Bunkspubble!

Old subthreads
Mark Neil
.
.
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1921

Post by Mark Neil »

cunt wrote:The right to be uncivil only belongs to them though. If anyone is ever uncivil right back, they send out a dozen alerts and Myers can't scamper over fast enough to ban the offender.

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

Little babies.
Is that one of theirs that got a pass?

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1922

Post by Gumby »

Mark Neil wrote: Is that one of theirs that got a pass?
No, that was someone giving one of the nastier regulars what Pharyngula commenters regularly give to others. Of course, it's totes awful when someone does it to them.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1923

Post by cunt »

That's somebody humiliating Jadehawk by showing her how ridiculous the "splash damage" arguments are, in a remarkably uncivil way. I can't remember the thread. The commenter got banned very quickly, the posts might not even be there anymore.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1924

Post by Dick Strawkins »

The weirdest thing about Physioproffe is the fact that he/she/it whatever, used to be one of the main 'feminists' back on scienceblogs. That was a couple of years ago when the entire SJW feminist brigade consisted of Physioproffe, Isis the (shoe fetishist) Scientist, and Zuska - a woman so filled with sourness that she could make yoghurt on an industrial scale just by staring at herds of cows.
He was exactly the same illiterate nincompoop in those days too.
He must have incriminating photos from some scienceblogs christmas party.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1925

Post by Cunning Punt »

TheMudbrooker wrote:
comslave wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDGm1aJCQAAczpn.png

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.

I bet in this guy's trial, he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
:rimshot:
Nah...he'll walk.
That's the kicker right there.

Percentage
.
.
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1926

Post by Percentage »

Yeah, that's the problem with the tone troll argument that the Pharyngulites like to masturbate over- the right to be uncivil only applies to them, or to whoever they judge as worthy, or whatever. And that's completely arbitrary. Look, I agree that charges of incivility can be used to shut down legitimate points of view, as a sort of variation of ad hominem. I don't dispute that. But on the other hand, you can't charge in shrieking like a crazy person and expect people to look under the ranting and calmly assess what you have to say. People will respond in kind- that is, angrily. And if you're passionate, great- but you can't use your passion as a proxy for logical argumentation. I mean Christ, that's what religious people do.

It's a continuum, is what I'm saying, and neither Victorian manners nor spittle-flinging assholery are desirable. Neither are productive.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1927

Post by Apples »

Heh - wind has re-energized the Batshit Insane Moderators thread.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1900

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1928

Post by decius »

New post by Steven Novella - mostly a recap, but with some interesting piece of information. For example:
To give one example, last year the SGU was featured each week on the National Science Foundation streaming radio channel, Science 360. This year, however, they dropped us from the lineup because we are “too political.” (This is ironic considering that we are sometimes criticized for not being political enough.)
I wonder whose fault is that.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... secularism

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1929

Post by Lsuoma »

Trophy wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Lsuoma, please kill the site now. Either that or start a new thread and banish all these boring arseholes going on and on and on and on about the fucking LIST. None of them are going to change their opinion, but that isn't going to stop them from posting another dozen pages of shite. I think everybody has got the general idea of where they all stand on the matter.

So....why not just start a new topic instead of whining?
Lsuoma, can you also respond to this stupid comment?
Fuck you all up the council.

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1930

Post by Remick »

Pitchguest wrote:from here http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... bal-abuse/
Kausik Datta
February 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm (UTC -8) Link to this comment
But you forget, Ophelia…
(a) Paula Kirby has not been verbally abused as a gamer. Therefore, verbal abuse of women gamers doesn’t exist. And anyone who disagrees is a bully, bully I say!
(b) Verbal abuse of women gamers? Do you know how much harsher and more inhuman conditions women in the Middle East, Africa, or [-insert country of appropriate outrage here-] face? Everything else pales in comparison, I tells ya! Wimmin gamerz, forsooth!

[Ewww. While typing these in, I threw up in my mouth a little. Sadly, the memories are still fresh.]
Misogyny in the Middle East is a real problem. Verbal harassment in games is a first world problem. I'm sure you can connect the dots. With all that's happening to women in the Middle East, they would LOVE it if all they had to contend with was fuckwits insulting them online. But if you want to marginalize them because the Prune has a stick up her arse with a fetish for drama, then all I can say to you is: FUCK YOU.

Also, you suck at making analogies. But do you want to know what makes me puke a little in my mouth? Idiots like you.

Its all bullshit anyways. EVERYONE gets verbally harassed in games. By your opponent. Hey it happens in non video-games too. Do you see how much Basketball players, football players, american football players, fuck every sport, trash talk their opponents? If women were integrated into any of these sports, are their opponents supposed to not trash talk them because they are women.

When Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco in the World cup Final, it was because Marco got to him. It is part of the game, you have to keep your cool. If you can't, you shouldn't play competitively. Same shit with card games, do top poker players not try to put female players on tilt? Of course they try to. It is all pure and utter bullshit.

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1931

Post by Remick »

BarnOwl wrote:PhysioPreppie must have had a manuscript rejected by Nature recently:
Like anyone gives a single flying fucke about some goddamn austrofrench cheese-eating aristocrat fuckebagge’s motherfucken name???????
In his discussion of suspects in the Piltdown Man mystery, Chris Stringer alludes to the French Jesuit priest, philosopher and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Nature 492, 177–179; 2012). The article mistakenly shortens the great man’s compound surname to “de Chardin”. In fact, it should read “Teilhard de Chardin” or just “Teilhard”.
Such aristocratic last names are often misinterpreted in English. One glaring example is the condition known as Tourette’s syndrome, incompletely named after Georges Gilles de la Tourette, who first described it. “Gilles” is part of the compound last name and not a middle name, as is commonly assumed.

From now on, I’m gonna refer to these two fuckewaddes as “Douchebagge de Chardin” and “Fuckenarde de la Tourette”, because fucke you, thatte’s why.
Oh, and the author of this important piece of correspondence to one of the scientific journals of record?
Antoine Louchart, of the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyons, France.
His official austrofrench name is now Antoine Louchart de la Pissewadde.
Or maybe he got scooped by competitors in France.

Or maybe he's just an arsewadde.
Does he ever say anything of substance or value? As far as I know like posts about his Ipaddee.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1932

Post by BarnOwl »

On the cruise ship Carnival Triumph, everyone stays on the poop deck.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1933

Post by decius »

BarnOwl wrote:On the cruise ship Carnival Triumph, everyone stays on the poop deck.
I never understood the appeal of confinement in floating prisons, regardless of how gilded the cages are.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1934

Post by BarnOwl »

decius wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:On the cruise ship Carnival Triumph, everyone stays on the poop deck.
I never understood the appeal of confinement in floating prisons, regardless of how gilded the cages are.
One might as well be in the Mall of America or at a stupid theme park or in a Vegas casino, on one of those huge cruise ships. I like being close to the water, on a small sailboat or in a kayak. The small ferries that go out to the archipelago from Stockholm are at the upper size limit for boats that I'm happy to travel on.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1935

Post by ReneeHendricks »

TedDahlberg wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Not to be left out of the Dog Show, here is my 140 pound dog-bear who goes by the name of Syren:
dog-bear-pig.jpg
She's 1 of 4 sweet doggies.
Sorry, couldn't resist…

[img]dog-bear-pig-demon.jpg
LOL Brilliant :D

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1936

Post by Remick »

Percentage wrote:Okay, but the thing is that PhysioPricke isn't even a good troll. With a few exceptions, his blog isn't particularly inflammatory, it's just dumb.
I agree, I always wonder why people bother paying attention to him.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1937

Post by cunt »

Have any of you actually been on those ships? They're pretty great, jet ski-ing and diving around Caribbean islands every day and then get french cuisine from a five star restaurant at night. Did you enjoy your lobster sir? Would you like another one?

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1938

Post by Dick Strawkins »

BarnOwl wrote:
decius wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:On the cruise ship Carnival Triumph, everyone stays on the poop deck.
I never understood the appeal of confinement in floating prisons, regardless of how gilded the cages are.
One might as well be in the Mall of America or at a stupid theme park or in a Vegas casino, on one of those huge cruise ships. I like being close to the water, on a small sailboat or in a kayak. The small ferries that go out to the archipelago from Stockholm are at the upper size limit for boats that I'm happy to travel on.
The Baltic cruises in the middle of winter are great.
The boat is actually going through pack ice in the Baltic so it's got a very Titanicky feel to it (although without the presence of Celine Dion)

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1939

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Remick wrote:
Percentage wrote:Okay, but the thing is that PhysioPricke isn't even a good troll. With a few exceptions, his blog isn't particularly inflammatory, it's just dumb.
I agree, I always wonder why people bother paying attention to him.
I think he functions as some sort of negative control.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1940

Post by Dick Strawkins »

What would Peezus do... :D

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

Philip of Tealand
.
.
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:11 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1941

Post by Philip of Tealand »

Dick Strawkins wrote:What would Peezus do... :D

http://i.imgur.com/LeyYUuR.jpg
That is a work of art!

Bravo sir, bravo!

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1942

Post by decius »

I dropped this at Novella's place.
The malicious attacks on women are, more often than not, the handiwork of dedicated trolls and originate from places like encyclopedia dramatica (the evidence is overwhelming, but gets conveniently ignored when presented). They are then – equally maliciously and for sheer political gain – imputed to atheists and skeptics by certain divisive figures, who by reason of proximity with you, Steven, keep on getting a pass from skeptical scrutiny.
What you say is all very reasonable, until you turn your biased eye to the issue of feminism and of prominent “feminists”, who pretend to talk for all women in the community without having clear mandate to do so. In fact, the most eloquent pushback they’re receiving for the injection of industrial quantities of venom and slander in the community is at the hand of other women.
As an egalitarian concerned with the equal rights and respect for everyone, I’m appalled by the selective blindness on display here.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1943

Post by Za-zen »

On the way into work today, there was a few crazies on the morning talkshow i listen to. The topic, well, i'm not sure what the topic was, other than "the interwebz are ebil, ppl are misusing the interwebz!", i never did get the memo as to the defined purpose of the internet. It's almost as if a section of society has recently stumbled upon it, and thinks it belongs to someone, and therefore have a purpose, and if it doesn't have a purpose they damn well are going to ensure it does have one, that one being, the purpose they want it to serve.

Fuckwits.

Back to the story; one person was recounting the horrific tale of what happened to her. She had been on a networking site, fell in love with a guy, and he turned out to be a she. As in it was a girl pretending to be a male on the site.

Oh! The Horror! Her world fell apart "the only way i can describe it, is as being raped, except for the physical part, it is exactly like that"..... Seriously, she said that. Some people should be advised by their shrinks to not go out their door.

Second nutter chirps in; " it's about time the police did something about fake profiles on internet sites, they are really damaging to people"..... At this stage the reasonable part of my brain is telling me to change the fucking channel, the masochist in me persists though, as i must punish myself, more! More!

The host attempted to inject some semblance of sanity; "surely that would be too much for our already overstretched law enforcement".... You what!? You fucking dingbat! How the fuck did you get a job hosting a radio show! Should you not be challenging the fucking premise!!!

Arrived in work, with my prejudice that the human race is 90% stupid fucks reinforced. Ahhh i love my morning drives.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1944

Post by Tigzy »

Oh, it seems my comment on Camels With Hammers has gone through. Seems to have riled up Wowbagger somewhat, too. :lol:
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker

15 February 2013 at 6:25 am (UTC -6)

Cross-posted from CWH in case it doesn’t get through moderation; for contexnt it’s a response to the lie (of omission) regarding the time I told one of the mildew mob (who’d been expressing delight at Jen being hounded off the internet, IIRC) to die in a fire.

It was the wrong thing to do; I admitted as such (and have repeated that admission on every occasion since it’s come up) and I have not made any similar comments since.

And it was more than a few months ago.
I have no doubt whatsover that Tigzy upthread is aware, as all the Slymepit denizens are (given how often they’ve brought this up in a desperate attempt to shame me, only to be told of my admission of guilt – something none of them seems to understand, which may explain why it hasn’t sunk in), that I have acknowledged the unmitigated wrongness of my wish to see someone die in a fire and that under no circumstances would I ever say anything similar again – and, unless they wish to try and prove otherwise, which have not done so since in the something like six months since it happened.

Dana Hunter even referred to it in her post on the issue, Definitely Not Equal

But, despite this, continues to bring up the one incident as if it – one comment made by one person to another, anonymous person – justifies the continued and ongoing vicious harassment by the Slymepitters of non-anonymous people like Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Surly Amy and all the others on their hit list.

It’s like comparing a pebble to a landslide. Or, more accurately, a drop of water to an explosion in a sewerage line; one that’s still going.

This, Dan, is what I’ve been referring to in our conversations on Twitter. On the surface that appears a reasonable claim to make; however, once some context is added and facts revealed, it is obvious that the person who made the comment is being profoundly dishonest.

Ordinarily I’d just refer to Tigzy as a lying euphemism-for-a-receptacle-of-porcine-excrement for desperately grasping at the straws of false equivalence in order to defend the morally questionable actions of people profoundly lacking in basic human decency. But I’ll refrain from that, as per your wishes.

I do hope this illustrates my point, though.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-562884

More or less figured out what my response to this nonsense should be - I'll wait until it appears on Finke's blog before resonding, though.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1945

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Tigzy wrote:Oh, it seems my comment on Camels With Hammers has gone through. Seems to have riled up Wowbagger somewhat, too. :lol:
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker

15 February 2013 at 6:25 am (UTC -6)

Cross-posted from CWH in case it doesn’t get through moderation; for contexnt it’s a response to the lie (of omission) regarding the time I told one of the mildew mob (who’d been expressing delight at Jen being hounded off the internet, IIRC) to die in a fire.

It was the wrong thing to do; I admitted as such (and have repeated that admission on every occasion since it’s come up) and I have not made any similar comments since.

And it was more than a few months ago.
I have no doubt whatsover that Tigzy upthread is aware, as all the Slymepit denizens are (given how often they’ve brought this up in a desperate attempt to shame me, only to be told of my admission of guilt – something none of them seems to understand, which may explain why it hasn’t sunk in), that I have acknowledged the unmitigated wrongness of my wish to see someone die in a fire and that under no circumstances would I ever say anything similar again – and, unless they wish to try and prove otherwise, which have not done so since in the something like six months since it happened.

Dana Hunter even referred to it in her post on the issue, Definitely Not Equal

But, despite this, continues to bring up the one incident as if it – one comment made by one person to another, anonymous person – justifies the continued and ongoing vicious harassment by the Slymepitters of non-anonymous people like Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Surly Amy and all the others on their hit list.

It’s like comparing a pebble to a landslide. Or, more accurately, a drop of water to an explosion in a sewerage line; one that’s still going.

This, Dan, is what I’ve been referring to in our conversations on Twitter. On the surface that appears a reasonable claim to make; however, once some context is added and facts revealed, it is obvious that the person who made the comment is being profoundly dishonest.

Ordinarily I’d just refer to Tigzy as a lying euphemism-for-a-receptacle-of-porcine-excrement for desperately grasping at the straws of false equivalence in order to defend the morally questionable actions of people profoundly lacking in basic human decency. But I’ll refrain from that, as per your wishes.

I do hope this illustrates my point, though.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-562884

More or less figured out what my response to this nonsense should be - I'll wait until it appears on Finke's blog before resonding, though.
It's worth it to bring up the wowbagger 'die in a fire' quote at every opportunity, if only to see his inevitablly freaked out reaction.
He never fails to fly off the rails and with his wild ranting denial, demonstrate to every neutral person reading that the charges fit.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1946

Post by Submariner »

decius wrote:I dropped this at Novella's place.
The malicious attacks on women are, more often than not, the handiwork of dedicated trolls and originate from places like encyclopedia dramatica (the evidence is overwhelming, but gets conveniently ignored when presented). They are then – equally maliciously and for sheer political gain – imputed to atheists and skeptics by certain divisive figures, who by reason of proximity with you, Steven, keep on getting a pass from skeptical scrutiny.
What you say is all very reasonable, until you turn your biased eye to the issue of feminism and of prominent “feminists”, who pretend to talk for all women in the community without having clear mandate to do so. In fact, the most eloquent pushback they’re receiving for the injection of industrial quantities of venom and slander in the community is at the hand of other women.
As an egalitarian concerned with the equal rights and respect for everyone, I’m appalled by the selective blindness on display here.

From the Novella post:
First, I have to say (and I find general agreement on this point) that the misogynist attacks are completely unacceptable. They are poison, they make rational discussion about how best to promote feminism within our movement difficult, and they tend to radicalize all sides.
This assumes that promoting feminism (at least the brand practiced by the FC(n), SJW's, FTB's folks) is worthy of being promoted. In my opinion, it isn't. Now if they want to promote equity feminism, I'll have no objections.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1947

Post by Apples »

Remick wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:from here http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... bal-abuse/
Kausik Datta
February 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm (UTC -8) Link to this comment
But you forget, Ophelia…
(a) Paula Kirby has not been verbally abused as a gamer. Therefore, verbal abuse of women gamers doesn’t exist. And anyone who disagrees is a bully, bully I say!
(b) Verbal abuse of women gamers? Do you know how much harsher and more inhuman conditions women in the Middle East, Africa, or [-insert country of appropriate outrage here-] face? Everything else pales in comparison, I tells ya! Wimmin gamerz, forsooth!

[Ewww. While typing these in, I threw up in my mouth a little. Sadly, the memories are still fresh.]
Misogyny in the Middle East is a real problem. Verbal harassment in games is a first world problem. I'm sure you can connect the dots. With all that's happening to women in the Middle East, they would LOVE it if all they had to contend with was fuckwits insulting them online. But if you want to marginalize them because the Prune has a stick up her arse with a fetish for drama, then all I can say to you is: FUCK YOU.

Also, you suck at making analogies. But do you want to know what makes me puke a little in my mouth? Idiots like you.

Its all bullshit anyways. EVERYONE gets verbally harassed in games. By your opponent. Hey it happens in non video-games too. Do you see how much Basketball players, football players, american football players, fuck every sport, trash talk their opponents? If women were integrated into any of these sports, are their opponents supposed to not trash talk them because they are women.

When Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco in the World cup Final, it was because Marco got to him. It is part of the game, you have to keep your cool. If you can't, you shouldn't play competitively. Same shit with card games, do top poker players not try to put female players on tilt? Of course they try to. It is all pure and utter bullshit.
The study (indicating that, among Halo 3 players, female gamer voices are 3 times more likely to get hostile responses than male voices in response to innocuous comments) looks decent enough, for its purposes. So it does look like confirming evidence that there is some hazing of women/girls by the average Halo 3 gamer that the average guy gamer doesn't get. Amusingly, Benson said on Twitter that the 3-1 stat "looks low," as though she would have any idea.

Along the lines of what you said, I thought this comment on Ophelia's post was germane:
aweraw wrote:As someone who does a bit of online gaming (TF2 mainly), my opinion is that this is a form a sledging, the purpose of which is to gain a psychological advantage over your opponent. It’s bad sportsmanship, but I’d assert that the difference in volume of insults is not due an outright malice against women, rather a notion that woman are percieved to be easier to “psych-out” in this manner.

Based on my own experience/anecdata, derived from playing against female gamers in things like Super Smash bros, I’d have to say that compared to my male gaming opponents, they typically are easier to psych-out verbally. Take that to mean what you will, but I’ve found that the girls who can give it as good or better than they get often do fine… and it’s the same for males – those who can’t handle any sledging often don’t last long.

That said, the Halo multiplayer community is a different beast than what I’m used to; there maybe there is a case to be made that they just outright hate women. I don’t know or care enough about Halo to get into the community.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1948

Post by Za-zen »

Submariner wrote:
decius wrote:I dropped this at Novella's place.
The malicious attacks on women are, more often than not, the handiwork of dedicated trolls and originate from places like encyclopedia dramatica (the evidence is overwhelming, but gets conveniently ignored when presented). They are then – equally maliciously and for sheer political gain – imputed to atheists and skeptics by certain divisive figures, who by reason of proximity with you, Steven, keep on getting a pass from skeptical scrutiny.
What you say is all very reasonable, until you turn your biased eye to the issue of feminism and of prominent “feminists”, who pretend to talk for all women in the community without having clear mandate to do so. In fact, the most eloquent pushback they’re receiving for the injection of industrial quantities of venom and slander in the community is at the hand of other women.
As an egalitarian concerned with the equal rights and respect for everyone, I’m appalled by the selective blindness on display here.

From the Novella post:
First, I have to say (and I find general agreement on this point) that the misogynist attacks are completely unacceptable. They are poison, they make rational discussion about how best to promote feminism within our movement difficult, and they tend to radicalize all sides.
This assumes that promoting feminism (at least the brand practiced by the FC(n), SJW's, FTB's folks) is worthy of being promoted. In my opinion, it isn't. Now if they want to promote equity feminism, I'll have no objections.
I have. The atheist movement is not about promoting feminsim, equity or not. The is a movement out there for, and doing that. It's called the fucking feminist movement. Fuck off and join it.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1949

Post by decius »

Submariner wrote:
decius wrote:I dropped this at Novella's place.
The malicious attacks on women are, more often than not, the handiwork of dedicated trolls and originate from places like encyclopedia dramatica (the evidence is overwhelming, but gets conveniently ignored when presented). They are then – equally maliciously and for sheer political gain – imputed to atheists and skeptics by certain divisive figures, who by reason of proximity with you, Steven, keep on getting a pass from skeptical scrutiny.
What you say is all very reasonable, until you turn your biased eye to the issue of feminism and of prominent “feminists”, who pretend to talk for all women in the community without having clear mandate to do so. In fact, the most eloquent pushback they’re receiving for the injection of industrial quantities of venom and slander in the community is at the hand of other women.
As an egalitarian concerned with the equal rights and respect for everyone, I’m appalled by the selective blindness on display here.

From the Novella post:
First, I have to say (and I find general agreement on this point) that the misogynist attacks are completely unacceptable. They are poison, they make rational discussion about how best to promote feminism within our movement difficult, and they tend to radicalize all sides.
This assumes that promoting feminism (at least the brand practiced by the FC(n), SJW's, FTB's folks) is worthy of being promoted. In my opinion, it isn't. Now if they want to promote equity feminism, I'll have no objections.
I agree with you. I'd let the various Karla Porter and Harriet Hall make that point more forcefully. I know that Novella is highly capable of introspection and self-criticism, which I was hoping to invite.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1950

Post by decius »

Za-zen wrote: I have. The atheist movement is not about promoting feminsim, equity or not. The is a movement out there for, and doing that. It's called the fucking feminist movement. Fuck off and join it.
Absolutely. However, I don't think we should tolerate true sexism or racism in our midst. The problem is with imaginary sleight and oppression.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1951

Post by cunt »

aweraw wrote:Anyone keen for a slice of SJW fail?

Who's seen that "Women of L.A." video? It's a geeky looking fellow describing his inability to get laid in L.A. in the form of a humorous song:

[youtube]cBiR2rKU69U[/youtube]

Yeah? Comedy, right? Wrong. It's the "anti-female anthem of 2013" apparently:
Humour and music are western products designed to keep good muslims away from their full submission to Allah.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1952

Post by Za-zen »

decius wrote:
Za-zen wrote: I have. The atheist movement is not about promoting feminsim, equity or not. The is a movement out there for, and doing that. It's called the fucking feminist movement. Fuck off and join it.
Absolutely. However, I don't think we should tolerate true sexism or racism in our midst. The problem is with imaginary sleight and oppression.
Absolutely not, no discrimination based on gender or race should be permitted, that is a given. I qualify promotion as something different though.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1953

Post by ERV »

decius wrote:
Submariner wrote:
decius wrote:I dropped this at Novella's place.
The malicious attacks on women are, more often than not, the handiwork of dedicated trolls and originate from places like encyclopedia dramatica (the evidence is overwhelming, but gets conveniently ignored when presented). They are then – equally maliciously and for sheer political gain – imputed to atheists and skeptics by certain divisive figures, who by reason of proximity with you, Steven, keep on getting a pass from skeptical scrutiny.
What you say is all very reasonable, until you turn your biased eye to the issue of feminism and of prominent “feminists”, who pretend to talk for all women in the community without having clear mandate to do so. In fact, the most eloquent pushback they’re receiving for the injection of industrial quantities of venom and slander in the community is at the hand of other women.
As an egalitarian concerned with the equal rights and respect for everyone, I’m appalled by the selective blindness on display here.

From the Novella post:
First, I have to say (and I find general agreement on this point) that the misogynist attacks are completely unacceptable. They are poison, they make rational discussion about how best to promote feminism within our movement difficult, and they tend to radicalize all sides.
This assumes that promoting feminism (at least the brand practiced by the FC(n), SJW's, FTB's folks) is worthy of being promoted. In my opinion, it isn't. Now if they want to promote equity feminism, I'll have no objections.
I agree with you. I'd let the various Karla Porter and Harriet Hall make that point more forcefully. I know that Novella is highly capable of introspection and self-criticism, which I was hoping to invite.
Question:
If what we are dealing with in skepticism is genuine misogyny, why are some women targets, and some are not? Misogyny is the hatred of *women* and yet Watson is a target, while I am not*. Ive never gotten any irl, email, blog comment, or YouTube comment that I would classify as 'misogynistic', in +6 years (granted I have fewer YouTube talks up than Watson, but mine have more views), certainly not from anyone I know is an atheist/skeptic.

Why?

Genuine question for those who think misogyny is 'rampant' in skepticism.

*Maybe* its *not* misogyny?

*Maybe* it has something to do with individuals and their behaviors/personalities, and nothing to do with females in general?




* Lets ignore the fact that Im the one who the self-proclaimed feminists try to get fired from all avenues of employment. FEMINISM!

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1954

Post by Cunning Punt »

cunt wrote:The right to be uncivil only belongs to them though. If anyone is ever uncivil right back, they send out a dozen alerts and Myers can't scamper over fast enough to ban the offender.

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

Little babies.
Not only that, it's pube-licking-shaming.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1955

Post by decius »

ERV wrote: Question:
If what we are dealing with in skepticism is genuine misogyny, why are some women targets, and some are not? Misogyny is the hatred of *women* and yet Watson is a target, while I am not*. Ive never gotten any irl, email, blog comment, or YouTube comment that I would classify as 'misogynistic', in +6 years (granted I have fewer YouTube talks up than Watson, but mine have more views), certainly not from anyone I know is an atheist/skeptic.

Why?

Genuine question for those who think misogyny is 'rampant' in skepticism.

*Maybe* its *not* misogyny?

*Maybe* it has something to do with individuals and their behaviors/personalities, and nothing to do with females in general?




* Lets ignore the fact that Im the one who the self-proclaimed feminists try to get fired from all avenues of employment. FEMINISM!
As one of the most vilified women in the community, I urge you to drop a line at Neurologica Blog, Abbie.

Philip of Tealand
.
.
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:11 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1956

Post by Philip of Tealand »

I play the MMO Star Wars The Old Republic, have been since last year

If there is one thing you can guarantee is some gamers can be incredibly rude, childish and irascible to point of stupidity.

I've also learned that an incredible amount of the fanboys and girls are fantastically fussy and prone to turning an amusing shade of puce if something is not going their way - eg the sky is not the right shade of luminous purple, that character class can do .00005% more damage than mine can etc etc RAGE, RAGE, Delicious RAGE!

You get the trash talk from people, most bratty teenagers, with the obligatory bad spelling and OMFG U NOOOB - they are not the world's best players but seem to think they are and that all should be able to play at the same level as them.

I agree with with Aweraw wrote, there are people who are going to use trash talk to weaken their opponent's concentration and rising to it does you no good at all and it is a lesson the Baboons would do well to learn to do instead of turning their sensitivity settings to the lowest levels and having their hyper-important vaginas/RadFem approved penises hurt so badly!

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1957

Post by ReneeHendricks »

ERV wrote: Question:
If what we are dealing with in skepticism is genuine misogyny, why are some women targets, and some are not? Misogyny is the hatred of *women* and yet Watson is a target, while I am not*. Ive never gotten any irl, email, blog comment, or YouTube comment that I would classify as 'misogynistic', in +6 years (granted I have fewer YouTube talks up than Watson, but mine have more views), certainly not from anyone I know is an atheist/skeptic.

Why?

Genuine question for those who think misogyny is 'rampant' in skepticism.

*Maybe* its *not* misogyny?

*Maybe* it has something to do with individuals and their behaviors/personalities, and nothing to do with females in general?




* Lets ignore the fact that Im the one who the self-proclaimed feminists try to get fired from all avenues of employment. FEMINISM!
THANK YOU! I'm another woman (albeit not very well-known, read, or viewed on the 'net) who's been around for quite some time and I've yet to receive misogynistic responses, emails, tweets, etc. I do believe it has to do with the person rather than the gender.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1958

Post by Cunning Punt »

cunt wrote:Have any of you actually been on those ships? They're pretty great, jet ski-ing and diving around Caribbean islands every day and then get french cuisine from a five star restaurant at night. Did you enjoy your lobster sir? Would you like another one?
Aren't lobsters alive when you kill them? No thanks.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1959

Post by cunt »

I think most things are alive when you kill them.

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1960

Post by Remick »

Apples wrote:
Remick wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:from here http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... bal-abuse/
Kausik Datta
February 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm (UTC -8) Link to this comment
But you forget, Ophelia…
(a) Paula Kirby has not been verbally abused as a gamer. Therefore, verbal abuse of women gamers doesn’t exist. And anyone who disagrees is a bully, bully I say!
(b) Verbal abuse of women gamers? Do you know how much harsher and more inhuman conditions women in the Middle East, Africa, or [-insert country of appropriate outrage here-] face? Everything else pales in comparison, I tells ya! Wimmin gamerz, forsooth!

[Ewww. While typing these in, I threw up in my mouth a little. Sadly, the memories are still fresh.]
Misogyny in the Middle East is a real problem. Verbal harassment in games is a first world problem. I'm sure you can connect the dots. With all that's happening to women in the Middle East, they would LOVE it if all they had to contend with was fuckwits insulting them online. But if you want to marginalize them because the Prune has a stick up her arse with a fetish for drama, then all I can say to you is: FUCK YOU.

Also, you suck at making analogies. But do you want to know what makes me puke a little in my mouth? Idiots like you.

Its all bullshit anyways. EVERYONE gets verbally harassed in games. By your opponent. Hey it happens in non video-games too. Do you see how much Basketball players, football players, american football players, fuck every sport, trash talk their opponents? If women were integrated into any of these sports, are their opponents supposed to not trash talk them because they are women.

When Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco in the World cup Final, it was because Marco got to him. It is part of the game, you have to keep your cool. If you can't, you shouldn't play competitively. Same shit with card games, do top poker players not try to put female players on tilt? Of course they try to. It is all pure and utter bullshit.
The study (indicating that, among Halo 3 players, female gamer voices are 3 times more likely to get hostile responses than male voices in response to innocuous comments) looks decent enough, for its purposes. So it does look like confirming evidence that there is some hazing of women/girls by the average Halo 3 gamer that the average guy gamer doesn't get. Amusingly, Benson said on Twitter that the 3-1 stat "looks low," as though she would have any idea.
As someone who plays shooters online. I can tell you I have a hard time telling "female sounding" from "pre-pubescent boy" in some cases, though the actual words used often help differentiate. I didn't play much Halo-3, but I will say when Halo2 was new, the latter category was more prevalent than the former. Either way, the voice can be associated with a n00b, and n00bs get bullied and shit talked more than vets, this is true in every case. So when women start entering the gaming world, there is a (correct) feeling that an unknown female/squeeky voice is probably a newbie. I don't harrass newbies, but I certainly see it happen a lot. Honestly, the most common bullshit I hear is getting called a "nigger" for some reason by someone with a bit of a southern accent.

I will also comment, I used to play WoW for a while, and the women/girls in the guilds I was a part of were typically treated better than the guys, as long as they could do their job. Women who could not do their job, were often part of raids due to relationships with guild leaders, and that led to resentment and bullshit, but it had to do with them sucking at their job, not their gender.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1961

Post by Lsuoma »

Philip of Tealand wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:What would Peezus do... :D
That is a work of art!

Bravo sir, bravo!
But a DISTURBING work of art. Most disturbing...

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1962

Post by Metalogic42 »

ReneeHendricks wrote:
ERV wrote: Question:
If what we are dealing with in skepticism is genuine misogyny, why are some women targets, and some are not? Misogyny is the hatred of *women* and yet Watson is a target, while I am not*. Ive never gotten any irl, email, blog comment, or YouTube comment that I would classify as 'misogynistic', in +6 years (granted I have fewer YouTube talks up than Watson, but mine have more views), certainly not from anyone I know is an atheist/skeptic.

Why?

Genuine question for those who think misogyny is 'rampant' in skepticism.

*Maybe* its *not* misogyny?

*Maybe* it has something to do with individuals and their behaviors/personalities, and nothing to do with females in general?




* Lets ignore the fact that Im the one who the self-proclaimed feminists try to get fired from all avenues of employment. FEMINISM!
THANK YOU! I'm another woman (albeit not very well-known, read, or viewed on the 'net) who's been around for quite some time and I've yet to receive misogynistic responses, emails, tweets, etc. I do believe it has to do with the person rather than the gender.
Don't be so chill, girls.

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1963

Post by Angry_Drunk »

cunt wrote:I think most things are alive when you kill them.
Zombies.

:snooty:

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1964

Post by welch »

masakari2012 wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
masakari2012 wrote:The pit appears to be in disarray, packed with a bunch of ravenous lions who are about to devour each other.

Here's something to read. It's NoelPlum99's responses on Camels with Hammers. Let me just put the link righ... Wait, stay back *swings stick at approaching lions, and checks all directions*....
Let me just put this link right here. *places the link down quickly and runs out the gate*....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ment-22560
A quote from Ulysees:

"The pledge is a noble gesture on your part, Daniel. But that’s all it is, a gesture. Consider the denizens of the Slymepit. A woman or a “mangina” (their term) attempting to argue with them in a civil manner is an exercise in futility. I’ve seen Justin Vacula and Franc Hoggle in action. They see people being civil to them as weaklings, ready for the kill. I’ve seen Ophelia Benson ask to be left alone by the Slymepitters. That doesn’t happen."

And the hyperbole thickens...
I've never seen Justin Vacula being uncivil to anyone. And Franc doesn't pick on people who are weaklings. I've never seen Franc dedicate a whole blog towards someone who didn't try to lead a group against another. On the contrary, Franc has stood up for the weak, weak in this context being people who don't have the voice that FTB has but uses that voice to wrongfully tar and feather others (the weak), and use their sycophant armies to PM the person with continuous false remarks, and have that person "excommunicated" from the major atheist circles.

As a proud Slyme Pitter, I don't think that I've "picked" on anyone other than FTB and their main allies for their stupidity, hypocrisy, and lies. Maybe there are other Slyme Pitters who do, but this is only a forum that serves as a junction point on the internet for people who have similar views toward this dogmatic feminist infestation. The characteristics of us as individuals vary.
and the well is poisoned once again. Which adds another data point of proof that the FTB/Skepchicks lot have no interest, nor ever have had any interest in ending anything. They want this drama to continue forever. What they dislike is their inability to control it sufficiently. That it is regularly inconvenient is the only problem any of them have with it.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1965

Post by welch »

karlaporter wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
masakari2012 wrote: I've never seen Justin Vacula being uncivil to anyone.
His moustache is uncivil.
Uncivil? It's an abomination and a crime against humanity. Apart from that Justin ain't too bad.
Besides the mustache mind you, I work with him 5 days a week and have never seen him less than polite, well mannered, professional, patient and a very good listener - not to mention well spoken and educated. What's wrong with these people? :?

OK, perhaps that's a rhetorical question..
No one here has the time to properly answer that. The universe doesn't have THAT much time.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1966

Post by welch »

AndrewV69 wrote:
welch wrote: You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it.
The IF clauses you listed fall under my "why even bother" category. As in why even bother putting those people on the list in the first place.
welch wrote: But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.
I think you would be on firmer ground if you could point to some ethical position as a reference. point. Such as "keeping enemy lists are bad for X, Y, and Z" or focus more on the intimidation aspect which you appear to believe is the key point.

How you can intimidate someone who is dead is beyond me though. Unless it is some sort of message to the living.
Obviously you cannot intimidate the dead. You can do many other disturbing things to them, but intimidation is not one of them.

However, the way the list is run is pretty clear it's a warning to women who would think of crossing the AVfM crowd: "You don't really want to be on our list, do you? Of course not."

I've listed the reasons I think support this enough to not do so again.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1967

Post by welch »

Lsuoma wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote:The Sun (UK tabloid newspaper also known as The Scum, Murdoch-owned, etc) is getting into a spot of bother because they have printed this lurid and OTT front page.

It is actually rather "par for the course" for The Sun.
That story will run and run: it's got legs as the journos say.

Of course, Pistorious himself doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Something's clearly afoot. Just not Pistorious

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1968

Post by welch »

AndrewV69 wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:I think you would be on firmer ground if you could point to some ethical position as a reference. point. Such as "keeping enemy lists are bad for X, Y, and Z" or focus more on the intimidation aspect which you appear to believe is the key point.
Oh scrap the above. I just read further. So to you the basic purpose is it is all about intimidation.
Yep. Given the way the list is set up and maintained, that's the only purpose it would currently serve. Any educational/informative purposes are now secondary.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1969

Post by Apples »

ERV wrote: Question:
If what we are dealing with in skepticism is genuine misogyny, why are some women targets, and some are not? Misogyny is the hatred of *women* and yet Watson is a target, while I am not*. Ive never gotten any irl, email, blog comment, or YouTube comment that I would classify as 'misogynistic', in +6 years (granted I have fewer YouTube talks up than Watson, but mine have more views), certainly not from anyone I know is an atheist/skeptic.

Why?

Genuine question for those who think misogyny is 'rampant' in skepticism.

*Maybe* its *not* misogyny?

*Maybe* it has something to do with individuals and their behaviors/personalities, and nothing to do with females in general?

* Lets ignore the fact that Im the one who the self-proclaimed feminists try to get fired from all avenues of employment. FEMINISM!
Well, as a gender-traitorous-sister-punishing-chill-girl, you are kind of an Uncle Tom house slave on the patriarchy plantation, suffering from stockholm syndrome. Greg Laden was just trying to protect you from yourself.

As Cipher pointed out in the A+ "Feminism is for Everybody' book-group:
Cipher wrote:This is just awesome truth:
bell hooks, page 12 wrote:A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behavior infiltrating feminist movement is dangerous threat.
Although I don't think men can divest of male privilege per se, just refuse to identify with it or buy in to it and fight its causes, and I think that like women confronting internalized sexism, that has to be an ongoing commitment on feminist men's part. The point she's getting at, though, is sound, and it's frustrating to see how many people refuse to understand this very basic fact of feminist thought.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 8&start=50

The awesome truth is that you are a dangerous threat to feminism, a potential double-agent infiltrator brainwashed by internalized sexism, therefore a useful tool in the hands of the misogynists who selectively suppress their impulse to hate and insult you because you are such an asset to their gynocidal plans. Put the lotion on your skin, or else you'll get the hose again.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1970

Post by welch »

nippletwister wrote:
welch wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
welch wrote:
Submariner wrote:The street addresses are not published (unlike sex offender registries in the US), just the names and a city. If they published actual street addresses, I would be more inclined to agree that it's intimidation and a call for vigilantism. Not totally inclined, just more likely inclined. After all, the government in the US posts lists of people with their street address, for any sex offense.
Have you heard of the Internet? I mean, is this all new to you? Give me a name and a city, and in most countries, within 24 hours, maybe 48, I can have an AMAZING amount of personal information on you. You don't even have to be good at google, there are companies who will do this for you, and the fees are quite reasonable.

The idea that "oh, well, they aren't publishing addresses, just names and cities, so there's no way to track them down" is not only wrong, but you have to be completely fucking stupid to believe it.

Yet...the identities and vague locations given on the list, are all already public record. If that's all that's needed to enable a murderous vigilante, well....it's already done. They've already appeared in court records and in some cases, the mainstream news or online news.
So again, the whole problem with the list is what it looks like to some people, not the info contained. Are people just supposed to not talk about it, either?
You rarely hear of someone using a public records search to get a list of people to harm. But, we have seen where lists with a slant are used for such things. Abortion providers, the SPLC's list, etc. Again, as i have said before, although no one seems to read that part, IF the AVfM list were not so far-reaching in scope, IF the list removed people who were, oh, I don't know, DEAD, and IF the list was as careful about removing people who don't belong anymore, (Tonya Harding is now a threat to whom?), as it is about making sure to update the list to show the current location of TEH EVIL WIMMEN, AND the narratives weren't so blatantly biased, I'd have no real problems with it. But none of those conditions are met, and so based on actual evidence, while I do NOT think the intent of the list is to cause someone to go out and bring harm to anyone, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence disproving the intimidation aspect of the list.
nippletwister wrote:So where is the line? How is AVFM or the SPLC responsible for what a whacko does with info that was already available and publically discussed? If somebody had gone after Lorena Bobbit, would NBC be responsible? If somebody believes right-wing propaganda and kills Obama, is Alex Jones responsible?
Honestly, I think minorly, unless the list is like the abortion doc lists, which pretty clearly call for harm to come to the docs. I'm really sure the SPLC didn't think anyone would use their list as a targeting mechanism, and they seemed really upset that it was. But when you have a list of "hate" sites, and groups that are "bad", it is reasonable to assume that at some point, someone is going to misuse that list, because even with good intentions, such a thing can be misused. Hell if the AVfM list only had NAMES, I'd not have any real problem with it. PeeZus's dungeon only has names, and most of those are fucking 'nyms. Now, if he started adding any sort of location info, then that list would go from "stupid" to "bad" in my view, for the same reason as I find the AVfM list "bad".

Given the bias in how the AVfM list is maintained, I find it difficult to be sanguine about the location information.
nippletwister wrote:again, it seems it's form and not content making the issue here, along with uncharitable assumptions about intent, for no other reason than it involves a controversial and politically active group. I wonder.....if a muslim group keeps or publishes lists of known anti-muslim agitators and legislators, how convoluted and riddled with double-standards will THAT discussion be? What if an anti-KKK group in the 1920's had found out the identities of criminal KKK members? Would black people be morally required to keep it a secret from each other? Even if the courts refused to prosecute? Even if social shame was the only weapon used?
is it just names, or names and locations? How much personal information does it provide? How are the names presented? How is the list maintained. If the list is essentially PeeZus' dipshit Dungeon, meh. It's stupid, and not a scintillating example of scientific debate, but i find it hard to view the Dungeon as much more than PeeZus pretending he has a large cock. Add in location information, overly biased narratives, and things change.
nippletwister wrote:Seems to me the only real standard is the one already enforced by law. Freedom of speech, civil penalties for slander or fraud, and individual responsibility for actions. Anything else muzzles victims, enables victimizers, and creates double standards all over the place.
We've established, via SCOTUS, that freedom of speech is not absolute. Deliberately yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of non-political restrictions on speech. If you have a list of people along with a lot of personal data and are specifically demanding that harm be brought to them, that is outside freedom of speech. Clear threats to harm people are not protected. You can't threaten the President, their family, Members of congress, etc. Even in the US, "Freedom of speech" is not the absolute thing we like to pretend it is.

Again, I don't think that the AVfM list is intended to cause someone to go a-killin'. But that does not mean it isn't an intimidation tool.

Alright...again, you make a few good points, and you have been consistent. I still think the issue is a lot more grey than Cunt and Decius have liked to pretend, they're just being disingenuous shits who like to fling poo and pretend that anything they don't like is a direct call to vigilantism while ignoring their own obvious biases (and fuck all for anything like reasoning or evidence).

Like arguing anti-semitism with Git, I was never even defending having such a list. It's fucking obviously a blunder, PR-wise, since many people are hysterical twats like Cunt. I was arguing that the interpretations of it were wildly off base, given the lack of violent rhetoric on the site, and the lack of violence in the "movement" as a whole. Sorry, but reality and evidence matters to me. I see a non-violent movement that does, in fact, focus much more closely on the judicial system and powerful public figures than random non-public women. But then, I read some of the site and comments, and tried to assess the site as a whole before making any written-in-stone judgments. I also give the SPLC, Muslims, and even anti-abortionists, the same respect. I don't assume a nutbag murderer serial harasser following, even in real cults, until I see the fucking evidence.

If the info on the list were presented in a more restrained way, with an appreciation of history and nuance, I bet nobody would care. Nobody, including you, has said ANYTHING to convince me that the exact same info, but spread out across the whole website in sourced articles, would get the same kind of response and interpretation. I've pointed out (and been thoroughly ignored) that all of the info contained regarding living people(potential vigilante victims) is of the same type that is regularly published in news articles and blogs as a matter of course, just not compiled into a single source.
If the list were indeed presented in a more restrained, neutral fashion, as a way of dispelling the myth that women are magically less violent or capable of bad behavior than men, and therefore crimes should be adjudicated the same regardless of the gender or the offender, I'd have no problem with it.
nippletwister wrote:If there was a list of historical feminists, and the harmful policies they supported and what justifications they used and what the results were and what the legacy is, I doubt you would be asking why death or loss of job doesn't get you off the list.


That would depend entirely upon the list, how it is presented, set up, and maintained. There is no pat answer to this, and if AVfM were to modify the more egregious features of their list, I'd have fewer problems with it. For example, they could create a "deceased" section. That would be one way of retaining historical information without presenting a dead person as a current danger. There are ways of managing such things, but AVfM does none of them.

nippletwister wrote:When news or blog articles are written about a real-life case of abuse or false accusation(or any other crime), nobody freaks out that a name or town are mentioned unless there is a real and present danger of violence.


In the case of actual news entities, there are procedures in place, usually via some sort of ombudsman, to manage inaccuracies and bias. Sometimes that fails, i.e. Fox News. In the case of blogs, well, then it's the same problem as AVfM. However, to say "Well other areas have this problem", while correct, does not make them either okay, or AVfM okay. A lot of people doing something wrong does not mean they are actually right. It just means they have a lot of company.

nippletwister wrote:When celebrities or public figures (including young public activists!) are called out in blog posts or TV news shows or newspapers for bigoted statements, or supporting bad or silly or bigoted policies, nobody even says boo. It's standard.
And when those same celebrities apologize or work to correct their wrongs, those actions are not ignored. Kobe Bryant was called out for using homophobic slurs during a game. He realized what he'd been doing and changed how he did things. recently, he called out a fan for homophobic slurs. That doesn't mean he never made the earlier mistake, but that he learned from it. He was given the chance to repent, to grow, and respected, if not rewarded for that. Where/When has AVfM ever done this?
nippletwister wrote:But apparently, if you put them all on one list, even if you specify each case as separate and give separate details, it becomes a freak-out machine, a terror list to inspire murderers. I get that appearances matter, but for christ's sake, maybe we could have some perspective here. Yes, anti-abortionists have circulated literal "death lists"...but other christians have also circulated lists of people.....to boycott, shun, or argue against. A "hit list" with no "hits" may be silly and even ugly propaganda, but it's not marching orders.
How fortunate that I'm not saying the AVfM isn't a hit list. It's an intimidation tool, and shows that JTO and Elam can be petty assholes, but it isn't a hit list.
nippletwister wrote:It seems to me like they could get all the exact same info out, name and shame individual people if they like(which everybody else in our culture gets to do without accusations of harassment and intimidation) and effectively show the double-standards that our culture embraces when it comes to female offenders and ideologues, without the off-putting approach. It would still have the same end-result for those in the movement, but without the "appearance" of intimidation. Every news source, every activist hub, every pundit, every political publication, do all these same things all the time, but apparently if it's diffuse enough, and case-by-case enough, it doesn't count as intimidation and is given legitimacy.
If revenge is the only motivation for that list, then just shut it down, that's a stupid reason. There are some valid reasons for that list, which i have repeatedly referenced. The list, as it currently exists, handles none of those. Change the list, change my opinion.
nippletwister wrote:That bolded paragraphs are all I've essentially been arguing regarding "lists" or "doxxing"(that isn't really doxxing, but sorta), and nobody has disagreed with any of that, that I've seen. Am I wrong? I still say: It's the form, not the content, that is the problem. Otherwise, almost all media or activism or debate would be a "hit list" or "intimidation".
If you provide current, up-to-date location information on someone, while calling them some kind of murdering mastermind, you are doxxing them. Complaining they aren't doing it as well as they could have doesn't change that.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1971

Post by Gefan »

Philip of Tealand wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Fuch the media! I shared this video on FB:

[youtube]90Omh7_I8vI[/youtube]

And the header is "UFO"!!!

People don't really like astronomy, do they?
Are Russians completely unflappable or something?

They seem completely at ease during all that

"Oh, that'll be another asteroid then? Hmmm what to have for breakfast?"
Has something to do with living through Winters that are straight out of the outer solar system, and being raised on a diet of vodka and potatoes.
The reign of Stalin is within living memory (including a little four year episdoe that started with three million Nazis storming over the border one morning) and less than twenty five years ago their entire society collapsed and they had to spend a decade of chaos and degradation rebuilding everything from a level that was pretty close to Liberia with frostbite.
My advice: don't fuck with these people, we don't impress them.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1972

Post by another lurker »

Remick wrote:
Apples wrote:
Remick wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:from here http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... bal-abuse/
snip
Its all bullshit anyways. EVERYONE gets verbally harassed in games. By your opponent. Hey it happens in non video-games too. Do you see how much Basketball players, football players, american football players, fuck every sport, trash talk their opponents? If women were integrated into any of these sports, are their opponents supposed to not trash talk them because they are women.

When Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco in the World cup Final, it was because Marco got to him. It is part of the game, you have to keep your cool. If you can't, you shouldn't play competitively. Same shit with card games, do top poker players not try to put female players on tilt? Of course they try to. It is all pure and utter bullshit.
The study (indicating that, among Halo 3 players, female gamer voices are 3 times more likely to get hostile responses than male voices in response to innocuous comments) looks decent enough, for its purposes. So it does look like confirming evidence that there is some hazing of women/girls by the average Halo 3 gamer that the average guy gamer doesn't get. Amusingly, Benson said on Twitter that the 3-1 stat "looks low," as though she would have any idea.
As someone who plays shooters online. I can tell you I have a hard time telling "female sounding" from "pre-pubescent boy" in some cases, though the actual words used often help differentiate. I didn't play much Halo-3, but I will say when Halo2 was new, the latter category was more prevalent than the former. Either way, the voice can be associated with a n00b, and n00bs get bullied and shit talked more than vets, this is true in every case. So when women start entering the gaming world, there is a (correct) feeling that an unknown female/squeeky voice is probably a newbie. I don't harrass newbies, but I certainly see it happen a lot. Honestly, the most common bullshit I hear is getting called a "nigger" for some reason by someone with a bit of a southern accent.

I will also comment, I used to play WoW for a while, and the women/girls in the guilds I was a part of were typically treated better than the guys, as long as they could do their job. Women who could not do their job, were often part of raids due to relationships with guild leaders, and that led to resentment and bullshit, but it had to do with them sucking at their job, not their gender.
Girls who know how to play their class have zero problems. In fact, when I played WoW, one of the big jokes was that if you want 'free stuff', just play a female character...

I also played Everquest, and it was no different than WoW. In fact, I have never played a single MMO where women get more abuse than men!

I had a good friend who played Unreal Tournament PVP every week with his buddies, and he would put together special 'insult lists' for the opposing teams. So if women are getting a hard time in PVP games it is probably related to the fact that the game is PVP...and not b/c they are women. And if you can give as good as you get, and know your role, you will probably do just fine.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1973

Post by welch »

masakari2012 wrote:I have less original sins that some of you. I'm male, but not white. If we are ever in disagreement, you must yield your right of way privilege to me, and let the wookiee me win. :lol:
You're a wookie?

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1974

Post by decius »

Cunt, much as I love the Caribbean, I prefer completely different means of travel and approach.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1975

Post by welch »

ERV wrote:
ERV wrote:If Chas is an asshole, PZ Myers, what the fuck does that make you?
*whispers* SPOILER: It makes you a loser, PZ Myers.

At least an asshole does something.

This asshole is building your Shangri-La while you do nothing but sit there calling him an asshole.

PZ Myers is a loser. Just like Rebecca Watson. Just like Cry-Baby Amy. And all the Losers in Loo-ville.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.
Obviously Chas is evil. He's out DOING stuff, instead of blogging about it like a proper New Media Douchebag Atheist.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1976

Post by welch »

KiwiInOz wrote:
ERV wrote: Ive said it before, Ill say it again-- this whole fiasco is a war of the losers vs leaders.
Alas. PZ's flock inflated his ego far too high. Now that zeppelin is crashing and burning.
ZEP FOREVER.

PeeZus's just a blimp.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1977

Post by Lsuoma »

welch wrote:
karlaporter wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
masakari2012 wrote: I've never seen Justin Vacula being uncivil to anyone.
His moustache is uncivil.
Uncivil? It's an abomination and a crime against humanity. Apart from that Justin ain't too bad.
Besides the mustache mind you, I work with him 5 days a week and have never seen him less than polite, well mannered, professional, patient and a very good listener - not to mention well spoken and educated. What's wrong with these people? :?

OK, perhaps that's a rhetorical question..
No one here has the time to properly answer that. The universe doesn't have THAT much time.
/Sweet Brown

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1978

Post by Gefan »

cunt wrote:Have any of you actually been on those ships? They're pretty great, jet ski-ing and diving around Caribbean islands every day and then get french cuisine from a five star restaurant at night. Did you enjoy your lobster sir? Would you like another one?
They're are some awesome resorts (many of them adults only) around the Caribbean where you can have the same experience minus the density of people and the being herded on and off the boat. I think the objection to cruises is usually based on them being a bit regimented and that you're trapped in close proximity to too many people.
Only one we've done was down the Nile. No kids on board but we didn't care for having an itinerary each day.
If you've somehow gotten through life without becoming as misanthropic as we have then I can see the appeal.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1979

Post by welch »

decius wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote: Creationists were saying for years that PZ's style of "debate" was fucked up and nobody cared.
Looks like they were right for once.
What is there to debate with a creationist or with a flat-earther, though? Ridicule is too much of an acknowledgement already.
But the point is, PeeZus' behaviour is no different now than it was. He's refined his tactics a bit, but really, it's not some bizarre 180.

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

Re: Bunkspubble!

#1980

Post by welch »

Jan Steen wrote:Why do the Pharyngula pod people hate civility so much? Because if you have to rely on insults, baseless accusations, ad hominems, and lies to 'win' an argument, then you don't have good arguments.

Of course, civility is only a minimal requirement. A person can argue in a civil manner in favour of horrible things. That is not in dispute. The pod people, however, pretend that asking for civility is giving a pass to those who argue for horrible things. It's their tactic of coping with their own intellectual impotence: they realise that they risk losing a debate conducted on civil terms.
because it would also apply to them as well. They are not good with rules that limit THEIR behavior.

Locked