I love how the whole article is a nice, long IT'S NOT OKAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO IT.CuntajusRationality wrote:Multiple references to this place, including mention of a support group "for when OTHERS i.e slymepitters attacked".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -internet/
Freezepage:CuntajusRationality wrote:Multiple references to this place, including mention of a support group "for when OTHERS i.e slymepitters attacked".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -internet/
Try here. Doesn't work on my mobile device but it seems like full episodes are available.Gumby wrote:This new "Cosmos" is the first thing in three years that makes me wish I still had TV. Hopefully it will migrate to Netflix soon.John D wrote:Chiming in on another topic. The second and third episode of "Cosmos" are much better than episode one. Well worth watching.
She caused someone to get PTSD?JacquesCuze wrote:http://i.imgur.com/BW3vMRI.jpg
I thought this was going to be about an IRL harassment, like this one:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j23phtJKG_w/U ... andcow.gif
Just to be clear, she is saying she has been accused of bullying someone so they won't use the Internet.
the usual bunch of inaccuracies, I see.Gumby wrote:Freezepage:CuntajusRationality wrote:Multiple references to this place, including mention of a support group "for when OTHERS i.e slymepitters attacked".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -internet/
http://www.freezepage.com/1395877892TRBOPQXSAX
How the fuck does Zvan think this post is reasonable?Gumby wrote:Freezepage:CuntajusRationality wrote:Multiple references to this place, including mention of a support group "for when OTHERS i.e slymepitters attacked".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -internet/
http://www.freezepage.com/1395877892TRBOPQXSAX
Yeah, me either. I suspect it's for a different reason though...cunt wrote: I'm sorry I can't stop yawning.
Did you read the part where she attempts to excuse her absence of EllenBeth getting roasted on Pharyngula? She says she was too busy coping being "creeped out."Parody Accountant wrote:How the fuck does Zvan think this post is reasonable?Gumby wrote:Freezepage:CuntajusRationality wrote:Multiple references to this place, including mention of a support group "for when OTHERS i.e slymepitters attacked".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -internet/
http://www.freezepage.com/1395877892TRBOPQXSAX
She comes off like an utter psychopath version of 'mean girls' (shit movie about popular, yet bitchy high school womynz). Also, terrible writing. I'm drunk write now, but I'm probably coherent. Maybe a typos or two. But you catch my drift.
What the fuck is she talking about?My reaction to a slimepit meme being introduced to a group set up to support some of the people targeted with their memes? I admit, it creeped me out. Still, to the best of my recollection, my response was “Don’t do that here.†Then there was a discussion in which others sympathized with the fact that she wasn’t being heard in the Pharyngula thread. I was coping with other things, including being creeped out, on my own where she didn’t have to deal with them too. Then she sat back and watched social media for a few days.
Dammit... Play with...Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
Sure. Thats why I have a 500 page book sitting on my desk right now detailing what can and cannot be offered as evidence in Federal Court, theres another 1000 page book on the bookshelf behind me.DeepInsideYourMind wrote:Bunkum ... *anything* that happens can be brought up as evidence ...Dobby wrote:Ding ding, ding! We have a winner! Anything that happens in settlement negotiations is absolutely inadmissible at trial. I would go further and say that unless the judge requested that a settlement negotiation occur, the judge will only be annoyed if this type of drama is brought up. Oh, and the judge will be annoyed at whoever it is that brings this non-issue to the judge's attention. So whether intentionally or not, Radford was played - hard. And there's not a damn thing he can do about it.Dave wrote:I honestly dont think this will count against them that much, if at all. The content of a settlement negotiation is not probative, this is done as a matter of policy in order to encourage settlements. So the only thing this can do is be evidence of bad faith. But that will only matter to the judge, not any jury this may be tried in front of as they will never hear about it, and even if it comes up to the judge, meh, people back out of settlement negotiations at the last minute all the time. Its going to take a pattern to demonstrate bad faith to the judge and that takes a lot more than one incident.
Completely inadmissible. In Federal Court, this is covered under FRE 408. Every jurisdiction in the US has a similar rule. Settlement offers or other offers to compromise are non-admissible."Here's our discussions in which she admits she made it up"
"Here is her partner agreeing that Karen has agreed this"
Those might be admissible, but she doesnt admit anything on twitter. At best, they are evidence that she has changed her mind, but shes allowed to change her mind about settling."Here are her twitter comments where she changes her mind"
Its not confidential if the parties havent agreed before hand that it is, but it is still not admissible. Admissible and confidential are two very separate things.Nothing in pre-trial negotiations is confidential
I DONT KNOW.Pitchguest wrote:Did you read the part where she attempts to excuse her absence of EllenBeth getting roasted on Pharyngula? She says she was too busy coping being "creeped out."Parody Accountant wrote:How the fuck does Zvan think this post is reasonable?
She comes off like an utter psychopath version of 'mean girls' (shit movie about popular, yet bitchy high school womynz). Also, terrible writing. I'm drunk write now, but I'm probably coherent. Maybe a typos or two. But you catch my drift.
I quote:
What the fuck is she talking about?My reaction to a slimepit meme being introduced to a group set up to support some of the people targeted with their memes? I admit, it creeped me out. Still, to the best of my recollection, my response was “Don’t do that here.†Then there was a discussion in which others sympathized with the fact that she wasn’t being heard in the Pharyngula thread. I was coping with other things, including being creeped out, on my own where she didn’t have to deal with them too. Then she sat back and watched social media for a few days.
Now Dave, aren't you being just a bit presumptuous? Perhaps DIYM practices law in one of those jurisdictions where they have fucked up rules, like Somalia or Louisiana.Dave wrote:Sure. Thats why I have a 500 page book sitting on my desk right now detailing what can and cannot be offered as evidence in Federal Court, theres another 1000 page book on the bookshelf behind me.DeepInsideYourMind wrote: Bunkum ... *anything* that happens can be brought up as evidence ...
I don't understand the entirety of that last paragraph.Pitchguest wrote:
How the fuck does Zvan think this post is reasonable?
Did you read the part where she attempts to excuse her absence of EllenBeth getting roasted on Pharyngula? She says she was too busy coping being "creeped out."She comes off like an utter psychopath version of 'mean girls' (shit movie about popular, yet bitchy high school womynz). Also, terrible writing. I'm drunk write now, but I'm probably coherent. Maybe a typos or two. But you catch my drift.
I quote:
What the fuck is she talking about?My reaction to a slimepit meme being introduced to a group set up to support some of the people targeted with their memes? I admit, it creeped me out. Still, to the best of my recollection, my response was “Don’t do that here.†Then there was a discussion in which others sympathized with the fact that she wasn’t being heard in the Pharyngula thread. I was coping with other things, including being creeped out, on my own where she didn’t have to deal with them too. Then she sat back and watched social media for a few days.
Much of what we are willing to believe is from our own personal experience, as well as the previous behavior of the people we are speculating about. In this game we are playing, we have only a few tantalizing clues with which to stitch together a narrative, that narrative is going to be shaped by what we know and feel about the players.Steersman wrote:Tony Parsehole wrote:Well, bugger my bum and call me Popeye.
So Radford's letter was all bullshit and I fell for it because I wanted to believe it.
But I'll agree that "this skepticism lark" can be challenge, largely because, as with the game of rock-scissors-paper, at some point we have to make a decision on who or what to believe, on what actually "hangs together". And having a rule-of-thumb is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer, on being able to identify much less do without some critical assumptions. Somewhat apropos of which, something from one of Massimo Pigliucci's posts:
No less true in morality than in science - and probably more so.... as Daniel Dennett put it in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.â€
I find that I do quite enjoy quotes.( as my pointing out the Safire/Agnew quote from earlier)Steersman wrote::-) Noooh, but now that you mention it and that you’ve given me – thanks – a model to work from I might try doing so. ;-) Although I might suggest that the written language is much better at conveying complex topics or thoughts than is oral language – in which case quotes at least tend to have greater justification, particularly where there is an allusion to texts that not everyone is likely to be familiar with.zenbabe wrote:Hey Steers, when you talk to people face to face, as it were, to coin a phrase, as one must, upon occasion, to get across a point, a shot across the bow, one might say, do you use air quotes?Steersman wrote: Seems to be a reasonable summary, although I might question your “strident ‘bitch did lie’†comment. But while the actions of Stollznow and Baxter look a little questionable, many of Radford’s give some justification for thinking that Stollznow’s accusations might have some merit – somewhat analogous, one might argue, with the “Savile Rowâ€. And that Radford is now in the process of some serious “doubling downâ€.
[.youtube]bW8OkSJvhvE[/youtube]
But too many quotes, too many aphorisms or clichés for you? Maybe some truth to that criticism. However, at least with regard to the quotes, you might note that one of them in that comment you quoted was actually quoting something that Brive had said, the second one was to emphasize somewhat of a (weak) pun that wasn’t a misspelling, with only the third one being somewhat questionable.
As for the clichés and aphorisms, maybe I tend to overdo them, but I frequently find they emphasize and complete the point I’m trying to make – sort of “dotting the eyes and crossing teesâ€: those colloquialisms do frequently state the case far better than I could manage without a lot of thought and effort; the “words of the prophets are written on the subway wallsâ€.
[youtube]LsB6kwoE8FQ[/youtube]Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
True, but there's also the question of whether we are a branch of 4Chan (Mykeru's posting of a gif of a woman pouring sand into her gaping vagina), or if we would like to be able to view the Pit at work without worrying about Sally from HR sneaking up and seeing us apparently viewing ogrish.com, or whatever it's become nowadays.Sunder wrote:It's about legal culpability, not moralfagging.Guest wrote:but mykeru posting a pic of some idiot blowing his head off is perfectly fine. so lets get this straight young looking legal tits wrong....death pics ok.John D wrote:Please Clarence.... don't do it. I do not come here to look at your favorite porn.
the murrican moral faggotry going on in this thread is fucking ridiculous you act like a bunch of christ tards.
Yes that is what I was finding so odd.( I stated this in some earlier comments) I find the almost cozy back and forth between Baxter and Radford ( someone had shown earlier correspondence btween them before the latest negotiation )a little well strange given the situation.Aneris wrote:It's also still a possibilty, and a likely one at that, that Karen Stollznows accounts were generally correct. I am still mostly unsure about this issue, as the information we have isn't good enough, but the remaining bit leans towards believing her, still.
+++ speculation +++
I think she had something going with Radford, and said that she was shy and liked the attention. I know only bits and pieces, but we don't know from her how far their romance went. Only Radford claims they were lovers (is this correct?). Its likely they had an affair or something, perhaps nothing serious or long from her point of view. It ended either before Baxter entered the picture or with him. There seems to be not an awful lot of time, so my bets are, she liked Baxter better but it was not known.
Ben increased his efforts, Karen tried to bring across that he should let it go but wanted to maintain a “lets be friends/colleagues†status quo. Ben didn't get it or didn't want to and perhaps felt the needed to double his efforts because of Baxter. It escalated a few times but it must have been “restorable†otherwise it would have blown up then. Relationships can be a mess. She seems to have forgiven his transgressions somewhat, but Radford was so to speak already in debt with her. At some point there was a last straw and she went to the powers that be, and put previous issues on the table as well. The cases where either not as severe to third persons as she thought they would be, or it could not be substantiated. A lot of emotional stress you have all the time can be invisible and the incident was just a 5 minute confrontation. Only the 5 minutes are then actionable, not day in and day out of anger and frustration. So Radford got a slap on the wrist and everyone else left unsatisfied, it burned money and sucked away motivation and they were pissed at Karen because of all the hassle for little or nothing (from their perspective).
She felt the unfairness of this and was angry and was encouraged when others spoke out, and wrote that piece without naming him. But that one was screwed up by PZ Myers and the SJW hordes who feast on such things and who wanted to instrumentalize it. Then Radford felt his reputation was damaged and knew that its going to be tough for Karen to prove this. Eventually he went ahead to court to protect his reputation and because he knew how the evidence is.
Then we have the “joint statement†where I wrote that its unconvincing if released only by one side. Well. But what I now find rather puzzling that two men who courted the same women negotiate and draft documents and not beat each other up. Weird.
What were you suspended from? And why?CuntajusRationality wrote:Following a rather sudden account suspension, I just discovered that I landed on some kind of twitter BlockBot, classified as level 2, which says "some abusive, but most are unapologetically wedded to MRA, anti-feminist or TERf/SWERf ideology". :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's clear that FtB is a den of ideological sycophants the instant anyone posts a comment expressing an unpopular opinion, but I had no idea it went this deep. These people have created an impenetrable echo-chamber for themselves, complete with an automated process for identifying and filtering all dissenting opinion across multiple platforms. The efficiency and organization of it all is disturbing to say the least.
Here's the way I read it. At some point, a support group was set up specifically for people who had been "attacked" by pitters. This Ellen person, upon feeling attacked or ignored or what have you at PZ 's place, went to the support group for support. They determined that her concern was not sufficiently different from a familiar "slimepite meme" that asserts that unpopular opinions are always attacked/ignored/what have you at PZ's place.zenbabe wrote:I don't understand the entirety of that last paragraph.My reaction to a slimepit meme being introduced to a group set up to support some of the people targeted with their memes? I admit, it creeped me out. Still, to the best of my recollection, my response was “Don’t do that here.†Then there was a discussion in which others sympathized with the fact that she wasn’t being heard in the Pharyngula thread. I was coping with other things, including being creeped out, on my own where she didn’t have to deal with them too. Then she sat back and watched social media for a few days.
Twitter account was suspended suddenly, presumably because my account was blocked and/or flagged as spam by multiple people in a short time span. I haven't really tweeted very much at all, and certainly nothing coming close to violating any terms. All I had to do was agree not to misbehave anymore and my account was re-activated, at which point I saw some references to BlockBot and found my account had been added to the list.Spike13 wrote:What were you suspended from? And why?CuntajusRationality wrote:Following a rather sudden account suspension, I just discovered that I landed on some kind of twitter BlockBot, classified as level 2, which says "some abusive, but most are unapologetically wedded to MRA, anti-feminist or TERf/SWERf ideology". :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's clear that FtB is a den of ideological sycophants the instant anyone posts a comment expressing an unpopular opinion, but I had no idea it went this deep. These people have created an impenetrable echo-chamber for themselves, complete with an automated process for identifying and filtering all dissenting opinion across multiple platforms. The efficiency and organization of it all is disturbing to say the least.
Are you alluding to the Group think bog having you suspended?
Some call me the gangster of love.Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
see you space cowboy
Southern wrote:[youtube]LsB6kwoE8FQ[/youtube]Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
LolParody Accountant wrote:Some call me the gangster of love.Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
see you space cowboy
Some people call me maurice.
:whistle:
'cause I speak of the properties of love
It is rather frightening/sobering that not only do these people want to rule their " safe spaces" with an iron hand,( which is within their right,but highlight their hypocrisy ) but, now reach out in neutral space to silence anyone who dares question their orthodoxy.CuntajusRationality wrote:Spike13 wrote:What were you suspended from? And why?CuntajusRationality wrote:Following a rather sudden account suspension, I just discovered that I landed on some kind of twitter BlockBot, classified as level 2, which says "some abusive, but most are unapologetically wedded to MRA, anti-feminist or TERf/SWERf ideology". :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's clear that FtB is a den of ideological sycophants the instant anyone posts a comment expressing an unpopular opinion, but I had no idea it went this deep. These people have created an impenetrable echo-chamber for themselves, complete with an automated process for identifying and filtering all dissenting opinion across multiple platforms. The efficiency and organization of it all is disturbing to say the least.
Are you alluding to the Group think bog having you suspended?[/
Twitter account was suspended suddenly, presumably because my account was blocked and/or flagged as spam by multiple people in a short time span. I haven't really tweeted very much at all, and certainly nothing coming close to violating any terms. All I had to do was agree not to misbehave anymore and my account was re-activated, at which point I saw some references to BlockBot and found my account had been added to the list.
Group-think, aversion to differing views, demonization and banishment of "the other", prioritization of ideology over reason and logic, etc. The FtB crowd seems to reflexively label anyone who disagrees with them as an "MRA" or some other boogeyman, and then they use that to justify marginalizing and censoring them.
It just seems like such a toxic environment, and I pity these people for not having the simple courage to expose themselves to a range of ideas and opinions.
http://i.imgur.com/6c0Mx16.pngSpike13 wrote:LolParody Accountant wrote:Some call me the gangster of love.Spike13 wrote:Things seemed to have quieted down... I'm going to plat with the quote and edit for a little while.
Ignore me!!!!!!
see you space cowboy
Some people call me maurice.
:whistle:
'cause I speak of the properties of love
I am a joker
And a smoker
Brought a tear to my eye, what a Christmas that was. :shifty:Za-zen wrote:The following is a public safety announcement i wish to direct tony to
[youtube]HmL3m2zcoOI[/youtube]
Fuck me, that was awesome. :)KiwiInOz wrote:[youtube]3_i3PPe3i9Y[/youtube]another lurker wrote:When I'm bored I masturbate to snuff porn.cunt wrote:So fucking bored.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -1823).jpg
I wouldn’t call the campaign “gross†– more like ambiguous or sending some mixed messages. But I haven’t followed it all that much.Selenite wrote:I pretty much agree. The mix of objectives makes the whole campaign gross.Steersman wrote: While I can kind of sympathize with some of AVfM’s objectives there – the “Don’t Be That Guy†program possibly crossing into the demonization of men if not into some misandry – one might argue that some of their efforts at turning the tables look rather questionable at least. For instance, while one might agree that “the large majority of child abusers are womenâ€, although they might have been wise to offer a source for that claim, and the poster about shop-lifting might also have some merit, the one on prostitution really doesn’t seem analogous to the other two – which tends to give mixed messages at best.
It does give that impression but I expect that that was unintentional. As I’ve argued, that seems to follow only if one doesn’t bother reading and parsing the smaller text just above the “Don’t be that Girl†part – i.e., “Because most prostitutes are women it’s apparently acceptable to tell you ‘Don’t Be That Girl’â€. Which seems rather clearly to be criticizing those who would tell prostitutes to “don’t be that girlâ€.Selenite wrote:But then there's the weird anti-woman vibe in the prostitution one. That's just kind of gross and I can't really see any reason to include it beyond animosity towards a narrow section of internet-people.
Seems to be a common problem of movements of any type – particularly “big tent†ones. Making the tent too big leads to internecine warfare that doesn’t get anything done, and making it too small means there aren’t enough bodies to get anything done.Selenite wrote:They seriously need to drop the weirdly anti-women vibes and go for the low-hanging fruit. If AVfM really got behind an unambiguously reasonable cause like 'Boys should be protected from child abuse' they'd make their cause seem so much more reasonable. And they might actually accomplish something beyond spawning another fight on some corner of the internet.
http://imgur.com/L5vfwBO.jpgSpike13 wrote:I am a joker
And a smoker
"Over-sharing" perhaps?Scented Nectar wrote:Maybe bragging isn't the best word. But I'm not sure how to word it better.John D wrote:I gotta say... I don't think Clarence really did any bragging about how often he has had sex or how many partners he has had. He did share a few details of some past exploits... but it was a pretty average sort of description. As I recall he got spanked by someone and had a good time with a 19 year old "cutie". This was about the extent of what he wrote. I don't think he said he had a giant and constantly throbbing jones that could split diamonds... or anything like that...
The Brits. kept to area military groups long after we here in the states abandoned them.DaveDodo007 wrote:Brought a tear to my eye, what a Christmas that was. :shifty:Za-zen wrote:The following is a public safety announcement i wish to direct tony to
[youtube]HmL3m2zcoOI[/youtube]
It's a dogma and by now they've admitted to it, if only unwittingly. Jason Thibeault chose to headline the Silverman Heresy with “Silverman's Darwin was wrong momentâ€, suggesting that their ideology is as bulletproof as the theory of evolution (incidentially im stuck writing on Silverman and dogma). It also has its “historical roots†in this comparison, since Pharyngula started out dealing with Creationists and over time, and with the move to FTB, they simply transported it to social justice. The lack of a rival belief system (as creationism is to evolution) was “fixed†by identifying the commenters on Abbie's blog as the new rival ideology (false). Some even had to “fix†this by literally assuming rival ideologies (heres where they claimed we were right wingers and whatnot). At some point they found MRA and conflated the two (though there are/were certainly a few overlaps). Even this dichotomy is today seen as a fact. To me MRAs as well as SJW are both in identity politics, and are fairly close to me. Anyhow, then some kind of electrolyse happened, and the colourful bunch went over to the emerging “slime pit†and the authoritarian greyfaces stayed at PZ's.Spike13 wrote:It is pretty obvious that any rational attempt at debate or exchange of ideas is very narrowly defined at the SJW sites. Some subjects( the ones that the leading lights do not hold dear) are more open for discussion,but, your comments are being watched for deviance from the orthodoxy. Do not be perceived as a "dude-bro or a closet MRA you will be outed, shunned and eventually banned under the thinnest of reasons.
Free Thought indeed....
As I recall what happens when you get added to the blockbot, all the people who subscribe to it automatically block you and report you for spam with the end resuly being you get suspended (or something like that).CuntajusRationality wrote: Twitter account was suspended suddenly, presumably because my account was blocked and/or flagged as spam by multiple people in a short time span. I haven't really tweeted very much at all, and certainly nothing coming close to violating any terms. All I had to do was agree not to misbehave anymore and my account was re-activated, at which point I saw some references to BlockBot and found my account had been added to the list.
I believe the way it works for these people is something like this:CuntajusRationality wrote: It just seems like such a toxic environment, and I pity these people for not having the simple courage to expose themselves to a range of ideas and opinions.
How about "lying"?Gefan wrote:"Over-sharing" perhaps?Scented Nectar wrote:Maybe bragging isn't the best word. But I'm not sure how to word it better.John D wrote:I gotta say... I don't think Clarence really did any bragging about how often he has had sex or how many partners he has had. He did share a few details of some past exploits... but it was a pretty average sort of description. As I recall he got spanked by someone and had a good time with a 19 year old "cutie". This was about the extent of what he wrote. I don't think he said he had a giant and constantly throbbing jones that could split diamonds... or anything like that...
Aneris wrote:It's a dogma and by now they've admitted to it, if only unwittingly. Jason Thibeault chose to headline the Silverman Heresy with “Silverman's Darwin was wrong momentâ€, suggesting that their ideology is as bulletproof as the theory of evolution (incidentially im stuck writing on Silverman and dogma). It also has its “historical roots†in this comparison, since Pharyngula started out dealing with Creationists and over time, and with the move to FTB, they simply transported it to social justice. The lack of a rival belief system (as creationism is to evolution) was “fixed†by identifying the commenters on Abbie's blog as the new rival ideology (false). Some even had to “fix†this by literally assuming rival ideologies (heres where they claimed we were right wingers and whatnot). At some point they found MRA and conflated the two (though there are/were certainly a few overlaps). Even this dichotomy is today seen as a fact. To me MRAs as well as SJW are both in identity politics, and are fairly close to me. Anyhow, then some kind of electrolyse happened, and the colourful bunch went over to the emerging “slime pit†and the authoritarian greyfaces stayed at PZ's.Spike13 wrote:It is pretty obvious that any rational attempt at debate or exchange of ideas is very narrowly defined at the SJW sites. Some subjects( the ones that the leading lights do not hold dear) are more open for discussion,but, your comments are being watched for deviance from the orthodoxy. Do not be perceived as a "dude-bro or a closet MRA you will be outed, shunned and eventually banned under the thinnest of reasons.
Free Thought indeed....
Once stuck with unfun and empathically-challenged authoritarians, and little good content, they had to explain away their failures by invoking misogyny everywhere. If something isn't working its always because of patriarchy, misogyny, old guards or a otherwise corrupt movement, and not — say — boring content, echo-chambers, stifling of debate in favour of a “this. so much this†support-and-dirty-confessions-culture.
And yes, the Safe Space is what was America was to McCarthy, or Christianity was to Inquisitors — a space where you must make symbolic gestures and postures in accordance to the ideology and painstakingly avoid appearing like a conspirator, someone who secretly supports the enemy. This matches perfectly with the idea that people otherwise feel hurt and thus their safe space must stay safe. The Nazis called this their Volkskörper (the body of the folk/the people) which must function and must be protected from subversive elements from inside, im their case the Jews. Note that the conspirators in turn don't belong to a cabal, but always to a powerful, enemy force outside the safe space — satan, the communist, the jewish elites and — surprise — the patriarchy. It matches just too well.
really love your peachesBeta Neckbeard wrote:http://imgur.com/L5vfwBO.jpgSpike13 wrote:I am a joker
And a smoker
So let me get this right, if one of them puts you to the block bot,all of them by proxy put in a complaint against you....even if you never contacted them before.AndrewV69 wrote:As I recall what happens when you get added to the blockbot, all the people who subscribe to it automatically block you and report you for spam with the end resuly being you get suspended (or something like that).CuntajusRationality wrote: Twitter account was suspended suddenly, presumably because my account was blocked and/or flagged as spam by multiple people in a short time span. I haven't really tweeted very much at all, and certainly nothing coming close to violating any terms. All I had to do was agree not to misbehave anymore and my account was re-activated, at which point I saw some references to BlockBot and found my account had been added to the list.
So, to protect my twatter account I blocked certain users including the blockbot account. Here is my list of blocked accounts (no special criteria beyond being a waste of oxygen till I got to over 20) :
I believe the way it works for these people is something like this:CuntajusRationality wrote: It just seems like such a toxic environment, and I pity these people for not having the simple courage to expose themselves to a range of ideas and opinions.
- I am a good person. I do good things and think good thoughts.
- if someone else is a good person they will agree with me.
- I as a good person have a moral duty to kill the bad persons.
- If someone disagrees with me they can only be a bad person and must be killed.
Something like that anyway.
I'm glad we got you back. :) Now I wonder what's with the Service Dog, kinda reminds me of him.Parody Accountant wrote:really love your peachesBeta Neckbeard wrote:[.img]http://imgur.com/L5vfwBO.jpg[/img]Spike13 wrote:I am a joker
And a smoker
http://i.imgur.com/bWysccE.jpg
ill sure show you a good time
lubby dubby lubby dubby lubby dubby all the time
oweee baby...
[fade out]
According to "The Devil's Teeth" by Susan Casey, something similar actually happened off the Farrallon Islands.DaveDodo007 wrote:Fuck me, that was awesome. :)KiwiInOz wrote:
[youtube]3_i3PPe3i9Y[/youtube]
In a bad way of course. :?
Cue photoshop of Laden putting an ice pick through his own foot.Spike13 wrote: Yes we are the Trotsky to their Stalin.
Lol, that is so wrong yet funny at the same time.Gefan wrote:Cue photoshop of Laden putting an ice pick through his own foot.Spike13 wrote: Yes we are the Trotsky to their Stalin.
Of course people it's people without knowledge and experience of things who make guesses about them. If I had the knowledge I wouldn't call it a guess. And I did not describe it as an "accurate guess" (doing so would not make any sense), I described it as a guess. Why guess when I can research? Partly because I don't care all that much who commits more child abuse and partly because I never know before researching something whether it will be quick and easy to find the answer or not.JacquesCuze wrote:I don't think that's the case at all, at least, I've never read anyone defend or attack this statistic on that basis.Linus wrote:I'm guessing the "majority of child abusers are women" thing is making no differentiation between very minor violence and serious/severe child abuse. The same way some MRAs try to claim that women commit domestic violence just as much as men do.JacquesCuze wrote: I won't provide support for “the large majority of child abusers are womenâ€, but it's out there, it's basically almost obvious on its face when you consider who the vast majority of parents, caretakers, babysitters, teachers are. The somewhat reasonable feminist rejoinder is usually along the lines of examining proportions not total numbers. I think even so, but I am not certain at all here, it still is arguable who the abusers are. Often because men lumped in as male abusers are only in the kids' live because they are boyfriends or husbands of the mother (and father has been alienated) and the mother is complicit in that she knows and gives access.
Sorry for what seems like a rant, but I don't understand what this guessing is when you have google and literally hundreds of websites that will almost trivially explain this stuff to you.
What I find with many issues especially those regarding parenting and feminism is that people with no experience or knowledge whatsoever will project their own beliefs onto it and then describe that as some sort of accurate guess.
Thanks. I read them. My guess was indeed incorrect, as it seems.https://www.google.com/search?q=most+ch ... +are+women
Read the first two links. Note how the second one, by a notoriously biased Liz Library, doesn't bring up your reasoning at all, and goes to what I suggested, an enormous math attack based on the numbers to show "Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman."
Not that I would take Jezebel very seriously as a source anyway, but if you just look at the facts it describes and ignore the interpretation, it doesn't contradict what I said at all. In fact it supports it. Both genders are about equally likely to engage in domestic (partner on partner) violence, but men are much more likely to engage in domestic violence that results in serious injury or death. In light of that, the claim that women are just as abusive as men in domestic disputes is highly misleading at best and outright false at worst.Re: women and men in domestic violence, I think you need to read more about that too.
Here's Jezebel which basically admits what DV researchers and MRAs (I read this first at Glenn Sacks' website in the mid 2000s) have been saying for years:
http://jezebel.com/5509717/domestic-vio ... ive-as-men
1. Women initiate just as much domestic violence as men.
2. Men are bigger and when they do hit back their damage sends women to the ER.
Jezebel diminishes that by describing the women's attacks as "scratch", "slap", but in the end has to duck their loss and reframe the question: "should we really be arguing about which gender commits domestic violence more?"
Not quite sure what your “game†is referring to, although I expect it has a broader scope than just the Baxter-Stollznow-Radford triangle and teapot-tempest. And if that is the case then you might be interested in this post by the biologist Razib Khan titled Reason: the God that fails, but we keep socially promoting…. which has this salient conclusion:Spike13 wrote:Much of what we are willing to believe is from our own personal experience, as well as the previous behavior of the people we are speculating about. In this game we are playing, we have only a few tantalizing clues with which to stitch together a narrative, that narrative is going to be shaped by what we know and feel about the players.Steersman wrote:But I'll agree that "this skepticism lark" can be challenge, largely because, as with the game of rock-scissors-paper, at some point we have to make a decision on who or what to believe, on what actually "hangs together". And having a rule-of-thumb is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer, on being able to identify much less do without some critical assumptions. Somewhat apropos of which, something from one of Massimo Pigliucci's posts:Tony Parsehole wrote:Well, bugger my bum and call me Popeye.
So Radford's letter was all bullshit and I fell for it because I wanted to believe it.No less true in morality than in science - and probably more so.... as Daniel Dennett put it in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.â€
I think he’s a little wide of the mark there – not least for suggesting that Reason is seen as a God – or he’s a little too obscure in his phrasing, but I still think it an important point. As I’ve earlier argued, “Reason†is a great thing, but it can also be used merely to support and buttress highly questionable biases and bigotries. As Hume put it, “`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.†Reason tends to work rather well in following sets of rules – as with games such as chess – but it tends fall short in identifying or vetting the assumptions or values or “initial conditions†on which those rules operate. Which frequently turns out to be the bailiwick of emotion and “feelings†which can be rather problematic.Khan wrote:Whatever your political or social perspective, the largest takeaway is that attitudes toward complex issues which are relevant to our age are almost always framed by the delusion that reason, and not passion, has us by the leash.
Unfortunately, it starts to fall apart in the next paragraph (bolding added by me):Adam Lee, at Daylight Atheism, wrote:The secular community has always been defined by debate and persuasion, and it’s right that it should be. We wouldn’t have the right to call ourselves freethinkers if we decreed a set of Approved Opinions for all members to adhere to; only religions do that sort of thing. There are legitimate debates to be had: about, say, the moral case for vegetarianism, or the wisdom of gun ownership, or the advisability of human cloning, or the diplomats vs. firebrands question of how to do political activism. And yes, there’s even room for debate about what there should be debate about.
Okay, so let's stop there for a moment. Do they truly not see that reasonable people, as well as rabid "anti-choice" activists, could ALSO say that they're in favor of "fundamental equality of some group of human beings" as an "uncontroversial moral principle" yet come to a very different conclusion? That it simply depends where you draw the line as to "human being" or "person"? Are their blinders really so askew?But at the same time, there are some questions that are clearly outside the bounds of legitimate discussion. <strawy examples of arguing against racial desegregation; marriage equality; women's right to vote> If anyone in our community advocated anything like this, there’d be a furious outcry, and no one would accept the disingenuous “but I was just playing devil’s advocate†defense.
What determines which is which? There’s a common thread that runs between all the intolerable arguments, and it’s that they disparage or deny the fundamental equality of some group of human beings. In the secular community, it ought to be an uncontroversial moral principle that all people possess the same rights and freedoms. We don’t tolerate exceptions to this rule, nor should we.
And abortion should be recognized as belonging to that same category of fundamental equality.
Uh, because abortion isn't the same as harvesting an organ? An organ wouldn't develop into an autonomous person if left in place? Besides which, the analogy they're drawing is between being forced to have something done to you (that by omission might affect another person), and being restricted from having something done to you (that by commission would definitely affect another person, IF you think a fetus reasonably counts as a person)?The right to reproductive choice stems from the principle of bodily autonomy, the idea that we own our own bodies and can do with them as we wish. I can’t force you to give a kidney or a lung to me, even if you’re the only compatible donor and I’ll die without one. The idea of coerced organ harvesting from unwilling people shocks the conscience, as it should. Why should a uterus be treated any differently? Why should this otherwise uncontroversial idea be suddenly open to debate when a woman becomes pregnant?
Oh. Grrr. Go ahead & lump all "women" (not to mention "and other uterus-havers") together as a group that all share that One Opinion - The Secular Woman Approved Opinion? - on this.What makes this especially infuriating to women and other uterus-havers is when issues of justice that affect their lives every day are treated like an idle thought experiment of no real-world consequence.
Way to blame the victims. So men should be perceived as the perpetrators of domestic violence because they happen to be better at it? (Even though men and women are equally likely to be violent.)Linus wrote:Of course people it's people without knowledge and experience of things who make guesses about them. If I had the knowledge I wouldn't call it a guess. And I did not describe it as an "accurate guess" (doing so would not make any sense), I described it as a guess. Why guess when I can research? Partly because I don't care all that much who commits more child abuse and partly because I never know before researching something whether it will be quick and easy to find the answer or not.JacquesCuze wrote:I don't think that's the case at all, at least, I've never read anyone defend or attack this statistic on that basis.Linus wrote:
I'm guessing the "majority of child abusers are women" thing is making no differentiation between very minor violence and serious/severe child abuse. The same way some MRAs try to claim that women commit domestic violence just as much as men do.
Sorry for what seems like a rant, but I don't understand what this guessing is when you have google and literally hundreds of websites that will almost trivially explain this stuff to you.
What I find with many issues especially those regarding parenting and feminism is that people with no experience or knowledge whatsoever will project their own beliefs onto it and then describe that as some sort of accurate guess.
Thanks. I read them. My guess was indeed incorrect, as it seems.https://www.google.com/search?q=most+ch ... +are+women
Read the first two links. Note how the second one, by a notoriously biased Liz Library, doesn't bring up your reasoning at all, and goes to what I suggested, an enormous math attack based on the numbers to show "Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman."
Re: women and men in domestic violence, I think you need to read more about that too.
Here's Jezebel which basically admits what DV researchers and MRAs (I read this first at Glenn Sacks' website in the mid 2000s) have been saying for years:
http://jezebel.com/5509717/domestic-vio ... ive-as-men
1. Women initiate just as much domestic violence as men.
2. Men are bigger and when they do hit back their damage sends women to the ER.
Jezebel diminishes that by describing the women's attacks as "scratch", "slap", but in the end has to duck their loss and reframe the question: "should we really be arguing about which gender commits domestic violence more?"
Not that I would take Jezebel ver seriously as a source anyway, but if you just look at the facts it describes and ignore the interpretation, it doesn't contradict what I said at all. In fact it supports it. Both genders are about equally likely to engage in domestic (partner on partner) violence, but men are much more likely to engage in domestic violence that results in serious injury or death. In light of that, the claim that women are just as abusive as men in domestic disputes is highly misleading at best and outright false at worsty.
Aneris wrote:And yes, the Safe Space is what was America was to McCarthy, or Christianity was to Inquisitors — a space where you must make symbolic gestures and postures in accordance to the ideology and painstakingly avoid appearing like a conspirator, someone who secretly supports the enemy. This matches perfectly with the idea that people otherwise feel hurt and thus their safe space must stay safe. The Nazis called this their Volkskörper (the body of the folk/the people) which must function and must be protected from subversive elements from inside, im their case the Jews. Note that the conspirators in turn don't belong to a cabal, but always to a powerful, enemy force outside the safe space — satan, the communist, the jewish elites and — surprise — the patriarchy. It matches just too well.
AndrewV69 wrote:I believe the way it works for these people is something like this:
- I am a good person. I do good things and think good thoughts.
- if someone else is a good person they will agree with me.
- I as a good person have a moral duty to kill the bad persons.
- If someone disagrees with me they can only be a bad person and must be killed.
Something like that anyway.
I said absolutely nothing about blame. Nor did I say "men should be perceived as the perpetrators of domestic violence". Nor did I say anything that should indicate that I want the statistics to balance out. These discussions would be a lot less cumbersome if people bothered to actually read what they're responding to.Really? wrote:Way to blame the victims. So men should be perceived as the perpetrators of domestic violence because they happen to be better at it? (Even though men and women are equally likely to be violent.)Linus wrote:Of course people it's people without knowledge and experience of things who make guesses about them. If I had the knowledge I wouldn't call it a guess. And I did not describe it as an "accurate guess" (doing so would not make any sense), I described it as a guess. Why guess when I can research? Partly because I don't care all that much who commits more child abuse and partly because I never know before researching something whether it will be quick and easy to find the answer or not.JacquesCuze wrote: I don't think that's the case at all, at least, I've never read anyone defend or attack this statistic on that basis.
Sorry for what seems like a rant, but I don't understand what this guessing is when you have google and literally hundreds of websites that will almost trivially explain this stuff to you.
What I find with many issues especially those regarding parenting and feminism is that people with no experience or knowledge whatsoever will project their own beliefs onto it and then describe that as some sort of accurate guess.
Thanks. I read them. My guess was indeed incorrect, as it seems.https://www.google.com/search?q=most+ch ... +are+women
Read the first two links. Note how the second one, by a notoriously biased Liz Library, doesn't bring up your reasoning at all, and goes to what I suggested, an enormous math attack based on the numbers to show "Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman."
Re: women and men in domestic violence, I think you need to read more about that too.
Here's Jezebel which basically admits what DV researchers and MRAs (I read this first at Glenn Sacks' website in the mid 2000s) have been saying for years:
http://jezebel.com/5509717/domestic-vio ... ive-as-men
1. Women initiate just as much domestic violence as men.
2. Men are bigger and when they do hit back their damage sends women to the ER.
Jezebel diminishes that by describing the women's attacks as "scratch", "slap", but in the end has to duck their loss and reframe the question: "should we really be arguing about which gender commits domestic violence more?"
Not that I would take Jezebel ver seriously as a source anyway, but if you just look at the facts it describes and ignore the interpretation, it doesn't contradict what I said at all. In fact it supports it. Both genders are about equally likely to engage in domestic (partner on partner) violence, but men are much more likely to engage in domestic violence that results in serious injury or death. In light of that, the claim that women are just as abusive as men in domestic disputes is highly misleading at best and outright false at worsty.
Perhaps you should market a line of domestic violence hammers that women could use to balance out the statistics.
