Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:30 pm
Jesus christ I was ninjaed by STEERS! lol
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
https://slymepit.com/phpbb/
zenbabe wrote:Jesus christ I was ninjaed by STEERS! lol
You ever notice about sandy vaginasJames Caruthers wrote:I thought what really got your phonograph going was a sandy cnut.Mykeru wrote: I'd rather have imaginary this:
I'd be more inclined to believe it on the tail end of a criminal/civil proceeding, to be honest. But that ties into something a bit larger.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. JUst because people can hypothesis grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. Just because people can hypothesize grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Well, the world is going through a second Cold War, and some jokes may trigger the Russkies into launching their nukes against America. Just saying.windy wrote:The most dangerous joke in the world:Apples wrote:"No dangerous jokes."Jonathan wrote:Over at Atheism+ the spirit of April Fool's Day is alive and well.
dangerous.
jokes.
srsly. :(
[youtube]8gpjk_MaCGM[/youtube]
Physical evidence, video footage, physical examination, criminal or business investigation. Actual evidence. Hearsay is not evidence, and it would take a lot of independent accounts - meaning not "my friends all saw it". given the hyperbolic and often insane attitudes of the SJWs, I'm far less likely to believe them, simply because they've lied and distorted things enough that I don't trust them to give me the time of day. In the current situation, Stollznow may be acting honestly and truthfully, but the "gotcha" game she played makes me less likely to believe her, but I'll wait for any real evidence. Carrie Poppy or her boyfriend are completely untrustworthy and have zero credibility.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
From the many instances we heard over time, I think most of them are probably correct, or have at least have some grain of truth in them. Some were quite off, for a number of reasons, i.e. the wine story. Elevatorgate itself was non-issue that became the manufactuversy because of the Social Justice Warrior element that was unknown (to me at least) at the time. And I never had trouble understanding where Richard Dawkins was coming from. But I also have little doubt that with plenty of alcohol, and perhaps celebrity status some not so nice things happened at various conferences.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Thinking in absolutes is not the right way to think of it at all. It is not an issue of belief or disbelief and lack of belief does not mean disbelief the same as 'not guilty' does not mean innocent.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
On top of valid criteria laid out by other posters, I'd like to add an important one: that the event as described by the claimant does actually constitute sexual assault.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Yeah, I am human, so it will be different for different circumstances.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Short answer, there was a time I would have believed the account by default. Over the years though, and particularly in the last few I would be skeptical.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I'd like to think that my first response would be compassion rather than belief or disbelief. Then it would take evidence - being human and not a court of law I would probably take a lower level of evidence at face value from someone I already trust and know, than a stranger.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
WTF, you homophobic transphobic Hitler? When a woman is apparently hypnotized and raped by a EW CISMAN'S evil glare and diseased MONSTER COCK, the right thing to do is WRITE AN EDITORIAL FOR THE SCHOOL PAPER. Then she must CONTACT TWITTER.Mykeru wrote:A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. JUst because people can hypothesis grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
I would be more apt to believe a claim where the mechanism of investigation is initiated that, to a degree, is outside the control of the claimant. If one isn't bringing the legal system into it, then what exactly is the claimant trying to accomplish?
Otherwise, a claim of sexual assault is merely a claim like any other claim. And a claim where the person making it actually avoids means of proving or disproving the claim is itself suspect.
Fairly simple ... I might be inclined to believe person A or B depending on their prior behaviour and actions ... but for me to believe them would take a judgement from a recognised court of lawSkep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
A little late, but I wanted to answer this too, and share a story.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I would never believe a feminist or a SJW, anyone else yeah, why not.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
My all time fave is this one:Mykeru wrote: http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... ervice.jpg
If we are talking about an accusation where the accused is named, then the bare minimum is a specific accusation. I want to know the date, the context, the specific act, and why it was harrassment/assault, and I want a record of it having been taken seriously at the time it happened (e.g. reports to authorities in the position to do something about it).Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
When I was first dating my wife she was sexually assaulted. Her and a friend got into a van with three older guys to smoke a joint. She was hesitant, but her friend was all for it. Once they passed the joint around a few times two of the guys started making out with them while the third guy drove around. My wife yelled at them to stop, she hit the guy, she threatened to call the police. Her friend did not fight so hard and while my wife was busy fighting off the one guy in the front of the van her friend had intercourse in the back. The exact circumstance her friend went through is a bit unclear. Eventually the guys let them off after the driver got scared and my wife kept fighting with them.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Your Honor, this question is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and I move it be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it!Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
One of the things I hate most about the looneys is that they believe people like your wife are broken and failing and hurting and trying to be human again. The minutes they spent with the evil people should define her life, they believe.John D wrote:When I was first dating my wife she was sexually assaulted. Her and a friend got into a van with three older guys to smoke a joint. She was hesitant, but her friend was all for it. Once they passed the joint around a few times two of the guys started making out with them while the third guy drove around. My wife yelled at them to stop, she hit the guy, she threatened to call the police. Her friend did not fight so hard and while my wife was busy fighting off the one guy in the front of the van her friend had intercourse in the back. The exact circumstance her friend went through is a bit unclear. Eventually the guys let them off after the driver got scared and my wife kept fighting with them.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
The two girls then just walked home. They told their parents what happened and they called the police. The guys made a plea deal and got probation. The cops were such idiots they lost all the physical evidence. They lost their torn clothes, soiled panties, everything. It is probably a good thing the prosecutor got a plea deal because they may have lost in court with so little evidence.
The cops asked the girls why they walked home. A cop car drove right by them on the street as they walked. The girls said they were to dazed to stop the cops. They didn't think to stop at a business and call for help. They just wanted to walk home.
The thing is, people act odd when they have been traumatized. They do illogical things. I could easily see some on-line fuck head getting half the facts about my wife's assault, find there was no evidence, ask why they walked home, and then claim that the girls were lying.
So, I try to stay open minded about sexual assault claims.
My wife knows she made a bad choice getting into that van. She does not blame society or rape culture. She blames the men who assaulted her and she is more careful with strangers. She knows that life can be dangerous and that you have to be smart. She had cuts and bruises and torn clothes, but in this case her rage worked and they let her go. She just didn't think these guys would kill her, so she fought and screamed and threatened them.
What really frosts my ass are the damaging ways SJWs act. They really need to give good advice about how to avoid and stop an assault. They really need to fight to improve policing and prosecution. Instead, they bitch and moan about fucking made-up bullshit philosophy. It is not the fault of rape culture and the patriarchy. Crime occurs because some people are wicked and broken and enjoy hurting people. My heart breaks a bit every time I imagine those fucks attacking my wife.
I will say this though... she is a tough woman and this incident was just a bump in the road for her. She doesn't dwell on it. She doesn't claim she is broken because of it. She doesn't blame our culture for it.
'Belief' seems like a tricky word here. It has both a direction (what scenario is most likely?) and a strength (how certain am I? are other readings plausible?) component.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
1. First off, I would have to know what specifically the person is accused of doing. Legal definitions differ from common usage of the terms, and common usage differs wildly from SJW & feminist use of the terms. It is especially difficult, after hearing those terms so badly abused by the SJWs & feminists. So why someone says assault or sexual harassment, I have to honestly say, I don't know what they are talking about, they have to be more specific.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
vs. everyday usage:At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Once we get past the whole definition hurdle, I don't see it as really all that different from what it takes to believe anything else in life. Solid observable facts are worth a lot more than hearsay & opinions. And normally in life, I don't outright so much either believe something 100% or disbelieve something 100%. I just kind of assign it a mental probability of being true or not, that can change according to the evidence provided.1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
On insofar as it may possibly contradict a claim. For instance, if a person of the opposite gender claimed a dyed-in-the-wool gay or lesbian had mauled them and tried to drag them up to the bedroom & screw them, I might find that less credible. Beyond inconsistencies such as that, I find no reason to treat either men or women as more or less believable.Skep tickle wrote:Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
Hmm.... here is the thing. "Sides" of The Schism are kind of grey. I wouldn't consider someone with one idea that I don't like to be on the "other side," nor would I consider someone with a larger set of ideas that disagree with my opinions to be on a different side from me. As long as they are an honest actor, not hyping things up with hyperbole, painting a different view of someone in a dishonest way or dodging facts or lying, I just can't view them as some sort of enemy. So simply being on the "other side" of the Schism would not be sufficient. It really would boil down to how honest their communications have been throughout. If they have been dishonest, or frequently stretched the truth, of course I am going to find them less credible.Skep tickle wrote:If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I am sorry if I have disappointed you. But I can promise you that if some SJW out there reads my response, they will be "literally shaking with Rag tears."Skep tickle wrote:I anticipate there will be rude answers,
My blah blah blahSoylentAtheist wrote:Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Oh. One more point.
15. If someone tells me that I am not allowed to ask questions, or I can't hold my own opinion, or that I am not allowed to hold certain thoughts, I view it as an instant red flag to be suspicious of their motivations. I see it as the equivalent of a car salesman telling me they they have just offered me the lowest price possible in town, but it is only good if I buy the car before I leave the lot. I see that as a sign that I need to leave the lot right now as I have (according to the salesman) their lowest offered price, and that another lot may offer me a lower price and I need to investigate further on my own. If the salesman was willing to offer me the price then, they will offer it when I come back. I see it as a bullshit statement and walk. Yes. I have done that before. And the price goes lower. But I still walk. (My method of purchasing cars is different now. I solicit bids from home. But at that time, it was a great method.)
Interesting. I wonder how much of an impact SJWs are having on society. Are their efforts actually making people far more skeptical and more likely to disbelieve claimed victims?AndrewV69 wrote:Short answer, there was a time I would have believed the account by default. Over the years though, and particularly in the last few I would be skeptical.
I'd of course believe without question someone I knew personally and trusted.Skep tickle wrote:What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
I'd of course believe without question someone I knew personally and trusted.Skep tickle wrote:What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
The ironic thing is that we're the ones who actually care about the "bitches." We want real rapists and harassers to suffer for their crimes in line with the laws of the local municipalities and the policies of the applicable employers.Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.
However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
To paraphrase Sandra Day O'Connor, "Oh, that's just DayDays!"Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.
However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.
However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
I think this makes sense. And you could abstract away from the merits of any specific side to just:Karmakin wrote: I'd be more inclined to believe it on the tail end of a criminal/civil proceeding, to be honest. But that ties into something a bit larger.
The reason I don't believe most of the claims that come up in the A/S community, is because of the schism. But it's not really from a tribalistic standpoint (at least I try not to be tribalistic), it's that the SJL is a bunch of angle-shooters. There's an angle in everything. Playing all of it off to the highest personal benefit. Needless to say, I have a hard time believing their claims while at the same time so many people are positioning it for personal benefit. Now that's not always the person making the claim. But at a certain point, it's hard to divorce the two.
So Skep tickle,SoylentAtheist wrote:Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.
However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
The issue is that all people lie at times for all sorts of reasons. No specific gender should be sanctified to the level that we should think that they are any less human that the rest of the population.
Yes. Absolutely. This is the number one thing that came into my head. I would also want clarity about exactly what happened. I find it hard to accept sexual assault can occur between grown adults if both concede to the act and there is no objection voiced at the time, during or immediately subsequent to the act, and I don't think it's acceptable to assume that someone can read that their partner is uncomfortable or distressed all the time. I also don't think several other things people call sexual assault actually are - eg, sex while drunk, someone touching your pregnant stomach, etc.dogen wrote:On top of valid criteria laid out by other posters, I'd like to add an important one: that the event as described by the claimant does actually constitute sexual assault.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
For instance, no amount of regret can post hoc transform a consensual liaison into sexual assault.
Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:SoylentAtheist wrote:Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
As much as I enjoy all of the above scenarios, isn't it possible that certain threads are mod free, such as his thunderdome?James Caruthers wrote:Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:SoylentAtheist wrote:Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
I mean, you need an account to comment on Pharyngula, so that means you have to give Peez your dox. Seems inefficient to troll that way, unless you're certain you can never be caught. 8-)
I won't link the tweet because his account is private (& the link might not work for everyone, anyway). But I don't recall having agreed through the "follow" button never to quote his tweets, & in the spirit of his free speech absolutism, here are 2 snippets from a conversation he started with this tweet:SoylentAtheist wrote:So Skep tickle,SoylentAtheist wrote:Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.
However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
The issue is that all people lie at times for all sorts of reasons. No specific gender should be sanctified to the level that we should think that they are any less human that the rest of the population.
I went to view the twitter feed because I wanted to see your direct quote of him in his own context. Obviously I have drunk the "bitches be lying" Koolaid... (or perhaps sometimes people can't always accurately rephrase someone else's thoughts, so it doesn't hurt to check when it's easy.)
Sadly his twitter feed to blocked & marked private.
However on the plus side, I think he has a hilarious twitter profile pic' so it wasn't all for naught.
[.img]http://i.imgur.com/tHn2X62.jpg[/img]
Several tweets later, one thread of that conversation, with Notung, included this:d4m10n wrote:So @Aneris23 and @Ellesun I am curious why you guys continue to defend the Pit. The posters seem to revel in a sort of blind rage approach.
(The "bitches be lying" was his comment, though in quotes in his tweet. I added the Koolaid part, hence it wasn't in quotes in my comment you quoted above.)d4m10n wrote:@SIN_Notung There we continue to disagree. When all the non-fence-sitters are in the "bitches be lying" camp, that is strongly indicative.
Maybe that's the real reason Physioproffe has been asked to leave.James Caruthers wrote:Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:SoylentAtheist wrote:Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
I mean, you need an account to comment on Pharyngula, so that means you have to give Peez your dox. Seems inefficient to troll that way, unless you're certain you can never be caught. 8-)
Interesting question.Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I don't know what "bitches be lying" even means:Skep tickle wrote:Several tweets later, one thread of that conversation, with Notung, included this:d4m10n wrote:So @Aneris23 and @Ellesun I am curious why you guys continue to defend the Pit. The posters seem to revel in a sort of blind rage approach.(The "bitches be lying" was his comment, though in quotes in his tweet. I added the Koolaid part, hence it wasn't in quotes in my comment you quoted above.)d4m10n wrote:@SIN_Notung There we continue to disagree. When all the non-fence-sitters are in the "bitches be lying" camp, that is strongly indicative.
Jumping ahead, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but when someone posts accusations of criminal behavior online, if there has been no independent investigation of some kind, then I wonder what's motivating the accuser. Further, I assume those motivations are highly emotional, and because emotions cloud reason and twist truth, I'm not likely to trust the accuser (accuser as identified as the random person who is blurting it out, grabbing the attention and sympathy of everyone possible).Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Jumping ahead, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but when someone posts accusations of criminal behavior online, if there has been no independent investigation of some kind, then I wonder what's motivating the accuser. Further, I assume those motivations are highly emotional, and because emotions cloud reason and twist truth, I'm not likely to trust the accuser (accuser as identified as the random person who is blurting it out, grabbing the attention and sympathy of everyone possible).Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?
Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Here is the deal. Is it bad that some people here are equally skeptical of denials of sexual harassment? Skepticism goes both ways.JacquesCuze wrote:I don't know what "bitches be lying" even means:
+ "non-fence-sitters" would NEVER believe a woman's complaint of sexual harassment? That sounds like a terrible bet to make, even for d4m10n!
+ d4m10n! doesn't think it's reasonable for "non-fence-sitters" to be appropriately skeptical of claims of sexual harassment?
I read all the responses, and I think there are several of such high quality that I wish someone would take the best of each of them and turn them into a good blog post about what a reasonably skeptical examination of a claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault would be.
And for those of you who conference, hell, I think there is a conference session in that topic.
I think the description of Budweiser as "beer" is fair enough. It's not like it's actually beer, is it?windy wrote:Some "interesting" uses of quotations here... the "work" of some local "steersman", perhaps?
http://distractify.com/people/the-30-mo ... n-history/
http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/w ... 1-620x.jpg
http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/w ... 2-620x.jpg
http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/w ... 4-620x.jpg