Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Billie from Ockham]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Easy J, glad to hear you're resilient, though that truly sucks about the kids. And don't feel foolish for haven been taken. If you haven't been once or twice, you're either sheltered or really lucky.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.

[Bourne Skeptic]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.

I'd suggest he read this before anything else,

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Make-Bigger ... 1118704967

[Billie from Ockham]

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.

Joke fail.

I was suggesting that Steersman might not read the whole Wikipedia entry ... just the abstract and the parts below that support his argument.

[comhcinc]

Easy J makes my current position look better. Fuck. That is saying a lot.

Unlike steersman.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him.

Joke fail.

I was suggesting that Steersman might not read the whole Wikipedia entry ... just the abstract and the parts below that support his argument.

Eh, not your failure. The Cpt can be a little dense sometimes, according to reputable sources.

[Easy J]

Easy J makes my current position look better. Fuck. That is saying a lot.

Unlike steersman.

Com, just keep your eyes open & stay on point. Watch her. When you see the red hair dye & glasses, do not hesitate.

[Guest]

Parsehole!" I shrieked, "Dissemble no more! Admit the deed! -- Tear up the planks! There, here! -- It is the tweeting of your hideous heart!"

[comhcinc]

Easy J makes my current position look better. Fuck. That is saying a lot.

Unlike steersman.

Com, just keep your eyes open & stay on point. Watch her. When you see the red hair dye & glasses, do not hesitate.

Lol that doesn't work with my wife. She has always had awesome hair and glasses.

[Steersman]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.

I'd suggest he read this before anything else,

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Make-Bigger ... 1118704967

Seems like that might be a worthwhile addition to my reading list - thnks.

[NoGodsEver]

Not to go all steersman here but I am watching the daily show and they are talking about the confederate flag thing. I know this is connected to that shooting but I don't know how. Anyway I want to make a point.


This is the confederate battle flag that everyone is talking about.
http://www.bndflagpoles.com/750_500_csu ... 1747286463


This is the stars and bars.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gacgr/starbars.jpg


If you are going to be high and mighty about this shit take five minutes to search wikipedia and get your facts straight.

Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.

[Steersman]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

He's not reading anything until he finishes Novum Organum.

Don't see that there's any great necessity for me to do so - particularly with increasingly limited time. My point, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't or isn't that you don't have a right to your opinion - regardless of how wrong it might be. It was that I don't have to read it all, or even much of it, to realize that your opinion isn't particularly consistent with a great many others - philosophers, historians, etc., etc. - who seem to have a great deal more credibility than you do. Rather disingenuous or clueless - at best - for you and, apparently, CaptainFluffyBunny to ignore that argument.

[comhcinc]

Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.

When I was a child around 6 my favorite shirt was one I got at the local music store. It was the Pink Panther with a rebel flag. Kinda like this
https://img0.etsystatic.com/037/1/74376 ... 4_dwk9.jpg

[Steersman]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

Might be a useful addition to the reading list, although I wonder what point you think it makes that is particularly relevant or weighty. But, as a quid pro quo, I want you to read Melvin Smith's Our home or native land? : what governments' aboriginal policy is doing to Canada

[Steersman]

Maybe you didn't notice that I conceded (above) that "Canada has periodically or frequently treated "first nations" people rather shabbily"? But recognizing that shouldn't preclude a fair assessment of the argument, as above, that many in the First Nations communities have contributed substantially to their own difficulties. Complex issue, and not at all easy to disentangle all of the factors. But I don't think it helps at all for either "side" - there or in any dispute - to refuse to consider that they, or their attitudes and values, may be more a part of the problem than of the solution - to coin a phrase. ;-)

Coin this phrase, forked tongue land stealing white eye demon: Way to victim blame shitlord.

"That's racist!"
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... 8sw578.gif
But then again, what do I know about such terms? ...

Did you read what I wrote? If so it didn't appear to sink in. Everyone contributes to their own misfortune to some degree. The attitudes and values of the Indians I know are pretty much the same as everyone else I know.
There are some from that "side" that could use a leg up and some help to catch up with the modern world?
I think so.

Yes, that is undoubtedly true - to some degree - for all of us as individuals. However, the point of that book of Melvin Smith's I just recommended (if I'm not mistaken as it was some years since I read it) is that aboriginal policy by governments, as well as attitudes and values of First Nations, are both part of the problem because they affect many individuals in a systemic way. And, relative to the latter, while I don't have any evidence for this at the tip of my tongue, though I've read more than a few articles, it seems that First Nations communal attitudes to owning property is a major contributing factor for the dire straights of many aboriginals.

Seem to recollect that the Residential Schools settlement talked of $5 billion dollars in the way of "catch up" ....

[Suet Cardigan]

Thanks for the education. Fuck both of those rags.

When I was a child around 6 my favorite shirt was one I got at the local music store. It was the Pink Panther with a rebel flag. Kinda like this
https://img0.etsystatic.com/037/1/74376 ... 4_dwk9.jpg

I'm watching The Pink Panther Strikes Again at this very moment.
Inspector Clouseau is a Frenchman who's always getting injured but somehow always survives.
Now who does that remind me of? :think:

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q52 ... 7aad2e.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

If I'm going to be compared to someone, I'll gladly accept Peter Sellers.

[Skep tickle]

Engage scroll finger.

Myers’ post (archive link) “The hopeless arrogance of Milo Yiannopoulos”, mentioned here yesterday, opens:

There was a recent debate on British television between Milo Yiannopoulos and Emily Grossman on Sexism in Science. I have no idea why Yiannopoulos was even invited; he’s got no qualifications at all to be talking about this stuff. I guess he was the representative for sexism, while Grossman was there to represent science.

[youtube]kBiS4qTsjCg[/youtube]
I went all A+ on y’all and transcribed the video. "MY" is Milo Yiannopoulos (the sexist) and "EG" is Emily Grossman (the scientist).

Transcript: Debate: Sexism in Science (June 10, sky news) – part 1

Moderator: Now a Nobel prize winner has been criticized for suggesting women scientists shouldn’t work with men. Sir Tim Hunt said the problem with girls is that you fall in love with them and they cry when you criticize them. He admitted being a chauvinist pig, but does that excuse his comments? With us is Milo Yiannopoulos, columnist and broadcaster, as you can see, and also Dr Emily Grossman who is a maths and science teacher and tutor. Who’d like to start {extending hand toward EG} - doctor.

EG: I think the issue here is that his comments are irresponsible in an environment where there is such a strong gender imbalance still in the sciences. I work as a tutor and teacher and I am really passionate about encouraging young women, girls, at school to study science, to go into sciences, and there’s still an environment where a lot of young girls still feel that science isn’t for them. There’s a historical reason for that, back in the Renaissance time women were told that their brains were too soft to have a powerful skull, that exercising our brains would shrink our ovaries. We’re still coming back from that & we’re in an environment where we’re desperately trying to dispel these stereotypes, to dispel the image that science and maths is more for boys than it is for girls. And these types of comments, potentially harmless in terms of intent, are actually really reinforcing these stereotypes that we’re trying to get away from in terms of encouraging girls to go into science as a career.

MY: We hear a lot from scientists, we hear a lot in particular the female scientists, but the fact is that there are some, there is some, reason to suppose that there is an advantage to being a man in certain subjects. There’s reason to suppose that gender essentialism, biological determinism, whatever you want to call it – the fact that there are male brains and female brains may indeed have some basis in science. Now this is thrown out of the window completely by feminists and female academics who just refuse to accept that there’s any reason whatsoever why there may be a gender imbalance. Two things on that. One, actually the science is very much still out on that. And two, if you look at equality in society, if you look for example at Bangladesh versus Norway, what you notice is the number of women in science and technology subjects actually goes down as societies get more equal, because women simply don’t make the same choices that female academics and feminists would like them to. Women don’t actually want to go into sciences, on the whole, and when they have every option available to them, they tend to choose not to.

EG: I don’t think that’s the issue. I think it’s about confidence. I think women suffer – again, we’re not talking about all women, we’re talking about some women, we’re talking about some men – from lack of confidence and from something called imposter syndrome, where we attribute our successes to external factors, and we lack the confidence to actually believe that we are good enough to do it.

MY: Okay - sorry to interrupt - if you’re going to get pushed off a career in science because of an offhand comment from a Nobel prize winner, how committed were you really in the first place to being a scientist? I mean, it’s an extraordinary thing, isn’t it.

EG: That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Women, women learn in a very different way - again, not all women, but a majority of women learn in a way that’s supportive, that’s nurturing, that’s encouraging. I see that in the students that I teach, I see the girls that I teach go into mixed sex 6th forms and get totally put off because they’re in a sink-or-swim environment, they’re in a competitive environment, they’re too frightened to put up their hands and ask questions…

MY: So we shouldn’t have competitiveness in science? Competitiveness in science is bad, we should segregate the sexes, really. That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Much better if...

EG: Absolutely not. Competitiveness is very important…

MY: In fact, if what Tim Hunt said was exactly true, what you’re saying is that gender segregation would be a good thing, you’re saying the mixed classes, the competitiveness is bad for women, so maybe he’s right. Maybe we should separate labs out into female scientists and male scientists.

EG: I’m saying it’s important for women to be able to compete in a male environment, but it’s important to help those women, to support those women in terms of confidence and in terms of self-belief, because women are more naturally self-reflective. Again, not all women, a lot of men are like this too, self-reflective…

MY: That’s sort of a weird sexist position to take, isn’t it – that women can’t really take it, so we need to be extra specially careful ‘round them, we need to…

Moderator: Is it different for gay men and lesbian women?

MY: Well it’s brilliant being a gay man, you can get away with murder, you can do anything. I mean it’s one respect in which identity politics is brilliant, you know, as a gay man or lesbian you can basically get away with murder. You can be bitchy, you can be sarcastic, you can be rude and abusive, you can do whatever the hell you like and nobody complains. Women, I think really, you know, until very recently – until possibly the last half decade – it was certainly true that women had all kinds of structural disadvantages in society. That simply isn’t true any more. It’s not true, for example, when women go for jobs in science, technology, and mathematics, you know - a study came out I think 2 or 3 weeks ago in the US saying that women have a 2 to 1 advantage over men with the same qualifications because everyone’s so desperate to hire women.

EG: A study also came out…

MY: The reality that people experience, you know, going for jobs and in the working life is actually that women are sort of structurally advantaged, not disadvantaged. This happened very recently.

EG: A study came out also to show that out of 65 countries the UK has the highest discrepancy between confidence amongst boys and girls in terms of how good that they feel that they are. Girls are coming out of school and not going into those careers because they feel they aren’t good enough, they feel they’re not welcome (??)…

MY: But women are the majority in university.

EG: and actually those very skills…

Moderator: May I ask a question

EG: …those very qualities that yes, women do cry, some women do cry, I have cried when I’ve felt out of my comfort zone. when I’ve felt afraid, but actually that didn’t make me any less good. I cried when I came out of all my exams at Cambridge, and I did better than the boys. And actually women cry because they’re sensitive – again, not all women, some women, lots of men too – because they’re sensitive, because they’re self-reflective, because they’re empathic, because they’re passionate, and they’re willing to take on criticism…

MY: So Tim Hunt’s right.

EG: … they’re willing to look at themselves. Excuse me?

MY: So Tim Hunt’s right.

EG: He’s right that women cry, but the implication that that makes us at a disadvantage, that that puts us as people who shouldn’t be going into…

MY: I don’t think he made that implication, what he was saying is that he finds…

EG: That’s not the point, it’s irresponsible to make that kind of comment in an environment where we need to encourage girls to go into science.

MY: He never said women were less competent. What he said was, he finds it personally a distraction. He’s said that he finds it a distraction…

EG: Yeah, so then …

Moderator: (?? Is that the issue, rather than that women...??)

MY: …and he’s a silly old man who doesn’t understand the latest, you know, the latest…

EG: But he should know better than making that kind of comment.

MY: What is he, 73 years old?

Moderator: He’s a septuagenarian.

MY: Right, we can’t expect him to be up on, you know, all that kind of stuff…

EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.

MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…

EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….

Moderator: (??) tweeted to say, “Is it, is he making these comments because” (pointing to MY) to your point) “he’s a septuagenarian and he’s from a bygone era, sexism in the modern world has no place” but he is an old man, so do we have to forgive him?

continues in part 2

[Skep tickle]

part 2

EG: Of course, I’m not talking about him and his comments, as him as a person. I’m talking about what it does in terms of the environment that we’re bringing girls up into, and a responsibility that people in positions of authority like he is, to actually not perpetuate these negative images about women. It’s really damaging. When girls do a maths test…

MY: This is so strange, I mean…

EG: …in an environment where they’ve been told they’re not going to be as good as girls, if they do a maths test in that environment, and they identify themselves as girls – they actually write their name as female on the test – they won’t do as well in that environment, because…

MY: Yeah but you see, you’re conflating two different things. You know, it is true that teachers in general mark boys down, but it’s true that in STEM subjects they mark boys up.

EG: No, no, I’m not talking about…

MY: When you sort of do the blind tests, when teachers know the gender of the person who’s studying, boys get marked up in sciences…

EG: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the stereotype threat, which is when girls identify themselves as being female by writing their own name on the top of the test, they will do worse. It has been shown that they will do worse, because they know that they’re being – they feel that they will probably fail in an environment…

MY: But women perform better at university. More girls are going – Well, okay. So we have to ask if it…

Moderator: Girls perform better at university.

MY: You have to ask if this is really a problem. More women are going to university, they’re getting higher grades at school, they’re getting higher grades at university….
EG: Twenty percent of all level A students – twenty percent…

MY: …more women graduate, women in their 30’s earn more than men for the same work, in their 30’s, in the UK and the US now, they are 2 to 1 more likely to get a job with the same qualifications. Where’s the structural bias against women here? I don’t see the problem here. What I do see actually is a very reasonable complaint from a lot of young men – not my generation maybe, you know I’m sort of 10 years older than them – but from a lot of young men who are going to university, going into the workplace, and they don’t recognize the world you’re describing. Because it’s not their experience. When they go for a job, they are discriminated against because people are desperate to hire women. When they go to university…

EG: Of A-level physics students….

MY: …more women are doing better all around them, and they feel as though they’re being held up to feminine standards of behavior, being whacked on Ritalin ‘cause they’re too boisterous on the playground, or not getting the same support that women do at university, there’s….

EG: Okay, and what about mental health issues men have….

(all 3 speak)

Moderator: {gesturing to EG} We’re out of time, would you like to make a final point? Then {gesturing to MY} I’ll come to you.

EG: Of all A-level physics students, only 20% are girls, how can you possibly say that we’re in an equal environment where girls are coming out and doing - studying - science as much as boys are. We are absolutely not, and we need to make sure that girls feel that science is for them, and it’s not just for boys, and they’re not being pushed out of it because of who they are, and because they might cry, and because they might be self-reflective.

MY: This is, this is based on an assumption that there ought to be some kind of gender parity. My suggestion is that there isn’t. We don’t complain when women dominate subjects like nursing, we shouldn’t complain when men dominate subjects like physics.

Moderator: {laughing} We’re going to have to leave it there, we could chat for another hour on this. Milo, doctor, thank you both very much indeed for joining us here on sky news. We’ll continue this discussion on Twitter: “Women should not be in a science lab because they cry and fall in love,” says a septuagenarian biochemist.

(last couple of lines from moderator snipped)

END TRANSCRIPT
___________

I think these are the 2 studies mentioned as very recent:

1) Milo's: National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (PNAS, 4/2015)

From the abstract; bolding added:

...validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and (DC). In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships… Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. …the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

2) Emily seemed to be referring to this view of a larger study/report: Girls lack self-confidence in maths and science problems, study finds (Guardian, 3/2015) - that's reporting on one portion of, & recommendation from, this nearly 200 page report: The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behavior, Confidence (OECD, 3/2015). Chapter 3 is “Girls’ Lack of Self-Confidence”, but there's more to it than that. From the Executive Summary:

The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence tries to determine why 15-year-old boys are more likely than girls, on average, to fail to attain a baseline level of proficiency in reading, mathematics and science, and why high-performing 15-year-old girls still underachieve in areas such as mathematics, science and problem solving when compared to high-performing boys.

This, from page 31 of the OECD report, seems to relate to the specific portion Emily referred to as "a study (that) came out"; bolding added:

Girls also lag behind boys when they are required to explain phenomena scientifically (Table 1.11b). ... On average across OECD countries, boys outperform girls in this specific skill by 15 score points. The gender gap is particularly large in <snip 5 countries>, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom (21 points) (Table 1.11b).

...high-performing girls’ underachievement in mathematics and science, particularly in tasks that require them to formulate problems mathematically or to explain phenomena scientifically, may have a lot to do with girls’ confidence in their own ability in these subjects. When students are more self-confident, they give themselves the freedom to fail, to engage in trial-and-error processes that are fundamental to acquiring knowledge in mathematics and science. Girls tend to be more fearful of making mistakes, perhaps because they cannot distinguish, psychologically, between “I made a mistake” and “I am mistaken”.

Self-confidence is also what enables high-achieving students to reach their potential and not choke under pressure. ...at every level of performance, girls tend to have much lower levels of self-efficacy and self-concept in mathematics and science. ...while girls have less self-efficacy and lower self concept, they tend to be highly motivated to do well in school and to believe that doing well at school is important (Table 2.15). They also tend to fear negative evaluations by others more than boys do, and are eager to meet others’ expectations for them. Given girls’ keen desire to succeed in school and to please others, their fear of negative evaluations, and their lower self-confidence in mathematics and science, it is hardly surprising that high-achieving girls choke under (often self-imposed) pressure.

This page from a American Psychological Association publication (newsletter?) from 2010 seems relevant: Math + culture = gender gap? - Here's one section:

In fact, women in the United States now earn 48 percent of bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and 30 percent of the doctorates, says Hyde. “If they can’t do math, how are they doing this? They can do math just fine.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that just because girls and women can do the math, they want to. When Vanderbilt University psychologist David Lubinski, PhD, and his colleagues interviewed a group of more than 5,000 intellectually precocious girls and boys they’d followed from childhood into their mid-30s, they noticed that while men and women earned equal proportions of advanced degrees, there were gender differences in the areas people decided to study.

He found that just as many women as men started college planning to go into physical sciences and math. However, women more than men later switched to humanities and social science majors. Every one of these study participants had the ability to succeed in math-related careers, but many of them were more likely to choose law school or medicine, Lubinski says.

“The sexes are making different choices,” he says. “But when we look at how satisfied these people are with their career choices, they’re equally satisfied and equally successful.”

[Couch]

<snip longer Steers>

[Steers, how do you refer to the indigenous where you're from?

Aboriginals or native Indians with the former seeming to be well within the pale, so to speak, since there's the APTN - the Aboriginal Public Television Network - in this neck of the woods that seems pretty acceptable. Not sure if there's anything equivalent to the Australian "abbo" or "boonga", but I expect there are a few that may or may not have some applicability depending on circumstances. Reminds of having read a book sometime ago on some aboriginal issues here in Canada - "Our Home? Or Native Land?", I think - that included a bit from a routine from an aboriginal comedian who was taking some quite justifiable shots at the relatively high levels of fraud perpetrated by various "Chiefs and Council" on native reserves. Maybe there's an epithet that might be applicable, or maybe one could be coined on the fly - "Scalpers"?

[What do you think it is acceptable to call indigenous Australians? The casual slurs of my youth are abhorrent to me now; and feel almost unutterable now I know a thing or two about the last 220 years. As a society, our refusal the use or defend those racial epithets and slurs are, in part, a black armband signifying our recognition of the displacement, prejudice and suffering wrought upon a people. But 'Abo' is just an abbreviation of 'Aborigine' you say?

I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.

[Fuck off, Cunt (I'll let you can divine what usage of cunt I'm employing here) ;)

:) Oy! I'm cut to the quick - ask of me tomorrow and you'll find me a grave man.

But there again, I think you're engaging in some highly questionable if not actually hypocritical "reasoning". Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.

Steers, I should've whacked in two smileys after calling you a cunt. I was being deliberately cheeky about the cunt-nigger conundrum (hereinafter "the CNC').

Can I suggest another way of tacking the Croom thing. Would you do a brief summary of the argument? Some of the uncharitable here will doubtless scoff at my last sentence, and say you are too prolix. Anyway, I won't lie, I haven't sufficient spoons (nor other labour-enacting devices) handy to wade through Croom. Furthermore, you could pick the eyes out of it much faster than I ever could as you're closely familiar with it.

But, and it is a big but, can you do the summary of Croom's argument in the style which follows. Just think of it as like a written thought experiment. Now, I'm thinking you're thinking that this approach is pretty lowbrow; but you catch more flies with honey, or darkies with shiny things, or however the saying goes. So, here the sample structure, ignore the words:

1. There's a view afoot that to use the N word (lets just use, for simplicity, one racial epithet or slur) to describe groups or individual with dark skin is both objectively and subjectively offensive and ought be avoided;
2. This view is untrue or misfounded;
3. Or certainly bloody should be;
4. Because(reasons)

Just do it in simple, brief, bullet-point or numbered para form. And try to limit it to several paras - say max 150 words. I've a rare condition where wall-o-text causes me to lose focus and concentration. Steers, It's a shift in style, but give it a whirl. Can't hurt.

[Guest]

Thank you Ms. Tickle,

I've been curious this whole time just what Tim Hunt's daily responsibilities were.

This here from a year ago says he is group leader emiritus:
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_12/caredit.a1400147
most other accounts describe his position as honorary professor.

So academics and medicos, what would his responsibilities be?
Does he supervise groups?
Does he direct research?
Does he do research?
Does he hire or fund researchers or their research?

EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.

MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…

Was he actually in a position of responsibility?
What was it about Hunt or what he said that made the joke require the witch of the week treatment?

EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….

Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?

[Skep tickle]

L’eggo My Ego: Reducing the Gender Gap in Math by Unlinking the Self from Performance from the journal Self Identity (full text at link) seems to be the study that examined math test performance based on own name & gender vs fake name & gender written on test, in women & men, which Emily Grossman mentioned in the Milo v. Emily video as showing women do worse on math tests when identifying to themselves as women. It's the only study I turned up that seems to fit the bill.

Couple of observations on the study:
1) The participants were 20% of a larger group of college students who'd taken a survey on math attitudes & self identity; those chosen were those (or, some of those) who had marked a high level of agreement with this statement on the initial survey: "Being good at math is an important part of who I am".

2) The person administering the exam was male, and "[t]o create stereotype threat among women (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), the experimenter mentioned in all sessions that gender differences have been found on convergent thinking as reflected by math performance."

So the research participants were selected to have self-worth tied in with math performance, and the research design specifically tried to create "stereotype threat" among women participants about how women are bad at math. And then, surprise surprise, it found a particular subset of "stereotype threat" ("self-reputational threat") among the women research participants on the math test. :think:

I can't comment on the statistics, but from the "Math Test Performance" results section, these caught my eye:

a) One finding in which "female" was associated with better performance was tossed out as "not meaningful":

Attempts Analysis of the number of items attempted revealed that women attempted somewhat fewer math problems (M = 24.90) than did men (M = 26.26), β= .15, p < .06. In addition, the contrast of male vs. female fictitious name was significant, β= −.16, p < .05, indicating that participants (regardless of their own gender) using a female fictitious name attempted significantly more items (M = 26.58) than those using a male fictitious name (M = 24.78). ... These patterns are themselves not meaningful, but because there was some systematic variation in the number of questions answered, we focused on accuracy (i.e., the number of correct answers out of the number attempted) as our primary measure of performance.

b) Here's what they saw as their key finding:

Accuracy Women’s and men’s accuracy scores (along with other dependent variables of interest) for each condition are presented in Table 1. Regression analyses of accuracy yielded a main effect of gender, β = .22, p < .01 (men outperformed women), and a main effect of own vs. fictitious name contrast, β = .22, p < .02, which was qualified by the predicted interaction between gender and own vs. fictitious name contrast: β = −.17, p < .03. Specifically, women who used their own name were less accurate (M = .44) than men who used their own name (M = .61), β = .31, p = .001. However, women who were assigned a fictitious name (M = .51) performed significantly better than those using their own name, β = .17, p < .05, and equivalently to men in the fictitious name conditions (M = .60), β = .10, p > .20. Men’s performance was unaffected by the use of a different name, β = −.07, p > .30.

[Skep tickle]

Thank you Ms. Tickle,

I've been curious this whole time just what Tim Hunt's daily responsibilities were.

This here from a year ago says he is group leader emiritus:
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_12/caredit.a1400147
most other accounts describe his position as honorary professor.

So academics and medicos, what would his responsibilities be?
Does he supervise groups?
Does he direct research?
Does he do research?
Does he hire or fund researchers or their research?

EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.

MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…

Was he actually in a position of responsibility?
What was it about Hunt or what he said that made the joke require the witch of the week treatment?

EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….

Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?

Is there a difference? (women v. children)

...she says, noting with dismay how often those who feel strongly that they're advocating for gender equality seem to favor approaches that serve to shield & protect women.

[windy]

PZ is clearly a friend of the poor, destitute black man and woman because he has a picture of Africa in his home office inside his massive, clean, suburban American house.

People in massive, clean, suburban American houses can also be destitute!

[youtube]cWlAgPJdHdA[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

Blech, in the math test / name paper there were more key findings than just math test solution accuracy. I was inaccurate in saying that was the key finding - but it was one of them.

'Night, all.

[Dick Strawkins]

Thank you Ms. Tickle,

I've been curious this whole time just what Tim Hunt's daily responsibilities were.

This here from a year ago says he is group leader emiritus:
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_12/caredit.a1400147
most other accounts describe his position as honorary professor.

So academics and medicos, what would his responsibilities be?
Does he supervise groups?
Does he direct research?
Does he do research?
Does he hire or fund researchers or their research?

EG: He’s in a position of responsibility.

MY: …and I think that what we’re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because he’s in…

Was he actually in a position of responsibility?
What was it about Hunt or what he said that made the joke require the witch of the week treatment?

EG: It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actually….

Her argument seems to be a think of the children argument. This was a women’s lunch at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, were there significant numbers of young girls present, or were the attendees mostly adults?

'Emeritus' kind of means 'retired, but still comes in every now and then and too famous for us to push out the door'.
He's a nobel prize winner for a topic that is still a crucial area of research (the cell cycle) and has been an important contributor to the field for decades. There is no department in the world that would lightly get rid of someone with those qualities.

The remarks that led to this kerfuffle, taken at face value, were awful, and there is no point in trying to defend them on their own merits.
He said:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?"

These words were reported as being a serious proposal by Hunt and his initial response to the growing media storm was not very clear.

In my own lab there are a number of women scientists and they just mocked the statement. They put a sign on the door saying:

"Mixed gender laboratory. No crying or falling in love"

Hunt's remarks do portray him as some kind of sexist dinosaur that would be hell for a young woman to have to face in her career so it is reasonable for people to take issue with him and if he really does behave as his remarks suggest then he would not be a good person to have power over the careers of women.

HOWEVER...

It turns out that there is more to the story than this.
If you look at a transcripts of his remarks you will notice that the very next words he said following the sexist statement were: "Now seriously,"
indicating that his words were meant as a joke, not a proscriptive verdict on women in science.

That throws things into a completely different light. In addition, many women have come forwards who have worked with Hunt in the past and described him as being very supportive of them and of women in science in general.
Taking all this into account it appears that the most likely conclusion here is that Hunt is not a sexist dinosaur - he is a crap comedian (one of the women defending him made this very point and recalled one similarly rubbish joke he had made at a previous conference.)

Not only is he a crap comedian, he is very much out of touch with the outrageosphere we live in these days.
Making a crap pseudo-sexist joke to a group of women science journalists?
Is he crazy?

Doesn't he realize the way modern media works through clickbait articles?
I'm pretty sure there were some decent journalists there, but there were bound to be a fair number who were ready for a juicy sentence to spin into a shocked article where they just..can't..even..

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

The Hunt case is no different than the Comet-Guy shirt case, in that it is a boon for the offense-driven media, especially on the web. Otherwise, to any rational person (ie: not the offense-driven media, especially on the web), those are non-events and shouldn't in anyway affect the career and private lives of the two scientists. That it does is a very bad sign of what internet and offense culture are brooding.

[Guest]

Hunt's remarks do portray him as some kind of sexist dinosaur that would be hell for a young woman to have to face in her career so it is reasonable for people to take issue with him and if he really does behave as his remarks suggest then he would not be a good person to have power over the careers of women.

HOWEVER...

It turns out that there is more to the story than this.
If you look at a transcripts of his remarks you will notice that the very next words he said following the sexist statement were: "Now seriously,"
indicating that his words were meant as a joke, not a proscriptive verdict on women in science.

That throws things into a completely different light. In addition, many women have come forwards who have worked with Hunt in the past and described him as being very supportive of them and of women in science in general.
Taking all this into account it appears that the most likely conclusion here is that Hunt is not a sexist dinosaur - he is a crap comedian (one of the women defending him made this very point and recalled one similarly rubbish joke he had made at a previous conference.)

There is some contention over the transcript. I don't know that anyone has actually seen it. The contents have been leaked, but the details of who made it, how it was made, etc., still seem to largely unreported, and the journalists who were there say the transcript is not accurate, and Hunt never said "now seriously" and they seem to have other witnesses claiming that too.

This luncheon has to be one of the last events in recorded history to not be recorded.

While his exact comments are controversial what is not controversial is what his many female supporters say: they've never experienced sexism from Hunt, in fact quite the opposite.

So I'm not sure that Hunt put in all of the emoticons and other joke signifiers are culture of humorless perpetual outrage now requires. I would like to think that even without his putting up a powerpoint of a huge smiley, I would have heard what he said about needing gender separate laboratories and where he was saying it at a women in STEM and journalism conference and realized perhaps he was joking. But maybe I would not have, it's clear that these very fine very smart other journalists, scientists, and MDs present heard this 76 year old man speaking at this women in STEM and journalism conference who previously had a good reputation as a supporter of women and heard him say he thinks women need separate labs and all these very smart people thought he was serious. And they are very smart.

I mean, BBC fell for Elfwick on more than one occasion, so it's probably Elfwick's fault, BBC is pretty smart too.

So I tend to think Hunt's comedy isn't horrid, though maybe his sense of timing and audiences in today's culture is off. I think it might be true he actually has a far better sense of humor than the journalists who got together and all decided his statement was factual and also required an immediate tweet out. What else could they have done? Investigated his lab and seen what his actual behaviors were?

[AndrewV69]

Blech, in the math test / name paper there were more key findings than just math test solution accuracy. I was inaccurate in saying that was the key finding - but it was one of them.

'Night, all.

Oh great! A cliff hanger!!!

[feathers]

By the way Steers, I want you to read this guys book before you comment again on First Nation topics. :hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

Sort of, yes. The intro often is.

[paddybrown]

Right, caught up after a gruelling rehearsal schedule. First off, my condolences to SN, sounds like a horrible situation.

Second, in checking out Avery Richmann on Twitter (no way he's genuine), I discovered that in response to this tweet from the Dawk:

The Oaf said:

Um, "victim blaming" anyone?

Third,

I'm tony queershoop and pz myers

Explains a lot. And perhaps Melissa McEwan?

Wouldn't it be funny if all the SJWs were trolls? Like in The Man Who Was Thursday. Rachel Dolezal and Bahar Mustafa and Amanda Marcotte and David Futrelle and Arthur Chu are all in deep cover. Hugo Shwyzer's meltdown was to allow troll central command to evacuate him before his cover was blown.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm a masochist, a glutton for punishment, I've contradicted my own suggestion, I know this going to hurt me, but seeing the Steersbot misinterpreting Croom again triggered this post. Sorry.

I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.

Rebuttal of your point by Croom himself in another article

Slurs possess interesting linguistic properties and so have recently attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers of language. For instance the racial slur nigger is explosively derogatory, enough so that just hearing it mentioned can leave one feeling as if they have been made complicit in a morally atrocious act.

(Jennifer Hornsby has suggested that slurs might count as “hate speech” and so raise questions “about the compatibility of the regulation of [hate] speech with principles of free speech” (2001, p. 129). Chris Hom further suggests that, “the use of an epithet may count as a literal threat, and hence no longer merit freedom of speech protection under the First Amendment” (2008, p. 440).

A close analysis of slurs is clearly required before we can make informed decisions about this serious issue.) Indeed, the very taboo nature of these words makes discussion of them typically prohibited or frowned upon. Although it is true that the utterance of slurs is illegitimate and derogatory in most contexts, sufficient evidence suggests that slurs are not always or exclusively used to derogate.

In fact, slurs are frequently picked up and appropriated by the very in-group members that the slur was originally intended to target. This might be done, for instance, as a means for like speakers to strengthen in-group solidarity.

So an investigation into the meaning and use of slurs can give us crucial insight into how words can be used with such derogatory impact, and how they can be turned around and appropriated as vehicles of rapport in certain contexts among in-group speakers.

In this essay I will argue that slurs are best characterized as being of a mixed descriptive/expressive type. Next, I will review the most influential accounts of slurs offered thus far, explain their shortcomings, then provide a new analysis of slurs and explain in what ways it is superior to others.

Finally, I suggest that a family-resemblance conception of category membership can help us achieve a clearer understanding of the various ways in which slurs, for better or worse, are actually put to use in natural language discourse (note that in this article slurs will be mentioned but not used. Although I have considered not even mentioning such a derogatory term as nigger in the first place, I chose it because on the one hand there is a substantive literature on the term upon which to draw to aid in the analysis of slurs in general, and on the other hand, this term highlights the fact that slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect to their employment).

The part in bold is the key to understand Croom's point.

What's happening is that Croom is arguing for reappropriation:

In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation or reclamation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims—re-appropriates—terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. For example, since the early 1970s, attempts have been made to reappropriate terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay and (to a lesser extent) queer and poof.

Another relevant article.

Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.

"Cunt" isn't used as a slur. It's against men and women in equal measure. Language use defines meaning.

A relevant article.

Wittgenstein’s shift in thinking, between the Tractatus and the Investigations, maps the general shift in 20th century philosophy from logical positivism to behaviourism and pragmatism. It is a shift from seeing language as a fixed structure imposed upon the world to seeing it as a fluid structure that is intimately bound up with our everyday practices and forms of life. For later Wittgenstein, creating meaningful statements is not a matter of mapping the logical form of the world. It is a matter of using conventionally-defined terms within ‘language games’ that we play out in the course of everyday life. ‘In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use’, Wittgenstein claimed, in perhaps the most famous passage in the Investigations. It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it, and the context in which you say it. Words are how you use them.

My very own corpora analysis.

Total: On a sample of 1283 uses of word "nigger" in both British and American English, only in 14 cases the word is used by a speaker, writer or POV character to identify themselves, and only in 9 cases as a term of endearment.

On the other hand on a sample of 200 uses of the word "cunt" in both British and American English the word is used with the meaning "rude term for vagina" in 59 cases, and with the meaning "rude, obnoxious or pathetic person" (either in a joking or serious way) 119 times, out of which 59 referred to someone clearly identified as male.

In lights of these numbers if we assume that BNC and COCA corpora are good samples of the contemporary use of English in both the USA and the UK it's really hard to argue that "cunt" is a sexist slur, since it has at least two different meanings: rude term for vagina (neutral or slightly negative connotation; anyway, not a slur, since a vagina isn't a person) and obnoxious person (negative connotation, but pretty gender neutral in the UK, where 49 out of the 73 uses of this nature refer to males; in the US the majority of the uses of this kind refer to women but 10 out of 46 of them refer to males).

There's no doubt, on the other hand, that the number of times where "nigger" is not necessarily used as synonym of "black person" (because the skin color of the speakers or the addressee is not known) and also with a neutral or positive connotation are very rare: 23 out of 1283.

Do read ALL of this AND THEN come back with a rebuttal.

[DaveDodo007]

Send him a Wikipedia article, it's even better!

Do Wikipedia articles have abstracts?

It mentions books, if that's what you mean! Goodness, so picky, and the Steers needs his material concise and edited for him by a deranged aspie who sits over the page 24/7, not letting anyone else correct their bias and outright lies.

TFIFY.

[Kirbmarc]

Right, caught up after a gruelling rehearsal schedule. First off, my condolences to SN, sounds like a horrible situation.

Second, in checking out Avery Richmann on Twitter (no way he's genuine), I discovered that in response to this tweet from the Dawk:

The Oaf said:

Um, "victim blaming" anyone?

<snip>

Worse than victim blaming, it's mob rule apology.

@TheLaw: "Organized crime is terrible, whether it's the Mafia, the Russian mob, or some more small scale organization. Please think twice before supporting organized crime"

@TheGodfather: "Please think twice, thrice, seventy times seven, before pissing us off"

@Morality: "Racism is terrible, whether it's the KKK, the Nation of Islam, or single racists. Please think twice before supporting racists"

@TheKKK: "Please think twice, thrice, seventy times seven, before pissing us off"

Ophelia is saying that might makes right, that the outrage of a powerful movement is beyond judgement and that you should be careful not to upset this movement before they'll be coming for you.

[Couch]

I'm a masochist, a glutton for punishment, I've contradicted my own suggestion, I know this going to hurt me, but seeing the Steersbot misinterpreting Croom again triggered this post. Sorry.

I think you, and no few others - both here and among the FftB Horde (hello Jadehawk) - are completely missing my point - and largely that of Adam Croom. Which is that it you need to differentiate between whether the epithet is targeting an entire group, or merely one member or smallish subset of it. Of course, arguably, the former case qualifies as racism or sexism as the case may be, but decidedly moot, in my humble or not-so-humble opinion, whether that is true in the latter case. Do read Croom and get back to me with a rebuttal - which no one else, with the possible exception of Kirbmarc, has yet managed to do.

Rebuttal of your point by Croom himself in another article

Slurs possess interesting linguistic properties and so have recently attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers of language. For instance the racial slur nigger is explosively derogatory, enough so that just hearing it mentioned can leave one feeling as if they have been made complicit in a morally atrocious act.

(Jennifer Hornsby has suggested that slurs might count as “hate speech” and so raise questions “about the compatibility of the regulation of [hate] speech with principles of free speech” (2001, p. 129). Chris Hom further suggests that, “the use of an epithet may count as a literal threat, and hence no longer merit freedom of speech protection under the First Amendment” (2008, p. 440).

A close analysis of slurs is clearly required before we can make informed decisions about this serious issue.) Indeed, the very taboo nature of these words makes discussion of them typically prohibited or frowned upon. Although it is true that the utterance of slurs is illegitimate and derogatory in most contexts, sufficient evidence suggests that slurs are not always or exclusively used to derogate.

In fact, slurs are frequently picked up and appropriated by the very in-group members that the slur was originally intended to target. This might be done, for instance, as a means for like speakers to strengthen in-group solidarity.

So an investigation into the meaning and use of slurs can give us crucial insight into how words can be used with such derogatory impact, and how they can be turned around and appropriated as vehicles of rapport in certain contexts among in-group speakers.

In this essay I will argue that slurs are best characterized as being of a mixed descriptive/expressive type. Next, I will review the most influential accounts of slurs offered thus far, explain their shortcomings, then provide a new analysis of slurs and explain in what ways it is superior to others.

Finally, I suggest that a family-resemblance conception of category membership can help us achieve a clearer understanding of the various ways in which slurs, for better or worse, are actually put to use in natural language discourse (note that in this article slurs will be mentioned but not used. Although I have considered not even mentioning such a derogatory term as nigger in the first place, I chose it because on the one hand there is a substantive literature on the term upon which to draw to aid in the analysis of slurs in general, and on the other hand, this term highlights the fact that slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect to their employment).

The part in bold is the key to understand Croom's point.

What's happening is that Croom is arguing for reappropriation:

In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation or reclamation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims—re-appropriates—terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. For example, since the early 1970s, attempts have been made to reappropriate terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay and (to a lesser extent) queer and poof.

Another relevant article.

Sure seems to me that the use of "cunt" is analogous to the use of various racist epithets such as "nigger", and "raghead" as each relies on some pejorative connotations associated with personal features or attributes that define or delineate certain subgroups of people: if the first is intrinsically sexist then - mutatis mutandis ("double your word score!") - then the latter two are intrinsically racist; if the first isn't sexist then the latter two aren't racist. Seems to me that "you" can't really have your cake and eat it too.

"Cunt" isn't used as a slur. It's against men and women in equal measure. Language use defines meaning.

A relevant article.

Wittgenstein’s shift in thinking, between the Tractatus and the Investigations, maps the general shift in 20th century philosophy from logical positivism to behaviourism and pragmatism. It is a shift from seeing language as a fixed structure imposed upon the world to seeing it as a fluid structure that is intimately bound up with our everyday practices and forms of life. For later Wittgenstein, creating meaningful statements is not a matter of mapping the logical form of the world. It is a matter of using conventionally-defined terms within ‘language games’ that we play out in the course of everyday life. ‘In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use’, Wittgenstein claimed, in perhaps the most famous passage in the Investigations. It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it, and the context in which you say it. Words are how you use them.

My very own corpora analysis.

Total: On a sample of 1283 uses of word "nigger" in both British and American English, only in 14 cases the word is used by a speaker, writer or POV character to identify themselves, and only in 9 cases as a term of endearment.

On the other hand on a sample of 200 uses of the word "cunt" in both British and American English the word is used with the meaning "rude term for vagina" in 59 cases, and with the meaning "rude, obnoxious or pathetic person" (either in a joking or serious way) 119 times, out of which 59 referred to someone clearly identified as male.

In lights of these numbers if we assume that BNC and COCA corpora are good samples of the contemporary use of English in both the USA and the UK it's really hard to argue that "cunt" is a sexist slur, since it has at least two different meanings: rude term for vagina (neutral or slightly negative connotation; anyway, not a slur, since a vagina isn't a person) and obnoxious person (negative connotation, but pretty gender neutral in the UK, where 49 out of the 73 uses of this nature refer to males; in the US the majority of the uses of this kind refer to women but 10 out of 46 of them refer to males).

There's no doubt, on the other hand, that the number of times where "nigger" is not necessarily used as synonym of "black person" (because the skin color of the speakers or the addressee is not known) and also with a neutral or positive connotation are very rare: 23 out of 1283.

Do read ALL of this AND THEN come back with a rebuttal.

:clap:

This is so much better than what I wrote, that my drink actually shrunk a bit.

[Couch]

Hmm, my 'drink' remained the same size, but my dick definitely shrunk.

I should Preview more. In fact, at all.

[Scented Nectar]

From the comments at Lousy Canuck's latest, replete with pit references and Thibeault's hyperbolic nonsense: https://archive.is/XWwge

The one aspect of this that John Oliver completely missed and that you just barely touched upon its the extent of the terroristic harassment of male feminist allies by the slimepit dudebros. I would like to commend you for being a good ally, Jason. The amount of bullshit you have to deal with sometimes is incredible. They lengths that the slimescum terrorists have gone to try to terrorize you into silence are despicable. They disrupted your online conference by trolling, and they have even affected your blogging, by bombarding you with their hate filled comments. Please don’t stop blogging, I don’t want to see the terrorists win again.
You are not the only one they have tried to bully, and they have won far too many times. One of my favorite bloggers here was Avicenna, and they successfully silenced him with their false rape allegations and lies about his blog. They lied about him because he stood up to their bullshit, and I am still shaking with anger because. he was silenced by malicious lies. There is no lie too awful for the misogynistic terrorists to use.
Please don’t stop fighting Jason. The slimey MRA dudebros will not stop trying to silence good people like you with their misogyny and discursive violence. Don’t ever let them win. It certainly doesn’t help that the atheist c community has terrorist supporters like Hemant Mehta encouraging the harassers by pretending to care about journalistic integrity.
One minor quibble though. Can you reword the part about “possessing a white penis”? That is extremely heteronormative and erases trans experiences. I know you didn’t intend harm but please correct it.

I’m not sure how to reword it other than how I already did, with “being perceived to be such”, which I thought would help considering how un-nuanced Oliver’s throwaway phrase (for laughs, of course) was. Considering being trans on the internet is a subversion of that, in that some women do have white penises but get none of the benefits of being part of perceived-as-male because of the ambiguity, it’s obviously going to be problematic.
I get it, though. Penis != male. Male != penis. The problem people seem to have with non-white-males on the internet doesn’t map exactly to non-owners-of-white-penis. It’s a close map, but not exact. And where it fails, seems to be exactly where the harassers are no longer sure about the penis-having. Do you have any recommendations for better wording, other than the notes here?
As for Avicenna, he actually plagiarized a good many pieces of writing. His heart was in the right place generally, but he was willfully ignorant of the actual problem of plagiarism even after it was pointed out. Avicenna got what he deserved in being kicked off FtB.
He did NOT deserve the slime pit, though. His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.
None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulz”-mongers targeting them for years on end.

That is one nasty collection of lies! How the fuck can they be that delusional?

[Scented Nectar]

Back when I was a school brat, I used to change the lyrics when being made to sing the national anthem. I turned "our home and native land" into "our stolen from the natives land". I'm a bit out of touch with the times, but is that line still in there? It seems like something they should have fixed by now.

Faith and bejesus, it is :-) :

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free! ...

And from the horse's mouth.

Interesting if problematic and fractious concept. I've periodically thought that none of us own any land, or that we all own all of it together. But then there's the other side of the coin that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" - with the other tenth being a bit of a sticky wicket.

My ex and I used to "own", or lease, a piece of native reserve land - "surrendered" for use by non-natives - and I was less than impressed with some of the terms, more in hindsight than not: beneficial in some aspects, problematic (for all concerned) if not odious in others. Which led me to raise some objections to them in the context of the debate over the Nisga'a Treaty - even had a letter to my MP on the topic read in the House of Commons! :ugeek: :)

But in general and to address your point, while I'm willing to concede that Canada has periodically or frequently treated "first nations" people rather shabbily - as in the Indian residential school system - I kind of get the impression that rather too many aboriginals - and non-natives - don't really appreciate the benefits they've derived from western "civilization" (such as it is). While there is maybe some remote justification for that "stolen" characterization, many don't see or appreciate the improvements that have been made - or maybe they'd all like to go back to living in teepees and seeing their kids dying of preventable diseases. Which tends to make it doubly risible that, at least here in BC, all of the tribes here are claiming something like 110% of the province.

Sticky wicket and some apparently intractable problems. But I don't see that it helps that many are apparently too quick to ignore some important aspects.

There is a line I don't recognize: "From far and wide". Probably time and bad memory. I haven't sung the anthem for about 40 years. :)

I agree that it's no good for anyone to go back to living conditions that are worse than modern Canadian culture, and the reserves are much worse. It's one thing to remember and celebrate parts of one's history, but the whole separate living on reserves thing is just stupid. And I consider it to be a racism of lowered expectations. I'd much rather a melting pot than multiculturalism, provided that the melting pot is the more advanced culture with the best quality of life for everyone equally.

[Couch]

Blech, in the math test / name paper there were more key findings than just math test solution accuracy. I was inaccurate in saying that was the key finding - but it was one of them.

'Night, all.

Oh great! A cliff hanger!!!

I only generally follow graduate trends in law, and then only in Australia. It's now 64/36 female/male graduates, a reversal of the position in the early 80s.

I truly, honestly, have no idea whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, or neither.

Male high school academic performance has declined relative to females at a fairly steady rate since the mid-1970s, to the point where the mood of administrators and policy makers, about male high school performance, seems to be moving from 'concerned' to 'alarmed'. I am told this by two of my sisters who are school teachers and have moved up through the admin/bureaucratic hierarchy a bit; they both pretty left/progressive, but they'll openly observe the deck has been well stacked against boy students, certainly since they entered the profession in the eighties. They say there's a recognition that this needs to be tackled, but most fixes which have recently started being experimented with seem to retard girls more than advance boys.

Treat this as anecdata...it's just their observation and what they hear around the traps; they're both predominantly admin and researchers now, but neither in the area of gender as it relates to academic performance..

My mum was one of only two girls (not a sexist term, they were both 16) in her intake at University for Pharmacy in the late 1940s. Pharmacy graduates in Australia last year were 66/44 female/male.

My dad was apprenticed to a boilermaker at 13 and attained that trade at 16. He, inevitably, died prematurely of one of plethora of cancers that trade predicts for. I'm told they're all still men - boilermakers and their apprentices. So there's that.

[Scented Nectar]

Well, all that's left then is to retrieve my tits from wherever Gravity has hid them and my sex drive from wherever Time has hidden it. Then, we're partying! :lol:

I think I know who stole your last 1%.

I want it back! :)

[Scented Nectar]

Ok, fair enough, but I will remain a pervert while doing so. Ahem...

There are places where the big ones are best enjoyed, but let's not forget the place where it's the micro ones that are the best (damn gag reflex!). And let's not forget the average ones, the jacks of all trades, so to speak. There's a place in my heart, ok maybe not my heart but some other places, for all sizes and shapes of penises (or is that penii). Hang on, that's human ones only please. I wouldn't know what to do with one of those corkscrew-shaped duck cocks.

Donald Duck: Hey, Scented, wanna fuck?
Me: No, but could you open these wine bottles?

I never speak of my penis. There is nothing awesome about it. My balls on the other hand are a sight to see!

I think that means that the Pit has the biggest balls on the internet. :)
[youtube]gJ3tqIukBKg[/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.

Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.

I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.

Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck.

None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulz”-mongers targeting them for years on end.

Everyone's ever been the subject of criticism and mockery on FTB or Skepchick could say the exact same words.

But no doubt according to Canuck those people do deserve the "stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulz”-mongers" because they're Evil. While FTB is Good.

Thibeault's point is that he and the people he likes should be above criticism because they're fighting the fight for Good.

[Scented Nectar]

Nice to see that Pharyngula has turned the page on the Thunderdome with The Mended Drum. Starting at comment 348:
https://archive.is/4JjpH

Beating the same drum, mended or otherwise.

It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.

Easily fixed. :)

Anagrams for: The Mended Drum
295 found. Displaying all:

Thudded Mermen
Ended Thrummed
Trended Hummed
Deeded Hmm Runt
Deeded Hmm Turn
Denuded Them Mr
Thudded Men Rem
Duded Enter Hmm
Duded Therm Men
Deed Mend Thrum
Deed Turned Hmm
Deemed Drum Nth
Emended Thud Mr
Demented Duh Mr
Needed Turd Hmm
Herded Tend Mum
Herded Dent Mum
Mended Ed Thrum
Mended Thud Rem
Mended Duh Term
Mended Drum The
Mended Turd Hem
Ended Trued Hmm
Ended Drum Them
Ended Mud Therm
Redden Duet Hmm
Redden Mud Them
Trended Due Hmm
Trended Mud Hem
Tended Herd Mum
Tended Rued Hmm
Tended Rude Hmm
Tended Drum Hem
Dented Herd Mum
Dented Rued Hmm
Dented Rude Hmm
Dented Drum Hem
Drummed Ed Then
Drummed Den The
Drummed End The
Drummed Tend He
Drummed Tend Eh
Drummed Dent He
Drummed Dent Eh
Udder Mend Them
Dude Tender Hmm
Dude Rented Hmm
Dude Mend Therm
Dud Entered Hmm
Dud Hemmed Tern
Dud Hemmed Rent
Dud Emend Therm
Dud Mender Them
Dud Tend Hemmer
Dud Dent Hemmer
Ed Thrummed Den
Ed Thrummed End
Ed Hummed Trend
Hemmed Den Turd
Hemmed End Turd
Termed Mend Duh
Metred Mend Duh
Hummed Tend Red
Hummed Dent Red
Herd Mend Muted
Deeded Nth Mr Um
Deeded Nth Mr Mu
Thudded Me En Mr
Thudded Em En Mr
Duded Hem Ten Mr
Duded Hem Net Mr
Duded Them En Mr
Duded Hen Met Mr
Duded Then Me Mr
Duded Then Em Mr
Duded The Men Mr
Duded Me Rem Nth
Duded Em Rem Nth
Duded Ten Re Hmm
Duded Net Re Hmm
Deed Ed Hmm Runt
Deed Ed Hmm Turn
Deed Mend Hut Mr
Deed Den Hmm Rut
Deed End Hmm Rut
Deed Tend Hum Mr
Deed Dent Hum Mr
Deed Red Hmm Nut
Deed Red Hmm Tun
Deed Red Nth Mum
Deed Thud Men Mr
Deed Drum Me Nth
Deed Drum Em Nth
Deed Mud Then Mr
Deed Mud Rem Nth
Deed Dun Them Mr
Deed Turd En Hmm
Mended Ed Hut Mr
Ended Ed Hmm Rut
Ended Thud Me Mr
Ended Thud Em Mr
Ended Duh Met Mr
Ended Mud The Mr
Tended Ed Hum Mr
Tended Duh Me Mr
Tended Duh Em Mr
Tended Mud He Mr
Tended Mud Eh Mr
Dented Ed Hum Mr
Dented Duh Me Mr
Dented Duh Em Mr
Dented Mud He Mr
Dented Mud Eh Mr
Udder Ed Ten Hmm
Udder Ed Net Hmm
Dude Ed Tern Hmm
Dude Ed Rent Hmm
Dude Deem Nth Mr
Dude Meed Nth Mr
Dude Mend The Mr
Dude Den Them Mr
Dude End Them Mr
Dude Tend Hem Mr
Dude Tend Re Hmm
Dude Dent Hem Mr
Dude Dent Re Hmm
Dude Red Ten Hmm
Dude Red Net Hmm
Dud Ed Enter Hmm
Dud Ed Therm Men
Dud Deem Then Mr
Dud Deem Rem Nth
Dud Meed Then Mr
Dud Meed Rem Nth
Dud Emend The Mr
Dud Meted Hen Mr
Dud Need Them Mr
Dud Reed Ten Hmm
Dud Reed Net Hmm
Dud Deer Ten Hmm
Dud Deer Net Hmm
Dud Treed En Hmm
Dud Deter En Hmm
Dud Herd Men Met
Dud Mend Thee Mr
Dud Mend He Term
Dud Mend Eh Term
Dud Mend Them Re
Dud Mend Her Met
Dud Mend The Rem
Dud Den Theme Mr
Dud Den Tree Hmm
Dud Den Hem Term
Dud Den Therm Me
Dud Den Therm Em
Dud Den Them Rem
Dud End Theme Mr
Dud End Tree Hmm
Dud End Hem Term
Dud End Therm Me
Dud End Therm Em
Dud End Them Rem
Dud Rend Tee Hmm
Dud Rend Hem Met
Dud Rend Them Me
Dud Rend Them Em
Dud Nerd Tee Hmm
Dud Nerd Hem Met
Dud Nerd Them Me
Dud Nerd Them Em
Dud Trend Hem Me
Dud Trend Hem Em
Dud Tend Heme Mr
Dud Tend Ere Hmm
Dud Tend Hem Rem
Dud Dent Heme Mr
Dud Dent Ere Hmm
Dud Dent Hem Rem
Dud Red Teen Hmm
Dud Red Them Men
Ed Deem Drum Nth
Ed Meed Drum Nth
Ed Emend Thud Mr
Ed Need Turd Hmm
Ed Treed Dun Hmm
Ed Deter Dun Hmm
Ed Herd Tend Mum
Ed Herd Dent Mum
Ed Mend Thud Rem
Ed Mend Duh Term
Ed Mend Drum The
Ed Mend Turd Hem
Ed Den Trued Hmm
Ed Den Drum Them
Ed Den Mud Therm
Ed End Trued Hmm
Ed End Drum Them
Ed End Mud Therm
Ed Rend Duet Hmm
Ed Rend Mud Them
Ed Nerd Duet Hmm
Ed Nerd Mud Them
Ed Trend Due Hmm
Ed Trend Mud Hem
Ed Tend Rued Hmm
Ed Tend Rude Hmm
Ed Tend Drum Hem
Ed Dent Rued Hmm
Ed Dent Rude Hmm
Ed Dent Drum Hem
Ed Tuned Red Hmm
Heed Tend Mud Mr
Heed Dent Mud Mr
Deem Den Thud Mr
Deem End Thud Mr
Deem Tend Duh Mr
Deem Dent Duh Mr
Deem Red Mud Nth
Meed Den Thud Mr
Meed End Thud Mr
Meed Tend Duh Mr
Meed Dent Duh Mr
Meed Red Mud Nth
Meted Den Duh Mr
Meted End Duh Mr
Teed Mend Duh Mr
Teed Red Dun Hmm
Herd Den Mud Met
Herd End Mud Met
Herd Tend Mud Me
Herd Tend Mud Em
Herd Dent Mud Me
Herd Dent Mud Em
Mend Red Thud Me
Mend Red Thud Em
Mend Red Duh Met
Mend Red Mud The
Den Red Duet Hmm
Den Red Mud Them
End Red Duet Hmm
End Red Mud Them
Tend Red Due Hmm
Tend Red Mud Hem
Dent Red Due Hmm
Dent Red Mud Hem
Deed Ed Nth Mr Um
Deed Ed Nth Mr Mu
Dude Ed Me Nth Mr
Dude Ed Em Nth Mr
Dud Ed Hem Ten Mr
Dud Ed Hem Net Mr
Dud Ed Them En Mr
Dud Ed Hen Met Mr
Dud Ed Then Me Mr
Dud Ed Then Em Mr
Dud Ed The Men Mr
Dud Ed Me Rem Nth
Dud Ed Em Rem Nth
Dud Ed Ten Re Hmm
Dud Ed Net Re Hmm
Dud Den He Met Mr
Dud Den Eh Met Mr
Dud Den The Me Mr
Dud Den The Em Mr
Dud End He Met Mr
Dud End Eh Met Mr
Dud End The Me Mr
Dud End The Em Mr
Dud Tend He Me Mr
Dud Tend He Em Mr
Dud Tend Eh Me Mr
Dud Tend Eh Em Mr
Dud Dent He Me Mr
Dud Dent He Em Mr
Dud Dent Eh Me Mr
Dud Dent Eh Em Mr
Dud Red Me Em Nth
Ed Den Thud Me Mr
Ed Den Thud Em Mr
Ed Den Duh Met Mr
Ed Den Mud The Mr
Ed End Thud Me Mr
Ed End Thud Em Mr
Ed End Duh Met Mr
Ed End Mud The Mr
Ed Tend Duh Me Mr
Ed Tend Duh Em Mr
Ed Tend Mud He Mr
Ed Tend Mud Eh Mr
Ed Dent Duh Me Mr
Ed Dent Duh Em Mr
Ed Dent Mud He Mr
Ed Dent Mud Eh Mr
Ed Red Mud Me Nth
Ed Red Mud Em Nth

[Kirbmarc]

An anagram of "Thunderdome" is "The Done Drum".

[Scented Nectar]

Right, caught up after a gruelling rehearsal schedule. First off, my condolences to SN, sounds like a horrible situation.

Thanks. I'm probably going to go back to the condo today to check on things. A friend told me that in these sort of cases, the coroner's office sends out a team to clean up, so that's good. Means there won't be whatever gross stuff is left behind when a body has decayed for a couple of weeks.

[DaveDodo007]

His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.

Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.

I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.

Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck.

None of us deserve this. Not even the absolute objectively worst of us deserves a cadre of stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulz”-mongers targeting them for years on end.

Everyone's ever been the subject of criticism and mockery on FTB or Skepchick could say the exact same words.

But no doubt according to Canuck those people do deserve the "stalkers, ideologues, papparazi and “lulz”-mongers" because they're Evil. While FTB is Good.

Thibeault's point is that he and the people he likes should be above criticism because they're fighting the fight for Good.

“lulz”-mongers": Guilty as charged. :D

[DaveDodo007]

It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.

Christ, I knew as soon as rayshul said this, that Scented Nectar would be all over it like it was a large penis. :snooty:

[Aneris]

His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.

Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.

I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.

Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck. [...]

I don't know either what's wrong with them. Writing 15 articles on Jaclyn Glenn in a week: acceptable. Writing over months and to clean up smears: obsessive. They can unleash their unmitigated hatred all the time, in particular counting comment sections, and can do so in highly visible blogs: acceptable. But posting criticism and crude comments in an obscure forum: harassment. They lie about everything: acceptable, but when you don't mention that their comment sections have “improved” by a tiny degree, omg, you are spreading horrible myths!

Another telltale “target him for a very long time” [Avicenna]. How was he targeted? Two or three people who also have an account here on occasion discussed in Avicenna's comment section, entirely by the rules. Keep in mind that Jason Thibeault also believes that even though Avicenna copypasted his articles, that he did not fake mails he allegedly received from trolls and which he quoted and discusssed on his blog. Somehow the trolls he cited also copypasted their mails, in an idententical manner as Avicenna himself wont to do it, because according to Thibeault (and PZ Myers), trolls — being trolls — do this kind of thing. Inconceivable that Avicenna invented the mails and copypasted them together just like everything else! Jason Thibeault needs trolls and feeling threatened like a authoritarian and totalitarian politicians who need terrorists to keep the guard up, maintain control and to coerce people to profess solidarity with the ingroup.

[Billy The Hillbilly]

Lately Billy bin studyin' them there "Hegel'yan Dia-lick-dicks", and tryin' t' apply itta ev'ryday situations. Billy also found out 'bouta Jacky Glen posin' inner underpants fur PlayBoy; Billy also know thatta O-feel-ya Benson hate Jacky Glen witta venom.

Thesis: Jacky Glen
AntiThesis: O-feel-ya Benson

That one's easy. Next one lil' harder, but Billy settle onna answer

Thesis: PlayBoy
AntiThesis: Reader's Digess

So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.

[Kirbmarc]

So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.

NO.

[katamari Damassi]

Is it possible to have 2 colds simultaneously? Remember a couple of weeks ago I was suffering from a bad cold? The congestion went away but I still had a persistent sore throat and cough. Now it's back to stuffed up head and runny nose. It feels like a whole new cold.

[JackSkeptic]

Is it possible to have 2 colds simultaneously? Remember a couple of weeks ago I was suffering from a bad cold? The congestion went away but I still had a persistent sore throat and cough. Now it's back to stuffed up head and runny nose. It feels like a whole new cold.

I do not know but I see no reason why not. Damn what a useless post, I am proud of myself.

[Karmakin]

His crimes didn’t justify a cadre of people rifling through everyone’s drawers and garbage for years on end, harassing them to no end, *just in case* we turn out to be bad in some way. Especially since they were targeting him for a very long time before they found something actually objectionable.

Criticism of public articles and comments and the claims contained in them is rifling through drawers and garbage according to Thibeault.

I suppose FTB is guilty of rifling through everyone's drawers and garbage as well, since they criticize people's articles, comments, jokes, speeches, etc. Skepchick? Guilty as charged. Manboobz? All about rifling through garbage. Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, basically anyone who manages an opinion blog: the list gets longer.

Unless it's yet another example of "It's OK when we do it" from the seemingly aptly Lousy Canuck. [...]

I don't know either what's wrong with them. Writing 15 articles on Jaclyn Glenn in a week: acceptable. Writing over months and to clean up smears: obsessive. They can unleash their unmitigated hatred all the time, in particular counting comment sections, and can do so in highly visible blogs: acceptable. But posting criticism and crude comments in an obscure forum: harassment. They lie about everything: acceptable, but when you don't mention that their comment sections have “improved” by a tiny degree, omg, you are spreading horrible myths!

Another telltale “target him for a very long time” [Avicenna]. How was he targeted? Two or three people who also have an account here on occasion discussed in Avicenna's comment section, entirely by the rules. Keep in mind that Jason Thibeault also believes that even though Avicenna copypasted his articles, that he did not fake mails he allegedly received from trolls and which he quoted and discusssed on his blog. Somehow the trolls he cited also copypasted their mails, in an idententical manner as Avicenna himself wont to do it, because according to Thibeault (and PZ Myers), trolls — being trolls — do this kind of thing. Inconceivable that Avicenna invented the mails and copypasted them together just like everything else! Jason Thibeault needs trolls and feeling threatened like a authoritarian and totalitarian politicians who need terrorists to keep the guard up, maintain control and to coerce people to profess solidarity with the ingroup.

Yup. In reality all of this shit is exactly the same. I think one could make an argument that the world would be a better place if none of this existed...if we cared a whole lot less about what other people say or do. But, that's not the world we live in. And unfortunately, bad ideas spread if they're not pushed back against.

I'll go back to my original statement. I.E. what I felt when I joined the 'Pit way back when. They simply can't understand that some people opposing them/criticizing them do so from the "left"...that is, think that they're a bunch of sexist, patriarchal misogynists and that their ideas and attitudes contribute to the continued oppression of women (and men).

The Magic:The Gathering community is going through that shit right now, with people not understanding that egalitarianism/individualism isn't wanting to keep the "status quo"...it's a different idea on how best to move forward that you really should deal with intellectually instead of entirely dismissing it.

[Aneris]

The Magic:The Gathering community is going through that shit right now, with people not understanding that egalitarianism/individualism isn't wanting to keep the "status quo"...it's a different idea on how best to move forward that you really should deal with intellectually instead of entirely dismissing it.

Black Magic!? That's racist!

[Karmakin]

The Magic:The Gathering community is going through that shit right now, with people not understanding that egalitarianism/individualism isn't wanting to keep the "status quo"...it's a different idea on how best to move forward that you really should deal with intellectually instead of entirely dismissing it.

Black Magic!? That's racist!

Fucking Pack Rats...

But no, it's actually in terms of gender. Nobody really gives a fuck about race, at least not right now. But that's where the squeaky wheel is...

The problem is that the Head Designer of Magic released some numbers that said that 38% of Magic players overall were women. Which seem to be bullshit numbers (38% of people polled who either played or heard of Magic were women), but in terms of competitive play the number is something like 2%. So people saw that disparity and thought OH NOES. This is something we have to do something about. And it must be all those horrible terrible gross guys at tournaments. We must shame them and get rid of them!

That's basically how it went.

The problem is that there's a lot of moving parts here. Everything from women tending to be more "risk-adverse" (Magic, if you've never played, as there's a lot of hidden information in terms of what's in your opponents hand, every play has a significant amount of risk) to social pressure on women to not engage in low social status activities (of which Magic certainly is).

Put on top of that one of the big sites published, and then deleted when people got pissed about it, a pretty standard argument for an individualist/egalitarian way forward (treat women like just another Magic player). It's just stupid.

The reality is that it's a lot of posturing. Representation really is important, and this is something the big players (all of who are on the hipster side of things) can fix RIGHT NOW. They can make an announcement that they're looking for female writers/coverage people, and have them on-board within a month. But...this won't be done. Because like all of this other hipster bullshit, it's all posturing. Nobody is going to give up their spot to encourage diversity. It's all about everybody else giving up their spot.

[Scented Nectar]

It annoys me so much that this is not an anagram.

Christ, I knew as soon as rayshul said this, that Scented Nectar would be all over it like it was a large penis. :snooty:

I do it for PZ. He really likes them. :D

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/06.png

[Scented Nectar]

Lately Billy bin studyin' them there "Hegel'yan Dia-lick-dicks", and tryin' t' apply itta ev'ryday situations. Billy also found out 'bouta Jacky Glen posin' inner underpants fur PlayBoy; Billy also know thatta O-feel-ya Benson hate Jacky Glen witta venom.

Thesis: Jacky Glen
AntiThesis: O-feel-ya Benson

That one's easy. Next one lil' harder, but Billy settle onna answer

Thesis: PlayBoy
AntiThesis: Reader's Digess

So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.

Help help! My brain's not working. It's getting harder and harder to translate the third-person exaggerated southern slang and intentional misspellings. And google translate is not cooperating either. :)

[comhcinc]

Lately Billy bin studyin' them there "Hegel'yan Dia-lick-dicks", and tryin' t' apply itta ev'ryday situations. Billy also found out 'bouta Jacky Glen posin' inner underpants fur PlayBoy; Billy also know thatta O-feel-ya Benson hate Jacky Glen witta venom.

Thesis: Jacky Glen
AntiThesis: O-feel-ya Benson

That one's easy. Next one lil' harder, but Billy settle onna answer

Thesis: PlayBoy
AntiThesis: Reader's Digess

So whattabouta SinThesis? Mrs. Benson getta pose inna underpants onna cover ov'a Reader's Digess. This'a solution thatta make ev'rybody happy.

Help help! My brain's not working. It's getting harder and harder to translate the third-person exaggerated southern slang and intentional misspellings. And google translate is not cooperating either. :)

Don't look at me. I just find the shit annoying.

[comhcinc]

Is it possible to have 2 colds simultaneously? Remember a couple of weeks ago I was suffering from a bad cold? The congestion went away but I still had a persistent sore throat and cough. Now it's back to stuffed up head and runny nose. It feels like a whole new cold.

Sounds more like allergies.