Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

Old subthreads
Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2521

Post by Old_ones »

My gender is doing nasty things? If I hear stories about women defaming men, or abusing their children, is that the woman gender doing nasty things? Or would it be misogyny if I were to say something like that? Or would it just be totally stupid because genders are a social construct (presumably without agency of thier own) and/or a designation which can be changed at will? Geez feminism, I might be more likely to espouse you if you weren't so damn confusing.

On the other hand, thank you for making me aware of the awesome power I have over other men. I'm not really sure what this "privilege" is, but I'll be sure to try it next time my boss convinces himself that I need to do a bunch more calculations before our paper can be submitted. If that works, I'll be sure to convince all the men who rape people to play badminton instead.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2522

Post by AndrewV69 »

Spotted on twatter:
The link leads to the article by Ed Clint back in 2012 titled Science denialism at a skeptic conference about the talk given by Twatson (yep I went there) on evolutionary psychology.

clownshoe
.
.
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2523

Post by clownshoe »

deLurch wrote:
Mykeru wrote:A couple points from previous stuff from the thread previously and stuff.
1. Park is a Korean name, not Chinese
2. My shaving stuff:
IMG_1151_600.JPG
Single blade. Pure badger. Up yours, razor dual-wielders.
That single blade razer & brush have been on Mykeru's scrotum. Prove me wrong.
QFT!

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2524

Post by Sulman »

She was a crucial part of one of the biggest shows ever, long before professional sisterhood was fashionable.

A seriously cool woman.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2525

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

JacquesCuze wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:The wage gap lie will never die.
It's worse than that in that it has become part of the Democratic platform and so the feminist rationalizations are now spouted not just by SJW and feminists but by the average partisan commenter, including I've found, those that should know better.

And there's very little about the debunking that's new -- Robert Reich of all people has even acknowledged that any wage gap is more like 6% than 23%.

http://freakonomics.com/2008/05/01/robe ... questions/
Q: I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the feminisation of poverty and the male-female wage differential. How much of that is due to career choice?

A: Rough estimate: About 50 percent of the differential has to do with different career choices made by women and men. Twenty-five percent involves greater time women spend on care-taking of children and elderly relatives. The other 25 percent is due to bias and prejudice in the labor market.
I think it would be hard to find a more passionate proponent of equal pay than Robert Reich.
Reich is just a little bit incorrect. Between 1¢ and 6¢ of the gap is unexplained. It could be bias, but no one's yet to find any hard evidence of that.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2526

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

another lurker wrote:There was another stupid piece on Salon today
Julia Louis Dreyfus could have that tattooed across her butt, and it would never be wrong.

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2527

Post by welch »

Fuck all this lawsuit idiocy. My wife found what is basically the Twilight version of "My Immortal"

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/9670627/1/ ... ard-Cullen

FUCK

YEAH

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2528

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Hey, there's an article about Mofugly Anders.

ROBOKiTTY
.
.
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:47 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2529

Post by ROBOKiTTY »

So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2530

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

AndrewV69 wrote:Man ... you have no idea how much hard feeling there are between some people from China/Korea/Japan towards each other.
The Japanese hate the Koreans for having a national cuisine that doesn't taste like toe jam.

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2531

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

Mykeru wrote:A couple points from previous stuff from the thread previously and stuff.

1. Park is a Korean name, not Chinese

2. My shaving stuff:
IMG_1151_600.JPG
Single blade. Pure badger. Up yours, razor dual-wielders.
Heh, just a couple weeks ago I bought my first "wet-shave" gear. A Merkur that looks suspiciously like yours but I went with a synthetic brush. Seems to be doing the trick.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2532

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Apples wrote:
“Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.”

–President Obama, remarks on equal pay for equal work, April 8, 2014

In 2012, during another election season, The Fact Checker took a deep dive in the statistics behind this factoid and found it wanting. We awarded the president only a Pinocchio, largely because he is citing Census Bureau data, but have wondered since then if we were too generous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... io-rating/
Wow. obama lied. Never saw that one coming.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2533

Post by Sulman »

ROBOKiTTY wrote:So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?
Climate science was doomed the moment the left picked it up and tried to start using it as symptoms of a sickness for which only they have the cure.

The second it went political and bellends like Al Gore got involved what you saw on that poster was inevitable.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2534

Post by KiwiInOz »

ROBOKiTTY wrote:So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?
Part 1 of an evocative doco by James Cameron. Just putting the facts out is failing to grab the masses - here's hoping that a view of some reality that people might be able relate to can do the trick.

[youtube]brvhCnYvxQQ[/youtube]

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2535

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

Amazeballs. Absolutely amazeballs.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2536

Post by KiwiInOz »

Sulman wrote:
ROBOKiTTY wrote:So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?
Climate science was doomed the moment the left picked it up and tried to start using it as symptoms of a sickness for which only they have the cure.

The second it went political and bellends like Al Gore got involved what you saw on that poster was inevitable.
That may be part of the issue, but it was always going to get politicised and sides taken when the ultimate cause, i.e. mobilisation of sequestered carbon dioxide through combustion of fossil fuels, was a fundamental part of our economy and the source of unimagined wealth for a number of powerful people.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2537

Post by Sunder »

Sulman wrote:Climate science was doomed the moment the left picked it up and tried to start using it as symptoms of a sickness for which only they have the cure.

The second it went political and bellends like Al Gore got involved what you saw on that poster was inevitable.
How could a global ecological problem which necessitated international and thus intergovernmental cooperation fail to be political? Describe the alternate scenario if liberals were for some reason indifferent to climate change.

rpguest

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2538

Post by rpguest »

ROBOKiTTY wrote:So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?
people are ideologues first and foremost?

i link to potholer54. saves time. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... PfAIyI7VAP

if they cant follow up to take the debate further, assume truther and move on

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2539

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Sunder wrote:
Sulman wrote:Climate science was doomed the moment the left picked it up and tried to start using it as symptoms of a sickness for which only they have the cure.

The second it went political and bellends like Al Gore got involved what you saw on that poster was inevitable.
How could a global ecological problem which necessitated international and thus intergovernmental cooperation fail to be political? Describe the alternate scenario if liberals were for some reason indifferent to climate change.
It's really only politicized in the US. Look at Sarkozy and Merkle, both conservatives, both who made a great effort at Copenhagen to enact binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2540

Post by Sunder »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Look at Sarkozy and Merkle, both conservatives
And left of most US politicians, but I thought we were talking about political pushback in the US.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2541

Post by Sulman »

KiwiInOz wrote:
ROBOKiTTY wrote:So today I was at the library, where they had up a poster up talking about climate change. Some vandal scribbled on it, "absolute non-sense" [sic]. So I did my civic duty and crossed it out.

Why has this idiocy spread so far and wide?
Part 1 of an evocative doco by James Cameron. Just putting the facts out is failing to grab the masses - here's hoping that a view of some reality that people might be able relate to can do the trick.

[youtube]brvhCnYvxQQ[/youtube]
I've got a lot of time for Cameron. He puts himself at the sharp end and gets really involved.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2542

Post by KiwiInOz »

Sunder wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Look at Sarkozy and Merkle, both conservatives
And left of most US politicians, but I thought we were talking about political pushback in the US.
It's been happening elsewhere too - just look at Lord Bunkum from the UK, and Tony "Mad Monk" Abbott, our esteemed PM, in Australia.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2543

Post by Really? »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Apples wrote:
“Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.”

–President Obama, remarks on equal pay for equal work, April 8, 2014

In 2012, during another election season, The Fact Checker took a deep dive in the statistics behind this factoid and found it wanting. We awarded the president only a Pinocchio, largely because he is citing Census Bureau data, but have wondered since then if we were too generous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... io-rating/
Wow. obama lied. Never saw that one coming.
Hold up, hold up. I'll be happy to confront such a question once we finally get an answer as to why the fuck we poured trillions of dollars into the sands of Iraq. (Much of it into the pockets of private companies.)

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2544

Post by James Caruthers »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Reich is just a little bit incorrect. Between 1¢ and 6¢ of the gap is unexplained. It could be bias, but no one's yet to find any hard evidence of that.
Yeah, I noticed that. We can assume that unexplained bit is sexism, and that may be. Some percentage of women earning less may be attributable to sexism against women. However, that is illegal in the US, so anyone who can prove it can bring a legal complaint of some sort. What feminists do for their statistics is to conflate all jobs across all industries, disregarding seniority or any mitigating factor which might imply why a man makes more money (like more ambition, more talent, more skill, no family, different life choices, better education etc) and then they take the resulting numbers and fudge them a little more (lie) to make an already inaccurate statistic into a baldfaced lie. Sometimes I hear feminists use 77 cents, sometimes 80-something. So maybe a few of them realize what a joke "77 cents" is.

I've read some studies that apparently claim that when you correct for lifestyle choices and compare purely career-driven men to career-driven women, the women out-earn the men. Hmm.

I've heard many a feminist complain because other women freely choose not to enter career fields the feminist wants them to enter, and choose to not take on leadership roles. Good thing the feminists know what these women should be doing better than the actual women who are freely choosing not to do this work. I guess it's time to enforce gendered quotas and press these women into positions of authority and power that they are not willing to do the work to earn for themselves, and may not even want.

When I hear feminists telling young women how they are required to behave, and what kinds of jobs they are required to get (STEM or a government leadership job,) I can't help but think feminism is now transparently anti-woman. Most of these feminists who say this shit are lazy liberal arts and humanities majors who never had to work half as hard as the women they are trying to induct into STEM fields. Maybe, just maybe, some women don't want to work that hard, and it's not necessary for them to work that hard to achieve what they personally want to get out of life. But how dare those gender traitors choose not to enter science and tech fields! How dare those child girls study literature and womyn's studies instead! Oh wait...

Too bad we can't actually "ban bossy," because SJW feminists are some of the bossiest people on the planet, and banning them would be pretty funny.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2545

Post by Really? »

James Caruthers wrote:
Too bad we can't actually "ban bossy," because SJW feminists are some of the bossiest people on the planet, and banning them would be pretty funny.
Ugh, it's been explained to people like you several times that #banbossy isn't dedicated to "banning bossy." I don't even know where you would get that idea.

They just want to "start a conversation."

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2546

Post by James Caruthers »

Really? wrote: Ugh, it's been explained to people like you several times that #banbossy isn't dedicated to "banning bossy." I don't even know where you would get that idea.

They just want to "start a conversation."
You're right. I feel like such a patriarchal white cishet male misogynist rapist abuser now.

Care to join my new twitter campaign? It's called #RapeABitch.

What? I want to rape people? Don't be silly, of course it's not actually about raping bitches. I'm just trying to start a conversation about how women in the African-American community are sometimes mistreated sexually by powerful rappers. This is not reform; this is revolution! I'm trying to incite a dialogue, you heteronormative conformist racists!

I bet you're all white.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2547

Post by James Caruthers »

I shouldn't have even enacted the labor to explain the importance of #RapeABitch to you racists.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2548

Post by Mykeru »

Guestus Aurelius wrote:
Mykeru wrote:A couple points from previous stuff from the thread previously and stuff.

1. Park is a Korean name, not Chinese

2. My shaving stuff:
IMG_1151_600.JPG
Single blade. Pure badger. Up yours, razor dual-wielders.
Heh, just a couple weeks ago I bought my first "wet-shave" gear. A Merkur that looks suspiciously like yours but I went with a synthetic brush. Seems to be doing the trick.
Just wait. It'll leave hairs on your face in the foam.

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2549

Post by Søren Lilholt »

DownThunder wrote:
Gumby wrote:I'm not going to fault them for the "pitstains" crack, seeing as how we have about 10000 unflattering nicknames for them.
That's all well and good for you, but I am literally shitting myself with rage. I am only seconds away from unleashing the beast. I only just cleaned up my last puddle of faeces urine and mucous.
You joke, but I genuinely believe it is only a matter of time before one of these broken freaks shits themselves to prove what a broken freak they are.

Contenders for the inaugural 'I Dun A Poo' challenge include:

Ogvorbis
Grimalkin
PZ (outsider but he's clearly losing his faculties fast)

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2550

Post by Lsuoma »

Sunder wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Look at Sarkozy and Merkle, both conservatives
And left of most US politicians, but I thought we were talking about political pushback in the US.
Or they may have been cannily pandering to local electorates knowing full well that the US would shit all over any attempt to get to binding agreements, given that Congress and POTUS are subject to the approval to big business.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2551

Post by James Caruthers »

Oh hey guys, check out Suey Park's fundraiser group. These are the people who are going to get the 11k she's raised so far.

http://www.transjusticefundingproject.org/who-we-are/

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2552

Post by James Caruthers »

I like this one.
ElissaElissa Marcelle is a fat, queer, disabled, genderfluid Mama Bear with a passion for food and public speaking hailing from the Green Mountain state. A former youth member of Outright Vermont and a proud community activist, Elissa is focused on expanding education around the trans community and body positivity in rural areas and in society as a whole. She’s an active blogger, a proud partner, and a fighter who never backs down from doing what is right!
http://www.transjusticefundingproject.o ... 50x150.jpg

I think they're trying to out-compete OK Cupid for most shameful personal profiles.

DownThunder
.
.
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2553

Post by DownThunder »

Old_ones wrote:
My gender is doing nasty things? If I hear stories about women defaming men, or abusing their children, is that the woman gender doing nasty things? Or would it be misogyny if I were to say something like that? Or would it just be totally stupid because genders are a social construct (presumably without agency of thier own) and/or a designation which can be changed at will? Geez feminism, I might be more likely to espouse you if you weren't so damn confusing.

On the other hand, thank you for making me aware of the awesome power I have over other men. I'm not really sure what this "privilege" is, but I'll be sure to try it next time my boss convinces himself that I need to do a bunch more calculations before our paper can be submitted. If that works, I'll be sure to convince all the men who rape people to play badminton instead.
It all makes sense when you think of reality as a toilet it in a context of tribal psychology and what TyphonBlue of genderratic describes as a threat narrative. Since men are casted as an outgroup who conspire to oppress women, men do not perform individual acts. Any action by and individual outgroup member taken against any individual of the ingroup (women) is cast as offensive in nature, and part of a larger conspiracy, whereas vice-versa is cast as defensive and reactionary to some threat, and never apart of some larger institutional action.

Shorter: patriarchy.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2554

Post by Brive1987 »

Hi all

First of two posts.

First up - timeline.

Natural response is “so what”.

Obvious answer is that it proves the SA story is wrong. But that was pretty obvious as soon as data dump appeared, and is surely why PZ promptly labeled it verboten.

But from my perspective it also allows a sequence of actions to operate against a context - missing when we only have raw textual data.

For instance the break-up, post break-up emails, subsequent San Francisco liaison and TAM confrontation all seem pretty clearly to be part of one incident: KS wanting a committed, exclusive relationship with Ben, him not wanting it, dawning realization and clash of expectations.

It also makes the whole professional dust-up, complaint, investigation, complaint to JREF and eventual blog post a single escalation event.

Anyway YMWV.

So if you are interested there are three new ways to access the timeline.

GoogleSpread Sheet - JacquesCuze has done an incredible job getting it online



I can add additional Gmail users as editors if desired.

The original (native) spreadsheet - download to your local machine.



Good resolution Image - download to your local machine.


.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2555

Post by Brive1987 »

.
Second up - Radford / Stollznowmy. My view of what happened.

This is primarily based on the Radford data dump and is personal opinion.

Overall I think KS operated with a large degree of crazy - especially with Baxter. I think BR managed to keep her a safe distance most of the time.

I also think this is primarily a workplace dispute and she leveraged off a messy drawn out relationship failure.

The 18 month gap of anything makes it unlikely she was principally motivated by the 2010 relationship fizzle.


Basically -

I reckon the ongoing long-range affair did ended in late 2009 over a conflict of expectations.

I also believe KS tried (failed) to rekindle a committed relationship in 2010 with Radford. And was rebuffed.

The whole thing came to a head when KS/Baxter blew up in Sept 2010. BR stupidly got involved. KS made all sorts of revenge sex requests that BR wisely dismissed.

Baxter/KS reconciled. KS and BR were now formally over and KS told BR she was sleeping with other men in 2010 anyway. So there. They remained largely professional with each other.

Baxter and KS keep fighting but finally fully reconcile in May 2011. They decide BR had been the mutual cause of their problems and tell him to stop "harassing" them (Jun 2011). Probably due to his request for casual sex at TAM (recast no doubt), his getting involved with their post plush-wars fighting and him sending KS Birthday and Xmas gifts.

Nothing happens for 18 months.

Then for whatever reason, BR takes on KS professionally. She files a complaint and maps the earlier relationship 'harassment' with the new professional 'harassment'. The complaint largely fails. You tries to get a run around, complaining to JREF. This also fails.

Professionally slighted, having been exposed to toxic SJL ideology about rape and skeptic harassment and having placed herself in an invidious position she writes her SA article.

I'd break the whole thing up into 6 chapters:

……………………………………………………………..

Affair

BR and KS sexual affair ran from Sept 2008 to Aug 2009.

……………………………………………………………..

Breakup and Attempted Committed Relationship Karen / Radford

August 2009
They breakup over BR’s lack of commitment. Trigger is KS Facebooking other women connected to BR.

September 2009
KS starts dating Baxter.

October 2009 – February 2010
KS remains connected to BR letting him know it was his lack of commitment that stuffed things up.

March 2010
KS tries again – offers to have “dinner” in April with BR, having now explained why it didn’t work out.

April 2010
KS attempts to rekindle relationship with hotel romp. Ultimately this fails and …

July 2010
they argue at TAM and BR makes an abortive attempt to keep the relationship “casual” with an offer/request for hotel sex. Fails.

KS and Baxter also hit the skids – Baxter seeks advice from BR and KS rekindles ego positive email exchanges with BR. Around this time Baxter later says they broke up “40 times”.

September 2010
KS/Baxter dramas culminate in the camera smashing fight. KS again seeks to connect with BR – rejected offers of affairs escalate into her asking for refuge at BR’s house from an ‘abusive’ Baxter. Deal falls through (reconciliation?). Radford's unwise involvement here is probably the catalyst for becoming a future scapegoat.

……………………………………………………………..

End of War with Baxter: Reconciliation

October 2010
KS finally spurns BR with a porno book (sub-text anyone) – and by telling him she slept with another skeptic earlier that year. Reconciles with Baxter. Remains professional with Radford.

April 2011
KS and Baxter continue to have domestics – “plush wars”

May 2011
KS and Baxter reconcile. They require a mutual enemy and cause of the problems – BR. See next entry.

June 2011
KS privately (with Baxter) accuses BR of harassment. BR organizes for separate MonsterTalk recordings. No escalation of claims. Unlikely to be a professional workplace complaint.

……………………………………………………………..

A Long Period of Nothing

July 2011 – Jan 2013 are essentially a black hole.

July 2012
Later alleged TAM assault at panel table ‘occurs’

September 2012
KS and Baxter marry. Communication stops between BR and KS.

……………………………………………………………..

Professional Wars and Complaint

January 2013
BR formally complains about KS’s work ethic and input to the podcast.

Estimate March – June 2013
KS formally complains about sexual harassment. And investigation occurs.

……………………………………………………………..

Failure and Dropping the Bomb

June 2013?
KS fails to have Ben removed from CFI. Feels professionally slighted.

July 2013
Anger builds - unsuccessfully complains to JREF

August 2013
Writes her SA article – equal parts attack on BR and CFI. Provides Carrie Poppy copies of her JREF emails for Carrie's attack attack on DJ (via PZ "Carrie Poppy tells all")

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2556

Post by Skep tickle »

The phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" seems apt.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2557

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Happy birthday Mykeru!

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2558

Post by Skep tickle »

Myers has a post up about yet another free conference in the Midwest (US). It's kind of late notice - it's taking place this weekend - but he encourages people to go, managing to do so without snarking...nor trying to compare it unfavorably to the recent Skeptech disaster, so good on him for that.

It's Freethought Festival 3 at University of Wisconsin - Madison - http://freethoughtfestival.org/ - with quite a few big name (for freethought) speakers. Nobody seems to be on the list as a token-something or as a blogger-with-no-other-credentials. It's put on by a student group, sponsored by SCA & FFRF (Barker & Gaylor are among the speakers). The leader of the student group is a guy majoring in economics & math, so seems low likelihood that he's an SJW.

Oh, and...maybe I missed it, but I don't see a harassment policy posted on the website. :)

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2559

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

James Caruthers wrote: But just imagine how it would hurt the Democratic Womyn's Party (feminists and democratic politicians) if they had to make their new slogan "Womyn make 6% less than men due to sexism!"

It kinda takes the sting out when you say it that way. You know, the way it really is. That extra couple of pennies, damn dude, we really need to deal with this huge rape culture sexism in our society!

But seriously, I'd have so much more respect for feminists if they came out and admitted the discrimination is only like 6%, and said "hey guys and gals, look how far we've come, we're almost there" and tried to address the actual wage gap of 6% rather than the propaganda lie.
A 6% wage gap is still abnormal and shouldn't even exist. I don't think their platform would lose traction if they used that figure instead of the 23% flawed number. The argument would probably gain more credibility, and that's one cause I'd be ready to get behind (provided the gap exists only because of discrimination based on gender and gender alone).

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2560

Post by Brive1987 »

Skep tickle wrote:Myers has a post up about yet another free conference in the Midwest (US). It's kind of late notice - it's taking place this weekend - but he encourages people to go, managing to do so without snarking...nor trying to compare it unfavorably to the recent Skeptech disaster, so good on him for that.

It's Freethought Festival 3 at University of Wisconsin - Madison - http://freethoughtfestival.org/ - with quite a few big name (for freethought) speakers. Nobody seems to be on the list as a token-something or as a blogger-with-no-other-credentials. It's put on by a student group, sponsored by SCA & FFRF (Barker & Gaylor are among the speakers). The leader of the student group is a guy majoring in economics & math, so seems low likelihood that he's an SJW.

Oh, and...maybe I missed it, but I don't see a harassment policy posted on the website. :)
Looks refreshingly ..... dictionary in nature.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2561

Post by Skep tickle »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
deLurch wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I'm actually really looking forward to her releasing a video on feminism per week. A lot of the funny channels I watch on youtube have had a real ball tearing into her crazy SJW nuttery. I can't think of a better way for social justice wankers to become socially unacceptable in mainstream politics than for the entire internet to be inundated with Beckybooze's shitty feminist vlogs. About Elevatorgate, of course, because Becky hears "feminism" and translates to "my personal victim narrative of that one time a guy did something I didn't like and I trolled the internet for outrage, free money and publicity."
I suspect I know at least one of Rebecca's dilemmas. She can do a "feminist" outrage video easily targeting some poor schmuck or business that has already earned the ire of facebook feminists. But she can't do a serious feminist video. Like her issue with doing skeptic & science reporting, she neither has the existing depth of knowledge of the subject material, nor the drive & curiosity to research the subjects. Anything she attempts on a serious side will likely get her raged upon in much the same way she was raged upon by the mental cases when she tried to assuage their concerns on her website. She isn't ready to handle the hate from her only support base that she has cornered herself up with. Good targets for outrage porn don't come out every day, plus it will get old fast. The things she has going for her is side-kick shtick, victim status & having a mini-swarm of followers to blog on her websites for her.
I've always wondered if Rebecca Watson has kept away from serious feminist subjects out of deference to Amanda Marcotte as that is her shtick.
Marcotte gets a lot of flack here - and most of it is entirely deserved - but she does have the ability to draw on some serious knowlege of feminism and female health and political issues.
I think I've previously pointed out that her talk at the recent Skepticon was probably the best talk there this year. It was on political and church interference in womens health matters in the US. She stuck to the topic at hand and didn't turn it into a me-me-me whinefest as we all know Watson is wont to do, but instead gave a talk that was well researched and well presented.
I don't think Rebecca Watson could do a presentation half as good as that - at least not on that subject.

I think Elevatorgate resulted in Watson being positioned as the atheist/skeptical feminist leader - and yet real academic feminists will instantly see through her act and realize she is winging it. Marcotte gets away with it not through any kind of brilliance, but because she knows enough to get by. She has thrust herself more into the atheist/skeptical community in the past three years, either intentionally to compete with Watson, or unintentionally because there was more demand for feminist speakers, but with the same end result - Marcotte has become the person who gives serious talks on serious womens issues - Watson is the one who gives (bad) jokey talks about stupid youtube commenters.
I don't think she said she's do a video on feminism per week - it was a video on feminism or whatever she wanted to talk about.

Anyway, I'm not sure when this happened...and it probably wasn't after RW read the above critiques...but the blurb at the top of her Patreon page has changed.

Starting back in October, the "creating videos about..." read "Science, skepticism, feminism, and maybe sloths."

Sometime not too long ago it changed to this:

http://i.imgur.com/ZgG68Z5.png?1

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2562

Post by mordacious1 »

I have no problem with Julia's butt, but John Hancock did not sign the Constitution.

Richard Dworkins
.
.
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:31 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2563

Post by Richard Dworkins »

Reading about the continued ego-droning of The Racist Suey Park and that whine-athon about John Stewart made me realise something about these idiots. When I was young there used to be such a thing as a comedienne and Blacks and other minorities were referred to as Coloured people. Both of these words lost favour as being sexist and racist by the time I was in my teens. However nowadays I hear women comedians specify they are "women comedians" rather than just comedians and I hear the victim feminists and their associates call black people, people of colour.

This makes it seem to me like this "third wave" is a direct challenge to the idea of Second Wave Feminism, in so far as what we see are a bunch of gossiping, spineless shrieking idiots who are both socially and culturally backward and are terrified of men, male spaces and masculinity as a concept. It seems to me that in fact they are exactly the cartoon stereotype we were told did not exist by second wave feminists, that woman were strong and could compete equally.

Now their daughters seem to be set on proving that hypothesis wrong by being overly emotional, hysterical and weak. In doing so make a mockery of the very ideology they hold so dear they use as a fashion accessory.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2564

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2565

Post by Brive1987 »

Skep tickle wrote:
I don't think she said she's do a video on feminism per week - it was a video on feminism or whatever she wanted to talk about.

Anyway, I'm not sure when this happened...and it probably wasn't after RW read the above critiques...but the blurb at the top of her Patreon page has changed.

Starting back in October, the "creating videos about..." read "Science, skepticism, feminism, and maybe sloths."

Sometime not too long ago it changed to this:

http://i.imgur.com/ZgG68Z5.png?1

[youtube]O8YSwB8AvWs[/youtube]

Listen from 4:12 on (get an Oscar Petorious vomit bucket if you must).

It's the epitome of RW's shallowness. In one easy sentence she goes from: "If I get more money I promise two videos and at least one will be on feminism ..." and finishes with "or pizza".

So excuse me ;) for having only remembered the substantive bit of the blabber.

BTW this is a legit screen shot with captioning on. The advert would obviously only be relevant to her after a morning of drunken chundering.

http://i.imgur.com/l3ztmXJ.jpg

.............................

The move to "critical thinking" over "Skepticism" is obviously a political realignment. The Lady Stuff displays her fundamental lack of confidence in serious feminism.

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2566

Post by Apples »

mordacious1 wrote:
I have no problem with Julia's butt, but John Hancock did not sign the Constitution.
Declaration of Independence

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2567

Post by Brive1987 »

Oh god, the Youtube captioning thingie is funny.

Here it is a few seconds later same video. She is trying to say "its my channel" stutters and instead it is interpreted as this .......

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


:lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2568

Post by Apples »

DownThunder wrote:
Gumby wrote:I'm not going to fault them for the "pitstains" crack, seeing as how we have about 10000 unflattering nicknames for them.
That's all well and good for you, but I am literally shitting myself with rage. I am only seconds away from unleashing the beast. I only just cleaned up my last puddle of faeces urine and mucous.
Along with "assrocket," "literally shitting myself with rage" is my new favorite Pit SJW neologism. Loves it. Prodigious chuckles.

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2569

Post by Apples »

Oh - my bad - that's the Preamble, isn't it. Good catch.

paddybrown
.
.
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:06 am
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2570

Post by paddybrown »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
James Caruthers wrote: Suey Park saying that white people are assumed to be rational and pure and clean and innocent is also deserving of a comic strip.
Like Radford, Baxter, and Stollznow?
"When I said I wanted to be a comedian, everybody laughed. They're not laughing now."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... khouse.jpg

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2571

Post by James Caruthers »

Richard Dworkins wrote:Reading about the continued ego-droning of The Racist Suey Park and that whine-athon about John Stewart made me realise something about these idiots. When I was young there used to be such a thing as a comedienne and Blacks and other minorities were referred to as Coloured people. Both of these words lost favour as being sexist and racist by the time I was in my teens. However nowadays I hear women comedians specify they are "women comedians" rather than just comedians and I hear the victim feminists and their associates call black people, people of colour.

This makes it seem to me like this "third wave" is a direct challenge to the idea of Second Wave Feminism, in so far as what we see are a bunch of gossiping, spineless shrieking idiots who are both socially and culturally backward and are terrified of men, male spaces and masculinity as a concept. It seems to me that in fact they are exactly the cartoon stereotype we were told did not exist by second wave feminists, that woman were strong and could compete equally.

Now their daughters seem to be set on proving that hypothesis wrong by being overly emotional, hysterical and weak. In doing so make a mockery of the very ideology they hold so dear they use as a fashion accessory.
Well yeah. I mean, a lot of these fuckers don't even have anything to fight for anymore, or what they're fighting for is a propaganda lie used to fatten the wallets of professional victim bloggers and political pundits. But they have to be angry about something, so now it's gone from concrete issues like legal discrimination, slavery and the right to vote, to bullshit like "when a guy I don't like looks at me, that's sexual harassment" or the invisible Illuminati Jews Patriarchy that controls everyone like puppets to make them dance to the tune of RAPE CULTURE.

The personal is political, so any personal, narcissistic gripe you have is now a societal problem we all need to focus on RIGHT NOW.

Also, I think it's reasonable to accuse the social justice warriors of basically becoming the next KKK. I mean, I can see the beginnings of extreme racism, sexism and bigotry running through their movement. I don't just mean discrimination or looking down on people because of circumstances of birth they cannot help, although they most definitely do that. What I mean is, a way of looking at the world and rationalizing people which is utterly dependent upon race, racial stereotyping, sex, sexual stereotyping, etc. The SJWs look at a black person and see a "poor, downtrodden Person of Color who needs a helping hand to overcome this oppression, because ze cannot compete and exist openly in society without our help." Or they look at an asian person, who we know very well tend to statistically be wealthier and better educated than white people, and still assume "oh, the horrible oppression! Xe needs special programs and quotas because of our white supremacist society!" Meanwhile in the trailer park, the brilliant and gifted, poverty-stricken white man takes a bus to the worst community college in the state, where he is told he is a privileged patriarchal monarch white supremacist who shits on womyn. :lol:

I've even had social justice wankers tell me that being "colorblind" regarding race (treating people as people on an individual basis) is itself racism. :lol:

So basically, what I'm saying is these people are fucking bigots, and they disgust me every bit as much as the KKK, the 700 Club or Fred Phelps. :P Even when they try to do "empower" some group they think is underprivileged, they do it in a way that's fucking racist and condescending as hell. These pushes for female quotas are sexist against women, and imply that a woman cannot be as good as a man unless the government steps in and forces businesses to choose women instead of men. Let's not get into the mass creation of female-only spaces simultaneous with the move to eradicate all male-only spaces and masculine symbols (because if it's for men or masculine in any way, it will be called sexist).

I'm not saying feminists are all bigots. But social justice warriors, as a subset of feminists and liberals, definitely tend towards being racist and sexist. But hey, unlike SJWs, I don't feel racism is some huge crime that deserves prison. They're welcome to their shitty worldview, I just wish they'd stop trying to poison other minds with it. If feminism was ever worth a damn, social justice wankers have killed it. Truly strong, confident women who know about modern feminism don't call themselves feminists anymore.

Also yeah, holy shit do the social justice wankers have a huge fucking problem with masculinity and male sexuality. But hey, they're constantly surrounded by male feminists, so I can sort of understand the animosity. :cdc:

http://feministcurrent.com/wp-content/u ... .46-PM.png
Imagine:

You're on a crowded bus with Tatsuya Ishida. He's showing you his new feminism comic strips about smashing the patriarchy and why porn is evil.

The bus right will be 90 minutes long.

Now,

Homicide or suicide?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2572

Post by Brive1987 »

RocketHub is a piece of shit.

paddybrown
.
.
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:06 am
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2573

Post by paddybrown »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Reich is just a little bit incorrect. Between 1¢ and 6¢ of the gap is unexplained. It could be bias, but no one's yet to find any hard evidence of that.
You also need to factor in the fact that women outspend men. There is obviously a great deal of redistribution of wealth from men to women. Men need to earn more to afford this redistribution. Women don't have to work as hard to enjoy a comparable standard of living as a man, and so don't. QED.

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2574

Post by TheMan »

James Caruthers wrote:I like this one.

http://www.transjusticefundingproject.o ... 50x150.jpg

I think they're trying to out-compete OK Cupid for most shameful personal profiles.
OMG it's Elvis!

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2575

Post by Dick Strawkins »


http://images.christianpost.com/full/64 ... lstein.png

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

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2576

Post by Apples »

James Caruthers wrote:Also, I think it's reasonable to accuse the social justice warriors of basically becoming the next KKK. I mean, I can see the beginnings of extreme racism, sexism and bigotry running through their movement. I don't just mean discrimination or looking down on people because of circumstances of birth they cannot help, although they most definitely do that. What I mean is, a way of looking at the world and rationalizing people which is utterly dependent upon race, racial stereotyping, sex, sexual stereotyping, etc. The SJWs look at a black person and see a "poor, downtrodden Person of Color who needs a helping hand to overcome this oppression, because ze cannot compete and exist openly in society without our help." Or they look at an asian person, who we know very well tend to statistically be wealthier and better educated than white people, and still assume "oh, the horrible oppression! Xe needs special programs and quotas because of our white supremacist society!" Meanwhile in the trailer park, the brilliant and gifted, poverty-stricken white man takes a bus to the worst community college in the state, where he is told he is a privileged patriarchal monarch white supremacist who shits on womyn. :lol:
Yes. They are arguably more racist than the average "race realist."
You're on a crowded bus with Tatsuya Ishida. He's showing you his new feminism comic strips about smashing the patriarchy and why porn is evil.

The bus ride will be 90 minutes long.

Now,

Homicide or suicide?
https://josetorregrosa.files.wordpress. ... s-clos.jpg

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2577

Post by AndrewV69 »

In other news:
The center point of the government’s allegations were that Harroun fought with al Nusra, an al Qaeda linked group.

When a film showing Harroun with a group of fighters was entered by the FBI as evidence was translated, it turned out that Harroun was actually with a group called al Nasr, a group not affiliated with any terrorist groups.
Anyway he just died in his sleep recently.

(follow the link if you want to watch the video interview).

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2578

Post by Pitchguest »

mordacious1 wrote:
I have no problem with Julia's butt, but John Hancock did not sign the Constitution.
Oh dear, Americans getting their constitutions and their declarations of independence mixed up. Tut tut.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2579

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

AndrewV69 wrote:In other news:
The center point of the government’s allegations were that Harroun fought with al Nusra, an al Qaeda linked group.

When a film showing Harroun with a group of fighters was entered by the FBI as evidence was translated, it turned out that Harroun was actually with a group called al Nasr, a group not affiliated with any terrorist groups.
Anyway he just died in his sleep recently.

(follow the link if you want to watch the video interview).
Andrew; I don't want to sound bothersome or anything, but why do you feel compelled to post those islam-related stuff here all the time? And another one: why do you keep putting this fucking "peace be upon him" or whatever other similar bullshit whenever you mention Allah or Mahomet? Sorry, but this is the kind of shit that actually pisses me off.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#2580

Post by James Caruthers »

John Hancock, or John Hand-Cock?

Aha! It was the patriarchy all along!

Locked