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

[Tony Parsehole]

http://memecrunch.com/meme/EGLC/stop/image.png

[bhoytony]

Unrelated, but definitely my favourite science skit.

[youtube]3wHKBavY_h8[/youtube]

Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.

[free thoughtpolice]

Ian Cromwell (Crommunist) is not a racist, there is no such a thing as a bigot of color even if they make negative sweeping generalizations of other racial groups, i.e. Caspers (Honkies). White people are all racists because of PRIVILEGE.
By the way Crommy if you are reading this remember; the very best bigots are the self righteous bigots.

[Tony Parsehole]

http://memecrunch.com/meme/EGLV/m/image.png

[Tony Parsehole]

Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.

Chances are he completed it in a parallel universe.

[bhoytony]

That's the one I own, along with a motorcycle jacket and a couple of vests. I think that the inside game pockets (of the Border) are probably more intended for dead birds but I've found they work fine when loaded down with trout. I do love them. Probably not as practical as more modern materials but classic. Speaking of classic, some adventuresome climbers need to replicate Mallory's and Irvine's attempt at Everest while wearing tweeds and smoking pipes.

Actor Brian Blessed did it a long time ago wearing the same clothes as Mallory and climbing without oxygen. He wrote a book about it called The Turquoise Mountain which is very good. There was also a documentary called Galahad of Everest.
[youtube]sHMlsrczV1o[/youtube]

[another lurker]

Ian Cromwell (Crommunist) is not a racist, there is no such a thing as a bigot of color even if they make negative sweeping generalizations of other racial groups, i.e. Caspers (Honkies). White people are all racists because of PRIVILEGE.
By the way Crommy if you are reading this remember; the very best bigots are the self righteous bigots.

Crommunist and most of his guest bloggers are some of the most arrogant assholes I have come across. Bryan Lynchaun is a complete asshole - he can NEVER be wrong about anything. We all know about Halfish - Edwin however, seems like a nice guy.

[Git Mobile]

@Git Mobile:

Ever heard of the blood libel?

Yeah. To quote wiki: "Blood libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover."

Because trying to depict the crippling impact of the wall is exactly the same as showing Jews eating pastries with human blood. Right. Get a clue dumbass or make a better argument. So nope, it does not compute.

Yes, because there's never been any cartoons at all depicting hook-nosed Jews drenched in the blood of innocents have there?

To figure out if a cartoon is racist or sexist, you first have to look at the context, and then look at the artist's other drawings and then if all that you observe point at the same direction, then you can scream foul. But as it is typical with cries of sexism or racism, it's not that the cartoon is actaully racist, it's that it hurts some people's feelings and since people normally do not like their feelings hurt, they try to shut up the artist and what other way to shut someone up than screaming "Rasicm!".

To put it differently, accusations of anti-semitism, racism or sexism are serious accusations and you can't just issue them if your fucking feelings are hurt. They should be backed by evidence.

So let's say the Sunday times publishes a cartoon criticizing President Obama’s economic policies that depicts him with physical features akin to a chimpanzee where he is eating a big slice of watermelon while a band of the Black Panther party robs a bunch of white folks and hand out welfare checks. Oh, and this cartoon is published on MLK Jr. day.

Yet we have to look at the "context" to see if it is racist, do we? Are objections to it just "hurt feelings" then?

[nippletwister]

The fact is no one knows for sure yet which feminism defines reality. But whatever the answer is it is likely to be a lot more complex and nuanced than they can be bothered to find out. The fact that they reject evolutionary psychology out of hand tells me they are not really interested in knowing what may be true if it goes against their dogma.

It is this rejection of critical thinking and the free thought it requires I find the most objectionable. That they then try and defend their position with censorship, self affirmation and Kafka-trapping tells me how weak their arguments are.

Sorry for the boring rant. I feel better now.

That's actually the biggest beef I have with what they're doing. If they don't understand the complexities of the issues that they're talking about, then how in the world are they going to come up with solution sets/policy concepts to fix said problems? It's impossible. Just blaming "privilege" or the "patriarchy' isn't going to get you anywhere.

The best example of this happening was the whole thing about harassment policies. The "leaders" of the movement just wanted some sort of secret banning/shunning list that they could use at their own discretion...the whole idea of having some sort of official harassment policy, and even more importantly what should it entail wasn't even on their radar at first. Personally, I think there are reasons why this is this case but that is neither here or there. (Actually it is. I think that it's more than likely that they and/or their friends commonly act in ways that would violate a reasonable anti-harassment policy) And the discussion DID go there...but I think that was mostly that to ignore it would have been TOO suspicious.

A more recent example is the wage gap. In the thread on Adam Lee's site with the whole petition fiasco, I responded to a commentator with an explanation of one vector which does result in a wage gap. Women tend to take more time off for maternity leave than men do for paternity leave, and this results in a year or two with lower/no raises which, in most companies where raises are a % level of the current raise, can snowball over decades.

And someone called this mansplaining. Yeah. I was actually agreeing with the overall concept (although I think the numbers that most feminists use are terrible statistics), but without understanding the actual vectors of the problem, you are completely unable to fix it.

It's interesting, because me and my wife sometimes talk about this sort of thing. That it's a guy thing to try and fix issues when we see them, and where women tend to just want to emote about them. Now personally this is a more essentialist view that I'm comfortable with, but I wonder if there's not something to it, where this movement has zero interest or belief that it can actually fix these issues that they're complaining about, and all it's doing is emoting them.

well, it's pretty obvious that the most any of the "activists" are prepared to do is write articles full of bad stats and lies and attend conferences as a career while claiming to be disadvantaged the whole time. Just as they want to make all men as a class responsible for all rape and abuse, they don't think women should have to do any of the work or make any of the material sacrifices to get what they want. It's the job of MEN to give women what they want and make all the sacrifices a society might require.

Once again, patriarchy in lipstick, except with no more benefits for the men making it all work. I think a lot of what keeps people from criticizing feminism and feminists, is that most men and most people as a whole in our society, simply can't understand the incredible levels of entitlement attitudes involved. People assume there must be real, huge problems that are just hidden by society, because there's no way that comfortable, middle-class women could possibly be that spoiled and clueless, right?

[Lapsang Souchong]

Actor Brian Blessed did it a long time ago wearing the same clothes as Mallory and climbing without oxygen. He wrote a book about it called The Turquoise Mountain which is very good. There was also a documentary called Galahad of Everest.

Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.

[sKepptiksowat]

Git Mobile VS Trophy

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/ ... rn-yes.gif

Do go on.

[bhoytony]

Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.

There's also a great docu of the finding of Mallory's body in 1999. It's in five parts.

[youtube]Z7KyVKop3sc[/youtube]

[masakari2012]

Melody Hensley tags Justin Vacula in a tweet. When Justin responds back, she complains.
http://i.imgur.com/VRMdCCn.png

[masakari2012]

Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.

[Trophy]

So let's say the Sunday times publishes a cartoon criticizing President Obama’s economic policies that depicts him with physical features akin to a chimpanzee where he is eating a big slice of watermelon while a band of the Black Panther party robs a bunch of white folks and hand out welfare checks. Oh, and this cartoon is published on MLK Jr. day.

Yet we have to look at the "context" to see if it is racist, do we? Are objections to it just "hurt feelings" then?

So let's ignore everything else and talk about a hypothetical scenario, even though this has nothing to do with the cartoon published by Sunday times. But okay, I'll bite, even though I'm not sure I get the watermelon slice piece but I'm sure it's some racist euphemism that escapes me.

But all right. The question we need to answer is that whether the cartoonist thinks Barack Obama looks like a chimpanzee because he's black or he chose to draw Obama as a chimp because of othe reasons. If it's former then it's racist because it attributes a negative image to a whole race. If it's latter then it's not racist. In case of Obama though, I'll have to say my limited imagination doesn't leave much room to make Obama look like a chimpanzee, he just doesn't have the facial dimensions but it's really damn hard to say because no such cartoon exists yet. So, at this point, I'll have to say yep, possibly racist. But if the cartoonist has been drawing every single president of US as a chimp, then nope, most likely not racist.

And regarding the Black Panther party part, I would say it's stupid because economical policies of Obama do not just target the white folks.

So what's your point, apart from an exercise in futility. Can you actually make an argument? You know something that goes like "X is anti-semite because 1) ... 2) ... 3) ..."; a statement that includes words such as "therefore", "since", or "because".

[Git Mobile]

Basically, if you don't want people to compare your cartoons to the worst of Nazi Germany, and suggesting that you may have similar motives, then stop drawing shit like it came straight out of Der Sturmer. And don't publish it on Holocaust Memorial Day, ffs.

[Submariner]

Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.

I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:

Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.

Is that about right?

[Git Mobile]

And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?

What next, gonna call him an "Islamophobe" too eh?

P.S. I forgot my fucking password, bah.

[bhoytony]

But if the cartoonist has been drawing every single president of US as a chimp, then nope, most likely not racist.

Is Steve Bell a racist?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/ ... onbush.jpg


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/ ... /1bell.jpg

[nippletwister]

Steersman. I have you on "ignore" for what I consider good reason.
…
How on earth do you manage to say so much, yet be so utterly vapid?

The more I read about the topic the more convinced I am that gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement.

What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?

I take it then that you didn’t read the section of Pinker’s The Blank Slate I referenced? Nor are much familiar with the undercurrents that recently motivated Watson’s attempted hatchet-job of evolutionary psychology?

A type-sample of that to which I refer.
A non-response that not only does not even attempt to answer a direct question "What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?", but distracts with a totally irrelevant fucking side question.

Considering that more than a few here apparently managed to see what I was getting at you might want to consider the possibilities that I’m not speaking Urdu as you suggested and that the problem is less with the transmitter than with the receiver.

But since one might argue that one can lead some Aussies to a syllogism even if one can’t make them think, at least without cutting up the components of the argument into smaller bite-sized chunks, my statement – “gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement” – qualifies as the abstract to Pinker’s synopsis in the linked chapter of his. Not much point to the abstract section of a document if you quote the entire document in that section.

And since even that might not suffice to get the point through your apparently rather thick skull, let me try rephrasing that statement in point form, starting with a definition from a dictionary which, apparently, some Aussies have never heard of or don’t know how to use:

1) watershed: “A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point”;
2) the gender-equity division in feminism seems predicated, in part, on the nature-nurture dichotomy and debate;
3) a significant percentage of feminists – those subscribing to gender feminism – largely repudiate the idea that genetics has any influence on human behaviour – i.e., they believe, rather dogmatically, that human psychology is entirely a matter of nurture, that gender is a social construct;
4) the foregoing largely flies in the face of significant amounts of credible science, notably evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics;
5) that repudiation constitutes some problematic anti-intellectualism and science denialism – the implications and consequences of which are profound and far-reaching;
6) hence, that issue constitutes a significant watershed, a turning point, in both feminism and its credibility in the broader discourse.

Pointed enough for you?

Wassa matta? Scared of telling the truth about your multiple inadequacies and feel the need to deflect direct questioning to others who have zero idea of your thought-processes, such as they may be?

What a dick-head. That you need spoon-feeding is my fault?

For the record, I think you're often a needlessly wordy summabitch, but the only times I've actually had trouble understanding you were the times I just couldn't be bothered to read several whole paragraphs referring to discussions I wasn't even involved in. I get a bit wordy myself, so I can't criticize too much.

Also...I hope you're right about a watershed in the movement. How long can society take all this whiny, entitled bullshit seriously?

[Apples]

You just can't win with Pharyngula. Nerd of Redhead continues to use *sploosh* today, but he even threw in a decent jab by calling joey the troll a "demented hypotheticalist," which I thought was pretty good. Nerd's trying to keep it fresh!

But then Strange Gods steps in: "Nerd, fewer mental health insults, please."

Dang - I was kind of on SGBM's side when PZ was disciplining him, but reading his exchanges in which he fisks stuff that's not even worth bothering with is just tiresome. Today I've gotta agree with PZ - he is an unpleasant, robotic, and boring thread-cop, even if he is good at spotting plagiarism. With any luck, he'll mix it up with some regulars again sometime and get banned in a pile of flaming wreckage.

[nippletwister]

I like the fact they still don't get anything. Even as every other post on their forum is from a mod/admin/setar/cipher. Brick-headed.

They're the Xie-Man Privilege Haters Club.

I love this place.

[sKepptiksowat]

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6494/0xcekyrs.jpg

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't want to derail the periodic table thread so I've made a new post based on a single topic, in the "Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science" section.

The topic is "Feminism - a skeptical approach"

It's just an idea that popped into my head that there really wasn't a real discussion of this occurring in the atheist blogosphere where people are free to speak without getting accused of misogyny or being rape apologists or gender traitors.
Despite the slymepit's reputation as being anti-feminist, I think we are, however, skeptics, and so we should be able to approach this impartially - and maybe even get a discussion going with some non slymepitters (anonymously, of course, for obvious reasons).
I've posted the text below (because most of us only visit this single thread rather than check out other parts of the slymepit and you might miss it otherwise) but if you want to join in it's probably be best to do so in the linked thread rather than here.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=245#p56549
[spoiler]

OK, I'm going to try a little experiment here.
The objective here is to try to create a 'safe-space' to discuss feminism.
We all know that raising questions on this topic on popular atheist or skeptical sites does little more than incite a lot of heat and not a few insults or accusations of misogyny.
This is a shame for the simple reason that IF feminism is out of limits to skepticism, then the entire technique of skepticism can be called into question because nothing should be given special treatment.
I am not even coming at this from an anti-feminist angle.
I am not an MRA.
I am not anti-feminist.

The limited understanding of feminism that I have allows me to see that there are various strands of feminism.
And some of these are pretty close to the sort of equality driven humanist values that I personally hold.
Because of this I feel it is wrong to automatically assume to know a persons viewpoint on equality simply because they label themselves 'feminist'.
As an example I would ask people to read the following short blog post by Bridget Gaudette on the blog, 'Emily has books':
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/label-reads-disposable/
The post describes how Gaudette, an independent thinker and fine writer who has been labelled a 'chill girl' for not toeing the 'correct' line, is disowned by a fellow atheist, simply for describing herself a feminist.
This strikes me as unfair.
A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people".
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)

My own opinion is that the slymepit is indeed full of individuals who think women are people.
In fact a sizeable portion of the regulars here ARE women from a variety of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

What I would say is that certain forms of feminism are opposed by the majority of the slymepit - in particular the political radical feminism that is epitomised by the likes of the trans-hating radfemhub: http://radicalhub.com/radfem-101/

What I would like to do here is create a discussion whereby people - and hopefully this will include lurkers who are not registered slymepitters - can contribute knowledge about feminism.
You do not need to register to post on this site as a guest (and please understand that you can post anonymously if you feel it would be personally dangerous for you to make your RL identity known here)
Even if you hate the slymepit, treat it as an opportunity to convert one or two of us.

I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?

My major question is the following:
Can skepticism be used to resolve the major question dividing feminism - the question of which is the correct feminism - 'sex-positive'; or (to use the preferred term) 'anti-pornography' feminism.
To me it seems that skepticism will never resolve this question because each position is based on different values.
Sex-positive feminism is based on the idea that people have control over the use of their own bodies, and the value of allowing this independent control supercedes the negative aspects - such as the fact that allowing sex work can result in a proportion of people being involved through coercion.
Anti-porn/sex-work feminists take the view that this cost is too high.
It is essentially a "Schrödingers sex traffic victim" argument. A customer can never be sure that the sex worker is not being coerced, therefore he/she must assume that the sex worker could be a coerced sex traffic victim and therefore prostitution should be illegal to prevent this (this is the basis of the 'Swedish Model' - the system in Sweden where paying for prostitution is illegal.) The same basic principle applies to other sex work such as pornography although the calls for making pornography illegal seem to have less public support.

OK tldr
Summary:
Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.

[/spoiler]

[Dick Strawkins]

Ooops, too much text.
That's happened our spoiler tags? :?

[surreptitious57]

So Grimalkin has written and performed a song mocking anyone who hates atheismplus

http://grimalkinblog.wordpress.com/2012 ... n-masters/

Whatever you do, do not visit the rest of the blog

The song is a poe in case you did not know. But it says so - so I am wondering

And she loves the attention you give the site but that is what they do here Grim

[Altair]

Ooops, too much text.
That's happened our spoiler tags? :?

Lsuoma giveth and Lsuoma taketh away.

About your thread, I find that topic interesting, will try to post something when I'm home after work.

In the meanwhile, there's a comment by me in the post you linked that showcases some of my opinions on the subject. If you have time, just do a CTRL-F for "Altair • 2 months ago" at that page.

[Trophy]

@Git mobile:

Your problem is that you are focusing on the form rathern than the content. For example:

Basically, if you don't want people to compare your cartoons to the worst of Nazi Germany, and suggesting that you may have similar motives, then stop drawing shit like it came straight out of Der Sturmer. And don't publish it on Holocaust Memorial Day, ffs.

Go and see the Der Sturmer and then tell me if this cartoon comes even close. It fucking doesn't. The problem with the Der Sturmer cartoon is not that they used to draw Jews with big noses. That would be focusing on the form. They were racist because they used to spread racist and semi-semite propaganda. That is content.

And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?

Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

[another lurker]

Ooops, too much text.
That's happened our spoiler tags? :?

Lsuoma giveth and Lsuoma taketh away.

About your thread, I find that topic interesting, will try to post something when I'm home after work.

In the meanwhile, there's a comment by me in the post you linked that showcases some of my opinions on the subject. If you have time, just do a CTRL-F for "Altair • 2 months ago" at that page.

Lsuoma, with the benefit of precognition, realised that I would be posting a wet t-shirt picture of kate upton, so he removed the spoiler tag option, in anticipation:P

[TheMan]

Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.

I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:

Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.

Is that about right?

It's not a tweet sent to JV accidently...look at it like CC in an email. she had to physically include his address in her tweet.

[cunt]

The song is a poe in case you did not know. But it says so - so I am wondering

And she loves the attention you give the site but that is what they do here Grim

Neither she nor you even know what a poe is. Go look it up, it is not just another word for parody.

[another lurker]

Altair, I got a response from the would-be feminists:

Talking about people’s bodies is not objectifying them. Literally turning them into sex objects which are seen as nothing else is objectifying. If I posted my pic, and everybody started critiquing me, I would *not* feel “objectified. If I looked like Kate Upton here (I use Kate because I am thin/lean, not buxom and such like Kate) posted my pic to a men’s site, and comments about what a f**kable a-s, or grab-able boobs I had, or something I had, THEN I would feel objectified. Not if some random woman online said my waist was too wide, or my legs too skinny. That would just be stating an opinion, my waist and/or legs mean nothing else to her and have not been turned into “objects”.

Yeah, so if men consider a woman to be sexually attractive in some way, its objectification.

But if a woman 'critiques' or in other words 'says really nasty things about another woman's body' that is just 'opinion'.

hahahaahaaaaa

[Steersman]

Steersman. I have you on "ignore" for what I consider good reason.
…
How on earth do you manage to say so much, yet be so utterly vapid?
"Steersman: The more I read about the topic the more convinced I am that gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement."

What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?

I take it then that you didn’t read the section of Pinker’s The Blank Slate I referenced? Nor are much familiar with the undercurrents that recently motivated Watson’s attempted hatchet-job of evolutionary psychology?

A type-sample of that to which I refer.
A non-response that not only does not even attempt to answer a direct question "What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?", but distracts with a totally irrelevant fucking side question.

Considering that more than a few here apparently managed to see what I was getting at you might want to consider the possibilities that I’m not speaking Urdu as you suggested and that the problem is less with the transmitter than with the receiver.
….

For the record, I think you're often a needlessly wordy summabitch, but the only times I've actually had trouble understanding you were the times I just couldn't be bothered to read several whole paragraphs referring to discussions I wasn't even involved in. I get a bit wordy myself, so I can't criticize too much.

Thanks – I think. :-)

Also...I hope you're right about a watershed in the movement. How long can society take all this whiny, entitled bullshit seriously?

I also tend to think that all of this debate – even if acrimonious and vituperative – over feminism is actually of some benefit in highlighting the fact that postmodernism – apparently one of the pillars undergirding at least gender feminism – has stolen a march on skepticism and rationality. Reminds me of several sections from another of Pinker’s books, How the Mind Works (highly recommended):

... When sociobiologists first began to challenge [the Standard Social Science Model], they met with a ferocity that is unusual even by the standards of academic invective. The biologist E.O. Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water at a scientific convention, and students yelled for his dismissal over bullhorns and put up posters urging people to bring noisemakers to his lectures. Angry manifestos and book-length denunciations were published by organizations with names like Science for the People and The Campaign Against Racism, IQ, and the Class Society. ...[pg 45]

Many of us have been puzzled by the takeover of humanities departments by the doctrines of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction, according to which objectivity is impossible, meaning is self-contradictory, and reality is socially constructed. The motives become clearer when we consider typical statements like ‘Human beings have constructed and used gender – human beings can deconstruct and stop using gender’ ....[ pg 57]

[nippletwister]

Wow, some of the commenters on AVFM are just as crazy as FTB o_O

No; there’s no difference between “radical” feminism and “equity” feminism. Equity feminism is merely the shield the radical feminism uses for plausible deniability reasons. “Radical” feminism are actually the people in control of the feminist movement, they are also in positions of power all across the world working on anti-male legislation.

Then there’s “Radical radical” feminism. You know, the types like “The Femitheist” and “the radfem hub”, but as the agent orange showed even the radical radical feminism is already in positions of power to make legislation. Really, the only difference between “radical” feminism and “radical radical” feminism is that the later comprises themselves of “radical” feminists that have lost patience or their mind, so they are actually spouting their goals; as opposed to keeping them in the shadows.

To not point this out, to not hammer this reality into people’s brains, is to let the hate movement that is feminism continue onward unopposed; and then you can expect the gas chamber one of these days.

Possibly a little conspiracy theory laden, but not necessarily so. Harriet Harman, quite senior in the last UK Labour Gov, is quite the radfem and a poster on radfemhub, although I would need to see evidence that she had access to the 'inner sanctum' where social workers referred to boys as 'little rapists'. The involvement of Swedish radfems in Govt has been well documented (ask Scented about that). See what Erin Pizzey has to say about how well her message goes down. Consider the UN's stipulation that aid to African rape victims go to women only despite the fact that almost all of the male prisoners in the various Central African conflicts are raped, according to some aid workers. I believe H. Clinton had something to do with that. The reluctance to criticise Valerie Solanas by some supposed moderates might suggest something. Admittedly I don't have links to this stuff because I'm horrendous at bookmarking, but google it if you are interested. Is the infiltration of radfemminess into mainstream politics that far-fetched considering some of the shite that comes out of both left and right these days?

Here's a taste of what was current in Sweden in 2005. Note also that Sweden had their feminist belief in satanic child rape in the 2000s, a couple decades late to the false memory game, but chock full of the paranoid hate/fear and without evidence.

[youtube]yn3cHsHnUPM[/youtube]

I also wrote an article about it here:
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2012/ ... riget.html where I talk about how I naively tried to tell PZ about it (before EG happened), thinking at the time that he was actually against sexism and false beliefs in satan. Hahahah, yeah right, eh?

Wait, seriously? A modern European nation, and they had a go-round with satanic ritual abuse belief? In the 2000's?

Sweet titty fucking christ, what the fuck is wrong with people's brains? I thought it was limited mostly to half-educated social workers and religious conservative cops and judges in America, most of whom were already known to be half-wits and/or liars by intelligent people.

Was there a large connection to feminists in Sweden? Now I'm going to have to read your blog. I've often thought that the worst social laws get made when the far-left and far-right can get together and hate something mutually. Insane drug laws, lessening of protections for the accused in the courts, deciding that only men can really be abusive in relationships, etc.....they all stem from religious/patriarchal/authoritarian cultures, but are also often embraced by delusional and fascist leftists as well. With satanic ritual abuse and recovered memories, there was a connection to somewhat liberal social workers in America, playing at being psychologists, doing hypnosis, stuff like that, but as far as I remember, the academic feminists were too well-educated at the time to buy in to a satanic conspiracy.
But then there are the "recovered memory" theories that have been separated from religion, and some feminists seem to have no problem co-opting those for their own purposes.

It's not really quite to "witch hunt" proportions yet, but I know I am not the only one seeing noticeable parallels between even fairly "moderate" feminism as it's presented today, and religious pogroms/social purges of the past? I've been seeing these patterns for a while, but it was the chapters in Demon Haunted World comparing UFO abductions, satanic ritual abuse, recovered memory therapy, witch hunts, and religious visions that really got me thinking, although it had nothing directly to do with feminist movements or beliefs. None of them seem to embrace the really out-there stuff yet, but the mood they're trying to promote, and the levels of belief they expect without evidence, is really starting to creep me out.

I mean, even mainstream feminists believe all kinds of idiotic shit with no evidence....that we have a pervasive "rape culture" in the west, that only men can or do really commit abuse in relationships (though the real numbers show parity), that men are likely to be sexual abusers and manipulators, idiotic shit like "rape switches"...etc, etc....how long before all this unfounded belief causes even more ugliness than it already has? How much "witch hunt" mentality can the liberal side of western society absorb before something has to give? American history has plenty of ugly examples of right-wing witch hunting, maybe it's just a matter of time and power.....the fact that so many liberals are lazy finger-pointers may keep the damage from spreading, but may also keep the uninformed masses from protesting any idiocy that does manage to make it into policy.

[AbsurdWalls]

Unrelated, but definitely my favourite science skit.

XXX

Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.

He got caught up working out the physics of Gundam Wing.

[Steersman]

Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.

I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:

Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.

Is that about right?

It's not a tweet sent to JV accidently...look at it like CC in an email. she had to physically include his address in her tweet.

That she apparently forgot that she initiated the communication with JV and then hassled – if not harassed – him for responding reminds me of this Monty Python skit posted here earlier by Barael:



Methinks Melody might want to change mirrors – from the one saying she is the “awesome-est”, if not the fairest, to one a little more honest ….

[masakari2012]

Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.

I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:

Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.

Is that about right?

It's not a tweet sent to JV accidently...look at it like CC in an email. she had to physically include his address in her tweet.

Yes. She typed his name in there with "@", which she knows will notify Justin Vacula that he was mentioned.

[welch]

http://i.imgur.com/dtsuwsx.png

Well that settles it. Everything is perfect and there is no reason for self reflection.

I have no knowledge of her doing a bad job getting speakers (for CFI DC) and organising events. My issue is one can do that and still be a divisive figure that is incapable of seeing the legitimate complaints of others in the movement.

I am sure people think she is great until they disagree with her...then they see what we all already see.

I hate her because she's a dishonest hypocritical bitch. I don't KNOW how good she is at her job, I neither work with nor for her. She may be quite good at her job.

She's still a dishonest hypocritical bitch. FIX THAT PART YOU GIBBERING LOON.

oh, and she's stupid. That too.

[Git Mobile]

@Git mobile:

Your problem is that you are focusing on the form rathern than the content. For example:

Damn those pesky Jews for not listening to their betters eh? Especially when they have the likes of Trophy here to tell them what they should find threatening or not. Ignore the two thousand years of persecution because Trophy is here to tell you what you can get upset about.

Basically, if you don't want people to compare your cartoons to the worst of Nazi Germany, and suggesting that you may have similar motives, then stop drawing shit like it came straight out of Der Sturmer. And don't publish it on Holocaust Memorial Day, ffs.

Go and see the Der Sturmer and then tell me if this cartoon comes even close. It fucking doesn't. The problem with the Der Sturmer cartoon is not that they used to draw Jews with big noses. That would be focusing on the form. They were racist because they used to spread racist and semi-semite propaganda. That is content.

Yep, go and tell those blacks in the 1950s that they shouldn't criticise Klan pictures because they were "form" and not "content". Gotcha. Trophy is the arbitrer of what is permissible or not. All hail Trophy.

And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?

Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Islam is a race now is it?

What is it with fucking liberals and their constant shilling for Islam, the most genocidal fascist misogynistic backwards belief system on the planet?

[another lurker]

It is ok to hate islam, the religion

However, it is not ok to hate the people, the muslims

Does that sound reasonable?

Islamophobia = ok

Muslimophobia = not ok

[CommanderTuvok]

So, because Melody used the '@' in her tweet to Justin, that obviously means she is guilty of bullying and harassment, according to the Baboon laws of Twitter usage!

Right?

[CommanderTuvok]

It is ok to hate islam, the religion

Quite right. I;ve never understood why some people (usually Far Left Westerners, and lentil eaters who wear sandals) are so afraid to say they dislike Islam.

Any other belief system or ideology that contained so much sexism, misogyny, violence, bigotry, etc. would be firmly within their "hate" range. Also, there is the notion of blind faith itself, something central to Islam just as in any other religion. That is worth "hating". It is destructive and stifling to human thought.

[Michael K Gray]

[That said, I remain hopeful that CFI will continue their proud tradition of free inquiry, instead of going down the path of 'safe spaces' wherein ideological disagreements are shut out instead of hashed out.

"continue" free enquiry??
CFI abandoned all and every pretence at 'free enquiry' from well before the coup (see Lindsay & Hensley) that uncermoniously ousted Kurtz in 2009.
CFI = Creepy Feminist Indoctrination

[LMU]

I wondered how they'd respond to mood2. I expected they'd ban him, or maybe *gasp* they'd actually let him talk until he was finished! But no, apparently they've just banned him from the "Forum Matters" section.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 800#p67323

[Git Mobile]

My last comment on the subject, a quote from:

http://cifwatch.com/2013/01/27/how-one- ... orial-day/

Here’s a simple, if counter-intuitive request to those who believe that the Holocaust means anything at all:

Spare us your Holocaust pieties, your monuments, your memorials, museums and days of remembrance, and consider that, instead of honoring Jews murdered over 65 years ago, you may want to begin, instead, to honor Jews who are still among us.

There are many ways to show reverence for a tiny minority which has somehow survived despite the best efforts, past and present, of practitioners of homicidal antisemitism. However, the especially morally righteous among you may wish to gain a basic understanding of the precise manner in which Jews have been caricatured, vilified, demonized and dehumanized prior to pogroms, massacres and genocides, studiously avoid advancing narratives or creating graphic depictions which evoke such antisemitic imagery, and righteously condemn those who do so.

You can not undo the horrors inflicted upon six million souls, but you can live your life with a steely determination to never again allow lethal, racist narratives about living Jews to go unchallenged, and to assiduously fight efforts to reintroduce such toxic calumnies into the “respectable” public discourse

[16bitheretic]

Islam is a race now is it?

What is it with fucking liberals and their constant shilling for Islam, the most genocidal fascist misogynistic backwards belief system on the planet?

As someone who is a liberal, I can't figure this out either. An attack on Islam is NOT an attack on brown skinned people who speak Arabic, but somehow many want to equate the two things and it's annoying as shit. Some people think that attacking ideas is attacking the person, which is not necessarily true. It is possible to do both, but that must be done deliberately and simply criticizing the theology is not equivalent to tearing down the adherent.

I also don't view mockery of single individuals as Islamophobia, such as this:
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... 166711.png

Does this ridicule a single Muslim? Yes. Is that an attack on all Muslims? No.

[free thoughtpolice]

Islam is a despicable belief system. Fortunately, most muslims don't follow all the bad stuff.

[Steersman]

...
Possibly a little conspiracy theory laden, but not necessarily so. Harriet Harman, quite senior in the last UK Labour Gov, is quite the radfem and a poster on radfemhub, although I would need to see evidence that she had access to the 'inner sanctum' where social workers referred to boys as 'little rapists'. The involvement of Swedish radfems in Govt has been well documented (ask Scented about that). See what Erin Pizzey has to say about how well her message goes down. Consider the UN's stipulation that aid to African rape victims go to women only despite the fact that almost all of the male prisoners in the various Central African conflicts are raped, according to some aid workers. I believe H. Clinton had something to do with that. The reluctance to criticise Valerie Solanas by some supposed moderates might suggest something. Admittedly I don't have links to this stuff because I'm horrendous at bookmarking, but google it if you are interested. Is the infiltration of radfemminess into mainstream politics that far-fetched considering some of the shite that comes out of both left and right these days?

Here's a taste of what was current in Sweden in 2005. Note also that Sweden had their feminist belief in satanic child rape in the 2000s, a couple decades late to the false memory game, but chock full of the paranoid hate/fear and without evidence.

(youtube:yn3cHsHnUPM)

I also wrote an article about it here:
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2012/ ... riget.html where I talk about how I naively tried to tell PZ about it (before EG happened), thinking at the time that he was actually against sexism and false beliefs in satan. Hahahah, yeah right, eh?

It's not really quite to "witch hunt" proportions yet, but I know I am not the only one seeing noticeable parallels between even fairly "moderate" feminism as it's presented today, and religious pogroms/social purges of the past. ….

I mean, even mainstream feminists believe all kinds of idiotic shit with no evidence....that we have a pervasive "rape culture" in the west, that only men can or do really commit abuse in relationships (though the real numbers show parity), that men are likely to be sexual abusers and manipulators, idiotic shit like "rape switches"...etc, etc....how long before all this unfounded belief causes even more ugliness than it already has? How much "witch hunt" mentality can the liberal side of western society absorb before something has to give? American history has plenty of ugly examples of right-wing witch hunting, maybe it's just a matter of time and power.....the fact that so many liberals are lazy finger-pointers may keep the damage from spreading, but may also keep the uninformed masses from protesting any idiocy that does manage to make it into policy.

You’ve said a mouthful there. You’ve no doubt read Shermer’s eSkeptic article on witch-hunts and Benson’s hatchet-job on him which motived that response of his – if not, highly recommended – but my impression of Benson’s trumped up charge against him for having made a supposedly though egregiously sexist comment – “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing” – seems predicated on a definition of sexist as little more than the tautological “what Shermer said”.

Curious also that many FfTBers have fallen into lock-step behind Benson using that same definition – notably Ed Brayton and Greta Christina – yet no one over there has been prepared to defend the charge on the basis of the one in the dictionary, i.e., that it has to manifest discrimination or promote a stereotype – which Shermer’s statement seems not to qualify as on either account.

[another lurker]

My last comment on the subject, a quote from:

http://cifwatch.com/2013/01/27/how-one- ... orial-day/

Here’s a simple, if counter-intuitive request to those who believe that the Holocaust means anything at all:

Spare us your Holocaust pieties, your monuments, your memorials, museums and days of remembrance, and consider that, instead of honoring Jews murdered over 65 years ago, you may want to begin, instead, to honor Jews who are still among us.

There are many ways to show reverence for a tiny minority which has somehow survived despite the best efforts, past and present, of practitioners of homicidal antisemitism. However, the especially morally righteous among you may wish to gain a basic understanding of the precise manner in which Jews have been caricatured, vilified, demonized and dehumanized prior to pogroms, massacres and genocides, studiously avoid advancing narratives or creating graphic depictions which evoke such antisemitic imagery, and righteously condemn those who do so.

You can not undo the horrors inflicted upon six million souls, but you can live your life with a steely determination to never again allow lethal, racist narratives about living Jews to go unchallenged, and to assiduously fight efforts to reintroduce such toxic calumnies into the “respectable” public discourse

Git: you know what I could never understand? Growing up, I noticed that people would go on about how truly *terrible* the Holocaust was. But then, they would make 'Jew' jokes, or they would say 'I don't want no Jew moving into MY neighbourhood'

Obviously there is a difference between disliking an ethnic group and outright genocide but uhm - if they don't want Jewish people in their town, then why *would* they be anything but indifferent over something like the holocaust? I have often wondered if these same people have ever really been sincere when lamenting the tragedy of the Holocaust...

[cunt]

The problem is, muslims are brown. When they talk you should really be shutting up and listening. Don't 'splain. Just take a breather and realise... It's possible that they know more about the truth of Islam than you do. You might learn something.

You'll be shutting up for about 6 months. A lot of them have the Qu'ran memorised.

[free thoughtpolice]

14
Aratina Cage

January 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm (UTC -8)

A guy called Michael Heath has been insisting … that I lied about Shermer, that I am a liar, that I defamed Shermer, that my article is demagoguery. That’s all false.

What the hell would he do that for? He has always been long-winded, but this blind rage some of these men (many of them gay) get into when one of their favorites is criticized by an uppity woman is beyond me.


Arantinacave defending Ophelia Benson from some truly mild mannered criticism from a long time ftb commenter.
I wonder if Josh knows a is such a homophobe!

[another lurker]

14
Aratina Cage

January 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm (UTC -8)

A guy called Michael Heath has been insisting … that I lied about Shermer, that I am a liar, that I defamed Shermer, that my article is demagoguery. That’s all false.

What the hell would he do that for? He has always been long-winded, but this blind rage some of these men (many of them gay) get into when one of their favorites is criticized by an uppity woman is beyond me.


Arantinacave defending Ophelia Benson from some truly mild mannered criticism from a long time ftb commenter.
I wonder if Josh knows a is such a homophobe!

I have seen Michael Heath's posts. He knows his stuff and is definitely nothing if not reasonable in the *extreme.*

[cunt]

A guy called Michael Heath has been insisting … that I lied about Shermer, that I am a liar, that I defamed Shermer, that my article is demagoguery. That’s all false.

Actually, Ophelia. It's true!!

[Michael K Gray]

And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?

Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Oh yes you DO!!
Since when is a chosen faith a race?
Too fucking absurd for words.

[BarnOwl]

Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.

There's also a great docu of the finding of Mallory's body in 1999. It's in five parts.

Peter Firstbrook's book on the expedition is pretty good too.

I didn't know about the Brian Blessed/Everest documentary at all, and just spent several seconds going "EEEeeeEEEEEeeeeeEeeeeeEEEE!!!!111!!" with excitement at the prospect of watching it. Thanks for posting it!

I think Blessed might have played Old Deuteronomy and Bustopher Jones when I saw Cats in London years and years ago (early 1990s).

[Michael K Gray]

It is ok to hate islam, the religion

However, it is not ok to hate the people, the muslims

Does that sound reasonable?

Islamophobia = ok

Muslimophobia = not ok

Oh fuck, not you too?
Musilm is the name given to someone who has decided to declare themselves as followers of the faith Islam.
I can hate Muslims for their stupid choice of behaviours without you telling me that it is not OK, thankyou.
Muslims can to not be Muslims, not easy, but it has been done.
It is a behavioural CHOICE!!

[Michael K Gray]

Islam is a despicable belief system. Fortunately, most muslims don't follow all the bad stuff.

The "benign" members of any misogynistic cult are far worse than the few true believers, as they provide cover, funding, labour, support & plausibility for the truly awful things done in their name.
Without them, it would just be a handful of crazies in prison.

It is the silent "good" members of any religion that sustain the truly inhumane aspects.
These "good" members are mainly to blame for the worst elements of Islam. (Or Judaism, or Christ-insanity, or Scientology, etc)

[bhoytony]

Peter Firstbrook's book on the expedition is pretty good too.

I didn't know about the Brian Blessed/Everest documentary at all, and just spent several seconds going "EEEeeeEEEEEeeeeeEeeeeeEEEE!!!!111!!" with excitement at the prospect of watching it. Thanks for posting it!

I think Blessed might have played Old Deuteronomy and Bustopher Jones when I saw Cats in London years and years ago (early 1990s).

It's not great quality, looks like a VHS recording of the programme from the early '90s.
Brian Blessed will forever be Caesar Augustus in I, Claudius to me.

[Lsuoma]

Spoiler tags went as there is a very unpleasant and at present unstoppable interaction between the JS they used and php. This essentially made the site 100% vulnerable to crackers.

[BarnOwl]

That's the one I own, along with a motorcycle jacket and a couple of vests. I think that the inside game pockets (of the Border) are probably more intended for dead birds but I've found they work fine when loaded down with trout. I do love them. Probably not as practical as more modern materials but classic. Speaking of classic, some adventuresome climbers need to replicate Mallory's and Irvine's attempt at Everest while wearing tweeds and smoking pipes.

The game pockets worked well for smuggling tortillas into the UK - couldn't find them anywhere in London back then. Nowadays I imagine it's not difficult at all.

The Barbour Border is perfect, as far as I'm concerned. It's thornproof against mesquite and prickly pear cactus. With a wool sweater underneath, it's warm and wind-resistant enough for the coldest weather I encounter here. It works with jeans or skirts. I wouldn't trade it for anything in kind.