Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/TibShcC.jpg
However, in September 2013 there were 4.9M page views. So there was a decline of 1.3M page views in the past four months. If this is the actual trend, then FTB will crash before the end of this year. :popcorn:

Number of individual viewers would be a much better metric for a site like FfTB, where people like Caine and Nerd, who read everything and pop in and out all day everyday, contribute massive numbers of page views per person.

[Tigzy]

I see what you mean.

http://i.imgur.com/sjzW97k.jpg

Ophie does have a bit of a Harry Dean Stanton thing going on there, doesn't she.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/sec ... 294906.jpg

I don't think I'll ever again be able to watch that scene in Alien where HDS keeps saying 'Yep' to everything the black guy says without thinking of Ophie's 'artistic' blogging style, probably.

[Tony Parsehole]

I find it hilarious when college students get USELESS degrees and then bitch that their USELESS degree means they are now unqualified for all the good jobs, and they are now stuck with USELESS jobs.

I know, right? What possible jobs did she think her shitty degree would qualify her for?
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/1178 ... 4f5e_o.jpg

[jet_lagg]

The question is what is the appropriate response for someone making a silly 'anonymous' internet insult.

A. Telling them to fuck off?
B. Banning them from your site?
C. Getting them fired and blacklisted from future employment?

It seems to me that, as in the Sesame Street of old, one of these things is not like the other.
What would someone have to do to deserve losing their job?

I suggest that it should be something that is a lot more serious than making a stupid trolling insult - otherwise we can only conclude that the SJW mob may be behaving in an appropriate way when they seek to terminate peoples careers over the most minor of transgressions.

The issue here seems to be how seriously you take the insult (what is a minor trangression? A major one?). I wouldn't ever describe calling a stranger a tranny as "silly". Rather, "juvenile" and "dickish" are the words that most readily come to mind. In short, it reflects very poorly on the insulter's character, and I agree that, should they then be hit with a social repercussion, they've got that shit coming.

However, you do raise some interesting points about the internet having it's own kind of etiquette. Should we really be factoring in things like the online disinhibition effect (a.k.a. John Gabriel's greater internet fuckwad theory) when deciding what are and are not acceptable behaviors though? That sounds like excuse making to me.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/2154 ... Zr-L-2.jpg

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/8dno9Ga.jpg

[ROBOKiTTY]

To be honest, I think most undergraduate degrees, other than engineering, are pretty useless career-wise these days.

[John D]

To be honest, I think most undergraduate degrees, other than engineering, are pretty useless career-wise these days.

Go for a four year business degree in global logistics..... $80k salary (or there-abouts) out the door.

In fact, I would say any degree in Business Administration is fair. At least you learn a bunch of business concepts. The placement rates for business grads is really high (I know this because I just looked at this for my kid). There are also many medical trades that pay well with four year programs, but the best require a masters. Of course, you need to be smart enough to pass an anatomy class (no small feat for some Womenz Studies students).

[Mykeru]

snipping

One of the people actually and truly spamming Amy in this way left his IP and email address behind, an email address available to her as blog owner, and an email address readily googleable.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2 ... _up_t.html

And yes, it's certainly clear that even as he left her a message "Are you a tranny", he did not think she would call his employer and complain, but um, why wouldn't she?

Is there something on the net that says if you leave nastygrams an IP address and an email address the personal you have attacked shouldn't call you at work?

And it got better because the IP address was a Federal Government IP address at NOAA implying this guy did this as a Federal employee on taxpayer time and ostensibly to shut down Amy's speech. Perhaps a stretch but doing that from a Federal IP address really does have first amendment and not just freeze speech connotations.

And she blogged about this entire encounter including the guy's name including his confession and "apology".

So is that doxing?

I'd call that doxxing.
I understand that she was frustrated, it's unpleasant to be called names and have your site attacked, but was she actually threatened? Did she try to work with her ISP and get the attackers banned?
But getting, or attempting to get, someone fired for what I saw there is an overreach.
To dox for that is a very slippery slope.

To me, doxxing should only occur under extreme circumstances. If they were sending her child porn, or threats of physical harm, then yeah dox away.

Doxxing? Horseshit. Allow me to express my utter lack of sympathy and give you my perspective as a government stooge.

It went like this:

are you a tranny?

Then.

Now, there's an interesting comment. Interesting because of the IP address:

140.90.233.67

Seems this tiny little thug is posting on our dime:

IP address [?]: 140.90.233.67 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: Maryland
IP address city: Suitland
IP address latitude: 38.832401
IP address longitude: -76.908401
ISP of this IP [?]: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organization: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Host of this IP: [?]: ws233-67.nesdis.noaa.gov [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-28 04:56

NOAA is part of the same department I belong to. We have acceptable use guidelines that go beyond merely abiding by the Hatch Act prohibiting use of government resources for partisan party politics. I am certain that little comment on someone's personal blog was not acceptable use. As the guy is working for NOAA Satellite and Information Services he may not be a federal employee, but a lowly contractor, in which case actually trying to get him into trouble is really punching down.

Of course, everyone has down time at work, but the issue isn't the use of time or doing it "on your dime". It's the use of resources.

This is why, when I'm between putting out fires in the best possible use of your tax dollars, I will post here or on Twitter using my personal cell phone and not any government resources.

I would never be so stupid as to make a comment like that from my government computer, be it a Blackberry, laptop or dedicated PC on a site I would consider adversarial, like Atheism Plus or Freethought Blogs. On the SlymePit, I have perfect confidence in Lsuoma not taking that route no matter how much I try to piss him off. That's not an assumption I would make anywhere else. And I still post using Tappatalk and Plume on my phone.

In the past, someone has alluded to getting me in trouble for using government resources in making videos, but I've pointed out, the programs I use for that are on my home computer and can't even be installed on my work PC. I can't even install Chrome extensions on my work PC, the ship we run is just that tight. In fact, when I have to make a retirement video for someone or some other video production, I have a tacit agreement to telework from home. So the only way I could actually get in trouble for misapplication of resources is to do what this idiot did. By making a dumb-assed comment. From a government computer.

Only an idiot in need of correction would make themselves vulnerable like that.

That said, even if someone rats on this particular idiot, if he's a federal employee, he'll get some warning, be reminded of acceptable use, maybe be subject to an hour's boredom of re-taking some training. It's not like he's going to get fired or taken out and shot.

And then maybe he'll learn to stay squeaky clean.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/TibShcC.jpg
However, in September 2013 there were 4.9M page views. So there was a decline of 1.3M page views in the past four months. If this is the actual trend, then FTB will crash before the end of this year. :popcorn:

Number of individual viewers would be a much better metric for a site like FfTB, where people like Caine and Nerd, who read everything and pop in and out all day everyday, contribute massive numbers of page views per person.

You are right. Quantcast shows this too:

http://i.imgur.com/v4XyksN.jpg

A 'regular' is defined as someone who visits the site more than once a month but less than 30 times a month.
An 'addict' is defined as someone who visits the site at least 30 times a month.

You can see that 2% of global visitors are addicts who are responsible for 42% of visits.

But that's not just Caine and Nerd we are talking about; these addicts are thousands of people, considering that last month 344,641 people visited FTB. I don't know how reliable Quantcast's figures are, though.

In terms of number of people visiting FTB there appears to be no significant decline over the past two years.

[Jan Steen]

42% should read 41%

[Skep tickle]

Peezus is such a fucking idiot. If someone has a radical new idea with regard to biology, he or she can float it around to see what other experts think. If the idea is good, it will be built upon. In Women's Studies--which is Peezus' current primary field--there's no give-and-take and ideas don't evolve.They are cast in stone. (Men are more likely to harm children than women...All PIV sex is rape...)

Give Peas his due. He's much slimier than that. He let's his Whored and mates make those arguments, praising them all the while. Confront him and he pulls the "Look, the MRA troll loons are calling moderate old me radical again" ploy.

Not directly related to PZ & his tactics, but this reminds me: I see people often saying "they all" hold one specific position or another, when actually there's probably fairly little that "they all" do agree on, and leaving them to sort that out in public - policing each others' views - can lead to much popcorn. A common enemy ("MRAs" etc) not being in their face (on their blogs) better allows their in-group disagreements to gently blossom. :whistle:

Examples:
- They definitely do not all believe that "all PIV sex is rape". (Quite a few FtB bloggers are in hetero relationships, for example.)
- Benson & Islam/hijab/whatever (I haven't actually followed what her opinion is, but it's clear that some SJW's disagree vehemently w/ her & she w/ them).
-Zvan's post claiming "anti-theism work is social justice work" got a fair amount of pushback recently.
-Benson & Carrier & I think other people vigorously aired different views about posting that photo of girls in Africa undergoing virginity checks.
-Myers makes occasional missteps (most notably the gendered rabbit thing, but there have been others).
- McEwen's blog is dynamite for most everybody at FtB.
- Christina's book Bending - remember the deafening silence that greeted her multiple blogposts about it?
- Zvan apparently tweeted agreement w/ someone's (Christina's?) comment from the stage about being careful about alcohol.
- EBW's position on reporting concerns at conferences, which led to her
- Whatever it was that got JB Eberhardt on the FtB shit list twice (first on Zvan's, then on McCreight's, in particular, as I recall) before he backed down each time.
- Etc.

[Skep tickle]

"- EBW's position on reporting concerns at conferences, which led to her" should finish with something like "break from the group".

[BarnOwl]

The Bora Hate-Fest continues on Robbins' post at Stemwedel's blog. One Sandra Klume, apparently a blogger at ScienceBlogs, leaves the following comment:

I was a blogger at ScienceBlogs, while Bora was there. All the bloggers, including Janet, good-naturedly called each other Sciblings in our jovial and generally supportive community.

However, during that time as well as after I started writing for PsychCentral, Bora never promoted my work. We did meet for dinner once, but there wasn't any impropriety. And he didn't try to stay friends with me.

Yes, I was a female up-and-coming science writer. One that he could have taken under his wing, vulnerable to harassment like any other female. But it never happened.

Why? There was a key difference. He realized I wasn't worth promoting, because I couldn't be sexually manipulated by him.

I'm a lesbian.

Maybe that's the reason. Or maybe you're not that great a writer, regardless of what Robbins et al. tell you in the comments.

One "Isabel" shows up repeatedly, determined to apply the label "sociopath" to Bora. This may be the same Isabel whom both PhysioDouchee and DrugMonkey have referred to in multiple contexts as "Loonabel."

[Tribble]

I would assume a "she", since I don't think many guys major in Women's Studies. It is probably not always a very welcoming environment, if this statement I found on the internet by some professor is indicative:

Subject: Re: Men? again?

I don't see how a teacher can or should answer this question. I believe
female students need to direct their curiosity towards their male fellows.
When I get into such a discussion myself, I always make a point out of
finding out about men's *motives* to be in such a class. If it's just
in order to defend their sex (as I have often found), I don't find
their presence useful.

Michaela Blaha
Ruhr University Bochum

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/men97_1.html

When I was in college, I had to take an upper-division, cross-cultural course (UDCC). I was going to take Women's Studies because I (naively) thought it was about Women in History.

I thought we'd discuss Susan B. Anthony and her Right to Vote 14th Amendment assertion (that was never heard in Court, but seemed compelling to me at the time). Or perhaps Eileen Gray, one of the pioneers of Modernism in architecture, only to be forgotten by history. Or Caroline Herschel who won every major astronomy award in her career and vastly expanded our knowledge of the universe AND was the first woman to ever be PAID as a scientist!

Nope, it was all about misogyny and you don't need a man and PIV = rape and other sorts of bullshit. Fortunately I had quite a few women friends in college and I mentioned I was going to enroll for the class. She disabused me of my assumptions and warned me off. So I took Chinese Philosophy with a lunatic.

I did listen in though. When the class was running, I had a free period between classes so I'd listen in... It was truly ridiculous and the two or three guys (of the 25+ students in it) who were in it (for the UDCC requirement I presume) kept shut the whole time. Something I wouldn't have been able to do..

[Tribble]

http://i.imgur.com/TibShcC.jpg
However, in September 2013 there were 4.9M page views. So there was a decline of 1.3M page views in the past four months. If this is the actual trend, then FTB will crash before the end of this year. :popcorn:

Number of individual viewers would be a much better metric for a site like FfTB, where people like Caine and Nerd, who read everything and pop in and out all day everyday, contribute massive numbers of page views per person.

That's why I used individuals in my post. Still has an issue with double counting because about a third of the traffic seems to be from mobile devices which tends to be the (mostly) same group of people who are using computers.

[free thoughtpolice]

Dana Hunter's post on Bora Z was shocking to read. She has written often about how emotionally fragile she is, practically begging for compassion and then she writes this vindictive, hateful piece.
One would think she could see the similarities between Zivcovic and herself. Both are physically unattractive, geeky, socially awkward and apparently people that have inept personal relationships, so why does she hate this guy so much?
Well, other than him allowing her as a totally uncredentialed nobody the opportunity to blog at Scientific American it seems his sin was to make a total fool of himself and hit on some "sister writers". It doesn't appear that he screwed with their careers, but he did make them uncomfortable and allegedly has hurt their confidence in their writing ability.
Now she is demanding that he stops writing about science as if she is entitled to tell him what career he should have.
Dana, knock off the fragile flower bullshit. You have clearly outed yourself for the mean spirited, passive-aggressive reptile you really are.

[Tribble]

To be honest, I think most undergraduate degrees, other than engineering, are pretty useless career-wise these days.

It's true engineers are on top of the salary pile right now. But it's not always been that way as the field is quite boom/bust (I have two cousins and a childhood friend who are engineers and have watched the ups and downs the last 30 years). But there are majors that provide excellent careers:

The overall average salary for college graduates in 2011 was $41,701, but those graduating with a degree in accounting averaged $50,500 according to the 2012 National Association of Colleges and Employers survey. Those who go on to earn their CPA license can expect a median salary of $73,800, with top salaries around $124,000.

Accounting is hard. Not as hard as engineering. But it's hard and you can't bullshit your way through it. So you get paid.

[JacquesCuze]

Interesting similarity to Bora in gun afficionado publishing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/busin ... ss&emc=rss

Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun compIn late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

“I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here, about 100 miles north of St. Louis, surrounded by snow-blanketed fields and towering grain elevators. “Now you see him. Now you don’t.”

He is unsure of his next move, but fears he has become a pariah in the gun industry, to which, he said, he has devoted nearly his entire adult life.

His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.anies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

...

[Really?]

Peezus is such a fucking idiot. If someone has a radical new idea with regard to biology, he or she can float it around to see what other experts think. If the idea is good, it will be built upon. In Women's Studies--which is Peezus' current primary field--there's no give-and-take and ideas don't evolve.They are cast in stone. (Men are more likely to harm children than women...All PIV sex is rape...)

Give Peas his due. He's much slimier than that. He let's his Whored and mates make those arguments, praising them all the while. Confront him and he pulls the "Look, the MRA troll loons are calling moderate old me radical again" ploy.

Not directly related to PZ & his tactics, but this reminds me: I see people often saying "they all" hold one specific position or another, when actually there's probably fairly little that "they all" do agree on, and leaving them to sort that out in public - policing each others' views - can lead to much popcorn. A common enemy ("MRAs" etc) not being in their face (on their blogs) better allows their in-group disagreements to gently blossom. :whistle:

Examples:
- They definitely do not all believe that "all PIV sex is rape". (Quite a few FtB bloggers are in hetero relationships, for example.)
- Benson & Islam/hijab/whatever (I haven't actually followed what her opinion is, but it's clear that some SJW's disagree vehemently w/ her & she w/ them).
-Zvan's post claiming "anti-theism work is social justice work" got a fair amount of pushback recently.
-Benson & Carrier & I think other people vigorously aired different views about posting that photo of girls in Africa undergoing virginity checks.
-Myers makes occasional missteps (most notably the gendered rabbit thing, but there have been others).
- McEwen's blog is dynamite for most everybody at FtB.
- Christina's book Bending - remember the deafening silence that greeted her multiple blogposts about it?
- Zvan apparently tweeted agreement w/ someone's (Christina's?) comment from the stage about being careful about alcohol.
- EBW's position on reporting concerns at conferences, which led to her
- Whatever it was that got JB Eberhardt on the FtB shit list twice (first on Zvan's, then on McCreight's, in particular, as I recall) before he backed down each time.
- Etc.

I see your point and I do try not to paint ALL FTB/A+ crazies with the same brush. That said, I do not see women's studies folks running away from Dworkin's madness. If you look at the "I need feminism because" folks, you'll see that they are deeply influenced by the "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" tripe.

I deeply respect the people who are playing defense in the schism and in other similar conflagrations, but L. Ron Hubbard was right about one thing: "Always attack. Never defend." We tried being polite...honestly, we did. Now the only way to get their attention is to use satire and to consistently point out their crazy. If you're trying to stop the neighbor dog from humping yours, you can't ask nicely. At some point, you need to spray it down with a hose.

[Pitchguest]

What do you think, guys?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... ment-65781

Memoryholed, banned or both?

[Tribble]

But that's not just Caine and Nerd we are talking about; these addicts are thousands of people, considering that last month 344,641 people visited FTB. I don't know how reliable Quantcast's figures are, though.

In terms of number of people visiting FTB there appears to be no significant decline over the past two years.

Nov, Dec & Jan 2011/2012

322K, 246K, 358K = 308K average/month (And about what it averaged its first five months over-all.)

Oct, Nov & Dec 2013 (because we don't have January)

245K, 187K, 246K = 226K average/month


Twice in the last quarter (Post Shermer) the number of people using the site has been under 200K. That never happened in 2012.

I think the long-term trends are clear. And have been. It peaked late 2011/early 2012 and has been slowly losing followers and market share in the blogsphere. It's a slow process, the data is definitely not smooth, but I think it's pretty clear over time that FTB is going nowhere but down, albeit not as fast as many of us would like..

And when January is in, I'll be happier because it'll give me a much better quarterly comparison.

[BarnOwl]

What do you think, guys?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... ment-65781

Memoryholed, banned or both?

Hmmm, the FtB SJW seem reluctant to discuss Ogvorbis.

I wonder whether they'd prefer to discuss their BFF, Hugo Schwyzer?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/ ... -a-twitter

[Tony Parsehole]

What do you think, guys?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... ment-65781

Memoryholed, banned or both?

Wow....Just...Wow.
This is in response to Pitchguest pointing out Ogvorbis' admission of rape.

Al Dente
January 5, 2014 at 6:05 am (UTC -7)
Pitguess @6
I’m impressed. You hate FTB so much that no lie is too despicable for you to utter. You must be really proud of yourself that you’ll accuse someone of vile crimes just so you can show your hatred for them.

and:

Stacy
January 5, 2014 at 12:18 am (UTC -7)
@Nicoleandmaggie3, when he was an abused child, Ogvorbis abused a couple of younger children. By touching them. When he was a child. A child being abused by an adult.
Ogvorbis shared this on a comment thread last year, and expressed his deep regret. Ever since, certain assholes bring it up whenever they can.
Pitchguest is playing “gotcha.” Ignore him.

*head desk*
"Lies"?
"Touching them"!?
This is the worst display of rape aplogy I have ever seen. It's on step away from saying "if they can't remember it, it doesn't count".
Ogvorbis ADMITTED TO RAPING THREE 6 YEAR OLD GIRLS WHEN THERE WAS NO ADULT PRESENT!!! What more do they want? A fucking video and transcript?

[piginthecity]

I was a blogger at ScienceBlogs, while Bora was there. All the bloggers, including Janet, good-naturedly called each other Sciblings in our jovial and generally supportive community.

However, during that time as well as after I started writing for PsychCentral, Bora never promoted my work. We did meet for dinner once, but there wasn't any impropriety. And he didn't try to stay friends with me.

Yes, I was a female up-and-coming science writer. One that he could have taken under his wing, vulnerable to harassment like any other female. But it never happened.

Why? There was a key difference. He realized I wasn't worth promoting, because I couldn't be sexually manipulated by him.

I'm a lesbian.

Hold on, Hang about, Wait a minute. If Bora is supposed to be a harasser, and harassment is non-consensual, then how come being a lesbian gives her any immunity. In fact lesbians are specifically targetted by men who actually are scumbags and harrassers because of perceived vulnerability.

[Tribble]

What do you think, guys?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... ment-65781

Memoryholed, banned or both?

Both, plus doxxed... You were polite as hell, but you're speaking truths that shall not be spoken.

[BarnOwl]

From Hugo Schwyzer's website, as of Dec 27 he's out of the Malibu rehab and in a "sober living" home:

As this year draws to a close, a brief update. I am out of rehab, and staying at a “sober living” home in Los Angeles. I am safe and stable and in the long and difficult process of recovery. Coming to grips with what I did and what happened is a nearly overwhelming challenge, but I have faith that I will be able to do so, begin to rebuild my life, and make amends.

Must have cost a metric fucktonne of money for Hugo's lawyers and Malibu substance dependency rehab. Of course Bora doesn't have that kind of dosh, so he won't be able to "make amends" for his crimes.

Which, in contrast to Hugo's driving-while-intoxicated and injuring someone else who had to be airlifted to hospital, weren't actually crimes.

[Skep tickle]

My bad for adding to the "regular" hits on Quantcast, but I do check there periodically.

One of Benson's recent posts, "Attitudinal", got me poking around into the source(s). She quotes a ThinkProgress article from 9/2013 about a UN study on men's attitudes contributing to rape.

Benson quoted as "Among the conclusions…" the 2 sections from the ThinkProgress article titled "Unhealthy attitudes about sexuality take root at a young age" and "Men rape because they have been taught that they have a right to claim women’s bodies" as if they are universal findings. She doesn't mention where the study was done and doesn't relay some of the caveats.

Here are some sections from the ThinkProgress article she didn't quote (italics) added by me):

The UN study surveyed over 10,000 men from Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka. The researchers caution that some regional attitudes about sexuality in Southeastern Asia may contribute to the results that they gathered across those six countries. Still, though, there are some big takeaways from their findings.

Many people have the wrong idea about what “rape” actually is. The researchers intentionally didn’t use the word “rape” in any of their questionnaires about Asian men’s sexual histories. Instead, they asked men whether they had ever “forced a woman who was not your wife or girlfriend at the time to have sex,” or if they had ever “had sex with a woman who was too drunk or drugged to indicate whether she wanted it.” That likely helped researchers gather more accurate information about the nonconsensual sexual acts that men had engaged in. Since many people don’t learn the lines of consent, many sexually active adults may not understand when they’re violating someone else — and they may not believe they have actually raped someone.

(bolding as in original; italics added by me):

Rape occurs within marriages, too. Along those lines, many people think about rape as something that occurs between strangers, when women are accosted by criminals in dark alleyways. But that’s not the reality of sexual assault. The UN survey found that rape between married partners was more prevalent than rape among people who were not in a romantic relationship. Studies conducted within the United States have revealed similar results about the prevalence of intimate partner violence in this country. When it comes to educating people about sexual assault, it’s important to emphasize that consent never carries over — that is, even when it comes to spouses who have had consensual sex many times before, neither of them have consented to every instance of sexual contact their partner may demand in the future.

She linked to the UN study published in The Lancet, but didn't otherwise mention the study (only the ThinkProgress report); there's no indication that she looked at the study. The entire Lancet article is available, free. A couple of clips from that paper:

In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of, and factors associated with, male perpetration of rape of non-partner women and of men, and the reasons for rape, from nine sites in Asia and the Pacific across six countries: Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka.

Here's the entire section on "Findings" from the study's abstract (again, bolding as in original; italics added by me):

Findings
We interviewed 10 178 men in our study (815—1812 per site). The prevalence of non-partner single perpetrator rape varied between 2·5% (28/1131; rural Bangladesh) and 26·6% (225/846; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea), multiple perpetrator rape between 1·4% (18/1246; urban Bangladesh) and 14·1% (119/846; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea), and male rape between 1·5% (13/880; Jayapura, Indonesia) and 7·7% (65/850; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). 57·5% (587/1022) of men who raped a non-partner committed their first rape as teenagers. Frequent reasons for rape were sexual entitlement (666/909; 73·3%, 95% CI 70·3—76·0), seeking of entertainment (541/921; 58·7%, 55·0—62·4), and as a punishment (343/905; 37·9%, 34·5—41·4). Alcohol was a factor in 249 of 921 cases (27·0%, 95% CI 24·2—30·1). Associated factors included poverty, personal history of victimisation (especially in childhood), low empathy, alcohol misuse, masculinities emphasising heterosexual performance, dominance over women, and participation in gangs and related activities. Only 443 of 1933 men (22·9%, 95% CI 20·7—25·3) who had committed rape had ever been sent to prison for any period.

Benson's conclusion is:

It’s about attitudes. Attitudes matter. Attitudes have an influence on what happens, on what people do, on actions and agents. That’s so obvious it seems idiotic to spell it out, yet there are still a great many people who think that trying to change attitudes to (sic), say, women, or the relations between women and men, or aggression, is terrifyingly “radical” and exactly like the Nazis and the Stasi.

Yes, that's right, the Nazis made it into her post. But let's look past that. Let's look at the "associated factors" identified in the study: alcohol, "poverty, personal history of victimisation (especially in childhood), low empathy, ... masculinities emphasising heterosexual performance, dominance over women, and participation in gangs and related activities." Maybe "masculinities" and "dominance" are the attitudes she's talking about that need to be changed, but the others aren't just "attitudes", IMO.

The tables in the article are interesting; it's clear there's a wide variation between countries (as the Findings in the abstract listed).

Table 1: Prevalence of perpetration of rape of women who were non-partners and of men, by country...

[url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... onType=red[Table 2[/url]: Patterns of perpetration of rape of women and overlaps with rape of men in all countries

They both show a wide variation between countries. Table 2 is particularly interesting, IMO.

The line from ThinkProgress that Benson quotes that "Most sexual crimes recorded in the study occurred when men were between the ages of 15 and 19" was not quite true; a plurality occurred during that age range for the sample overall, but not for 2 of the 6 countries in which men were surveyed; in China & Sri Lanka, the age range was older.

For "raped a partner but never raped a non-partner" (meaning not a wife or girlfriend), the range was 11-12% in Bangladesh & Sri Lanka, to 42% in Papua New Guinea.

Overall, nearly 15% "raped a man" and also 1 or more women, whereas only ~1% had raped a man but never any woman.

So, anyway. There's lots more there that varied by country, raising (for me) the question of why the variability, and what one region or country might learn from another. Lots more there, it seems to me, than just "see, it's men's attitudes".

Oh, and the first commenter at Benson's, B Cazz, comments that "attitude adjustment" is what's accomplished when an ornery male horse is gelded. Resulting in a little tiff over whether humans should be treated like "other animals": B Cazz, "[w]e believe humans are redeemable" and Sally Strange "Yes, if humans were more like animals in specific characteristics then it would make sense to treat them like animals. But they aren’t, so let’s move on, eh? (ugh)". Ironic esp in light of the efforts to train Bora, recently.

[Tony Parsehole]

The Bora Hate-Fest continues on Robbins' post at Stemwedel's blog. One Sandra Klume, apparently a blogger at ScienceBlogs, leaves the following comment:

I was a blogger at ScienceBlogs, while Bora was there. All the bloggers, including Janet, good-naturedly called each other Sciblings in our jovial and generally supportive community.

However, during that time as well as after I started writing for PsychCentral, Bora never promoted my work. We did meet for dinner once, but there wasn't any impropriety. And he didn't try to stay friends with me.

Yes, I was a female up-and-coming science writer. One that he could have taken under his wing, vulnerable to harassment like any other female. But it never happened.

Why? There was a key difference. He realized I wasn't worth promoting, because I couldn't be sexually manipulated by him.

I'm a lesbian.

Maybe that's the reason. Or maybe you're not that great a writer, regardless of what Robbins et al. tell you in the comments.

One "Isabel" shows up repeatedly, determined to apply the label "sociopath" to Bora. This may be the same Isabel whom both PhysioDouchee and DrugMonkey have referred to in multiple contexts as "Loonabel."

Yeah, sure, that's the ONLY reason he never promoted you....Fuck me, it takes a special kind of shameless idiot to write a comment like that.
If Bora set fire to an orphanage and got caught wanking on the ashes he wouldn't receive this much shit.

[Skep tickle]

Blech, messed up the quote box in the middle & the link to Table 2.

Ah, well. As they say, "It's only government work", as I post from my state-owned computer (NOT).

[BarnOwl]

Wonder if Hugo went here:

http://www.passagesmalibu.com/

Or possibly here:

http://www.promises.com/

Or maybe here:

http://www.inspiremalibu.com/beautiful-facility/

With financial privilege comes true redemption.

[Tony Parsehole]

Just when you think you've heard it all.....Just when you think it's as daft as it gets:
http://storify.com/MartinRobbins/conver ... ax-judyyol

tl;dr Doctors refusing to perform sex change operations on people who are overweight is "concern trolling" .
Yes. That's what it is.

http://shenkitup.com/wp-content/uploads ... etings.gif

[free thoughtpolice]

I wonder if Dana lets this through moderation:

You really hate this guy by the sounds of it. At least you stopped short of demanding this predatory fuckhead, rat bastard go blow his brains out!
Btw, that ball licking comment sounded a bit homophobic.
I always thought you were a sensitive fragile person; was that monster always lurking there?

[Søren Lilholt]

Maybe the FTB morons know implicitly that Ogvorbis is a fantasist, which is why they are so untroubled by his claims. In the same way that most religious people who profess to believe the scary metaphysics are completely untroubled by them (i.e. there is apparently a hell you can go to for all eternity but, hey, whatever), thus giving away that they don't really think it's true.

This doesn't excuse the rank hypocrisy, but may account for the wierd way they are happy to let these particular rape claims slide. They know it's 100% Oggy being an attention-seeking bullshitter, but because he's one of them, they won't call him out on it and prefer to quietly ignore it. Maybe.

[Lsuoma]

On the SlymePit, I have perfect confidence in Lsuoma not taking that route no matter how much I try to piss him off. That's not an assumption I would make anywhere else.

Ha! Misplaced trust - hey, everyone, Mykeru's using an IPv4 adress with three periods in it...

[JacquesCuze]

From Hugo Schwyzer's website, as of Dec 27 he's out of the Malibu rehab and in a "sober living" home:

As this year draws to a close, a brief update. I am out of rehab, and staying at a “sober living” home in Los Angeles. I am safe and stable and in the long and difficult process of recovery. Coming to grips with what I did and what happened is a nearly overwhelming challenge, but I have faith that I will be able to do so, begin to rebuild my life, and make amends.

Must have cost a metric fucktonne of money for Hugo's lawyers and Malibu substance dependency rehab. Of course Bora doesn't have that kind of dosh, so he won't be able to "make amends" for his crimes.

Which, in contrast to Hugo's driving-while-intoxicated and injuring someone else who had to be airlifted to hospital, weren't actually crimes.

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2013/12/27/ ... ment-77286

Jacques Cuze on January 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Hugo,

I wish the best for you in 2014, and hope you can make amends and parent your children and repair in any possible manner the relationship with your wife.

I believe you have acknowledged that you have harmed your family, and women, are you ready to come to grips with the many men you have harmed? Both in real life through your affairs and cuckolding as well as to men harmed by your very public denouncements of men in your blogging and speaking?

Feminists used you as a way to rationalize and support horrible policies towards men, horrible statements about men. And you knew that.

You made statements about men that were offensive and harmful and that you acknowledge was made in order to obtain sex from women and to increase your public image amoung women. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Instead of promoting dialogue between feminists and mens rights activists, instead of finding common ground, you worked to create division and separate these groups. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Anyway, best wishes in 2014. I hope your recovery is full and complete.

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

Regarding "cuckolding" such an old term but refers to an episode where Hugo wrote that it was highly likely he was the father of a child of a woman who married another man when she was pregnant misleading him to believe he was the father, when Hugo knew he was likely the father, decided he would be a bad father, and never said anything, thereby ducking out of parental responsibilities as well as 18 years of child support. And even years and years later Hugo is seen rationalizing why he is a good person for never telling the other man he is not the father.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-cont ... -for-sure/
http://glpiggy.net/2011/07/14/schwyzer-soze/
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blo ... -to-a-man/

[Tribble]

Just when you think you've heard it all.....Just when you think it's as daft as it gets:
http://storify.com/MartinRobbins/conver ... ax-judyyol

tl;dr Doctors refusing to perform sex change operations on people who are overweight is "concern trolling" .
Yes. That's what it is.

I think so sums up the SJW mindset. The fatter you are, the greater the risks. And it's so well understood and non-controversial even 'consumer friendly' sites like WebMD will tell you that:

March 14, 2007 -- Obese people have a much higher risk of potentially deadly complications following surgery, a new study shows.

Researchers found obese patients had a significantly higher risk of postoperative complications, such as heart attack, wound infection, nerve injury, and urinary tract infections.

In addition, the study showed morbidly obese patients (patients more than 100 pounds over their ideal weight) were nearly twice as likely to die as a result of complications following noncardiac surgery.

Researchers say the findings are especially troubling as obesity rates climb in the U.S. According to the CDC, more than 30% of the adult U.S. population is now considered obese.

"Our study provides further evidence of the dangers of obesity as it relates to surgery," says researcher Olumuyiwa A. Bamgbade, MD, a visiting instructor at the University of Michigan, in a news release.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070314 ... -for-obese

And this from Johns Hopkins on cosmetic surgery (which is a big part of gender re-assignment):

Johns Hopkins researchers find disparity in outcomes after elective plastic surgery

Obese patients are nearly 12 times more likely to suffer a complication following elective plastic surgery than their normal-weight counterparts, according to new research by Johns Hopkins scientists.

“Our data demonstrate that obesity is a major risk factor for complications following certain kinds of elective surgery,” says Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H, an associate professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and leader of the study published online in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Not only are these findings relevant to physicians who need to pay special heed to issues such as potential surgical site infections in heavier patients but, the authors argue, they are relevant to policymakers whose increasingly applied metrics for surgical quality and reimbursement do not account for the higher risk of worse outcomes in the obese.

“With the government and other insurers penalizing doctors whose patients get infections or are readmitted to the hospital — and with obese patients more likely to have those problems — policymakers need to make sure they aren’t giving physicians financial incentives to discriminate on the basis of weight,” Makary says.

[Tribble]

Whoops! Put it inside the last quote.... Derp!

[Dick Strawkins]

My bad for adding to the "regular" hits on Quantcast, but I do check there periodically.

One of Benson's recent posts, "Attitudinal", got me poking around into the source(s). She quotes a ThinkProgress article from 9/2013 about a UN study on men's attitudes contributing to rape.

Benson quoted as "Among the conclusions…" the 2 sections from the ThinkProgress article titled "Unhealthy attitudes about sexuality take root at a young age" and "Men rape because they have been taught that they have a right to claim women’s bodies" as if they are universal findings. She doesn't mention where the study was done and doesn't relay some of the caveats.

Here are some sections from the ThinkProgress article she didn't quote (italics) added by me):

The UN study surveyed over 10,000 men from Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka. The researchers caution that some regional attitudes about sexuality in Southeastern Asia may contribute to the results that they gathered across those six countries. Still, though, there are some big takeaways from their findings.

Many people have the wrong idea about what “rape” actually is. The researchers intentionally didn’t use the word “rape” in any of their questionnaires about Asian men’s sexual histories. Instead, they asked men whether they had ever “forced a woman who was not your wife or girlfriend at the time to have sex,” or if they had ever “had sex with a woman who was too drunk or drugged to indicate whether she wanted it.” That likely helped researchers gather more accurate information about the nonconsensual sexual acts that men had engaged in. Since many people don’t learn the lines of consent, many sexually active adults may not understand when they’re violating someone else — and they may not believe they have actually raped someone.

(bolding as in original; italics added by me):

Rape occurs within marriages, too. Along those lines, many people think about rape as something that occurs between strangers, when women are accosted by criminals in dark alleyways. But that’s not the reality of sexual assault. The UN survey found that rape between married partners was more prevalent than rape among people who were not in a romantic relationship. Studies conducted within the United States have revealed similar results about the prevalence of intimate partner violence in this country. When it comes to educating people about sexual assault, it’s important to emphasize that consent never carries over — that is, even when it comes to spouses who have had consensual sex many times before, neither of them have consented to every instance of sexual contact their partner may demand in the future.

She linked to the UN study published in The Lancet, but didn't otherwise mention the study (only the ThinkProgress report); there's no indication that she looked at the study. The entire Lancet article is available, free. A couple of clips from that paper:

In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of, and factors associated with, male perpetration of rape of non-partner women and of men, and the reasons for rape, from nine sites in Asia and the Pacific across six countries: Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka.

Here's the entire section on "Findings" from the study's abstract (again, bolding as in original; italics added by me):

Findings
We interviewed 10 178 men in our study (815—1812 per site). The prevalence of non-partner single perpetrator rape varied between 2·5% (28/1131; rural Bangladesh) and 26·6% (225/846; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea), multiple perpetrator rape between 1·4% (18/1246; urban Bangladesh) and 14·1% (119/846; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea), and male rape between 1·5% (13/880; Jayapura, Indonesia) and 7·7% (65/850; Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). 57·5% (587/1022) of men who raped a non-partner committed their first rape as teenagers. Frequent reasons for rape were sexual entitlement (666/909; 73·3%, 95% CI 70·3—76·0), seeking of entertainment (541/921; 58·7%, 55·0—62·4), and as a punishment (343/905; 37·9%, 34·5—41·4). Alcohol was a factor in 249 of 921 cases (27·0%, 95% CI 24·2—30·1). Associated factors included poverty, personal history of victimisation (especially in childhood), low empathy, alcohol misuse, masculinities emphasising heterosexual performance, dominance over women, and participation in gangs and related activities. Only 443 of 1933 men (22·9%, 95% CI 20·7—25·3) who had committed rape had ever been sent to prison for any period.

Benson's conclusion is:

It’s about attitudes. Attitudes matter. Attitudes have an influence on what happens, on what people do, on actions and agents. That’s so obvious it seems idiotic to spell it out, yet there are still a great many people who think that trying to change attitudes to (sic), say, women, or the relations between women and men, or aggression, is terrifyingly “radical” and exactly like the Nazis and the Stasi.

Yes, that's right, the Nazis made it into her post. But let's look past that. Let's look at the "associated factors" identified in the study: alcohol, "poverty, personal history of victimisation (especially in childhood), low empathy, ... masculinities emphasising heterosexual performance, dominance over women, and participation in gangs and related activities." Maybe "masculinities" and "dominance" are the attitudes she's talking about that need to be changed, but the others aren't just "attitudes", IMO.

The tables in the article are interesting; it's clear there's a wide variation between countries (as the Findings in the abstract listed).

Table 1: Prevalence of perpetration of rape of women who were non-partners and of men, by country...

[url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... onType=red[Table 2[/url]: Patterns of perpetration of rape of women and overlaps with rape of men in all countries

They both show a wide variation between countries. Table 2 is particularly interesting, IMO.

The line from ThinkProgress that Benson quotes that "Most sexual crimes recorded in the study occurred when men were between the ages of 15 and 19" was not quite true; a plurality occurred during that age range for the sample overall, but not for 2 of the 6 countries in which men were surveyed; in China & Sri Lanka, the age range was older.

For "raped a partner but never raped a non-partner" (meaning not a wife or girlfriend), the range was 11-12% in Bangladesh & Sri Lanka, to 42% in Papua New Guinea.

Overall, nearly 15% "raped a man" and also 1 or more women, whereas only ~1% had raped a man but never any woman.

So, anyway. There's lots more there that varied by country, raising (for me) the question of why the variability, and what one region or country might learn from another. Lots more there, it seems to me, than just "see, it's men's attitudes".

I read that study when it came out due to the rather inflated claims being made from it.
It is actually two separate papers back to back that seem to be derived from the same multinational questionaire.

I can't recall the exact point now but I remember noticing something extremely dodgy within the study - something about the way they phrased the questions and then interpreted the answers in regards how they defined rape.
If I'm remembering correctly they asked the question "have you ever had sex when you thought your partner didn't want to?"

They mentioned in the paper that they phrased the question in this way so that those who would have answered negatively for a question about forcing someone to have sex would answer positively for this question.
They then included these answers in the figures of those who raped.

This seems rather a stretch to me.
In a long term relationship it is not exactly unusual that one or other of the partners will not really be in the mood every time that the other partner is. But they may still go ahead and have sex on occasion, either as form of duty or as a way of showing love to their partner. To conflate this type of behavior, that is common to probably most long term relationships, with forced sex/rape is ridiculous but it seemed to be the mechanism whereby the authors reached the very high figures for rape in asian societies.

One other factor that seemed apparent to me from the studies was that they used the fact that the study was split into two papers to bolster their conclusion - in other words they described the questions used in the first paper and then gave a different (and more rapey)
interpretation of the answers in the second paper, in what appears to me to be a blatant ploy of slipping an unwarranted conclusion past the second set of reviewers.

[BarnOwl]

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2013/12/27/ ... ment-77286

Jacques Cuze on January 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Hugo,

I wish the best for you in 2014, and hope you can make amends and parent your children and repair in any possible manner the relationship with your wife.

I believe you have acknowledged that you have harmed your family, and women, are you ready to come to grips with the many men you have harmed? Both in real life through your affairs and cuckolding as well as to men harmed by your very public denouncements of men in your blogging and speaking?

Feminists used you as a way to rationalize and support horrible policies towards men, horrible statements about men. And you knew that.

You made statements about men that were offensive and harmful and that you acknowledge was made in order to obtain sex from women and to increase your public image amoung women. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Instead of promoting dialogue between feminists and mens rights activists, instead of finding common ground, you worked to create division and separate these groups. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Anyway, best wishes in 2014. I hope your recovery is full and complete.

You are a much nicer person than I am, JacquesCuze. While I don't wish Schwyzer any harm, I've no interest in whether his recovery is full and complete. I simply don't care. There are many, many people, and to be honest, non-human animals, who are more interesting individuals and more deserving of my genuine concern and kindness (which are, sadly, limited in quantity, so I've no choice but to ration them somehow).

[Badger3k]

Since I'm currently trying to play and enjoy one of my favorite game series (Battlefield) - and it's hard given all the problems although i did buy an X-Box 1 to join my PS3 & 4 to get video material - I spend a bit of time on the forums. I will probably drop off, since I think I've done all the complaining I can, and the elitists have finally gotten to the full mark on my disgust meter. Anyway, the relation to this was a question recently posed: Why no female or transgender soldiers?

Seriously. I can get the female bit - COD Ghosts allows female soldiers. I could care less if it's realistic or not (as soon as someone can revive a dead soldier on the battlefield to full health, or summon killer dogs from thin air, then we can be concerned over realism)...but how do you have transgender soldier models? Are they burly men wearing makeup? Do they have high heels and a clearly visible package?

I did put my two cents in:

Don't forget Bronies, Furries, Midgets, Morbidly obese people, "other kin", vampires, emos, goths, moon men...and paraplegics in iron lungs. Did I miss any others? Bonus points if you use made up pronouns like "xer" in your response.

Just putting this out there to show that this SJW/PC stuff is everywhere. Although...if I could "run" around as a midget transexual furry in a wheelchair, with a mini gun...maybe that could be fun to play (although you can get close in the Saints Row series...).

[JacquesCuze]

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2013/12/27/ ... ment-77286

Jacques Cuze on January 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Hugo,

I wish the best for you in 2014, and hope you can make amends and parent your children and repair in any possible manner the relationship with your wife.

I believe you have acknowledged that you have harmed your family, and women, are you ready to come to grips with the many men you have harmed? Both in real life through your affairs and cuckolding as well as to men harmed by your very public denouncements of men in your blogging and speaking?

Feminists used you as a way to rationalize and support horrible policies towards men, horrible statements about men. And you knew that.

You made statements about men that were offensive and harmful and that you acknowledge was made in order to obtain sex from women and to increase your public image amoung women. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Instead of promoting dialogue between feminists and mens rights activists, instead of finding common ground, you worked to create division and separate these groups. Are you ready to acknowledge that and apologize to men for that?

Anyway, best wishes in 2014. I hope your recovery is full and complete.

You are a much nicer person than I am, JacquesCuze. While I don't wish Schwyzer any harm, I've no interest in whether his recovery is full and complete. I simply don't care. There are many, many people, and to be honest, non-human animals, who are more interesting individuals and more deserving of my genuine concern and kindness (which are, sadly, limited in quantity, so I've no choice but to ration them somehow).

Oh, I doubt if he'll publish it anyway. He was asked if he needed to apologize to men shortly before he disappeared and his reply was "hell no."

[James Caruthers]

http://i.imgur.com/8dno9Ga.jpg

Hey now, real men like curves. If you don't pick the women in the top picture, you are a misogynist pedo who must want to fuck children.

[James Caruthers]

The Bora Hate-Fest continues on Robbins' post at Stemwedel's blog. One Sandra Klume, apparently a blogger at ScienceBlogs, leaves the following comment:

I was a blogger at ScienceBlogs, while Bora was there. All the bloggers, including Janet, good-naturedly called each other Sciblings in our jovial and generally supportive community.

However, during that time as well as after I started writing for PsychCentral, Bora never promoted my work. We did meet for dinner once, but there wasn't any impropriety. And he didn't try to stay friends with me.

Yes, I was a female up-and-coming science writer. One that he could have taken under his wing, vulnerable to harassment like any other female. But it never happened.

Why? There was a key difference. He realized I wasn't worth promoting, because I couldn't be sexually manipulated by him.

I'm a lesbian.

Maybe that's the reason. Or maybe you're not that great a writer, regardless of what Robbins et al. tell you in the comments.

One "Isabel" shows up repeatedly, determined to apply the label "sociopath" to Bora. This may be the same Isabel whom both PhysioDouchee and DrugMonkey have referred to in multiple contexts as "Loonabel."

Bora was "creepy" around you? SEXISM
Bora wasn't "creepy" around you? SEXISM
Bora promoted you? SEXISM
Bora didn't promote you? SEXISM

By jove, I think I've found the Tabula Rasa for modern feminism.

[windy]

Stacy
January 5, 2014 at 12:18 am (UTC -7)
@Nicoleandmaggie3, when he was an abused child, Ogvorbis abused a couple of younger children. By touching them. When he was a child. A child being abused by an adult.
Ogvorbis shared this on a comment thread last year, and expressed his deep regret. Ever since, certain assholes bring it up whenever they can.
Pitchguest is playing “gotcha.” Ignore him.

*head desk*
"Lies"?
"Touching them"!?
This is the worst display of rape aplogy I have ever seen. It's on step away from saying "if they can't remember it, it doesn't count".

Just a bit of mild pedophilia?

[BarnOwl]

David Dobbs thinks that Bora's friend Anton Zuiker should step down from ScienceOnline leadership and organization:

[Tribble]

David Dobbs thinks that Bora's friend Anton Zuiker should step down from ScienceOnline leadership and organization:

I think David Dobbs is the one who can't move on... If he, and the rest of the clowns, would move on we wouldn't going through this crap again...

[Tigzy]

What do you think, guys?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... ment-65781

Memoryholed, banned or both?

Wow....Just...Wow.
This is in response to Pitchguest pointing out Ogvorbis' admission of rape.

Al Dente
January 5, 2014 at 6:05 am (UTC -7)
Pitguess @6
I’m impressed. You hate FTB so much that no lie is too despicable for you to utter. You must be really proud of yourself that you’ll accuse someone of vile crimes just so you can show your hatred for them.

and:

Stacy
January 5, 2014 at 12:18 am (UTC -7)
@Nicoleandmaggie3, when he was an abused child, Ogvorbis abused a couple of younger children. By touching them. When he was a child. A child being abused by an adult.
Ogvorbis shared this on a comment thread last year, and expressed his deep regret. Ever since, certain assholes bring it up whenever they can.
Pitchguest is playing “gotcha.” Ignore him.

*head desk*
"Lies"?
"Touching them"!?
This is the worst display of rape aplogy I have ever seen. It's on step away from saying "if they can't remember it, it doesn't count".
Ogvorbis ADMITTED TO RAPING THREE 6 YEAR OLD GIRLS WHEN THERE WAS NO ADULT PRESENT!!! What more do they want? A fucking video and transcript?

[youtube]gDe9bbo0Bz4[/youtube]

[Guestus Aurelius]

David Dobbs should resign for writing a moronic hit-piece against "buffoon" Richard Dawkins and not taking responsibility or apologizing for his errors.

[Dick Strawkins]

http://i.imgur.com/wILqp7S.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNtRH3LCIAEZJ8-.jpg

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-b ... /07/69.jpg

Plausible deniability.

[Steersman]

The Bora Hate-Fest continues on Robbins' post at Stemwedel's blog. One Sandra Klume, apparently a blogger at ScienceBlogs, leaves the following comment:
<snip>
Maybe that's the reason. Or maybe you're not that great a writer, regardless of what Robbins et al. tell you in the comments.

One "Isabel" shows up repeatedly, determined to apply the label "sociopath" to Bora. This may be the same Isabel whom both PhysioDouchee and DrugMonkey have referred to in multiple contexts as "Loonabel."

Bora was "creepy" around you? SEXISM
Bora wasn't "creepy" around you? SEXISM
Bora promoted you? SEXISM
Bora didn't promote you? SEXISM

By jove, I think I've found the Tabula Rasa for modern feminism.

By George, I think you've got it! "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!" ;-)

Although I think you probably mean the Rosetta Stone, the key to deciphering all of, at least, the rad or extreme parts of “feminism”. Although I tend to think the key is that much of it is based on massive contradictions from which, Wikipedia informs me, "anything follows".

[zenbabe]

snipping
I'd call that doxxing.

Doxxing? Horseshit. Allow me to express my utter lack of sympathy and give you my perspective as a government stooge.

It went like this:

are you a tranny?

Then.

Now, there's an interesting comment. Interesting because of the IP address:

140.90.233.67

Seems this tiny little thug is posting on our dime:

IP address [?]: 140.90.233.67 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: Maryland
IP address city: Suitland
IP address latitude: 38.832401
IP address longitude: -76.908401
ISP of this IP [?]: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organization: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Host of this IP: [?]: ws233-67.nesdis.noaa.gov [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-28 04:56

NOAA is part of the same department I belong to. We have acceptable use guidelines that go beyond merely abiding by the Hatch Act prohibiting use of government resources for partisan party politics. I am certain that little comment on someone's personal blog was not acceptable use. As the guy is working for NOAA Satellite and Information Services he may not be a federal employee, but a lowly contractor, in which case actually trying to get him into trouble is really punching down.

Of course, everyone has down time at work, but the issue isn't the use of time or doing it "on your dime". It's the use of resources.

This is why, when I'm between putting out fires in the best possible use of your tax dollars, I will post here or on Twitter using my personal cell phone and not any government resources.

I would never be so stupid as to make a comment like that from my government computer, be it a Blackberry, laptop or dedicated PC on a site I would consider adversarial, like Atheism Plus or Freethought Blogs. On the SlymePit, I have perfect confidence in Lsuoma not taking that route no matter how much I try to piss him off. That's not an assumption I would make anywhere else. And I still post using Tappatalk and Plume on my phone.

In the past, someone has alluded to getting me in trouble for using government resources in making videos, but I've pointed out, the programs I use for that are on my home computer and can't even be installed on my work PC. I can't even install Chrome extensions on my work PC, the ship we run is just that tight. In fact, when I have to make a retirement video for someone or some other video production, I have a tacit agreement to telework from home. So the only way I could actually get in trouble for misapplication of resources is to do what this idiot did. By making a dumb-assed comment. From a government computer.

Only an idiot in need of correction would make themselves vulnerable like that.

That said, even if someone rats on this particular idiot, if he's a federal employee, he'll get some warning, be reminded of acceptable use, maybe be subject to an hour's boredom of re-taking some training. It's not like he's going to get fired or taken out and shot.

And then maybe he'll learn to stay squeaky clean.

That he was using govt resources to be an idiot online gave me pause. Seems they should be held to a higher standard, but then, I have certain rules at work as well. Though I've done it a couple times, I no longer access places like this one with the one computer at work which would not block it, and I work in a kinda small hospital in a pretty small town in the middle of nowhere. I'm positive I'd get into trouble. Big Brother's great aunt's nearsighted eyes are there and sometimes they catch us being bad. I don't want to get caught and have to deal with explaining this place to people who have zero understanding of these corners of the internet..

Anyway, then I thought of the nature of what he did as I see it (name calling), and find it hard to rate it as rising to the level of being outed. I figure it's more of an internal matter, something his superiors/co-workers should discover and deal with. I agree with his spanking, but not the way it happened.

Unless I'm missing some aspect to the story as is always possible.

[zenbabe]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-b ... /07/69.jpg

Plausible deniability.

:lol:

[Dick Strawkins]

David Dobbs thinks that Bora's friend Anton Zuiker should step down from ScienceOnline leadership and organization:

I think David Dobbs is the one who can't move on... If he, and the rest of the clowns, would move on we wouldn't going through this crap again...

There's a cabal of these fuckers going right back to the old scienceblog network.
They treat science writing as if it is some kind of sacred priesthood that's only open to the chosen few - and they are the ruling hierarchy.

David Dobbs embarassed himself recently with that inexorable article trying to take on Dawkins and the selfish gene concept - an article that was praised by Peezus and Ed Jong, both of whom are long time cabal members (as was Dobbs).
Jerry Coyne promptly metaphorically tore Dobbs an new arsehole in several stages leading to Dobbs desperately trying to claim he'd been misunderstood, to little avail.

[JacquesCuze]

That he was using govt resources to be an idiot online gave me pause. Seems they should be held to a higher standard, but then, I have certain rules at work as well. Though I've done it a couple times, I no longer access places like this one with the one computer at work which would not block it, and I work in a kinda small hospital in a pretty small town in the middle of nowhere. I'm positive I'd get into trouble. Big Brother's great aunt's nearsighted eyes are there and sometimes they catch us being bad. I don't want to get caught and have to deal with explaining this place to people who have zero understanding of these corners of the internet..

Anyway, then I thought of the nature of what he did as I see it (name calling), and find it hard to rate it as rising to the level of being outed. I figure it's more of an internal matter, something his superiors/co-workers should discover and deal with. I agree with his spanking, but not the way it happened.

Unless I'm missing some aspect to the story as is always possible.

I think there's a lot going on. I touched on some of it before.

It's 2008, "doxing" ethics are just beginning to be discussed on the net. Amy is not a 4channer, she is a 40 something blogger who's boyfriend set up the blog.

Amy, who is not without criticism many times, has made a name several times for being that woman who will go up to rude people and call them on their shit.

The ethos of her blog is one of free speech yes, but while disputes rise, there is no name calling of the sort of "are you a tranny". And I can't remember any time she has banned people, so for people saying ban this guy, that was just never really in her play book (iirc).

And there are plenty of times that people disagree with her, and not only does she not moderate her comments, but she actually thanks people for the arguments, discussions and corrections.

The pirate code is more of a guideline than actual rules, and arguably, journalists have no problems with doxing, doxing guidelines are there to help non journalists on the net get along, but they are certainly not carved in stone.

So "Are you a tranny" was way over the line in that context and demonstrated the guy who did that knew absolutely nothing about the blog, or Alkon, or her views on well, anything. I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone that would write that out of the blue at any blog and then complain when his identity was revealed.

And the "are you a tranny" comments and other attacks are coming from a "progressive" blog (early social justice warrior crowd) proud to be morally superior to everyone else on the planet, placing themselves in charge of pointing out the douchebags. So pointing out the hypocrisy of these social justice warriors in a) stopping her speech, and b) using transphobic name calling to do so is a very reasonable thing to do, and the way to do that is to catch one in the act and prove it.

She is certainly a small gov't libertarian type, and this is a gov't employee who dislikes her agenda slamming her. It's completely reasonable for her to use that as fodder, and he should have expected that. The one thing a Federal Government employee should not be doing is treading on speech on taxpayer time.

The question is, what would she have done if this guy worked for Amazon? Well, probably much the same thing, called him up and chewed him a new one and blogged about it. Would she have called his boss? I am not sure about that. In the case of the gov't worker it's completely reasonable to since he is clearly abusing taxpayer funded resources.

Stephanie Zvan's game is to publish the information or threaten to and use it as a threat, and encourage others to harass the person being doxxed. Fuck that, Amy isn't encouraging other people to fight her fights for her, she just calls the guy up directly and blogs about what happened.

Again, she doesn't say, "I know you work for the government, it would be a shame if something happened to your job" -- that's coercion. She said, "you're an asshole who left his email at the site of a blogger and author, let's see what happens when I call you up, oh look you act like a coward and a liar" -- why shouldn't that experience be part of her blogs and books, that's often the content of her books, what makes this asshole special and protected?

Anyway, I enjoy her blog. I often do not agree with her political positions, but I greatly appreciate her support of civil liberties and speech and her willingness to call out shit when she sees it. And for all that, her community is 180 degrees opposite PZ's in terms of being able to have a discussion without being bullied and banned.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Maybe the FTB morons know implicitly that Ogvorbis is a fantasist, which is why they are so untroubled by his claims. In the same way that most religious people who profess to believe the scary metaphysics are completely untroubled by them (i.e. there is apparently a hell you can go to for all eternity but, hey, whatever), thus giving away that they don't really think it's true.

This doesn't excuse the rank hypocrisy, but may account for the wierd way they are happy to let these particular rape claims slide. They know it's 100% Oggy being an attention-seeking bullshitter, but because he's one of them, they won't call him out on it and prefer to quietly ignore it. Maybe.

I totally agree. Despite all their blustering, they know he's a fraud or mentally unwell. The "I was abused, too" bit of his story was clever, as it gives them a way to publicly accept his rapist fantasies while excusing them because of his raped fantasies.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNtRH3LCIAEZJ8-.jpg

[img]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-b ... 07/69.jimg]

Bora's knees look like they'd be sharp. 2/10, would not fuck.

[jet_lagg]

Maybe the FTB morons know implicitly that Ogvorbis is a fantasist, which is why they are so untroubled by his claims. In the same way that most religious people who profess to believe the scary metaphysics are completely untroubled by them (i.e. there is apparently a hell you can go to for all eternity but, hey, whatever), thus giving away that they don't really think it's true.

Yeah, definitely think you're on to something there.

When I was a Christian, if you'd pinned me down, I'd have admitted that I didn't believe in hell. I mean it was just too fucked up. No non-socipoathic person could ever accept the idea and remain sane. But I put on the public face, because that's what was expected of me.

[Mykeru]

On the SlymePit, I have perfect confidence in Lsuoma not taking that route no matter how much I try to piss him off. That's not an assumption I would make anywhere else.

Ha! Misplaced trust - hey, everyone, Mykeru's using an IPv4 adress with three periods in it...

You.Bastard.You

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t171 ... geFace.png

OmFG!!!1!!DoXX!1!!

[BarnOwl]

There's a cabal of these fuckers going right back to the old scienceblog network.
They treat science writing as if it is some kind of sacred priesthood that's only open to the chosen few - and they are the ruling hierarchy.

David Dobbs embarassed himself recently with that inexorable article trying to take on Dawkins and the selfish gene concept - an article that was praised by Peezus and Ed Jong, both of whom are long time cabal members (as was Dobbs).
Jerry Coyne promptly metaphorically tore Dobbs an new arsehole in several stages leading to Dobbs desperately trying to claim he'd been misunderstood, to little avail.

Speaking of the scienceblogs cabal, the third of the PhysioPreppesofInstagram-DrugMonkey-DrIsis axis has weighed in on the matter. She writes the following:

The issue is that, as soon as Bora started taking money for his internet activities, he became an professional. As soon as he began to be able to influence who could join a network, he became a person with authority.

Weren't they all taking money for their internet activities at ScienceBlogs? And many of them influence who can join networks, or at least they attempt to do so. And you're absolutely correct about their ruling hierarchy attitude in the context of science writing online.

[Mykeru]

snipping
I'd call that doxxing.

Doxxing? Horseshit. Allow me to express my utter lack of sympathy and give you my perspective as a government stooge.

It went like this:

are you a tranny?

Then.

Now, there's an interesting comment. Interesting because of the IP address:

140.90.233.67

Seems this tiny little thug is posting on our dime:

IP address [?]: 140.90.233.67 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: Maryland
IP address city: Suitland
IP address latitude: 38.832401
IP address longitude: -76.908401
ISP of this IP [?]: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organization: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Host of this IP: [?]: ws233-67.nesdis.noaa.gov [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-28 04:56

NOAA is part of the same department I belong to. We have acceptable use guidelines that go beyond merely abiding by the Hatch Act prohibiting use of government resources for partisan party politics. I am certain that little comment on someone's personal blog was not acceptable use. As the guy is working for NOAA Satellite and Information Services he may not be a federal employee, but a lowly contractor, in which case actually trying to get him into trouble is really punching down.

Of course, everyone has down time at work, but the issue isn't the use of time or doing it "on your dime". It's the use of resources.

This is why, when I'm between putting out fires in the best possible use of your tax dollars, I will post here or on Twitter using my personal cell phone and not any government resources.

I would never be so stupid as to make a comment like that from my government computer, be it a Blackberry, laptop or dedicated PC on a site I would consider adversarial, like Atheism Plus or Freethought Blogs. On the SlymePit, I have perfect confidence in Lsuoma not taking that route no matter how much I try to piss him off. That's not an assumption I would make anywhere else. And I still post using Tappatalk and Plume on my phone.

In the past, someone has alluded to getting me in trouble for using government resources in making videos, but I've pointed out, the programs I use for that are on my home computer and can't even be installed on my work PC. I can't even install Chrome extensions on my work PC, the ship we run is just that tight. In fact, when I have to make a retirement video for someone or some other video production, I have a tacit agreement to telework from home. So the only way I could actually get in trouble for misapplication of resources is to do what this idiot did. By making a dumb-assed comment. From a government computer.

Only an idiot in need of correction would make themselves vulnerable like that.

That said, even if someone rats on this particular idiot, if he's a federal employee, he'll get some warning, be reminded of acceptable use, maybe be subject to an hour's boredom of re-taking some training. It's not like he's going to get fired or taken out and shot.

And then maybe he'll learn to stay squeaky clean.

That he was using govt resources to be an idiot online gave me pause. Seems they should be held to a higher standard, but then, I have certain rules at work as well. Though I've done it a couple times, I no longer access places like this one with the one computer at work which would not block it, and I work in a kinda small hospital in a pretty small town in the middle of nowhere. I'm positive I'd get into trouble. Big Brother's great aunt's nearsighted eyes are there and sometimes they catch us being bad. I don't want to get caught and have to deal with explaining this place to people who have zero understanding of these corners of the internet..

Anyway, then I thought of the nature of what he did as I see it (name calling), and find it hard to rate it as rising to the level of being outed. I figure it's more of an internal matter, something his superiors/co-workers should discover and deal with. I agree with his spanking, but not the way it happened.

Unless I'm missing some aspect to the story as is always possible.

I don't know if there's a lot of back-story there. And I don't think what he did rose to the level of him "having to be dealt with". My point was, I think, that he's a dumb-ass for making himself vulnerable to that kind of move. Hate to be all victim blaming here but when you you are on a federal computer you

1. Know the acceptable use policy. It's not all that draconian and allows for access to personal email, doing a bit of surfing when it involves news sites and the like. Doing anything that is bandwidth intensive is frowned on, like logging into ESPN streaming all day long. Some of this is now systemically blocked using Websense, which is Big Brother's Net Nanny due to once being able to watch freaking bandwidth spikes around major sporting events. Other guidelines require the application of your own common sense.

2. Realize that your government IP is a big fat target. Whether from the right of left, as soon as you piss someone off they are going to pull this "OMFG look what's happening with my tax dollars" shit. It happens so often it's a cliche, and since it's a government computer and, apparently, .00001% the property of whoever you just pissed off, people will "dox" the fuck out of that IP in a way they would never do if, say, you called them a tranny from the Public Library.

Remember kids, while safety is everyone's business, covering your own ass is nobody's business but your own.