Last week was bemoaning the fact 'things were tight' and she and hercodelette wrote:Sometimes I wonder if Hensley is just mocking the "poor little rich girl" meme. The other she was so sad over not being able to adopt a second pug...
With the usual bit of racism thrown in for good measure:)Apples wrote:Interesting Twitter convo re: cunt, etc.