Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34141

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Altair wrote:
Notung wrote:I'll just leave this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature
He's getting asked in the comments about his phrase "It's a guy thing". If I remember correctly, Notung also mentioned that point on Twitter.

I'd like to have other people's opinions, but the way I'm reading it, he didn't say atheism or skepticism were a guy thing, he said that "standing up and talking about it, going to shows about it, being intelectually active about it" was a guy thing.

He was stating/implying that men tend to be more active about things than women, tend to go to more conventions and speak more about it.
Is it true? I don't know, we could probably apply some (insert scary lightning) Evo pscyh to the question.

But whether it's true or not, I think his answer has been mis-read by some people.
I read it to mean Shermer saying that the proportion of men who are interested in atheist activism is higher than the proportion of women.
I guess this is a question that is open to empirical enquiry - is the number of men and women in various atheist organizations skewed towards men?
Remember, Shermer didn't say, "Its a guy thing"
He said "It's more of a guy thing" - a very different claim that depends on the ratio of men and women who are interested in atheism in the first place.
“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing”
If you look at the ratios of men and women who get PhDs in various subjects you also get a degree of skewing - in both directions, depending on the subject.
There is a strong skewing towards men in subjects like the hard sciences, religious studies and philosophy - something that might be reflected in the proportion of men in atheism.
Likewise there is a strong skewing towards women in subjects like psychology, english, anthropology, linguistics and sociology.

http://i.imgur.com/sYkhI.jpg

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34142

Post by Pitchguest »

And the inevitable response:
The irony being that they didn't ask Victoria's Secret's consent before hijacking their name.
That was irony, right?
I think you mean "the awesomeness".
Ehhhh...

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34143

Post by d4m10n »

justinvacula wrote:Lousy Canuck authored a new post in his "Atheism is not enough" series in which he talks about the [non-] importance of his 'atheist identity' when compared to other labels and the atheist community. In the comment section, Crommunist weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-92961

http://i.imgur.com/gREMN.jpg
Just when I'd written him off, Ian goes and writes something perfectly sensible like this. Damn it all.

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34144

Post by real horrorshow »

ERV wrote:
Altair wrote:I'd like to have other people's opinions, but the way I'm reading it, he didn't say atheism or skepticism were a guy thing, he said that "standing up and talking about it, going to shows about it, being intelectually active about it" was a guy thing.

He was stating/implying that men tend to be more active about things than women, tend to go to more conventions and speak more about it.
Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why. I, personally, dont *like* speaking at conferences, or even debating Creationists. I do it out of a sense of obligation (tax-payers are funding my degree, the very least I can do is do some presentations on science to give back):
I certainly read it as Shermer saying men were more likely to step up to the mic. I was going to link to Paula Kirby's comment, but Keating has posted it here. Shermer's post says many of the things that have been said here.

I don't take Harriet Hall's comment as especially discouraging either. I don't think she's saying that Offies blog has clout. I take it as saying that there's no point in trying to have an adult discussion there. Which we know is the case.

It's encouraging to see a couple of big names see things much the way I and fellow Put Crew do, and to have them come out and say it. I wish more would do the same.

remusm8
.
.
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34145

Post by remusm8 »

From Peezus' latest:
He doesn’t get to complain about that at all with respect to Ophelia, who has been under a ferocious invective assault for the last few years; that he complains about being called a “jackass” is pathetic and feeble when you compare it to the non-stop abuse Ophelia, Jen, Greta, Rebecca, and just about every woman participant in this argument gets flooded with online
Dear muslima...

Also, hai.


Wild Zontargs
.
.
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34147

Post by Wild Zontargs »

welch wrote:Comedy aside, the problem here is that sex with a sleeping person is one of those "it depends" things. For example, I've always been down with being woken up via hummer. Am I giving my consent EVERY time that happens? well, no, i'm asleep. But waking up via blowjob? There's a really narrow range where that's not okay. Outside of that range, it's never rape, at least not for me. I've dated more than one woman who was quite clear that if I wanted to wake them up with sex, that was quite alright. Others were not into it.
[de-lurk]
In Soviet Canuckistan, you've been raped. Or maybe just the woman, I dunno:
A woman cannot give advance consent to sexual activity while unconscious, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

The decision restores the conviction of an Ottawa man who regularly practised consensual erotic asphyxiation with his longtime girlfriend.

The case goes back to a particular episode in 2007 when the woman, who cannot be named because of a publication ban, complained to police about what her partner did to her after she passed out. At trial, the man was found guilty of sexual assault but his conviction was overturned on appeal.

On Friday, in a 6-3 decision, the country's top court restored the conviction. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said consent ends once someone is unconscious or asleep.

"If the complainant is unconscious during the sexual activity, she has no real way of knowing what happened and whether her partner exceeded the bounds of her consent," the ruling said.

The definition of consent is an ongoing state of mind where individuals can ask their partner to stop, McLachlin wrote.

"Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code," she wrote.

Three Supreme Court judges disagreed. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Morris Fish, the judges said Friday's ruling would deprive women "of their freedom to engage by choice in sexual adventures that involve no proven harm to them or to others."

They also expressed concern about the criminalization of normal sexual relations between spouses.

"The approach advocated by the Chief Justice would also result in the criminalization of a broad range of conduct that Parliament cannot have intended to capture in its definition of the offense of sexual assault. Notably, it would criminalize kissing or caressing a sleeping partner, however gently and affectionately."

Elizabeth Sheehy, a lawyer for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in this case, dismissed the dissenting opinion. She called the majority ruling a major victory for women.

"The most important message that the court is communicating is that unconscious women are not sexually available," she said.

The Ottawa man served 18 months in jail after his conviction in 2008 on the sexual assault charge.
Yes, because telling women that they can't really consent to acts X, Y, and Z is "a major victory for women".

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34148

Post by Jonathan »

d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Lousy Canuck authored a new post in his "Atheism is not enough" series in which he talks about the [non-] importance of his 'atheist identity' when compared to other labels and the atheist community. In the comment section, Crommunist weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-92961

http://i.imgur.com/gREMN.jpg
Just when I'd written him off, Ian goes and writes something perfectly sensible like this. Damn it all.
Agreed, I was quite impressed by this comment of his.

On the other hand; it is Wednesday, which means a new Half Fish post. Your opinion may be due to shift again.

Wild Zontargs
.
.
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34149

Post by Wild Zontargs »

Oh, and I should have mentioned that the above complaint was filed as part of a custody dispute, and the woman later attempted to retract it, without success.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34150

Post by welch »

Keating wrote:
ERV wrote:Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why.
That was Paula Kirby's opinion too:
Paula Kirby wrote:My background is in business. I have lost count of the number of times I have been present at meetings when the women said nothing and left it all to the men. I’ve been guilty of it myself, many a time. Was it because the men weren’t willing to listen to the women? I don’t think it was. Did the men dismiss our comments if we made them? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stop us making them? No, they didn’t do that either. Were the women lacking in ideas? No, of course not. We just didn’t speak up. Crucially, many of us didn’t speak up, even when openly invited to do so.

Similarly, I spent 7 of the last 10 years organizing events for business people: conferences, seminars, workshops, that kind of thing. Over and over again, I tried – how I tried! – to find women speakers. Over and over again, other delegates, both male and female, would tell me they’d like to hear from more women speakers. So the desire was there on the part of the audience to listen to what women had to say, and it was there on the part of the organizers too. And we didn’t just invite: we encouraged, we offered support, we offered coaching, we changed the format of events to make them feel less daunting: we went out of our way, event after event after event, to encourage women to take a more prominent part. And almost always to no avail. There were two or three who were already happy to do it anyway and didn’t need our encouragement. Another finally agreed to do it after her initial panic at the very idea and, despite being very nervous on the day, afterwards said it was the best thing she’d ever done. But otherwise, it was all for nothing. Try as we might, try as I might, most women we approached simply refused to even consider it, saying “Oh no, I couldn’t possibly.”

So I have to ask: Who was holding those women back? They weren’t just being given equal access to prominence as speakers – they were being positively encouraged in ways that male speakers were not. But ultimately, there was something in their own heads that was stopping them. It wasn’t that men didn’t want to listen to them, it wasn’t that they weren’t being given the opportunities, it wasn’t that they weren’t respected, it wasn’t that no one thought they had stories worth telling and valuable contributions to make. They just didn’t feel confident enough to do it – even when offered coaching to help them prepare.

That would reflect my experience trying to get women to speak. As a caveat, I also have the issue of trying to find sysadmins in medium-to-large companies who are women, AND managing either Macs or iOS devices. So admittedly, my available pool of people PERIOD is small.

But, when I can find a woman, in many, many cases, there is a lot of encouragement and arm-twisting needed to get them to speak. Guys, you practically have to tranquilize in comparison, and this is in a population that are not always the most gregarious group of people. I find the reasons given are variants of:

1) I've never spoken in public before (this one is common across genders)

2) No one would want to hear me talk, (I cannot remember ever hearing a guy say this)

3) There has to be someone better than me for this, (sometimes from men, but not often)

I leave off scheduling issues, those are based on external things that aren't pertinent.

Another issue can be, at least in my field, that *finding* women is really difficult. In the programming field, there are a number of groups set up by and for women, which make it really easy to reach out to them and ask for speakers. In the sysadmin field, not so much. (A lot of this has to do with programming being more of a field that has a formal education track, (CompSci and its variants), whereas sysadmining is very much still an apprenticeship field. Even the "IT" fields in universities are more of "web / database programming" than actual network admin stuff. The best security school is SANS, which is almost entirely online.

But even setting aside non-gender-specific issues, I'll agree with Paula that getting women to speak is harder than doing the same for men. Much harder.

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34151

Post by Jonathan »

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Can someone remind me what acts of vicious hatred against all women the Pit has commited? Apart from using "bad words" that a lot of women aren't even all that bothered by?

*crickets*

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34152

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Presumably, now that Peezus has complained about us again, we'll get a new influx of pharynerroids looking for evidence of misogyny.

They can start off here:
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/745147

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34153

Post by real horrorshow »

"Pit Crew" Dammit. Once again the penalty for editorial integrity must be paid!

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34154

Post by welch »

d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Lousy Canuck authored a new post in his "Atheism is not enough" series in which he talks about the [non-] importance of his 'atheist identity' when compared to other labels and the atheist community. In the comment section, Crommunist weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-92961

http://i.imgur.com/gREMN.jpg
Just when I'd written him off, Ian goes and writes something perfectly sensible like this. Damn it all.
were i to be cynical, and i am, it could also be that he realizes he's been acting like a dingaling of late, and is making up for it. If so, good on him, but this wouldn't be the first time.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34155

Post by sacha »

Dick Strawkins wrote:From what I can read in that linked article, it appears that Alyssia Rose was not having a sexual relationship with her friend before he did it.
In that case I can't really see it as anything other than rape.
saw that, still ambiguous. really does not change much at all.

Outwest
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34156

Post by Outwest »

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Just. Wow.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34157

Post by sacha »

real horrorshow wrote: Proof that really ancient and powerful vampires have no fear of the sun.

Though on another level, I have a certain sneaking admiration for the sheer amount of 'fuck you' on display here.
I've always thought that when seeing the photograph as well. It's been around a long time.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34158

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I once asked my cover art designer to integrate the Pastafarian Pirate Fish on a Cd cover. Now, I just have to work-out an anti-FTB-A+ stuff to put on the next one. Suggestions welcome...

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34159

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
oh bless PeeZus' heart. I hope he doesn't get too mad at me. He might thunder mightily at me via the internet.




(that would be bad, because by "thunder" i mean "fart" and his poor students...)

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34160

Post by welch »

Jonathan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Can someone remind me what acts of vicious hatred against all women the Pit has commited? Apart from using "bad words" that a lot of women aren't even all that bothered by?

*crickets*

We made fun of their names.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34161

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Presumably, now that Peezus has complained about us again, we'll get a new influx of pharynerroids looking for evidence of misogyny.

They can start off here:
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/745147

I'm afraid they'll be disappointed. Again.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34162

Post by Tony Parsehole »

Jonathan wrote:

it is Wednesday, which means a new Half Fish post. Your opinion may be due to shift again.

I can't wait. Yes, I am dancing to Crommuwank's obvious bait but so fuck? I love Half Fish and his terrible usage of the written word. I reckon today's post will be "Social justice: How to murder privileged relatives for their inheritance money and get away with it". Seriously, that is the only way I can see him topping the "HIV FOR ALL!" blogpost.

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34163

Post by John Brown »

Outwest wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Just. Wow.
Well, you've got to hand it to him. He's consistent in not giving a fuck about who he insults or maligns.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34164

Post by SPACKlick »

As a follow up to PZ's comment, somebody posted the above. I've put it here for Posterity in case it gets memory holed.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34165

Post by sacha »

ScooterKPFT wrote:People whom refuse vaccination should be charged with child endangerment if they are within one hundred feet of any child under the age of three years old whom has not been fully immunized.
franc and I met when we both were relentless in attacking an anti-vaxxer with the science.

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34166

Post by Reap »

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg


It's not for the timid to encourage mental midgets like Myers to speak up cause the stupid that come out of his mouth stings, burns and is obviously contagious.Shermer is a brave hero!!!!! There now fuck yourself PZ You've used up your one time being right for the day, it's all downhill from here

Stretchycheese
.
.
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:22 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34167

Post by Stretchycheese »

Outwest wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Just. Wow.
I've long since rejected taking PZ's rhetoric seriously. His definition of "vicious misogyn and hate" is simply translated as "disagreement with radical feminist ideology". PZ, and much of the FTB/Skepchick crowd, simply can't tell the difference between the two. I believe it was James Onen said, "remember, it's idealogues were dealing with."

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34168

Post by Jonathan »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

it is Wednesday, which means a new Half Fish post. Your opinion may be due to shift again.

I can't wait. Yes, I am dancing to Crommuwank's obvious bait but so fuck? I love Half Fish and his terrible usage of the written word. I reckon today's post will be "Social justice: How to murder privileged relatives for their inheritance money and get away with it". Seriously, that is the only way I can see him topping the "HIV FOR ALL!" blogpost.
At some point I'm anticipating a post talking about the objections people have made to his/her (which one is it?) posts and grossly misrepresenting them as being doused in evil privilege.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34169

Post by Pitchguest »

Jonathan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Can someone remind me what acts of vicious hatred against all women the Pit has commited? Apart from using "bad words" that a lot of women aren't even all that bothered by?

*crickets*
Yeah, I'm curious too. I'm a fairly new addition myself, but I haven't threatened anyone, stalked anyone, nor said anything about hating women or wanting to treat them like dirt. But I haven't seen seen anyone else here conduct themselves in that manner either. So what the hell are the "crimes," exactly, the Slyme is accused of commiting?

It can't be that blog post by Abbie where she criticised Watson on her behaviour towards McGraw, can it? Or can it?

I mean, apart from using words they consider to be "sexist epithets" (although they're not consistent in who gets to use them, or in what way), what have we done? They made a petition to get Justin out of the SCA, but for what? By her own admission, the Prune did exactly what Justin is accused of doing, the only difference is that she did it willingly and on purpose. Has she apologised to Wooly for dropping her name? Nope. Has Greg Laden apologised to bluharmony for dropping her name and her address? Nope. The "crimes" of words are negligible at best, but their "crimes" that are really crimes, stalking and doc-dropping, far outweigh calling people "twats" (rhymes with cats) and "cunts". I suppose in their eyes it's heresy, since we don't assign gender to the words, we just say them. Since they're supposed to be "sexist epithets" always, they need to have something to pin on us. (I hope I can speak for most when I say this, even as a new member.)

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34170

Post by Jonathan »

Pitchguest wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Can someone remind me what acts of vicious hatred against all women the Pit has commited? Apart from using "bad words" that a lot of women aren't even all that bothered by?

*crickets*
Yeah, I'm curious too. I'm a fairly new addition myself, but I haven't threatened anyone, stalked anyone, nor said anything about hating women or wanting to treat them like dirt. But I haven't seen seen anyone else here conduct themselves in that manner either. So what the hell are the "crimes," exactly, the Slyme is accused of commiting?

It can't be that blog post by Abbie where she criticised Watson on her behaviour towards McGraw, can it? Or can it?

I mean, apart from using words they consider to be "sexist epithets" (although they're not consistent in who gets to use them, or in what way), what have we done? They made a petition to get Justin out of the SCA, but for what? By her own admission, the Prune did exactly what Justin is accused of doing, the only difference is that she did it willingly and on purpose. Has she apologised to Wooly for dropping her name? Nope. Has Greg Laden apologised to bluharmony for dropping her name and her address? Nope. The "crimes" of words are negligible at best, but their "crimes" that are really crimes, stalking and doc-dropping, far outweigh calling people "twats" (rhymes with cats) and "cunts". I suppose in their eyes it's heresy, since we don't assign gender to the words, we just say them. Since they're supposed to be "sexist epithets" always, they need to have something to pin on us. (I hope I can speak for most when I say this, even as a new member.)
I really think it's a case of them repeating something so often that it hopefully acquires an air of truth. A combination of that, a victim/persecution complex and a need to be seen as being absolutely right and just and standing up for the oppressed everywhere.

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34171

Post by Jonathan »

60 users online. Hi, Pharyngulites.

Guest

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34172

Post by Guest »

ERV wrote: Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why. I, personally, dont *like* speaking at conferences, or even debating Creationists. I do it out of a sense of obligation (tax-payers are funding my degree, the very least I can do is do some presentations on science to give back):
After finally checking out your YouTube vids, I think that's a great loss for the circuit - you're a natural. Oblige more!

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34173

Post by real horrorshow »

welch wrote:
d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Lousy Canuck authored a new post in his "Atheism is not enough" series in which he talks about the [non-] importance of his 'atheist identity' when compared to other labels and the atheist community. In the comment section, Crommunist weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-92961

http://i.imgur.com/gREMN.jpg
Just when I'd written him off, Ian goes and writes something perfectly sensible like this. Damn it all.
were i to be cynical, and i am, it could also be that he realizes he's been acting like a dingaling of late, and is making up for it. If so, good on him, but this wouldn't be the first time.
To me he seems to contradict himself in alternating paragraphs:
Communities are not opt-in entities, where you can say “this person is part of ‘my community’ and this person isn’t”.
To the extent that you and I agree on something, then we are part of the same “community”, but when we disagree, then we are instantly not part of the same community any more.
So yes, you may not identify with the Slymepit or whoever else doesn’t share your values (or, indeed, my values as well), but to say that they are therefore “not part of your community” is to seriously misunderstand what the concept of “community” is.
Well which is it Ian? You can't pick your community, yes you can, no you can't.

As a Dictionary Atheist I go with this definition of community:
A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists.
Tibo, Crom and I might have atheism in common, but that doesn't make us part of a community. Especially since atheism is a passive quality. It's something we all don't believe.

JayTeeAitch
.
.
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:54 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34174

Post by JayTeeAitch »

Guest wrote:
ERV wrote: Several organizers I have spoken to, including female organizers, have had problems finding female speakers. They *have* a list of names, and they dont accept. I dont know that anyone has investigated why. I, personally, dont *like* speaking at conferences, or even debating Creationists. I do it out of a sense of obligation (tax-payers are funding my degree, the very least I can do is do some presentations on science to give back):
After finally checking out your YouTube vids, I think that's a great loss for the circuit - you're a natural. Oblige more!
Guest indeed. I wondered why I had to struggle to answer a captcha question. Bloody site had logged me out!

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34175

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Jonathan wrote:60 users online. Hi, Pharyngulites.
Yes, hi Pharyngulites. Now fuck off you wankstains.

KarlVonMox
.
.
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34176

Post by KarlVonMox »

His statements about this place and about Shermer are completely vacuous. He really doesn't care just how much he talks out of his ass and makes shit up does he? PZ Myers can go fuck himself.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34177

Post by welch »

Pitchguest wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Can someone remind me what acts of vicious hatred against all women the Pit has commited? Apart from using "bad words" that a lot of women aren't even all that bothered by?

*crickets*
Yeah, I'm curious too. I'm a fairly new addition myself, but I haven't threatened anyone, stalked anyone, nor said anything about hating women or wanting to treat them like dirt. But I haven't seen seen anyone else here conduct themselves in that manner either. So what the hell are the "crimes," exactly, the Slyme is accused of commiting?

It can't be that blog post by Abbie where she criticised Watson on her behaviour towards McGraw, can it? Or can it?

I mean, apart from using words they consider to be "sexist epithets" (although they're not consistent in who gets to use them, or in what way), what have we done? They made a petition to get Justin out of the SCA, but for what? By her own admission, the Prune did exactly what Justin is accused of doing, the only difference is that she did it willingly and on purpose. Has she apologised to Wooly for dropping her name? Nope. Has Greg Laden apologised to bluharmony for dropping her name and her address? Nope. The "crimes" of words are negligible at best, but their "crimes" that are really crimes, stalking and doc-dropping, far outweigh calling people "twats" (rhymes with cats) and "cunts". I suppose in their eyes it's heresy, since we don't assign gender to the words, we just say them. Since they're supposed to be "sexist epithets" always, they need to have something to pin on us. (I hope I can speak for most when I say this, even as a new member.)
Keep in mind PeeZus repeatedly "mansplained" to Abbie what she was REALLY upset about, then "mansplained" to stef mcgraw that her feelings when Becky went after here weren't justified and she was wrong to be upset after being so very angry at people saying the same thing to The Becky. He endorsed Laden's attempts to force Abbie's employers to "get her in line" after being so upset that Bill Donohue tried the same shit on him. He was so public in his disapproval of Franc's non-threat, yet so oddly silent when it came to Laden actually threatening someone with a nice helping of PTSD trigger attempts. He is so amazingly hypocritical that you start to wonder how can he not be aware of it. It actually can warp your thinking, because it's so blatant.

He is nothing but an attention-seeking gloryhound, desperate for the fame he will never have in science, and wanting any form of attention and fame. He's a New Media Douchebag, and he's not even good at it, and, at the end of the day, he's a coward, only capable of badassery from the safety of his laptop and iPad. He even enshrined this behavior as a "rule" of Pharyngula:

http://www.bynkii.com/bynkiidotcomimage ... overit.png

Take a good look at it. With that statement, in 2009, PeeZus enshrined, literally, hypocrisy and cowardice as a fundamental operating procedure of Pharyngula and I see no sign it's not the same at his FTB digs.

That is what you are dealing with: someone who dismisses hypocrisy and cowardice as "just how things work 'round heah"

it's why I refuse to respond to him with anything other than sarcasm and rudeness. It's what he wants. The difference is, given the chance, I'll tell him the same thing in *exactly* so many words in person, starting with "Ah, there's the cowardly fucker now."

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34178

Post by Altair »

Pitchguest wrote:And the inevitable response:
The irony being that they didn't ask Victoria's Secret's consent before hijacking their name.
That was irony, right?
I think you mean "the awesomeness".
Ehhhh...
I don't see the point of those campaings. As always, these rape culture proponents are assuming that a rapist is just a regular guy who one day woke up and decided "I'm gonna rape a few girls today!" as opposed to someone with deep psychological issues.

I highly doubt that a person who is actually RAPING someone is going to say "Shit, I was totally ready to rape this woman, but now that I see her panties saying 'No means No' I realize the wrongness of my actions and I'm going to stop right now".

(Using female as the victim's gender because, AS ALWAYS, they're assuming that men cannot be raped, and don't need a line of boxers saying "No means No").

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34179

Post by John Brown »

http://www.bynkii.com/bynkiidotcomimage ... overit.png

I have one over-riding rule when talking to people online.

I will never say something to them I wouldn't say directly to their face if they were standing right in front of me.

That not only keeps me in check, but it forces me to understand that the person on the other end is not an abstraction. I've "said" some harsh things to people online and I will continue to do so, but I'll always accept the invitation to say the exact same thing, in the tone intended, to their face if the opportunity were to arise.

I find anything less dishonest at best.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34180

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Wait a second...

This program where Shermer made a remark that's so terrible PZ needs to make a point about it, well, guess who else was on that program.

A certain PZ Myers.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-atheism/

Have a look at the post above.
Apart from PZ bigging up himself there is no comment on the "sexist" remark that has now assumed such terrible qualities.

They all entirely ignored it!
Apparently it wasn't sexist then.
But it is now!

Why the sudden change?

Funnily enough if you do want to see some vicious misogyny you CAN find it in that thread -
Just look at the spite-filled remarks of Josh SpokesGay as he has a hissy fit at Cara Santa Maria for being too feminine!

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34181

Post by SPACKlick »

Altair wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:snip
snippety
I don't see the point of those campaings. As always, these rape culture proponents are assuming that a rapist is just a regular guy who one day woke up and decided "I'm gonna rape a few girls today!" as opposed to someone with deep psychological issues.

I highly doubt that a person who is actually RAPING someone is going to say "Shit, I was totally ready to rape this woman, but now that I see her panties saying 'No means No' I realize the wrongness of my actions and I'm going to stop right now".

(Using female as the victim's gender because, AS ALWAYS, they're assuming that men cannot be raped, and don't need a line of boxers saying "No means No").[/quote]
I think if you were in one of the borderline situations and there was, written infront of you, a reminder that borderline situations can get you screwed by the law for rape, it may make you hold off and back away from the borderline. And those are really the only 'rapes' that improved education can stop.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34182

Post by Trophy »

PZ Myers wrote: If you’re white, you’re racist, and you’ve typically got little appreciation of the experience of being black; so instead of saying, “I’m not racist, how would you like to speak on our panel about Bigfoot hunting and UFOs?” you just ask black people what’s important to them, what they’d like to talk about, what are skeptical/atheist issues of concern in their community?
Because you know, black people are really at the mercy of the white people and it's the white duty to always ask black people if something is bothering them, otherwise, we might never know what issues are faced by black people! You see, PZ Myers is not being condescending at all! He's just trying to be the white savior! You know, all non-whites need non-white savior! So, if you are white, don't be racist, be a white savior!

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34183

Post by Altair »

SPACKlick wrote:
As a follow up to PZ's comment, somebody posted the above. I've put it here for Posterity in case it gets memory holed.
I like the first comment, that says:
Harriet is appealing to irrelevant facts available to common sense (differences exist!) and asserting that because differences exist, there is no reason to assume that gender roles/sexism (or even investigate whether they) have anything to do with the existence of **one particular difference**
Nice post for a supposed skeptic.

The burden of proof is on THEM, they need to provide convincing evidence that these differences or at least one of them is derived from "gender roles/sexism".

I think a better idea is to assume that there might be several causes for the spotted differences (as Harriet did), than to assume the cause is sexism just because it aligns itself with their dogma.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34184

Post by SPACKlick »

fucking phbb tags, how do they work?

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34185

Post by Altair »

Trophy wrote: Because you know, black people are really at the mercy of the white people and it's the white duty to always ask black people if something is bothering them, otherwise, we might never know what issues are faced by black people! You see, PZ Myers is not being condescending at all! He's just trying to be the white savior! You know, all non-whites need non-white savior! So, if you are white, don't be racist, be a white savior!
I found a similar sentiment exposed in this article: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/03/would- ... feren.html
Better instead, as Gina recommends, to change your system. For conference organizers, that means not just opening up a public call for proposals and asking Women 2.0 and Girls in Tech to tell their friends, but also seeking out and inviting individual women. That may sound inefficient, and it is time-consuming. But if your supposedly efficient public-call system isn’t yielding the desired results, then it’s simply failing efficiently.
(bolding mine)

So women and black people are unable to come forward and say "hey, I'd like to talk about this and that", but need to have someone call them and ask them if they would like to participate and what's bothering them. Besides it being too close to preferential treatment for my taste, it just minimizes them as persons with no capacity for self-motivated action.

There's also this in the comments section:
As you noted, there is a large body of research that shows women don't ask/raise their hands/put themselves in the ring nearly as much as men. Folks also asked why that is. I want to offer some insights on that.

Social science research - like Steven Asch's conformity studies - suggests how, if you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own basic competencies. Sometimes the findings are almost humorous. For example: a group of people are gathered in a room for an experiment. Unbeknownst to him/her, only one person in the room is actually being experimented on; the rest of the folks are in on the experiment. They are asked a very basic question, with an obvious answer. But everyone in the room who is in on the experiment gives an obviously wrong answer. In about 30% of the cases, Asch found, the person being experimented on will go along with them. This is not a gender thing - it applies to any minority voice.
So women don't respond to calls for speakers because they're a minority (51% of the population, if I remember correctly) and have been socialized/oppressed into thinking they are not good speakers. Women are never responsible for anything they do, it's always the fault of someone else with these people :doh:

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34186

Post by Dick Strawkins »

SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.

http://i.imgur.com/X3wGS.jpg

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34187

Post by Trophy »

Shermer wrote:Benson makes a strong case that something other than misogyny may be at work here, when she asks rhetorically if I would make the same argument about race. I would, yes, because I do not believe that the fact that the secular community does not contain the precise percentage of blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans as in the general population, means that all of us in the secular community are racists, explicitly or implicitly. A variance from perfect demographic symmetry does not necessarily correspond to racist attitudes. It just means that the world is not perfectly divided up according to population demographics, and people have different interests and causes. There is nothing inherently bigoted, racist, or misogynistic in the fact that the demographics of the secular community do not reflect those of the general population (in gender, in age and socio-economic class, or in height, weight, or any number of other variables for that matter), so short of some other evidence of bigotry, racism, and misogyny, there is no need to go in search of demons to exorcise.
All right, Shermer writes the above. And then PZ responds by disagreeing ("Errm, yes, actually, it does mean that") and then continues by saying something that I guess it means everyone is racist ... therefore profit!

This was one of the most stupid replies by PZ. Religious belief and the intensity of religious belief is not uniformly distributed among various demographics. Because of these variations and because the skeptic community is not and by definition cannot be a random sample of the whole population, those deviations from the general population distribution should be expected. So Shermer is right saying that deviations do not necessarily imply sexism or racism even though he clearly agrees that skeptism and atheism should reach out to those under represented in the skeptic/atheist community. So I guess that makes him not an ally and a sexist troll! Yay!

KarlVonMox
.
.
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34188

Post by KarlVonMox »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Wait a second...

This program where Shermer made a remark that's so terrible PZ needs to make a point about it, well, guess who else was on that program.

A certain PZ Myers.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-atheism/

Have a look at the post above.
Apart from PZ bigging up himself there is no comment on the "sexist" remark that has now assumed such terrible qualities.

They all entirely ignored it!
Apparently it wasn't sexist then.
But it is now!

Why the sudden change?

Funnily enough if you do want to see some vicious misogyny you CAN find it in that thread -
Just look at the spite-filled remarks of Josh SpokesGay as he has a hissy fit at Cara Santa Maria for being too feminine!
I'll tell you why. Because these people really ARE looking for "demons to exorcise", as Shermer put it, and will invent them at will in order to continue to controversy and the nonsense. When before saying "its a guy thing" was no big deal and no one sees it as such, as soon as Orwellia decides to frame it as misogynistic they all fall in line behind her. Its a bona fide witch hunt, almost straight out of The Crucible.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34189

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Wait a second...

This program where Shermer made a remark that's so terrible PZ needs to make a point about it, well, guess who else was on that program.

A certain PZ Myers.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-atheism/

Have a look at the post above.
Apart from PZ bigging up himself there is no comment on the "sexist" remark that has now assumed such terrible qualities.

They all entirely ignored it!
Apparently it wasn't sexist then.
But it is now!

Why the sudden change?

Funnily enough if you do want to see some vicious misogyny you CAN find it in that thread -
Just look at the spite-filled remarks of Josh SpokesGay as he has a hissy fit at Cara Santa Maria for being too feminine!
The answer is obvious. PeeZus is only brave when far away from the target.

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34190

Post by John Brown »

Dick Strawkins wrote:SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.

http://i.imgur.com/X3wGS.jpg
It's hilarious to me when feminists (especially male feminists!) tell women that they are doing it wrong because...patriarchy!

And, that's the whole crux of the matter. Individualism is never allowed. An individual never gets to define how to act, think, or go about their daily life if it goes against the collective.

Individuals are victims of or are emulating "the Patriarchy" (a collective standard which is infinitely pliable and non-falsifiable).

The collective has broken free of "the Patriarchy" and are the only ones who really see the world for what it is.

Up is down. Black is white. Josh the Spokes Gay is the final arbiter of how a women gets to act. If she acts against his collective standards, then, she's just a puppet.

A-fucking-mazing.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34191

Post by Altair »

Trophy wrote: This was one of the most stupid replies by PZ. Religious belief and the intensity of religious belief is not uniformly distributed among various demographics. Because of these variations and because the skeptic community is not and by definition cannot be a random sample of the whole population, those deviations from the general population distribution should be expected. So Shermer is right saying that deviations do not necessarily imply sexism or racism even though he clearly agrees that skeptism and atheism should reach out to those under represented in the skeptic/atheist community. So I guess that makes him not an ally and a sexist troll! Yay!
That's something I've tried to tell every time someone complains about not being a 50/50 distribution of men and women (although they never complain when there are more women, go figure), or when the distribution of ethnicities is not what the would like to be.

Your quote and Shermer's explain it better than I ever could, though.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34192

Post by Trophy »

Altair wrote:
Trophy wrote: Because you know, black people are really at the mercy of the white people and it's the white duty to always ask black people if something is bothering them, otherwise, we might never know what issues are faced by black people! You see, PZ Myers is not being condescending at all! He's just trying to be the white savior! You know, all non-whites need non-white savior! So, if you are white, don't be racist, be a white savior!
I found a similar sentiment exposed in this article: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/03/would- ... feren.html
Better instead, as Gina recommends, to change your system. For conference organizers, that means not just opening up a public call for proposals and asking Women 2.0 and Girls in Tech to tell their friends, but also seeking out and inviting individual women. That may sound inefficient, and it is time-consuming. But if your supposedly efficient public-call system isn’t yielding the desired results, then it’s simply failing efficiently.
(bolding mine)

So women and black people are unable to come forward and say "hey, I'd like to talk about this and that", but need to have someone call them and ask them if they would like to participate and what's bothering them. Besides it being too close to preferential treatment for my taste, it just minimizes them as persons with no capacity for self-motivated action.
To be honest, I don't see a problem with reaching out to people underrepresented in your group or community. If you want to get a woman, a middle-easterner or whatever for your conference kudos. But what I have problem with is the patronising attitude. PZ has taken this basic and nice idea of "making conferences more diverse by reaching out to people" and has turned it into a philosophy of "white guys should shut up when there is a black person/woman/etc talking" and then has twisted that into "white guys have a duty to pave the road for minorities to walk on!"

And I'm not even a white guy and I'm pissed about it!

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34193

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Wait a second...

This program where Shermer made a remark that's so terrible PZ needs to make a point about it, well, guess who else was on that program.

A certain PZ Myers.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-atheism/

Have a look at the post above.
Apart from PZ bigging up himself there is no comment on the "sexist" remark that has now assumed such terrible qualities.

They all entirely ignored it!
Apparently it wasn't sexist then.
But it is now!

Why the sudden change?

Funnily enough if you do want to see some vicious misogyny you CAN find it in that thread -
Just look at the spite-filled remarks of Josh SpokesGay as he has a hissy fit at Cara Santa Maria for being too feminine!
Josh figured out that he will never, in any way, get called out by PeeZus for anything he does, so he doesn't even have to pretend to be anything by yet another internet-balls toting coward. Again, we all know he'll never talk to anyone like this in public. Julian will never attempt to break anyone's neck for calling him a spic. It's allll bullshit.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34194

Post by Altair »

Trophy wrote:
To be honest, I don't see a problem with reaching out to people underrepresented in your group or community. If you want to get a woman, a middle-easterner or whatever for your conference kudos. But what I have problem with is the patronising attitude. PZ has taken this basic and nice idea of "making conferences more diverse by reaching out to people" and has turned it into a philosophy of "white guys should shut up when there is a black person/woman/etc talking" and then has twisted that into "white guys have a duty to pave the road for minorities to walk on!"

And I'm not even a white guy and I'm pissed about it!
I see your point, and I would agree completely with it if there was some barrier that was preventing them to follow the same route than the overrepresented people (or at least non-underrepresented) were following.

If there is not one, you're actually giving them preferential treatment. A solution to that I'd like is to have the organizers reach out to every kind of people, not only the underrepresented ones.

I completely agree with the rest of your post :clap:

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34195

Post by cunt »

SPACKlick wrote:
[img]pharyngulapost[/img]
As a follow up to PZ's comment, somebody posted the above. I've put it here for Posterity in case it gets memory holed.
First of all you posted the wrong video. The right one is here :
Second of all you didn't post a timestamp for them. The question starts at around 12 minutes and lasts until 14 minutes.

You might want to correct that for them, and also note that he brings up that more than 50% of the speakers at TAM were female. While smiling and nodding - what the bastard! I doubt the regulars will bother to watch but the lurkers might.

Parge
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:18 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34196

Post by Parge »

I was looking for a fun and unique instance of batshittery to lift for my sig. That Rhys Morgan sexism "debate" fit nicely.

That is all.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10936
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34197

Post by Lsuoma »

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/TKI5Z.jpg
Michael Shermer is a BRAVE HERO!!!

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34198

Post by cunt »

Sorry spacklick just noticed you said that somebody else posted that. Has anyone still got a pharyngula account or do I need to do this myself?

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34199

Post by Pitchguest »

Dick Strawkins wrote:SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.

http://i.imgur.com/X3wGS.jpg
I was just about to post that! Seriously, what the fuck?

Does he think he's doing her a service by calling her names and being an arsehole? Yeah, that's one way to 'fight the patriarchy', Josh, you bumbling nincompoop.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#34200

Post by Ape+lust »

Any of you Murkins remember the PUMAs of election 2008? That's short for "Party Unity, My Ass."

When Hillary Clinton broke as frontrunner in the primaries, many feminists were jubilant. History in the making! Problem was, there was another history-maker who could fight as dirty as Hillary. Her minions would lob "sexist" bombs at him and get buried under the "racist" return fire.

At Democratic Underground ("Vote Democratic or die"), this caused a huge schism. Many long-time regulars who had been snarling enforcers of the dictum that a third party vote is a vote for GOP ruin, suddenly saw Obama's refusal to roll over as the misogynistic core of the Democrats bursting open. We watched quitting members turn up at PUMA sites.

PUMA was nothing more than a movement for vengeance. You won't give us Hillary? We'll give you McCain. In other words, by their own measure, they'd rather burn the country to the ground than cede to not-Hillary.

So, if we'd used PZ's nostrum, "just listen to the women," who should we have listened to? The squalling bunch who wanted the party purged of "misogyny and hate" right fucking NOW, or the women who stayed and worked for the nominee?

He can insist until he's purple, but that handful of pampered pop tarts he surrounds himself with cannot speak for all women.

Locked