TZT
Zombie Jesus is looking good! From experience, he’ll be looking a bit tattered by the time this thread runs its course.
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Zombie Jesus is looking good! From experience, he’ll be looking a bit tattered by the time this thread runs its course.
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Zombies are supposed to be creepy, not hip.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Like I said, I don’t like debating about homophobia. And I’ve done it more than I want to for the rest of this month. So please, take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Brownian, (in reply to #672 from previous TZT)
For fuck’s sake I’m not trying to be obtuse or distract you from your beer! Heaven forefend!
a) I’ve already said that I can see how LILAPWL took what I said the way he did and that I won’t be using it to him again. Repeatedly. So focussing on my using one of those other billion phrases is to miss that part.
It’s also, importantly, to miss the part that he considers it to be universally a diminutive, that’s what he said.
“The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you”
The bolded bits are what leads me to conclude universality implicit and explicit in what LILAPWL said.
I’ve repeatedly disagreed that it is universally diminutive, or has universal diminutive implications. I’ve repeatedly disagreed that it is like “cunt” or any of the other dozen examples that you have given precisely because of that lack of universality. It’s a phrase that doesn’t have the universal implications that words like “cunt” do. Hence why I have been heavily emphasising context. The context shifts the meaning of it.
“Cunt” as insult can’t be other than sexist.
“My darling” as mere affectation, can be other than sexist/homphobic etc.
The two are categorically different and this will be the third time you’ve simply ignored this if you do.
Since I’ve already agreed that I am not going to use this term with LILAPWL again, it’s not a straw man to focus on the bit I was REALLY disagreeing with.
Again, he gets to interpret my words, but I can’t interpret his. That seems…reasonable. My reading of his original complaint was that it suffers from the same error you are making. Not seeing beyond your parochial nose. I’ve admitted my error in not seeing beyond my parochial nose, or at least not acknowledging it early enough and clearly enough, and for that I can only apologise.
b) Who am I talking to with my “my darling” joke in my post to you? Erm…YOU! You said earlier you’d be offended if I called you my darling. I think you’re persisting in your parochial view and not moving beyond it. I think you’re persisting in a category error and not moving beyond it. Can’t I humorously allude to that now?
You seem to be objecting to very small stylistic things.
Louis
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
There’s always illishit…
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
LILAPWL,
Okay then, how’s about this:
I had no intention of abusing you in any homophobic manner. I realise my intent doesn’t count and I am genuinely sorry if what I said leads you to think I did so. Hell, I’m sorry eve if what I said DID so! Regardless of what anyone, you included thinks! I definitely will not use “my darling” to you again. If I remember, I’m only bloody human! ;-)
I hope this apology in some way assuages the excesses of my posts brought on by irritation as much as by genuine interest in combating homophobia, even my own.
There are linguistic elements I disagree with you about, but perhaps if we’d both phrased things differently, me more than you, neither of us would have talked past the other. If that’s what happened in part.
I have no wish to trigger you with discussions of homophobia and yes my intent there is not magic either. If I have, please know it was unintentional, not an act of conscious sadism on my part, if that helps. My apologies if this has been the case.
I hope you can at least understand the linguistic nit I’ve tried to pick, and I’m sorry the thread got out of hand, it was my fault as much as anything.
Shake?
Louis
Lars:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
In many instances, mentalism can’t exist without unwanted behavior being pathologized to begin with. Therefore I think pathologizing can be viewed as a root cause.
See anti-psychiatry. I don’t know enough about this topic, but I find it interesting.
And by posting that link, I’m not trying to say we should abandon the field of psychology. That would have “interesting” consequences. I’m only saying that psychology is full of problems, which when examined quickly can lead you to philosophical/ethical/existensial questions.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Fuck it, it’s gone 3 am:
Is meant to say this:
It’s meant to be self deprecatingly humorous. I feel the need to explain that for some reason. ;-)
Louis
Russell:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
And His disciples said ”
“Lord, give us a sign, that we may know Thee!
And lo, with his hands He made unto them the sign of the Playboy Zombie, and it was good.
Here endeth the lesson.
Brownian:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Sorry Louis, I’m probably not giving your posts the attention they deserve, and came really close to speaking on behalf of LILAPWL with my last comment, and I don’t have the right to do that.
So I’m gonna flounce for reals right now.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Brownian,
It’s all good. My irritation has flown from me for some reason.
Probably means I’m bloody wrong! ;-)
Louis
Mattir:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I posted this on the appropriate thread, but I’m pasting it here as well:
I live and work in communities described in Sikavu Hutchinson’s excellent book. My family of origin is from similar communities. Religion is simultaneously a cancer and a solace in these communities. But apparently it’s not interesting enough to actually talk about how one can work in and for these communities, especially when someone is ill-advised enough to use the word “darling” in a flippant comment.
I have seldom been so disappointed in Pharyngula regulars.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
OH and LILAPWL, another apology:
I can see how some of what I said is…how shall I put this…JT-esque.
Yeah, erm, fuck. Haha. Errrrr. Well. Yeah. Um. That. I’m sorry about THAT definitely. I’m sorry for it too.
It’s not the sum of my arguments, and I certainly still disagree about some bits (as I will keep mentioning) of what you and others said, but the bits I did badly and got wrong I definitely apologise for.
Louis
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Mattir,
You’re right about the derail and I apologise for my part in that.
Didn’t think I was What About The Menzing though…but then I wouldn’t would I? :-)
Louis
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Mattir:
Drama. Bleagh.
Mattir:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
@Caine – Well, this IS the drama thread, right? And since I respect all the regulars who participated in that Menz-y derail, yeah, I was fucking disappointed.
I will now slink back to TET and be Nice™.
Amphiox:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Let’s see if the illzit, upon finishing self-titillating with its sdhadenfreude, will return and see this example of how intellectually honest people resolve an argument, and learn something from it.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Hmmm… portcullised in my first-ever attempt to post on TZT! But what is a zombie if not hard to kill, eh?
***
Louis:
First, over on the other thread (@248, IIRC), you addressed yourself to consciousness razor, then proceeded to blockquote something from me, followed by a response that actually responded to what CR had written rather than what you’d quoted. I HAZ A CONFYOOZ.
Second, I’ve been continuing to turn this over in my head, because I see a grain of truth in your assertion that darling is categorically different from words like twat, cunt, dick, and prick.
I think that’s right, as far as it goes, in that darling isn’t gendered (I hear women say it to men nearly as often as the other way ’round) and it does not explicitly refer to sexual anatomy… but I don’t think that goes quite far enough: Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers. When you apply the term to someone who is neither your lover nor a close enough friend that you can joke about being lovers, you are, whether you mean to or not, creating a grotesque implication of intimacy.
If a man says it to a woman, it’s a suggestion of nonpresent (and likely unwanted) intimacy that hints at sexuality and possession. Hence, though the word itself might not be sexist, using it in that context is. If a man says it to another man, the former is implicitly calling the latter gay. In a perfect world, of course, gay ought not be any sort of insult; in the world we actually live in, a straight man implying that another man is gay almost always means it as an insult. When the man so “insulted” actually is gay, it’s a double insult, quite obviously: [a] He’s been directly insulted, and [b] (part of) his essential nature has been defined as insulting.
Of course, it’s easy to imagine social situations — with close friends, in a pub, for instance — where this sort of parody of intimacy would seem like (and in fact be) mere harmless teasing, and maybe that’s how it sounded in your head as you were typing it… but in the middle of what was already an argument, with a gay man with whom you have really no personal relationship at all… dude, you shoulda’ known.
BTW, I don’t know if you’ve been around long enough to have witnessed it in the past, but lilapwl (albeit under a previous nym) and I have had some epic and bitter conflicts of our own… so don’t imagine I’m simply taking his side out of loyalty.
Last, re referring to Aratina Cage as she, <BillClinton>ah feeeel your pain!</BillClinton> For the longest time, I was reading Aratina as a particularly pretty feminine name… but eventually the curtains of stooooopid parted, and it dawned on me that the full nym is a play on a rat in a cage. D’Oh!
And this from a guy who thinks “Statistician Marge Inovera” is the funniest.joke.evarrrr!
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Louis, I appreciate that you gave another thought to what I said. Thanks. I just don’t want to talk about it anymore.
+++++
Lars,
That’s what I figured you were getting at. And that’s what I’m at least uncertain about. I don’t do deconstruction-of-mental-illness generally.
But I did recently have a discussion with someone here about how I might object to the use of schizophrenia as an insult, without further pathologizing as part of the objection, just in case pathologizing is indeed a root cause of the problem.
We came up with this template, which could be reworked for other diagnoses as necessary:
«It’s not OK to use schizophrenic as an insult because it’s stigmatizing in our culture. [1] Some people, including people who’ve been so diagnosed, have argued that “schizophrenia” doesn’t really exist [insert link here]. [2] Some people, including people who’ve been so diagnosed, have argued that “schizophrenia” does exist [insert link here]. [Randomize order of 1 and 2.] But in any case I do think that using a term that’s a stigmatizing label currently in our culture as an insult is a bad thing to do.»
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Mattir:
Supposedly, although a certain epic derailer can’t seem to bring things here on their own. *shrug* See ya in TET.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Mattir! My comment about drama wasn’t about you, it was about the unnecessary drama manufactured in the Hutchinson thread. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Caine, you’re trolling.
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Bill:
Listen, mate!
‘Twas combative banter, and you knew it at the time.
–
This business of calling out every fucking jaywalking incident, is not something I aspire to.
(Especially when there is no traffic on the road!)
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
ॐ:
OK for you, maybe.
(You just love your rules, doncha?)
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
ॐ:
I don’t see in what way, unless I pretend it was some hidden message about you.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
John:
Anyone you’d call mate would probably laugh at darling… but AFAIK, Louis and lilapwl ain’t mates… not in any sense of the word.
I really have no interest in mediating spats between regulars here, nor am I interested in being a PC threadcop… but I am interested in… fascinated by, in fact… the way language works, and how something that seems perfectly innocent to one can seem transgressive to another, and how they can both be at least partly right.
Call it an exercise in (purely) amateur anthropology, or maybe sociolinguistics, if you will; I’m mildly surprised the analytical aspects don’t appeal to you.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Bill D,
On your first…oh bugger I was probably confused! Without looking it’s the most parsimonious explanation! It’s nearly 4 am here now and I have a run to do early doors. Still He Who Lives By SIWOTI… ;-)
On your second:
And this is where I think the disagreement lies in part. It’s the assumption of the universal diminutive, or in your case, universal intimacy. Wait a second, I’m off to YouTube:
I can’t find a good Cornish “my darlin’” But I can find Jethro. Ignore the various -isms in his humour, listen to the accent. People like that, admittedly of a certain generation and class now, use “my lover” and “my darlin’” to men and women of all ages and orientations indiscriminately. Hell, this is my old childhood stomping ground, I’m “Louis” to those that remember/know my name and “Awroit moi luvver” or “Awroit moi darlin’” to those who don’t. It’s as common as muck in the right context. I’m trying to find the evidence but my brain is flagging and I am fading fast.
Now listen to Terry Thomas. That man never said “my darling” in all his life without some meaning. Diminutive, intimate or otherwise.
I don’t deny, and haven’t denied, for one second that the implication of a diminutive or over familiar intimacy can exist, I do deny it universally does. And I really deny it’s not massively dependent on context. It requires both the speaker to say it and the listener to hear it to some degree.
Note, this doesn’t negate the smaller claim: “‘my darling’ is offensive to ME for reasons X Y and Z”. I’m on board with that utterly.
It’s disagreement with the claim “‘my darling’ is universally and necessarily discriminatory to a member specific group because it is universally a diminutive/intimate/whatever”.
As for the rest, I really, really, REALLLLLLLLLY do get it, and indeed agree. But I don’t really think any of that’s in question. It’s the first bit, the assumption that this phrase necessarily/universally has certain implications, despite being inherently ambiguous, that I take issue with.
Louis
P.S. Since I lived in Nottingham for a good while I couldn’t resist linking this
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Go play in some.
That was explicit: “But I did recently have a discussion with someone here about how I might object to the use of schizophrenia as an insult, without further pathologizing as part of the objection, just in case pathologizing is indeed a root cause of the problem.”
And so I responded to Lars, who shares the same concern.
Elsewise it’s about Louis, who already apologized for the matter.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Bill D,
From my perspective at least, you’re wrong. I bear the man not a jot of ill will no matter how intemperate my language at times. I can do great damage through mere irritation. To my eternal disgrace.
I’ve even referred to him in a complimentary fashion in parliament! Sorry sorry, couldn’t resist the joke. Seriously, LILAPWL is, I think (and have said) a bloody good “canary in the mine” for certain types of fucked-up-ness. I think he has certain tendencies that cause him to butt heads now and then with people, but then so do I. I can’t really complain. I don’t think this makes him universally right though, neither am I universally right dammit, and thus I argue. It might get heated at times, that’s a character flaw more than an indication of animus.
Fucking dog pilers though, ohhh how I hate them. The little weaselly kids that followed the bullies at school. An honest bully I can understand, a dog piler? No respect. I may be exaggerating for comedy effect.
Oh and comedy aside, I had to train my accent to go from almost Jethro to almost Terry Thomas. Those examples are VERY real to me! :-)
Louis
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
LILAPWL,
SOME of the matter. SOME I still vehemently disagree about. But the derail…yeah…my bad.
And I think Caine could quite rightly accuse me of regular derails. I’m not exactly Captain Topic sometimes. I have a quirky view of things perhaps.
Louis
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
ॐ:
You think I’m not? :)
Let me be blunt: epic derailer you are and it was to you that the reference was, best as I can tell; but the hidden message is an allusion to your bannination from TET.
Were it so, then I could imagine Caine was trolling, if I put myself in your place.
You do realise that “See ya in TET” was not addressed to you, right?
Improbable Joe:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
I totally wandered over here to discuss zombie-killing strategy and more importantly zombie-killing weapons, since my motto is “there are no problems, only opportunities… opportunities to buy overpriced gadgets!” I guess that’s not what this is actually about.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Bill D,
Incidentally, I’ve had “roight moi darlin’”s and “roight moi luvvers” from people of both sexes, both older and younger than me, when I’ve asked for directions or bought something in a shop. I’m trying to get across how neutral this is, it really isn’t universally implying intimacy etc. It’s an affectation, a local colour, a figure of speech a….I don’t know how many different ways I can say the same damned thing!
I’m neither their lover nor their darling. It’s just not that sort of phrase in that context. I can see how someone would take it so but it ain’t necessarily so. Again.
My favourite “roight moi luvver” was when I was out walking near Tintagel and I asked a farmer/farmhand the way back to the road (I’d gone inland and cross country a good bit) and he replied “roight my luvver, it’s two moile that way. If you get a move on you’ll get there dreckly.”. To which his colleague immediately chipped in with “ee’s walkin’, tell ‘im it’s aaaaaf that.”. Which is apparently what passes for humour because they both pissed themselves laughing at it.
Louis
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
PZ,
The comment section of your blog has largely been taken over by a dishonest, hypocritical gang of bullies. They apparently won’t be satisfied until they scapegoat, pile on, and drive sg (and anyone who calls them out on or defends themselves against their bullshit) away. You’ve played into it with your comments about and actions toward sg.
Despite my hope that this could potentially become the intellectual-honesty and critical-discussion thread rather than the Free Speech Zone your banishing sg here initially appeared – I was waiting and watching – your threats to close the other thread if the “derail” continued and the subsequent comments here have confirmed my fears.
I doubt you care if or why I stop commenting, temporarily or permanently, but there it is.
To the gang: The next time someone responds to your anodyne/angry rejection of “honey,” “dear,” a diminutive form of your ‘nym, and so on in an argument with a version of Louis’s blather or your shrugging dismissal and points to this, you have yourselves to blame. Anyone reading with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that if Josh had said what sg did to Louis and Louis had responded as he did, your reaction would have been entirely different.
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
#29 should have a ;-) in it to indicate lack of animus and general good humour.
#32 should have “I can see how someone could take it so” not “I can see how someone would take it so”.
Other errors yet to be noticed are the reader’s fault.
Louis
P.S. That last bit was what we here in England call An Joke.
P.P.S. I did not say it was a good one.
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Improbable Joe, the gobbets of entrails and the blood-drenched gutters ain’t a clue?
Welcome to TZT, grab a battleaxe or a chain or something and make yourself at home.
<takes a look at Joe>
… or not.
Improbable Joe:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Yeah… what? SC is bailing out? WHAT?
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
SC:
Care to name names?
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
SC,
I responded in anger, which I have already apologised for.
I realise (and knew beforehand sadly, but didn’t think of it) that what I said could be taken in a homophobic way, and I’ve apologised for that.
I don’t agree with every angle taken by every single poster on that derail, and by far and away the majority of voices are excoriating ME not LILAPWL. If you think silence from others is persecution of LILAPWL then you’re being deliberately uncharitable. People can not want to become embroiled in “drama” for innocent reasons too.
If Josh had said to me exactly what LILAPWL said I’d have been vastly more shocked. It would have been more out of character, IMO, I have less reason to suspect Josh’s motives in the way I did LILAPWL’s (rightly or wrongly). I interpret LILAPWL’s phrasing to have very specific implications, just like he interpreted my phrasing to have specific implications. Neither are wrong, but neither are unambiguously binding or right either.
What you are perhaps not understanding is that response could have been to anyone, irrespective of any characteristic about them. Believe that or not, I don’t care, it’s true independent of your belief.
Louis
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Incidentally, I really do fucking resent the continual evidence free accusation from some quarters that this is about LILAPWL or his sexuality. It’s just so fucking tiresomely irrelevant and untrue.
I might trust LILAPWL less in some circumstances than I’d trust {insert whoever you fancy here, fuck knows, I can’t think of an example}, but then I’d trust him vastly more in others. Usually I think his calling out of prejudicial terms is spot on, even when I’m the culprit. I don’t think that’s entirely the case here and I really don’t think it’s the case for some of the dog pilers.
Louis
Louis:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
And with that: Good morning. It’s practically 5 am and my irritation levels are rising again. I may be moved to intemperate language.
Louis
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
In case anyone is wondering, I’m handling snakes.
And whisk(e)y
Aratina Cage:
June 8th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
@Louis
Sorry, I had to run to make it to a showing of Prometheus before I could respond to you on the atheism and social science thread.
From #245 in that thread
I never said you weren’t a nice chap or anything, and I’m perfectly fine with nice chaps being mean or trading barbs with others. I even like you well enough. I didn’t think you understood what was being said about what you said is all. Since you understood, I don’t get why you fussed about it for so long.
That gate swings both ways, I think, and furthermore, I think it swings your way a bit farther and you got hit by it when it swung back.
All clear. Really, though, we weren’t arguing about your future self but about what you did in the past.
Aratina Cage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
@Louis
Notice that I didn’t say precisely who should TITTZT. I kind of meant that that particular discussion might be better off moved here. ;)
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
I once had a pair of nice chaps. Leather.
On the bus.
Aratina Cage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
@Louis
He. I’m a he.
'Tis Himself:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
SC #33
You’re absolutely right. Josh is a reasonable person who’s generally pleasant to talk to. SG is a priggish, arrogant douchecanoe with a massive chip on his shoulder. As a result, people react to the two of them in different ways. I’ve had my share of disagreements with Josh, but I’ve always respected him and I feel he respects me. SG is an asshole who respects nobody and doesn’t hide his unwarranted superiority.
SG wants to be Truth Machine but lacks the intelligence to pull it off.
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Louis, good morning.
I tell you that I think it was ॐ’s inability to desist that was his downfall.
This desire not to compromise one’s convictions by remaining silent is problematic.
(You have it worse, this is the new deregulated TZT)
Aratina Cage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
@Louis
LOL. This happens to me a lot because people say it in their heads differently than I intended. No worries. I used to think it didn’t matter, but with all the shit that women get online, I think it is better people know I that I’m privileged that way.
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Rev. BigDumbChimp,
You greedy, kinky bastard!
(Did they enjoy it?)
<innoc>
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
[meta]
On the one hand, I’m arguably* in the clear, technically, since the Rev ain’t gay.
OTOH, I just referenced gay innuendo (of the leather kind), with a Brit twist.
On the gripping hand, I am an ‘asshole’, or so I’m told.
–
* And what an argument that would be!
(Epic, maybe)
Aratina Cage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Good one, Rev. Isn’t context-dependent language grand?
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Louis:
I didn’t mean you bore him any ill will, nor do I imagine that you do. I only meant that you two are (again, AFAIK) not friends, certainly not the sort of close friends whose relationship supports (or even demands) the verbal equivalent of a friendly poke in the shoulder.
We’ve actually had some conversations here, back in the day, about how even regulars here aren’t the same as meatspace friends (unless they really are friends in meatspace), and how easy it is to fall into the trap of feeling like you know people better than you really do.
As for your argument about universality, now we really are getting close to the same logic that cunt defenders use (though I’m emphatically not putting you in that category). Like cunt, darling has a long history as an English word, and the division between British and American English is fairly recent. It really is the same word.
People who argue, “well, it might mean that in America, but it doesn’t over here,” don’t really mean mean: They’re really making an argument about usage. Darling still (primarily) means “beloved” in British English just as much as it does in American English, and just as much as cunt means female genitalia in both countries. What “it doesn’t mean that over here” really asserts is that the word is more broadly colloquialized (is that a word?) in British English, such that it’s less offensive in more different usages and social contexts.
Certainly there are words whose colloquial usages have overwhelmed their etymology: Geek used to mean a particular sort of carnival performer, and some dictionaries still list that as the primary definition… but few actual users of the word even know that history, and those who do likely think of the original meaning as a bit of interesting trivia, unrelated to current usage. Moron and idiot have histories as clinical terms, but are now more or less universally considered generic insults. If I called you crazy or schizo, people here would (quite rightly) call me out for stigmatizing mental illness; if I called you an idiot, probably not. And if I called you a dork, nobody would be thinking of whale penises (well, this group might, but that’s because we’re all geeks).
So the question here is whether, in Britain, at least, words like cunt or darling have, in fact, been so thoroughly colloquialized that they really are separate from their earlier “true” meanings? Clearly the consensus here is that this is not the case with cunt; I don’t think it really is with darling, either. I’m willing to believe that casual/colloquial expressions of intimacy are acceptable in a broader range of social contexts on your side of the pond, but I think the word still really means what it means… or, at a minimum, it’s still at high risk for being “misunderstood” as meaning what it means (if you can follow that).
I’m interested in the mechanisms by which words ultimately do get truly divorced from their earlier meanings, and what the threshold criteria for treating them that way might be, but I don’t have any good theories. One partial notion is this: As long as any significant part of a language’s global community still holds to the earlier, noncolloquial meaning, that meaning remains at least minimally attached to the word throughout the whole language. IOW, as long as cunt remains an offensive reference to female genitalia for any significant number of English speakers, it will always carry at least the echo of misogyny wherever (and however) it’s used. Likewise, as long as darling means beloved to any large number of English speakers, it will carry at least the risk of seeming inappropriate whenever it’s used casually.
But that’s just a preliminary notion….
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Oh, Bill inspires me to note (just to brag a bit) that I’m pretty darn sure that Louis, Bill, SC and the symbolic one (among possibly a majority of regulars) are noticeably smarter than I am.
(Thereby, I’m arrogant in holding my own opinions, no?)
Aquaria:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers.
I don’t think this is quite right.
Zsa Zsa Gabor is the most famous example of someone who made it a habit to call everyone “darling” like she breathed, but being a serial-monogamist diva isn’t required to do it. I’ve known many, many people born before the 50s who were the same way IRL.
In the South, it’s been very common for adults from those generations to call people, even strangers, by a lot of babyish names–honey, sweetie, sugar, darlin’ and so on. Elderly black people in multiple states have called me those things even through my 40s. South Texas Hispanics do something similar with mijo/mija (my son/daughter).
Maybe it’s a cultural thing from having grown up in the South, but I get upset about it only if it’s done by colleagues in a professional setting–or by someone I dislike. If the cashier at the grocery store calls me “mija”, though, I don’t have a major fucking freakout. My husband doesn’t when he’s called mijo–which he frequently is.
Sheesh.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Aquaria:
It’s certainly not quite that simple… but you’ve seen how long my posts are when I do make simplifying generalizations; do you really even want to know what they’d look like if I didn’t?
;^)
PS: To my credit, I did at least (in the other thread) allude to being called darling (or, more precisely, dahrlin’) by waitresses in the South!
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
;^)
While I feel maudlin, I confess that I find that such a good emoticon my
scruplespride have kept me from copying it.(It has that 3-D quality)
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
/nigel pokes his head in, looks aroud
Yep. I’m predicting six more weeks of zombie apocalypse.
/nigel goes back to lurking
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Bill Dauphin:
Dude, I’d call you dahrlin’. But that’s mostly because you’re hot.
Query: Is that sexist of me?
John Morales:
June 8th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
SC ostensibly addresses PZ:
Much as I admire your qualities and your history here, I can’t honestly say you’ve been a regular lately.
Also, I care, FWIW.
Pteryxx:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:00 am
Following up on this mess, specifically the hypothetical of how Josh or whoever would get treated vs SG:
Buried in Louis’s comments, he mentioned twice that he didn’t give the criticism weight coming from someone he didn’t trust. That’s much less obvious than someone being an asshole; and hypothetical-Josh (like everyone, basically) can be a raging asshole, too.
Compare to Jason Thibeault getting called out for a homophobic comment, which he retracted and explained at length on his site. Initially he got called out by a nasty, dishonest troll, so didn’t believe the accusation until people he DID trust concurred:
This also works the other way – because I run to good faith and politeness in how I respond, I’m liable to get trusted too much. In that same thread, baal commented how great I am compared to how Caine and Ogvorbis were treating him, I assume because over in JT’s trainwreck I was educating baal rather than calling him out. I’m not particularly proud of having THAT endorsement.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:02 am
@Ichthyic from the previous zombie thread:
Reading that, I can’t help but think about how much it looks like reasoning for why calling people sexist and homophobic slurs is OK if you come from a place (no matter how small) where the cultural sensibilities allow for that. And there are blogs that allow that or even encourage it, but I was under the impression that such behavior was not welcome here at Pharyngula, at least not at this time.
Besides that, many of us have come from such places and we have learned and continue to learn that those kind of cultural sensibilities that were instilled into us are harmful, and we have ended up rejecting them in favor of less destructive language. It isn’t usually a very heavy burden to have to learn better insults or ways of saying things IMO.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:12 am
Aratina, you happen to be the one from whom I can riff:
Apparently.
Which is why I asked “Hey, ॐ, do you like today’s Pharyngula more than in times of yore?” in the previous decarnation of TZT.
See, when ॐ began commenting here, it was a different thing.
Bluntly put, there was no such expectation of intolerance.
Calling out happened or not (SC was prominent), but there was no such expectation.
(What once were mores are now become rules, or so some would have it)
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:18 am
[clarification]
More like social expectations than rules, above.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Ahh, but I’m married, sweetheart… and more constitutionally likely to be attracted to a Nigella than a Nigel… but even so, I’m blushing.
Clearly I’m not offended! ;^)
(Hmm… you pose an interesting question: Why am I not offended, given that you and I are no more intimates than Louis and lilapwl are? Perhaps the presence of other markers of good will/good humor change the social valence of something like darling?)
StevoR:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Just saw this item in the online news :
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8481123
An innocent person given George Zimmerman’s old phone number is getting megatonnes of abuse. Not good or fair.
StevoR:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Also predictable & What the Hell was the phone company thinking! But still.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:28 am
What do you mean by “much less obvious”?
I don’t think you’re saying that’s a good justification, but what difference does it make?
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:29 am
Bill Dauphin:
Well, I did step into this reading backwards, so I was completely ignorant of all that came before. Maybe my innocence and naiveté were disarming?
StevoR:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:31 am
@33. SC (Salty Current), OM says:
I’d certainly miss reading your comments SC.
I hope you stick around and continue to contribute here, please.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:31 am
Epic derailler?
I don’t have the ability to see it that way. Whatever the history of LILAPWL is here, I saw what he took as offense, and why. And I’m not the only one.
Doubling down is the derail. Not the “guys, don’t do that”.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:37 am
Brownian:
I put it to you that the hammering at the perceived doubling-down and the exponentialaing down is the actual derail, and I further put it to you that the initial call-out is a better candidate for the proximate cause of the derail than the doubling-down itself, which is a reaction to it.
(Wanna debate whether it’s the actual (oh so noteable) offence that’s the specific cause of the derail, or whether it’s the call-out to it?)
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:40 am
PS ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ ain’t synomyms.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:42 am
Morales, you could masturbate wherever you like. Why do a bunch of zombies need to see it?
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:47 am
CR, remember the Love and the Hate threads?
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:47 am
(Even kittehs need litter-boxes. This is it)
ibyea:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Erm, I don’t get it. While I personally don’t like sg very much, I thought sg in this case was right in telling Louis not to call him that, and Louis already apologized. I mean really, if a person doesn’t like being called something, one should try to be understanding and don’t do it unless one is trying to pick a fight. And in this case, I don’t see a reason to pick a fight with him.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:55 am
Nope, and I don’t particularly care.
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:57 am
SC:
I’ve obviously missed a lot lately.
It’s strange: as long as I’ve been here (a couple of years, maybe), there have been a few constants. One is the intellectualism I have come to expect. Two is the fucking passion of the regular commenters. Three is… well, just seeing some of the same nyms again and again.
I’ve learned a lot about myself. Generally, I just stand back and watch folks duke it out. I kinda hate that about myself, really, the fact that I can just watch folks I know and care about fight it out, but really, what do I have to offer? I’ve learned I have very little real to offer. I am never quite sure which side is right, and with which I sympathize. Sometimes it’s the same side, and sometimes it’s not.
This is especially hard when it’s folks with whom I’m attached.
Yeah. I’m a coward. I refuse to take sides, unless I’m convinced one side is in the right. Even then, I find it hard to critique someone whom I like and respect.
This is one of the reasons I really, really hope you are not serious about leaving.
SC, I rely on you.
I rely on you to say the things I think, but am not brave enough to say.
Not just you. I rely on SGBM, and Louis, and Ichthyic, and Brownian (of course Brownian) and chigau, and a whole slew of others. Some I have grown to love, like Caine and Mattir, and ‘Tis, and Nerd, and Brownian (of course Brownian). And you. (And, weirdly, SGBM, too.)
I understand if things aren’t right for you here. Hell, I just discovered that TET has overflowed into TZT, the one place I felt OK. If you gotta go, you gotta go.
I just wanted to say, I like you here. A lot of that might have to do with my comfort zone. But most of it has to do with, I like you here.
That’s all.
Pteryxx:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:59 am
cr:
I mean, whether somebody is trustworthy/considered trustworthy by whoever’s arguing with them, is much less obvious than whether somebody is being an asshole / is considered to be being an asshole by whoever’s arguing with them. I was thinking of “obvious to bystanders” but it might not be obvious to the participants, either.
I also think trust is more salient than whether somebody’s being an asshole, especially here. “Being an asshole” is just a tone argument for most uses of the epithet.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:00 am
CR:
See, there’s your problem.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:12 am
Nigel:
Right back at you. ♥
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:19 am
Either could be substantiated. Besides, I’d say it’s usually easier to get people to agree on what is trustworthy than what is assholish. I guess there’s room for disagreement with both, but with less wiggle-room when it’s a matter of trust, because the truth (or their honesty/fairness about it) can be verified more-or-less objectively in ways assholishness cannot.
I don’t think it’s at all salient here. If you don’t trust someone (or if you think they’re an asshole), that doesn’t mean you should act however you want to them. It’s not a valid reason for dismissing whatever they might say, nor is it a good excuse for making bigoted remarks, however unintentional or ambiguous they may be.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:25 am
it’s the left shoulder that hurts. which is likely why I got taped to an ECG before any other tests (and never was I so glad to not have chest-hair as when she was ripping the stickers off).
*feeling nostalgic and envious*
I loved reading those arguments; probably some of the most informative, intellectually satisfying exchanges I’ve read on pharyngula. poo on you for hiding them from me by being all private and friendshippy :-p
antigodless:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:25 am
Sooooo hip. Looking better than an atheist. :)
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:28 am
antigodless:
Uhm, nothing looks better than an atheist.
Especially when that atheist is me.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:29 am
antigodless, no-one has ever denied you’re a death-cult, have they?
<snicker>
(Please do hang around, I’ve been getting tetchy)
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:31 am
Caine:
Look. Don’t make me get all gushy and stuff. You know I will.
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:34 am
Jadehawk:
While I’m glad you don’t have chest hair that might be ripped when the tape is pulled, I’m even more glad (gladder?) that you are doing OK.
Rip Steakface:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:35 am
That would actually be “mi hijo/hija” said very quickly. All H’s in Spanish are silent, so it would end up sounding like mijo/a at high speed or if slurred together (such as “going to” being slurred together into “gonna”).
Pteryxx:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:35 am
cr: I never said lack of trust was a VALID reason to automatically disbelieve a claim; quite the opposite, see the examples I gave. Neither did you, initially:
I said I think trust is more salient than tone when observing that different people have the same or similar claims treated differently. Distrust just gets conflated with assholish behavior.
Also, being truthful is just one way of establishing trust, and not necessarily the most powerful. That might be the only way YOU relate the concepts; but taking offense is subjective and can’t ever be verified as “true”, only as reasonable at best.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:37 am
Any fucking time (except now, because I’m drunk and having a great heart-to-heart with a dear and old friend), and not just because I was one of the ones calling out the double down.
For the record, if someone pulled a “darling” on me in the way Louis did, in person, they would have left learning how to fend off infection without a skin.
Metaphorically of course, but they would not have done it again.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:39 am
Frankly, SG was right. Your feelings about him as a person don’t make a lick of fucking difference.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:41 am
Hey Brownian, I lack the friend, so I encourage you to go do your ♥:♥.
(I’ll be around whenever)
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:51 am
and by the way, initiating greater intimacy, as well as non-reciprocal intimacy are hierarchical notions: the maid and the chauffeur are “Rosa” and “Jeffrey”, while the owners of the house/car are “Mr./Mrs. Moneybags”; the secretary/PA is “Sara”, the exec is “Ms. Boss”; etc.
similarly, suggesting greater intimacy (stuff like “please, call me John”) is only socially acceptable top-down. suggesting such a thing bottom-up is, well, “uppity”.
and calling someone “darling” even if it bled into meaningless colloqualism to be used on any and everyone, is a form of intimacy and hierarchical posturing (I experience it usually as being called a child by older people)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:55 am
Brownian:
I don’t grok this, at all. However, you certainly have every right to your own feelings on the matter. Perhaps I have too many friends from the UK or something and know too many people like Aquaria described, I don’t know. I use love in the UK way all the time, frinst., thanks, love and have never had a bad reaction to it, although I do try to refrain when out and about, because this is ‘merica.
I agree, in that SG was right as to how the use affected him. He was not right in his blanket statement that it is universally homophobic.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:58 am
Okay, I don’t know the backstory, but I’ve already tried to interpret what you were going for with your examples.
What do you mean by “salient,” and why compare it to tone? It’s clear you don’t mean obvious, because you just said so. Do you mean important or significant, and if so, then about what? Are you explaining why people behave this way and what’s important to them in that sense, even though it’s not important with regard to how they ought to behave?
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:00 am
I don’t recall him making such a statement.
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:02 am
Caine:
It’s weird: I have never felt comfortable with pet names. Okay, my wife calls me The Nerd sometimes (not to be confused with Nerd of Redhead, of course). But I’ve never been comfortable with sweetheart or honey or yes, even darling. First, all of those seems kinda trivial, kinda trite. Second, I just can’t say the with a straight face.
But.
I have called her Love from time to time. And she, me.
I’m not sure what the difference is, other than Love is hard to trivialize.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:07 am
“Thanks, love” as in “I appreciate you passing me that scone” or “Thanks, love” as in “fuck you, you insufferable pissant with whom I’m tired of conversing”?
As Louis said, context matters.
Which was SG’s original claim.
It was only when Louis doubled down that homophobia in America got cross-examined and we were treated to a lesson on the myriad and wonderful affectations of linguistic variants in the English countryside.
I don’t see a difference between “Don’t speak to me like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.” and “Guys, don’t do that.”
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:07 am
OK, where the fuck has gone?
(Slippery buggers, godbots)
<Sacrifices a worm on the hook whilst praying for Zombie Jesus to deliver unto me>
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:09 am
Brownian:
So, what happened to the original derailment when this little switch was pulled?
(Do ya know, and do ya care?)
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:11 am
QFT
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:12 am
The thread is pretty crystal clear.
LILAPWL:
…and back to the discussion at hand.
Louis retorted with:
I mean, really? That kind of retort is okay because it’s SG?
I don’t give a shit who disagrees with me on this, because fuck. that. noise.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:14 am
I’m too fucking tired to play your little games John, and I think I’ve earned the fucking right not to jump through your hoops.
Make your point, or shut the fuck up.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 9th, 2012 at 2:16 am
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFTS
((Sorry Loey, SG is right you’re wrong, meaculpa and move on before Ithilid jizzes all over the game room))
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:17 am
Nigel:
Mister & I call each other Love often, have done for decades.
Brownian:
This way.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:18 am
Yeah. That’s not how Louis used it.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 9th, 2012 at 2:19 am
Maybe maybe not. Does it matter? it’s still a “don’t call me Francis” thing
FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads):
June 9th, 2012 at 2:21 am
Oh, you are so very right about that. That’s the worst part of the whole heart scare procedure. The best part, after of course the negative results, was seeing my heart beat in real time. The echo-cardiogram monitor was in just the right place where I could do a little skootch and wiggle to get a good view.
I also took a certain delight in scaring the crap out of one of the nurses. After a couple of minutes on the treadmill the Dr. looked over the tech’s shoulder and said “Right, that 83.” and I realised that they were running me at ~83% of my max heart rate.
I’d been told as reveled wisdom that at 80% of max you’ll only be able to get out three syllables before having to take a breath. So here was an opportunity to test it.
As I said “One” the nurse who had been sitting on a rail right next to the treadmill, rubber gloves on, stethoscope around neck, jumped out and reached out to grab me. Her job at that point was to catch patients in whom they had induced heart attacks. I laughed, I’m not a good person, though I did explain and apologise later. [/pointless anecdote]
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:23 am
Brownian:
No. I’ll skip everything else I’d normally add.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:25 am
Brownian:
No.
It ain’t OK because it’s S-fucking-G, it’s OK because it was a genuine statement — at least if you don’t believe that Louis is some blatant conscious liar.
(Which he aint, IMO, and I find this a weak-sauce basis for imagining such)
I wrote that I stand by Louis, and this is precisely why.
Yes, it adds to the background, it buys into the perception, it enables the true homophobes.
(jaywalking)
–
How much clearer can I be?
Poor language, no intent, trivial but true complaint, and obvious derail.
Louis may bear his share of the blame for the derail, but it does take two to tango.
(Have I mentioned jaywalking?)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:26 am
I think this is a good time for me to shut up, so Imma shut up now.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:35 am
What the fucking goddamn fucking fuck does honesty have to do with it?
And Elevator Guy genuinely wanted Rebecca Watson to come to his room for coffee and take it from there.
The point is, as we’ve all hammered home time and fucking time and fucking time and fucking time and what the fuck else do we talk about on this motherfucking fucking blog, intent doesn’t fucking goddamn can I fit another motherfucking fucking in here? fucking matter.
I’ve actually explicitly said about Louis, on the previous thread, “For what it’s worth, I agree with you that you most likely didn’t mean it in the way Aratina Cage suggests, because I think you’re a generally honest person.”
(Do ya know, and do ya care?)
John, don’t address me on this issue again. I don’t think you have the vaguest fucking clue what the fuck you’re talking about, and I find your peripatetic bullshit tedious and sophomoric.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:36 am
Caine, notice how Louis bid us good morning and the shut up?
(I did, but then I both know things and I care about this place and its denizens)
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:36 am
[blush]
the → then
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:36 am
It takes more than that, and I was one of the ones dancing. You got a problem with me, then fine. But DO FUCKING NOT blame SG for this particular derail.
Pteryxx:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:38 am
cr:
Did you see the start of my first comment?
‘Tis said Josh would be treated better because SG’s an asshole and Josh isn’t. I was pointing out that, in my estimation of Louis’s case, in Jason Thibeault’s case, and in baal’s evaluation of me vs Caine and Ogvorbis, whether someone’s an asshole or not gets conflated with whether they can be trusted. But here especially, where being an asshole is tolerated and tone arguments discouraged, trust is a bigger factor in how someone’s received than their tone is.
Salient: important, significant, and I meant to imply “strategically relevant”. I shouldn’t have used “salient” and “obvious” so close together for different arguments: I’m saying trust is more important, *and less obvious*, than tone.
…That’s a bunch of stuff I didn’t claim, nor would I try with my rotten social skills. Jason T. didn’t believe a claim of offense due to the source. I think Louis probably did the same. Both of them accepted the claim when *trusted* persons weighed in. So the “assholes” in both cases were proven right, at least as right as potentially bigoted language claims ever can be. And, they were proven right by trusted persons *making the same arguments*, not by better empirical evidence.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:39 am
Brownian:
Are you begging or dictating?
(Makes a difference to my response)
Yeah, your mind is too finely tuned.
(What happened to your hear’s interactions, anyway?)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:44 am
I actually don’t think it fucking does.
Flip a coin, it makes no difference to me.
Blah, blah fucking blah. Yeah, that’s exactly it.
What your response now?
Find a friend, and maybe you’ll gain the context to understand an answer.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:45 am
John, has it ever occurred to you that I don’t much have anything to do with you?
Ponder that, young Padawan.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:45 am
Brownian:
A lot.
(Some of us care about that)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:46 am
Some of us care about not being an idiot more.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:47 am
Brownian:
To what purpose?
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:48 am
Brownian:
Uh-huh.
(How’s it working for you? ;) )
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:48 am
None. Remain the man that you are.
I’ll continue to regard you with disinterest.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:49 am
(Meta: did you flip that coin to decide what faux philosophical question you want to ask next?)
Real question: does this shtick of yours work anywhere?
Josh, Official SpokesKraftDinner:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:49 am
Since my name has been invoked, here I am in all my cheesiest glory.
1. Louis was wrong. Not in what he initially said, but in doubling down. I would have had SG’s back too.
2. Louis recognized that and apologized.
3. While it’s understandable that people treat the same argument differently depending on the person it is most certainly not ethical or a state of affairs to be desired.
4. I can’t believe I’m seeing people who’ve been through ElevatorGate playing “intent is magic” and “but it doesn’t mean that in England” (note: I am NOT talking about Louis. He gets this. Some of you don’t).
What the bleeding fuck is wrong with you? Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you?
You know what — don’t answer. Just shut up. I’ve had about enough of having to cross people off my Reasonable Person register.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:50 am
What happened to my hear’s interactions, anyway, John?
Did you solve that one?
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:51 am
Brownian:
No need. It was a diktat, and dealt with accordingly.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:52 am
I know I wasn’t clear before, but I recognised Louis’ apology.
Louis, thank you. If I invoke your name and actions further in this discussion, it’s in the context of what happened, and why it did in that way.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:53 am
Brownian:
Yup.
You claimed you were having a ♥:♥ with your friend, I encouraged you to it, and here you are, exchanging barbs with me.
(You sweetie, you!)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:54 am
Fuck not clear, I never did say it initially.
Thanks, Louis.
Josh, Official SpokesKraftDinner:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:55 am
Brownian—nothing I said was taking issue with you. I agree with everything you’ve written in this most recent thread.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:56 am
For my part, at least, Louis.
I note that LILAPWL has already acknowledged your apology to him.
I apologise for any unintended speaking on behalf of people whose experiences I have no right to.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:59 am
Josh, I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just trying to clarify my part, and trying my best not to straightwhitemansplain.
And I am sensitive to Mattir’s criticism.
I mean it when I say I apologise for any unintended speaking on behalf of people whose experiences I have no right to.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:00 am
Give it a rest, idiot.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:03 am
Brownian:
Oooohhh!!
<skips for joy>
(Thanks, Brownian!)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:10 am
I’ll ask again, Morales:
Does this schtick of yours work anywhere?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:11 am
I mean, you are affecting the pipe and tweed jacket with elbow patches to score with the freshman phil majors, right?
‘Cause if not, you’re just wasting your time.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:13 am
Sorry, I left of the (meta) tags.
I trust you’ll insert it where you think it’ll be most
cloyingly pretentiousappropriate.John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:14 am
Brownian, I thought you were disinterested.
(You can’t simultaneously implicitly ask questions for me to answer and and that you’re disinterested and not be hypocritical)
But yeah, for certain values of ‘work’, it does.
(I admit I have no queue, but.
(The universe ain’t that cruel))
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:16 am
Your mistake (one of many) in this case is thinking I need you to answer.
You’re not that interesting.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:17 am
Why not?
(Meta: I’m actually interested in your answer to this.)
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:17 am
[meta]
BTW, Brownian: Since we’re both in our cups, you have no advantage over me in that respect.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:18 am
Brownian:
Already told ya: the universe ain’t that cruel.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Good point. I’ll concede you that.
And I probably should log off now, because I think I’m just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, John.
Sorry.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:25 am
Are you explaining behavior or justifying it with this comparison to tone arguments?
We’re not too keen on opinions or taking things on faith around here either. ‘Tis called him an asshole. Louis called him untrustworthy. So? Are you saying SG can’t be trusted? What has he done that has lost some of Louis’ (or your) trust?
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:31 am
CR: I guess you don’t know but that you do care about this.
(I suppose this may be of relevance, unlike that which you neither know nor care about)
rorschach:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:25 am
I see we’re still playing self-destruct. Carry on then. I’m sure the slimepitters in their basements are jerking off hard.
NuMad:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:35 am
A single definitive (in that it doesn’t particularly invite further discussion) tangential post that’s in immediate response to something in the thread doesn’t a derail make.
At least that’s my take on that question of threadonomics.
NuMad:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:38 am
rorschach,
Is it possible to get a different response out of a slimepitter audience, though?
Ah, maybe they could be jerking off gingerly, I guess.
Alethea H. "Crocoduck" Dundee:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:10 am
Much as I adore your prose styling, Brownian, this is not true. Intent is not magic. But intent is also not nothing.
If you harm somebody, then intent does not magically fix the harm. Injury has happened, regardless of intent. Intent provides no magical fix. What intent does do, however, is establish the difference between accident and assault; manslaughter and murder; slip-up and slimepit.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:11 am
@John Morales #111
Alright. Then if slimepitter X genuinely calls FTBer Y a you-know-what, it’s totally A-OK!
Or are you saying that we all get to say things like that while 1) we are ignorant of what we are doing or 2) we do not know that people will take the things we say in the worst possible ways? And that saying such things ceases to be OK once we have been educated about the worst possible meanings or told that people reading what we write are taking these things in the worst possible ways so that we would have to blatantly, consciously lie were we to continue using them? Something like a one-strike rule?
Because I think we already have that kind of system here where the ones who are blatantly, consciously lying implicate themselves because they refuse to stop saying what they are saying no matter what we tell them, and we eventually get a sexist/homophobic/etc. bingo from their comments and then they are confined to TZT or banned.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:50 am
Re-Morning All.
Well I couldn’t sleep and my run was fucking awful. Given that, and intravenous coffee, I’ll try to be as un-irritated as possible and shed more light than heat. Forgive me if the veil of decency slips once in a while. Or at least hit me with a stick.
Bill D, #52,
Okay, right off the bat there’s the assumption that what I did to LILAPWL was a “verbal punch in the arm”. That’s an assumption that’s at the heart of where you (plural, perhaps Americans) are going wrong.
It was not a punch in the arm, verbal, friendly, unfriendly or anything of that type. It was an expansive gesture, an affectation, a piece of humorous self deprecation and all the other things I’ve tried to explain that seem to be being largely ignored (I’ve only read to #52 at the moment).
That doesn’t negate the fact that it could be a “verbal punch in the arm” in some other context, it specifically states it isn’t in THIS context. Now if LILAPWL’s arm is hurting, then he (and you and anyone) need only look UP THREAD. If I’ve unintentionally (not magic I know) hurt his arm with something you (plural) wish to see as a verbal punch/over familiar intimacy/diminutive, then for that I am genuinely sorry. If I’ve accidentally bruised arms and trodden on toes I am genuinely sorry and will be more careful in future. AS I HAVE SAID. Can we move past that yet?
{Shit….sorry…irritation levels briefly flared. I am spectacularly imperfect. In the interim I have just taken a double espresso and three Buddhisms intravenously ;-) }
What I am objecting to is the claim that this is as clear cut a verbal punch in the arm, with as clear cut implications of intimacy or diminutive etc as you (plural) are claiming. I am specifically making the case that this is NOT like “cunt” and what not. Context matters here more than there. Quite a lot more, and that context is relevant to deciding whether or not that comment is a punch in the arm, implicitly intimate, diminutive or otherwise.
On the issue of offence, as a quick aside, it’s called “taking offence” for a reason. It relies on a partnership between the offender and offendee to some extent. That extent is in part determined by the context. That the offendee can be offended in total absence of effort of the offender is one point on that spectrum (the most “taking” part of “taking offence”). And in that circumstance the thing to do is what I (eventually) did, apologise for the inadvertent offence caused.
It isn’t however binding on ambiguous offending articles (in this case a phrase), regardless of whether or not that ambiguity is 1% or 99%. The path most travelled does not erase the pass less travelled, nor does it invalidate journeys down it. Fuck me…I’m about to derive a sum over all histories/path integral/Feynman diagram approach to language aren’t I? ;-)
Back to the res.
A couple of examples/analogies of varying degrees of applicability:
Above I related an anecdote about when I was walking near Tintagel. Had it been LILAPWL instead of me would the appropriate response to “roight moi luvver” or “roight moi darlin’” been “Don’t talk to me like that.” followed by an explanation of how such a term could be used homophobically? I’d argue no. And with some force. There’s not a shred of homophobia or anything there. There’s no over familiar intimacy, no diminutive, nothing of the sort. It’s a local phrase, a bit of parochial colour for that area, a verbal affectation, it’s not significant. Any homophobia, any insult, any familiarity, any intimacy, any diminutive is being imported by LILAPWL’s cultural history and context, and is dismissive of the farmhand’s cultural history and context in an ambiguous case.
Note that last bit.
What LILAPWL and you and others are doing is insisting your cultural history and context trumps that of the person whose field you are standing in.
Again, this farm hand didn’t use the phrase as an insult, rather like I don’t have to use (and don’t!) my tyre spanner as a murder weapon but it can be so used, the context of his use of the phrase (my tyre spanner) dictated what type of use it was (not murderous).
Unless that farmhand was a nit picky fuckwit like me I suspect that informing him of your cultural context would have resulted in him using HIS tyre iron in an unpleasant fashion! I jest, I jest, but it links me to example/analogy 2!
You’re An American For Your Sins, right? ;-)
I suspect you’d have no problem with the word “pal” as a word used towards people you weren’t very familiar with. As in “Hey, pal, mind if I just move my car? Thanks!” or “Hey, pal, do you want to go to make out point in my Camaro?” or some such Americanism (okay, okay I went for deliberately piss taking stereotypes, you know what I mean! Brownian inspired me ;-) ).
I have a massive problem with the word. Entirely derived from my cultural history and context.
The same applies to the word “mate” to a lesser extent in certain contexts. If I hear “Hey, pal”, even gently, delivered I brace for a physical fight. I’m not saying I’ve never used that word, I’m sure I’ve fucked up a time or two, but I try really hard to avoid it because as far as I’m concerned if I say “pal” I am two seconds away from hitting the target of that word with a very strong left.
If I’m in Plymouth in a nightclub, as I so often have been, and I hear “‘Ere mate” I fucking duck!. If I’m in a pub in Teignmouth I do the same thing. Hell, if I’m in a pub in Teignmouth, I’m wearing body armour and carrying a baseball bat in each hand. I’m joking again…well…I’m joking if anyone from Teignmouth is reading. Seriously. Lovely place. Lovely, but violent. ;-)
If I’m in a pub in Finsbury Park (London) and I hear “‘Ere mate” I don’t duck. Unless it’s delivered in a Teignmouth accent. Same word, same commonality of meaning, same dictionary definition, same global potential for confusion, different context. The word use is sufficiently ambiguous to make the context extremely relevant. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1% ambiguous or 99%. It’s unlike “cunt” (which is bad everywhere to varying degrees, but unambiguously sexist) which does not have the same degree or type of ambiguity. Hence category error.
My “my darling” was that Cornish “moi darlin’”. Your “pal” is an American “pal”. If I insisted that your “pal” was a Plymouthian “pal” and punched you in the face (not what LILAPWL did but follow me here) I think you’d have a pretty good case for objection (and an assault charge!).
“Cunt” et al. don’t fit that bill. Those words exist across a range of offensiveness but their use hasn’t evolved far from their original meaning. Interestingly, I don’t think I’m wrong in noting this is a common feature of particular swearwords, shit, cunt, fuck, cock etc all are centuries old. “Gay” meaning “homosexual” and not happy? Relatively recent. “Nice” meaning “pleasant” and not “neatly in its place”, a good bit older, but no where as old as “cunt”. If you’re truly interested in how language evolves and how meanings and usage evolves then you simply cannot assert the universality of your cultural context in the way you are for an ambiguous phrase.
For “cunt” it works. Cunt refers to the female genitals, referring to someone as a cunt explicitly and implicitly references widely existing cultural misogyny by comparing a person to those genitals. It is an insult. Even the passive aggressive “you’re a funny cunt aren’t you” delivered pleasantly is far from the edge of ambiguity. “Cunt as insult” is unambiguous. It’s reference clear, it’s implications stark. That’s simply not the case for “my darling” NOT as insult. NOT as patronising aside. NOT as verbal punch in the arm. The words simply don’t have that same force, that same meaning, that same history, that same context.
Can they? SURE! Can =/= do =/= is. I’ve admitted to can. I’ve apologised for (unintended, not magic) can. Can is perhaps the road more travelled.
But the road more travelled doesn’t negate other less travelled roads. There are no other roads for “cunt as insult”, there are other roads for “cunt” (vulgar word for women’s genitals and a particular favourite of an ex-girlfriend of mine in dirty talk as it happens). They might all reference the shock value, the taboo nature of the word, they might not, but “cunt as insult” has unambiguous implications.
If I was using “my darling” as an insult, you’d have got not a shred of argument from me. You’ve got no shred of argument from me that it can be seen to be insulting. You have a massive amount of argument from me if you are claiming, as I think you are, it is necessarily so absent of other context.
Dictionaries do not define words by the way. They reflect the usage of words. Words mean what they are used to mean. That’s why communication is fraught with peril. That’s why language evolves. Dictionaries do not contain holotypes of a species, they contain historical references to word usage. They are inevitably out of date. The criterion for inclusion in a dictionary IS usage.
Context matters here too. My use of the word “right” can be to acknowledge the correctness of something, which way I should turn my car, or a principle of fundamental social justice I think should be adhered to. Snipping my “right” from its proper context or pointing at the dictionary and saying “right” means THIS definition is to deliberately ignore context. Context that provides a clue as to meaning, context that decided what sense of the word “right” I am using.
What you are doing with “my darling” is ignoring the (now vast amount of) context I am trying to provide you with, not to exculpate myself, I’m content with being culpated thanks ;-) , but to show you that I specifically disagree with a claim you are implicitly/explicitly making to various degrees. You are snipping my “my darling” from its context, context I have taken great pains to clarify, and plopping it down in context of your very very own. That is not right. And by right I mean correct, not the opposite of left. ;-)
“Cunt as insult” don’t work that way, hence why I think you are making the same category error Brownian did.
You’re trying to claim I was saying “my darling” in the same way as “you cunt”, when it’s far from clear I was. It could be the case, it isn’t. “My darling” has a level of ambiguity not associated with “you cunt”. That doesn’t preclude LILAPWL or any gay man from finding “my darling” as a diminutive etc offensive, far, far from it, what it does mean is that it has to be established that that use is what’s happening. The onus is not solely on the gay man/LILAPWL to do this of course (as should be implicit from this, by extension). But in communication where ambiguity is possible BOTH parties need to attempt clarity of communication and of understanding, it’s not a one way street and it’s not clearly delineated along lines of oppressor/oppressed.
By the way, as an aside to that oppressor/oppressed angle, I am “out” here as (Kinsey 1 to 3) bisexual and polygamous and kinky to the same extent LILAPWL is “out” as homosexual, I’ve written extensively on it here recently. It’s not a fashion statement, not a convenient label it’s WHO I AM. I make fuck all apology for it.
Whatever my non-Pharyngula outness is is irrelevant. It’s different for different people as it happens. A few trusted people at work know, for example, because they’ve encountered aspects of it, most don’t because I have sufficient 100% straight-appearing privilege IN REAL LIFE (i.e. not here) to permit ambiguity by not making an issue of it. It’s not anyone’s business unless I choose to share. Where my cock goes is not relevant to my work. If it comes up, I am disgustingly frank and unabashed. It doesn’t often come up. Is that dishonest of me? yes. Is it contributory to a culture of homophobia? Yes. Is it hypocritical? yes. Am I sticking my head above the parapet to have it shot off? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I’m allowed to pick my battles thanks. Walk a mile in my shoes before you tell me which battles to fight. My principles cannot always be matched by my actions, I have to kneel to the great god Pragma once in a while.
LILAPWL’s, and your (plural), claims (inadvertently?) casting me as “Oppressor here on Pharyngula” is to ignore THAT context too. As is ignoring the countless number of times I have made EXACTLY the arguments you are now making in against clear sexist, homophobes, ableists, racists and sundry other overt pillocks. You are ignoring an enormous amount of context to justify a specific interpretation of specific words that can be both ambiguous and innocent (as amply demonstrated), a specific interpretation that relies on you ignoring that context and importing your own. I’m not claiming to be without sin, far from it, I’m not claiming that the burden of noting my sins rest on you, it doesn’t, I’m claiming that in your arguments you have to ignore that, and many other, contextual aspects to force the argument you are making though.
I could be pissed off about that. I could be offended. This morning, I’m not. Because I really do grasp how I have inadvertently fucked up myself, and I’ve repeatedly apologised for that (largely ignored thus far).
Louis
Nightjar:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:57 am
That, and blaming the person who said “don’t do that” when things got blown out of proportion. What the fuck is wrong with people indeed.
(Quoting the note because it’s applicable to this comment too.)
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:02 am
Brownian, #107,
Erm, sorry, but yes it is.
Just get one thing straight, whatever you believe, YOU DO NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR ME.
Is that abundantly clear? You know I think you are a prince among men, a chocolate chip in the biscuit barrel of life, but don’t EVER speak for me.
As I have EXTENSIVELY explained you are importing YOUR OWN cultural views over mine. You don’t get to do that. This is not as unambiguous as you are presenting it. This is not elevatorgate, this is not “cunt as insult”. It is categorically different. As explained. A lot.
I didn’t read LILAPWL’s chastisement of me as “Guys don’t do that”. As I’ve said repeatedly now, certainly enough times for you to have noticed it by #107 in this thread, I am not objecting to “guys don’t do that” in any way. I’ve already acknowledged and apologised for and said “I won’t do that” to the “guys don’t do that angle”. What is clear to YOU is not clear to ME. Not because I’m dumb or your dumb but because we view the phrase and my use of it from very different places. See my comment to Bill D above. Especially the bit about “pal”.
Did I respond to LILAPWL intemperately? Yes. Have I already acknowledged and apologised for that way before your #107? Yes. Have I apologised for not making my pre-existing understanding of the whole “guys don’t do that angle” (something you’ve seen me demonstrate a few hundred times by the way) manifestly clear earlier? YES YES YES.
ARGH!
For fuck’s sake man! READ! Understand!
;-)
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:19 am
And fuck my life I am a douche!
Brownian, #130/#132,
No worries. Thank YOU.
Oh and on the trust thing, I GOT IT when LILAPWL chastised me, if “it” refers to an elevatorgate-esque “guys don’t do that”. Did I fuck up by being an intemperate arse and basically telling him to fuck himself? YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!!
Did I fuck up by not making my “getting it” clear and losing my rag with someone I consider(ed) to be playing a convenient card (rightly or wrongly) in order to distract from a previous discussion? YES YES YES A THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES YES!!!!!!
Have I apologised for all of that? No. Fuck you all, eat a steaming bowl of my shi…
….wait, it’s YES isn’t it? Can I have a thousand and two times yes? ;-)
I read LILAPWL’s chastisement as going beyond “guys don’t do that”. “Guys don’t do that” is as unobjectionable a chastisement to me as possible. I am a guy who occasionally “does that”. And says so, and recognises it, and apologises for it. “Guys don’t do that” is a simple objection to an unambiguous offence. THIS IS NOT THAT. Have I apologised for accidental toe treading? Yes.
Do I think use of “my darling” is an unambiguous, universal toe tread, verbal arm punch, diminutive, inappropriate intimacy, or whatever, even to you Brownian? NO. It is not “cunt”, it is not “approaching someone in an elevator after repeatedly being told the approach is unwelcome”. It’s not that cut and dried. As I’ve explained. Again. A lot.
Do you see how that’s a separate (and largely unaddressed) issue? Largely unaddressed because people are peachy keen to rush to inform me of what we all already know by heart: unintentional offence can be, and has been, given. Words can do damage unintended. Acknowledges and apologised for. I’m disagreeing with a different thing, what I perceive to be a universalist claim. And my perception of that is NO LESS CORRECT than LILAPWL’s or anyone’s perception that I was potentially, inadvertently delivering Bill D’s verbal punch or over familiar intimacy, diminutive term, or insult.
I don’t get to say “my darling” to a woman or a gay man? Sorry BUT IN SOME CONTEXTS I DO. It’s not as unambiguous as you are making out. Was I right to do so here? NO. Have I apologised for that? YES. I assumed a degree of understanding of context clearly not present. Interestingly some here do seem to get it despite Pathological Americanness. ;-)
This isn’t as tetchy/irritated as it might sound by the way. I’m running on 2 hrs sleep, a 2 hour run, sore legs and low caffeine. Any intemperateityness is entirely accidental!
Here is a happy smiley to indicate tone of light banter :-)
Louis
Nightjar:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:23 am
I was just going to post saying you were being unfair by saying your apologies had been “largely ignored thus far”. Good thing I refreshed. :)
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:30 am
Consciousness Razer, #147,
No I didn’t. I said I believed him to be untrustworthy (rightly or wrongly) in that thread on that subject. That’s very different and very limited. In fact I’ve said the polar opposite several times if you’ve been paying attention. I think LILAPWL is a good “canary in the mine” for this kind of fucked-up-ness. I’ve agreed with his chastisement of me several times. He was right then and he’s, partially, right now. As acknowledged and apologised for within those limits.
The apparent convenience of his timing might be leading me to make a false positive. It might not. Guess what, LILAPWL is human too. His being gay doesn’t magically protect him from being dishonest or an arsehole. Neither does my being (Kinsey 1 to 3) bi so prevent me. It’s an irrelevance. External factors to the argument in hand apply to him as much as to me, who’s to say the choice to make his chastisement of me, and its specific phraseology, are not something to do with his personal dislike of ME (if such exists)?
People are nailing their colours to my mast. Don’t do that. None of you speak for me.
Oh and ‘Tis doesn’t speak for me either. NONE of you do. If I tell you that LILAPWL got the reaction I would have likely given anyone who used those words yesterday, you can chose to believe me or not. I’d have been more shocked (my word) by Josh reacting that way than LILAPWL not because I like Josh more or less but because I would consider, based on experience and context, that Josh would react differently. He’d be more disposed to a charitable interpretation of my words. And as such I’d be more disposed to a charitable interpretation of his chastisement. I think, perhaps wrongly, Josh would have asked the question, at least of himself “is this a quaint and obscure Anglicism?”, LILAPWL didn’t, he plumbed straight for a very culturally specific interpretation (or perhaps set of interpretations, I’m not saying it’s unreasonable that he did so, far from it actually), and applied it globally. And is still doing so as are others.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:31 am
Nightjar, #various,
Thank YOU too! ;-)
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:49 am
Rorschach, #149,
And not a single fuck will be given by anyone anywhere with anything resembling a brain. ;-)
Let them hoggle. Let them think me an arsehole, LILAPWL an arsehole, everyone arseholes. We get to disagree about things. I’m not tempering my disagreement because an onlooker with a dishonest agenda might come across all moist and unnecessary.
That’s giving in to terrorists (or is it tourists?) and we don’t do that.
And by we I mean me and my exceedingly sore testicles. Chafing, the sign that my shorts were not on properly at seven this morning. TMI?
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:11 am
Josh, #127,
But you deserve a reply!
1) Agreed to an extent. I have doubled down one way whilst making a separate (but I think correct) point another way. That is my bad. I fucked up. I doubled down over both parts, wrongly and unintentionally (not magic, but true) on the “Guys don’t do it” angle, intentionally and STILL (and dammit rightly! ;-) )on the linguistic angle.
2) No I didn’t I deny this utterly…oh…erm…wait…I did do that. Does that make me Wrong On The Internet? Should I now commit suicide or something? Or is being Wrong On The Internet not actually, you know, a big deal? ;-)
3) Agreed. Where and if I have done that I am wrong to have done so and apologise unreservedly.
4) I don’t know who else you could be talking about, meh, I’m sleep deprived I wouldn’t know if you hit me with a building, but I do get it! I really really do! I really really also fucked up by not making that abundantly clear earlier and with a fucktonne less irritation and snark.
Oh and this is not an answer. Can I still be on the Reasonable Person List?
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Addendum to my reply to Josh’s 1) above:
I should have had LILAPWL’s back too. I didn’t consider it initially and that is my fuck up.
Louis
'Tis Himself:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:35 am
Louis #159
I wasn’t speaking for you, I was speaking for me. You may not think SG is an arrogant, priggish asshole trying to pick a fight whenever he feels the need to do so. I have a different opinion.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:04 am
‘Tis,
Yup I know that, I got the impression that others were…unclear…on the matter. I’m trying to establish I’m in a camp of one, not a gang of Evil LILAPWL Persecutors™. (Not that you are either necessarily but…oh fuck you know what I’m trying to say, right?)
Like I said, I don’t think LILAPWL is always as you describe, but I’d be lying if I failed to acknowledge I did/do have precisely those suspicions (rightly or wrongly) in the previous thread.
Louis
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:22 am
My dog has the biggest lips on earth.
Rev. BDC trivia
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:23 am
Hilarious. It’s like the Italian Mafia being muscled out of the city by the Russian Mafia, so they go to the police and start crying about being victimized by these criminals!
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Rev BDC,
Oh yeah? Fuck you, pal. Come on then you toilet. Let’s have it!
Louis
P.S. Serious I am not. Really, biggest lips on earth? Oh fuck….sleep deprived brain is coming up with jokes. Must restrain the jokes. My wife’s cousin’s dog (now deceased) had the biggest balls I’d ever seen on a dog. When we were in India a littler cousin asked his dad and I why the dog was licking his (i.e. the dog’s own*) balls. It was an hour before I could breathe properly again. To his credit, the dad did get “because he can” out between shrieks of laughter.
* For some reason I feel this needed to be made very clear.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Why do dogs lick their balls?
Because they can.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:37 am
I just felt he need to repeat that
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Gee, illishit thinks its funny? Nope, just stoopid, in that it thinks it can think.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Hey, Nerd, you haven’t picked a side. You going to stick with the Wise Guys or go over to the Vory? You’d make a decent button-man, because you don’t question anything.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Just remember to preface your posts with, for instance, “STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME SENDS HIS REGARDS!”
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Rev BDC,
In the (paraphrased) words of Bill Hicks, if men could lick* their own balls like dogs just the women would be here. Alone. Talking to themselves.
Wait…that really doesn’t work outside the comedy club he was playing in now does it? That actually sounds kinda nice in some ways. ;-)
Louis
* I originally typoed “like”. Oh yes, my pee-pee makes me a baaaaad boy. Excuse me whilst I nip off and “exorcise some demons”.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:18 am
{sigh}
Illithid,
Do you have to troll here? Really?
There’s no “side”, this is your fevered imagination. Adults can disagree, even wrongly, violently and vehemently, or rightly, calmly and dispassionately, without it being a team sport.
You’re not alone in this delusion, but you’re just as wrong.
Louis
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Or they can go to the mattresses.
ChasCPeterson:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:20 am
What a diverting and procrastinatory read this cross-thread drama has been this morning.
Louis, I know that somewhere you apologized, and that’s cool, and it’s not my non-magical intention to beat a dead horse (no offense or actual violence meant to dead horses), but since, if I am not mistaken, you regard me as a weaselly dogpiling shitstirrer, I just want to point out that the actual nonmagical intention of my comment was not to stir the already well-mixed shit, but rather to allude to the exact parallels between your earlier spirited defense of calling people ‘cunts’ and the hole you were engaged in digging there with the ‘darling’ thing. You want to emphasize the difference between intrinsically gendered terms (a lesson you evidently learned truly and well enough to be accepted by the metaphorical Russian Mafia) and unisex stuff like ‘my darling’, and it’s a valid distinction, but there’s a larger, nonfeminist issue here.
This:
is the point. It’s exactly what you said about ‘cunt’ back in the day, and the response is the same: So what? Colloquial quirkiness just doesn’t work in text on the internationalnet. I realize that your schtick is the charmingly self-deprecatory Brit, but Pharyngula just isn’t the Shire.
bah…internet narcissists…
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Chas,
2 + 2 = 5 is wrong.
2 + 2 = 4 is right.
I was wrong about “cunt”, I’m not so sure I’m wrong about this. The level of ambiguity and very use of the words is categorically different in context.
I don’t expect the internationalnet to be the Shire, I equally don’t expect the internationalnet to be American (or whatever).
If you can’t see the difference, it’s not my fault.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:47 am
Oh and argument is narcissism now? This from the drama llama who dramatically quit, asked people to tell him to fuck off if he returned and now has returned to stir the pot. Colour me unimpressed.
Am I not allowed to be wrong about one thing, correct that, and also be right about another?
I wasn’t wrong about cunt because of the “parochial colloquialism” thing, I was wrong because I misapplied something to a word that just didn’t have the degree of ambiguity this does.
Also, you continue to misunderstand, my previous argument was explicitly not that people calling each other “cunts” was defensible (in fact I took pains to say this a few times IIRC) but to note that it wasn’t universally misogynist. A subtlety that escapes you I note. AGAIN. I was wrong then, it is universally misogynist, this isn’t. There are differences! Woohoo! Shades of grey. How terrible of me to appreciate them.
Louis
theophontes (坏蛋):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:30 am
@ ALL
TZT is supposed to be an apocalyptic hellhole. Why is everyone being so nice?
More of this Linky & Linky .
OK?
Got it?
@ Louis
Peroni Nastro Azzurro on special. Bottoms up, ducky!
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Who the fuck cares fuckwit? I’ll use you as the abject fool Heinlein says to ask, and take the opposite tack. Or maybe not. Wisdom can also be one being too tired to get involved. You do have your uses for clarifying idiocy, by making the village idjit look intelligent.
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Louis
Tonight I want you to get 8 hours of sleep.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Chigau,
Shite, am I being that bad?
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Theophontes,
Ducky? Nice one!
Peroni? Also nice one!
Have a good one, cocker!
Louis
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:48 am
♫ But it’s just part of my quaint Prairie Canadian charm, we do it all the time here, and nobody but Strange Gods ever normally gets offended. ♪
Aquaria will explain it all to you. Stop having a major fucking freakout.
Sheesh.
What a fucking bunch of bullshit.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:53 am
“Guys, don’t do that.”
I’m with Josh. I can’t believe I’m seeing people who’ve been through ElevatorGate playing “intent is magic” and “but it doesn’t mean that in England.”
And this mean Aquaria’s little travelogue (which I missed last night) about how fucking sweet and charming all the Southerners are and how everybody takes it in stride around Lake Wobegon at dusk.
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Brownian
Are you going to the Pride Parade?
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Brownian,
I’ll wait for you to catch up, presuming that’s what you’ve yet to do, but this:
Is nothing like what I’ve said. You really do need to read what I’ve written for comprehension, which at the moment I honestly don’t think you are.
Louis
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Who cares? It’s what I’M saying, and you all can just fucking deal with it.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:01 am
You’ve got to hand it to these Cossacks, they’ve got heart.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:12 am
I think so. I’m trying to plan my day. Are you?
I never thought I’d live to see Hyperon develop a sense of humour.
I’m actually sort of proud of you, boy.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Alethea (@152):
Thank you for saying this. It follows that “the difference between accident and assault; manslaughter and murder; slip-up and slimepit” matters because it affects (or ought to) what you do next.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Brownian,
Okay, be like that.
I’ve made it more than clear that on the issue of “guys don’t do that” I’m on board. I’ve acknowledged it repeatedly, apologised, and will not be doing it again.
I’ve also made it abundantly clear that I don’t consider LILAPWL’s comments or yours (or those of other’s) to be limited to “guys don’t do that”.* Not because I want some magical “out”, I don’t have one, I’ve already admitted my culpability and errors several times. If you can’t treat that as an honest disagreement and deal with what I’ve actually said as opposed to trying to be cute about things, it’s not really my fault is it?
Louis
* Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”. I presume you’d agree with the first sentence (guys don’t do that) but not the second. Ok, so what you and LILAPWL are saying is not that stark or blatantly erroneous, but what I am trying to explain is I got something not a million miles from that from LILAPWL’s original complaint and continue to get it from you. I am agreeing to the first bit repeatedly and without reservation, and disagreeing with something like the second bit.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:26 am
What Elevator Louis did, and his intent, and seriously, fuck England, is not the issue. This fucking blog’s reaction to Strange Rebeccas Before Me asking him not to do that is.
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:29 am
I am trying to make the Pride Parade fit in my day.
I guess I better get a wiggle on.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Louis, I’m not even talking to you at this point. No need to make yourself any clearer. You’ve apologised, maybe you get it, maybe you don’t, I don’t fucking care any longer.
It’s the rest of these hypocritical assholes that I’m fucking furious at, because they don’t fucking seem to get it, conveniently because it’s SG.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:31 am
That is incorrect. Some people (in England no doubt) use that word as an affectionate term for each other, so it is not “bad everywhere”.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Louis,
This “dog pilers” stuff, what do you think it means? Do you think that anyone besides Chas and Hyperon were getting involved because of anything but SIWOTI? Do you think there’s something immoral about arguing because SIWOTI? I ask because you compared them to bullies — who exactly you’re talking about, that isn’t entirely clear, but it sounds like it might be everyone who argued with you about this except for me.
Well I need you to understand this, Louis, this comment from me you apparently found a bit eye-opening, I could not have made it; I could not have continuted speaking up for myself without getting some reassuring signal from the community here that it really is okay for a gay man to insist he should not be called darling.
If it was just me and you arguing about this, I would have long ago given up trying to get you to understand. Because that’s the way it usually works. That’s the way I’m accustomed to. I don’t get to say “don’t call me that, that’s homophobic” without being mocked and trashed for it. What you did, blaming me for being hurt, is the same thing that always happens in daily life but normally there isn’t anyone else around who understands why I’m upset so I just give up.
It’s only the most ridiculous myside bias that lets you keep going with this hypothesis in the face of evidence to the contrary, and no evidence in your favor.
Evidence that I was being honest: I briefly told you not to call me darling, and then in the very same comment I went right back to the discussion about Hutchinson that I’d hoped we’d continue. If I only wanted to win by playing “the gay card” as you put it, why would I give you such an easy opportunity to say okay sorry, now, about Hutchinson…? — Why would I have continued trying to direct the discussion to Hutchinson’s writing at all?
Evidence that I was not being honest: none.
Your continuing to entertain this failed hypothesis is downright crankish.
My interpretation of your words was 100% charitable. I told you not to say them to me, and I gave you a reason I thought you would understand. You want to claim I wasn’t being charitable? Quotes or it didn’t happen.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:41 am
He didn’t fucking say that, you stupid fucking asshole.
DO YOU SEE THE CONTEXT NOW? HINT, FUCKFACE, IT’S THE PART I BOLDED AND ITALICISED FOR THE FUCKING ENGLISH READERS IN THE AUDIENCE.
No?
Then maybe I’m wrong. Highlight the part where it says “regardless of context” for me.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Louis:
Oh, dear; figurative language FAIL on my part. I was not characterizing what you said as a “verbal punch in the arm”; rather, I was using that image to attempt to characterize a level of friendship/casual personal familiarity in the context of which things that might otherwise be taken as offensive or assaulting are instead seen as expected and just good fun. It’s easy to imagine male friends of that sort calling each other darling (or sweetie or honey or even girlfriend) without it leading to anything other than laughter and another round of beers.
The point I was trying to make was that no such personal relationship was in place as a predicate for your comment to lilapwl.
***
Erm, sorry, but no it isn’t
You’re absolutely right: None of us gets to speak for you, or to presume we know your inner intentions. But we do get to comment on the record before us, and here’s a quick summary: In the middle of what was already a fairly intense and long-running disagreement with another man with whom you have no real personal connection or ties of friendship, you called him darling, an appellation you had not previously applied to him up to that point.
Only in absurdist theatre could that be construed as a “pass the scones, love” sort of usage, and certainly you couldn’t have had any reasonable expectation that it would be received that way.
You got exasperated with lilawpl (as many of us have at some time or another), and you elevated the emotive/sarcastic character of your language. That much seems clear from the record, regardless of your conscious intent.
But dude, this has been thoroughly hashed, and you’ve apologized to the person who was put out; why have you not observed the First Rule of Holes™?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:42 am
That would not be relevant to what happened here.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Aratina Cage,
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:47 am
There it is again.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Brownian,
Read beyond what you quote.
Actually, I’m out. You’re simply not trying to understand where I’m coming from, and you clearly don’t. I’ve made every concession it’s possible to make and tried to make clear what I am disagreeing with and why and it just gets ignored.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
LILAPWL,
It would be precisely because I read that as what you were in part saying. Not because you or I are some how stupid, but because I was coming at it from a very different perspective to you.
Even Bill D is simply ignoring that “my darling” can be every bit as innocent as “pass the scones, love”. If you’re just going to insist YOUR (plural) interpretation of a phrase is binding universally when it’s derived from YOUR cultural context(s) and nothing more, then you’re just ignoring what I’ve been saying.
None of which exculpates my fuck ups or modifies my apologies by the way. I’m still wrong to have said it to you, I’m still wrong to have gotten angry and doubled down about it, I’m still apologetic about all of it. I won’t be doing it again.
But pretending YOUR interpretations and intents are magic and eviscerating someone who is not claiming theirs are for doing so is… Buggered if I know, it’s not good. You’re not the only one without a view from nowhere.
Louis
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:58 am
You were having a disagreement in which you were yelling at your opponent. It’s all right there preserved in your comment. That is the context. And now you expect us to believe it was not said insultingly?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Not true. I’ve got three here you could easily make.
1) Other people besides myself were involved in the discussion not out of a desire to bully you but because they just thought you were wrong.
2) There is no evidence to suggest I was dishonestly “playing the gay card”, and there is evidence to the contrary.
3) I didn’t accuse you of anything when I said “don’t speak to me like that.” I was being charitable by giving you an explanation I thought you would understand for why I don’t want to be called darling, and I said nothing about your intention.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Reminds me of the gay joke in Prometheus that ruined a good portion of the film for me.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Aratina, (okay so I’m not so out yet!)
Yes. Whether you believe it or not, it’s true.
Your perception of “yelling” might be different from mine. Not because I’m English-ish but because I’m not you. Your perception of my anger/irritation is not binding on me. You are importing your own notions of my intemperateness to form an assumption.
I did that, I’m probably wrong as LILAPWL claims above. I assumed LILAPWL was playing a silly game, not being honest, I’ve seen it done by people before. IF I am wrong about that, and LILAPWL thinks it likely I am, THEN I was definitely wrong to act as I did. Even IF I am not wrong about that, THEN I am ALSO wrong to act as I did.
What you’re failing to grasp is explaining my reasoning doesn’t excuse me from a damn thing. Explanation =/= excuse.
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
No, no, no. I in fact did not say “don’t do that. Oh and by the way all calling gay men ‘darling’ is always sexist regardless of context”.
So your hypothetical should be:
+++++
Ahem.
Where am I doing any of this? Quotes or it didn’t happen.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
And yet here is the Illzit, still lingering, with clear, near-orgasmic delight, amidst what it calls mafia criminals.
That would make illzit a mafia groupie.
Pathetic hypocrite.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Louis:
SRSLY? Have you not yet read me@200, or did you comprehenisvely fail to comprehend it?
I have said quite clearly, several times, that I understand there are conditions under which my darling can be “every bit as innocent” as pass the scones, love, and I have (also several times) explored what some of those conditions might be.
Can you truly not see that those conditions don’t obtain in this case?
Oddly, when I first chimed in on this subject, back in the other thread, I was much more sympathetic to your side than I have become as you’ve continued to “explain” yourself. You are really not doing yourself any favors.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
LILAPWL,
1) Agreed, acknowledged and so conceded.
I’m not sure I disagreed with this globally, but I certainly think there were pilers-on as well as honest disagreers. Maybe I’m wrong. If I’m wrong about that, why are other people incapable of being wrong about me?
2) Not entirely agreed. Your timing could be seen that way (i.e. as evidence). You could be seen to have distracted from a claim you could not support to a make a claim you felt you could. You could have cried “wolf”. People do do these things dishonestly. Now if you want to claim you didn’t, tell you what, I’ll simply take you at your word. My bad, I apologise for the claim of dishonesty and I was wrong to make it. None of that changes the fact that I was merely explaining why I did certain things as opposed to excusing them.
3) I think I’ve already agreed to this. The particular way you phrased it, and the circumstances under which you said it, lead me (perhaps erroneously) to think you were making a far more extensive claim than merely “guys don’t do that”. Really. I honestly thought that. Subsequent posts from you and others have reinforced reading, not damaged it.
Again, whilst I am cheerfully acknowledging and admitting to errors, you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from “guys don’t do that”. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you. THAT isn’t good.
Louis
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
OK, Louis. I looked at that comment and didn’t see anything particularly friendly about it. No smilies or something that would show you were joking around in the opening, lots of hyperbole to show how stupid your opponent was for not seeing the obvious, caps-locks on possessive pronouns, finishing up with an emphatic “fucking”, and no congenial parting. So if you weren’t insulting him with my darling, then that is virtually unsupported by the rest of the comment.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Bill D,
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Aratina,
I get that, I really do. I can see how you would get that, I really do. What I’m trying to get across is just because you get that it doesn’t make it so. Like I said, you are presuming more things than you can know. Perhaps because what I’m saying is outside your experience, perhaps not, I simply don’t know.
What I do know is that it is not as clear cut as you wish to make it.
Again, doesn’t exculpate me. LILAPWL was not unreasonable in reading my comment that way, and my immediate subsequent reaction did nothing to dissuade him or anyone from that opinion. As I’ve apologised for, repeatedly.
Louis
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I have, and whatever stupid INTERPRETATION you have isn’t the correct one. SG confirms this.
Yay, he finally fucking gets it!
Somebody, give Darling a scone!
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Anyway, I hope you’ve enjoyed his bullshit sandwich. Darling has exactly the same connotations in British English as it does in American English.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Brownian,
Well I’m not out it seems!
What SG said does not confirm it, it confirms this wasn’t his intent.
I’ll repeat it simply because you’ve ignored it.
Cornish farmer in a field says to passing woman or (not obviously) gay man or (not obviously) heterosexual man who asks for directions “Roight moi darlin’ you go left”. Is that diminutive/overly familiar/whatever UNIVERSALLY or merely diminutive/overly familiar/whatever TO THEM (if they choose to take it that way or are from a culture where it would be seen that way)?
In other words even though it could be all those things, and therefore cause perfectly justified offence, could it also be NOT those things?
I agreed it could be all those things. I apologised for wrongly giving the impression that I meant all those things. I apologised for offending/treading on toes/whatever. I apologised for reacting intemperately to LILAPWL’s comment. I apologised for all that and more. Is it really so hard for you to grasp a simple point of logic that the use of this term is not as clear cut as you think it is based simply on your cultural context being different from mine?
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Who?
The timing is because that’s when you called me darling. Go back and look at how Aratina Cage initially felt about it. Okay? You’ve got independent peer-review from another gay man in the USA about how offensive that kind of talk is.
Timing.
It’s not like I saw you casually driving your 1920 N.A.G. Darling down the boulevard and I ran to throw myself in front of it.
What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.
?
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Illithid,
Never said it didn’t. I said it didn’t EXCLUSIVELY. That’s kinda different. I’m saying it’s not as clear cut as people might like to claim.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
LILAPWL,
And have I disputed that it could be? No. Have I disputed that it undeniably is in all contexts including this one? Yes. Have I said that perhaps, just perhaps, your understanding of the context in which I was using that phrase is different from my own? Yes.
I’m not providing quotes or naming names because I’m sick of the bullshit drama, you and I both know it’s all there because I’m bloody repeating myself. Go and read, I’m sick of playing games with people that simply don’t want to address what I am saying as an argument rather than a series of snippets that further misconception.
Just answer this question:
Given that I have repeatedly apologised and conceded that what I said could be taken the way you took it, and that it was wrong of me and that I won’t do it again etc, can you see that it isn’t necessarily that way, that the phrase is less clear cut in its implications and nature than you have taken it and that this is a separate issue?
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Not relevant to my point. You said my “timing” could be evidence I was speaking dishonestly.
I’m asking you to consider 1) what the fuck other timing could I have had? 2) The fact that another gay man saw it similarly should strongly suggest that my “timing” was not “timing” at all.
Frankly I am tired of you claiming that I’m saying it’s more clear cut than I’ve actually said.
Or again: “What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.”
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
@Louis
While I hear you on this, it seems like it could be easily abused. For instance, the next time some fresh face on Pharyngula calls a woman the B-word or says something that implies that, should we have to give equal consideration to the possibility that even though it looks like an insult, it might have been meant affectionately? After all, maybe he just really likes dogs–or science memes.
And like I said, “OK, Louis”. I accept you held no ill will toward life is like a pitbull with lipstick when you called him your darling (and that the anger that comes off later in the same comment is something that built up as you kept writing). It wasn’t a dogwhistle or a barb. And if it isn’t too much trouble, please try to leave a somewhat obvious clue that you are being friendly next time you call someone your darling before you start tearing into them. KThnxBye
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Aratina,
1) One of these things is not necessarily like the other. Since when is “bitch” an unambiguous or even ambiguous non-female referent when using it in reference to a woman? Or ever?
2) Fine, point totally accepted. I will make myself clearer. In fact haven’t I already apologised for not making that obvious a few times already now?
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
LILAPWL,
So despite every my apology and concession, despite every post trying to clarify context beyond your own, you won’t even answer a simple question.
Well done.
And you question why I am to varying degrees sceptical of you as being an honest interlocutor in this matter.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Fuck, I am becoming irritated again and I’m sufficiently tired to be reversing words. This should help things! ;-)
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
You know how you intensely dislike that “diminutive” word in my original reply?
I intensely dislike a certain presumption here:
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
With this kind of herculean practice, you’re on your way to earning a bronze medal in the Olympics.
Could you restate that? I don’t understand what you are asking.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Er, “I don’t concede that I’ve taken the matter to be more clear cut in its implications and nature than you claim.”
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
LILAPWL,
If you don’t concede you’ve taken the matter to be more clear cut in its implications and nature than I claim, do you agree that it is perfectly possible to innocently and without diminutive/inappropriate over familiarity/whatever connotations* for a heterosexual man to use the phrase “my darling” to a woman or gay man they are unacquainted with?
You can assume the gay man is wearing a t-shirt saying “I am a gay man” if it helps. That’s not snark, I’m trying to say the heterosexual man knows the gay man is gay.
Louis
* I.e. purely as a verbal flourish or a stylistic matter or as part of a “local accent” etc.
opposablethumbs:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
None of which alters in any way the fact that illithid is a repulsive, putrescent slimebucket who wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if it bit him.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Aratina,
Okay I’ll try again! I think I’ve done this a few times now, but I’m hallucinating purple badgers due to sleep deprivation at the moment. ;-)
{The above is hyperbole for the purpose of comedy. This disclaimer is not snark, it’s self deprecating humour. I realise I have been less than clear and again, I apologise}
What is a “bitch”? It’s a female dog, right. How is “bitch” used as an insult? To derogate a female person by comparison to a female dog or a man by comparison to those awful awful women. (Joke) And various other connotations, all negative all to do with some caricature of femininity (excessive, baseless complaining etc).
There’s not an innocent use of bitch as an insult. It’s explicitly making reference to the “female as negative” idea.
If I’d said “Then, bitch, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” as opposed to “Then, my darling, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” there would be zero disagreement from me about anything. As already stated. Bitch is an unambiguous female referent in that context, my darling isn’t. Or at least that I am trying to say is that it isn’t clear cut that it IS. I’m also trying to get across that, as you note, referring to LILAPWL as “bitch” is unambiguously insulting, referring to him as “my darling” is not unambiguously insulting although as noted it could easily be. Hence why I have both apologised for my using that term because it could easily be insulting, and I did not want to insult LILAPWL (I have better ways to do that) AND disagreed that it is a clear cut insult with clear cut implications, which is what is being argued by many.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Oh and LILAPWL,
You’ve got independent “peer review” (although unlike you I won’t elevate someone’s agreement with something I said to those lofty heights) from Caine that what I said could easily be seen as exactly the verbal flourish I say it is.
Of course you can dismiss her comment as biased though, right?
In all of this I might be wrong, I acknowledge this freely and again without reservation. In many cases I have been wrong, and tried to consider things from a perspective and cultural context not my own. Is it so troubling for you to do the same?
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
I honestly do not know. I am not an anthropologist.
Once again, the reason I gave you the comparison with women was because I thought you would have some habit already of not talking to women that way. All I wanted to do was get you to realize you should expand that habit to gay men.
It didn’t work, so I asked you instead to “take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.”
I stopped talking about precisely when it might be appropriate a long time ago in internet time. Last night, I stopped! Said I didn’t want to talk about it anymore.
Here I wake up and see that in the meantime, after you apologized, you started calling me dishonest again. No way I can stay out of it anymore. Great.
And then you think that I owe you some kind of answer when I already asked you to just go ahead and caveat it however necessary for you to just get it already, on whatever terms can be meaningful to you?
When you won’t even answer my earlier question: what am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance?
Absurd.
I want no part of your when is it appropriate party. I backed out of that at comment #2. Leave me out of it.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
LILAPWL,
Neither am I last time I looked. I was unaware that acknowledging someone else’s cultural context was dependent on professional anthropological qualifications. That’s going to make talking to my parents and my in laws awfully tricky…
Yes that IS sarcasm! Not mean sarcasm, incredulous sarcasm.
And once again that reason is derived from the assumption that your cultural context is sufficiently similar to mine as to make that overlap sufficiently well. It isn’t, it doesn’t. As I’ve explained at length. Rocket science this ain’t.
And you’re not getting the dishonest thing are you. I have what I consider to be a reasonable degree of scepticism about your honesty on this issue for a variety of reasons I’ve explained. Either accept that or not. I could infer you have the same idea about me because you’re simply not addressing the ONLY thing I am disagreeing about.
Look back at my #213. In fact look at every time I’ve mentioned your honesty, the bulk if not all of them will have the caveat “rightly or wrongly” after them. Or some such thing. I’ve admitted the possibility of my making a false positive here. I’ve even agreed to simply take your word that that’s not what you are doing (#213) absent anything else.
The reason I mention it is as a further explanation (not excuse) of why I was so severely intemperate.
You say to me (which you have I think) “Louis that ain’t what I did” and I say “okay”, apologise, end of story. If you question how I could reasonably have come to that conclusion subsequent to that, which you have, then I’ll explain, which I have. Again none of that changes my apology, the fact that I’m cheerfully taking your word and thus wrong. Until of course you make it obvious that I am wrong to be so generous. Which of course you’re not going to do are you?
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Absurd.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
But some people use the word bitch as a friendly term. I know I have. The problem might be clearer to you if instead of bitch you had said biach. Would it then be friendly or insulting?
Not for all people in all English-speaking parts of the world. There really are people who use it to refer to their friends, often ironically. Just because you are not one of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I think I have shown above how even the word bitch could be claimed to have been ambiguous in your case. Anyway, that doesn’t matter since the context of your comment left little reason for some of us to guess that your use of darling was meant charmingly in a non-heterosexist manner. The context was key in your case. I’m glad you cleared it up.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Addendum:
Then don’t. That’s the only thing I am disagreeing with anyone about.
Oh and the question is not an exhaustive “when”, I’m not asking your permission, I don’t actually need to shocking though that concept might be to you, I’m asking something much simpler: “is it ever?”. It’s a yes or no question.
So to repeat my error from ages past:
Is it ever not misogynist to refer to an unacquainted someone, particularly a woman as “a cunt”? No it is not. I was wrong, lo those many years ago.
Is it ever not misogynist/homophobic to refer to an unacquainted someone, particularly a woman/gay man, as “my darling”? My answer is yes in specific circumstances, given a specific understanding of cultural context, it is not misogynist/homophobic.
I don’t want anyone’s permission, I am disagreeing with the implicit/explicit answers of “no” to that second question in a few poster’s comments. If I have (wrongly) taken you to be one of them, well I’ve already admitted I could be wrong about that and apologised, but the particular phrasing etc of various things you said lead me to believe I was not wrong. Not an excuse, not exculpation, EXPLANATION.
None of that changes that HERE I fucked up. I used the phrase in a way that could easily be misogynistic/homophobic. You are not wrong a) to read it that way, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to do so and b) to ask me not to do it. Hence why I have apologised profusely for a) and agreed to b).
Louis
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
We’re supposed to have thunder storms later.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I have never experienced what you claim exists. Other people from your country — and no, Hyperon doesn’t count, he’s of course totally useless — leave me wondering whether you understand the context properly.
So no, I cannot agree to what you are saying, because I do not know if it is true. I am also not arguing against it. I just do not know.
Sigh. That’s why I said “Like I said, I don’t like debating about homophobia. And I’ve done it more than I want to for the rest of this month. So please, take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.”
No, fuck you. Your reasons are ridiculous crankery.
I addressed it at #2.
I don’t even understand what this could possibly mean when you follow it with “And you question why I am to varying degrees sceptical of you as being an honest interlocutor in this matter.”
It’s like, I accept that you are being honest, but but but oh I have these reasons for thinking you are dishonest.
I don’t even know what that means. It’s confused at best.
Yet #226 comes after #213.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!
Then why did you say “There is zero appreciation of any nuance from” me? You pointed that at me and so I asked for quotes supporting it. You give no quotes, you just want to interrogate me in response.
Do you think you’re being funny?
But, without the quotes that would actually assist any explanation.
Jesus.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
I had inferred that when you said this:
But of course, that’s not in any way a “universal” or “absolute” statement. And even though you’ve backed off from it and qualified it numerous times now in the course of your apologies, I’ll accept that you do believe that, if that’s actually what you want me to do.
Anyway, my point was that this charge of “untrustworthiness,” contextualized and nuanced as much as you like, does not justify your reaction or others’.
Who do you think is disagreeing?
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Aratina,
I didn’t say “use of bitch as irony” (or whatever) I said “use of bitch as insult”.
I’m not disputing there are other, more innocent uses, it’s a spectrum after all. But that spectrum occupies a different range than the similar spectrum for “my darling”. Also, you missed the part where the word “bitch” is still an unambiguous female referent. Like “cunt” or “twat”. “My darling” is not an unambiguous referent of anything like that. It can be a referent of that type, it isn’t necessarily so.
Compare like things, not unlike ones. LILAPWL’s original complaint was that I was referring to him, a gay man, in a diminutive (i.e. insulting) fashion that I would not refer to a similarly unacquainted woman in. I am disagreeing that it is unambiguous that I was referring to him in that insulting (diminutive) fashion (as you’ve noted and hence LILAPWL’s comments about caveats).
So the “insult” part is I hope clear. I understand how what I said came across that way. I disagree that that particular phrase makes it unambiguous. I think bitch, in that same context, WOULD be at least less ambiguous, and probably not ambiguous at all since referring to someone as “bitch” inescapably references the female/feminine. “My darling” doesn’t do that. It can, but not unambiguously so.
What you’re talking about above is intent, which as we both know ain’t magic. I’ve already acknowledged the fact that my intent weren’t magic! What I’m disputing is that my choice of phrase was necessarily insulting (which several people are claiming) as opposed to incidentally insulting. And had certain unambiguous implications. My intent, ironic or otherwise is a pleasurable aside, as noted, not the sum of my argument.
I don’t agree (for the reasons above) that substituting “bitch” is equal to what I said, intentions wouldn’t alter that. My disagreement is about the connotations of the word(s) not my intentions in using it.
Louis
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
LILAPWL,
NO! It’s like “I accept that you are being honest if you say you are, but these are the reasons I came to a different conclusion earlier and could come to a different conclusion in the future if my ‘generosity’ above is demonstrated to be inappropriate”.
I’m happy to believe you. I’m not happy to continue to believe you if you do something subsequently that makes it obvious I was wrong to believe you. Is that really as complicated as all that?
Anyway, time for a cease and desist, I think we’re talking past each other. As I’ve said, trawling back to provide a snippet here or there is not something I’m particularly interested in right this minute. Take that any way you want. You’re not particularly interested in having a specific conversation about the only damned thing I am disagreeing with anyone about (take Bill D and Brownian as examples if you wish). You’re not dealing with my arguments, only snippets that reinforce your existing misunderstandings (see for example your misreading at #201 of my #193, which was couched with sufficient caveats that you snipped to make a literalist reading of one part of that post when I was making a very specific extended analogy).
Any absurdity ain’t just mine. You’re quite obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than your own rather narrow one. That doesn’t help communication, but then neither does my being utterly knackered.
Louis
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Louis, I’ve decided to drop out of this conversation. There are greater zombies to kill. I’ll leave you with this to listen to if you like.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Aratina,
1) LOL, very good. I am genuinely amused.
2) Okay. And thanks, you’ve honestly helped me to think.
Louis
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Needs more Britishness.
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Thanks, Louis. I know I’m violating TZT standards by saying this, but you are not a horrible person! *ceasing and desisting*
Aratina Cage:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
How about this one (feat. USAmerican Bobby Darin) from a British TV special?
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Aratina,
BUT I TRY SO HARD!!!!!!!! (Equally I think the same about you, and genuinely am sorry for any and all snark/intemperateness towards you)
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Fuck you.
Responding to a “have you stopped beating your partner” type question by restating my own earlier question, the answer to which should indicate you don’t have evidence of ‘zero appreciation of any nuance’ on my part, is no indication of dishonesty.
Fuck you.
You made these fucking accusations about me. Specifically: “you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from ‘guys don’t do that’. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you.”
I asked for evidence of this.
You responded by saying that I was dishonest for not answering your question.
Fuck you.
Now I point out how absurd that is, and you respond by saying there’s no point in your trying to give any evidence of “zero appreciation of nuance” because I’m not interested in taking for granted your claim that there’s zero appreciation of nuance on my part.
Fuck you.
Ahem.
Where am I “obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than [my] own”? Quotes, Louis. Quotes or it didn’t happen.
What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.
You want to claim I wasn’t being charitable? Quotes.
+++++
And this was random, diversionary bullshit. Nobody at the time was making that accusation.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Fuck me then.
Your continued and egregious misunderstandings are not binding on me. You could read but seem to delight in playing some endless game of gotcha. I’m not so delighted and don’t care to play. Do and think as you will.
Louis
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
What have I misunderstood?
Where am I “obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than [my] own”?
Why do you think you should make these claims without substantiating them?
What I’m reading is this claim by you, that I am “obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than [my] own”.
I would like to know what supports this claim. If it is true, it should be trivial to show with a quote.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
For fuck’s sake LILAPWL I did give you one example above and you simply ignored it.
What more do I need to think I am wasting my time with you? 20 examples? 200? (I’m not saying 20 or 200 exist btw)
Find it yourself. Read for comprehension YOURSELF. I could lead you to the water but I can’t make you think. And I’m not really disposed to lead you to the water right this second.
Like I said, take that any way you like (I’ve a good guess how you’ll do it actually, now don’t disappoint me) and do what you like. You can continue to type out replies to someone who is not willing to play your game all you like.
Louis
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Don’t you get it, pitbull? If you were someone we could trust, you wouldn’t make a big deal out of it when you’re misrepresented.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Rather depends on whether or not he’s being misrepresented doesn’t it?
Also depends on a few other things, but hey, why let that get in the way.
Louis
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
You’ve got hours for twenty screen missives on the conversational ins and outs of Cornish farmers, and now you’re playing coy?
What a fucking douchehole you are.
Remember how I used the word “both”, you stupid fucking dipshit?
Do you understand how that word does not mean “unambiguously one thing” and so that is not my claim in the least?
But, on to the only thing you care about, which is talking about yourself:
This is so useful. I don’t know how I’ve managed to live three-and-a-half decades without this clearly life-saving piece of knowledge, especially since I know a Cornishman here and all who has never once called me Darling, but that’s probably because I’VE NEVER BEEN ASKING A FUCKING CORNISH FARMER IN A FUCKING CORNISH FIELD FOR CORNISH FUCKING DIRECTIONS TO CORNISH FUCKING LOCATIONS IN CORNISH FUCKING CORNWALL.
But I will cherish this knowledge and write it down on several pieces of paper, tattoo it on my thigh, and hire a skywriter to write it in fourteen colours of smoke if I’m ever ASKING A FUCKING CORNISH FARMER IN A FUCKING CORNISH FIELD FOR CORNISH FUCKING DIRECTIONS TO CORNISH FUCKING LOCATIONS IN CORNISH FUCKING CORNWALL.
So thanks for that indispensable advice, Louis. I can die at peace now.
But now that we’ve read your many long lectures on that blessed plot, that earth, that realm, that England, maybe you’ll shut your fucking pasty hole long enough to listen to a lecture on NOT what Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations?
Using something that Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations when you’re not actually a Cornish farmer speaking to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations doesn’t make you a terrible guy. It just makes you kind of an idiot, but I see that you’re pretty wedded to being one.
But when the Cornish thing you said to a non-Cornish non-woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations also
[I'm going to take a break here to let you look up the word "also", in case that's not a word a Cornish farmer speaking to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations might use]
Done?
Then let’s continue.
But when the Cornish thing you said to a non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations also happens to sound exactly, in the context, like a condescending way that non-Cornish people talking to a non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations and the non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man says, “Don’t do that, because where I am, that’s what assholes smugly say to me when they want to shut me up”, the stupid, asshole, terribly fucking person response is “Fuck you! How dare you not immediately assume I’m using a friendly affectation that Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations.”
And that’s what you did.
Because you’re a fucking stupid, self-centred, asshole.
No, don’t bother being clear. You’ve got pages to write on how very Cornish you are.
By the way, there’s a wikipedia page on Cornwall. Your reason for being here is done.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
“You are doing X.”
“What is your evidence that I am doing X?”
“I don’t want to play gotcha.”
You mean this? I do not understand the problem:
Fine:
That still would not be relevant to what happened here. I in fact did not say “don’t do that. Oh and by the way all calling gay men ‘darling’ is always sexist regardless of context”.
Better?
You don’t have to lead me to any water,
but then you aren’t justified in claiming that I’m unwilling to consider whether water exists and that in any case I’m not willing to drink it.
What I want from you is either substantiation or retraction of your claims.
In this whole thread, I have made no claims about you except by quoting what you said and saying that you said what I quoted.
Nothing else. Not one other claim.
You have not been willing to reciprocate.
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Yeah Brownian, because my point was “Cornish” and I cannot get tired over the course of the day.
Well done.
Louis
P.S. “And that’s what you did.” And that’s also what I apologised for. Is it possible for you to utterly miss the point of what I’ve been doing more? Yeah *I’m* the idiot. {Eyeroll}
Louis:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
And again, think as you will, do as you will. I’m REALLY out this time and I’m off to Dorset tomorrow, so see you Tues/Weds.
I’ll be sure to care deeply about you in the interim.
Louis
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Sure, everyone can see what’s been written, including you, if you could support the claims you’ve made.
ChasCPeterson:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Suppose that someday I am put in the position of having to ask directions from an old Cornish farmer (perhaps to the nearest pasty, or game-hen).
Do I have to call him “my lover”?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Shutting up is also an option.
Of course, especially if you’re speaking as a Cornish farmer to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations, since this isn’t a Cornish field.
Do be sure to save your strength for lectures on how they speak in Dorset so the next time somebody says something that bothers someone else, we can all assume that’s just how they talk across the pond, no offense meant, stop griping, Love.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Not sure.
I don’t doubt someone will helpfully explain it to you, since the entire Internet speaks Cornish, save for you and me and LILPWL.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Can anybody explain what “eyeroll” means in Cornish? Because it’s condescending to a Canadian, and I don’t want to have continued and egregious misunderstandings by not assuming the most charitable interpretation of the term.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I think it’s sort of like how people say “I’ll pray for you” in the U.S., as well as parts of Canada and the rest of the colonies.
SteveV:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
No. A simple “me ‘andsome” will suffice.
Nightjar:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Yes, ignoring the first rule of holes tends to have that effect. Especially on the person doing the digging.
Woo_Monster:
June 9th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Eyerolls are ALWAYS condescending, regardless of context. Even in Cornlandia.
RFW:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
@ 263 ChasCPeterson says:
A very small data point perhaps relevant to your query: in the series of mystery novels written by Erle Stanley Gardner under the pen name “A. A. Fair”, one of the principal characters, Bertha Cool, regularly addresses her partner Donald Lam as “lover”.
Bertha is a hard-bitten private investigator who weighs 165 lbs and is very no-nonsense. Donald is a disbarred lawyer turned investigator who weighs not very much at all dripping wet: a pipsqueak, but a competent one. There is nothing sexual or romantic between the two, “lover” notwithstanding.
Matt Penfold:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
They can be a funny lot in Cornwall. It is not entirely impossible that an eyeroll is to eyes what a sausage-roll is to sausages.
Josh, Official SpokesKraftDinner:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Louis,
You don’t have to listen to me; I have no authority here. But if you please – knock it the fuck off. Watching you needle a gay guy over this when he said something perfectly reasonable is a sorry fucking spectacle. Shut your face. You know I like you but that’s not guaranteed to remain the case and you’re not helping.
I get that you’re frustrated, but just stop. Go away on this topic. It’s not good for anyone.
My hope is to trigger your “Josh is a reasonable person” filter so that you’ll see you’re being an asshole. I am not happy.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@Brownian:
I can’t understand why Louis is not comprehending any of your clearly stated points (he doesn’t seem that stupid), unless his bruised and swollen ego has somehow affected his ability to understand standard English (as well as his inability to admit he’s wrong and PROPERLY apologize). Or maybe his typically overwrought and unclever prose has somehow prevented us from getting his message (those walls of petulant text made my eyes cross).
I swear, Brownian, if I could bribe someone to get to the front of the line, I would.
amblebury:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Good morning, good grief, it’s still going.
Louis, listen to Josh. You’re tired and emotional. Take a break, and on your return, let’s discuss the magnificence resulting from the All Blacks’ new coach. Who knew things could get even magnificenter?!
SteveV:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
A Canadian using the word “eyeroll” in Cornwall (or almost anywhere in the SW) would probably be thought to be referring to ears.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Here’s another one of those “what LILAPWL [is] doing” claims without citation.
I am pretty sure I was sitting down at the time, and not in any field — except that there used to be a field here, and a forest before that — but no seriously how was I insisting anything of the sort?
No, Louis. It is possible even for out gay men to oppress each other via homophobia. Like women can say sexist things to other women. Your Kinsey number is far from relevant.
Does this mean you’re less likely to do something oppressive? Maybe.
But not so unlikely that it won’t happen.
Within the last three weeks I stupidly said something racist here on Pharyngula. And I did not even realize my mistake immediately.
There should be nothing generous about it. The honest thing would be to acknowledge the evidence, take seriously the challenge against your claim of “timing”, and then talk about where the preponderance of the evidence points.
To claim that you’re being generous implies that my evidence is worth nothing but you’ll condescend to grant my claim for the sake of argument. You call that generosity? I call that playing games.
Inshallah, I am done.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Josh, you do have authority here–an authority borne of the respect you’ve earned. I only discovered Pharyngula just before Elevatorgate, but I’ve been a regular semi-lurker since then–and you have always been wise, direct, and compassionate (not to mention witty) in your commentary. I always appreciate everything you have to say (and I’ve learned so much from you and many of the regulars); I think I can speak for much of the crowd on this point.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
That’s only because we’re not eating a Kraft© dinner.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Well, that’s just stupid. Since, if a North American online reads “Darling” in a way that’s commonly used in North America as a condescending diminutive unless you’re on close terms with the speaker but instead should assume it’s used in the way 0.000079% of the world’s population would use it if they were standing in a field full of sheep shit as opposed to on the internet, it stands to reason that whenever you hear ‘eyeroll’, you should probably consider that the person is probably just referring to the frontman of the band Hot Chocolate rather than making a condescending snark.
Similarly, if in a pub in Finsbury Park (London), and you hear “Ere mates!”, you should not immediately assume, like an idiot, that someone is calling to you and others in a friendly way, but has in fact suddenly spotted the Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science, a school in Ocean County, New Jersey.
And that’s what we’ve all learned about words that are ambiguous, unlike “cunt”, from a man who’s only recently learned that “cunt” is unambiguously sexist.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Well, the rule is that WE DO NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR LOUIS, not that he doesn’t get to speak for us.
Honestly, now that I’m actually plowing (sorry, ploughing) through his fucking tendentious bullshit, I’m even more convinced he’s a fucking self-absorbed twit.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
A regular is feeling suicidal. A little support would be nice, if you all feel like doing something else for 5 minutes.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
May I suggest asking kc to brainstorm about anything that it would be nice to do before dying. Big things like traveling to exotic locations, little things like reading a particular book — whatever might add up to a strategy of postponing suicide. Such a strategy, even completely self-consciously pursued, can work.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Caine, you do much good, but that’s a bullshit move for some of us who’ve lost people that way.
Don’t do that. Just don’t.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
@CM
Why is it a bullshit move on Caine’s part? Keenacat appreciated the support and said so. I don’t think Caine would have made the suggestion if she didn’t think it would help. And people want to help; many of us have/have had loved ones in this situation.
That said, I’m very sorry for your loss. Losing someone to suicide is an unbearable kind of pain and grief.
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Been to TET to offer what meager support I can to our needful co-regular. I gather she’s on her way to bed now.
***
Louis:
This horse is not only merely dead, it’s really most sincerely dead. I’ll give it one last thump for good measure, and then I solemnly sweat to STFU.
Really? If you have the kind of real-life personal friendship I was describing with him, you’ve been doing a brilliant job of concealing it (and he’s played along with your little performance art project amazingly well). More likely, you just mean you’ve exchanged pleasantries (or crossed swords, or both) with him in the past here at Pharyngula.
As I think I mentioned earlier, being co-regulars here is not the same thing as being friends, howevermuch it may be easy to fall into the trap of feeling otherwise.
I’m the first to agree (and have asserted often in the past) that this verbal space is more like conversation than like formal debate, or like formal writing, for that matter, and I use plenty of colloquial expressions, along with first person pronouns, contractions, profanity, and other things that would get me red marks on a college paper.
But even in a conversational space, an argument is still an argument, and you were in the middle of a heated argument when you tossed out that word.
I’m willing to believe, if you insist, that you expected it to sound that way… but if so, as I’ve explained, I don’t think that was a reasonable expectation on your part.
I’m also willing to believe that the colloquial usage of darling is, to some degree, cultural determined. However… when you change your mode of discourse in the middle of a fight by addressing your antagonist with an ostensible term of endearment, I think that would “read” as an escalation of a particularly personal nature to most people, in almost any culture.
My guess (and it’s only that) is that if you’d called lilapwl my darling during a friendly exchange, he’d've thought nothing of it… or, at worst, would’ve silently written it off as Louis being Louis. But that’s not what you did.
As I said, this has been my last attempt on this subject. If you still don’t grok what folks are telling you, all I can say is well, bless your heart!
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Hey Louis,
I love you, man. Seriously, I do. I want to be in your harem. I want your digits so I can sext you. The whole deal.
And you’re wrong here. I’m sorry to say this, genuinely, because I like you lots better than Pitbull here, but general rule of thumb: follow people’s suggestions for how they want to be addressed, whether you think it’s bullshit or not.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
@IndyM:
I hear sarcasm, and I don’t like it.
Hint: talking someone down from the ledge is not something that can be done by taking a mere five minutes out from regular conversation, then returning to the melee.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
SallyStrange:
I make my own determination as to whether to do so or not.
(Deontologists annoy me)
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
@ CM
I can’t speak for Caine, but I don’t think she literally meant 5 minutes. I think she was simply saying, “Come over and help if you can.”
I can see how you might hear sarcasm. However, this is Caine we’re talking about. Even though I haven’t been here that long, Caine has never been anything but extraordinarily honest and compassionate in her behavior here–so I can’t picture her at all being flippant or sarcastic about helping someone who’s feeling suicidal.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Yeah, well, you’re a fucking privileged douchecanoe who totally fails at some pretty basic human interaction stuff, so this isn’t really worrying me.
Note, also, that it’s not a deontological value. I do it because I want people to recognize that I respect their ability to define for themselves who and what they are, because I want them to do the same to me.
But you’re really fucking stupid when it comes to this shit, so of course you don’t get it. Asshole.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
PS to CM:
Suicide is a very sensitive and painful topic. I don’t mean to diminish your experience at all by defending Caine. It’s just that I can’t imagine her being insensitive about it, knowing her as I do from my own experience at Pharyngula.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
For the record, let me also point out, that on reading Caine’s comment, the very first thing I did was to go over to TET and see what was going on. Because, you know, this shit is serious. And the end result was that a bunch of people had jumped in to say “it’s ok, we’re here”, which is (usually) exactly the right response.
–
@IndyM:
You can’t speak for anyone else. Let them respond.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
I think you’re interpreting this very differently.
I figure cm’s changeable moniker was referring to Caine’s apparent attitude toward this thread, its inhabitants and the importance of the discussion we were having here. There are a lot of threads on pharyngula. Why wasn’t this announced on all the other threads, if it wasn’t also supposed to be some kind of statement about this one? Is TZT the only one where there are people who perhaps don’t “feel like doing something else for 5 minutes,” or was that not the implication by phrasing it conditionally? And while LILAPWL can’t comment on TET at all, I haven’t been following it closely for several days either. Should I feel bad that I wasn’t being supportive earlier because I wasn’t commenting there and because I probably won’t be around later on?
So if it was a rhetorical swipe, then I agree that using this sort of situation like that is bullshit which I don’t appreciate at all. Caine probably didn’t mean it that way, but that is nevertheless how it came across.
amblebury:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
SallyStrange
There’s a queue, and I’M IN FRONT, MMKAY?
Or perhaps we could work out some, ah, arrangement.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
@CM: You’re right, I can’t speak for Caine. I apologize.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
amblebury:
Wait, there’s another line? I thought sexing Louis was all about a big, sticky pile and not waiting forever for your turn (*grumble grumble*ghey secks with Brownian*grumble*).
Do I have to buy a ticket?
Also, in case everyone missed it: incoming! Illithid has been quarantined to TZT (which would be, um, here), so there might be fresh meat to chew on.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Audley: Don’t get too excited yet. He just ignored PZ’s warning and posted more nonsense.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
You call that fresh?
I hope he gets himself banned. That would make my fucking day.
I know PZ granted a lot of pardons when we switched to FTB, but wasn’t Hyperon already banned at SB pharyngula? I can’t find the old dungeon to check.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
consciousness razor, you read my reading of it absolutely corectly.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
cr:
You think he’s Hyperon?
Anyway, TLC and I are still goading him over on the It’s almost always Muscle Man and Buxom Chick, isn’t it? thread, so we’ll see how long this lasts.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
I dunno who this Hyperon fellow is, he appears to be before my time… but just the lame way he either tries to deny or flat out ignore the accusations whenever they’re brought up suggests to me that he is.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
And @IndyM, it’s ok. Apologies, condolences, and whatever are accepted. If you need some, I have some to send your way, too.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
SallyStrange:
Yeah?
Well, I think you’re really fucking stupid when it comes to this shit, so of course you don’t get it.
–
That your way of thinking ain’t mine doesn’t entail that I don’t understand what you’re telling me, you know.
It just means I don’t like it.
Again: I do as I see fit, your heuristic ain’t mine, your conclusion that one is an asshole for not sharing it is your problem — one I don’t share because I don’t put such a stupid load on myself.
You call that stupidity.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
It really is amusing to be accused of inadequacy by people who mostly look like goblins based on the Pharyngula group photos, and who are, judging the quality of their arguments and their general herd-like behaviour, mediocre little shits.
Not that any of this should matter in any case. But repeatedly a number of commenters have repeated perpetrated the fallacy of “argumentum ad dickum”. Slimepit indeed. It’s always an interesting experience, nevertheless, from purely anthropologically point of view.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
CR engages in motivated reasoning:
It couldn’t have been that this was the active thread, where multiple regulars were conversing?
Should she have spammed the visible posts on the sidebar because TZT is only one place?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
What does any of our physical appearance have to do with the fact that you fail at being a human being? (Decent doesn’t even enter the picture)
Keep projecting, Deadbeat. It doesn’t change the basic facts.
You’re also still a fucking predator. Women are well advised to carry pepper spray when you’re around.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
@CM: Thanks. :)
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Specimen:
<snicker>
TSTKTS
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Hey, specimen.
You, illicit!
Write some more stuff for us, please?
I command you: Anthropologise!
cm's changeable moniker:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
I have no idea who you are, but a smiley works for me. You’re welcome.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Sure, it could’ve been. Why not? Do you think I claimed otherwise?
I don’t think so, though I wouldn’t have called it “spamming” if that were the case either.
Back to you, Socrates.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
The time stamp for that was 14 minutes after PZ’s warning.
So either he took over 15 minutes to compose his last piece of utter drivel (well, he did admit, and amply demonstrate, that honest communication was not his forte), and posted it without refreshing and seeing the warning, or he did, deliberately thumb his nose at it.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Pfft. Anthropology is one of those soft, feminine fields. Real Men(TM) like the fapwit don’t do stuff like that.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
if you all feel like doing something else for 5 minutes
I hear sarcasm, and I don’t like it.plus, “you all” wasn’t actually “you all”. it wasn’t addressed to literally all people in this argument, because (at least) one person is banned from TET.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
wow. epic blockquote fail.
plus, “you all” wasn’t actually “you all”. it wasn’t addressed to literally all people in this argument, because (at least) one person is banned from TET.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
You keep talking about how terrible it is to be a man. If you don’t like having conversations about being men with other men, then pick another topic.
Alternatively, you could find a place where you’re liked and respected and go there.
There are people who like and respect you, right?
Oh? Is anthropology an interest of yours? How very Bohemian of you.
That’s actually one of my degrees.
But I’m sure you’re ahead of the curve there too, what with your secret superiority.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
I see Brownian has posted again in the buxom thread. Poor sod is trying to delude himself that “soft skills” are in short supply relative to specific technical training as well as general problem-solving. He thinks he can get to me with his cheap shot about salary, but he fails pathetically and just shows his shallowness. If I seemed bitter, it was only because of a temporary setback, which I anticipated years ago. But being empty inside like Brownian is…that’s more than a setback.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
CR:
Like that, eh?
Well, since you neither mentioned the other possibility in your analysis and also don’t think she should have spammed, do you think your analysis was a fair one?
(Does the conclusion quite so convincingly point to nefariousness?)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
By the way, fans of the soft sciences will note that the “It really is amusing”-type of line is so fucking unoriginal it has its own classification here.
Nothing says “I’m superior” like being a caricature.
But making people laugh is one of those soft skills I have in spades, in addition to the ‘manly’ ones Illithid claims to have.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
@CM: I’m a noob here, only recently out of the closet as an atheist (which Pharyngula enabled). I’m very much in awe of the regulars here, and have learned a lot. (Still learning, though…)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Not at all, though I can see why someone of your limited skill sets might have a hard time comprehending.
The point you can’t get is that people like me, with soft AND hard skills, are in short supply.
It’s people like you who are a dime a dozen.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Ah, the illucid specimen anthropologises (of course, it was a nonthropology as expected).
(Funny, I was about to congratulate Brownian on his evilness.
Shame the stimulus was beyond the threshold of perception, but perhaps it will have subliminal effect nonetheless)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Not empty.
Remember, you earlier accused me of having “wells of hatred”.
I’m full of wells, or I’m empty. I cannot be both.
Try harder.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
You mean, bitter as in complaining about how much easier all those other people, like women, have it?
Pretty much all you’ve done here?
You’re right; you’re not bitter at all. You practically exude self-fulfilment.
Seriously now, I’m starting to worry about you. You actually seem to believe your own bullshit.
That’s not a good sign.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Serenity now!
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“Everything is going according to plan.”
You’re now caricatures one and two.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Do analyses need to explicitly include all possibilities to be fair, or only the most probable ones?
Perhaps you could find some sophists to come up with ever more possibilities, to help with your analysis as well as mine, if that matters.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Last I remember, most of it’s a pseudo-science, full of cultural-relativist obscurantism. The remaining 20% can be interesting, but of course, doesn’t require a degree.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Temporary setback? How long is temporary? Because your personality flaws don’t look like they’re going away any time soon.
Oh I forgot, they’re not ‘flaws’, everyone else is flawed because they don’t want to work with a privileged whiny manchild who creates an unsafe work environment for any women unlucky enough to be near him.
Dude, you’re a liability to any company that gives you a chance. A fucking LIABILITY.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Ill:
Remember kids: this drivel comes courtesy of someone who doesn’t have a degree and cannot break into his chosen field because of it.
I smell jealousy!
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
IndyM, lucky you, there’s a specimen in the training ground right now!
☺
‘Tis a low-level one, this.
(Have fun!)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
We’ll scratch that off your list of Bohemian interests, then.
Let’s take a quick moment to tally the scores, then.
You brought up the issue of being a man, and then complained about argumentum ad dickum.
You brought up your low salary, and then decided money’s not all that important to you.
You complained about how easy it is for those lazy, stupid women, managers, and those with soft skills, and then decided that you’re happy and fulfilled and not bitter.
Are there corks on the forks in your household, or how do they keep you from accidentally stabbing yourself due to your own incompetence?
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Ah, I see. So some obscure portion of anthropology which isn’t a pseudoscience doesn’t require a degree, because, well … for no apparent reason. I guess some people just have other ways of doing things.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Honestly, Illithid, give me something to work with.
Because right now, you’re doing a pretty good job of beating yourself all by your lonesome.
Again, thanks. As long as you’re my competition, people like me don’t have to do much to get ahead in life.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Also, for someone who refuses to “prostitute himself out”* (nice choice of words, asshole), you sure are stuck on how much Brownian makes.
*Read: Can’t score a job that he is totes unqualified for. Whomp whomp.
IndyM, pikčiurna:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
*Makes popcorn. Settles in to watch Ill&Thick get destroyed.*
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
I see that the fapwit, having run out of arguments, gotten itself deservedly quarantined, and lacking the intellectual prowess to think up plausible new lies, is reduced to trying to blither out a string insults against Brownian.
And failing miserably even at that.
Utterly pathetic.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
You mean master bullshitters who can program half-competently, at least in between the ten seconds it takes them to get distracted and wander off somewhere like Dee Dee from Dexter’s Lab?
Anyway, one difference between you and me is that like a good little thrall, you define yourself in terms utility to your coporate overlords. I submit it’s your kind that’s ten a penny.
Normally, I have no truck with this style of dick-measuring. But you started it, and you’re such an insufferably insulting, self-congratulatory, narcisssitic piece of shit that something had to be said.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Well, I am shallow. I’ll give him that.
But let’s see, what other things can we talk about that makes someone a useful, contributing member of society?
I could talk about my volunteerism (I’d made just under a hundred blood donations, before travel made me ineligible), used to use my well-rounded soft AND hard skills in fundraising (I was much beloved by the volunteers, managed to network the entire office with shoddy, out-of-date donated computer equipment as well as teach myself database design because you frankly don’t have a lot of money to hire specialists when you’re making money for the purpose of disease research, rather than padding out an office), have been a writer, actor, and director on several theatrical and film productions, designed clothing as a hobby, but I’m sure Illithid doesn’t want to hear about all of those Bohemian, soft skills.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Bahahahahahahahahaha… fuck, this is killing me.
Too fuckin much.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Illishit, evidence to back your fuckwitted allegations aren’t found in newspaper factoids. They are found in Master’s theses and PhD dissertations, which are published and can be found using Google Scholar. Not only are the facts accurate, they have context, which can often be lacking in newspaper factoids, and with your bigotry.
You complained in a previous thread we weren’t free thinkers as we didn’t agree with your fuckwittery. In other words, you were defining free thinkers as only people who agree with you, which means they really aren’t thinking for themselves. You see the problem, don’t you? Until you present me with the proper evidence you are right, you are nothing other than a loud mouthed misogynist bigot. If the Foo Shits, wear it. Start citing or shut the fuck up…
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Brownian: NO U!
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh fuck.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Sure, if that’s how someone who’s not bitter would describe it.
Again, you’re absolutely the worst at psychological profiling.
It’s probably best that you not whine so much about manly and womanly skills then.
That’s right; put me in my place.
Perhaps mention mediocre and bullshit a few more times. They really sell the self-satisfaction you claim to have.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
CR:
To be fair, you can’t ignore possibilities which run counter to your motivated analysis and which are hardly obscure, and more importantly still not contrast the actual case with a hypothetical one that you think isn’t a good idea, as if it failed some sort of test thereby.
–
PS Not that hard to find.
See, where before you were engaged in motivated reasoning, now you’re engaging in sophistry.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Anybody else notice that I’m composing at least three comments, with quotes and links, while the keyboard genius here sputters out one full of tu quoques?
No matter. I’ll just congratulate myself.
It’s what narcissistic thralls like myself do.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Louis, if you’ve never been called “darling,” “dear,” “honey,” “sugarbritches,”…and heard it as demeaning, taunting, or threatening, then shut up and listen. You don’t understand.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Oh, did I mention that I found the time to study gong fu as well?
Not one of the harder ones, though. Kind of halfway between karate and the softer ones like taiji.
So, not that manly, I guess.
Damn my mangina!
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I don’t speak that many languages, though. It’s a weakness.
English, of course, a bit of French, and I can fumble my way through the basics of Spanish and Swahili.
Dear me, I should probably go back to talking about my wallet. It’s the only thing a shallow thrall like myself has, really.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
“Soft” skills (handling people), are almost always more challenging than “hard” skills (handling objects and data and so forth).
Because people are more complicated than objects. They change more readily, respond more variably. They can be more easily damaged, and harder to recover when damaged.
“Soft” skills are much rarer than “hard” skills, because they are more difficult.
“Soft” sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc), are HARDER than “hard” sciences (physics, chemistry, etc). Humans and human societies are more complicated than subatomic particles, atoms, stars and the like. Their behavior is harder to predict, and the laws that they obey are more complex. They are harder to evaluate, harder to test.
“Soft” sciences are often criticized for lacking the methodological rigour of “hard” sciences, making their results and conclusions less reliable and less trustworthy. This criticism is true. But the reason it is true is because the “soft” sciences are harder. They lack in rigour comparatively because their subject material is one where rigour is harder to obtain (even if ethical considerations are put aside). Since the scientists who are in these fields should be, on average, equally skilled (why should human beings who decide to study sociology be, solely by dint of choosing to study sociology, be any less competent as scientists than human beings who choose to study physics?), and that means that, given these equal pools of skill, the hard sciences can accomplish greater results because their subject material is easier to study.
The greater respect we afford the results of “hard” sciences is certainly justifiable. But to translate that across to comparatively denigrating the process of “soft” sciences in comparison is a category error, and unfair to those fields of study.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Illithid? Where did you go?
Should I type slower?
I don’t have a lot of time. My partner’s about to wake up and head off to work, and I’ll want to get some quality time in with her.
But you probably have all sorts of love interests on the go, what with your breezy, confident, satisfied, laid-back approach to life.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Ah. Back to the lies.
I guess it has finally had enough time to think up new ones. Or perhaps, like the proverbial goldfish, the fapwit’s limited long-term memory only spans two threads, and it has forgotten the dick-measuring it INTRODUCED on that first thread it infested.
Pitiful.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
So you spend the rest of your days tooting your own horn on Pharyngula, as well as trying to inflict the most damage possible.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
It’s probably for the best if I sign off now.
I mean, with Illithid’s powers of prognostication, he’s probably able to predict everything I’m going to write before I do it anyway.
rajkumar:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Hari Om.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Didn’t see this.
‘course, the keyboard genius is several hours ahead of you and is almost falling asleep on the keyboard. But “reality” doesn’t matter when you have soft skills.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Brownian, credit where credit is due, I wouldn’t be laughing quite so hard right now if Illithid didn’t respond to you in exactly the way he does.
Ah shit.
As if I needed any more confirmation that Illithid is a piss poor excuse for a human specimen in general…
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Not really. Other than conversations in which it’s relevant, I’d never had any need to before, but then you mention your Bohemian nature, and it seemed only reasonable that I try to keep up.
I’m a narcissistic, bullshitting thrall with (at least) an anthropology degree, which is mostly just pseudoscience.
What could I possibly say that would hurt an under-appreciated genius like yourself?
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
I could start to recite my own, equally eclectic interests, but I didn’t go there. You’re a pathological fucking exhibitionist.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Yes, of course. But we know there’s no way I could best you without a handicap.
But is there someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to respond? Should we call someone?
If not, you should probably get some rest.
If you haven’t got your health, you haven’t got anything.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
The damage brownian inflicts by laughing at your stupid ass isn’t even a fraction of the damage you inflict on yourself by BEING a stupid ass. Your shitty life is your OWN doing.
And you deserve nothing more than to die alone and unmourned after a long, lonely, frustrating, and fruitless life.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Shh. Sleep now.
This deprivation isn’t improving your people skills one iota.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Specimen 1 (‘rajkumar’) joins specimen 2 (‘flaccid’) in the pit.
<skips happily>
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Says the dude that is unqualified for the job he wants. Hey, I have an idea, illie! Since you refuse to bow down to your corporate overlords*, why don’t you strike it out on your own and become an entrepreneur? That way you get to call the shots and you get to pretend that you’re totally not a capitalist, but an individualist!, and not sucking on anyone’s teat.
Oh, wait. Running a business takes soft skills, doesn’t it? Awe, too bad.
*Can’t impress hiring managers, in other words.
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Not really under-appreciated, just obscure. Look — I did a Brownian!
The answer to your question, of course, is nothing.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Yes, but you did mention your Bohemian nature.
Perhaps this is why you’re such a terrible interviewee. You keep claiming you’ve got the skills, but then you forget to fill out your résumé.
Besides, we already know how much time you dedicate to not being bitter at women, managers, bullshitters, anthropologists, et cetera.
From what I’ve seen of you here, that keeps you busy enough.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
for someone who whines about economic oppression so much, this is fucking rich.
Voluntary poverty and the ability not to have to care much about money is a sign of massive economic privilege. Most genuinely poor people don’t have the leisure to contemplate not working for a corporation because it’s unfulfilling; they have bills to pay, lest they end up without water/electricity/food/housing/healthcare/childcare/transportation/etc.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
shorter me: Bohemian = hipster
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Exactly. You know this. I know this.
So why would you say I’m trying to inflict the most damage possible?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
I usually feel it when I’ve been done.
Again, dick-measuring— not your strongest suit.
But hush now. You’re a sleepy baby.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Illucid:
So damn obscure that it’s harder to find than a black cat in a dark room while blindfolded.
(You ain’t worth originality)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Illithid, maybe you should wait until we start to fight amongst ourselves and then snipe safely from the sidelines, like you did this morning.
That was your best work.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Pot? Kettle? Yeah, you two, the black ones.
Meet the fapwit Illzit.
Oh, and the two of you are being let go. The fapwit here has made the both of you obsolete in the field of ironic idioms. It shall henceforth replace the both of you in all of your former duties.
You will find your severance packages generous, as per the terms of the union contract. We will also be happy to provide references if so requested.
Please have your desks cleaned out by noon tomorrow.
Cheers.
consciousness razor:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
That I didn’t exhaust the possibilities while doing so doesn’t mean I’ve ignored them. Motivated or not, I was describing my own reaction to it, so rest assured that if you had something substantial to add, it wouldn’t be ignored.* Any comment on the part where I said that “Caine probably didn’t mean it that way”?
As for the actual and hypothetical cases, I wasn’t offering it as a suggestion of what she should’ve done, but to explain one of the things about it that led to the interpretation I made. If she had also posted it elsewhere, I would’ve interpreted it differently (and more than likely the comment would’ve been different), which isn’t to say I think that’s what she should’ve done.
*Since you can’t read Caine’s mind any better than I can, what’s motivating you to offer these possibilities?
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
He even thinks in terms of “besting” people when the subject matter is rate of entering comments. What a pathetic ucking wankstain.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
It was stupid of me to assume that, since you’re posting here now, you’re not exhausted.
It was foolish of me to fail to assume you keep the hours you do without being told.
Reality crushes me again.
So I’ll let you go.
(That’s your cue to take a few shots at me and know that I’m not going to retaliate.)
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Oh look. A waste of electrons.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Awe, guys, look!
Illie is trying really hard to prove he’s not as pathetic as he sounds! It’s almost desperately cute!
(In case you hadn’t noticed, illz, using ilk like you as a chew toy is one of our pastimes around here.)
illithid:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Because you didn’t know it at first, and you go after people much less thick-skinned than I am. The intent is malicious and that led me to psychoanalyze you.
Anyway, I really don’t want anything more to do with this blog. I thought a season “grand finale” would be apt. Naturally, you’re just a minor character. On the Illithid Show — oh look, I did a Brownian! Nah, you’re puffed up enough already, and I’m not going to play into your hands by coining that word.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Psst! Just make sure you don’t call him “darling”!
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
CR:
What is with this conceit I am referring to exhausting the possibilities?
You did more than describe, you purportedly adduced two bases for it, too.
IOW, a basis for your contention.
Truth.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Oh, and about leaving you to get in a unretaliated shot; yeah, that’s what we manly men with manly fighting skills call a ‘feint’.
Are you sure you’re not just cribbing your comments from here?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Yeah. We’re pretty terrible, and hardly worth your genius.
You’ve probably got some ground-breaking computing to do or something like that.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Anyone else notice how sour these grapes are?
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
A flounce! A palpable flounce, I say!
Will it stick?
Poor, poor fapwit#2. Couldn’t take the heat. Runs out of the kitchen. It would have been a smart move much much earlier. But now, like with anything else that overstays its welcome, its just pathetic.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
again?
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
I know this is not the correct thread but I’m leaving it here.
Y’all are distutbing my wa.
Rey Fox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Illithid wants to live like Common People.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Brownian work in the public sector?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Oh, he’s not running. He’s just better.
We’ve had our fifteen minutes. We’re only minor characters on the epic Illithid Show, coming soon to a theatre near [citation needed.]
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
illithid
You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Much better to be a minor character on that particular show.
The female main character will doubtless end up suffering some misogynistic put-her-in-her-place male privilege revenge fantasy.
And the male main character will be… Illzit.
Amphiox:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Still good for fermenting?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Yup.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
He’ll be back as soon as he thinks everyone’s forgotten his laughable display of entitlement and self pity.
We won’t forget, of course.
NANANANA, WEEE-HEEE-HEEEEE-EELLL… GOOOOOODBYYYYYE!
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
vs.
is one reason why it’s Brownian, OM.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
I dunno. What’s wine-making? A soft skill or a hard one?
Also, my apologies to anyone who got splashed with all this talk of manly and dick-measuring.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Brownian: Definitely a hard skill. The harder the better, I say!
Anyways, I’m new to brewing, but I’m kind of under the impression that the sweetest grapes are the best for wine… more sugar=more alcohol.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
TLC:
Hopefully just long enough to get his ass banned*. That would amuse me.
Brownian:
Gross, dude.
*Like my poor little RyRy! I miss him so. *sniffle*
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
There’s supposed to be a towel kiosk somewhere around here.
Also, I should apologise for all that bullshit about salary and getting jobs and stuff. I know it ain’t easy, especially in this economy, and I knew I was risking hitting others who are having a hard time making ends meet with friendly fire, but I hoped getting the little fuck to leave (assuming he sticks the flounce) would make up for it.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Brownian, I am desperately poor right now (But not unemployed, I’m technically working for Caine ATM), and I loved every second of that. I can’t speak for everyone, but I knew exactly what you were doing and it didn’t hurt me personally.
After all, I may be desperately poor, but I am still attempting to do something about it, and not trying to blame my problems on women or people with ‘soft skills’ (whatever the fuck he was trying to get at with that).
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
I’m also capable of sharing a workspace with other people while respecting their own skills and abilities. And picking up new skills.
While illithid and I might be desperately poor, I think he’s the one with the REAL problems.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Brownian:
Maybe you should consider handing out rain ponchos or something.
There’s a difference between having a shitty time because of a shitty economy and blaming your shortfalls on someone else while at the same time claiming it’s “bohemian” to do so.
John Morales:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Brownian, that was well-done.
But everyone knows what was going on, and you were very specific! ;)
(Also: No-one has to read TZT.
I for one shan’t be treating it as a safe space in any sense)
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I did not make it to Pride.
I did not leave the house.
I did do a load of laundry.
(not dried outside. What with the hail and thunder and etc.)
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Okay, good. And I’m glad Jadehawk came in to clean up with this comment.
I didn’t either. I should have made the parade. Two years ago I made plans to go to the beer gardens with some friends from the GLBT-positive pubs I frequent, as well as my gay coworker and her partner (now married). I somehow found myself inside (I must have joined the re-entry line by accident) and got right happy while she and her partner waited in the right line for three hours before deciding to do something else. So from now on I’m forgoing the beer gardens unless I know there’s room for all of the GLBT people first, and their straight friends like me after.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
And I’ll have sympathy for him when his solution isn’t to add to the real discrimination faced by women.
Bohemian, my ass. He’s a one issue pony.
Well, I am wearing skinny, tapered denim trousers.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Fuckin EXACTLY, Brownian.
I hope I didn’t give the impression I have any sympathy for him… his miserable position in life is well earned.
chigau (違う):
June 9th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Brownian
Shit.
The beer garden at Pride is only for actual LBQT?
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
No, of course not.
Sorry, I often use other people’s comments as a jumping off point. I mean to agree, though I don’t actually say so, and sometimes people think I’m rebutting them. I should work on that.
Admittedly, this is not something I tend to consider, and I know I’ve contributed to some people’s not feeling safe.
Also something I should work on.
Brownian:
June 9th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
No, I don’t think so.
It’s just that there’s limited space (or there was, the last time I was able to go), and I felt badly that actual LBQT people were unable to get in because non-LBQT people like me were taking up space.
Like I said, I mostly frequent LBQT-supportive bars (like the Next Act and The Empress), and used to love dancing at The Roost when it was open, but I’ve learned from conversations with LBQT people that it’s important that they have their own spaces as well, without infringement by straight people, no matter how well-intentioned.
Seems obvious to me now, in hindsight.
chigau (違う):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:10 am
Brownian
“Having their own spaces”
seems like segregation.
but since I am privileged I cannot speak to the comfort-zone of others.
{Now I feel that if I got into the Pride beer-tent, I’d be doing anthropology.}
{[fuck. I just wanted a beer.]}
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:14 am
Chigau: I dunno. It seems more to me like a response to oppression, yanno? Like maybe it’d be different if there wasn’t so much of that nonsense still going on.
I too speak from privilege, but I could easily see the members of a marginalized group wanting their own space where they don’t have to worry about homophobia, at all, not even in the back of their mind.
I welcome correction by anyone smarter on the subject than me.
chigau (違う):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:27 am
TLC
Yes. I get it. I agree.
Mundane going to the bar should have safe spaces.
(gad just ignore the privilege-speak)
But Pride should be more … inviting.
(gad gad just ignore the privilege-speak)
{posting it anyway}
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:33 am
Well, the closest I’ve ever been to a PRIDE event was the fireworks in vancouver that happened to be going on at the same time. LOTS of bars and restaurants with rainbow flags in their doors.
Sadly, it was before I was posting here, and thus before I started learning anything about this stuff, and so in hindsight I feel I badly wasted the opportunity.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:53 am
Chigau, the problem wasn’t that straight people weren’t welcome, it’s that so many people wanted to enjoy pride that there wasn’t enough room for everybody. I’ll bet the organizers are more prepared now.
chigau (違う):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:58 am
Brownian
OK.
The obvious solution:
Bigger tent.
MOAR BEER!!!
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:13 am
Yeah, that’s pretty much my go-to solution too.
My doctor says I should work on raising my HDL levels instead.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:37 am
Brownian, please… This is, as the expression goes, over the top.
John Morales:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:52 am
rajkumar, trousers are outside wear, so yes, over the top ‐ but they are worn over the bottom, too.
…
…
MY GAWD!
Your keen comment has inspired an insight of the deepest kind!
(Ponderable paradox!)
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 1:56 am
Raj please study this http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:59 am
Yes. Skinny trousers are worn over skinny bottoms and legs.
John Morales:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:07 am
rajkumar,
You deny that Skinny trousers can be worn over fat bottoms and legs?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 2:10 am
One turd sinks to the bottom, another one bobs to the top.
Agent Silversmith, Feathered Patella Association:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:16 am
I’d rate wine making as a hard skill requiring a soft touch. It requires the ability to select quality fruit and have it picked at the right time, enough control over the fermentation process to balance the flavors & acidity, and releasing it at just the right time.
Grapes are often grown and sent to the winemaker from elsewhere, removing this task from the list, but it’s still a demanding profession.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:27 am
No. If I do deny that, it would be like calling Brownian a liar.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 2:27 am
Agent Silversmith: I’ve actually never attempted ‘wine’. I’ve done some primitive blackberry and fig wine, but never with grapes.
I mostly mess around with mead, and lately these ‘big and easy bottle brew’ things for beer.
Agent Silversmith, Feathered Patella Association:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:36 am
Me neither. I know infinitely more about drinking the stuff than making it. Could probably manage brewing up mulled wine, though.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 2:38 am
Agent Silversmith: I like to think of myself as a tiny bit more competent than that, but not by much. The problem with mead is my lack of patience.
When blackberry season comes around again I’ll be attempting some blackberry mead, and I’d really like to get more into beer brewing.
Louis:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:06 am
Morning all,
Right, I’ve re-read the threads and rather than dig further with tedious details, here it is:
I fucked up in my response to Lilapwl, repeatedly and in a stunning variety of ways! Rather than trying to explain where I was coming from ad nauseum, which has pissed numerous people off ( even the sensible ones ;-) Joke) I’ll plumb for finally noticing the first rule of holes and stop digging.
Whilst I don’t see everything how many of you seem to, I do see how I persisted as wrong and several of the things I did/said as wrong and for those I apologise unreservedly. I hope that’s good enough for you all.
Now I gotta go south! I’ll have a pasty for all of you.
Louis
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:09 am
What’s that, some sort of fat joke?
Uh, okay, sure. Is that what we’re doing now? Just saying completely random shit because who cares whether it’s accurate or not?
In that case, Rajkumar, I’m totally sick of your Irish accent, and I wish you’d stop conducting the symphony from atop zeppelins. Or whatever. Because it’s Stupid Time With Fuckhead again, I guess.
Whee.
Raj, aren’t you ever upset at the god you believe in for making you this way? Because that god, if it were to exist, would be by definition a huge fucking asshole with a personal grudge against you in particular. But that never crosses your mind does it—no, I guess it couldn’t.
[Tries to think of a topic of casual conversation with Raj.]
So, what is the best tasting colour of paint chip? Um, stuck your head in any good plastic bags lately?
Ah, fuck it.
[Takes out a ring of keys, jangles them in front of Raj while reading up on how to assess someone over the Internet using the Glasgow Coma Scale.]
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:11 am
Dammit, now I want a pasty, Louis.
Louis:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Bill D,
It is so grokked. It was always so grokked. I was trying to go somewhere else but fucked it up. For which I am sorry. Heartily sorry.
Louis
Louis:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Brownian,
Well I think you’ve been fucking unpleasant for little reason, but I suppose I can bring you back one, steak and ale okay? ;-)
Louis
John Morales:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:26 am
Pasties.
Orange Utan:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:28 am
With their fascination with a certain person, one might say it’s Brownian motion.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:42 am
I’m sure it won’t surprise you that I’ve thought the exact same of you over the the last thread and a half, but I’m not interested in rehashing.
Thanks for the offer, but I’m sure the pasty would be stale long before it got here. Enjoy your trip.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:01 am
No, it never crosses my mind. Why it never crosses my mind? Because I don’t believe in that huge fucking asshole of as god. That god, by definition, doesn’t exist, and cannot exist. As Nerd would say, dismissed POOF citation needed and all that.
But looks like you’re on roll here today. Better leave you alone… Unless, of course, you had some deep-seated desire to socialize with me. In which case, I am all available for you.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:02 am
Sorry…
asshole of as god
should read
asshole of a god
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:23 am
That god that Brownian refers to, fapwit, is “the god YOU BELIEVE IN,” specifically that god which you, fapwit, had spent so much time blathering about how you believe that it is possible for it to exist. NOT the judeo-christianish god that we have spent some of our time mocking for being an asshole. The god that YOU STATED, PROUDLY, THAT YOU BELIEVED IN.
You come back after your hiatus, and just about the first thing of any substance that you do is LIE.
AGAIN.
At least you are consistent in your continuing pathetic dishonesty, fapwit.
Should have considered this before posting your dishonest drivel and exposing yourself, once again, as an unethical idiot, and stayed silent.
Fapwit#2 goes away, and Fapwit#1 bumbles back in.
Fapfap.
Brownian, your new formulation for the TZT bait trap is most impressive. A tankard of grog for you! (From fermented sour grapes, of course. Making alcoholic beverages might be a “hard” a hard skill, but drinking it is a “soft” skill. And we all know which of the two is more important, and more rewarding, now don’t we?)
'Tis Himself:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:29 am
That’s Raj, as incoherent as ever.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:38 am
Oh Ok. But I suppose none of you know nothing about the God I refer to. Do you? Please don’t say you do. You already have a rich and colourful history of lying.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 4:51 am
Between this and illithid’s nonsensical “You all look like goblins because I didn’t like some picture I saw of Pharyngula people which may or may not have actually included anyone I was talking to, and also that’s totally relevant,” the trolls today are on a really sad roll of pathetic.
*starts attempting to jump the queue by being sneaky*
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:02 am
Tis, has something like the following ever happened to you, too, in real life?
In The Naked Gun 2 1/2, Leslie Nielson as Lt Frank Drebin raids a sex shop:
Female Shop Assistant: Why should I tell you, copper?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Because I’m the last line of defense between sleaze like this and the decent people of this town.
Male Shop Assistant: Oh, hi, Frank. Say, we got that model D83 Swedish sure-grip suck machine that you ordered.
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:05 am
This is entirely correct.
None of us know nothing, some of us know something, some of us don’t know anything, all of us know something or another, a few of us knew something, but don’t regard it as being anything, and some of us don’t want to make something out of nothing.
Proceed.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:09 am
I have a question, but I’m afraid I’ve asked it before to little effect.
Why the hell do you bother posting if you’re not even trying to communicate?
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:16 am
That’s not true. I am trying to communicate.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:19 am
But I was trying to communicate with a different person, not you, Cipher. Maybe this is why I was not comprehensible to you.
John Morales:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:24 am
Rajcummar:
Well, wretched one, you have successfully communicated your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty no less than your neediness.
(So that’s something, no?)
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:27 am
Since you’ve been generally incoherent since Day 1, and since multiple others have noted your incoherence, the evidence would seem to point to no.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:37 am
Yeah, I can agree with you on this. Try teaching a few first graders some high school science, and they are all going to say the same thing. Don’t shift the blame on me for your own dumb assness.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:40 am
Yes, raj, we’re all dumbasses because we don’t understand your superior enlightenment that can apparently only be expressed through incoherent drivel and, apparently, random fat jokes.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:43 am
It’s not that, dear. When you try to act superior in any way, you will get a similar reply.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:51 am
1.) It’s not what? 2.) A similar reply to what? 3.) I’m not your “dear.”
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:02 am
WHAT THE HELL (in CAPITALS) are you saying? Can’t understand you. You are totally incomprehensible.
opposablethumbs:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:07 am
Damn, I missed the finale of that episode. That level of implosion must rate 10/10 on the disappearing-up-troll’s-own-arse-scale. I only hope the little pimple doesn’t have anyone around him irl right now; he might try to chew their ankles.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:20 am
No, we blame you for your own dumb assness, which is both myriad and vast. What’s the matter? Feel displaced as the village idjit?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:21 am
Nope, your just mentally mastubating to yourself. Communication requires skills you don’t have. Evidence, the basis of real communication, and you have none.
Agent Silversmith, Feathered Patella Association:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:31 am
You can teach first graders basic facts that high school science supports and elaborates on.
Do your maunderings have a basic, distilled version?
David Marjanović:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:37 am
O hai!
Terrifying sex organs of male turtles: augmented edition!
kthxbai
David Marjanović:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:45 am
All seconded. I’m with comments 367 and 368 as well, and I have a lot of catching-up to do… sometime… later. :-(
opposablethumbs:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:23 am
I hope PZ might confine illy to TZT, though, if he hasn’t already – sometimes you want a good laugh, and sometimes you want to breathe clean air.
Or have we used up this chewtoy now?
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:38 am
I second the request. Raj, please tell us just, say, one or two of the things that should be understandable to first graders, but which we apparently don’t get.
theophontes (坏蛋):
June 10th, 2012 at 7:50 am
@ Brownian
The grapes you mentioned are probably to high up on the vine for a tardigrade to reach anyhow.
*sigh*
:’(
@ chigau
Hot and humid.
theophontes (坏蛋):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Lonely “o” seeks home in above comment…
Bill Dauphin, avec fromage:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Cipher:
Ironic (or something) that Raj should’ve deared you after the discussions of the last couple days, eh?
Speaking of which…
Damn, Louis, now I guess I have to unbless your heart![1] ;^)
Seriously, thanks for coming back to us in the clear light morning.[2] It’s appreciated.
Also, in looking back to remind myself what, exactly, I’d last said to you, I noticed the following offering to Great Tpyos:
Since it’s a sunny Sunday here and there’s work that need’s doing in the yard, I solemnly swear I’m going to go out and solemnly sweat. Y’all have a great day!
___
[1] In case you didn’t click through my link, that’s a good thing, given how “bless your heart” is used in the U.S. south.
[2] I realize this may not be literally the case where you are, but it is where I am, and I like the metaphor.
theophontes (坏蛋):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:36 am
@ LILAPWL/SGBM
You are still part of the Inner Party here by the way...
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Good of you, Louis.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Brownian:
Trousers.
I can’t decide if that’s incredibly not hipster or so hipster that it hurts.
:p
FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:00 am
I was playing with my daughter today and we had a little mis-communication. She pointed at a pile of assorted toys and household goods seconded to the preschooler distraction resource pool, and said:
“Can I please* have the bowl?”.
“Sure.” says I, handing her the yellow plastic bowl.
“No Daddy, the BOWL!”
“But honey, I gave it to you.”
“No the bowl, the bowl!” pointing emphatically.
“Oh, you mean the BALL. Here you go.”
This not the first time her accent has tripped me up. Every time it happens I have this little stab of unreasonable worry that it’s just going to get worse and worse, that we’re going to end up not being able to communicate at all. It bums me out a bit, especially when my mood is already down and I’m vulnerable to that sort of irrational concern.
So what do I do for distraction? I turn to TZT. And what do I find? Raj has deflounced!! Not only that but he’s once again lifting my mood as no one else can. In just a few short sentences my perspective has been realigned. rejigged and re-calibrated. None of my miscommunications with my daughter have ever lasted for days on end after all. Hell, none of them have lasted more than a half dozen sentences.
Once again I’m bathed in the reflected pride of being the father of a 4 year old whose ability to express herself coherently outstrips a purported adult. My mood has been wafted skyward on a thermal of superheated idiocy. Thanks raj, you’re the best free therapy money can buy!
FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Forgot to add the footnote:
*Yes, she is that polite most of the time. We’ll be watching for signs of accommodationism, after all, early intervention is the key to successful treatment. :)
theophontes (坏蛋):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:30 am
@ ALL
By benevolent dictatorial fiat, I would like to announce Gustav Dore as myrmidon in charge of MiniCult:
Would these not be the perfect motivational posters for TZT?:
Hell, hell, hell …more hell … regulars in frank discussion.
Mwahahahaha…
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:47 am
Of course we do fapwit.
We know everything YOU have told us about what YOU believe.
Most of us think is it stupid and incoherent, but we DO know.
As for lying, when I accuse you of liar, lying fapwit, I quote you or describe your quote that IS a lie. And before it became utterly obvious, I also explained WHY it was a lie.
So demonstrate the lie, or apologize for slander, right now, fapwit.
Fapfap.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Your contempt for young children is noted, fapwit. The irony that you express yourself less clearly and ably than the average sixth grader appears lost on you, fapwit.
Fapfap.
Evolution can be explained in a simplified version that a first grader can understand. So can quantum mechanics, by someone who really knows that subject. Or ANY OTHER idea worth knowing.
If YOU cannot explain an idea in a fashion that anyone, including a first grader, can understand, it means that YOU do not understand that idea, and are NOT QUALIFIED to be expressing it. And certainly not with the degree of arrogant pseudo-certainty with which you, fapwit, do so.
Fapfap.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:04 am
No one here is “acting” superior to you, fapwit. All we have done is DEMONSTRATE, with evidence (provided by YOUR OWN WORDS), where you are deficient and inferior in intellect, coherence, and integrity.
That this automatically makes us appear “superior” to you is merely a side effect. There is no “act.” All that is necessary is for us to behave as normal human beings of average decency.
When you, on the other hand, instead of reflecting on where you have demonstrated yourself inferior and deficient in intellect, coherence and integrity and attempting self-improvement, decide it is appropriate to attempt (and fail hilariously) to make “similar” replies, all it does is further demonstrate, even more vividly, those same deficiencies in intellect, coherence and integrity.
Keep of fapping, fapwit.
Pathetic.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Been there, done that, ate the brainz.
Ah do fink roight to that, old chap. Yer a done blessin in disguise, gov!
VikingWarriorPrincess:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
@ David M
Bloody Hell!
I’ve dissected a couple of turtles but I somehow missed that.
(was specifically looking at the parts of the nervous system and the brain so that could explain it, or perhaps we had two female turtles…)
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Raj, I know that you think it’s because you have some incredibly deep and spiritual understanding of god that we’re too square to dig, but it’s actually because you, like all wannabe-hippie flakes, have no coherent concept of god whatsoever.
You’re not deep; you’re actually quite shallow and thoughtless.
But enough about you.
How’s your mother’s live turkey pizza emporium doing? Still having tax troubles with the Framboisish Empire? I hope she’s on speaking turns with her spleen again soon. They’ve been friends for too long to let a little disagreement about whether or not hat size is a a vegetable stand between them.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Women can say ‘honey’ and ‘babe/baby’ and ‘darling’ and ‘love’ to men, and even women, around here – and it happens all the time. They can say ‘boys’ to a group of men, and ‘bitch’ to a woman. Everyone can call men dicks, pricks, and assholes, but due to convention, these don’t apply to ladies(which seems about the only term for the fairer sex that doesn’t have man or male as the root word).
I have very mixed feelings about all this. By very mixed, I mean adamant, in both directions. Very much depends on inflection, culture, and local class environments, and in my case, it’s down there, maaaaan! So, on the one hand, just by being so commonly used and taken for granted they have lost much meaning as sexist remarks, and ‘in person’ inflection can convey quite different and benign intention, but on the other these are still insidious promotions of gender classification, and it is very important to understand the ramifications of this kind of seemingly minor banter.
However, preaching is fucking prohibited at TZT, do I make my self clear?
I propose this as an amendment to section 47, subsections 666 i – xiii, or is that iixv? on page elebenty point .o68 X 10¯³ of the unPolicies and Conduct Guidlines And Considerations scroll:
(i)If someone shalt engageth (the party of the first part) thus in which it is sayd a most preachatorial thing, thus havng sayeth suchness as to dictate in an unepistemological phenominary utterance in that of second party direction,
(ii)shall then, and if and only then, except for exceptions, be found to have offered thus an own skull of whicheth it is permissible for other parties to partake of a thorough cracking open and engorgement of thyselves of uncooked contents; bring your own Sause le tomatte.
Then you will have to complete this.
chigau (違う):
June 10th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
theophontes (坏蛋)
Cool and rainy.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
An idea that cannot be expressed coherently does not deserve to be understood.
A communicator who cannot express his ideas coherently does not deserve to be listened to.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Hmm, I thought I was clear. No matter.
Point taken, Amphiox! I’ll work on my communication!
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
That’s how you know I’m doing it right.
[Cracks a can of PBR, puts in in a chicken, and places the whole thing in a roaster with onions and rosemary.]
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
I don’t agree. “does not deserve” might be better put with “cannot expect.”
There is a matter of responsibility to the communicatee for their expectations and listening skills. And some people have entirely cohesive and brilliant ideas, yet lack an inherent ability to express themselves clearly for certain reasons.
My position is that if there is some idea being expressed, however badly, then I want to understand it.
This ‘deserving or not deserving’ sounds like ‘too many spelling errors’ and just more ‘not conforming to my standards’ bs that I get at many conservative and fundie forums and blogs.
However, don’t expect to not be ridiculed or corrected or ignored if you don’t make sense, and I speak from frustrating experience.
Brownian, and Amphiox,
Let me say this: It can never hurt! ;)
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
@478 me = “around here”
I meant where I live and work, not Pharyngula or FTb.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
theophontes (坏蛋) spoke thus:
Thus, mikmik spoke thus:
I will have the painters in Tuesday next to apply these murals onto my from room walls, however, that leaves one illustration with a wall to inhabit. My question is, Which one is best suited for ceiling display?
Yours in whoreship,
tartigrade molt.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
WTF? 4 minutes in and CRO is up one to IRL!?
Oh, yeah, that thing about guitarists and Ed van Halen etc., I say John Petrucci who plays blues, a bit, and I think Dream Theatre, and Liquid Tension Experiment – Acid Rain Live In L.A. 2008
Okay, off to work(on my computer) but I implore you, anyone, does anyone know of why I can subscribe to every thread and blog on FTb but not Pharyngula?
I’m sorry if I missed it if someone has addressed this before, as I only get minimal time to visit sporadically, usually right after all the fireworks have ended of course, but it is pissing me off that I can’t figure it out, but now Ireland has replied and I must go watch and design a website for an painter of art.
I’ll bookmark this comment and check back when I can.
Thanks, Mike Laing of Scottish descent.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I wasn’t talking about you! (I was talking about you-know-who).
I just used your comment as a good illustration of the point.
Yes, I can see the irony here….
This is why I was speaking in generalities. Responsibility, in all things, is measured in “reasonable expectation”. The communicatee is only responsible for a level of understanding that would be reasonably expected for the situation. It is the communicator’s responsibility to express the ideas within that reasonably expected range.
What I mean by incoherence here is incoherence beyond that reasonably expected range.
As for your second point, communicator doesn’t mean the person with the idea, it means the person trying to communicate the idea. The person with the brilliant idea who does not have the ability to express it clearly is not the “communicator” I am referring to. The communicator is the one who is trying to express the idea to others, whether it is his or her own or not. If a person with a brilliant idea wants it communicated but lacks the ability to communicate it effectively, his or her responsibility is find a communicator who can do this for them. If that communicator nevertheless fails to express the idea coherently, that communicator does not deserve to be listened to.
And if the idea is one for which NO communicator can be found who can communicate it effectively, then it doesn’t deserve to be understood no matter how brilliant it is, because if other people cannot be made to understand it, and the idea cannot spread beyond its originator, the idea is useless.
“Deserving” here is used in the practical sense of the word, not the moral sense.
And of course I am not restricting the communications to just one attempt. A collaborative process between communicator and communicatee, spanning a variable amount of time, is allowed….
Like right now.
Nightjar:
June 10th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
mikmik:
The biggest WTF is that there’s some asshole somewhere blowing a whistle that sounds like the referee’s and it’s freaking annoying. Please tell me I’m not the only hearing it. Gah.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Damn youuuuuuu………..
I hate it when I say shit to folk that I know know more than I give them credit for, that don’t need ‘splainin’ from me ;)
I agree with you here. I was thinking along the lines of intention – if someone is genuinely trying to contribute constructively but has difficulty, and that wasn’t what you meant. At all.
And for the record, there are galaxies full of people that do not deserve attention to what they say, I agree with that. I just wish it wasn’t so much fun.
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Nightjar
I honestly don’t know why the people next to those freaks don’t force feed the whistle into their assholes so that at least it could warn others when they fart.
I heard it. I often puzzle why it doesn’t seem to be noticed so much by others, either. It drives me bonkers. It’s really bad at some hockey games, as well.
The offside and the brutal tackle on Keane. I suppose the fans and players aren’t distracted by the asshole’s whistle when the ref doesn’t ever use his. No mistaking it’s coming from the stands.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Well, just because they don’t deserve attention doesn’t mean that we cannot, magnaminously or not, choose to give them some attention anyways (particularly if we derive entertainment from it)!
It’s our attention. We can waste it for fun however we damn well please.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
‘Ey! SGBM!
I’m doing it again: responding to something you wrote to someone else as though it’d been written to me. But. THANK YOU for the suggestion about the list. First of all, she took it; second, I plan to.
[Potential trigger warning and definite self-centered rambling warning]
I don’t talk about it here that often, but I have been experiencing feelings of hopelessness and pointlessness, and associated suicidal ideations without intent, on and off for a long while now. (The most recent thing that caused it was finding out that someone who used to be my very close friend was willing to travel far out of his way to visit me and I couldn’t do it, because I don’t have sufficient confidence in my ability to keep my psychological state under control and my most important meatspace support person won’t be around.)
At those times (not right now) I become emotionally convinced that there’s nothing in life that I actually want for myself, and that there’s no reason to do anything because nothing will get better. I feel like I haven’t gotten back on track with wanting things yet; I feel like the only thing I really, truly want is to get better, and that’s not a hugely useful goal in itself. I don’t believe I’m at any risk at all, especially because I feel like the thoughts themselves are sort of external to me – as Alethea put it before, brain-spam – and I always know intellectually that they’re wrong and I have all sorts of good things in my life and should definitely not die, but they’re very loud is the problem. Even if it’s not dangerous, it’s still distressing and distracting. I feel like making that sort of list will help to stave off that sort of thinking for me. So thanks. I just can’t figure out if I should make it soon and read it over when things get bad, or if I should try to do it then.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
No, Brownian. It’s because I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times. You and your ilk, mistakenly, presuppose that God, if God was real, must be some ‘coherent concept’ to human mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and you cannot argue with facts. So, my views about God are that God exists for sure, but human mind, including your mind and my mind, is too puny an instrument to get ANY understanding of God using logic and reason. But this, of course, doesn’t mean we cannot have an **experience** of God. But, of course, if you are a hard core atheist, and you have had your entire life’s work invested in your being an atheist, you are going to look in every nook and cranny to deny that experience as anything real. But look at the word DENY. Denying something means you will be in DENIAL.
I guess everything is fine with her and about her. She’s expecting a new grandchild soon. She’s jumping all over the place in sheer joy, like Mexican jumping beans. Pray it’s a boy, she said to me. Amen, I said in my heart.
Nightjar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Yeah, both glaringly obvious. Annoying. And I didn’t even have any particular interest in the outcome of that game.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
cm, why pardon the fuck out of me for not bothering to type out “Hey, I know everyone is busy stomping and arguing in here, but a regular is suicidal and could use some help, a message of support will take 5 minutes.” Thanks ever so much for being a flaming asshole, one who just couldn’t even be bothered to offer any support, ’cause ya know, other people had it covered.
CR and Jadehawk, I am seriously sick of your shit. You both have taken every fucking opportunity to attempt to paint me as an asshole and I’m tired of it. I don’t care how aggrieved you are on behalf of SG – it is not my fault he got his ass canned from TET. It’s so nice to know you support harassment and lying as long as it’s SG doing it. You can both go choke on a porcupine.
John, thanks. You’re the only one who got it right.
Nightjar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Cipher! *waves* *hugs*
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
HI NIGHTJAR! *hugs*
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Aww. How sweet. *rolleyes*
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Yep. Pure honey.
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Lurch I went in my bowels, heave I went in my stomach and oesophagus.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
And roll I went in my eyes, and kill, I said to my killfile.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
You went in your bowels and discovered you were already there, blocking the bowels???
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
OK. So now it’s fun time with atheist bots. Ok. I am ready…
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Nerd, while we play, would you please play your usual role of the extremely corrupt referee?
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
If anyone’s ever wondered if it’s possible to vomit and laugh uproariously simultaneously, believe me, it is!
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Why shouldn’t anyone believe you, and that, my friend, is the surprising part. If you can go in your bowels to meet your better half, why can’t you do this stunt?
NuMad:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
rajkumar,
If that’s the case, then what could possibly be the value of anything else that you could say about it?
Sounds to me like there’s nothing about it that can be conveyed by language. Either we’ve had this experience and recognize it, or we don’t.
Unless you believe that your use of language is more persuasive than the experience of God itself.
Fucking hubris, how does it work?
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
The most valuable thing about it … that God is a **reality.** What kind of reality? We don’t know YET. But we have got 1000s of years of future before us to work this out. You are I are not the last generation on this planet.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Sorry…
You are I
should read
You and I
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Raj, interacting with you just makes me feel as if I’m bullying a clueless kid. Very uncomfortable experience.
So, killfiled. It’s not about you, it’s about me.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
If I were you and you were I; i’d kill ourselves
Weed Monkey:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
If you mean the 2-1 goal, it wasn’t. Jelavić certainly was in offside position, but the ball bounced to him via Irish defence failing to clear it. Not that it was obvious at the moment, but visible in replays.
Tomorrow France – England and Ukraine – Sweden, in glorious HD free of charge thanks to Yle. Fourth day of games and I’ll have to buy another case of beer…
This is going to a long month :D
Rey Fox:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Why?
'Tis Himself:
June 10th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
In my 64 years of life, the question had never occurred to me.
Thanks for tell us.
What’s your next line of research? Does it involve flatulence in any way?
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
I’m procrastinating, so I’m going to fuck with you, just a little bit.
Mostly because I think you’re an asshole, and I don’t really like you or respect you.
But let’s remember this: you have no understanding whatsoever of God. You said it. I know you think it’s a humble thing to say, and it makes you sound deep, but it actually means you’re an idiot. Because once you say this, you’re done.
For now, let’s just remember this. We’ll capitalise it, in fact. RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Well, there are some things that must be coherent, such as logical negations. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? Not if ‘exist’ means anything. So, there’s at least some necessary coherence. God can exist, or God can not exist. God cannot exist and not exist, if ‘exist’ means anything.
What facts? That God does not have to be coherent?
Remember, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD. So your little “this is not the case” fact is gone. You can’t say it. You can’t say anything.
Why? Because, as you’ve admitted, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Well, that’s a stupid thing to say. Because assigning the concept of existence would be at least some understanding of god. And you don’t have any whatsoever, remember?
RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Do you follow? Saying these two things:
A) I have no understanding whatsoever of God
B) God exists for sure
Are not logically compatible. Both cannot be true.
You can’t say this. Why?
Why? Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Saying the mind is too puny an instrument to know anything about god would constitute some understanding of god. And you’ve admitted that you have NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD, so you can’t even say whether or not god is too complex to understand.
Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
You can’t say this. Why?
Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
So stop saying things about God. You’ve already admitted you have no understanding whatsoever of God. Saying anything about God after that that means you’re a liar.
Are you talking about me? Or someone you made up?
Before you start talking about my life’s work, answer one question: how old am I?
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
What a dumb thing to do. Why? Does god answer prayers?
Just kidding, I know you haven’t the faintest foggiest idea, because as you love to say, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
“Hi, I’m rajkumar.
I have no understanding whatsoever about God.
Now that I’ve admitted that, let me tell you about God.”
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I for one have always wanted to know if it’s possible to play a trumpet or other wind instrument with one’s butt.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Caine:
It is your fault that he was wrongly banned from there – you acting as a member and often leader and instigator of a gang of bullies engaged in a campaign to attack him and drive him away (and me as well) and to turn TET into a space where you can spout bullshit and go after people without their being able to call you out on it. Your partial success is not an indication that you were in the right, but an error on PZ’s part.*
That you’re engaged in such a campaign – honesty, consistency, and basic kindness be damned – is evident on this very thread. You could have simply stayed out of the “darling” discussion. You could have pretended you hadn’t seen it. Instead, you couldn’t resist the opportunity to jump in and attack sg. Your comment @ #19 was a completely gratuitous attampt to blame sg for something you would otherwise support. You were wise enough later to acknowledge that Louis’s retort was not OK just because it was to sg (though not without the “I’ll skip everything else I’d normally add”) and then to shut up on the matter, though you didn’t take that to its conclusion and apologize to sg (or Aratina Cage and others) for what you’d gone out of your way to say.
You’ve inexplicably developed a pattern of behavior toward certain people recently that’s been pointed out even by friends. You can ignore people and talk porcupines all you want, but it’s plain right here on this thread.
I don’t know whether this thread will be a space for intellectual honesty and critical thinking (this weekend gives me hope) or whether I’ll continue to comment here, but I am relieved it hasn’t been one where people aren’t safe to challenge comments like yours.
*It would have been fine for PZ to have created a separate thread for arguments, but his going along with your framing, singling out sg, and using this designated troll thread was a problem.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
SC, I actually agree about SG. Just because he’s an unlikeable asshole, doesn’t mean calling him shit like ‘Darling’ is OK. Not word of argument there.
But seriously, this is, what, the third or fourth time you’ve threatened to stop commenting here? Jesus Fucking CHRIST, shit or get off the pot already!
I realize that you consider me a subhuman, but I couldn’t keep silent any longer.
John Morales:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
TLC §2@20, woulda been a good comment, were it not for the first sentence of your last paragraph.
Tsk.
(That was a combative jab, of the passive-aggressive variety)
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Ok. I never doubted you before, and I still don’t doubt you. For someone in your situation, anything is possible. I think I can hear your imagination say, sky is the limit. Yee HA
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
170 years, 5′ 1″, 250 lbs???
Weed Monkey:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
With sufficient practice you shouldn’t need an instrument at all, see Le Pétomane.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
As I said, I’m deciding. I’m not threatening, though I’m flattered that my saying I’ll possibly stop is viewed as a “threat.” (And you haven’t been here that long – it’s probably the 20th or 30th time, and on some occasions I have in fact left for a period of time.)
I don’t consider you subhuman. Based on what you’ve written here, I consider you violent, and it doesn’t help that you seem to wear it as some sort of badge of honor (that no one called you out on your “Male Primate” bullshit was expected but also a problem). I’ve seen other aspects of you in recent weeks that are likable/admirable, but your self-declared violent tendencies continue to make me wary, and I don’t like to be in or associated with an environment in which violence towards people or nonhuman animals is not challenged or is excused.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
You might say this, fapwit, but you LIE.
Here you are, claiming an understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW WE ARE MISTAKEN ABOUT GOD IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God.
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE HUMAN MIND IS TOO “PUNY” TO UNDERSTAND GOD USING LOGIC AND REASON UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW CAN YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN HAVE AN **EXPERIENCE** OF GOD IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD IS A **reality** AT ALL, IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
Caught lying yet again, fapwit.
Truly you have no shame.
Pitiful.
Fapfapfap.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Amphiox
Get off that crap. If you ever held the belief that you were an intelligent person, now is the time to deeply re-examine that belief.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
This is true as a general principle about arguments of that sort (specifically the retort) – it could be one of the pitizens, and I’d make the same argument – but I don’t agree with your characterization of him.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Raj please read this
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob//internet_graphic1.jpg
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
HATE for the HATE THREAD:
My head is screaming again. I took medicine and drank a glass of water and hopefully it will stop, but christfuck ow. I’ve got the whole weird amplified sound thing going on too, which does not bode well when I have to keep my window open because otherwise I’m too warm but my neighbors have some small child shrieking excitedly at their house. STOP IT CHILD. HOLY SHIT. BETWEEN YOU AND THE MOCKINGBIRD I AM GOING TO GRIND DOWN MY TEETH.
And my paper is fucking stupid! And I don’t mean I’m writing it stupidly, or my subject is stupid, I mean I don’t want to fucking write it anymore. I’ve come up with some interesting insights (male slaves compare themselves to soldiers because of the complicated position of soldiers with issues of bodily integrity! slaves’ skin is hugely significant, and the trickster slave describing himself as a skin-turner (shapeshifter) might have to do with that!) but I’m having a terrible amount of trouble explaining how things are connected to masculinity at the moment.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Amphiox
A person in your position should only ask QUESTIONS. So, I would say, formulate good questions, instead of wasting your time in formulating stupid and meaningless responses.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
I’ve seen things I like about you too, which is why I try to give you the highest respect I possibly can and not respond to what you say. This time temptation got the better of me.
And are you arguing that I’m NOT a male primate? What in the bleeding fuck am I then?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Well, my assessment is subjective. I can’t fucking stand how, when SG thinks he has a ‘good point’, he’ll copy and paste it into his replies, over and over and over a-fucking-gain.
Bear in mind I don’t always consider myself likeable either.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Your totalitarian desire to control my thoughts and free acts are noted, fapwit.
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
No, you totalitarian thought-controlling fapwit.
Fapfapfapfap.
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Evidence!
(Probably also what prompted you to say that, but I LIKE FEELING CLEVER)
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Actually no Cipher, it occured to me all on its own, but thanks for the link- I always relish a chance to attack Antigodless.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Cipher, I have to correct you. This is an example of playing the butt trumpet. Please note how he responses to my sarcastic retort by repeating what he said earlier. So this is one note butt trimpet playing.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Of you? Why?
Okay. Sitting next to me, I have exactly the same amount of bars of gold bullion as you do an understanding of god.
That is to say, I have NO BARS OF GOLD BULLION SITTING NEXT TO ME WHATSOEVER.
If someone wanted a bar of gold bullion, why would they come to me?
Likewise, if someone wanted to know something about god (say, whether or not god exists) why would they come to you?
I understand that you don’t know what words mean, but in that case, rajkumar, the right thing to do it to STOP TALKING.
Rey Fox:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
I have a vewwy gweat fwiend in Wome named Lowd Pwetzewnippews.
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
‘Tis, my earlier comments were perhaps too brief to provide context.
I was throwing up at rajkumar’s “Amen I said.” (His hoping the fetus would turn out to be male,) and laughing uproariously at his incoherency at the same time.
I have three children, all female, and I can’t tell you how many obnoxious YOU’LL BE HOPING FOR A BOY THIS TIME statements I had to deal with during pregnancy. Always made, of course, with my daughters standing RIGHT THERE. It’s a sore spot for me.
However, I’ve killfiled raj. He’s so incoherent I feel engaging with him is:
1/ Futile.
2/ Mean. It’s just not a fair fight. (And no, raj, if you’re reading this don’t interpret that to mean anyone’s implying you’ve got a superior intellect, mmkay? It’s not going to be as funny and clever as you think it is.)
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Ri-ight… Caine was able to convince a number of regulars to turn on SG and try to get rid of him. And has a direct pipeline to PZ to get him to act on that impulse. It had nothing to do with his obsessive nitpicking.
Oh, right, he just had to fight back against all of the mischaracterizations of him. He could not help himself.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
OK, I’m going to offer a suggestion because a) your paper sounds extremely interesting and b) I’m a professor to my very soul and am compelled to give paper-writing advice and feedback. (And of course I like you.) Might help, might not, might not be something you’re interested in doing.
Anyway… You can use the ideas from data analysis on your own thoughts/notes/draft. Think about reading these as someone who’s trying to code various bits of evidence and statements – to put them in different categories. I’m guessing you don’t have software that’ll help you with this, but you can just create a document with your notes or draft and go through it, giving one or more labels (e.g., “skin”) to individual quotations or evidence or your statements or paragraphs, and then organizing them according to these labels. For masculinity, it would help to divide it into subcategories, like “masculinity – comparisons” or “masculinity – bodily integrity” or whatever (I have no idea what yours would be).
Ideally, this will both help you to develop your thoughts and lead to the organization of sections and paragraphs, and the writing will flow from there. Like I said, this might not appeal to or work for you, but for me it’s a good way of giving my thoughts structure.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I have a question:
What understanding of god do you have rajkumar?
Oh, wait, that’s right: you have no understanding of god whatsoever.
‘kay, thanks. I guess your job here is done.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I think I was very clear about Caine’s participation, and gave a specific and very recent example.
What the hell is going on with you that you would say something like this? You’re suggesting people shouldn’t fight back against misrepresentations of them?!
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Will the fapwit ever stop talking?
Will the fapwit ever stop lying?
Will the fapwit ever feel remorse for its lies?
Will the fapwit ever learn anything?
Can the fapwit ever learn anything?
Ah, the ineffable mysteries of the universe! So many questions! Which can only be asked, and never answered.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
So, everytime SG has gone off, it was because he was misrepresentated.
And PZ must be in on the conspiracy seeing that he played along in the nefarious scheme.
cm's changeable moniker:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Caine, pardon the fuck out of me too, but why trigger a whole bunch of people who might think “if only I’d {done whatever}” five minutes sooner, given that it took from “9 June 2012 at 1:50 am” to “9 June 2012 at 6:01 pm” to sound the alarm.
And I would have offered support if, you know, other people hadn’t had it covered by the time I saw the comment because, you know, I can’t spend every fucking waking minute hitting F5 waiting for the cupcake signal.
*sheesh*
Do you need me to explain how painful, how personal this shit is to me?
consciousness razor:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I was tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t affect how your statement came across to me (or others), which I thought I made clear. I was angry at Louis’ bullshit, thinking about my own history with depression and had a lot of other things on my mind, so maybe I could’ve expressed myself better. My mistake. If you’d be a little less defensive for a minute and try to understand where I’m coming from, I’d appreciate it.
Again, I’m upset about how lots of people have been treated recently, not just SG or myself. If you don’t care, fine, but I wouldn’t blame you for everything that has happened either.
That is utterly absurd. If you’d like to explain how you came up with this bullshit, be my fucking guest.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Another question for the fapwit.
Why does someone who has no understanding whatsoever of god arrogant enough to think himself competent to discuss the issue of god on a public forum? With a mere puny human intellect? And mere human words?
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Amblebury, I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT RAJKUMAR MEANS WHATSOEVER.
So, if you want to know what rajkumar means, a person in your position should ask me questions.
amblebury:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
*BRAIN EXPLODES*
(With laughing and kinda weeping simultaneously ;))
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Sorry, my mistake.
And you did ask a few questions…
I think I can answer one question, which should be able to answer the rest of your questions.
Question 1:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THE HUMAN MIND IS TOO “PUNY” TO UNDERSTAND GOD USING LOGIC AND REASON UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GOD?
Yes. Good question. Do you remember the red-green colour blind example? Do you also remember the “trying to visualize ‘no space and no time’ example?” A person cannot explain the greenness of the colour green to a red-green colour blind person. The ONLY way for a red-green colour blind person to know the greenness of the colour green is to experience the greenness for himself, subjectively. It is not possible to ‘explain’ the greenness of green to another person using logic and reason.
Now, people all over the world claim to have had subjective experiences of God or the divine, as in spiritual experiences and NDEs. So, this means the only way to experience God is to experience God subjectively, and when you do experience God in such a way, you know you have had such an experience, but that doesn’t mean you ‘understand’ how this experiences came to you, or how it was created and by whom. Just like the colourness of a colour cannot be explained using logic and reason, the ‘essence’ or ‘quality’ of these experiences cannot be explained using logic and reason.
Now to answer your question, if a simple thing as colour cannot be explained using logic and reason, how could something like God be explained using logic and reason? Does that make sense? If it doesn’t, I think nothing will.
Please Note: No high school science on the ‘firing neuron’ in the brain, and ‘atom bouncing off’ to explain how colours are generated in the brain would be highly appreciated!
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Brownian:
You haven’t told me whether or not my guesses were accurate. Well?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
No, I’m arguing that your attributing your violent tendencies to the fact that you’re a male primate (like primates aren’t diverse) as though they naturally follow is ridiculous evo psych bullshit of the sort that’s usually challenged here, and that your justification in terms of this – even if it were valid – is the sort of naturalistic fallacy of which you seem quite fond.
PZ Myers:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
For the record: Caine had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to restrict sg’s participation. I do not follow the details closely in TET; I follow the overall pattern, and what I was seeing over and over again was roiling, angry bickering with sg tangled up in the middle. No one asked me to ban him, no one sent me email complaining about it, no one other than myself made the decision. I saw an ongoing habit and decided to squelch it.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
You want to know how close to my age your guess of 170 years is?
Pray for the answer.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Is this like SG Derangement Syndrome? What the hell is going on?
Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
SC, thank you very much! I actually started to do that prior to starting my paper (with labeled index cards!), but the project got derailed in a big way when I panicked about writing my paper and started doing the “JUST WRITE STUFF DOWN AAA” thing. It’s definitely a good idea and I’d probably find it at least somewhat soothing too. In fact I’m going to do that now. Thanks thanks thanks.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Give or take 100?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
SC: You might have a point.
I spent my entire childhood at the mercy of a miserable fucking small-town shitsplat called Gibsons, BC.
Molly’s Reach! Beachcombers! Beautiful beaches! Seaside Picnics! And a population of the most hateful, xenophobic, disgusting, small-minded churchie fucks you can imagine. No matter how much better I get over the years, it will always be “ME vs fucking EVERYONE” in some part of my mind.
And this is where I’d rather the discussion ends, really. Responding was a mistake. You have much to offer pharyngula, but really not much to offer me personally.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Actually yes. You can’t experience what doesn’t exist. You can experience delusions and hallucinations, and mistaken think they are god. They aren’t, they are your own mind playing tricks on you. Like you think you have a point. You don’t.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
A variation of a Fox News theme. Nice.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
I see the fapwit, has, again, just repeated the same tired, old, debunked, dishonest fappings it fapped out already many times before.
And continues to dishonestly ignore everything already said to it about them.
The ridiculous perseveration over the color green is particularly amusing.
*Yawn*
Fapfap.
chigau (違う):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Where are the snows of yesteryear??
cm's changeable moniker:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
If you’d want to post that message right (to my mind) it would have gone as follows:
Try that next time, mmm’kay?
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
You want to use an uncertainty larger than the average human’s lifespan?
That’s incredibly fucking stupid, even for you, but no, I am not between the ages of 70 and 270 years, fuckhead.
Having noted that, the next time you feel like describing my life’s work as an atheist, stop and remember how stupid you are at this moment.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
That’s not so. You’re assuming that I meant what I said in a way that I didn’t.
And me as well. There can be several explanations for that,* and the one you arrived at is incorrect. That’s explained by the fact that you don’t actually follow things closely, which is what I’d suspected. Not following things closely can lead to bad decisions, and I think it did in this case.
Huh. I thought Hairhead said he did. But that wasn’t what I was suggesting in any case.
That’s far too vague to justify the specific actions taken.
*”I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Jessica Ahlquist] tangled up in the middle.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Meaningless question for your purposes answered by science.
And how to separate that shit from hallicinations, delusions, false memories, and other scientifically explained stuff. Science wins again….RAJKUMAR LOSES. Film at 11:00 pm.
'Tis Himself:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Rajdumbshit,
Your color-blind argument was dismantled. It is possible to describe various aspects of green to color-blind people and even to completely blind people.
So you know “God” exists because…well, just because…but you know it exists even though you don’t have a single clue about any aspect of this “God” you know exists, not even whether or not it exists. Seems like you’re really good about convincing yourself to believe any bullshit you feel like believing.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
TLC, a friend of mine spent a few years on the Sunshine Coast. Gibsons Landing.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
You’re welcome! I hope it helps. Please let me (and everyone) know how it’s going.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Brownian: I spent 11 years there, and no matter how beautiful the scenery, I still feel the town would be improved by a liberal application of napalm.
Gibsons is why I despise authority figures. I’ll never forget principal (name redacted) carefully explaining to me that it’s unacceptable when I defend myself and that I bring it on myself by being such a freak.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
It’s a funny thing, TLC: my friend went there specifically to get away from the hub-bub of life elsewhere in Canada. Meaning, in particular, the bustling metropolis known as Edmonton.
To get away from authority and the idea of being defined by one’s career, etc.
How odd.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
The difference between the colour green and god, is (obvious to everyone here except the fapwit) that the subjective experience of the colour green is triggered and produced by something that is objectively real. And that something can be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED and INDEPENDENTLY DESCRIBED in a manner that does NOT need to be referred back to the subjective experience itself. That the separate subjective experiences of two individuals to it might be different, and might not even be describable to one another is irrelevant. The fapwit’s perseveration on this point is a transparently dishonest evasion of the simple reality that utterly destroys its entire argument:
The subjective experience of green is produced by GREEN THINGS in this universe whose existence can be independently confirmed without reference to the subjective experience of green at all.
If god is real in the way green is real, then the subjective experience of god must ALSO be produced by a REAL THING in this universe whose existence can be independently and objectively verified.
The absence of independent, verifiable objective evidence for the THING that produces the subjective experience of god tells us that god does not exist.
(Oh, and fapwit? Don’t bother responding to this. This comment is not directed AT you, as you have yet demonstrated the level of competency required to meaningfully contribute to a discussion of these concepts. Any replies you attempt to make that do not demonstrate that level of competence will be summarily ignored.)
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
That’s a terrible comparison. Inflammatory, even.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
I don’t know if you’re reading this, but I understand that as a sociologist and sympathize as a person. I won’t respond further as per your request.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
That’s a useless comment. Stupid, even.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Brownian: I’m sure adults who move there as adults find it lovely.
For me it was 11 years of hell. 11 years of having to change course every single time I saw a group of people while walking about. 11 years of people publically harassing me. 11 years of being stuck in class with these miserable little fucks who could do whatever they wanted to me while their filthy church-rat parents snorted into their sleeves… but if I raised one hand to their precious shit-rat spawn, they’d call the cops, call the principal, call my parents, anything to protect their little mistakes.
11 years of having authority figures carefully explain to me, like I was stupid or something, that that’s ‘just the way it is’. That it’s right and good I should suffer so the good kids can maintain their little status quo.
ChasCPeterson:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
The dishonest fapwit STILL hasn’t acknowledged that it in fact got the red-green colour blind backwards even when presented it solely on its own terms. Red-green colour blind people see green, as near as we can tell, almost identically to everyone else. The colour that they have trouble distinguishing is RED.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
“I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Rebecca Watson] tangled up in the middle.”
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
*facepalm*
ChasCPeterson:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
uh but seriously, folks, I’ll go on record as somebody who has observed the dynamics of Pharyngula for a long time to say that in my opinion, sg was treated poorly in the new-rulings.
I spose by now nobody’s surprised if I whine about the gnu tribalism around here. *shrug*
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Also, as an inspiration, Robert Jay Lifton talks about how in writing (can’t recall the exact words) “structure is all.” Succinct, true, beautiful. Reading his Nazi Doctors was a formative experience for me, but I also think his general advice is important.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
I agree that banning SG from TET was a bit far.
But I wasn’t one of SG’s ‘targets’, and I sure as hell won’t speak for any of them.
And holy fuck his repetition was getting annoying. If people don’t jump on a paragraph as some awesome revelation the first time, they sure as hell won’t on the sixth.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
NO.
You, you arrogant, pretentious fapwit, are NOT ENTITLED to dictate to the rest of us what we may or may not discuss in OUR posts.
And the a priori refusal to acknowledge into discussion the material that utterly annihilates your entire position is the absolute height of odious intellectual dishonesty.
You truly are pathetic.
Fapfapfap.
Amphiox:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I wasn’t going to get involved in this, but this goes too far and absolutely requires a response.
Rebecca Watson wasn’t actively posting in most of those slimepit threads. In the ones where she was, she only posted a few posts. She was “tangled up” in the middle only insomuch as everyone was choosing, of their own free will, to talk about her.
That is VERY different from what was happening with SG back at the TET.
The two situations are not equivalent.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
I don’t believe he’s ever had “targets.” He tenaciously opposes what he sees as falsehoods and oppressive acts. It’s fair to argue about what’s false and what’s oppressive, but that’s very diffeent from personal attacks on him that seek to “other” him, separating him from the rest of the people here and blaming him for discord. (Same goes for me.)
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
The fact that this fucking topic is monopolizing this thread with drama lamadome right now is exactly why it was booted before. Can everyone please just let it die?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
SC, you have valuable things to contribute. You don’t deserve to be othered, and neither does SC. It isn’t fair.
But I’ll eat the shit out of a dead whale’s asshole before I believe that you (and SG) don’t cause at least a little bit of ‘discord’.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Do you appreciate what you’re saying here? Really – follow this argument through – if she had tangled up and been actively posting…
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
@TLC
Let’s all say it together now
“The Greater Good”
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
*neither does SG rather.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Oh, hey! No! This is supposed to be the thread precisely for this, so your controlling nonsense is what needs to die.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
ING, I kinda agree with SC. This is kinda the place for hashing this shit out.
Sometimes, you just gotta rip the band-aid off, and to hell with all the blood and pus that oozes out.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Do I even care to know the reason why SC thinks SG was and piled upon?
Oh, wait, it was all of the falsehoods that was being sprend about him. And SG’s principles just could not leave them unchallenged.
Am I wrong to think of SG as a vanguardist who advocates the used of violence to end religion?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Since when is contributing to discord around here blameworthy?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
I honestly can’t believe I’m reading these words from you.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
SC:
Good answer, maybe the only one I would have accepted.
But I still think SG took it several degrees too far. And it was getting incredibly intrusive in TET. Seriously, my finger was going numb for all the scrolling. And then his copy-paste bullshit… so now I have to scroll through the same shit about 10 times.
ChasCPeterson:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
I’ll tear the scab off a dead whale’s asshole if…no, that wasn’t it…
If the pus of a…of a dead whale’s…
wait
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Thanks, Louis.
+++++
Thanks, theophontes.
+++++
Cipher, thanks for relaying to me about kc. I checked TET and was glad to see the list.
I relate to what you’re saying about ideation without intent. I’ll give you what advice I can. YMMV, but I didn’t invent this stuff, so I don’t think it’s too idiosyncratic and specific to me.
I don’t know, it seems like both are good ideas. But at minimum I’d recommend you go ahead and make a “what to do when I notice myself ideating” list, more like the one linked earlier, so that you have a list of easy distractors available when it gets hard to think of anything else.
As you’ve of course noticed, it’s usually unhelpful and annoying to attempt to just stop thinking about it. It’s like “don’t think of a suicidal elephant.” Not an easy task.
So another approach is non-judgmental acknowledgment of the thoughts. When you notice you’re thinking about suicide, you deliberately acknowledge it to yourself; think, subvocalize, or just say out loud, “I am thinking about suicide. That is okay. These are only thoughts. People think about suicide sometimes. Now I am going to go do one of my distractors. I will probably keep thinking about suicide for a while anyway. That is okay. Alright, now I am [playing Tetris].” And so on. Likely you’ll have another loud thought about suicide within a couple minutes. So you just acknowledge that one too, and think/say that it’s okay.
The point of this is to just let the thoughts be what they are. You’re not trying to force them out of your mind, thus you’re saving yourself the stress of that difficult or near-impossible task. And you’re not making them into a terrible thing that you judge yourself as bad for having. You just tell yourself they’re okay, because that’s true, they’re just thoughts, even if they are uncomfortable you will get through them; you always have before.
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
June 10th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Janine:
Nope, not in the least.
(I’ve got links to back that shit up, too!)
ChasCPeterson:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
cheese it, it’s the Russian Mafia!
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Chas,
Thanks.
What bothers me is that it looks so much like an ex post facto rule.
It’s PZ’s blog; I respect his property; I can abide by whatever rules he imposes. That includes what appears to be an ex post facto ruling against me, but, I also think the banning is not necessary. If TET is supposed to be different from now on then I am capable of doing as required in TET.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Nope, not in the least.
But what does it have to do with anything?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
I understand that you do. But I think it’s a problem of people not wanting to deal with the content of what someone’s saying or their defenses against attacks.
If I, for example, say everyone should read Mad in America immediately (which they should), and I then get attacked by dozens of people in various ways, and I defend myself, it’s pretty obscene for people to blame me for intrusiveness or troublemaking or derailing or whatever.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
I hope PZ sees this.
I didn’t want SG gone from TET myself. I did want the endless crap to stop, though.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
(I can’t believe I get to make this stupid joke before anyone else does! Joy!)
rajkumar,
Okay, what is the sound of one hand fapping?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
everyone should read Mad in America immediately
By which I mean the book.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
I read MAD a lot in my childhood, but never ‘in America’.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Read the book.
Not perfect – you don’t have to agree with every word. But, seriously – every skeptic and social justice advocate on the planet needs to read it right away.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
rajkumar,
Before you act so sure about this, you should read what Dennett’s written about qualia.
Here is a free introduction: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/RoboMaryfinal.htm
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Damnit, there was a whole heddle thread (and many others, I’m sure) about it at Ye Olde Pharyngula.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Have we gotten any word yet on whether the Sb comments are coming back?
mikmik:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
I am his ilk. If you want to presuppose what I presuppose, that is fine with me. What I find objectionable, is that you presuppose, mistakenly, that I presuppose anything specifically.
Coherent – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …Definition of COHERENT. 1. a: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated: consistent <coherent style> <a coherent argument> b: having clarity or intelligibility : understandable <a coherent person> <a coherent passage>
Then neither can you.
Puchbug!!!
You just stated coherently that god exists, and may I point out that your supposition is presented as a fact.
But, you already said that I, the ilk, cannot argue with facts. “God exists” is a coherent statement, “God exists for sure” is a coherent premise, and therefore, subject to logic and rational analysis! Note that you said coherence is a non-sequitur when discussing God: It IS YOU THAT SAID THIS.
You have already discounted your claim that I, the ilk, can be coherent when discussing God, yet you have offered me, and my other ilk, a coherent statement that can be coherently addressed, vis a vis your premise, “God exists for sure.”
This is a priori false, because you have said coherent statements about God are outside of the realm of coherence.
Now, you also have offered another premise. You have directly stated that it is mistaken to think of God as a coherent concept. Yet existence is a coherent idea, and you are applying it to the idea of ‘God’, for which you say no coherence exists.
Therefore, you have refuted your premise, that no coherent arguments can be made regarding God, by coherently arguing/postulating, not only that exists, but that you believe God exists as a fact. Facts are subject to verification, because ‘fact’ is a coherent idea, and ‘facts’ are concrete ideas that encapsulate the very exact fucking meaning of coherency.
My ilk’s, this ilk’s, and Brownians’ contention that you are disengenuous is logically rigorous and therefore logically true!
Furthermore, you have, still left hanging, your contention that, as atheists, Brownian and me and my other sibling ilks, presuppose that because we don’t believe god exists, we are incapable of truth because of an existing bias.
That is a coherent statement.
You now have two coherent tautologies to explain the substantial, or existent, reasoning for using in the first place. You re-use, over and over, 1)the idea that God exists, and 2)that atheists just can’t or won’t understand your arguments and propositions due to incapacity.
You employ the fallacy of repetition to try to weasel in unfounded accusation as substantiated and accepted observation.
Get fucking to it, rajkumar.
Also, get to explaining how you can coherently and precisely state a sensical and coherent conclusion about an un-understandable event or ongoing condition, namely the one of being certain that your God exists as fact – and claiming recognition of the very thing you vehemently argue cannot be recognized! Recognition is a coherent process, for godfuck’s sake.
Fuck, didn’t you see what I just said? How could you possibly ever know if you did, FOR. FUCK’S. SAKE.
WRONG. What the fuck is your basic problem, raj?
Fucking follow along here: MANY. OF. US. HAVE. EXPLAINED. TO. YOU. THAT. WE, HAVE. HAD. THE. EXPERIENCE. OF. EXPERIENCING. GOD. PERIOD.
Are you daft? How many ex christians have to tell you that they genuinely believed they experienced god’s presence, and how many ex delusion psychotics and/or chemical trippers have to tell you that we have experienced god, and orange elephants, and that it was real at the time, for you to get it into you that you are not the slightest bit privy to some existential phenomenonand , and that to the fucking contrary, it is a fucking well known and understood experience! FOR! FUCK’S! SAKE!
I’ve already fucking shown your behaviors consistent with addiction and psychological disturbances that lead to denial, of which projection is a major component.
(I do apologize to you if you have addressed my points on this issue, as I miss three-quarters of the goings on here due to the fact that I can’t seem to get email notices from this fucking thread or blog, even though it says I am subscribed, and the email address that the replies come from are both accepted as safe, and in my contact list, and not in my spam, trash, or inbox folders.)
Now, rajkumar, I am going to risk my already questionable appearance of a tenuous grasp on reality right now. Keep in mind that I am not representing Brownian, or any of his and my ilk when I say this, that is merely my opinion, and my not be based on a coherent evaluation of the evidence.
O, shite, I have to go make a call on a client. Okay, here: I think you have some smarts when you want to, and even make some quite reasonable observations, sometimes once in a while occasionally. Now leave me alone, I have to find a paper bag and cut some eye holes in. I can’t even review before I submit this and probably one misspelled word somewhere has rendered my comment incoherent.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Yes. Let’s go back to the red-green colour blindness example again. Suppose I am a red-green colour blind person, and because of this condition, I do not know anything about the greenness of the colour green — I have never seen this colour in my whole life. Suppose you have a normal colour vision, and because you have a normal colour vision, you can see the colour green and you know what the greenness of the colour green is.
Now, we have about 100 grams of fresh green olives before us. Those olives looks as green as possible to you — green as green can be. But, for poor me, those green olives look yellow olives. The colour green DOES NOT exist for me, even if it exists for you. The reason is obvious enough. My eyes can’t pick up that frequency on which this colour is perceived, and my brain gets no information about the colour green. Suppose there were only red-green colour blind people in this universe. The colour green would cease to exist…. This is because there is no colour green ‘out there’. It is only in the brain the colour is generated. The greenness of the colour green exist only in the brain.
Similarly, to have an experience of God or the divine, one must have his or her consciousness at the level where it is possible to have such an experience. This is called ‘raising the consciousness’. The theory is, God is all around us. In fact, there is nothing else and the whole universe is God, plus all that we can’t see or perceive through our senses. But we can’t know this fact because during our everyday lives, our consciousness is not at the level where we can have such an experience.
Just a cautionary note: During these experiences, there is no God who reveal his glorious self in some form or as some being. Something completely different happens, which as I said before, is an experience that can only be experienced subjectively.
Makes sense?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
raj
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Mike,
Smells like armchair psych bullshit.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
What is with me and borkquotes tonight?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Nope, can’t happen, as you can’t separate hallucinations, delusions, and false memories from the data. All you have is wishful nonthinking that what you believe is happening, is happening. Or, you can actually show you are right with solid and conclusive physical data. Or, the option to shut the fuck up about that which you show no intelligence or cogency about is always an option. An option you should have taken a several thousand posts ago…
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Yes I want to use an uncertainty larger than the average human’s lifespan, because you don’t seem like an average human. You are one of your kind. It’s a compliment.
And please, tell me more about your skinny trousers.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Hi Nerd. Looks like you still haven’t been able to move on….?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
While you sir are nothing but another garden-variety theist who’s just afraid of what happens to him after he dies.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
SG is not mounting a constitutional challenge at a public institution.
SG is not receiving threats of any sort.
SG is not attempting to make a public institution more inclusive.
Jessica Ahlquist does not self-describe as a bitter, spiteful, hateful person. She does not identify her main goal vis-a-vis Cranston, RI, as being to hold a community that purports to value honesty to the fire in order to ensure that Cranston, RI, hews more closely to its stated values.
Pharyngula, for all its faults, is not Cranston RI.
Sorry I wasn’t able to go into more detail before. Got pulled away for a bit.
It’s a lousy comparison.
As far as othering goes, SG has taken steps to other himself. He says he’s an authoritarian, for one thing, and endorses the use of violence to combat the spread of religion.
That’s pretty fucking other, at least where this community is involved, no matter how you slice it.
His quest is noble, to be sure. TET just isn’t the place for it.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
OK. Let’s just assume for a second that I am what you say I am. Then what? At least, I am not a mindless atheist bot, who is mindlessly parroting his/her mentors’ words and speeches? Like a remotely controlled robot, who does exactly what he/she is told to do. Have no mind of his own, and considers thinking ‘outside the box’, even for a second, a capital sin of atheism.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Why should I? You still haven’t presented any evidence to show your deity isn’t imaginary, nor have you shut the fuck up. Your fuckwittery, unevidenced OPINION, dishonesty, and lack of integrity will be exposed until you move on…Only then, can I move on….
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Yes. When all is said and done, I AM THE ULTIMATE WINNER. Why? Because I SAY SO. This is how I should argue with people like you.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Just ask your mom
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Who are we parroting SQUAWK? I don’t parrot any atheist. Show me the evidence you are right, or shut the fuck up. Been saying that for 25+ years. Your lack of evidence shows you lie and bullshit. You expose yourself for what you are. There is no parroting on our part needed SQUAWK the lying theist parrot.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Do you actually read what you type? We’ve almost all individually and in our own ways, come to the conclusion for ourselves, that gods are bullshit.
What you write could easily describe theists, who write big long tracts like the one you posted above trying to explain why God is REAL, but never seems to do anything or respond to anyone or leave any evidence, but it’s REAL damnit and IF YOU’D EXPERIENCED IT YOU KNOW!
Horseshit. I piss on the lot of it.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Nerd, I have seen kids in primary schools who were WAY smarter than you. If you have a Phd, then that university from which you obtained your Phd, should be demolished right now using that crane with a huge metal ball. That university has no right to exist.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
So you agree that independent thought is a good thing then?
Good. Now try practicing some of it.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
SQUAWK Theist speak for I am losing the logical arguments. SQUAWK
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Yes. You all score a lot of points in this area. For having vivid and colourful imaginations, in which you all see yourselves on top of the world in one way or another. And you ask me for evidence?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
My ass, Rajkumar. It’s theists who think they’re so goddamn special that they have a personal hotline to the supposed creator of the universe.
I am just an upright walking tool-using ape. Another link in an evolutionary chain that has been around since before my species even hinted at existing, and will probably be going strong long after I’m a fossil being studied and argued over by cockroaches.
I piss on you as well. WHEEE! Stand back!
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Oh, but it is. And the vast majority of my life has been spent in New England towns, so I know whereof I speak.
I love Pharyngula, and I love Yankeedom. I want them both to be anarchistic/democratic and good.
As have I, as an anarchist. Have at it.
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Well, I have already congratulated you on your ability to create vivid fantasies. What else do you need? You are the hero of your own dream, your own fantasy world, your own la la land. Do as you please, as many times as you like. It’s your own world. Your own universe.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
And I honestly can’t believe that you hold an authoritarian personality like SG in high regard.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
This from somebody who says nothing but vivid fantasies? What an egotist. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity loser.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
This sounds more like you. Projection much?
Anyways, go ahead and ask Brownian if he has a towel.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Baggy Trousers
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
I don’ understand what asking Brownian for a towel means… but Brownian is a HE???? I thought HE was a SHE….
rajkumar:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
A sexually-deprived middle aged woman.
Rey Fox:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Crazy, all this arguing for a concept that Raj has no understanding of.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
The majority. Not vast. Didn’t mean to deceive.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
since I don’t remember ever seeing SG lie, and know for a fact he hasn’t in the last few pile-ons, while at the same time seeing plenty of people lie about SG, I will take this with all the seriousness it deserves.
that, or someone was using bigoted (usually ableist, at least recently) language. And here I thought intellectual honesty and non-bigoted language were worth fighting for?
well PZ, then you wouldn’t know whether your decision had anything to do with Caine, would you. For the record: no one accused Caine of contacting you to get him banned; however, the latest spat wouldn’t even have existed if Caine had honestly looked at what SG asked her to look at, and admitted that she’d (inadvertently?) agreed that something was true when in fact it wasn’t. Instead she seems to have gone on on memory and apologized (which btw he didn’t ask of her) for something that had nothing to do with the misrepresentation in question. Had that exchange gone over honestly, it would have been over in 3 posts. But Caine instead got aggressively defensive, and that got other people to join in in the SG-hounding. Which lead to the ban.
*”I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Jessica Ahlquist] tangled up in the middle.”
That’s a terrible comparison. Inflammatory, even.nope. it’s entirely accurate, in that it demonstrates that the person at the center of a shitstorm is not always the “bad” one. And that punishing that one person often resembles what happens to bullied kids who fight back against bullies: they get the blame for everything.
this response makes it look like you’re saying that if she had gone in and insisted on defending herself, she would be to blame for the shitstorm. Because that’s the only difference between those two instances: Rebecca didn’t fight the misrepresentations as they were happening, while SG was.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
correcting falsehoods and pointing out instances of othering should be done regardles of whether you hold the target in high regard or not. even slimepitters deserve not being lied about and then hounded for trying to correct those lies.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Raj’s increasingly desperate flailings continue to amuse.
I mean, using ‘sexually deprived middle aged woman’ as an insult now?
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Um… I grew up in upstate New York and lived in Vermont for 8 years, but either way, it’s irrelevant. An online group of self-selected individuals who interact digitally is simply not the same thing as a geographical town. Whether both are insular, or share similar cultural values, is immaterial. They aren’t the same and the dynamics aren’t the same and your analogy doesn’t fly. Particularly since there are some pretty dramatic features lacking–I’m thinking mostly of the distinct lack of threats of violence and rape against SG.
I’m sorry, but anarchism is not particularly “other” to me. Authoritarianism, however, is. Emphatically. I don’t agree with you about animal rights, but that’s not “other” either. I don’t like you, personally, but your philosophies and values just aren’t as foreign to me as those SG/Pitbull espouses.
Sorry if I ruined your martyr party.
Rey Fox:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
The Enlightened Guru speaks again unto the masses.
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Speaking as a sexually deprived middle age woman, drop dead.
Seriously, drop dead and release all of the material that maked up your body for better use by better organisms.
Next best thing would be for you to delete this page from the memory of your computer. And after that, hit the screen with an axe.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
fuck.
nope. it’s entirely accurate, in that it demonstrates that the person at the center of a shitstorm is not always the “bad” one. And that punishing that one person often resembles what happens to bullied kids who fight back against bullies: they get the blame for everything.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Guys you are all making the Lord Pretzlenipples very cross, maybe!
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
So, Jadehawk, does SG’s incessant sniping at me every time he responds to me in any case just magically not count? It doesn’t matter what I do or how severe it is, every time SG talks to me he makes a point of calling me a total idiot in some form or another, or simply attempts to blow up any potential failures as loudly as he possibly can.
But, I guess according to you…
…I must have done something to deserve it?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Ing: As an act of contrition, I shall ritually drink this beer, and when next I fart, it shall send a pleasing odor unto The Lord (Pretzelnipples)
Now where were we?
Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Setár, you must have lied about SG.
Brownian:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
You are a terrible judge of character, and you have no understanding of people.
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
@TLC
I can’t say if that’ll help or not, no one can understand Lord Pretzlenipples!
"We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective":
June 10th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Thank you!
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
None of this should account for the tolerance of falsehoods.
(I find the endorsement of othering to be disturbing. One’s opponents, even one’s enemies, should not be othered. That is where self-defense ends and gratuitous cruelty begins.)
+++++
That seems to be a fair point, but how about when Setar threatened to assault SC a couple weeks ago?
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
you were not involved in any of the recent pile-ons, so you’re simply not relevant to my comments about the current situation. If I missed SG talking to you somewhere, you’re welcome to point that out to me.
I do know he’s been an asshole to you in the past. That has fuck-all to do with the current conversation though.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 10th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Seriously, I’m gonna need to see a link for that.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 10th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Obvious, one would think.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:00 am
what. that I want to see. O.o
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:02 am
A better question to start with:
does this “incessant sniping” even exist?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:03 am
I’ll go get the link. Ten minutes. Or Setar can confirm it if he comments again.
Agent Silversmith, Feathered Patella Association:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Can’t your God keep you on a leash, Raj? If he’s any sort of enlightened being, he should have whispered “not cool” in your ear before you posted that ridiculous misogynistic statement.
Hey, maybe he’s not this incomprehensible extranatural phenomenon who gives you groovy indescribable experiences. Maybe he’s a concocted figment of your imagination, inspired by God-talk you’ve heard during your life, that coincidentally thinks just like you do. And maybe you’ve used this phantasm as a tool to feel superior for so long that you now believe that it’s real!
You think that your “God experiences” are caused by a divine power. Have you considered, even once, the possibility that they might be caused by something else?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Five minutes! http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/10/episode-cccxxvi-singing-scientists-sorta/comment-page-2/#comment-335276
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:10 am
Raj, you really are a piece of shit as a human being. I mean, you’re really a worthless little fuck.
Not because I’m insulted by this, but because you think that I should be.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:10 am
Frankly, SC doesn’t like that about me. But that’s not the whole of who I am.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:12 am
Oh, definitely. Worlds apart.
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:14 am
Oh wow, SG brought up exactly what I was talking about when I said
I was going to post an angry response detailing some actual threats of violence, but seeing that the hyperbolic bullshit is (for once) not being taken at face value I’ll just watch this episode of The SGBM Factor play out.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 11th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Pitbull: Oh fuck, THAT quote.
I ain’t touching that shit with a ten foot pole. No way.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Yeah, it’s not like I’m in disagreement with the general principle. Just that it’s not applicable in this case. Inasmuch as anybody is “bad” in this scenario, SG has been fucking his own shit up plenty. Not that other people haven’t been assholes to him. And sure, he’s perfectly within his rights to try to keep people honest. Like I said, it’s a noble cause. Just don’t pretend like he’s some kind of martyr here. He has explicitly said that he’s not pleasant and nice. So what kind of reaction is expected, then? Yes, it’s bad when other people misrepresent him. I don’t think I have, and if I did I’ll correct it. Yes, he exposed some hypocrisy on the part of other regulars. Okay. And? The thing is–and here is my own hypocrisy coming into play–in the abstract I see that it’s wrong. But since he is so insufferable, it takes effort to actually care. He said he is an awful person, and he’s demonstrated that.
This would be one of those emotional realities that SG is always struggling with and researching. It’s a bit disturbing, in a good way, which is why I’m glad SG is still around, and even SC, but really, this sort of interaction does not belong in a social lounge! And the basic complaint is that well, PZ didn’t make it clear enough that those were the rules for the lounge. Well, there weren’t any rules until it became necessary to make those rules. And that was a group effort. SG can bear some of the responsibility for that as well, I’d be surprised if he claimed otherwise.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:20 am
I’d forgotten about that! And what a truly stupid comment it was.
I’m sure it was my fault for being all roily and bickery and all.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:23 am
So if you say I’m out to get you, and I defend myself by pointing out that I’m not out to get you, by defending myself — and showing you to be wrong — I am thereby picking on you. Right?
+++++
If you threaten someone with violence, it’s an actual threat of violence, Setar. It doesn’t cease to be a threat just because you, with special insight only you can possibly have, don’t consider it to be a threat.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:23 am
you were saying?
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:24 am
Brownian, you don’t see these sweet gems of words coming out of your mouth? If you do, then this would be the first step toward you as a reformed and refined person.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:25 am
defending oneself is not fucking up, no matter how tenaciously done. insisting on calling out ableism is not fucking up, no matter how consistently done. having a good memory is not fucking up, either.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:27 am
since I do know you know the meaning of the word “martyr”, I’ll have to conclude this is a strawman. the claim is that he’s being punished for self-defense, not that he’s being martyred. and the fact that he is an asshole is irrelevant, because most people here are assholes at least intermittently.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:28 am
The reaction I expect is the kind of reaction I get from RahXephon and Stacy, unkind but intellectually honest.
Yes, it’s bad when people misrepresent me. And what I ask is for it to stop. Multiple times I made this clear during the last argument on TET; people can be mean as hell to me; I complain about unfairness, not mere unkindness.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 11th, 2012 at 12:28 am
I take it back.
Setar, that wasn’t fuckin cool.
The rest, however, I’m still not touching with a ten foot pole.
But seriously, whether you meant it as hyperbolic bullshit or not doesn’t matter. What SC was doing doesn’t matter. That shit ain’t acceptable here.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Good thing the antisocial elements have been removed.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:30 am
I can understand that you’d rather people didn’t point out what a piece of shit you are, but the solution to that problem is for you to stop being a piece of shit.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:31 am
I don’t see how SG is being punished. Being banned from TET is hardly a punishment for one who does not value this community for its social interactions. His assholishness is entirely relevant as to whether he should be allowed to hang out in a social space or not.
Hence my perception of martyrdom.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:35 am
1)because of course creating a place where people can shittalk him without him being allowed to respond is not punishment
2)because of course making it so his useful (and clearly appreciated) advice to keenacat had to be relayed by another person is not at all a form of punishment.
3)because symbolic punishment isn’t a thing at all, and doesn’t at all have the effect of validating those who have othered and misrepresented him.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:37 am
I don’t see how SG is being punished.
I do, and I saw it on this very iteration of TZT, when he asked Louis not call him “Darling”, Louis blew his stack, and people attacked SG for the derail.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:37 am
in that case none of you should be allowed to hang out there, either. and certainly none of the people who were being massive assholes to both SC and SG over there in the recent past, and those who were similarly massive assholes to Algernon before that.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:37 am
Oops, blockquote fail.
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:38 am
I deeply appreciate constructive criticism, no matter in what form it comes to me. So, I don’t really mind people pointing out whatever they like to point out about me. Having said this, your constructive criticism, too, is thereby highly appreciated. But do allow some time for people to change. How about you? Looks like you are not too comfortable with criticism, constructive or otherwise?
By the way, we seem to have removed all the communication barriers that were causing so much trouble before?
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:40 am
that, too. the punishment, after all, isn’t usually doled out by PZ but rather by the Horde.
consciousness razor:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:41 am
Who is pretending that?
Did you forget that this is pharyngula?
If it takes some amount of effort, it’s okay to do something wrong? Would you accept this kind of bullshit from anyone else?
Dishonesty and hypocrisy don’t belong in a social lounge. Doing the wrong thing because it takes too much effort doesn’t belong in a social lounge. Making piss-poor excuses doesn’t belong in a social lounge.
And remember that it’s not just any old social lounge. Is it any kind of “safe” space, for people you don’t care enough about to treat them fairly?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:43 am
You don’t
know what you’re talking about.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:43 am
minor clarifying correction, hope you don’t mind.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:44 am
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:48 am
I remember that exchange. It stupidly excites me when I actually manage to get obsure-ish literary references like that, because compared to the rest of Pharyngula, I have barely read any books, ever (or seen barely any movies, for that matter).
Also, have I mentioned I’m writing a Call of Cthulhu campaign?
[/pointless aside]
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Is that a question?
But to answer, I’m fine with criticism. I’m not a sexually-frustrated middle-aged woman, my ass is not fat, and you are in fact a piece if shit. I don’t care how you take it, since I have absolutely no respect for you as a human being. You have nothing of value to offer me, nor anyone else as far as I can tell.
I don’t think so. Did you learn English in the last few hours? Have you figure out that RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF GOD WHATSOEVER means you have nothing of value to say on the subject?
I saw you yap on about high school physics and refuse to read what actual philosophers have to say on the subject of qualia, so it would seem that the basic problem, namely that you don’t fucking know anything, has yet to be resolved.
But I can continue to point out what a lying sack you are if it makes you feel better to Tut-Tut at me over it.
consciousness razor:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Thanks, Jadehawk.
Amphiox:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Fapwit’s still fapping?
One cannot dignify its activity with labels such as “speech”, “writing”, or “communication”.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:59 am
No, you don’t. You say you do, you probably even believe it, but as we’ve seen, there’s not much quality control for the things you believe. You’re simply an unreliable person. What you say doesn’t count for anything.
NuMad:
June 11th, 2012 at 12:59 am
Ing,
We’ll know for sure in 1000s of years when we work it out.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:00 am
Cool shit. Never played it, though I like the concept. I wish I knew more gamers around my area who aren’t insufferable homophobes. Maybe I’ll pick up a slow paced play-by-post game.
SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:06 am
Haha, is it my turn? Should I mention that I got a bit nervous seeing that SG had linked a bunch of stuff in his reply to me?
You’re right, Pitbull/SG. You do value the social interactions in this community. It was wrong of me to say so. It was based on my perception that you used to value that about this community, but recently have gotten far more passionate about being the self-appointed truth-teller and holder-to-standards than about anything else–this accompanying your shift from optimism to anger and bitterness.
However, when I think back to your recent words to Keenacat, and how helpful they were to not only her but also Pteryxx and myself and some other folks too, I know that’s not that case.
Is it true that I didn’t know what I was talking about when I wrote that? No, not really, but whatever. It was understandable that you might draw that conclusion, so I’m not going to get on your case about it. <–See how that works?
As for Setar, I think SG and anyone else would be right to call him out about using the language of violent threats. I also note that SG has a previously-noted pattern of drawing his interlocutor into an emotional exchange, where the other person spirals into an emotional meltdown, and SG claims victory. Setar, for whatever reason, gets very emotionally triggered by SG, and I don't think that warrants concluding that he's an antisocial element or anything similar.
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 11th, 2012 at 1:15 am
SallyStrange: It was SC he made the ‘punch in the face’ comment to, not SG.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:20 am
As for Setar, I think SG and anyone else would be right to call him out about using the language of violent threats. I also note that SG has a previously-noted pattern of drawing his interlocutor into an emotional exchange, where the other person spirals into an emotional meltdown, and SG claims victory. Setar, for whatever reason, gets very emotionally triggered by SG, and I don’t think that warrants concluding that he’s an antisocial element or anything similar.
Aren’t you embarrassed to write this? The threat wasn’t even to SG, but to me, and you’re still trying to blame sg for someone else’s actions.
Stop it. It’s awful.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:24 am
This was exactly what I saw with the Louis, Darling fiasco, from a number of people.
If SG isn’t a martyr, why are so many people trying to crucify him for others’ actions?
Hurinomyces bruxellensis:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Raj
The problem with this is that we are talking about “God”, which is a concept that actually exists. There are different definitions for “God” already in place depending on whose religious sensibilities you want to base your definition on, and when you pick a definition you can understand what you mean by it.
What you are taking about isn’t “God” because if we don’t have ANY understanding of it (from our puny logic and reason) then it follows that we can’t define it. And we did define God.
Furthermore what you are talking about can’t be distinct from anything else we don’t have a concept of, because you need a definition of something in order to treat it as distinct from other things.
So my conclusion is that your argument can be restated as:
“There is stuff we don’t understand, and we don’t understand it”
Good job.
Care to try again?
consciousness razor:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:32 am
Obviously, it’s because SG is Jesus.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:41 am
And he wears an ॐ? Christopher Moore was right.
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:43 am
SC, I’m sorry. Take that as seriously or not-seriously as you will, but I don’t expect you to take it seriously if you’ve already concluded that I’m an “antisocial element”.
I also don’t see how anything I said to you makes that sort of ableism okay, but…-shrug- that’s on you, not me.
That being said…
Character assassination is not acceptable.
I would have been fine with “hey, that’s not acceptable, cut that out”. But saying that people should respect me less for having a single emotional flameout?
Fuck you, SG. You do not belong in the social lounge if you’re going to do that to fellow lounge-goers =/
—
I am not. I am going after his own.
NuMad:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:43 am
TLC,
Maybe it’ll look like a nitpick to everybody else, but I think that it does matter.
From that same thread, take that:
That’s violent rethoric. The tone is straight. It’s vivid. I think it’s pretty fucking stupid and ugly. But… it’s rethoric. Bad, bad rethoric, but rethoric. Nobody reads this and can say SC is going to do that.
But this:
-that part? that’s what makes it a threat, as far as I’m concerned. Saying that to someone, over the internet? Implying that you could find them? That creates a pretty fucking concrete context for it. It’s a finger pointing at the recipient, where they’re sitting reading it.
Nothing in a discussion can call for that kind of shit. Intent doesn’t change a thing, the effect is just too damn glaring.
Menyambal --- Sambal's sockpuppet:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:47 am
Rajkumar sez:
Does that lack of ANY understanding include God’s existence? Because it is very strange to assert that something logically exists, but that the nature of its existence is immune to logic.
If there are reasons that God exists, reason has just understood something about him.
Rajkumar, you have been flogging your beliefs here, beliefs that don’t make any sense and that change from day to day. You are not using logic and reason, and you state that often, even if you don’t realize what you say.
We aren’t going to believe you.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:48 am
“I never respected you” != character assassination
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:56 am
?
+++++
Character assassination.
For reference, I’ll copy over what I said to Setar there:
I do expect it will. I stand by that expectation. Confusing “will” and “should” is the naturalistic fallacy.
You want to ask me whether I think it should?
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 1:56 am
“I expect it will” != “it should”
incidentally: evidently, he was wrong. it didn’t.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 2:03 am
probably the use of “antisocial”, because of the existence of the diagnosis “Antisocial personality disorder”. Possibly a stretch, given the non-pathologized nature of Anti-social behavior
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ:
June 11th, 2012 at 2:15 am
Tangent: years ago I was shocked to learn of “laws against anti-social behavior”. Not that there are laws against public intox and excessive noise and so on, of course, every US American is familiar with such. But the framing of it, the implication that it is illegal to be antisocial, it is to me the most foreign concept in the Anglosphere.
Amphiox:
June 11th, 2012 at 2:45 am
A self-evident lie, which the fapwit’s actual behavior when provided with constructive criticism amply demonstrates.
Amphiox:
June 11th, 2012 at 2:51 am
Existence is a property that can be understood. Surety is a property of logic and reason.
If the human mind is too puny an instrument to get ANY understanding of God using logic and reason, then how can the fapwit, with its (particularly) puny human mind, understand that God exists “for sure”?
Of course we have been over this bit of incoherence multiple times already. That the fapwit continues to fap it out, ignoring everything already said to it, is just further demonstration of the fapwit’s utterly pathetic level of intellectual dishonesty.
But of course we already knew all that. God might be a thing beyond the comprehension of our puny human minds, but the fapwit’s lack of ethical character and integrity most certainly isn’t.
Amphiox:
June 11th, 2012 at 3:05 am
The incomprehensible is indistinguishable from the non-existent.
That which is beyond what puny human intellect can understand CANNOT, by definition, exist within the reality that the puny human intellect is capable of perceiving.
If the puny human intellect is incapable of perceiving something, then that thing will, by definition, have ZERO practical effect on the reality that puny human intellects exist in.
Puny human intellects, therefore, have no reason, and no need to believe that this thing exists, nor indeed, to even bother wasting any time or energy thinking about it.
And it is the height of hubris for puny human intellects to presume, as the fapwit does, that they are capable of understanding enough about this thing that is utterly beyond their comprehension and capacity for perception, to be able to know that it MUST exist.
The properly humble position that honest puny human intellects should take is to assume non-existence, and indeed not even presume to attempt to think about it, until such time that the puny human intellect has successfully expanded its capabilities so that it can now understand this thing with logic and reason.
For any given thing that can in principle exist, there is only one way in which it can exist, but infinite varieties of ways in which it might not. If such is beyond your puny capacity to understand in ANY way, then all that you are capable of in thinking about it is randomly guessing about it. It is absolute arrogance of the highest degree to presume that you will be so good or so lucky that your random guess will fall precisely in that one in a million million million million chance for existence rather than non-existence.
The assumption of existence is hubris. Non-existence is what a mind with proper humility must default to.
This, incidentally, is just another way of expressing the principle of parsimony.
Owlmirror:
June 11th, 2012 at 3:23 am
Oh, yay. Pantheism, or perhaps, panentheism.
You cannot possibly make the quoted assertions if you have no understanding of God.
Why do you persist in doing so?
The color-blindness analogy is false.
1) There are empirical reasons why the color can’t be seen (a broken gene that fails to produce opsins that will react to that frequency of light in the cone cells of the eye).
2) There are empirical methods that will demonstrate the existence of the color that can’t be seen (colored filters).
3) There are empirical methods that could potentially resolve the problem (it’s been demonstrated that gene therapy can restore color vision in monkeys that are color-blind).
None of the above apply to your incoherent God.
1) Arguing that the universe is God is not proof that the universe is God. If the universe is not a person, then it’s simply equivocation to claim it should be called “God”. If the universe is putatively a person, well, that’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
2) Humans cannot directly “experience” the entire universe as incoherently claimed. No matter how many neurons and synapses the brain has, the universe has orders of magnitude more stars, empty space, dark matter, and dark energy. No mapping is possible for such an experience to occur.
Owlmirror:
June 11th, 2012 at 3:33 am
I knew there was a reason I had thought that SG was like Piltdown Man, but I had forgotten the point that both supported violence against thoughtcrime.
John Morales:
June 11th, 2012 at 3:34 am
Heh.
And to think people worry about being in the thread with the specimens active.
(This one is tame, by now)
–
So, ॐ, I guess I was wrong when I called your persistence futile: you did achieve something.
(And you still have all of FB and Pharyngula in which to roam, with but the one exception. So the punishment is rather symbolic, no?)
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa):
June 11th, 2012 at 3:50 am
This. Rajkumar does nothing but ooze hubris and arrogance.
That is, when he isn’t talking about DIVINE BOOBIES and THE GREENNESS OF GREEN.
Owlmirror:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:08 am
While I agree that there was quite a bit of flagrant dishonesty about SGBMॐ, sometimes to a ridiculous extent (and some of which might well have been deliberate lying, especially shortly before he was cast out) — SGBMॐ himself was not quite as honest as his appeal to the shared value of honesty might imply.
Case in point: His repeated insistence that “abuse” could only refer to actions by an intimate partner, which he was not — and said that at least one person (Ms. Daisy Cutter) was a liar, for not interpreting “abuse” as narrowly as he was…
Well, this is uncharitable equivocation, as I see it, which is at least potentially dishonest, and might well be deliberate enough to be called “lying”, or with sufficient unconcern for the truth (that is, that “abuse” can have different definitions) to be called “bullshitting”.
It occurred to me that rather than “enemy” or “stranger”, he was striving for a term more like “alien” (which in turn made me wonder if he feels alienated).
But regardless of whether he is a friend or a stranger (or an alien), if he does actually value honesty, then he owes his interlocutors the honest charity that they are simply using or understanding words in a different sense, or have made honest mistakes (in at least some of the cases in that thread) rather than outright lied.
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:30 am
I vehemently deny these accusations, and encourage you to do some self reflection and some introspection. Don’t be too surprised if these practices reveal an urgent need for some home improvement work, and some spring cleaning. If you are open to constructive criticism as I am, then I would say, there is more improvement needed in you than you could have possibly imagined.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:33 am
that didn’t happen. what actually happened is that the specific kind of abuse his actions were being compared to was intimate partner abuse; which he kept on trying to point out repeatedly.
if the link is supposed to be to that instance of calling someone a liar, then the example is of correctly identifying a lie; he had pointed out multiple times that he was not complaining about meanness, and thus repeating that after having it corrected multiple times is a purposeful misrepresentation. also commonly known as a lie.
how many times does one have to point out the incorrectness of a statement before repeating it becomes purposeful misrepresentation rather than a mistake?
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:35 am
Amphiox
You have an excellent memory and an out-of-this world grasp on some hardcore philosophical crap. But this is PRECISELY what we do not need here. NO MIND. Remember? And after all that explaining, all you can do is pull more and more of this mind crap and verbiage out of your back side? Please don’t do it. It hurts when you do it…..
John Morales:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:46 am
Hey, rajamuffin.
Hardcore philosophical crap, right out!
NO MIND.
<snicker>
The paiiiiiiiiiiiiin! The paaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
(How dare we use our minds!)
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:50 am
No, Johnnie. By all means, use your minds. But use them for some real world problems. Not mere mental concepts that have no real application in the world. You know what I am saying?
rajkumar:
June 11th, 2012 at 4:51 am
You, for example, have previously used your mind to imagine Tim Robbins’ bowel movements. What useful purpose does this kind of mind work serve in the real world?
John Morales:
June 11th, 2012 at 5:21 am
rajkumar:
Such an ingrate, you are; I praised you, and you whine about it.
(How’s your trolling going, rajcummer? Still praying to be banned?)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 11th, 2012 at 5:50 am
Who gives a shit what you think? You do need to look in the mirror. No introspection on your part, especially about the concept you can be wrong. And you are wrong…
David Marjanović:
June 11th, 2012 at 5:52 am
Technically, it’s not lying if Ms. Daisy Cutter just couldn’t believe that sgbm actually meant what he said and thus accused him of lying (to himself or others). Extreme anger and other forms of extreme agitation can move many people into this state of mind – so that the agitation ends up perpetuating itself, if not boosting itself. (And naturally, if the other people in the discussion aren’t ideal stoics, their agitation will be sustained or increased as a result, too, leading to yet more feedback.)
Of course, I haven’t caught up, so I don’t know if there’s the slightest shred of evidence that sgbm didn’t mean what he said.
It happens a lot that people believe opinions only come in packages that cannot be dissolved, so that, if any given person has an opinion that belongs to such a package, they automatically have the whole package or none of it. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that Daisy (and many others) fell for that extremely widespread fallacy, which regularly causes people to overlook or misunderstand statements that don’t fit it or, more or less unconsciously, explain them away in ways as complex as “they’re lying to themselves, they can’t possibly really mean what they’ve been saying all the time”. Disclaimer: this has been a pet peeve of mine since I was… oh, maybe 8; definitely less than 11.
I hope sgbm and Daisy, if they’ve calmed down now, can weigh in on this. I’ll try to catch up with the whole thing – but unfortunately I won’t have time for almost a month. :-(
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
June 11th, 2012 at 5:52 am
WRONG. It is precisely what is needed to refute your inane and insane drivel. You haven’t proven your imaginary deity, you haven’t shown any evidence for any of your ideas. They aren’t proven via mental masturbation, only with physical evidence. YOU KEEP LYING TO YOURSELF, AND THEN LIE TO US.
David Marjanović:
June 11th, 2012 at 5:56 am
*eyeroll* Does everything need to have a practical purpose?
Perhaps you believe that imagining someone’s bowel movements is a waste of precious resources that will then be unavailable for more useful pursuits? That would be stupid.
pentatomid:
June 11th, 2012 at 6:05 am
Wait, I take a peek in here after such a long time and Raj is still here?! Wow!
JeffreyD:
June 11th, 2012 at 6:18 am
“SG-hounding”? SG as the major victim? Caine as the bad and evil person making us all persecute SG? No, I cannot swallow any of those. I have little use for SG’s style of scorched earth interaction and less for those who defend him. Hatred may pass for intellectual honesty, but it really is not the same.
It was a mistake to try and come back as things are worse than when I previously stopped reading and responding. Easily rectified.
John Morales:
June 11th, 2012 at 6:29 am
JeffreyD, this is one thread, TET is one thread; there are many threads.
Only us old farts remember you; your repulsion has little weight these days.
(You flouncing?)
mikmik:
June 11th, 2012 at 7:02 am
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ, @ #119
I wish! LOL, it is just the bs part, with that part that sounds like armchair psych added in. This all happened during the Michelle ta-ta episode where Jung was mentioned, so I want all Freudian with the Oedipus thing. It was very advanced and convoluted bs.
I remember in Grade 11 when we had the Shakespeare Final on Hamlet, and I got 70%. The teacher(one of the best I had; good sense of humor and sharp as a tack) said to me when he handed the results back, “That’s the best example of bullshit I’ve ever seen. You didn’t even read it, did you,”
That was my ‘a-ha’ moment.
No, yours is a false analogy. The experience of the color green is inter-subjectively verifiable: Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals (“intersubjectively”), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.
Even a blind man can accept the realism of a color perception experience in others because it can be explained coherently as an analogy to the other senses like hearing sounds of variable pitch with almost universal agreement in the explanations by the others.
This is a consistent and straight across comparison to experiences of perception right down to the physics of wavelengths and neuro-chemical activity that is triggered in the brain.
You, on the other hand, say that one half of your analogy is not understandable in any way such that you cannot describe it in any way because you said the experience is incoherent to our understanding.
I already said that your colorblind simile is a false analogy. You employ a text book case of the false analogy, which I will do all the work for you and copy the definition and exceedingly understandable definition from wikiprdea for you right now:
Now, I have directly explained that your ‘experience’ of god is not of the same type as sensory perception. By your own account, it is an incoherent idea, and I have now explained that perception is a coherent idea exactly because it is a complete idea that can be communicated among each other and understood the whys and wherefors.
YOU EVEN SAID IT THUS:
NO, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
The fucking experience you claim is not intersubjectively verifiable because other people claim to have this experience yet DO explain it coherently as according to their religions, which are in opposition to each other. On top of that, I HAVE HAD ‘AWAKENINGS’ in which I became sure that ecerything made perfect sense and had sublime meaning because there was no fucking thing as a god to cheapen it and detract from its beauty!
Now here is another analogy for you. You claim to have this sense of something revealed to you that cannot be communicated, nor explained.
I, other religious proponents, and at least grumps – among others here, claim to have had intensely personal experiences of the same type and persistence, yet reach different conclusions from YOU.
Furthermore, we have theories about why these experiences manifest as they do, and those theories are subject to experimental verification and explanation, and intersubjective comparison and verification. You have no such thing.
Therefore, what you describe is incoherent with all other overwhelming amounts of reported phenomena.
I know you can understand this, raj, because I think you have demonstrated the brainpower to produce an analogy that is coherent(!), and it’s only failing is that one of your premises is incoherent and unverifiable, whereas you argument rests on the fallacy of structural equivalence being the same as contextual equivalence.
I cannot believe(figuratively) this post by me is so stunningly and precisely rigorous and relevant!! Oh, wait, premature celebration, lol, not done yet. (Another lol, an allusion to my bs psychology ‘premature’ insult).
What you have, it seems to me, is an ordinary ‘extra-ordinary’ experience that many others have had, but that you claim is not communicable(lol, lilapbwl, another allusion, but one to sex) because it is beyond understanding(coherent) and explanation. This has been washed, and hung out to dry with all the other diapers(allusion to impending childbirth, congratulations! Also, ca-ca conamination) by myriad others like Brownian(most recent in my memory), for example.
We all have demonstrated, and reached logical conclusions, that your feeble rationalizations and false analogies are mere evasions, which I pointed out is a form of denial, if genuinely presented(demonstrated by your projections just kidding bs warning), or culpable lies designed to introduce red herring discussions.
What am I saying? This: Put up, or shut up.
Mercifully…. Fin
David Marjanović:
June 11th, 2012 at 7:16 am
And now for something completely different: The Catholic Archdiocese of Bombay threatens to get Sanal Edamaruku locked up for a long time because he showed the water seeping out of a Jesus statue was from a leaky pipe, not a miracle. Sign the petition that calls on the Archdiocese to withdraw their incredibly stupid complaints.
ChasCPeterson:
June 11th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Anyone else see how this true statement about SG:
got twisted into this one, questionable at best?
So, Sally Strange, when you say this:
it must be the political system you object to, right? Because it means something like ‘fascism’ I guess?
Because you’re in no position to be criticizing anybody else’s authoritarian personality, what with the all-caps demands of strangers on the internet and shit like the following assertions:
Because you say so? Because Caine sez so? PZ?
For the record, the Endless Thread was never just a ‘social lounge’. Never. Caine and the recipe-swappers liked to refer to it that way, but until the recent decree from On High, it was an Open Thread. period. Many things to many people.
But see, the New Rule was, specifically, that the thread was to become a social lounge. It wasn’t already a social lounge without rules. It was an Open Thread, many things to many people, which is why there were previously no rules, including the new rule that states ‘it’s [now] a lounge’.
The other new rule is ‘no SGs allowed’.
In decreeing both new rules, PZ clearly capitulated to the wishes of the metaphorical Russian Mafia, who were able to impose their view of the proper ‘sort of interaction’.
In fairness to SG, IIRC what he has specifically advocated is the “violent suppression of priests”. Surely priests are liable for crimes of action rather than thought.
Brownian:
June 11th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Oh, no! Rajkumar, but look at the word DENY. Denying something means you will be in DENIAL.
Remember when you used those words, because you thought they were some profound insight? Well, right back at ya, fucker.
And Rajkumar, save the advice for yourself. You’re a misogynistic, lying, piece of shit. My need for self-improvement is irrelevant to what a terrible, pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
Hurinomyces bruxellensis:
June 11th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Raj
I think I finally get you. You want everything to be summed up in trite comforting little packages, and you think that people like us are all “super dumb” for being willing to treat things as complicated and messy. Is that a fair statemnent?
I don’t understand why you persist in posting bad arguments on a public forum and then flip out when people point out the badness.
Here is a clue; I don’t get paid to post here, so when I’m responding to you I’m on break from solving real world problems. Refuting you is exactly the kind of soothing mindless activity I want to be doing while sipping coffee.
Nightjar:
June 11th, 2012 at 8:40 am
Indeed. I miss those days.
PZ Myers:
June 11th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Things change. They evolve. It was clear to me that many people wanted a social lounge, and that function conflicted with it’s use as a wide open thread where anything goes. So now I’m maintaining TZT, which is exactly what some of you want in an open thread — nearly lawless wild anything-goes discussion — and TET — the social site where I expect people will at least try to get along and look on each others’ views with a modicum of charity.
I sense that you look on some people’s desires to be social in a friendly way with some contempt — calling them “recipe swappers” — but I don’t. It’s just a different side of the diverse collection of pharyngula readers, and I have no objection to their existence, just as I don’t object to the rhetorical knife-fighters. Setting up different areas to allow different views to thrive seems to me an entirely reasonable idea.
So you really have nothing to complain about. If you don’t like swapping recipes, you’ve got TZT.
And oh, yeah, NEW TZT THREAD.