Why I am an atheist – Siobhan Duffey »« Jay Smooth addresses the trolls

Thunderf00t replies

I’ll confine myself to addressing just two points in his rebuttal.

  1. He accuses me of strawmanning his argument by claiming that he’s taking a black and white view of anti-harassment policies — that they should be either do-nothing or full-weight-of-the-law. He now explains that that’s not the case, he endorses using all kinds of intermediate levels of enforcement.

    Then I’m left wondering exactly what the point of his outrage was? That makes it sound as if he’s agreeing totally with what many of us are saying: we want these policies in place because they offer women recourse and support. Richard Carrier has very carefully laid out the intent and function of these policies. Perhaps Thunderf00t can read that and clarify whether he disagrees or not? Because his current posts try to have it both ways.

  2. Speaking of strawmanning an argument, here’s a beautiful example.

    IT WAS IN A BAR. I enjoyed it, she enjoyed it (she left a comment specifically saying so, just to remove all doubt (see MyLegMYCHOICE!)), AND I NEVER HAD TO CONSULT HER, NOR APPLY FOR PERMISSION FROM THE CONFERENCE, IN ORDERS SIGNED IN TRIPLICATE SENT IN, SENT BACK AND BURIED IN SOFT PEAT FOR THREE MONTHS AND RECYCLED AS FIRELIGHTERS etc etc. Indeed had I had to fill in the paperwork along with ‘permission to bite your leg in a horseplay photo’ form under conference interpersonal contact rule 144 b) 2, it would have probably kinda killed the moment, and neither I nor she would have got our mild thrills for the night. It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!

    I said precisely the opposite. These are situations where I agree — nobody is saying you have to fill out forms to play, and it would be ridiculous to do so. However, it’s also problematic. He doesn’t feel he ever had to consult her? What?

    I have heard this complaint many times. A woman goes to a bar at a meeting because she wants a drink, she wants to join in the conversation (because that’s where a lot of the informal talk goes on), and discovers that there are guys there with this attitude that groping is now permitted because the only reason that “girls” are there is to “have fun in bars”. Some women are there to flirt and enjoy a little horseplay…many are not.

    This really is the problem. You need to interact with people first to discover if they’re fellow companions out in the spirit of a little physical fun (you don’t need to formally ask; I presume in this case there were cues to say it was OK), and you cannot assume that every person there is willing to have you fondle them. Especially at a skeptics/atheist conference, where people sign up to learn about a philosophical/social position.

    Surprise. There are a lot of women who go to these meetings to be taken seriously and discuss serious topics, and have zero interest in having their legs grabbed. Not even in the bar.


Molly Rene has some choice words for people who confuse bars with brothels.

Comments

  1. says

    So now Thunderfart is actually claiming PZ is strawmanning him? And that PZ is the one who hasn’t read his argument (while it’s pretty obvious Tfoot hasn’t bothered to research the whole discussion that happened before he joined FtB)! This guy has got some nerve, the arrogant little shit. Sadly I can’t say I didn’t see it coming?

  2. says

    To tell you the truth, I think people throw around “strawman” a little too much. A strawman isn’t every time someone misunderstands what you’re saying. There needs to be some intent behind misrepresenting the claim/person.

    It’s about as annoying as claiming that someone is making a logical fallacy every time they make a typo or grammatical mistake.

  3. says

    Ca someone clue the Thunderdolt in as to what a strawman argument is ? Please ? Because he doesn’t seem to know. He uses that term a lot in his “dig my hole as deep as I like” rebuttal, but it kind of makes me cringe.

  4. says

    While I agree with what you’re saying, PZ, doesn’t relying on cues like this leave us open to misinterpretation?

    What if Thunderfoot had misunderstood her receptiveness given exactly the same cues. Would that mean his behaviour was in a different moral category?

    Of course nobody has a right to grope others against their will. Ascertaining what that will is is a tricky problem though. Should any policy account for honest mistakes? Perhaps not, perhaps there need to be consequences for honest mistakes just to discourage people from making physical advances unless they are absolutely convinced those advances would be welcomed.

  5. Beatrice says

    The guy accusing those who want sexual harassment policies at conferences (because people won’t be able to socialize and you party poopers are stealing all the fun!) of strawmanning. Oh, the irony. Brain-melting irony.

  6. says

    If you misunderstood Thuderf00t, that was his fault, not yours. He doesn’t get to communicate unclearly, then get all indignant when he’s misunderstood.

    He’s being unclear again in this post. He’s either saying that he knew that it was okay to bite the picture lady’s leg somehow or that it’s OK to just start biting and hope she enjoys it instead of being a killjoy. Guess wrong about what he meant and you’ve straw-manned him again.

  7. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    AND I NEVER HAD TO CONSULT HER

    Here he is either saying:

    1) he is unaware of consulting her, but he did indeed consult her in some way,

    or

    2) he is entitled to bite any woman he wants, regardless of whether she wants it.

  8. situsinversus says

    “Some women are there to flirt and enjoy a little horseplay…many are not.”

    And the onus is on individuals to decide whether the environment is suitable for their purposes or move on. You can not expect a group of people, men and women, that are in a bar for the purpose of enjoying the exchange of sexual innuendo or flirting to adjust their behavior for your benefit.

  9. says

    @10: Doesn’t that go both ways: A few people can’t just walk into a bar and decide that everyone else is there for innuendo and horseplay?

  10. says

    @LILAPWL:

    I seriously hope it’s more of the variety “we were flirting and laughing and I gnawed on her leg” than the “I gnawed on her leg.”

    The previous at least has some modicum of consent (though of course it’s not a blanket ‘once I agree, I cannot retract’ type.)

  11. says

    You don’t go to these conferences much, do you, situsinversus?

    After the talks, everyone descends upon the hotel bar. It’s where the conversation will often continue into the wee hours of the night. I certainly can expect that the minority of people who are interested in sexual behavior will confine their actions to their fellow flirters, and I will not interrupt their loveplay to insist that they talk about atheism and science.

  12. ChasCPeterson says

    You can not expect a group of people, men and women, that are in a bar for the purpose of enjoying the exchange of sexual innuendo or flirting to adjust their behavior

    is it OK if I call that a strawman?

  13. situsinversus says

    @11 Never seen that scenario in a bar. However, innuendo and horseplay is the historical appropriate behavior in a bar.

    The permutations of social interactions are endless. This is why you can’t regulate them or magnify out of proportion individual experiences.

  14. says

    PZ:

    It’s where the conversation will often continue into the wee hours of the night

    It’s not just cons, but just about any event where large number of people gather. Hell after the last wedding I attended, we descended on the hotel bar and while I sure there were some people engaged in Secksy Time Flirting™ most of us were just hanging out and making new friends.

  15. Waffler, of the Waffler Institute says

    However, innuendo and horseplay is the historical appropriate behavior in a bar.

    Seriously? You need to get out more, and not rely so much on your ‘Dudes History of Bar Behavior’.

  16. says

    @11 Never seen that scenario in a bar. However, innuendo and horseplay is the historical appropriate behavior in a bar.

    So just going to a bar with some friends just to hang out is completely not done then? I guess I won’t be visiting any bars in the future anymore, since I generally do not go to bars for ‘innuendo and horseplay’.

  17. says

    I’ve never gone to a bar for innuendo and horseplay. Ever. Not even when I was young and single.

    And from talking to many women, I know that they don’t particularly like this idea that just showing up at a bar is tacit permission to treat them as meat.

  18. pipenta says

    situsinversus,

    BULLSHIT.

    There are many different bars and many different bar cultures. It isn’t all Hooters or whatever other lowlife Budweiser pits you must frequent to be drawing the conclusions that you do. There are meat market bars where, yes, people are looking to hook up. There are also brew pubs. There are upscale cocktail bars with skilled mixologists and fine food. One might go to a bar to hear a band. At the old Rudy’s in New Haven, some of us would go to grab a cheap beer and watch cartoons. There are even, gosh, family bars.

    Are you so utterly clueless, so lacking in social skills, that you do not realize that there is supposed to be a degree of social interaction before you start with heavy flirting and innuendo? Do you reckon that in a bar you can make like a comic strip caveman and just grab any woman that suits you by her hair or whatever portion of her anatomy that catches your fancy?

    Yeesh, even freakin’ bonobos wait for the right kind of eye contact before they step it up.

    Lots of people of all genders go to bars without the slightest interest in picking up you or anyone else (but especially not YOU). And just because you are there hoping to get lucky, does not mean the sun and the stars and bar culture will start orbiting around your wants.

  19. ibbica says

    Oh FFS *headdesk*

    Whelp, lookie there: I’ve had an idea! Now I’m sure there’s a downside to this, so please tear it apart…

    Anyone who DOES welcome others’ sexual advances, wear a “TRY TO PICK ME UP!” button to proclaim your receptivity to such advances.

    Person you’re interested in has no button? Then assume the default answer is NO, you are NOT to approach that person with sexual intentions. Pretty simple.

    Doesn’t stop anyone NOT wearing a button from approaching someone who IS wearing a “Sure, give it a shot!”, and of course buttons are easily removable at any time.

    The tricky bit of course is also explicitly insisting that wearing a ‘try to pick me up!’ button does NOT guarantee sex. It is merely a signal that others are welcome to TRY to convince them.

    And of course “not approaching with sexual intentions” does NOT exclude interactions that are NOT intended to get you into the other person’s pants.

    Alright, fire away please, because right now I’m not seeing the downside…

  20. says

    The permutations of social interactions are endless. This is why you can’t regulate them …

    So the existence of grey areas means you can’t set limits?

    … or magnify out of proportion individual experiences.

    … Like Thunderfoot did with his “look, this woman liked being chewed” anecdote.

  21. situsinversus says

    “I’ve never gone to a bar for innuendo and horseplay. Ever. Not even when I was young and single.”

    And this is the crux of the problem. This is YOUR experience and YOUR preference. Not everyone’s. Some people share your experience and preference but not others.

    Part of begin socially adept is to recognize in a given environment or ad hoc group what are the preferences and limits that everyone can agree on. What I would never do is try to regulate how a group of people behave for my benefit. If I am uncomfortable, or simply not enjoying myself, I walk away and find or make my own group.

    It is simply too complex to regulate or to try to impose what is appropriate to a few.

  22. says

    @situsinversus:

    This is YOUR experience and YOUR preference. Not everyone’s. Some people share your experience and preference but not others.

    Study this for a moment. REALLY focus on the words.

    Why should you assume the default is “this person wants to be hit on” when you’re in a bar?

    Wouldn’t it be better for everyone involved if you assume the default is “maybe this person is here for a drink?”

  23. says

    FFS noone is trying to impose any new behavioral code for bars. It should be fucking common sense that not everyone in a bar is interested in your sexual advances and that therefore one can’t just go around groping, fondling or gnawing people. Is that so fucking hard. And you think you are socially adept? Oh fuck.

  24. says

    Some people share your experience and preference but not others.

    But your right to indulge in horseplay trumps my right to sit quietly and chat?

    Tell you what, why don’t you go to that corner over → there, where there seem to be a bunch of people who like horseplay, and stop assuming that you should be able to engage in horseplay with me.

  25. John Morales says

    Jasper:

    To tell you the truth, I think people throw around “strawman” a little too much. A strawman isn’t every time someone misunderstands what you’re saying. There needs to be some intent behind misrepresenting the claim/person.

    BarfSimpson says:

  26. echidna says

    Historically, in Australia, women were not permitted to go into the bar, in my lifetime even. Only the Ladies Lounge. The bar was for men only, and generally for serious drinking.

  27. ischemgeek says

    This really is the problem. You need to interact with people first to discover if they’re fellow companions out in the spirit of a little physical fun (you don’t need to formally ask; I presume in this case there were cues to say it was OK), and you cannot assume that every person there is willing to have you fondle them. Especially at a skeptics/atheist conference, where people sign up to learn about a philosophical/social position.

    Surprise. There are a lot of women who go to these meetings to be taken seriously and discuss serious topics, and have zero interest in having their legs grabbed. Not even in the bar.

    QFFT.

    Also, I’m sure TF realizes this (because for all his asshattery at times, he’s not a dumb person): Not consulting the woman runs the risk of non-consentual leg chewing, which in pretty much every jurisdiction I’ve ever lived in would constitute assault. So consulting the woman in question isn’t just good manners, it’s also good CYA practice.

    Just sayin’.

    I made a post citing some statistics to TF on his OP (basically challenging his assumption that the null hypothesis should be that harrassment is not a major issue), but though my replies got through, my initial reply is still caught in Moderation Hell. I assume this is due to it being caught in a language filter since I quoted some rather rude things people have said to me in the past and didn’t asterix-censor because I’m not used to blogs here having language filters.

  28. says

    Man, situsinversus, but you’re a dumb one.

    Yes, that is my personal experience. So don’t hit on me in a bar, I won’t be receptive.

    Now think about it: there are women who feel similarly.

    We can imagine another situation. I, personally, go to bars to engage in drunken brawls. This is what bars are for, right? Every cowboy movie I’ve ever seen has that scene in them.

    So you won’t mind if, when I encounter you in a bar, I hit you over the head with a beer bottle. It’s what you ought to expect in a bar, after all.

  29. says

    It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!

    Ugh. Yeah, no privilege or sexism there, no sirree. Cue the idiots from the previous thread who are going to defend TF with the whole “I’m sure he’s not sexist, not really!” crap.

  30. karlvonmox says

    PZ says in his reply-

    Then I’m left wondering exactly what the point of his outrage was? That makes it sound as if he’s agreeing totally with what many of us are saying: we want these policies in place because they offer women recourse and support

    Of course, if PZ had actually read and thought about the original post, he would know that its the hyper sensationalist attitude about how atheist conferences are full of nothing but flailing penis (blowing the problem out of proportion), and the confusion and conflation of “hitting on”/demonstrating sexual interest in any way with harassment.

    I’ve never gone to a bar for innuendo and horseplay. Ever. Not even when I was young and single.

    I see the problem here. PZ was just that quiet, semi-awkward dude in college who had no idea how to talk to girls, and now he’s found a way to get the rest of us to behave just like him.

    So you won’t mind if, when I encounter you in a bar, I hit you over the head with a beer bottle. It’s what you ought to expect in a bar, after all.

    Now getting “hit on” is equivalent to hitting you over the head with a beer bottle? Please PZ, I know you are smarter than this.

  31. says

    @situsinversus:

    You’ve stated that people are in a bar to flirt and engage in horseplay. Audley says this is not true. PZ says this is not true. Pipenta says this is not true. Pentatomid says this is not true. I say this is not true. I go to bars to hang out with friends and chat, not to flirt.

    You said then that Audley’s experience (and the experience of others) is only one preference. Not everyone shares Audley’s experience. However, everyone has different preferences! Some do not want to go to a bar to be flirted with. The assumption that people are at bars to flirt with them is wrong.

    Therefore, the more logical thing to do is not treat everyone as if they’re there to flirt – because the consequences of that are worse than treating everyone as if they’re there for other reasons.

  32. says

    the hyper sensationalist attitude about how atheist conferences are full of nothing but flailing penis (blowing the problem out of proportion)

    Talking of blowing things out of all proportion, you’re doing a great job right there, matey.

    Now getting “hit on” is equivalent to hitting you over the head with a beer bottle? Please PZ, I know you are smarter than this.

    Link

  33. ibbica says

    “Now getting “hit on” is equivalent to hitting you over the head with a beer bottle?”

    Let’s do a social experiment: for a couple weeks, everyone please assume that that is true.

  34. nms says

    hyper sensationalist attitude about how atheist conferences are full of nothing but flailing penis

    nope

    conflation of “hitting on”/demonstrating sexual interest in any way with harassment.

    nope

    PZ was just that quiet, semi-awkward dude in college who had no idea how to talk to girls, and now he’s found a way to get the rest of us to behave just like him

    nope

    Now getting “hit on” is equivalent to hitting you over the head with a beer bottle?

    nope

    try harder.

  35. says

    However, innuendo and horseplay is the historical appropriate behavior in a bar.

    You’re pulling your history straight out of your ass, fuckwit. No, innuendo and horseplay are not “historical approved behaviour” in bars. I’ve never been in a bar for those reasons and I’ve been in a lot of bars in my 54 years.

    You’re the idiot who makes other people uncomfortable in bars. I suggest you stay out of them.

  36. karlvonmox says

    commenter “nms” aptly demonstrates the main strategy of the people that comment here when they know they have lost – deny, confuse, distort, revise, anything but actually address what is being said.

  37. says

    I honestly don’t get these people:
    Several people, including several women, have already expressed that they go to bars and aren’t interested in anyone’s sexual advances, or having their leg chewed on for that matter (eeeew Thunderdrool). That right there should be all one needs to hear to know that, NO, it’s not okay to gnaw on someone’s extremities without consulting them. And for the love of Cthulhu, I really hope that it’s obvious that ‘consulting’ or ‘consent’ don’t mean filling out forms or formally asking “Might I receive permission to gnaw upon your leg?”(though I fear this is where Tfoot, in his dribbling cluelessness, is having trouble understanding PZ).

  38. says

    And I know you’re just as dumb as that.

    I have never claimed that “hyper sensationalist attitude about how atheist conferences are full of nothing but flailing penis”. Quite the contrary: these conferences are happy events full of discussion. It’s your kind who want to reduce them to meat markets.

    PZ was just that quiet, semi-awkward dude in college who had no idea how to talk to girls, and now he’s found a way to get the rest of us to behave just like him.

    Interesting. So now you know how I was in college? You’d be wrong. I was the guy who enjoyed talking and listening to people, including women, and who was involved in a serious romantic relationship.

  39. nms says

    I did address what was actually said, in that you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith, and you are terrible at trolling.

  40. says

    Situsinversus’s problem is that s/he is (wilfully?) equating “horesplay and innuendos with a bunch of like-minded people (who, in pubs, tend to already know each other” with “I have the right to pick on random strangers and indulge in these things.”

  41. says

    situsinversus

    So you don’t think indulging in such behaviour with people you don’t know well enough or already have consent from is acceptable behaviour?

  42. situsinversus says

    @50 I would think that is obvious from what I have written and basic acceptable social behavior.

  43. says

    situsinversus

    (Please use my name.)

    Great, so how’s about we try to codify some rules, so that other people can be protected from behaviour which you agree is unacceptable behaviour?

  44. situsinversus says

    Daz,

    Doesn’t the JREF have a harassment policy? Also the hotels where they are hosted?

  45. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Errata:

    If you can sit very still and quiet at a hotel bar, Victor Stenger may sit next to you. And if he does, he may want to engage you in conversation. This conversation may ultimately become very one sided, with Dr. Stenger explaining the significance of non-locality to you and you only in terms that you can easily understand. You may learn something.

    Or you can do pirate stuff. Your call. But remember, not every woman at the bar is a lusty wench and you are not really a pirate. And while you may think you are coming off as a roguish rake, a fun-loving scoundrel, and while a handful of friends will reinforce this view that you have of yourself, in reality many of the patrons of the bar may feel differently. What you think are come-hither glances may not be that. You may think that you are flirting with willing subjects because, after all, they have consented to be within your radius, and after all, bars are places for pirate gatherings. You may be wrong about that as well. Others may have a different idea of what a hotel bar is for. Bear in mind that this roguish persona that you have cultivated may be seen as boorishness and that your flirtations may just be harassment. But you’re an adult and shit, and don’t need obvious stuff like this pointed out to you.

    Or you can do a million other things that constitute neither informal instruction from a brilliant physicist, nor being an ass. The world is your oyster.

  46. says

    situsinversus

    Yep. There seems to be some problem with the implementation of that policy, though, which is kinda what kicked off the latest round of this mess.

    Welcome to the world of recognising the actual fucking problem.

  47. Anri says

    It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!

    Look, she was wearing a short skirt sitting in a bar, she was totally asking for it!

    Everyone agrees that that’s true!
    If women don’t, they’re not important.
    If men don’t, they’re not real men.
    Everyone who really counts knows that!

  48. Brownian says

    Now getting “hit on” is equivalent to hitting you over the head with a beer bottle? Please PZ, I know you are smarter than this.

    Everyone, this is karlvonmarx. He’s a self-admitted pick up artist. Sharp as a tack, he gets laid lots through his proficiency with communication.

  49. says

    Okay, so I’m making a list of places where I should just expect to be hit onharassed. they include:

    1) Cons (because we can’t ask men to control their behavior)
    2) Bars (because we can’t ask men to control their behavior)
    3) Walking down street (because we can’t ask men to control their behavior)
    4) Work (because we can’t ask men to control their behavior)

    Anything I’ve missed?

  50. says

    Yeah, it’s weird. It would be a simple, painless thing to just repost the same policy from last year, and everyone would have praised them for what constitutes trivial effort.

    But they haven’t.

    It’s one of the things that is just so off about the JREF’s response. They aren’t doing no-brainers. Why? Are there people with clout who are telling them that their old policy is bad?

  51. karlvonmox says

    I have never claimed that “hyper sensationalist attitude about how atheist conferences are full of nothing but flailing penis”. Quite the contrary: these conferences are happy events full of discussion. It’s your kind who want to reduce them to meat markets.

    This has to be one of the most Orwellian statements I’ve ever heard you make. I can understand why your detractors accuse you of historical revisionism when it suits your purposes – in this case disregarding the existence of numerous entire posts and threads on your blog that blow the problem out of proportion exponentially.

    Interesting. So now you know how I was in college?

    Of course I don’t know for sure – I was simply borrowing from the Pharyngula playbook your minions use here to make baseless character assumptions about people with whom they disagree. Not so nice when its applied to you, is it?

  52. says

    ibbica:

    Whelp, lookie there: I’ve had an idea! Now I’m sure there’s a downside to this, so please tear it apart…

    Anyone who DOES welcome others’ sexual advances, wear a “TRY TO PICK ME UP!” button to proclaim your receptivity to such advances.

    Bad idea. The leg-humping mongrels would completely ignore the system.

    A reverse “Don’t Try to Pick Me Up” badge wouldn’t work either. The mongrels would then assume that any woman who wasn’t wearing the badge was fair game, and use “she wasn’t wearing a badge” as an excuse for harassment. Furthermore, the mangier and scabbier of the mongrels would completely ignore the badges, no matter how explicit.

  53. Brownian says

    PZ was just that quiet, semi-awkward dude in college who had no idea how to talk to girls, and now he’s found a way to get the rest of us to behave just like him.

    Interesting. So now you know how I was in college? You’d be wrong. I was the guy who enjoyed talking and listening to people, including women, and who was involved in a serious romantic relationship.

    Don’t worry about it PZ. There are only two types of men in the world to PUAs: themselves and the so-called average frustrated chumps they were before adopting their alpha habits. They’re literally that fucking stupid, which is why they have to use the tactics they do to get laid, because otherwise normal men and women spit on them in disgust.

  54. woolybumblebee says

    Where are all these so-called bars where men cannot seem to control themselves for 5 minutes and are supposedly groping women en masse? After years of having done the whole bar scene I was never harassed, or groped. And none of my friends, or their friends, were either. And we are talking years of going out to different places every weekend. Places packed with men who were drinking mostly to excess. Men who were probably looking to get laid, but hell so were many women. Look ladies, we can be just as ‘bad’ in regards to harassment. Stop pretending like we are all the innocent little wallflowers you femenazis would like to make us all seem to be. If you are that concerned about it then stay home. The rest of us women would like to go out and not keep worrying about stupid things that really are not as bad as you’d like to pretend it were. Most women, such as me, don’t care to live in fear and are perfectly capable of handling a drunken idiot. And we are not so uber sensitive or narcissistic to think that ANY attention from a guy means it is somehow sexually motivated and should be flagged as harassment.

  55. says

    I’ve always found Thunderf00t to be a slightly suspect debater. Even during the legendary feud with (deranged creationist) VenomFangX, there were examples of Thunderf00t violating the principle of charity.

  56. kassad says

    @karlvonmox

    Exept in most post about the whole affair, PZ included a statement saying that he don’t mean that TAM is full of predator, that it might even be better than a lot of place, but there is still a problem and it should be addressed.

    But you do not strike me as someone trying to address fact, but as a not-to-bright guy try to score some points in an internet discussion.

    And if you’re the guy that bragged a few day ago about “picking up two numbers”, well my assumptions about your character are not exactly baseless.

  57. says

    Anything I’ve missed?

    When posting a picture on the internet

    1: face-only, you’re a tease, so men just have to ask for ‘more’?
    2: not face only, you’re showing off your tits.

  58. Brownian says

    Not so nice when its applied to you, is it?

    Is this how you cover up the fact that you’re a fucking moron about humans?

    “I was just er, showing you what it’s like.”

    You’re a fucking joke. How many numbers did you get last night? Did they distract you from the knowledge of what a useless, empty shell of a partial man you know you are deep down inside? Is it working?

  59. nms says

    woolybumblebee, is there some argument you had with the people commenting on this thread?

    Because it seems like you are mostly arguing with yourself.

  60. Beatrice says

    After years of having done the whole bar scene I was never harassed, or groped.

    Most women, such as me, don’t care to live in fear and are perfectly capable of handling a drunken idiot.

    I’m not sure I understand what “handling a drunken idiot” means.

  61. says

    Where are all these so-called bars where men cannot seem to control themselves for 5 minutes and are supposedly groping women en masse?

    Noone has said this.

    After years of having done the whole bar scene I was never harassed, or groped. And none of my friends, or their friends, were either.

    How nice for you and your friends.

    femenazis

    FUCK OFF.

  62. says

    woolybumblebee

    Did you remember to sacrifice to the god of paragraphs today? You didn’t, did you?

    Why the fuck should I be bothered to read that mess?

  63. ChasCPeterson says

    ouch, the tu quoque!
    except, you know, not in this case exactly tu, more like clientes tui quoque (if Google Translate can be believed)

  64. Anri says

    This has to be one of the most Orwellian statements I’ve ever heard you make. I can understand why your detractors accuse you of historical revisionism when it suits your purposes – in this case disregarding the existence of numerous entire posts and threads on your blog that blow the problem out of proportion exponentially.

    “Women! They get so worked up over something that just isn’t a problem! I think it’s not, the other Real Manly Men think it’s not – who else even needs to agree? Case closed – not a problem.

    Yanno, I’ll be happy when women finally get as sensible as men.”

  65. Brownian says

    And if you’re the guy that bragged a few day ago about “picking up two numbers”, well my assumptions about your character are not exactly baseless.

    You got him all wrong, kassad. We were supposed to be impressed by his prowess.

    The funny thing about Karl is that, as much as he assures us that he simply moves on to the next target when he get a “not interested” signal, the fucker is still here, sliming up Pharyngula.

    Karl, that other blog made eye contact with you! 3 seconds!

  66. kassad says

    @woolybumblebee

    you femenazis

    The Limbaugh School of Retoric! Nice. Always a great way to look smart and get your point across.

    And you might not live in fear, but a person who has already been assaulted do not have that luxury.
    And given the rape statistics in the States, your ” stop being cowards, the risks are minimals!” sounds more foolish than reasonable.

  67. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Where are all these so-called bars where men cannot seem to control themselves for 5 minutes and are supposedly groping women en masse?

    I’m not sure. Ask situsinversus; he seems to know.

    After years of having done the whole bar scene I was never harassed, or groped. And none of my friends, or their friends, were either. And we are talking years of going out to different places every weekend. Places packed with men who were drinking mostly to excess. Men who were probably looking to get laid, but hell so were many women.

    That’s all good to hear.

    Look ladies, we can be just as ‘bad’ in regards to harassment.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with what came before it.

    Originally you were talking about how no one in your circle of friends of friends has ever been harassed. That was good news.

    Now you are saying you’ve seen women harassing other people. That is bad news.

    Stop pretending like we are all the innocent little wallflowers you femenazis would like to make us all seem to be.

    You are asserting that “we femenazis” are pretending women are “all innocent little wallflowers”.

    This assertion needs to be supported with citations from “we femenazis”. Please be specific; provide links and quotes, from “we femenazis” here at Pharyngula, not “some other femenazis”. Thanks in advance.

  68. kassad says

    You got him all wrong, kassad. We were supposed to be impressed by his prowess.

    Well, I AM impressed by the fact that the guy can brag about getting numbers without flinching at his own stupidity and that he can put his insecurities that much on display.

    So… I guess that’s something for Karl.

  69. says

    kassad:
    To back up what you said, “PZ included a statement saying that he don’t mean that TAM is full of predator, that it might even be better than a lot of place…”, here’s what PZ has said about TAM:

    Why I won’t be going to TAM this year

    Then we got the accusation that “one blog network” (this one) fosters the idea that going to skeptic/atheist meeting means you would be “assaulted, harassed, or worse“, which is simply not true. Every year I have promoted TAM enthusiastically, and as an activist, I’ve been encouraging people to attend these kinds of meetings everywhere…and I’ve been specifically encouraging women to increase their participation.

    or:
    It’s always the coverup

    (I have to add: I don’t think TAM is particularly rife with harassment, and I suspect they’re actually better than most conferences. But I want them to be much better than the culture as a whole, and the first step is acknowledging a problem, not letting it fester and then blaming anyone who tries to mention it.)

    But let’s not let the truth get in the way of self-righteous PUAs and Chill Girls&trade! That would be totes unfair!

  70. Brownian says

    (I have to add: I don’t think TAM is particularly rife with harassment, and I suspect they’re actually better than most conferences. But I want them to be much better than the culture as a whole, and the first step is acknowledging a problem, not letting it fester and then blaming anyone who tries to mention it.)

    What a feminazi!

  71. kassad says

    @Audley

    Thanks! Sorry, I should have done the homework:)
    Especially since those paragraphs don’t seem that hard to find.

    Karl must be afflicted with the dreaded SRS (Selective Reading Syndrome). The curse must be unbearable…

  72. Brownian says

    Well, I AM impressed by the fact that the guy can brag about getting numbers without flinching at his own stupidity and that he can put his insecurities that much on display.

    I dunno. It’s not that uncommon. I’ve heard creationists speak.

  73. says

    I’ve been trying to follow the discussion on sexual harassment at conferences and from the stories I have read, most have been about men who lack social skills (for which I can empathize) and at the same time are sexually over agressive. The problem seems to me to be that what is appropriate is subjective. It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone but the socially incompetent don’t always pick up on the queues unless they are told explicitly. No one wants sexual harassment to take place or for women to feel like meat so discussing stories of when things have crossed the line helps to educate the socially incompetent. Misogynistic jerks will always be but those of us who are socially awkward and stupid can learn from our and others mistakes.

  74. Anri says

    fsamuels:

    No one wants sexual harassment to take place or for women to feel like meat

    Ah, if only that were true.
    Keep following the discussion, and you’ll soon see…

  75. ibbica says

    @hyperdeath

    “Bad idea. The leg-humping mongrels would completely ignore the system.”

    Well, they basically do that now anyway :/

    “A reverse “Don’t Try to Pick Me Up” badge wouldn’t work either. The mongrels would then assume that any woman who wasn’t wearing the badge was fair game, and use “she wasn’t wearing a badge” as an excuse for harassment.”

    Great minds and all that… that’s exactly why I suggested the opposite ;)

    “Furthermore, the mangier and scabbier of the mongrels would completely ignore the badges, no matter how explicit.”

    But again, that’s what they’re doing now, anyway, isn’t it?

    All I’d really hope for from such buttons was for the “not really an asshole, just kind of clueless” folks (not to mention those feigning “o no I’m just clueless/awkward/kindadumb!”) to be given a clear signal, easily interpretable by everyone around. Not perfect, but might shift the ‘accepted norm’ away further from the ‘sleazy asshole’ pole, no?

  76. says

    Misogynistic jerks will always be

    We aren’t writing just because we love the look of our pixels. We think societal mores can change and misogynistic jerks learn that their behaviour and attitudes are no longer acceptable.

    I’m not going to resign myself with an “oh well, just have to live with the misogynistic jerks, nothing can be done!”

  77. Marta says

    @65Bumblesomething,

    “Look ladies, we can be just as ‘bad’ in regards to harassment. Stop pretending like we are all the innocent little wallflowers you femenazis would like to make us all seem to be.”

    This lady and feminazi thinks it would be best if you would go fuck yourself. Please.

    Thank you.

  78. says

    Beatrice #72:

    I’m not sure I understand what “handling a drunken idiot” means.

    Well, that’d be the superpower of remaining mentally unscarred when an inebriated (or, perhaps, slightly buzzed) man makes an awkward pass or suggestive comment or teeth marks on your leg. You know, the kind of stuff she and her friends never ever ever experience at a bar.

    woolybumblebee’s entire post was nothing more than, “It’s no big deal, it never happens to me or my friends, and we always just deal with it when it does.”

  79. says

    For fuck’s sake, now we’ve got the hat trick: PUAs, Chill Girls™ and socially awkward guys!

    The problem seems to me to be that what is appropriate is subjective. It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone but the socially incompetent don’t always pick up on the queues unless they are told explicitly.

    Besides the fact that a well written anti-harassment policy can help unblur those lines for people, I have a suggestion for all of you who want to blame dudebros acting like jerks on “social awkwardness”:

    If you can’t read social cues, then assume the answer is no until you’re told otherwise. Really, why is this so fucking hard?

  80. kassad says

    @fsamuels

    First, I’m not sure that the argument about socially awkard men needing to be educated by women will go well here…

    Second, one thing dishonest in most arguments against the anti-harassement policy is that it is ultimately a tool for what you said.
    The problem with harassement is that it is not always, or even often, done by raging “misogynistic jerks”, but by privilege-blind, entitled and clueless men. This policy is to give a tool to women (and men)to say “cut it” without fear of a blowback.

    That way, offenders might learn, and realize that they were being tools and asked themselves questions about their behaviour.

  81. says

    fsamuels:

    Misogynistic jerks will always be but those of us who are socially awkward and stupid can learn from our and others mistakes.

    That’s kinda the point of these discussions. Those that are educable will learn something. Those that think we should just shut up because it’s the way things are will be chewed up, helping us keep our teeth sniny.

    At some point, perhaps it will become unacceptable for people to act like misogynistic jerks, and they’ll have a reason to learn to accept the cues. As it is, there’s no social pressure against being a misogynistic jerk.

  82. Brownian says

    Really, why is this so fucking hard?

    Skeptics are like Muslims. The very thought of being around a potentially sexually active woman drives them into an uncontrollable lust. They’ve got the tiger blood.

  83. dianne says

    It’s perfectly possible for a “socially awkward” or overtly ASD man to simply memorize social customs and rules in order to avoid offending someone or making an unwanted pass. “Socially awkward” is no excuse. Also, most genuinely socially awkward people are more inclined to blame themselves for their social failures than the rest of the world. Anyone who says “but I can’t help myself, I’m just socially awkward” is either lying or wrong.

  84. says

    @fsamuels in #89:

    I’ve been trying to follow the discussion on sexual harassment at conferences and from the stories I have read, most have been about men who lack social skills (for which I can empathize) and at the same time are sexually over agressive. The problem seems to me to be that what is appropriate is subjective. It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone but the socially incompetent don’t always pick up on the queues unless they are told explicitly.

    Except that for at least one of the cases that was reported to the TAM organization (in writing no less), we know the person was asked to leave people alone several times. See here. So no, this is not just a case of simple social incompetence and bad communication. It’s probably comforting to think so, but it just isn’t true.

  85. ibbica says

    @Anri:

    Oh come, now; no-one wants sexual harassment to go on! Women feeling like meat is horrible! No-one’s advocating any of that!

    We all know that anyone who’s not convicted of Sexual Harassment in a Court of Law is never ‘harassing'; they certainly never, ever make anyone ‘feel like meat’! They’re just ‘being friendly’ and ‘flirting’ and ‘paying a compliment’. To say otherwise is Overreacting and Hysterical and makes you Too Sensitive To Interact With Others. Stop all this silliness!

    /snark

  86. Momo Elektra says

    @ fsamuels

    The problem seems to me to be that what is appropriate is subjective

    Why is that a problem?

    It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone but the socially incompetent don’t always pick up on the queues unless they are told explicitly.

    No. No, no, no.

    Clueless guys who want to avoid heartbreak because of rejection will still try to minimize rejection. They will be desperate for clues. Or will not cold approach.

    But there are many guys who will, on purpose, avoid checking for interest to rationalize the following rejection.

    Like “It’s not my fault I can’t get a girlfriend since I’m such a nice guy, it’s those feminists fault for telling women not to like nice guys”. So that they are not to blame for failing (in their mind, not necessarily mine) for not having a girlfriend, or sex, or whatever.

    If a person is not competent enough to notice subtle clues and needs to be told explicitly their behavior is unsuitable for the company, they fucking shouldn’t approach people until they learn how to behave.

    I’m tired of telling guys how to behave. I am not their fucking parent.

  87. jojo says

    fsamuel

    It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone

    When I was in college I worked a summer job in a family owned candy store. There was a man there that used to harass me by sneaking up behind me and grabbing me. I asked him to stop. He didn’t stop, he did it more, and laughed the entire time. I told him to stop. He continued. I warned him that I would break his fingers if he did it again. He did it again. I used a self defense technique to bend his fingers back, but stopped before breaking his fingers. The next time he spoke to me was to inform me that he wanted to see my boss’s penis in my mouth. He did this in front of all of my coworkers.

    There really are people who want to see other people sexually harassed. I’m socially awkward myself, so I feel for you. However, you are implying that women should simply tell men to stop without realizing that some men hurt women for doing just that.

  88. Momo Elektra says

    @ Brownian

    Really, why is this so fucking hard?

    Skeptics are like Muslims. The very thought of being around a potentially sexually active woman drives them into an uncontrollable lust. They’ve got the tiger blood

    Skeptics who want to tell women that there’s no real sexism problem are also like catholic bishops who tell other people that they know how to have sex the right way.

  89. Anri says

    ibbica:

    We all know that anyone who’s not convicted of Sexual Harassment in a Court of Law is never ‘harassing’; they certainly never, ever make anyone ‘feel like meat’! They’re just ‘being friendly’ and ‘flirting’ and ‘paying a compliment’. To say otherwise is Overreacting and Hysterical and makes you Too Sensitive To Interact With Others. Stop all this silliness!

    *weeps*
    You’re right!
    I was infected with the Silly Pink Fluffy Ladybrainz Virus, and it came close to turning me into a dreaded Feminazi!

    Fortunately, a Real Manly Man came along and hit me with his TrukNutz and I feel much more submissive better now.

  90. Amphiox says

    commenter “nms” aptly demonstrates the main strategy of the people that comment here when they know they have lost – deny, confuse, distort, revise, anything but actually address what is being said.

    karlievonmaxie projecting again, I see.

    I was simply borrowing from the Pharyngula playbook your minions use here to make baseless character assumptions about people with whom they disagree.

    More projection, and also an obvious lie. One needs to actually have some character of one’s own to even be able to make character assumptions about others, and karlievonmaxie doesn’t.

    in this case disregarding the existence of numerous entire posts and threads on your blog that blow the problem out of proportion exponentially.

    And here we learn that karlievonmaxie cannot count, and thus thinks zero = “numerous”.

    All of PZ’s posts on this subject have described the problem accurately.

  91. thetalkingstove says

    If you’re self-aware enough to realise that you’re socially awkward when it comes to dating then maybe before you try the ‘run’ of aiming for a sexual partner you should get to know the ‘walk’ of gaining female friends/colleagues who you can interact with smoothly on a platonic level. You’d learn plenty, increase your confidence, etc without (hopefully) inadvertently upsetting anyone.

    This idea of “BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M DOING HELP ME!” wouldn’t wash in any other walk of life. If I run someone over due to my terrible driving skills can I just shrug and ask for lessons?

  92. ChasCPeterson says

    gah, now I can’t shake the aural image of Pat Benatar belting out “hit me with yer TrukNutz”…

  93. consciousness razor says

    Here he is either saying:

    1) he is unaware of consulting her, but he did indeed consult her in some way,

    or

    2) he is entitled to bite any woman he wants, regardless of whether she wants it.

    Hmm, I don’t know. To be as charitable as possible, I think he probably has a particular concept of what it means to “consult” and thinks it’s acceptable to act certain ways toward certain women (or whoever), depending on something other than a “consultation” in the form of an explicit statement or request. If so, he’s just playing with words and failing to address the obvious point that one ought to know there is clearly enthusiastic consent, when all parties are on an equal footing.

    And maybe most pertinently, PZ explaining why his policy wouldn’t be a killjoy.

    If you want to chew on some woman’s leg, no, you don’t have to consult the conference handbook.”
    “You have to fucking consult the woman.”

    Facepalm. Yes this is exactly why you are killjoys to the VAST majority of civil, honest respectable folks. IT WAS IN A BAR.

    [blah, blah, blah, already quoted above]

    Look I’ll make it simple, the point of a bar isn’t to make everyone maximally safe (indeed if it were, they would ban bars, as it would be far safer if everyone just stayed at home and did nothing), it’s to let everyone have the most amount of fun. The reason people don’t go to bars that are maximally safe, is because they are DULL, with folks always living in fear of crossing some random rule written by some hypersensitive pencil-necked PC jockey. I want to go to a bar where people let their hair down a little and act like PEOPLE! Nor do I see why everyone who is happy with such bars should have to comply to your dull set of rules that would SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT EXACTLY THE SORT OF FUN GOING ON IN THIS PICTURE.

    Personally, I don’t give a fuck about the picture, because I have very little information about the context of it. He acts as if it’s self-evident just by looking at the picture (and maybe reading the previous article) what that’s supposed to be about.

    Anyway, given all the fulminating and emphasizing here, it seems like he thinks “consult the woman” belongs to a “dull set of rules” that’s about maximizing safety at the expense of maximizing fun (which are apparently sometimes in opposition?). There’s just too much stupidity here for me to handle this morning. But I guess Thunderfool might be thinking the situation in the picture was “spontaneous,” so that he didn’t actually “consult” the person in any meaningful sense, yet it was still okay (and this is the reason why we’re all killjoys) because … “fuck, just look at the picture again!!!1!!”

  94. says

    Consciosness razor,

    That’s pretty much what I suspect is Thunderf00t’s problem. He doesn’t seem to realize that when we say ‘consult’ we’re not necessarily talking about any kind of formal request. We’re not advocating against spontaneity. That doesn’t seem to get through his thick skull, though. He equates ‘consulting’ with ‘fillin in forms’.

  95. Brownian says

    Frankly, the idea of filling out forms in triplicate is a good one. I presume thunderf00t, like any good skeptic, does his homework before going into something as trivial as a debate?

  96. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    From the OP

    Indeed had I had to fill in the paperwork along with ‘permission to bite your leg in a horseplay photo’ form under conference interpersonal contact rule 144 b) 2, it would have probably kinda killed the moment, and neither I nor she would have got our mild thrills for the night. It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!

    TF’s still fighting strawmen I see – and still losing it seems.
    ____________________________________________________

    To tell you the truth, I think people throw around “strawman” a little too much. A strawman isn’t every time someone misunderstands what you’re saying. There needs to be some intent behind misrepresenting the claim/person.

    Yes and no. There’s firstly this small thing called “due diligence”. Is there any good reason at all for Thunderfoot to portray others as killjoys who want to kill all fun for no good reason at all? Is there any reason to take any of his as said in good faith after his opening remark that goes like this:

    I’ve been around on the internets a LONNNG time, and its been my experience that the more people use terms like MISOGYNIST, RACIST, BIGOT and FEMINAZI, the less valid their arguments are likely to be.

    Not to mention that fucking picture. Bad attitudes disguised as humour is still bad attitudes. Especially when supposed humours depictions of misogyny looks exactly like real depictions of misogyny.

    The second part is that Thunderfoot does not operate in a fucking vacuum (though arguably his ideas seem vacuous). Even though he did not intend to put up strawmen, he replicated known strawmen from people we are fairly certain doesn’t operate in any reasonable definition of good faith.
    ________________________________________________________

    Look, a wild chill girl showed up!

    *looks through pokéballs*
    I choose you BROWNIAN!
    (Only kidding folks. I haven’t got Brownian in a pokéball, though that would be ze awsome (provided of course that Nintendo is really telling the truth and the inside of a pokéball is a nice place to be.)
    _________________________________________________________

    Anything I’ve missed?

    You got your door unlocked or your window open? Of course, anybody knows that a open window is an open invitation for any crass sexual advance. At least if you ask Thunderfoot’s newly-aquired(?) posse.
    _________________________________________________________

    It is easy to know you have crossed the line when someone tells you to stop or leave them alone

    Part of the problem here is that the cost of saying stop or “leave me alone” is very high – and therefore in a lot of situation you won’t hear it before the land of “crossing the line” is just a distant memory in the past (this was discussed at some length in the previous thread).

    This is of course why a clear anti-harrasment policy is the social awkward guys best friend, while it is the faux-awkward harassers worst enemy (like all dualism this is of course not the truth and whole truth. There’s plenty of socially inept arseholes around who wouldn’t act any different even though they knew. Again, the policy is the good-but-clueless best friend).

  97. consciousness razor says

    There was a ‘g’ supposed to go in there. You’ll figure it out.

    Nah, “fillin in forms” sounds fine to me or simply “fillin forms.” I grew up in the Midwest, yuhhear? It’s all gravy.*

    *For the French, maybe it’s all béarnaise or something.

  98. Brownian says

    gah, now I can’t shake the aural image of Pat Benatar belting out “hit me with yer TrukNutz”…

    They’re a regular feature in these parts. I don’t know why. What is a shiny, never been used to haul so much as a mattress F-350 with a tonneau box cover but a big fake pair of nuts?

  99. says

    I presume thunderf00t, like any good skeptic, does his homework before going into something as trivial as a debate?

    He does… when the subject is science. Anything else? Nah. Dumb anecdotes are apparently entirely sufficient. In a way, Tf00t is a lot like those skeptics who think it’s all about bigfoot and UFOs.

  100. Valindrius says

    I can only explain Thunderfoot’s reaction to ‘consult’ by presuming that he’s deliberately or instinctively applying a completely ridiculous definition of the word. It seems he’s applying formal usage to an informal context; it’s patently obvious that PZ’s point doesn’t refer to signing forms in triplicate or having board meetings to discuss strategy. It’s clear that the pragmatic usage doesn’t even mean to suggest that explicit words are necessary, let alone forms.

    Having said that, I shouldn’t be shocked that he didn’t grasp context as his entire point is an attempt to transpose an idealised subset to the entirety of interaction at conferences. Let’s ignore the fact that PZ has stated numerous times that different settings have different social conventions; let’s fallaciously equate ‘full of assholes’ with ‘the vast majority of people’ are assholes despite the repeated statements to the contrary; and let’s ignore the fact that the informal ‘don’t be a jerk’ approach is enforced through the lens of overarching social conventions that are known to be dismissive of victims.

    Why are some people incapable of understanding that this nebulous, informal method is already existent and has failed because of the very things TF praises? Isn’t it obvious that the lack of certainty on the part of victims, the inconsistency of responses, and the lack of organised prohibitions are the very things that harassers prey upon? My mind boggles.

    Ultimately, I find it incredibly disturbing that he refers to his challengers as ‘hypersensitive pencil-necked PC jockey(s).” In my experience, this is almost always indicative of regressive views and delusions of persecution. It certainly explains why he regards ‘misogynist’ and ‘racist’ as indicative of fault despite those being documented, verified phenomena. Conversely, what’s ‘political correctness’ beyond an invention of vacuous tabloids? Of course, this isn’t astonishing from somebody that is fine with publicising threats when it damages the out-group and is callous enough to treat the internet as some kind of ethereal entity rather than a component of reality populated with people capable of acting on threats.

    Apologies if this post is as pointless and vacuous. I don’t believe that this post offers anything new or insightful as others have far sharper intellects than I could dream of having. I just wanted to add to the support in some small way. Also, if this is filled with needless verbosity then I apologise for that too. I phrase things like I’m trapped inside a pretentious period drama despite continuing attempts to change it, I know it’s a negative.

  101. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    He does… when the subject is science

    Social science obviously doesn’t count :/

  102. says

    Brownian:

    They’re a regular feature in these parts. I don’t know why.

    You know, I’m kind of surprised that I don’t see Truck Nutz around here more often. I mean, shit, drive half an hour in any direction and you’ll see trucks adorned with Confederate flags*, but very few with teh Nutz.

    *In upstate NY. Now, it’s been a while since I’ve taken a US history course, but I’m pretty sure New York fought on the side of the Union.

  103. Brownian says

    I choose you BROWNIAN!

    I don’t know what to do with a Chill Girl. Most of the women I socialise with have razor wits and can give me a run for my money. And they don’t take bullshit lightly.

    That someone might exist in my social group as a legitimizer of trite, worn, sexist jokes/cliches is kind of beyond my wheelhouse for a number or reasons.

  104. says

    Social science obviously doesn’t count :/

    Yeah, I probably should’ve narrowed it down even further to the evolution vs. Creation/ID ‘debate’.

  105. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I don’t know what to do with a Chill Girl.

    You seemed to handle yourself pretty well yesterday.

  106. Brownian says

    Tf00t is a lot like those skeptics who think it’s all about bigfoot and UFOs.

    Yeah, it’s not hard to hit them out of the park when you only play against T-ball toddlers.

  107. Brownian says

    You seemed to handle yourself pretty well yesterday.

    Who? Lilandra?

    See my T-ball analogy above.

  108. says

    Oh how cute, he is angry that anyone would question the correctness of his sexual practices (after posting them on the internet as an example of The Correct Way to Behave).

    It is interesting to me that consent isn’t a requirement for “fun” for him. This is a very common message in the culture, but it is still gross. The idea is that communication “ruins” sexual interaction, and perhaps it does if you think flirting or sex is something men do to women instead of something they both participate in for mutual enjoyment.

    Someone should mail him a copy of yes means yes, I suppose.

    Where is that douchecanoe from the last thread who said TF isn’t a bad guy he just doesn’t get it? Because from what I can see he got a lot of replies about how it isn’t cool to trivialize harassment and he replied “WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEEEEE AND MYYYY FUN!?!?!”

  109. consciousness razor says

    In a way, Tf00t is a lot like those skeptics who think it’s all about bigfoot and UFOs.

    Except that when it’s a picture of him, he says the equivalent of “Look! Elvis has left the solar system, with Bigfoot!” Do we have to read his fucking mind about what happened, or take his word on faith? Are we supposed to have some kind of mystical experience if we gaze at it long enough?

    Anyway, there are the Bigfoot-debunking sort of atheists, but also the “religious morality sucks, so let’s reject any morality I dislike” type of atheists. I kind of doubt there’s a lot of overlap between those groups, even though both tend to involve a significant amount of rich-straight-white-male privilege; but with their powers “arguments” combined, it seems they can derail nearly any discussion.

  110. Drolfe says

    Now this thread is a Captain Planet and Pokémon mash up.

    Brownian uses THE POWER OF HEART. It’s SUPER EFFECTIVE.

  111. says

    If you can’t read social cues, then assume the answer is no until you’re told otherwise. Really, why is this so fucking hard?

    And espcially for the “socially awkward people” who aren’t good about cues. ahem *clears voice*

    LEARN

    If you didn’t know how to work a nuclear reactor would you insist on your right to go fiddle with the buttons? FFS, ask questions and LISTEN to the answers.

    You know like right here where people are explaining that social stuff you are bad at to you. Don’t fucking argue it, you don’t know it.

  112. rowanvt says

    Most women, such as me, don’t care to live in fear and are perfectly capable of handling a drunken idiot. And we are not so uber sensitive or narcissistic to think that ANY attention from a guy means it is somehow sexually motivated and should be flagged as harassment.

    I don’t care to live in fear.

    But.

    Stalked at 17 with attempted break in.
    Emotionally unstable male attempting to break up engagement to have me, even emailed me some 5 years later with a “last chance to be my girlfriend!”
    Followed through downtown late at night.
    Cornered in elevator by “Dis building where the hos is at?” guy.
    Men constantly petting my hair.

    I’m only 29. I am always cautious because I’ve had so many close calls, and because I am frequently being touched without my permission. But apparently I’m either uber sensitive or narcissistic for thinking the men who pet me are creepy. It’s not sexually motivated after all, they just think my hair is pretty. Right? >_>

    And all of that means that I shouldn’t go and have fun with friends, or agree to be their designated driver because I don’t often desire alcohol. Because I’m a sensitive ninny worrywort who likes to piss on everyone’s happy fluffy rainbow unicorn parade.

  113. ibbica says

    Now this thread is a Captain Planet and Pokémon mash up.

    Now it’s only a matter of time before Dragon Ball is referenced!

    I demand that you stop making me feel old! At once, I say! Harrumph!

    Also: Look, Ma: layered blockquotes! *happy-happy-HTML-dance*

    *Gets all encouraged by the levity here, goes to look at TF’s comment thread, encouraging exclamation marks in tow!*
    Er, oops. I think I hear my cue to step away from the internet…

  114. says

    Ahhh captain planet. I remember the episode where I learned you could dump a bottle of pills in a burrito and the person eating it would not notice at all. Thank gawd the government was paying TV shows to write anti-drug propaganda into their episodes! That was some quality shit.

  115. says

    Social science obviously doesn’t count :/

    Of course it doesn’t. The only way to find evidence of bigotry in society at large is through ideological bias, and never you mind the piles of empirical evidence.

    Also, some psychologists work with kids. They should have their man cards revoked.

  116. says

    Noooo, not Dragon Ball Z! Must make Gundam reference… Can’t think of one… DAMN IT!

    “I’ll get a commendation if I just make that bitch feel like shit!”

    You’re welcome.

  117. says

    The worst part was the villain that looks like he was designed by Mel Gibson…especially since he literally went around poisoning wells.

    holy shit you’re right! I never noticed that (I haven’t watched any since I was a kid so…)

  118. jesus says

    I love seeing my intellectual heroes butt heads. It presents a gratifying moment that reminds us all that no one is immune to the crucible of the peer-review process (Except, apparently, PZ, who is intellectually invincible. Sorry, TF! I understand where he (TF) is coming from, but I think most of his arguments stem from a misunderstanding up PZ Meyers’s responses.)

  119. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Who? Lilandra?

    See my T-ball analogy above.

    Chillgirls come in non-T-ball flavour?

  120. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    My kingdom for an edit button :t

    Oh no! Down that path lies madness!

  121. rowanvt says

    @149…

    You… understand… where TF is coming from? Even when he says that asking for consent to touch a woman is ruining all his fun? When he is basically saying that my being comfortable with a situation is unimportant compared to his jollies?

  122. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    gah, now I can’t shake the aural image of Pat Benatar belting out “hit me with yer TrukNutz”…

    Nor can I, now. Thanks for that.
    ______________________________________________

    We’re not advocating against spontaneity.

    I have been advocating against spontaneity along multiple avenues for many years. It’s gotten me nowhere. People seem to think that spontaneity is “fun”.
    ______________________________________________
    [Diatribe]
    Just throwing this out there, but I think there is a form of privilege that I call Charming Guy™ …socially endowed dudes who just sort of glide elegantly through the welter of human intercourse without stepping on any feet. These men are very adept at discerning the intentions and emotions of those around them, and what’s more, in all likelihood care deeply about how people feel. Therefore, their flirtations tend to be appropriately directed and are reciprocated, their wildest moments of spontaneity are not seen as boorish by those around them, and they are popular and charismatic for all the right reasons.

    To such a person, the kinds of unwanted behaviors that have catalyzed this clusterfuck may seem implausible. How could one mistake anxiety for sexual interest? How could one be so dimwitted as to gnaw on the leg of any woman who wasn’t completely enthusiastic about having her leg gnawed on? So blinded to the very possibility of bad behavior (privilege therefore blindness, no?), such a person would be skeptical of these kinds of claims.
    Socially Awkward Guy™ should have no such blind spot. I’m one of these. I am not at all surprised that such behaviors happen because I personally am unable to discern how others (especially strangers!) feel with any kind of accuracy. I know that I have to be reserved in what I say or do if I don’t want other people to feel uncomfortable*. I don’t nibble on anyone’s leg in a bar. Before I was married (and even during what I guess one would call “courtship”), I never “hit on” anyone**. If I want to claim that I care about how people I meet feel, I have to realize that I need a code of behavior.
    Both Charming Guy™ and Socially Awkward Guy™ can be problematic…the former because he is blind to the potential for bad behavior, and the latter, because if he lacks empathy will be the most likely perpetrator of bad behavior.
    What the fuck am I on about, again?
    Right. Thunderf00t. I don’t know him (never met him), but I’ve been in a bar with him. He seems more like Charming Guy™ (my most charitable interpretation). My most charitable suggestion is that, he ought to wake the fuck up, and realize that there are a posse of Socially Awkward Guys™ with little empathy who are careening around with TruckNutz out and swinging. They are upsetting people to the point of non-participation. This is a problem.
    [/bloviate]
    *Still, fucking mixed success with this.
    **OK. Once. Complete disaster.

  123. says

    I know how we should settle this! PZ you must challenge Thunderfoot to a children’s card game!

    If need be, they can borrow my Yu-Gi-Oh cards! Yes… Yes, I have Yu-Gi-Oh cards… Oh, god, I’m such a geek.

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

  124. Brownian says

    In TF’s post, he’s got this little gem:

    Yes this is exactly why you are killjoys to the VAST majority of civil, honest respectable folks.

    Yeah, atheists! Why can’t you just shut up and leave well enough alone?

    [Aide whispers in Brownian's ear.]

    Uh, sorry. Apparently I got my wires crossed. That was apparently delivered without a hint of irony (or supporting data).

    Seriously, who the fuck is this fool and how did he get this FtB gig again?

  125. Brownian says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    Who’s got the time to reply to everyone, what with all these forms to fill out?

  126. says

    #91 Anri – I suppose I have not been following the discussion closely enough. I have not been to any conferences either.

    #93 Caine, Fleur du mal – I am not arguing we should not do something about misogynistic jerks. As I continue to read comments that does sound like may be more the problem.

    #101 dianne – “Socially awkward” certainly isn’t an excuse but it is a reason. It is a reason that can be corrected. If someone is using it as an excuse then they know better. I don’t believe there is some set of social customs or rules that can be memorized though. It takes experiences to learn what is and is not appropriate in different situations. What is obviously inappropriate to one person is not necessarily to all. I personally err far on the side of being passive which has not been the best for dating (2 women I have dated thought they were in the friend zone because of it) but has kept me from being and feeling like an asshole. I need to read more of the specific examples of events that have taken place because I am bringing up the point of socially awkward based on Rebecca Watson’s creepy elevator encounter and Thunderf00t’s mutually acceptable leg biting.

    #102 Deen – The case you linked to is obviously wrong to anyone. I don’t find either cases of egregious harassment and misappropriate actions or social awkwardness that crosses the line to be comforting.

    #104 Momo Elektra – All true but there are those men who are oblivious to the clues. I am only arguing show them some pity and tell them more directly to go away. That is how they learn. From your comment it sounds like they are a rarer breed than I realized. As to those who purposefully ignore the clues, they are assholes.

    #105 jojo – I am sorry that happened to you. No means no and it should not be taken that as a sign to continue their behavior. I do not mean to imply that no means “yes, more please”.

    #109 thetalkingstove – I think that is great advice.

  127. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    who the fuck is this fool

    A howling bigot who occasionally bashed creationists in an amusing manner in the past.

    and how did he get this FtB gig again?

    I still haven’t heard any good counter-arguments to my idiot-quota-hypothesis.

  128. rowanvt says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    That’s an obvious one. Because Greta is a ‘teh wimminz’, TF would have to fill out a bunch of forms in triplicate, where as because PZ is one of The Men no such silly paperwork is required.

    /snark

  129. CT says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    “aw, ain’t she just the sweetest little thang? I love it when women get all worked up bout sumthing. I like em fiesty.”

    that’s my guess.

  130. Matt Penfold says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    Is that a rhetorical question ? Or do you really want me to have to say that maybe it is because he regards Greta as having a fluffy pink ladyz brain, or something :)

  131. Sili says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    Does Greta have a (non-detachable) penis?

  132. says

    Naked Bunny with a Whip

    Okay. Aside from his obnoxious attitude, I can’t even follow Thunderf00t’s crappy writing very well. That quote looks like it was from an “I get email” post.

    Thank you for this! I thought it was just me.

  133. says

    Is that a rhetorical question ? Or do you really want me to have to say that maybe it is because he regards Greta as having a fluffy pink ladyz brain, or something :)

    It was kinda half rhetorical. I was hoping Tfoot might have responded somewhere in a comment section and I had missed it or something.

  134. says

    If someone had the patience it would be neat to tally up how many women got ignored vs how many men got replies in this whole fiasco. If I recall correctly DJG had a lot more fondness for replying to men as well.

  135. Pteryxx says

    On a more serious note: Why did Tf00t decide to reply to PZ, while ignoring what Greta Christina has written?

    Sorry to be a killjoy <_< but Thunderfoot didn't reply to Stephanie or Richard Carrier either (and I'm pretty sure Carrier is a menz). I think he replied to PZ because of PZ's huge, enormous… readership. Seriously, Thunderfoot's as much as said he's all about the audience numbers.

  136. chigau (違う) says

    haver [ˈheɪvə]
    vb (intr) Brit
    1. to dither
    2. Scot and northern English dialect to talk nonsense; babble

    hhmmm

  137. says

    Sorry to be a killjoy <_< but Thunderfoot didn't reply to Stephanie or Richard Carrier either (and I'm pretty sure Carrier is a menz). I think he replied to PZ because of PZ's huge, enormous… readership. Seriously, Thunderfoot's as much as said he's all about the audience numbers.

    Well as long as he’s being mature about it

  138. Matt Penfold says

    It was kinda half rhetorical. I was hoping Tfoot might have responded somewhere in a comment section and I had missed it or something.

    That would have meant his responding to what people actually have said in reply to him, rather than what he wants them to have said.

  139. says

    Seriously, Thunderfoot’s as much as said he’s all about the audience numbers.

    Which puts a thought in my mind about courting controversy. And now I feel dirty.

  140. says

    Pteryxx,

    Ah, I hadn’t even seen Richard Carrier’s response to Thunderf00t. Thanks for pointing it out. And you may well be right about Thunderfoot being all about audience numbers.

  141. Pteryxx says

    Well, I was being a tad snarky. Here’s the quote from Thunderfoot’s first (non-hello) post:

    …… indeed to a large degree the conference scene is mostly redundant. A large conference is a couple of thousand people. In terms of viewership, a mediocre channel such as mine would pull in several tens of thousands of views for a video. Then of course many of these lectures are repeated from conference to conference, and virtually all of them are available online. Put simply if your primary focus is on the conference scene, then in the internet age, it’s probably misplaced.

    Greta’s part 1 reply picked apart his dismissal of conferences; in any case, that’s why I’m going “Audience! eleventy!!”

  142. Momo Elektra says

    @fsamuels

    ll true but there are those men who are oblivious to the clues.

    No. Not possible. How can anyone in this day and age still be oblivious? It makes about as much sense as someone still claiming the sun revolves around the earth or lightning is made by Zeus.

    No, no one is this clueless. But it makes a nice excuse for people when they fuck up.

    Again the onus to be nice is not on the one who makes the mistake but the person who was bothered. They must be nice, since after all don’t be so mean to the poor clueless person.

    They don’t know any better. Oh, let me shed a tear.

    They don’t care.

    I am only arguing show them some pity

    They don’t deserve it and it only encourages their bad behaviour.

    and tell them more directly to go away.

    “You fat bitch, I didn’t really want you anyway!”

    Had it happen to me when I was clear. I was not even mean, just clear “I don’t really want to talk to you” I said. Nothing else. That guy interrupted me talking to my friend, btw.

    That is how they learn.

    No, they don’t.

    From your comment it sounds like they are a rarer breed than I realized

    Depends on the venue. Some people just let their inner asshole out when they think the surroundings will suppprt them.

    As to those who purposefully ignore the clues, they are assholes

    So are the ones who refuse to learn and the ones who make excuses for them.

    This is not difficult.

    If someone has -miraculously – learned not to pee on people in public, then they must also know not to approach people of them who haven’t shown to want to be approached.

    And I say it again: They know, they just don’t care.

    Because when it comes to approaching men they want something from they know very well who can be approached and how and when.

  143. Utakata says

    I had a dream last night, that Thunderf00t retracted everything he said on that first blog of his and become one of the cool people in my books. I guess that dream was dashed in his grasping at staw men rebuttle. I guess like with all MRA and harrassment apologists, he chose to dig himself a deeper hole. I really hope he buries himself in it.

    Why is it so hard for people like him to admit he made a mistake?

  144. StevoR says

    @38.Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort :

    @situsinversus:
    You’ve stated that people are in a bar to flirt and engage in horseplay. Audley says this is not true. PZ says this is not true. Pipenta says this is not true. Pentatomid says this is not true. I say this is not true. I go to bars to hang out with friends and chat, not to flirt.

    Sure that I’m really exceedingly late to this argument now but seconding that.

    Add my name to those who go to a bar to drink, to eat sometimes or sometimes to kill time whilst waiting for a train.

    FWIW, (anecdata and all) I very rarely engage or horseplay or flirtation in bars and have never picked up anyone I’ve just met there for sex.

  145. StevoR says

    @skeptifem said on the 26th June 2012 at 11:00 am :

    Ahhh captain planet. I remember the episode where I learned you could dump a bottle of pills in a burrito and the person eating it would not notice at all. Thank gawd the government was paying TV shows to write anti-drug propaganda into their episodes! That was some quality shit.

    Either that was a really good burrito or a really *bad* one maybe? Or extra chilli masks pill flavour?

  146. says

    I had a dream last night, that Thunderf00t retracted everything he said on that first blog of his and become one of the cool people in my books. I guess that dream was dashed in his grasping at staw men rebuttle. I guess like with all MRA and harrassment apologists, he chose to dig himself a deeper hole. I really hope he buries himself in it.

    Why is it so hard for people like him to admit he made a mistake?

    Still won’t change his cheer leading for mass murder. He’s a jihadist

  147. StevoR says

    @185. rowanvt : Or like the Pope or Galileo’s critics? (Where those categories differ.)

  148. StevoR says

    @188. “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” :

    Thought Thunderfoot was very much against the Jihadists actually? He’s not Muslim or he wouldn’t be in bars at all -no alcholo allowed under Islam.

    In fact Thunderfoot’s anti-Jihadist stuff may be why he’s become so popular and is one of his strengths as I see it.

    Feminism 101 and treating women with consideration obviously is not his forte.

  149. Brownian says

    Thought Thunderfoot was very much against the Jihadists actually? He’s not Muslim or he wouldn’t be in bars at all -no alcholo allowed under Islam.

    Yeah, Muslims don’t drink like Catholics don’t wear condoms when having sex with people they’re not married to.

  150. alumiere says

    Wow, he’s clueless isn’t he. I’ve been following this conversation since before elevatorgate, and I’m rather appalled with some of the behavior (mostly of men). I just don’t get it, and I really can’t understand how a community that prides itself on truly thinking handles harassment with so much hostility from members.

    I’m a regular attendee of ‘freak’ events in the US – goth/industrial/punk clubs, and it seems we have better behavior among the people at our club nights than at atheist/skeptic conferences. And our nights feature people in decidedly inappropriate for a conference clothing – miniskirts or hot pants and corsets, ridiculously tall heels, see through skirts, fishnet shirts with tape over nipples and nothing else, etc. But people know that while looking is OK, harassment or touching without permission is not, and our fellow attendees and club security all work together to enforce that rule when people decide to be dicks.

    While our club nights don’t publicly post harassment policies, our conventions and other events often do so. It just makes sense, especially for things that may draw out guests and larger numbers of non-regulars – forewarned is forearmed and all that.

  151. Sili says

    Thought Thunderfoot was very much against the Jihadists actually

    From what I’ve gathered here, his position seems to be summed up by “Kill all dem brownz people.”

    His desire to kill his perceived enemies – and anyone who might stand in the way of that goal – makes it entirely fitting to call him a Jihadist. An anti-muslim Jihadist, yes, but Jihadist nonetheless.

  152. says

    From what I’ve gathered here, his position seems to be summed up by “Kill all dem brownz people.”

    His sexism was mostly implicit before now. You had to infer it from the videos he liked and the fact he never seemed to care about the issue unless it was Muslims being sexist. The straw-manning of Muslims (they all support wiping out the infidels dontcha know) and racist dog-whistles and nudge-nudge wink-wink calls for violence against Muslims have been on the fore for well over a year, though. This was the main reason I was shocked that he was invited.

  153. says

    From what I’ve gathered here, his position seems to be summed up by “Kill all dem brownz people.

    I don’t know if he has actually expressed a will for muslims to be killed. Do you have any citations/sources for this? I do know he has expressed the opinion that muslims are somehow worse than christians by default, but I haven’t heard him defend violence of any kind.

  154. IslandBrewer says

    Hey all!

    I’m filling out my bingo card for this comment thread, and haven’t found the word “misandrist” yet. That would get me a double bingo. Did I miss it somewhere upthread, or should I just wait?

  155. consciousness razor says

    In fact Thunderfoot’s anti-Jihadist stuff may be why he’s become so popular and is one of his strengths as I see it.

    Every holy warrior needs some source of “strength,” don’t they? If I recall correctly, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re an Islamophobe whose opinions we shouldn’t give a fuck about, so there’s no need to do it again in this thread.

  156. says

    @196. He’s done a lot of things like call for us to reduce the number of Muslims and not really clarify what he means. See his interview with DLandonCole for instance, or his video “The Real Threat from Islam.” In the former, he also says he’s okay with White Supremacists using Draw Mohammed Day to advance their agenda because they are helping fight for free speech.

  157. tomharrison says

    I’ve been watching him on youtube for years. His usual strategy when his back is up against the wall is to double down and rely on the racist, sexist and otherwise immature teenage element of his large youtube audience to back him up through any number of logical fallacies and, (no other words for it) epic fails.

    I think it’ll be interesting to see how he handles the same thing in unfamiliar territory. He’s no writer, thats for sure.

  158. says

    #182 Momo Elektra – Very possible. Have you never met a naive, inexperienced, geeky/nerdy man? There are men that clueless and I would guess a higher than usual ratio attend skeptic conferences. I am not saying that being oblivious is an excuse. It is a reason. Nor am I claiming all, most or at this point even many unwelcome encounters at conferences are of this type.

    the onus to be nice is not on the one who makes the mistake but the person who was bothered

    Yes, unfortunately it is because the one who made the “mistake” may have no idea until you tell them that there actions were unacceptable. It is your discretion as to if something is unwelcome or not. If you are called a “fat bitch”, that is not acceptable. That man knew better and he is an asshole. I am not talking about men like him.

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable to think they are doing it with no regard for the woman or the situation. There are men who do and say stupid, offensive or unwelcome things around women not because they are assholes but because they honestly misread the woman, the situation and lack the perspective and experience to know better. Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again. As to the assholes, they don’t need perspective, they need to be reprimanded.

  159. says

    Ah, those are all post “ground zero mosque” videos I take it (that’s when I stopped watching his videos). I did try to watch the DLandonCole interview once, but gave it up pretty quickly as I thought Thunderfoot was just being an asshole.

  160. consciousness razor says

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable to think they are doing it with no regard for the woman or the situation.

    O, the poor menz. When will they ever stop being stereotyped?

  161. says

    fsamuels

    Yes, there probably are men that clueless, however those generally are not the men complaining how ‘they can’t help it because they’re socially awkward’ and then blaming everyone but themselves for everything.

  162. Beatrice says

    Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again.

    See, I don’t get this. Is going to that conference these men’s first outing or were those women before all so terribly uncooperative so as not to give them that “perspective they lack”? Or maybe these socially awkward guys are also assholes (you know, these two things are not mutually exclusive) and aren’t really trying all that hard to understand that they’re doing something wrong.

  163. jojo says

    fsamuels.

    Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again. As to the assholes, they don’t need perspective, they need to be reprimanded.

    I just explained to you what can happen when women try to give men perspective or reprimand them. Basically, you are saying that women should take that risk instead of men taking responsibility for their own actions. The poor widdle awkward menz needs are more important than a woman’s safety.

  164. Utakata says

    Yeah…I think I saw a a few video’s of him trashing creationists and one on climate denialists, made my eyes bigger for him than they should of ever been. This is seriously depressing.

    …um…why did he get invited to FtB’s again? Or did he get invited because he’s contrarian to shut the slimepit up from accusing FTB as being hive minded? (I’ll probably get tarred and feathered for asking this.)

  165. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable to think they are doing it with no regard for the woman or the situation. There are men who do and say stupid, offensive or unwelcome things around women not because they are assholes but because they honestly misread the woman, the situation and lack the perspective and experience to know better. Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again. As to the assholes, they don’t need perspective, they need to be reprimanded.

    For flying fucks sake! You have more than enough people patiently explain things to you here – let me do it once more in words that you’ll probably not misread (I hope):

    You intent is not fucking magic. The difference between the truly inept and the all-too-common predators is indistinguishable from each other for everybody except possibly you (I’m even holding that one open. Far too many fail predators write themselves into “I’m just inept, poor me, you owe me some kind of love!1!”-narrative.)

    This is the perspective you need:
    No means no.
    Maybe means no.
    Yes means no unless there’s some genuine enthusiasm involved.

    If you’re not capable of spotting enthusiasm you better lay of sexual relations or bring a friend who can help you (not during the sex of course*, but in the preliminary rounds)

    (*though if that’s your thing and that is xes** thing and that is the friends thing, that’s ok)

    (Is “xes” right? I suck at this genter-neutral pronom thingie.)

  166. tomharrison says

    Yeah…I think I saw a a few video’s of him trashing creationists and one on climate denialists, made my eyes bigger for him than they should of ever been. This is seriously depressing.

    Thunderf00ts big break came when he managed to humiliate an 20 year old creationist boy into reading out an apology for how he attempted to censor some of thunderf00ts ground-breaking vids on how creationism was bullshit with the DMCA act.

    The kid was in the wrong, for sure, but thunderf00t has been milking it for 4 years now. You might find it depressing. I find it downright hilarious.

  167. says

    I had a feeling that Thunderfoot jumped the shark a while back. He just didn’t have anything that really resonated with me for a while. One thing that annoyed me was that he ended up trading videos with a radical Muslim who called himself a moderate, and TF seemed to take that assertion at face value, ignoring all the genuine moderate Muslims who don’t advocate violence and support religious freedom. I stopped paying attention to his videos when they trickled into my subscription list.

    After this latest kerfuffle and reading how he’s been acting, I think it’s time I unsubscribed from his channel.

  168. Beatrice says

    As usually when it comes to socially awkward men whining about women not being clear enough, I have to note that, besides having a myriad of reasons (mentioned by many other commenters) for not being upfront with their refusal, women can also be socially awkward. We are not somehow innately better at handling social interaction. It can be difficult for us too and sometimes we are doing our best to navigate social gatherings with as little problems as possible and would appreciate it if we weren’t expected to solve everyone else’s problems while dealing with our own.

  169. Momo Elektra says

    @ fsamuels

    Very possible. Have you never met a naive, inexperienced, geeky/nerdy man? There are men that clueless and I would guess a higher than usual ratio attend skeptic conferences. I am not saying that being oblivious is an excuse. It is a reason. Nor am I claiming all, most or at this point even many unwelcome encounters at conferences are of this type.

    Inexperienced=/=oblivious

    How do you know if people around you don’t want you to see their private parts?

    If you know that than you know if women are interested.

    If you’re in a bar and no woman (or man) looks interested in you that’s because they aren’t. Either because they haven’t seen your or because they have.

    What in the seven hells would make anyone approach someone who doesn’t give a signal to go ahead? As was said above: if you are incapable of understand what clues there are or aren’t, then assume the aren’t any.

    It’s very simple. Most people assume that and behave accordingly.
    And it’s excruciatingly obvious in about every matter precept hitting on women.

    Yes, unfortunately it is because the one who made the “mistake” may have no idea until you tell them that there actions were unacceptable.

    NO!

    The fucking problem is assuming that a person who has not shown interest might be interested!

    How can anyone be so stupid? If you don’t know if a person is interested because you cannot understand the clues behave as if that person wasn’t interested!

    The default for about every social interaction is LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE!
    Unless you have good reason to assume your situation is an exception, LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE!

    It is your discretion as to if something is unwelcome or not.

    Well, thank Jesus for that. /sarcasm

    If you are called a “fat bitch”, that is not acceptable. That man knew better and he is an asshole. I am not talking about men like him.

    Yes, you are, as I have been trying to tell you.
    Just as people know not to piss on people in public, especially people they don’t know, they KNOW that their advances are not, per default, wanted.

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable to think they are doing it with no regard for the woman or the situation.

    Well, there are a lot of things that can make people uncomfortable that we aren’t talking about right now. We are talking about “hitting on” women, approaching them without prior contact and/or propositioning them without prior evaluation of their feelings. Well, I am.

    There are men who do and say stupid, offensive or unwelcome things around women not because they are assholes but because they honestly misread the woman, the situation and lack the perspective and experience to know better.

    They don’t misread the woman, because they don’t read her in the first place. They read, accurately, the culture they live in. The culture that tells them women in bars, schools, trains, anywhere exist in a constant state of “I might like to be chatted up”. They don’t.

    As anyone would know who considers women real people. Most of the time most people want to be left the fuck alone.

    Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again.

    Not true. The last time I gave “perspective” I was called a hysterical bitch and feminazi who saw a rapist in every man. They said I was only careful around men because I had bad experiences with them.

    Sexism: The only topic where actual experience makes you less likely to be taken seriously.

    As to the assholes, they don’t need perspective, they need to be reprimanded.

    You’ve been doing nothing but telling me not to.

  170. says

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable

    I got this thanks to a clueless car driver. Please tell me what difference it made to me, whether she was clueless or deliberately not looking where she was going?

  171. Hayden says

    He accuses me of strawmanning his argument

    And he’s quite right. Of course, the straw men your post paled in comparison to the gargantuan straw men being constructed in yesterday’s comment thread.

    Speaking of strawmanning an argument, here’s a beautiful example.

    And here, you are absolutely correct. Having an anti-harassment policy does not mean deputizing the event staff into a platoon of Fun Police.

    This is the thing I don’t understand about this debate. The free thought community prides itself on the use of reason to solve problems, yet for some reason the discussion of sexual harassment seems to turn everyone’s brains into oatmeal.

    Oh, and speaking of straw men…

    Bars Aren’t Brothels

    I don’t think Thunderf00t ever suggested they were.

  172. Amphiox says

    Give those men the perspective they lack and they will not do it again. As to the assholes, they don’t need perspective, they need to be reprimanded.

    A what exactly do you think ALL THESE THREADS are doing, if not this?

    PZ in his OPs and countless commenters are STATING DIRECTLY IN PLAIN TERMS the perspective that these men “lack”.

    And the apologists are the assholes who need to be reprimanded, and they are, by having their misogyny called out, exposed, criticized, and insulted.

    Blog threads like these are a SAFE place for women and others to do this “giving of perspective”, thanks to time, distance, and pseudonymity, where as it is NOT SAFE to do so immediately, face to face, in many circumstances.

    Yes, unfortunately it is because the one who made the “mistake” may have no idea until you tell them that there actions were unacceptable.

    NO. It is NOT. Whether the one who made the “mistake” has or does not have an idea until told, IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR TARGET/VICTIM TO BE THE ONE WHO TELLS THEM. IT NEVER IS THE VICTIM’S RESPONSIBILITY.

    If he truly had no idea until told, it is the responsibility of THE PEER GROUP (ie, US, ie WHAT PZ IS DOING RIGHT NOW WITH THESE THREADS) to tell him so.

    YOU. DO. NOT. PUT. THE. ONUS. ON. THE. VICTIM. Whether the crime is big like rape or medium like real harassment or small like a “bother”, it does not matter.

    YOU. DO. NOT. PUT. THE. ONUS. ON. THE. VICTIM.

  173. says

    Thought Thunderfoot was very much against the Jihadists actually? He’s not Muslim or he wouldn’t be in bars at all -no alcholo allowed under Islam.

    In fact Thunderfoot’s anti-Jihadist stuff may be why he’s become so popular and is one of his strengths as I see it.

    Feminism 101 and treating women with consideration obviously is not his forte.

    He calls for a total war against those with a different ideology because they do not live up to his standards of theological purity.

    He calls for Jihad. He is a jihadist. Or are we to pretend that it’s different when Islam does it?

  174. Amphiox says

    Oh, and speaking of straw men…

    Bars Aren’t Brothels

    That is NOT a strawman. This is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

    You really need to actually learn what strawmanning is before trying to post a critique about it.

  175. says

    I don’t know if he has actually expressed a will for muslims to be killed. Do you have any citations/sources for this? I do know he has expressed the opinion that muslims are somehow worse than christians by default, but I haven’t heard him defend violence of any kind.

    Let me give you an example.

    What would you say if a Muslim made a video talking about how the West is going to RUE the day they fucked with the Arab world because they have awoken a sleeping giant?

  176. Pteryxx says

    Look, the few genuinely clueless guys (who are not *also* douchebags) aren’t the problem here; not compared to the persistent or predatory harassers who use real or imaginary cluelessness as cover. The clueless but harmless folks will make the odd rude comment or awkward approach; they might get a report or two and a talking-to by convention staff. (See Elyse’s sex-card incident: the couple got a warning and wrote an apology, that’s all.) The real troublemakers, excuses or no, will get reported over and over again as happened informally with upskirt guy; and if warnings don’t stop them, they can be escorted or expelled. Honestly, if someone keeps on seriously harassing after multiple warnings, does it matter if they’re clueless or not?

  177. tomharrison says

    What would you say if a Muslim made a video talking about how the West is going to RUE the day they fucked with the Arab world because they have awoken a sleeping giant?

    Coupled with an image of Mecca getting hit by either bombs, planes or missiles I forget which.

  178. Amphiox says

    Don’t stereotype all men who do something that makes women uncomfortable to think they are doing it with no regard for the woman or the situation.

    Right. Don’t “stereotype” men who do things that make women uncomfortable as MEN WHO DO THINGS THAT MAKE WOMEN UNCOMFORTABLE.

    There are men who do and say stupid, offensive or unwelcome things around women not because they are assholes but because they honestly misread the woman, the situation

    In other words, they DID NOT REGARD THE WOMAN OR THE SITUATION.

    Is this somehow confusing for you?

    and lack the perspective and experience to know better.

    And HOW does one address a lack of perspective and experience?

    By PROVIDING THE PERSPECTIVE AND THE EXPERIENCE, in a safe environment at an opportune time.

    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT PZ AND MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO.

    And people like you have been hindering that process every step of the way.

  179. says

    @221 & 211: I would argue that Ali really was a moderate and he just took Thunderf00t’s bait when he posted that implicit death threat. I tried to find the video when I was trying to put together a case that Thunderf00t has a pattern of this shit, but I think he deleted it. Most of that exchange is gone, leaving my memory against Thunderf00t’s denial that that’s how it happened.

  180. consciousness razor says

    Is going to that conference these men’s first outing or were those women before all so terribly uncooperative so as not to give them that “perspective they lack”?

    Only the men going to skeptic conferences who are teenagers who were raised by wolves. That accounts for probably about 60% of them. About 30% or so live under rocks in their parents’ basements. Only 10% are literally trolls, who live under a bridge being bigoted assholes and are especially susceptible to fire. (These statistics are totally verified by many experiments. Google it.)

    The curious thing is that these “awkward” types are so often characterized (not stereotyped, no sir) as introverted geeks, but are also supposed to be insensitive and ignorant. How much fucking sense does that make? It’s as if we’re supposed to believe there are a bunch of walking contradictions, almost all of whom happen to be straight men, and we should be extra-considerate of them because they just can’t help it.

  181. says

    I would argue that Ali really was a moderate and he just took Thunderf00t’s bait when he posted that implicit death threat.

    So when a black person cuts you off in traffic you wave your fist scream racial slurs and talk about how they should all go back to Africa?

    Or do you not express a toxic hatred for everyone who looks like someone who slighted you?

  182. Hayden says

    @220

    Did you read the post in question?

    If you’re under the impression that simply because a person is in an establishment that serves alcohol, they are interested in some hanky panky, stop.

    Neither Thunderf00t, nor the commenter quoted in her post make any suggestion that this is their position. I just don’t understand why people insist on talking past each other.

  183. says

    @228: Did Ali actually say that. I seem to recall him saying that Muslims would defend themselves and kill the attackers if the total war that Thunderf00t was winkingly advocating came about. Trying to get TF’s docs so he could contact his employer about the threats TF made was not a good way to handle it, but if Ali ever advocated genocide, I missed it.

  184. Beatrice says

    Only the men going to skeptic conferences who are teenagers who were raised by wolves. That accounts for probably about 60% of them. About 30% or so live under rocks in their parents’ basements. Only 10% are literally trolls, who live under a bridge being bigoted assholes and are especially susceptible to fire. (These statistics are totally verified by many experiments. Google it.)

    There goes the keyboard. Luckily, the coffee was already cold.

  185. says

    If you’re under the impression that simply because a person is in an establishment that serves alcohol, they are interested in some hanky panky, stop.

    Neither Thunderf00t, nor the commenter quoted in her post make any suggestion that this is their position. I just don’t understand why people insist on talking past each other.

    Then why does he appear to arguing against the implementation of rules on how to deal with people who do seem to be under this impression? Or with the discussion of those rules, at least; which amounts to the same thing.

  186. says

    Let me give you an example.
    What would you say if a Muslim made a video talking about how the West is going to RUE the day they fucked with the Arab world because they have awoken a sleeping giant?

    Ok… Just for clarity I completely agree that Thunderf00t is an islamophobe. I’ve been saying that ever since his “Ground Zero Mosque” video, which is when I unsubbed from his channel. I was not previously aware of him defending or endorsing violence against muslims, but clearly there are examples in his videos which I hadn’t seen (or forotten about, which is entirely possible). This only reinforces what I already felt about thunderf00t: he throws all rationality out of the window when anything other than ‘creationism vs. evolution’ is concerned.

  187. Utakata says

    @tomharrison

    …to qualify, I meant that Thunderf00t is found to have Islamophobe amoung other ‘phobe issues depressing, depressing.

  188. tomharrison says

    @221 & 211: I would argue that Ali really was a moderate and he just took Thunderf00t’s bait when he posted that implicit death threat. I tried to find the video when I was trying to put together a case that Thunderf00t has a pattern of this shit, but I think he deleted it. Most of that exchange is gone, leaving my memory against Thunderf00t’s denial that that’s how it happened.

    Yeah, Ali was a moderate who became ever more extreme in his views during and after his dialogue with thunderf00t.

    It might have had nothing to do with anything, but I think there’s a fairly strong possibility that getting called a dirty sand-nigger every day for months because some douche-bag brit is lying about you and editing your videos anyway wouldn’t be easy to swallow.

    I’m not trying to make excuses for Ali, but that seems like a reasonable conclusion.

  189. Amphiox says

    Did you read the post in question?

    If you’re under the impression that simply because a person is in an establishment that serves alcohol, they are interested in some hanky panky, stop.

    IF. That word makes it NOT a strawman. I know it is a small word, only two letters, just one syllable. Easy to miss. But it IS the FIRST word in the sentence in question, the framing word of the entire argument. Kind of important NOT to ignore.

    That word makes it a rhetorical exaggeration of

    “But like I say, IT’S A BAR!! and those are the rules of engagement in bars, as the old saying goes, if you are gonna eat tuna, you gotta expect some bones!”

    and

    IT WAS IN A BAR. I enjoyed it, she enjoyed it (she left a comment specifically saying so, just to remove all doubt (see MyLegMYCHOICE!)), AND I NEVER HAD TO CONSULT HER

    A mild form of reductio ad absurdum.

    Please starting thinking for a bit before trying to reply again. It will help reduce the risk of making yourself look like an idiot, as you have just done.

    And also, again, figure out what strawmanning really means before throwing that accusation around, like the rhetorical equivalent of a punch drunk.

  190. Sili says

    (Is “xes” right? I suck at this genter-neutral pronom thingie.)

    Then speak fucking English and use they/them/their/theirs.

  191. pyrespirit says

    This whole argument between Thunderfoot and Myers seems very much to be one of two otherwise smart men talking without paying any real attention to what the other is saying, to the chorus of screaming trolls on both sides.

    It seems to be more about posturing and trying to find the metaphorical high ground rather than actually disseminating good and valuable ideas, and is making them both look a bit silly.

    Are there problems with what Thunderfoot said? Sure. A lot of what he stated works well if you start from the position that everyone in question is an empathic, well-meaning, self-aware individual, and falls apart horribly if those conditions aren’t met.

    Does that then characterize him, as some people here have seemingly tried to do, as clueless, or supportive of a culture of misogyny, or stupid, or any of the other invective which has been thrown around? I don’t believe so.

    Calm down, take a breath. The goal is not to scream at people until everybody agrees 100% with your starting position.

  192. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Then speak fucking English and use they/them/their/theirs.

    For one person?

  193. says

    This whole argument between Thunderfoot and Myers seems very much to be one of two otherwise smart men talking without paying any real attention to what the other is saying, to the chorus of screaming trolls on both sides.

    It seems to be more about posturing and trying to find the metaphorical high ground rather than actually disseminating good and valuable ideas, and is making them both look a bit silly.

    Are there problems with what Thunderfoot said? Sure. A lot of what he stated works well if you start from the position that everyone in question is an empathic, well-meaning, self-aware individual, and falls apart horribly if those conditions aren’t met.

    Does that then characterize him, as some people here have seemingly tried to do, as clueless, or supportive of a culture of misogyny, or stupid, or any of the other invective which has been thrown around? I don’t believe so.

    Calm down, take a breath. The goal is not to scream at people until everybody agrees 100% with your starting position.

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-stupid-arguments-that-internet-debates-always-devolve-into/

  194. says

    For one person?

    Yes. I know it’s a bit weird. I’m pretty new to it myself, but they is indeed a gender neutral pronoun that can be used for a single person.

  195. Sili says

    …um…why did he get invited to FtB’s again? Or did he get invited because he’s contrarian to shut the slimepit up from accusing FTB as being hive minded?

    I doubt that’s why he was invited.

    But I can’t really see the Slimepit letting facts get in their way, when trying to bash FtB. (Efftab?)

  196. says

    Does that then characterize him, as some people here have seemingly tried to do, as clueless, or supportive of a culture of misogyny, or stupid, or any of the other invective which has been thrown around? I don’t believe so.

    yes

    It seems to be more about posturing and trying to find the metaphorical high ground rather than actually disseminating good and valuable ideas, and is making them both look a bit silly

    Ok look asshole. Who decides to make a post, their FIRST post on a blog network they were invited to; to be a bunch of dick waving assholery?

  197. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Does that then characterize him, as some people here have seemingly tried to do, as clueless, or supportive of a culture of misogyny, or stupid, or any of the other invective which has been thrown around? I don’t believe so.

    So, a lot of people have substantiated to great effect why he comes across as all these things, and we should just take your word on pure assertion? Backed up by nothing but false equivalence?

    Is there any reason for not treating you like a clueless tone-trolling twit?

  198. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Yes. I know it’s a bit weird. I’m pretty new to it myself, but they is indeed a gender neutral pronoun that can be used for a single person.

    Swell! Thanks!

  199. says

    pyrespirit

    Are there problems with what Thunderfoot said? Sure. A lot of what he stated works well if you start from the position that everyone in question is an empathic, well-meaning, self-aware individual, and falls apart horribly if those conditions aren’t met.

    Does that then characterize him, as some people here have seemingly tried to do, as clueless, or supportive of a culture of misogyny, or stupid, or any of the other invective which has been thrown around? I don’t believe so.

    See, the first paragraph says he’s clueless (in the sense of unrealistically naïve), the second says that he isn’t.

    Pick one and stick with it. You can’t have both.

  200. Beatrice says

    “Both sides are equally wrong. ”
    That must be on one of those bingo cards.

  201. Utakata says

    @pyrespirit

    …there’s a certain segment of clueless tone trolls who like to play the middle of the road, yet as the audience painfully watches on, gets hit from both sides.

    Also: I notice you hadn’t posted this over at Thunderf00ts “rebuttle”. Are you presuming it’s safer here to troll that? Or just trolling to get bonus points from over there?

  202. Brownian says

    I’d be much more sympathetic to these awkward men who just need a little education if they weren’t so prone to talking back when you try to educate them.

    You want to learn or you want to talk? If it’s the former, then shut your fucking sass mouth, grab a pencil, and start taking notes. If it’s the latter, then stop lying.

  203. says

    I’ve been saying that ever since his “Ground Zero Mosque” video, which is when I unsubbed from his channel.

    Ohhhh yeah, me too. This thread is just full of nostalgia!

  204. rowanvt says

    Are there problems with what Thunderfoot said? Sure. A lot of what he stated works well if you start from the position that everyone in question is an empathic, well-meaning, self-aware individual, and falls apart horribly if those conditions aren’t met.

    Let’s take a look…

    “You have to fucking consult the woman.”

    Facepalm. Yes this is exactly why you are killjoys to the VAST majority of civil, honest respectable folks.

    The reason people don’t go to bars that are maximally safe, is because they are DULL, with folks always living in fear of crossing some random rule written by some hypersensitive pencil-necked PC jockey.

    Indeed had I had to fill in the paperwork along with ‘permission to bite your leg in a horseplay photo’ form under conference interpersonal contact rule 144 b) 2, it would have probably kinda killed the moment, and neither I nor she would have got our mild thrills for the night.

    Okay… I’m trying to see how your statement, and those quotes from TF are related.

    He thinks asking permission for physical contact ruins all the fun, and that at bars women should expect physical contact from random strangers because they clearly like danger because they are in a bar.

    So yeah, I’m not seeing any of what you wrote going on in TF’s brain.

  205. pyrespirit says

    “Ok look asshole. Who decides to make a post, their FIRST post on a blog network they were invited to; to be a bunch of dick waving assholery?”

    Not my first post here. Nor was anything I said anything approaching ‘dick waving assholery.’

    If you’d like to point out where you think I’m wrong, I’m always open to the idea that I am, in fact, wrong, and to correction of any incorrect ideas.

    I do find it interesting that in a subject about sexism your opening salvo is to claim ‘dick-waving’ at a rather calm argument.

    “Is there any reason for not treating you like a clueless tone-trolling twit?”

    Sure, because I haven’t made any reference to the tone of either of them or to anyone else. But rather to the apparent tendency of trying to find the worst extension of either side and treating that as the person’s position going on by both sides.

  206. says

    @Pyrespirit

    Oh how cute you think i was talking about you. Blundy’s first comment was to give everyone the finger an waggle his dinklefoot at everyone.

    I do find it interesting that in a subject about sexism your opening salvo is to claim ‘dick-waving’ at a rather calm argument.

    Calmness == right

    I have no interest in talking to you.

    http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-tone-troll/

    Read this

  207. pyrespirit says

    “…there’s a certain segment of clueless tone trolls who like to play the middle of the road, yet as the audience painfully watches on, gets hit from both sides.

    Also: I notice you hadn’t posted this over at Thunderf00ts “rebuttle”. Are you presuming it’s safer here to troll that? Or just trolling to get bonus points from over there?”

    Yes, because clearly someone who doesn’t instantly align with one side or the other is just clueless. “If yer nawt wi’ us, yer agin’ us” and all that.

    I haven’t posted this over at Thunderfoot’s blog because I’m not overly interested in it. This is the one I read.

  208. Brownian says

    Not my first post here. Nor was anything I said anything approaching ‘dick waving assholery.’

    It was a reference to Thunderf00t’s first post on FtB.

  209. says

    I haven’t posted this over at Thunderfoot’s blog because I’m not overly interested in it. This is the one I read.

    I call bullshit. It’s not like it’s not well documented why this blog hates that sort of not-argument.

    Yes, because clearly someone who doesn’t instantly align with one side or the other is just clueless. “If yer nawt wi’ us, yer agin’ us” and all that.

    In some cases; yes

  210. says

    I haven’t posted this over at Thunderfoot’s blog because I’m not overly interested in it. This is the one I read.

    Given the fact that this thread is about

    Oh fuck it. I can’t be bothered. Fuck off.

  211. Momo Elektra says

    @ Brownian #253

    I’d be much more sympathetic to these awkward men who just need a little education if they weren’t so prone to talking back when you try to educate them.

    So would I.

    The response from someone who wants to learn is

    “Oh, shit, really? Better not do that anymore…”

    The response from someone who wants a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-Card is

    “But women make it so difficult. I’m not a mind reader. How will I ever get any if I don’t try. I don’t really try because I’m way to scared to really talk to women I don’t know, I only try it when I’m drunk because maybe some chick will be drunk, too and hey, can’t bake a cake without breaking a few eggs, ey?
    And those men you’re talking about, they’re not mean, they’re really brave, facing mean women like that. When I grow up I want to be like them. So don’t you go calling them bad names, that makes me feel bad.”

    I may or may not have added some subtext that would normally not appear on screen.

  212. pyrespirit says

    “@Pyrespirit

    Oh how cute you think i was talking about you. Blundy’s first comment was to give everyone the finger an waggle his dinklefoot at everyone.”

    That was a mistake on my part as I re-read. My apologies for that.

  213. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Not my first post here. Nor was anything I said anything approaching ‘dick waving assholery.’

    Newsflash for you little tone-trolling twit:
    It’s not about you!
    (In this case it’s not about you literally, but it’ll also serve you as a good rule of thumb generally)

  214. pyrespirit says

    “Given the fact that this thread is about

    Oh fuck it. I can’t be bothered. Fuck off.”

    ‘Not overly interested’ doesn’t mean ‘haven’t read.’

  215. says

    Here’s a good lesson

    When you go “both sides are at fault and need to come together and stop doing something” and post that ONLY to one side, you do not look like you’re being honest.

    It’s the equivalent of “I’m not going to say who is to blame *casts glare at Meg*”

    “both democrats and republicans need to stop beating up people for their ideology…do you get what I’m saying democrats? Stop being so mean to those republicans.”

  216. says

    pyrespirit:

    Calm down, take a breath. The goal is not to scream at people until everybody agrees 100% with your starting position.

    A sure sign of an ignorant assclown is the use of “calm down” or any variant thereof.

    It’s rather obvious you’re utterly ignorant of the history of what’s going on here, so who the fuck do you think you are, telling us what our goals happen to be?

    In the spirit of your calm down, do fuck off, Cupcake.

  217. says

    ‘Not overly interested’ doesn’t mean ‘haven’t read.’

    No, but it does mean that you’re not actually particularly concerned with the issue at hand, even though you presume to pontificate at length about it to those who are concerned. Which suggests you’re trolling for shitz ‘n’ gigglez.

  218. tomharrison says

    Utakata
    26 June 2012 at 1:38 pm
    @tomharrison

    …to qualify, I meant that Thunderf00t is found to have Islamophobe amoung other ‘phobe issues depressing, depressing.

    He’s just a smug twat who lacks the imagination to see anything from anybody else’s perspective. I’m not sure that makes him phobic of anyone or anything. It does make him a huge stupid prick in my opinion.

  219. says

    @Tomharrison

    No but then his mass judgement and desire for mass punishment of Muslims, IS bigotry.

    He not only doesn’t see things from other people’s POV, he fails to see how person X is different from someone else who looks like person X.

  220. pyrespirit says

    “Calmness == right

    I have no interest in talking to you.

    http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-tone-troll/

    Read this”

    Yeah, sorry. I haven’t attempted to call anybody out for being ‘mean’, or using ‘bad’ words (as if such a thing could exist.)

    I don’t particularly care what tone you want to adopt, or what language you want to use. I care about ideas.

    As for the idea that “sometimes it is like that” for the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. There’s a reason false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

    There is always the option of not being with either side.

  221. says

    tomharrison:

    He’s just a smug twat who lacks the imagination to see anything from anybody else’s perspective. I’m not sure that makes him phobic of anyone or anything. It does make him a huge stupid prick in my opinion.

    We don’t use gendered insults here, Tom.

  222. says

    There is always the option of not being with either side.

    No there is not always that option.

    If I have a magic button that will kill every brown person on Earth and someone else is trying to stop me but can’t over power me what does it mean for you to ‘not take either side’?

  223. Momo Elektra says

    @ tomharrison

    [...] a smug twat[...] a huge stupid prick [...].

    Stop the gendered slurs, if you will.

  224. says

    Yeah, sorry. I haven’t attempted to call anybody out for being ‘mean’, or using ‘bad’ words (as if such a thing could exist.)

    I don’t particularly care what tone you want to adopt, or what language you want to use. I care about ideas.

    It seems to be more about posturing and trying to find the metaphorical high ground rather than actually disseminating good and valuable ideas, and is making them both look a bit silly.


    Calm down, take a breath. The goal is not to scream at people until everybody agrees 100% with your starting position.

    As for the idea that “sometimes it is like that” for the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. There’s a reason false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

    The Golden Mean is also a fallacy.

    Neutrality in a situation of a power discrepancy favors the side with more power. Being neutral on gay rights is being against gay rights.

  225. tomharrison says

    No but then his mass judgement and desire for mass punishment of Muslims, IS bigotry.

    He not only doesn’t see things from other people’s POV, he fails to see how person X is different from someone else who looks like person X,

    Oh sure. Maybe I find him slightly loveable and excuse his follies into thinking he can marshall the forces of america to bomb saudi arabia. The guys a real romantic in a sense.

    Genuinely sorry if I offended anyone with the t-word. Thats just what I call people.

  226. says

    Also a false dichotomy is where you say “the answer is either bacon or salami” rather than “the answer is either bacon or not bacon” It does not apply to “taking sides”. Learn what the fallacies actually mean.

    Presuming that neutrality is superior to any extreme IS a fallacy though. It ignores that neutrality supports status quo and thus favors any power imbalance, it ignores results due to lack of action, and it ignores the idea of harmful compromising.

  227. says

    Maybe I find him slightly loveable and excuse his follies into thinking he can marshall the forces of america to bomb saudi arabia.

    I have friends from the area and friends with family from the area. I have friends who journey into the area on business and look brown.

    I do not find his views excusable at all. They are a personable offense and should be taken as such by anyone who gives a shit about human rights.

    Calling for mass murder should be seen as deplorable as calling for assassination.

    His and people like Hitchen’s words to me do not say “I want to bomb Saudi Arabia” they say “Ing, I want your friends dead”

    It is not excusable.

  228. says

    As for the idea that “sometimes it is like that” for the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. There’s a reason false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

    There is always the option of not being with either side.

    Either you’re in favor of sensible anti-harassment policies or you’re not. If you’re not you’re an asshole and probably sexist. No, fuck that. If you’re not, you’re a sexist asshole. Full stop.

    Now fuck off.

  229. says

    And sorry this is a ‘us vs them’ idea for me. If you don’t think the issue of my friends being potentially killed as “collateral” damage by a drone or bombing (a very real possibility for some) is of any value you cannot be my friend.

  230. says

    Tomharrison:

    Genuinely sorry if I offended anyone with the t-word. Thats just what I call people.

    :sigh: It’s not about offense. Your use of twat and prick are not acceptable as slurs here. It’s not as though there’s a lack of good insults out there, ya know.

    As for calling people twats, stop it. No, it doesn’t fucking matter if you’re from the UK or Oz or anywhere else. Twat is a word for vagina, so think about just why you’re calling people a vagina. Maybe because it’s ever so demeaning to be called not just a woman, but a part of woman’s body traditionally considered to be for the use of Real Men™.

    It’s sexist and every usage helps to maintain the sexist status quo. Try doing something to change it, instead, like using a different word.

  231. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    sorry if I offended anyone with the t-word. Thats just what I call people.

    but, do you let “people” use your bathroom?

  232. says

    #204 pentatomid – Men have been complaining that they can’t help it and it isn’t their fault? I don’t doubt you, I just have not been keeping up enough to have seen that. That is disappointing. Those men can help it but only when they know better. I am asking if the situation arises, women tell them so they will know better. It is of course their fault, even if done with good intentions. Being socially awkward is not and should not be used as an excuse.

    #205 Beatrice – Yeah, there are socially awkward assholes too.

    #206 jojo – I am NOT saying men should not take responsibility for their actions. I am also NOT saying that their feelings are more important than anyone’s safety. I am not sure where you got that from. I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly. They miss the social queues. Are those men so rare that you should quickly resort to finger breaking and groin kicking? Maybe so. I will never defend the actions of the man who harassed you. That is black and white.

  233. Momo Elektra says

    @ fsamuels

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    You are assuming they haven’t been told. Explicitly.

    What’s your basis for that assumption?

  234. Momo Elektra says

    @ fsamuels

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    You are assuming they haven’t been told. Explicitly.

    What’s your basis for that assumption?

    (Sorry, quote fail again)

  235. Beatrice says

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    If talking to you is any indication, telling them explicitly will have to include a graph, toy props and a cluebat to the head, repeated a couple of dozen times, before they realize their actions are wrong.

  236. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    Ha!

    reading for comprehension!

    I just composed a snarky reply to Momo Elektra about the number of times I’ve told men explicitly and gotten bullshit in response, but then I realized that this is in fact the point.

  237. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Those men can help it but only when they know better. I am asking if the situation arises, women tell them so they will know better. It is of course their fault, even if done with good intentions. Being socially awkward is not and should not be used as an excuse.

    What part of do not put the onus on the victim did you not understand?

  238. tomharrison says

    As for calling people twats, stop it. No, it doesn’t fucking matter if you’re from the UK or Oz or anywhere else. Twat is a word for vagina, so think about just why you’re calling people a vagina. Maybe because it’s ever so demeaning to be called not just a woman, but a part of woman’s body traditionally considered to be for the use of Real Men™.

    It’s sexist and every usage helps to maintain the sexist status quo. Try doing something to change it, instead, like using a different word.

    I’m calling him a useless ignorant moron. Thats what the twat means in my area. Somebody else mentioned prick. That means arrogant in my area. I am sorry if it offended anyone. I didn’t put enough thought into how those words are perceived and generally understood around the world. Thats all.

  239. Momo Elektra says

    @ Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain

    Ha!

    reading for comprehension!

    I just composed a snarky reply to Momo Elektra about the number of times I’ve told men explicitly and gotten bullshit in response, but then I realized that this is in fact the point.

    I like your snark. Now I’m sad I missed it.

    @ Beatrice

    If talking to you is any indication, telling them explicitly will have to include a graph, toy props and a cluebat to the head, repeated a couple of dozen times, before they realize their actions are wrong.

    rofl

    Seems he’s into the homeopathic approach.

  240. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Thats what the twat means in my area. Somebody else mentioned prick. That means arrogant in my area

    No, it doesn’t. You’re just entrenched in sexist and sex-fobic language to the degree that you’ve internalized it and forgot that those words fucking mean something.

    Get a clue (and read up on the first rule of holes).

  241. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    tomharrison:

    I’m calling him a useless ignorant moron. Thats what the twat means in my area. Somebody else mentioned prick. That means arrogant in my area. I am sorry if it offended anyone. I didn’t put enough thought into how those words are perceived and generally understood around the world. Thats all.

    Right! Because using a slang term for female anatomy to mean “useless” is not AT ALL a reflection of the status of women! \o/

    Also: do you not understand the concept of “when in Rome, do as Romans do,” cupcake?

    Even if you want to cling to your stupid belief that “twat” isn’t sexist, you’ve been told – multiple times – that that word is unacceptable here. This is our place. We set the rules. Now shape up, or fuck off.

    (Momo, was that good enough?)

  242. Pteryxx says

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you the conference policy and staff tell them explicitly.

    There, all fixed. Targets don’t have to go alone into a confrontation that could potentially escalate, and harassers get told explicitly what is expected and if necessary, get a personal explanation and warning of what they did wrong. Everybody wins!

  243. chigau (違う) says

    Beatrice

    …include a graph, toy props and a cluebat to the head…

    hmmm
    Maybe someone could develop a powerpoint presentation that could be shown on a cellphone, with sound effects.

  244. CT says

    What part of do not put the onus on the victim did you not understand?

    I’m guessing their mother patiently explained everything to them while holding their hand when they had a question so of course anyone with a vagina must be their mother. quid pro squid or something. /snark

  245. Momo Elektra says

    @ tomharrison

    I’m calling him a useless ignorant moron. Thats what the twat means in my area.

    “Twat” is a slur for vagina. If you say “twat” means “useless, ignorant moron” that’s because some time ago, in a galaxy not far away, women/vagina havers were considered “useless, ignorant morons”

    Somebody else mentioned prick. That means arrogant in my area.

    “Prick” means “arrogant” because men/prick havers are allowed to be arrogant while vagina havers are “useless, ignorant morons” .

    You know, those insults don’t come from a virgin birth.

    I am sorry if it offended anyone. I didn’t put enough thought into how those words are perceived and generally understood around the world. Thats all.

    Then put more thought into it from now on.

  246. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    !!!!

    You are sorry if you offended anyone?!

    Notpology cleanup, aisle ten!

  247. tomharrison says

    No, it doesn’t. You’re just entrenched in sexist and sex-fobic language to the degree that you’ve internalized it and forgot that those words fucking mean something.

    Get a clue (and read up on the first rule of holes).

    The meanings of words change all the time. Its what makes english such a great living language. Can I call homosexuals gay? What if they’re terribly unhappy and it my words causes confusion. Or worse, generalising.

    I’m seriously not understanding your point, you either accept an apology or you don’t. If you don’t then what do you expect?

  248. Momo Elektra says

    (Momo, was that good enough?)

    Could have used a touch of porcupine, but it should go down easy enough.

    Up! I mean up…

  249. Momo Elektra says

    @ tomharrison

    The meanings of words change all the time.

    The meaning hasn’t changed is kind of the point.

  250. Beatrice says

    Oy, tomharrison,

    People asked you nicely not to use twat or prick here since those are sexist insults. Why don’t you just use something else instead of derailing the whole thread?

  251. tomharrison says

    People asked you nicely not to use twat or prick here since those are sexist insults. Why don’t you just use something else instead of derailing the whole thread?,

    Thank you, thats actually what I wanted.

  252. says

    I have a confession to make.

    I am one of those nerdy, unattractive, shy and socialy awkward guys. I did some pretty stupid things during my college years due to this – drinking to muster up some courage etc. I would probably applaud to ThunderfOOt for his blog entries back then. That much I must say in the name of honesty.

    Not so much now. I learned not to blame others for my romantic failings. I learned that women have right not to find me attractive. I learned that my complete lack of ability to read social clues means I cannot simply do what others do (or tell me to do) and expect the same results since the key variable – me – is different. I learned not to approach other people first, since I am likely to completely botch things up (and I am not talking only about flirting here). I learned that no means no. I learned that silence means no. I learned that the null hypothesis is “they are not interested in me”. I learned a lot.

    Some of these things I learned on my own just observing and thinking. Some of them I learned from froends. Some more I learned much later on this blog and on Blaghag, for which I am greatefull. I am lonely, but at least I am not harming anyone in desperate and futile attempts to change reality.

    But it pains me now, that I will not enjoy Tf00ts videos in the future as I did in the past. I cannot even bring myself to reading his “rebuttal” because I also learned one last thing – fremdschamen for people, who cluelessly dig themselves a hole and then insist in burying themselves therein.

  253. Waffler, of the Waffler Institute says

    I’m seriously not understanding your point, you either accept an apology or you don’t. If you don’t then what do you expect?

    You could say something simple like: “I won’t use those words around here. I now understand why they are offensive.” Then people would likely move on to other topics.

  254. Waffler, of the Waffler Institute says

    Unless they fail to refresh their browser before posting, in which case they’ll continue to natter on, like me…

  255. says

    tomharrison

    It doesn’t matter if you think it’s sexist. You’re on the wrong side of the privilege divide to make the call. What is definitely sexist is ignoring the wishes of the people at the shitty end of the privilege stick.

    Technical definitions mean squat too. You might genuinely see the word ‘nigger’ as a corruption of ‘negro’ and see that as nothing more than a description of dark skin, but if you’re white, it would still be considered rude for you to use the word.

    This is plain good manners, for fucks sack.

  256. Amphiox says

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    YOU. DO. NOT. PUT. THE. ONUS. ON. THE. VICTIM.

    And what is more EXPLICIT than putting it on this and other blog threads, IN PRINT? Or, IN PRINT, in a harassment policy?

    Those men who take responsibility for their actions will read this blog posts and realize their actions were wrong and will stop. Meanwhile, the privileged, entitled assholes who refuse to take responsibility for their actions will come here and do nothing but complain.

    Much as you are doing.

    They miss the social queues.

    Long line-ups are boring, anyways (with the exception of Brownian’s of course).

    If you are the type of person who is always missing traffic cues like, say, stop signs and turn signals, should you be allowed to drive? Is the ONUS on the cyclist you just ran over to be the one responsible for teaching you what a yellow-light means? If that cyclist DOESN’T tell you what a yellow-light means because he’s too busy taking the ambulance to the hospital to confront you, does that make it ok for the traffic cops to let you go about your business and run over the next cyclist at the next yellow-light?

  257. Utakata says

    @pyrespirit 259

    …how do you spell tu quoque again?

    The fact I have. As well as his *Thunderf00l’s first foot in the mouth post which the “rebuttle” has derived from. And so much so that CommanderTuvok, one of the trolling regulars branded me with the Horde apparently. But I digress…

    “Yes, because clearly someone who doesn’t instantly align with one side or the other is just clueless. “If yer nawt wi’ us, yer agin’ us” and all that.”

    If this hasn’t already been pointed out already, this is not the case. But rather you taking a “middle road” position by compromising is just going to piss everyone off, especially when it’s not needed. There is “no two wrongs don’t make a right here,” like in the case George W’s infamous 911 proclamation you quoted. There is taking a failing unbalanced positon with dubious evidence, which Tf is embracing…and a rational position with glaring evidence that PZ, Richard Carrier, Molly Rene, etc. (you know, peer review) has taken. Logic dictates you should fall in with the latter. /shrug

    *Note to real horrorshow: Yes, the spelling was intentional this time.

  258. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    YMMV, but as a socially awkward person, I couldn’t find this further from the truth. It has always been painfully obvious when I have said or done something to offend someone else. It isn’t always painfully obvious as to why they find my behavior offensive. On that account, I try to live by a very simple and stringent behavioral code and this has greatly lessened negative interactions. Foremost, I don’t comment on strangers’ appearances. I don’t touch strangers. I don’t give suggestions or advice unsolicited to people I don’t know well. I don’t speak of things that have nothing to do with the purpose of our meeting. I try to be courteous, but avoid doing anything that might be interpreted as “chivalrous”. If I can avoid it, I don’t even participate in social events unless someone that knows me well is there. And I sure as fuck don’t roll on Shabbas. If this means I’m not the life of the party, so be it.

    The point is that I don’t think even the most clueless of people are clueless about not being liked*. They often no longer care and are disinterested in stifling that thing about them that causes discomfort in others. And so they continue to plow through social situations inattentive to the feelings of others.

    *Correction: I can think of a few, but not many.

  259. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    Yo, I know it’s like way later in the thread, but I want to quote this for fucking truth:

    As usually when it comes to socially awkward men whining about women not being clear enough, I have to note that, besides having a myriad of reasons (mentioned by many other commenters) for not being upfront with their refusal, women can also be socially awkward. We are not somehow innately better at handling social interaction. It can be difficult for us too and sometimes we are doing our best to navigate social gatherings with as little problems as possible and would appreciate it if we weren’t expected to solve everyone else’s problems while dealing with our own.

    Thanks for expressing the sentiment, Beatrice that’s an important point to make. *Besides* the facts of women’s socialisation, the danger inherent in actually saying no vs. using “maybe” as an escape hatch or emergency parachute and everything else mentioned… even if NONE of these were a factor:

    DOOD, I’m not your mom or your dad.

    a.)I don’t have this shit figured out either. I, too, am struggling through this bewildering ocean of other people who are sometimes really awesome and other times really scary and other times just damn near impossible to understand.

    b.)I’m out there to socialize, inept though I may be at it, as much of a risk as that might be for me. I’m not out there to lecture someone, holding their hands with the patience of a kindergarden teacher through basic concepts like “It’s not all about you” and “The default state or nul hipothesis is “no, they’re not interested”. I have enough on my plate to deal with just getting through each day, thanks a lot, so expecting me to ALSO take on the responsibility of educating (patientely and nicely, because this is IRL meatspace not the web) the clueless is quite unreasonable.

    fsamuels and other guys in the “I’m clueless, just educmacte me!” squad:

    You see, I don’t actually HAVE that kind of patience, which is clear on the webz but which I’d have to at least TRY to fake IRL – because there’s real danger in me not doing that. It puts me in a shitty situation where I either make a scene out of it and suffer *those* consequences (uppity bitch being a fucking ice queen, can’t give a guy the time of fucking day, who the hell does she think she IS?) or grind my teeth, paste on that well-used fake smile, grin and bear it and hope you get it and don’t turn out to be a stalker rapist murderer (because if you are and you do that to me, it’s likely to be dismissed because I was already talking to you, etc. etc.

    Is that really what you want? Do you want women to feel trapped into having to humour you, worrying that since you’ve already ignored some of her boundries you won’t be too bothered about others? Is that the desired effect? Because that IS the reality of the effect so if that’s not what you want, your suggestion is not a good way about getting what you want.

    The predators, the really, really BAD GUYS? They know this shit. And they use it to get people to a place where they can rape them and then claim “but we flirted at the bar, it was totes consensual”.

    I was able to learn this shit through reading, thinking and asking people *I already know* who are knowledgeable on the topic of discussion. Or on a blog like this. So was my husband. Why can’t you (not you personally, you generally)?

  260. says

    written by some hypersensitive pencil-necked PC jockey.

    Another bit of macho body-shaming bullshit that is not appreciated.
    It will be a cold fucking day in non-existent fucking hell before I bother with this idiot’s blog.

  261. says

    Matt,

    Jeez, that Claus Larson commenting on Greg’s blog is a fucking idiot.

    Indeed he is. I honestly don’t get what sort of evidence he was asking for.

  262. says

    feralboy12:

    It will be a cold fucking day in non-existent fucking hell before I bother with this idiot’s blog.

    Same here. He’s a fine example of someone oozing toxic, putrid privilege.

  263. says

    @323 matt
    ,blockquote>Jeez, that Claus Larson commenting on Greg’s blog is a fucking idiot.

    He is a really irritating person from the JREF forums. I heard he finally got banned after I left, but he was expert at approaching the very edge of the civility rules, but not violating them, and driving his opponent into breaking them (or leaving). Sometimes he found loopholes (like when he posted sexual fantasies about a posters wife over and over). he had like 10x the posts of most people.

    He hasn’t changed his mind or detracted anything he has said to my knowledge, despite doing the devils advocate thing (defending pedos whose victims were post pubescent) and saying ridiculous bullshit for the heck of it (he would kick the ass of an air marshall for having a gun on a plane). Having fun at his expense is the only correct response, the dude never argues in good faith, despite invoking good faith all the fucking time.

  264. says

    And now the childish whinging fuckwhittery about being asked to take down copyrighted material. What an arsehole.

  265. Utakata says

    @tomharrison 274

    /aaaah

    …um, yeah…as it’s already been mention, please don’t use those words here. It’s gender derogatory, and just not cool. “Useless ignorant moron” would of sufficed. Other than that, your views appear to be on the right track.

  266. says

    Daz:

    And now the childish whinging fuckwhittery about being asked to take down copyrighted material.

    Really? He used something without permission and is whinging about having to do the right thing? Seems his assholery runs very deep.

  267. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Sometimes he found loopholes (like when he posted sexual fantasies about a posters wife over and over).

    That’s a loophole?

    Seriously? What passes as an infraction then?

    No, wait – lemme guess: Threats if, and only if the poster confirms at least twice that it’s really a threat, and they are really trying to find the other person and do it in real life?

  268. Matt Penfold says

    Indeed he is. I honestly don’t get what sort of evidence he was asking for.

    As best I could work out he was wanting evidence from videos that Thunderfoot had said the things he did in the blog post(s). Simply being pointed to the blog post was not enough it seems.

    So yeah, he was given what he asked for and he still kept asking. Just a fucking idiot. I had something of a run in with him not long ago, but cannot remember where. He was a fucking idiot then as well.

  269. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Breaking Gnus!

    Adapted from Audley’s earlier work, here’s randomized Sexism Bingo at Pharyngula Wiki.

    +++++
    If you reply to this comment to suggest new squares, I will take that to mean you are licensing your suggestion under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license we use at Wikia. Please indicate otherwise if you aren’t okay with this.

  270. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    No, wait – lemme guess: Threats if, and only if the poster confirms at least twice that it’s really a threat, and they are really trying to find the other person and do it in real life?

    Gnuman: You forgot the witnesses to this alleged trying-to-do-it-in-real-life. Male witnesses, of course.

  271. Funny Diva says

    Charly @314

    Thanks for your comment. I hope you stick around and keep learning. And that the lonliness will get a bit less painful with time. See you over on The Endless Thread? It’s a fun place to interact. And I’m told that sometimes Horde members even socialize in real life!

  272. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    It appears that you dropped a “<" Daz.

    Here you go. I picked it up for you.

  273. says

    335

    Seriously? What passes as an infraction then?

    the whole policy was fucked, seriously. You couldn’t say “you dumb fucking jew” but you could say “jews, as a people, are fucking dumb” (and later you couldn’t use curse words but the principle was the same).

    The “women can’t write software” meme was STRONG there.
    You could make sweeping claims about a group but not insult individuals. These things were seen as claims to be examined instead of insults. I didn’t realize how bullshit it all was until I left.
    I also think the word “nigger” was banned universally from the start because someone said so.

    who knows what its like now…

  274. consciousness razor says

    YMMV, but as a socially awkward person, I couldn’t find this further from the truth. It has always been painfully obvious when I have said or done something to offend someone else.

    I think I know what you mean. “Awkward” and “oblivious” are not the same thing. It’s like everyone’s talking about fucking cartoon characters instead of how real people actually think and behave.

    And I sure as fuck don’t roll on Shabbas.

    Words to live by.

  275. Matt Penfold says

    Holy fucking shit, but they are crawling out of the woodwork.

    A 56 year old women has just turned up on Greg’s blog to say she agrees with Thunderfoot, and could someone clue her in about ElevatorGate as she has no idea what it is all about.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/06/26/thunderf00ts-post-poorly-thought-out-poorly-made-and-he-owes-an-apology/#comment-77230

    I’m afraid I could not be arsed to enlighten her, and just asked where the rock was that she has been living under for the year.

  276. says

    I am saying some men will take responsibility for their actions when they realize their actions were wrong but they will not know unless you tell them explicitly.

    Actually, no. Everybody is responsible for educating themselves. It’s not up to some random stranger in a bar to do it for them; and educating ourselves has never been easier, what with the internet and all.

  277. tomharrison says

    feralboy12
    26 June 2012 at 4:15 pm
    written by some hypersensitive pencil-necked PC jockey.

    Another bit of macho body-shaming bullshit that is not appreciated.
    It will be a cold fucking day in non-existent fucking hell before I bother with this idiot’s blog.

    Hypersensitive is a really a great insult coming from inside an article literally with “FFS” in the title.

  278. says

    Actually, no. Everybody is responsible for educating themselves. It’s not up to some random stranger in a bar to do it for them; and educating ourselves has never been easier, what with the internet and all.

    what bothers me is that there are people who actually are willing to educate people about this. feminism 101 and the yes means yes people (to name a few) are open to questions and helping people figure out how to act. the resources are available for anyone who is curious, though it helps to publicize them as much as possible. I’m just personally sick of doing it, ya know?

  279. says

    Matt:

    A 56 year old women has just turned up on Greg’s blog to say she agrees with Thunderfoot, and could someone clue her in about ElevatorGate as she has no idea what it is all about.

    What does her age have to do with it?

  280. Matt Penfold says

    Skeptifem,

    I sort of know what you mean by getting tired of educating people. I feel the same way about that Louise person on Greg’s blog who is totally clueless (its not a big problem, what happens in the bar in the evening is not really part of the event, just what was it EG actually did wrong). What makes it more aggravating is she refuses to see how impolite she is being.

  281. Matt Penfold says

    What does her age have to do with it?

    Nothing, but she seemed very keen we should know how old she was.

  282. says

    Matt:

    Nothing, but she seemed very keen we should know how old she was.

    Hmm. I hope it’s not one of those “listen, kiddies, I’m 56, so I’m all wise and shit” things. I’m 54 and what I learn every day is just how ignorant I am on a wide range subjects.

  283. says

    I’m 54 and what I learn every day is just how ignorant I am on a wide range subjects.

    I doubt this is original, but:

    If knowledge is an island, every reclaimed headland creates more shoreline.

  284. Matt Penfold says

    Hmm. I hope it’s not one of those “listen, kiddies, I’m 56, so I’m all wise and shit” things. I’m 54 and what I learn every day is just how ignorant I am on a wide range subjects.

    It was pretty much. Here is the opening para.

    Wow. I am not sure I really want to jump into this fray at all. Just for the record, I am a 56 year old female, grew up in the East Bay Area in CA, and certainly know about harrassment, rape, etc.

    It is probably best to read the whole thing. It is here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/06/26/thunderf00ts-post-poorly-thought-out-poorly-made-and-he-owes-an-apology/#comment-77230

  285. marilove says

    I don’t think putting up harrassment policy is a good thing at a conference unless it is a HUGE MAJOR problem

    And how stupid is this comment? A good harassment policy is put in place BEFORE there is a problem. That was like, the NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT from people regarding TAM and other conferences — either the harassment policy was not in place, or it wasn’t good enough, or it was ignored. Bleh.

  286. Amphiox says

    If knowledge is an island, every reclaimed headland creates more shoreline.

    And shorelines are fractal, which means the longer and closer you look, the more you see, and the total length is infinite.

  287. Matt Penfold says

    Good grief. “I don’t know a damn thing, but that won’t stop me from nattering on!”

    For connoisseurs of stupid, the aftermath of the Thunderfoot in mouth affair is proving to be a vintage harvest.

  288. microraptor says

    Unfortunately, I can’t say I’m surprised by Thunderf00t’s actions.

    I was a fan of him on YouTube up until a few years ago- he’s a smart guy and has some interesting things to say, but I’ve noticed that he also appears to have a problem differentiating between his opinions and what the facts actually are. I finally stopped watching his videos when he began attacking a couple other atheist commentators after they pointed out some errors in one of his videos on that proposed Islamic center in New York that everybody was making such a fuss over a few years ago. At that point I decided he sounded a little too much like the FoxNews commentators that he used to make fun of.

  289. marilove says

    Good grief. “I don’t know a damn thing, but that won’t stop me from nattering on!”

    And even though I admit to not knowing what is going on, I’m still right, and you’re still wrong! NEENER!

  290. Amphiox says

    So making the shoreline longer, makes it … erm … more infiniter? I haz head-hurt.

    If you look at it at a certain scale, and use a certain measurement, you get a certain length.

    If you look at it at a smaller scale, with a smaller measurement, you get a different, longer length.

    The the process goes on to infinity (at least in a mathematically pure representation – probably in real life you eventually stop somewhere, maybe at the Planck Length).

    But if you add more land you increase the shore line length at the larger scale, and that increase continues all the way down the smaller scales. It is still an infinite progression of ever increasing length, but at each arbitrary step down it is longer. Thus it is a bigger infinity than before!

    Or something. I haz head-hurt is as good a way to describe it as any.

  291. Matt Penfold says

    I haz head-hurt is as good a way to describe it as any.

    I always get that when thinking about infinities. I think I have a reasonable grasp of the concept of different size infinities (all positive integers, all even positive integers etc) but it does make my head hurt.

  292. Matt Penfold says

    And even though I admit to not knowing what is going on, I’m still right, and you’re still wrong! NEENER!

    And I also expect you to make a special effort to write an explanation of what has happened just for me, as I am too precious to go finding out stuff.

  293. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Or something. I haz head-hurt is as good a way to describe it as any.

    Planck (and/or a good sense of practicalities) is your friend against head-hurts. But even though the infinity part is philosophical wanking (it’s more or less the same as Zeno’s arrow, only with distance instead of time) the general premise is valid. I once lived at the shore-line, or more than 150 km from it – depending on the measure.

  294. consciousness razor says

    But if you add more land you increase the shore line length at the larger scale, and that increase continues all the way down the smaller scales. It is still an infinite progression of ever increasing length, but at each arbitrary step down it is longer. Thus it is a bigger infinity than before!

    Or something. I haz head-hurt is as good a way to describe it as any.

    Fractal geometry is weird. The area/volume is bigger if you add more land to an island, but I think the idea is basically that you can’t make the perimeter longer — mathematically it’s not about representing one length as a “bigger infinity.” If any part of its length were a perfectly straight line, it could be made longer in theory, but unfortunately shorelines aren’t made of theories and cannot be perfectly straight. Then again, reducing the measurement to an infinitesimal length is also a theoretical construct, which stumbles head-first into the brick wall of reality, as you suggest with the (possible?) limitation at the Planck-length. Probably before that if the shoreline is defined by the “particles” making it up, or “waves,” or….

    Why is my head hurting? I hope this derail doesn’t extend infinitely.

  295. says

    Sorry! Some weird browser-reload, when I hit enter.

    I desperately wanted to QFT this, but I’m under moderation as a fist-time poster at Greg Laden’s blog, so I’m doing it here:

    dogeared, spotted and foxed says:
    June 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Here’s the fun thing about a harassment policy – If you put one in place and it isn’t necessary, it isn’t used. It’s as if it didn’t ever exist. If you don’t need it, it doesn’t matter whether it exists or not. If you do need it, having it there prevents things from getting out of hand.

    If you don’t like the idea of a policy just treat everyone with respect and you can pretend it isn’t there.

  296. dysomniak says

    At that point I decided he sounded a little too much like the FoxNews commentators that he used to make fun of.

    I think by now he’s gone the full Dennis Miller.

  297. says

    Ok this might be a douchy question: but did anyone have any idea what he wanted to blog about before he was invited?

    I mean yeah freethought and all, but I’m rather curious as to the thought process of making your first comment “all my co-workers are fucking idiots” when you join a new group.

    Again I’m not saying you can’t disagree with the group, but his tone is hostile (slaps self, bad Ing bad!) and the timing of it seems douchy

  298. 'Tis Himself says

    feralboy12

    It will be a cold fucking day in non-existent fucking hell before I bother with this idiot’s blog.

    Among other things, Thunderfool isn’t a particularly good or clear writer.

  299. 'Tis Himself says

    Matt Penfold #365

    I think I have a reasonable grasp of the concept of different size infinities (all positive integers, all even positive integers etc) but it does make my head hurt.

    Actually, all positive integers and all even positive integers are the same size infinities. A one-to-one correspondence can be made between these two sets of integers (1-2, 2-4, 3-6…). There’s a whole lot about infinity which is counter-intuitive.

  300. opposablethumbs says

    Here’s the fun thing about a harassment policy – If you put one in place and it isn’t necessary, it isn’t used. It’s as if it didn’t ever exist. If you don’t need it, it doesn’t matter whether it exists or not. If you do need it, having it there prevents things from getting out of hand.

    If you don’t like the idea of a policy just treat everyone with respect and you can pretend it isn’t there.

    Oh, well put by dogeared, spotted and foxed. Thank you Daz.

  301. says

    I’ve certainly gotten in over my head in this discussion. I obviously don’t have the backgorund information I need. My original assertion that many of the cases of harassment have been from men who lack social skills was wrong and reading http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/15/harassment-policies-campaign-timeline-of-major-events/ shows it is a much bigger problem than I realized.

    I am not sure I am talking about the same types of situations as everyone else either. I am in no way attempting to defend men who harass women or excuse that behavior. Harassment is obvious because you are told “no” or to stop yet continue but doing something to make someone else feel uncomfortable is not always obvious. Several people have compared social cues to traffic laws. If only social interactions were that simple! Social cues are learned, mostly from experience, yet there is no set of clear rules for what is and isn’t appropriate. Yes, there are things that are obvioulsy unacceptable but where the line is varies from person to person and situation to situation. Because of that, this conversation is difficult to have without discussing specific situations.

    I feel that Antiochus Epiphanes in #325 is coming from the same place I am. Though they disagree that you can upset someone without realizing you have. I have experienced saying things that upset others, only to find out days or weeks later.

    It has always been painfully obvious when I have said or done something to offend someone else. It isn’t always painfully obvious as to why they find my behavior offensive.

    That has been my experience as well and I find it very stressful and emotionally taxing. Again, I am not talking about obvious instances of harassment. No means no and that should be obvious to all. I am talking about when you do or say something you thought was innocent, funny or flirty but crossed a line with the person. Had I known, I wouldn’t have said or done that thing. If you tell me I crossed the line, I will not do it again. I’d like to know why but that is too much to ask. Like Antiochus Epiphanes, I take great care to police my behavior so I never say or do something that would offend or upset someone else.

    Gen, Uppity Ingrate. points out that there are only 2 shitty options in #326 when someone hits on you. My question to that is what is wrong with telling someone to leave you alone or go away? Why does that have to create a scene and why care what someone thinks of you if you don’t want to talk to them? I don’t want you to feel trapped so if I have missed the “go away” cues, tell me outright.

    The posts about this issue on this and other blogs and having a Code of Conduct are wonderful tools for curbing the problem. Giving the issue the light of day will make attendees scrutinize their behavior more. That is not a bad thing when there is a problem as serious as this.

    I have not intended to defend or appear to defend harassment and I regret that I have come off that way to so many.

  302. says

    I must admit I’m puzzled by this entire discussion. It looks like one side is expressing confusion and outrage that you need someone’s permission before touching them bodily. So I must be missing something, since I can’t imagine what arguments one could even muster for the converse of that. And indeed, I’ve read every comment, including the last 300 — I’ve been composing this response, on and off, all day* — and I haven’t seen any.

    *Repetitions of what others have said are deliberate

    hyperdeath @ 62:

    Anyone who DOES welcome others’ sexual advances, wear a “TRY TO PICK ME UP!” button to proclaim your receptivity to such advances.

    Bad idea. The leg-humping mongrels would completely ignore the system.

    To rephrase ibbica’s elucidation now that I’ve typed this out: they would, but the merely clueless wouldn’t. The people who want to hit on people but can’t simply tell when it might be appropriate have a simple way to tell. For that matter, the leg-humpers** can’t fall back on “well, I thought it would be ok.” They are being told, in clear, unambguous language, that it’s not ok.

    Though I can certainly see the leg-humpers trying the tack of “I figured she meant to wear a button, but forgot.”

    **I’m uncomfortable using “mongrel” to refer to humans.

    fsamuels @ 89:

    The problem seems to me to be that what is appropriate is subjective

    Yes and no. The same thing that gets an enthusiastic response from Sam will send Chris screaming in the other direction; some people will flinch from a friendly “hello” while others enjoy being groped by strangers.

    Where I (and I assume others) part company with the harrassment apologists is that I don’t conclude “there shouldn’t be any standards.” Subjective though it may be, there’s a broad consensus on what is acceptable. If you can stay within it, many of the people who are stricter will at least recognize that you’re trying to not be an asshole.

    I will say, I’m socially awkward, and I deal with this problem by … not hitting on people. Certainly not if I’m not completely sure they are okay with it.

    I mean, it’s not like it’s a huge effort to not hit on someone.

  303. says

    FFS it has never been about “socially clueless people”. That was a lie right out from the gate to minimize EG. Apparently a lie that gets told long enough is believed as people are still entertaining that narrative rather than address what the issue really was about. People who don’t respect boundaries.

  304. rowanvt says

    . My question to that is what is wrong with telling someone to leave you alone or go away? Why does that have to create a scene and why care what someone thinks of you if you don’t want to talk to them? I don’t want you to feel trapped so if I have missed the “go away” cues, tell me outright.

    I will do that, after you tell me how to tell YOU apart from the people who don’t care about my hints of disinterest. Because the options are that I hurt your feelings for not getting upset by you…. or I risk getting injured by an irate man.

    Frankly, I’d rather hurt your feelings than get physically or verbally assaulted.

  305. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    My basic attitude is this:

    Men have said, “Hey, how do we get more women coming here?”
    Women have replied, “Maybe you stop treating us as potential sex partners all the damn time?”
    Men have wailed, “But how will we get our dicks wet???”

    IMO, if your struggle is between getting dicks wet and treating women as people, I’m gonna come down on the side of treating women as people.

    And YES, I do see it as that stark a divide.

  306. marilove says

    My question to that is what is wrong with telling someone to leave you alone or go away?

    So one time some guy on the bus started tlking to me, and making me uncomfortable. He was just weird and the situation didn’t feel right. “I am trying to read my book, but I hope you have a nice day!” (Also, guys? If a woman is reading a book, that probably means she doesn’t want to talk to anyone — including you — so leave her the fuck alone, okay?)

    According to you, that should have taken care of it. Bam! Done!

    HAHAHAHA.

    This is the real world, buddy, where not everyone is as nice as you are.

    Not only didn’t he stop, but it got worse, eventually escallating to him getting really close to me and doing obscene hand gestures.

    I moved.

    He moved with me.

    Finally I moved up to the bus driver.

    He just rolled his eyes and told me to get off at the next stop.

    Nice, huh?

    From then on, I generally just ignored men who gave me bad vibes, because what’s the point? Half the time they don’t listen to you anyway.

  307. marilove says

    I mean, it’s not like it’s a huge effort to not hit on someone.

    I refer you to Esteleth’s comment at #383.

    There are several different variations of this, but it all comes down to, “If I can’t treat women as sexual objects, how do you expect them to know they want to fuck me?!”

  308. says

    Question: What is the ethical arguement — I understand the practical arguments — against marilove punching that person in the face?

    Again, I don’t think she should have, but my reasons for thinking that don’t include “it would have been wrong.”

    Do the niceness missionaries have any suggestions other than “well, she should have told the guy ‘no’ harder“?

  309. marilove says

    Especially considering, Hershele, that the bus driver witnessed all this but didn’t give a fuck. What are my options, then?

    The best part is that I didn’t live in the greatest neighborhood at the time and the “next stop” was a rather lonely one … at night. Nice. Real nice, asswipe driver.

  310. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    Then there’s shit about how it is no problem when a boy follows a girl (both 13) down the hallway, continually asking her about her panties.

    It is a problem when she snaps, turns around, and slaps him across the face for being a creep.

  311. marilove says

    Also, I think it’s pretty silly to think that telling someone “No, thank you” is always going to get you a great response.

    Maybe it’s just because I am only 30, still single, and have always been pretty social.

    But, I can think of many situations where I’ve been out, and a dude just wasn’t getting the fucking hint, even after nixing the hints and spelling it out to him. Alcohol doesn’t really help, either.

    I am a pretty tough cookie. I’ve been in one fight and it was when a guy friend of mine were really drunk and he called me a cunt (I don’t even remember why and neither does he), so I jumped him and then he slapped me and then we took it out into the parking lot like classy people and brawled. (Good news, we totally made out directly after we ran out of steam, and cried like babies, while his mother and brother looked on, horrified. Ugh. 23. I don’t miss that age.)

    It’s not I of all people am not going to speak out.

    But even *I* have been in uncomfortable positions where it’s just awkward. How do I know when someone isn’t going to get weird and then follow me in the parking lot? Which I’ve had happen, btw.

    So, as a woman … navigating this shit is hard, and a lot of women really do avoid going out into bars of any sort to avoid weird behavior.

    And here, look! We’re being told some more that it’s up to us to avoid being harassed. Isn’t that nice?

  312. marilove says

    Wooow, that comment was RIFE with typos.

    “Good news, we totally made out directly after we ran out of steam, and cried like babies, ”

    We did not, in fact make out. We MADE UP.

    We did make out once (at that very same bar, in fact), but it was a dare and he makes out with EVERYONE (of both genders) so, you know.

    But we did not make out that night.

    Plus just assume all other typos and shit have been fixed. Yikes. I should utilize the preview button, yeah?

  313. says

    #384 marilove – I don’t claim telling someone to leave you alone will always cause them to leave. It should but I am not so naieve to believe it always will. Do whatever works for you. I’d lke to think the former tactic would work most or all the time at a conference of skeptics but I am not going to assume so.

    This has been a very depressing thread. I am ashamed of my gender.

  314. nms says

    Does anyone know where the “chill girl” phrase originated? I tried Google and failed miserably.

  315. marilove says

    Hah!

    Don’t be ashamed!

    There are lots of great guys out there, and I seem to know a lot of them. Considering where I live (Arizona), I count myself very lucky.

    I joined a D&D campgain on Friday. I’m still REALLY green at D&D and role-playing in general. It was me and four other guys, plus 3 other drunken dudes that were hanging out. I only knew two (the DM being one of them). But it was a total blast and not weird at all. They didn’t babysit me, but they were helpful. They also didn’t treat me like some weird creature ‘cuz I was a woman.

    They treated me just like they treated any of their other friends. I didn’t even get hit on once! I even think one of the guys maybe liked me, but knew it wasn’t really appropriate to hit on me (he did give me like two bear hugs before I left lol).

  316. marilove says

    Dammit. I know I’m missing some great nerd reference.

    *googles*

    Hah, should have guessed. Dr. Who. I am a bad nerd. :(

  317. hotshoe says

    Sili:

    [singular 'they"] For one person?

    Yes.

    Wow, thanks for that link. I never guessed there was all that interesting language-nerd stuff to learn about one little word.

    As far back as I can remember, I’ve hated myself when I use singular they, blaming myself for being too stupid or just being too lazy to find the correct alternative. Now I feel better.

  318. Sophia Dodds says

    The ‘they’ as a singular impersonal pronoun isn’t something everyone uses? *serious brainsplode*

    I think we were taught that at school – or at least it’s been a part of my vocabulary for as long as I can remember. Is it just American English that doesn’t use it? Any other non-US people want to clue me in?

  319. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    The “don’t use they for singular” is the result of the Victorians trying to make English like Latin, despite the fact that English, in fact, is not Latin.

    In Latin, singular they was improper.

    It is proper in English. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

  320. Khantron, the alien that only loves says

    nms @393

    “Chill girl” was a phrase one commenter used to describe herself to distinguish herself from feminists in the aftermath of elevatorgate.

  321. Khantron, the alien that only loves says

    What is with the slimepit calling the pharyngula commenters baboons? Is it cribbed from PZ’s “Sacking the City of God” speech?

  322. dysomniak says

    This has been a very depressing thread. I am ashamed of my gender.

    Good. Being ashamed is the first step to not being a part of the problem. The next step is realizing that all the deservedly horrible shit that gets said about our gender doesn’t have to apply to us. Don’t ever let yourself fall into the “I’m a good ally and therefore exempt from criticism” trap, but don’t beat yourself up for the regressive shit that other males do. It’s more productive to call them on it anyways.

    And take this with a grain of salt, I got my “precription” from my “herbalist” filled today and it’s possible I’m Posting Under the Influence.

  323. Amphiox says

    What is with the slimepit calling the pharyngula commenters baboons?

    Since it is already evident that they have no problem with dehumanizing women, why should their dehumanizing of people who disagree with them on the internet be surprising?

  324. Aquaria says

    I don’t particularly care what tone you want to adopt, or what language you want to use. I care about ideas.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Care about–

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That’s all the response you deserve you sanctimonious scumbag moron.

  325. Sophia Dodds says

    oh, goodie. the digging in phase – now we sit back, make with the popcorn and wait for the truly ridiculous arguments to seep out. Amusing, terrifying, depressing AND frustrating!

  326. Louis says

    My estimation of TF is rapidly descending to new depths. And it wasn’t great to start with.

    Louis

  327. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    truly ridiculous arguments to seep out

    You mean there are worse one than the ones we allready got served?

    Mama! Hold me! I’m afraid!

  328. Sophia Dodds says

    Gnumann:

    To nick a phrase: You ain’t seen nothing yet.
    When the digging hastens, the flow of bullshit increases excrementally.

  329. says

    SO PZ, Ian, Greta, Stephanie, Chris, Greg and Richard all misunderstood him. If you add in comments and Facebook, also Dan, Matt and Ed. Back in the day, HappyCabbie, PhysicalConservative, Coughlan616, DLandonCole and DawahFilms misrepresented him views on Muslims. Has anybody ever understood Thunderf00t other than Thunderf00t himself? Can anyone point to a time when he agreed with someone, but thought they gave a fair summary of his position? Will he ever address an actually written harassment policy instead of speculating about what they would do?

  330. says

    And is he ever going to get around to advocating violence against Muslims making fun of creationists or is he just going to rage about a loser issue and never get beyond picking fights with his entire network while complaining about how divisive they are? Everything he says about not dividing the house of atheism seems to only apply when other people disagree with him.

  331. says

    Here’s his response:

    What you call a lack of clarity, I would call presenting a nuanced argument.

    Nor would I see the fact that people cannot get to grips with such an argument and so cartoonize it to fit their prejudices as particularly my fault.

    But I would love to hear this ‘victim blame’ argument coming from those who who see victim blame everywhere, just for the lush irony

    So saying that if people can’t understand him, it’s because he’s a bad communicator is victim-blaming. This completely tops his equivocating calling someone a misogynist and calling them a feminazi is the first post in terms of really egregious attempts at verbal judo.

  332. echidna says

    If you look just at the titles of his blog-posts, it really gives you the sense of how little he’s actually had to say. “misogyny” and two posts complaining that PZ misunderstood him (Greta is not in the title).

  333. CT says

    This has been a very depressing thread.

    magnify that feeling by a zillion and you’ll have a small clue just how depressing this is for the people who regularly get harassed.

  334. Sophia Dodds says

    CT:

    Hear hear. Makes it all the more depressing for those of us embroiled in such situations right now.

  335. StevoR says

    @383. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain :

    Men have wailed, “But how will we get our dicks wet???”

    Shower? Or stand nude in the pouring rain?

  336. says

    Thunderf00t has got absolutely nothing to say. He’s demonstrated once again that he can’t be arsed to do even the most basic research on the subject, yet somehow he thinks his ill-informed, priviledged opinion is worth more than the opinion of people who have actually looked at the evidence. He’s a stubborn, bigotted piece of shite who should never have been offered a place here on FtB. What he’s indulging in right now is in no way ‘free thought’. There’s nothing rational or skeptic about it. He’s a slimepit variety troll and nothing more.

    Sorry, I just needed to vent a bit.

  337. says

    I quite literally couldn’t follow what the hell he was trying to say in the latest post. It appears to be nothing more than shouty-screamy-wtf!!111!eleventy!!-iness. Random caps, multiple exclamation marks, emphasis used as formatting to the point where you can’t tell whether he’s shouting or just likes playing with formatting tags…

    The only thing that’s missing is cherry-picked bible verses.

  338. CT says

    shouty-screamy-wtf!!111!eleventy!!-iness.

    yeah, you’re not the only one. And I read it in my newsreader, not on the site since I refuse the give the asshat a hit.

  339. says

    It appears to be nothing more than shouty-screamy-wtf!!111!eleventy!!-iness. Random caps, multiple exclamation marks, emphasis used as formatting to the point where you can’t tell whether he’s shouting or just likes playing with formatting tags…

    Pretty much this. He’s shown himself to be a complete asshole, and an extremely stupid, barely literate one at that!

  340. Brownian says

    It appears to be nothing more than shouty-screamy-wtf!!111!eleventy!!-iness. Random caps, multiple exclamation marks, emphasis used as formatting to the point where you can’t tell whether he’s shouting or just likes playing with formatting tags…

    As Chas pointed out, that’s apparently ‘nuance’.

  341. StevoR says

    @218. “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” – 26 June 2012 at 1:20 pm :

    He [Thunderfoot] calls for Jihad. He is a jihadist. Or are we to pretend that it’s different when Islam does it?

    Jihad has a specific meaning which is Muslim holy war. That’s a war by Muslims against non-Muslims. (or other sects of Muslims.)
    By definition, it is impossible for a non-Muslim to be a “Jihadist.” So no. Thunderfoot cannot be a Jihadist.

    If you really must call him something then ‘Crusader’ sorta fits better given Western history and is the approximate equivalent although also not really applicable to atheists. Anti-Jihadists campaigner is probably the most accurate term for him and those like him.

    Also Jihadists use homicide –suicide bombings, kidnappings, murder and convert their enemy by the sword. Thunderfoot may be a bit of a dropkick and generally a flawed and bad person in many ways but I don’t believe he has ever supported and, indeed, he has strongly opposed those horrendous tactics.

    So yes, it is different for Islam and that’s why.
    (Once again, “Jihadist” can *only* ever apply to Muslim people. Not all of them. But too many of them.)

    @219. “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” – 26 June 2012 at 1:21 pm :

    ”Thought Thunderfoot was very much against the Jihadists actually? He’s not Muslim or he wouldn’t be in bars at all – no alcohol allowed under Islam.” [- StevoR –ed.]You clearly have never met any Muslims.

    FWIW, I have met some Muslims in my life but I don’t have any close Muslim friends or anything like that.

    I did see on the TV news just a day or two ago someone being flogged in some African nation for supposedly having an alcoholic beverage.

    Pretty durn certain that ‘no booze or you quite literally will be flogged – or worse – *is* the Muslim ideology and sharia law.

  342. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Hey, apparantly something involving Rebecca Watson happened yesterday I’m not aware of. Can someone fill me in?

    Apparently, some git with the blog name “coffeelovingskeptic” called her “cunt” twice, and then went for an attempt at plausible deniability when called out on it.

    And that blog name better not be the reference I think it is, or I might feel compelled to go ingnuman on his arse at some time…

  343. says

    Pretty durn certain that ‘no booze or you quite literally will be flogged – or worse – *is* the Muslim ideology and sharia law.

    Yeah, and all muslims belong to a monolithic block who all follow Sharia law completely… Seriously, there are plenty of moderate muslims who drink alcohol. Deal with it.

  344. StevoR says

    @221. “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” asked :

    I don’t know if he has actually expressed a will for muslims to be killed. Do you have any citations/sources for this? I do know he has expressed the opinion that muslims are somehow worse than christians by default, but I haven’t heard him defend violence of any kind.

    Let me give you an example.

    What would you say if a Muslim made a video talking about how the West is going to RUE the day they fucked with the Arab world because they have awoken a sleeping giant?

    I’d say it was typical of the Jihadists rhetoric and propaganda. Aren’t there plenty of Jihadist websites, books and speeches where that is exactly what is said. (In Arabic if not always translated in in English although often in English too.)

    Along with such niceties like the “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” chants and calling Jewish people “pigs” and “dogs” and so forth?

    Is the langauge – whether rhetorical overreach or real threat – cited in your example hateful and threatening. Yes.

    Is there surrounding context where it may be considered valid? Possibly.

    For instance, I could be mistaken or misremembering here but wasn’t the “sleeping dragon awoken” metaphor used by a leading Japanese military leader after Pearl Harbour knowing that they’d just started a fight they ultimately couldn’t have won?

  345. says

    Apparently, some git with the blog name “coffeelovingskeptic” called her “cunt” twice, and then went for an attempt at plausible deniability when called out on it.

    And that blog name better not be the reference I think it is, or I might feel compelled to go ingnuman on his arse at some time…

    Ah, I see. Thanks. And indeed if that reference is what it appears to be, than that is one obnoxioous little asshole.

  346. StevoR says

    @286. “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” – 26 June 2012 at 2:22 pm :

    ”Maybe I find him slightly loveable and excuse his follies into thinking he can marshall the forces of america to bomb saudi Arabia.” [-quote from another comneter – ed.]
    I have friends from the area and friends with family from the area. I have friends who journey into the area on business and look brown. I do not find his views excusable at all. They are a personable offense and should be taken as such by anyone who gives a shit about human rights. Calling for mass murder should be seen as deplorable as calling for assassination. His and people like Hitchen’s words to me do not say “I want to bomb Saudi Arabia” they say “Ing, I want your friends dead” It is not excusable.

    But they do NOT actually say that they want your friends dead.
    They have friends and families who *your* (Muslim I presume?) friends or at least the ideology and leaders who run the countries of your friends would see killed or converted.

    Mass murder is inexcusable. Agreed. No one wants that or argues for it. (Okay, make that no decent human being does.)

    Self defense, even pre-emptive self-defense OTOH is justifiable homicide.

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    Ing, I do NOT want your friends to die as collateral damage. I don’t even want Saudi Arabia to be bombed.

    But they need to stop being an existential threat to us.

    Israel and the USA and the wider West have the right to protect themselves and their innocent citizens and peoples and fight for their survival.

    War is a dreadful sickening unethical thing. But sometimes it is the least bad of possible options. Do I really need to point to 20th century history on that?

    I want them to make peace with us Westerners and let us be.
    I think their Islamic ideology is a hateful and ugly one but if they keep it to themselves then its up to them.

    (Except for the women who are unfortunate enough to be born into their patriachal cultural effective slavery and sex trading and the burka and all that but, no, if they’re not directly threatening us with jihad and annihilation then I’ll oppose invading them on purely feminist, human rights for all grounds.)

    Why are your friends Muslims and is your friendship in spite of their beliefs or are their beliefs something you share and if so, WTF? WHY?

    Can your friends leave or not go to Saudi Arabia?

    Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating and threatening us?

    Is that so much to ask or expect?

  347. Brownian says

    Pretty durn certain that ‘no booze or you quite literally will be flogged – or worse – *is* the Muslim ideology and sharia law.

    Having drank with Muslims in an African nation, I can say that the “ideology” is treated much the same way Catholics treat sex outside of marriage, birth control, and abortion.

    Some people and some places take the proscriptions seriously. Others don’t, and simply feel impious about it.

  348. says

    I’d say it was typical of the Jihadists rhetoric and propaganda. Aren’t there plenty of Jihadist websites, books and speeches where that is exactly what is said. (In Arabic if not always translated in in English although often in English too.)

    Let me just go ahead and cut this shit off right here; the west has been fucking around in the middle east for half a century, almost entirely for the west’s benefit. the reverse? Not so much.

    Is there surrounding context where it may be considered valid? Possibly.

    You think there’s a possibility that calling for genocide is okay? Fuck off and die.

    For instance, I could be mistaken or misremembering here but wasn’t the “sleeping dragon awoken” metaphor used by a leading Japanese military leader after Pearl Harbour knowing that they’d just started a fight they ultimately couldn’t have won?

    Tora! Tora! Tora! was a movie, not reality.

  349. StevoR says

    @ pentatomid :

    Yeah, and all muslims belong to a monolithic block who all follow Sharia law completely… Seriously, there are plenty of moderate muslims who drink alcohol. Deal with it.

    I don’t have any argument against moderate Muslims – I raise my beer to them in fact – but they are violating their own religious code and effectively acting as non-muslims and not islamically.

    Other Muslims – the Jihadists and the stricter sects – Wahhhabis and Shiites and Sunnis would – and have been frequently known to – persecute and kill the moderate muslims and see them as heretical non-Muslims because of things like drinking and letting women out un-burkaed and free.

    Moderate Muslims like moderate Christians or even, gasp, moderate Republicans and libertarians are not great in their belief systems of choice in my view but they are NOT the problem or people I’m talking about here.

  350. says

    Moderate Muslims like moderate Christians or even, gasp, moderate Republicans and libertarians are not great in their belief systems of choice in my view but they are NOT the problem or people I’m talking about here.

    Great, then please use some goddamn qualifiers in the future, because as far as I can tell, you are talking about muslims in general as if they all pose a threat to western culture. If you didn’t mean it that way, great, but then communicate clearly.

  351. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    StevoR, you just made so basic an error in your last that I really wonder if you know anything about Islam. Like, seriously. 30 seconds on Wikipedia would have told you that Wahhabism is a subset of Sunni Islam. And that Islam can be divided broadly into two categories, Sunni and Shi’a.

    Seriously.

    Also, I’m going to fucking point out that moderate Christians violate the commandments of their faith every fucking day, and no one – other than batshit Christians – gives a shit.

  352. Brownian says

    I don’t have any argument against moderate Muslims – I raise my beer to them in fact – but they are violating their own religious code and effectively acting as non-muslims and not islamically.

    They’re not True Muslims™!

    Tell me, StevoR, given that sort of argument, is there any large and varied religion in which all of its adherents can be said to not be in violation of their own religious code?

  353. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    StevoR, I sincerely fear that people like you are a threat to my country.

    I am glad you understand why I, with much regret, must kill you.

  354. says

    Moderate Muslims like moderate Christians or even, gasp, moderate Republicans and libertarians are not great in their belief systems of choice in my view but they are NOT the problem or people I’m talking about here.

    western violence in the middle east radicalizes moderate muslims. more violence is not going to help. Its really quite predictable if you think about it, considering what radical muslims say about the us- bombing and such really supports their hypothesis and gives people something to do in the wake of seeing their fellow citizens being killed.

  355. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    “Hmm,” says the moderate Muslim. “These Americans seem convinced that I, and my moderate neighbors, are an existential threat to them, because of what some nutjobs have said and done. The Americans also seem determined to ignore all the evidence that I, and my moderate neighbors, are not a threat, that we hate those fucking nutjobs and all their nutjobbery. In fact, there seems to be no way to get through to those Americans at all! As much as I hate that other thing they say, that slightly less nutjobby person over there has a point. Maybe I should go listen to them. After all, the Americans are threatening to rain death on me, my family, my friends, my home.”

  356. says

    Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating or threatening us?

    Which, again, is only a problem when brown people do it, seeing as the US has been at it for a while.

    War is a dreadful sickening unethical thing. But sometimes it is the least bad of possible options. Do I really need to point to 20th century history on that?

    Numerous pointless or evil wars by a huge number of combatants with one single war the US fought in and could claim it was justified in, and you’re going to pretend 20th century history as a whole stands behind your point? Good luck with that, just say world war 2 if you want to evoke it.

  357. says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    this sounds a lot like how the war in vietnam was justified. The “virus” of communism and all that.

  358. Brownian says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    “This religion looks like it’s up to no good. Or it’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and it’s just walking around, looking about.”

    Fear is pretty much the best justification to do anything, ever.

  359. StevoR says

    @440. The ones I have an issue with – in pretty much every issue – are those who want to forcefully impose their views and their ways upon everybody else in society.

    @439. ruteekatreya :

    Let me just go ahead and cut this shit off right here; the west has been fucking around in the middle east for half a century, almost entirely for the west’s benefit. the reverse? Not so much.

    Even assuming that one sided perspective is true, that’s a non-sequiteur that doesn’t address what I wrote about that quote being typical of jihadist propaganda.

    Has the West behaved badly at times in the ME? Sure it has.

    Does that excuse terrorism and attempts to destroy our civilisation and nations? Fuck NO!

    Jihadism and Islamist terrorism is unacceptable and never excusable. Does your mileage really vary on that??

    You think there’s a possibility that calling for genocide is okay? Fuck off and die.

    No. I do NOT think calling for genocide is okay and I have not called for it.

    I think we should oppose genocide and defend ourselves against those who would committ it as strongly as we have to in order to prevent it happening.

    So can I get un-fucked and live now, please ruteekatreya?

    Tora! Tora! Tora! was a movie, not reality.

    I think we’ll find it was a historical movie based on real events. Honetsly I don’t recall seeing that one but its possible I could have and it could be one of many possible places where that quote / idea turns up.

  360. says

    Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating or threatening us?

    why the fuck should they? you seem to have no idea how the US operates. Its called “american exceptionalism” and it means that the US can support mass torture and murder on one hand and overthrow popularly elected officials on the other, depending on if it is good for the US, rather than the people living in other countries. You are getting mad at people for being fed up with US foreign policy instead of being mad at the people who make US foreign policy. Its fucking ridiculous. You have much more of a chance of impacting the way your country is run so it is a better place to start from a pragmatic point of view as well.

  361. says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    So if the fundy-Cristianity supported Muslim-hating Republicans get in later this year, you’re okay with the UN invading the USA?

  362. Brownian says

    Even assuming that one sided perspective is true

    Yes, I understand not all the science is in on that one.

    Teach the controversy!

  363. says

    Has the West behaved badly at times in the ME? Sure it has.

    Does that excuse terrorism and attempts to destroy our civilisation and nations? Fuck NO!

    Ok, setting aside the fact that you don’t see the US “behaving badly” AS TERRORISM for a minute…

    you are confusing a predictable outcome of foreign policy with how *you* think people in the middle east should react to being fucked with. its a lot like thinking teens shouldn’t have sex before marriage regardless of the kind of education they get- its a nice thought and all, but that really isn’t how shit works.

  364. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    Yeah, I’m struggling to see the difference between some of the stunts the US has pulled in the ME and terrorism.

    Oh!

    Wait!

    The US has shinier weapons! And less melanin in their skin! And worship a different genocidal patriarchal deity!

  365. says

    Even assuming that one sided perspective is true, that’s a non-sequiteur that doesn’t address what I wrote about that quote being typical of jihadist propaganda.

    The jihadist propaganda is *after* massive offenses, and in some cases, after borderline atrocities, carried out by the US on muslims. Over 50 years. The US had one incident int he course of a decade, and has been calling for oceans of blood since. One side’s hatred and detestation is legitimately more valid, although acting on it still isn’t. I don’t give a shit if they hate us; we earned it.

    But we aren’t going to stop themt hreatening us by threatening them; we have a long fucking history of making good on our threats on muslims, that’s just going to make moderates think that maybe the crazies aren’t so crazy; and for good fucking reason, because the crazies aren’t exactly that far off the mark given the shit the US does.

    Does that excuse terrorism and attempts to destroy our civilisation and nations? Fuck NO!

    Nor does the terrorism of a minority of muslims justify mass murder, you motherfucking moron. It’s also fucking rich to treat maybe 3 successful, very small scale attacks as equivalent to what the US does.

    No. I do NOT think calling for genocide is okay and I have not called for it.
    Oh but maybe the threats to bomb IRan and Saudi Arabia off the map are valid. But you haven’t called for Genocide.

    I think we should oppose genocide and defend ourselves against those who would committ it as strongly as we have to in order to prevent it happening.

    There is no threat of white people in the US being genocided, you alarmist know nothing, so we don’t really have to do anything.

    So can I get un-fucked and live now, please ruteekatreya?

    No.

    I think we’ll find it was a historical movie based on real events.

    I think you’ll find that the scriptwriters were not historians, and as usual with the popular US quotes that are allegedly ‘from Japanese leaders in WWII’, were put into the mouth of a japanese person by a white person. Fuck, every movie ‘based on real events’ does this shit, you ignoramus.

    it could be one of many possible places where that quote / idea turns up.

    It’s the fucking origin of the quote. White people made it up, and you’re sitting here pretending it’s real. You asshole.

    You do that a lot, don’t you, looking at your shit elsewhere.

  366. says

    1. Muslim fundamentalist jackasses are not ‘crazy’. They are perfectly aware of what they are doing and sound of mind. Plenty of people sound of mind are unfortunately genocidal jackasses.

    2. By “the fundamentalist jackasses are not htat far off the mark”, I mean that the US actually does go well out of its way to murder muslims. The US actually kind of is a fucking threat to a lot of muslims, all the moreso thanks to warhawking like yours.

  367. Tony... therefore God says

    Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating and threatening us?

    Perhaps they will, after we stop giving them reasons to hate us.
    What, did you think bombing and killing Muslim extremists along with innocent civilians was going to make them realize the error of their ways and proclaim an end to any terrorist activities directed against the West?
    Uh-Uh.

  368. ischemgeek says

    Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating or threatening us?

    They’ll stop hating and threatening your country when you stop invading them without cause, imprisoning people indefinitely, torturing people, imprisoning children without cause and torturing them for being child soldiers, propping up despots and tyrants with atrocious human rights records because they’re convenient for your government, launching illegal wars against them, outsourcing your torture and terroism while looking down your nose at the fact that it’s legal there under the regimes you set up and generally acting like the fact that your country is the one with the most and biggest guns entitles you to generally dictate to everyone else what we will do while ignoring your own rules whenever it’s convenient (with the obvious undertones that if we don’t play nice, we’ll be next to be run through your war machine).

    Frankly, speaking as someone from outside the US, your government is far from clean. It has participated in, aided, and/or abetted some of the worst human rights abuses of the past fifty years. This includes, but is not limited to: torture, indefinite detention, cyberterrorism, illegal war, attacks on civilians, the torture of children, and other war crimes. (Trigger warning for those links).

    You think they need to stop hating you? How about you stop electing governments that act in a manner deserving of that hate?

  369. StevoR says

    @459. ischemgeek : FYI, I’m an Australian not American.

    I’m a Westerner who supports the culture I live in for good reasons – its human rights, freedoms and opportunities provided more for more people and more diverse groups of people and the way it has developed science and so much more. I’m not a cultural relativist or post-modernist and I do think the Western way is scientifically proven to work better than other cultural ways. Western civilisation isn’t perfect and still has a way to go in some areas but we’re far better than the alternatives as demonstrated by the nations where people wish to live.

    The USA is the leader of the Western or Free world which includes countries like Australia and Japan and the Netherlands.

    The USA has done some things wrong sure, but trying to destory it by Jihadist violence is NOT the way to right those wrongs or make things just or better.

    @444. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ :

    StevoR, I sincerely fear that people like you are a threat to my country. I am glad you understand why I, with much regret, must kill you.

    Death threats against those you disagree with on politics are cool here now?

    There’s a difference between individuals with no power and nations that are trying to develop WMDs and supporting terrorism to committ atrocities for political influence you realise, right?

    @441. pentatomid :

    “Moderate Muslims like moderate Christians or even, gasp, moderate Republicans and libertarians are not great in their belief systems of choice in my view but they are NOT the problem or people I’m talking about here.” [-StevoR -ed.]
    Great, then please use some goddamn qualifiers in the future, because as far as I can tell, you are talking about muslims in general as if they all pose a threat to western culture. If you didn’t mean it that way, great, but then communicate clearly.

    I’d thought I’d made it clear by referring to Jihadists and Islamists but its possible that’s too subtle for some here I guess.

    I’ll try to be clearer in future.

    It is hard to avoid generalising sometimes. Getting too specific can lead to troubles with clarity and leads to overly long and complicated posts too. Communicating so that people get what your saying and where youre coming from can be pretty hard at times and sometimes the trouble isn’t at your end which I think is likely the case here for many readers. But I’ll keep trying.

  370. StevoR says

    @ Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain :

    Yeah, I’m struggling to see the difference between some of the stunts the US has pulled in the ME and terrorism.
    Oh! Wait! The US has shinier weapons! And less melanin in their skin! And worship a different genocidal patriarchal deity!

    No that’s not it at all. Waaay off base there. Let me help you out.

    Jihadists attack innocent people aggressively. The USA and for that matter Israel and its other allies defend innocent people and target those who are trying to attack them.

    Its analogous to the difference between a murderer committing homicides against innocent victioms and a cop shooting that killer dead in order to stop him.

  371. StevoR says

    @447. ruteekatreya :

    “Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating or threatening us?” [-StevoR - ed.]
    Which, again, is only a problem when brown people do it, seeing as the US has been at it for a while.

    I think that is simply anti-American slander – or is it technically called libel? False anyhow.

    Most Americans were either indifferent to or actually felt sympathetic for the Afghanistanis before they supported Al Quaida post 9-11 and, ditto, Iraq before it invaded Kuwait in 1991.

    The USA doesn’t hate nations the way the Arab world does – it recognises its enemies existence and rights and is even willing to hand their lands back to them postwars (Eg. Japan, Germany, Iraq) unlike Islamic nations that refuse to even accept the Jewish state exists and deserves to exist and calls for the deaths of Israel and the USA and so on.

    “War is a dreadful sickening unethical thing. But sometimes it is the least bad of possible options. Do I really need to point to 20th century history on that?” [-StevoR- ed.]
    Numerous pointless or evil wars by a huge number of combatants with one single war the US fought in and could claim it was justified in, and you’re going to pretend 20th century history as a whole stands behind your point? Good luck with that, just say world war 2 if you want to evoke it.

    WWII is certainly a prime example of a just war but it is far from the only case. The West fought justified wars for instance

    – in the late 90’s to free Bosnia and Kosovo from the Sebian “ethnic cleansers”

    – in 1991 to free Kuwait from Iraqi Occupation. (Worst mistake there was not continuing on to topple Saddam back then.)

    – in the early 1980’s to free the Falkland Islands from the Argentinean invaders.

    The Cold War overall was justified as was the Korean war among others.

  372. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    StevoR, I sincerely fear that people like you are a threat to my country.

    I am glad you understand why I, with much regret, must kill you.

    Death threats against those you disagree with on politics are cool here now?

    LOL

  373. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    @StevoR:

    Care to support any of your claims?

    I’m cranky and don’t want to do your homework right now, but if you start by identifying some of the points in you last screed that needs citations, I can give you some pointers and we’ll take it from there.

  374. StevoR says

    @456. ruteekatreya :

    The jihadist propaganda is *after* massive offenses, and in some cases, after borderline atrocities, carried out by the US on muslims. Over 50 years. The US had one incident int he course of a decade, and has been calling for oceans of blood since. One side’s hatred and detestation is legitimately more valid, although acting on it still isn’t. I don’t give a shit if they hate us; we earned it.

    Yowser, Ruteekatreya, is your anti-Amercian, anti-Western bias and bigotry ever showing herefucking !

    So much wrong I don’t know where to begin. It wasn’t just 9-11 2001 but a metric shit-tonne of other Jihadist terrorism over many decades including the 1970’s PLO and other Palestinian attacks and plane hijackings, the earlier 90’s attempt to bomb the Twin Towers, the murder of Daniel Pearl and so much more. Are you really, seriously so fucking ignorant as to make that ridiculous a claim with a straight face?

    Then the USA “called for oceans of blood” did it? Really? Citations seriously fucking needed. Which president? When?

    Oh and the people who were killed by Jihadists such a wheelchair bound tourist Leon Klinghoffer murdered aboard the Achille Lauro – look it up and learn something – the Israeli civilians murdered for boarding buses and attending restaurant passover meals and English people taking the Tube in London and Spaniards catching the trains in Madrid, they all “earned” and “legitimately validly” deserved what happened to them did they?!?

    FUUUUCK!

    Then you have the gall to accuse me of being a bad person and a “islamophobic bigot” and all these other nasty names for saying we should fight the Jihadists who do all that and stop them before they do more and worse. Fuck you Ruteekatreya with one of those dead porcupines. Fuck you.

  375. StevoR says

    @456. Anti-Western bigot :

    There is no threat of white people in the US being genocided, you alarmist know nothing, so we don’t really have to do anything.

    Except for the fact that Iran is trying to get nukes and has made it plain it wants to use them – you know all that “Death to America, Great and Lesser Satans” bile chanted daily in the squares of Tehran.

    Plus it isn’t just about the USA, Israel has been facing Jihadist threats of genocide since it was declared independent in 1948.

    “So can I get un-fucked and live now, please ruteekatreya?” – StevoR
    No.

    Tough, I’m going to keep living anyhow.

    I think you’ll find that the scriptwriters were not historians, and as usual with the popular US quotes that are allegedly ‘from Japanese leaders in WWII’, were put into the mouth of a japanese person by a white person. Fuck, every movie ‘based on real events’ does this shit, you ignoramus.
    ..snip ..It’s the fucking origin of the quote. White people made it up, and you’re sitting here pretending it’s real. You asshole.

    Because I’m white? You got a problem with that?

    Or are you just another anti-semite?

    As for the quote, I noted I don’t recall where I got the idea from. I doubt the movie is the only place it could’ve come from but hey, who knows you could perhaps be right, even a broken watch is twice a day. Its a fucken trivial detail and in no way affects my main argument here.

    @ 466. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says:

    @StevoR: Care to support any of your claims?
    I’m cranky and don’t want to do your homework right now, but if you start by identifying some of the points in you last screed that needs citations, I can give you some pointers and we’ll take it from there.

    What “claims” are you refering to there? What facts have I said that you’d dispute?

  376. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    What “claims” are you refering to there? What facts have I said that you’d dispute?

    What part of “I’m cranky and don’t want to do the homework of a howling bigot unless he puts in some good-faith effort first” did you not get?

  377. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Because I’m white? You got a problem with that?

    LOL.

    I do, StevoR. I hate you because you’re white; in fact that’s the only reason.

    There is no threat of white people in the US being genocided, you alarmist know nothing, so we don’t really have to do anything.

    Except for the fact that Iran is trying to get nukes and has made it plain it wants to use them – you know all that “Death to America, Great and Lesser Satans” bile chanted daily in the squares of Tehran.

    Plus it isn’t just about the USA, Israel has been facing Jihadist threats of genocide since it was declared independent in 1948.

    Again, no actual existential threat.

  378. StevoR says

    @ Tony… therefore God :

    “Could they – or their people and ideological commanders more broadly if not them individually – stop hating and threatening us?” -StevoR.
    Perhaps they will, after we stop giving them reasons to hate us.

    Their “reasons” for hating us are the very fact that we exist and aren’t Muslims.

    I’d rather not give up existing or convert to Islam thankyou.

    What, did you think bombing and killing Muslim extremists along with innocent civilians was going to make them realize the error of their ways and proclaim an end to any terrorist activities directed against the West? Uh-Uh.

    Killing the Jihadist terrorists and terrorist supporters makes them go away. Takes them out before they can do more harm.

    Yes. We kill as many Jihadist terrorist extremists as we have to to prevent them attacking us. Until they stop it.

    When they realise that terrorism isn’t working, when they decide that our existence isn’t sufficent cause for a Holy War, when they learn to accept reality and leave us be, then we can stop.

    Like it or not (I don’t FWIW) we are at war with the Jihadists -that’s what they’ve declared and are fighting to the death -theirs or ours. When you’re in a war situation and the enemy keep shooting at you (& you know they’ll kill you if you surrender – that’s not an option here) don’t you have to continue shooting them if you can until they stop or surrender or are are killed?

  379. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    28 June 2012 at 6:05 am
    If you are in fear of your life or your family or countries life, isn’t that justification to do what you need to do however much you may be regret being forced to do it and however much you may regret the necessity?

    StevoR, I sincerely fear that people like you are a threat to my country.

    I am glad you understand why I, with much regret, must kill you.

    Death threats against those you disagree with on politics are cool here now?

    LOL

    seriously.

  380. says

    @SteveOR:

    You are an islamophobe, pure and simple. Your previous statements you’ve been careful to mention moderate Muslims as people you have no problem with, then you lump all Arab nations together in your latest screed as hating the West. It’s not Arab nations, it’s nations like Iran that hate Israel and the US. And why not? We engaged in cyber warfare against them to try to stop them from having a nuclear program cause we’re terrified they might use the nuclear materials to make bombs.

    I would be terrified as a leader of Iran. The country is surrounded by people who hate it, most of whom have nuclear weaponry. If one of those countries decided to strike, they would, and there would be no deterrent. Nuclear weapons make a hell of a bargaining chip “you toe the line, Iran, or we’ll nuke you off the face of the earth.” And not only that, but warmongering people half a world away want to, for no other reason than pure speculation, preemptively nuke the entire country.

    Other Arab nations work fine with the US, in fact most do. I think half of them do it because they don’t want to be the next Iraq or Afghanistan.

  381. StevoR says

    @470. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation :

    I have no idea what you are talking about and accusing me of “howling bigotry” ain’t helping your case.

  382. Louis says

    {Cough} Everyone should invest research money in the thorium cycle rather than the weaponisable uranium cycle then this problem goes away to an extent {cough}

    What? I said nothing.

    Louis

  383. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I have no idea what you are talking about and accusing me of “howling bigotry” ain’t helping your case.

    That you have no idea of what I’m talking about rather is my case – but like I said, before I put any effort into mending your ways I want to see some good-faith efforts that shows you’re mendable.

    It’s not fucking hard. Your screeds are not long, but analysing what needs substantiation and what does not is child’s play if you just stop, think and listen.

  384. markw says

    You know what? I think StevoR is damn right. Nuke those Ay-rabs till they glow, huh?

    I don’t know if any of you guys heard, here in the UK we had a little home-grown terrorism problem with the Irish. Yeah. Sorted it all out with a nuke-strike to Dublin, they didn’t get so uppity after that.

    Oh wait.

    No.

    Sorry, I’ve got it all wrong.

    What actually happened, how we ended* the conflict in Ireland was to sit down with the terrorists and negotiate.

    *for certain values of “ended”

  385. StevoR says

    @474. Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort says:

    @StevoR: You are an islamophobe, pure and simple.

    “Islamophobia” is, as Hitchens has pointed out, a nonsense word – by definition a phobia is an irrational fear NOT a rational one.

    Your previous statements you’ve been careful to mention moderate Muslims as people you have no problem with, then you lump all Arab nations together in your latest screed as hating the West.

    No I didn’t. I referred to Jihadists and Islamist terrorists NOT all Arab nations.

    It’s not Arab nations, it’s nations like Iran that hate Israel and the US. And why not? We engaged in cyber warfare against them to try to stop them from having a nuclear program cause we’re terrified they might use the nuclear materials to make bombs.

    Which is obviously the case. Is anyone really so silly as to take Iran seriously when they say they want a peaceful nuclear program after their past deceptions, (incl. secretly building reactors underground etc ..) and hate speeches against Israel and the USA? Does anyone really trust them with The Bomb?

    I would be terrified as a leader of Iran. The country is surrounded by people who hate it, most of whom have nuclear weaponry.

    Iran has boarders with (gets out globe) :

    Pakistan – which has nukes but doesn’t hate Iran.

    Afghanistan – No nukes, no hate for Iran. Iran may or may not be aiding the Taliban fighting the USA there. If it is worried by reprisals for that, it could always, you know, quit doing that.

    Turkmenistan – A Muslim dictatorship, think its a US ally but its pretty secretive, doesn’t have nukes, not known for hating Iran.

    Turkey – no nukes, doesn’t hate Iran.

    Syria – no nukes (thanks Israel!), currently fighting an internal civil war, not hateful of Iran but a fellow Jihadist terrorism sponser.

    Iraq – no nukes, has fought previous war against Iran but the Iraqi dictator who launched that war was removed from power and the nationis now a troubled democracy of sorts. Iran has been influencing Iraq which is still pretty weak and divided along sectarian lines. Messy situation but Iraq has more to fear from Iran than vice-versa. (The US is out now recall.)

    Kuwait – the oil rich sheikdom has no nukes and no hate for Iran far as I know. No threat there.

    So, um, what? You mean Iran is afraid of non-neighbouring Israel?

    Because Israel almost certainly though not officially has nukes and may use them as a last restort to defend itself if it is attacked by Iran? If say Iran threatens to, I dunno, wipe the worlds one and only little Jewish state off the map or something?

    Hmmm.. Suppose I’m a frightened Iranian dictator? What would *I* do?

    Step one – I’d stop supporting Hamas and Hizbollah and fighting wars I can’t win.

    Step two – I’d offer a peace and non-aggression treaty with Israel and my other neighbours, and not threaten to attack them.

    Step three – I’d cut out the Islamist rhetoric and behave like a reasonable nation-state trading and behaving nicely with my neighbours and the wider world.

    As one of the worlds biggest oil producers I’d use those resources and certainly wouldn’t try to develop nuclear power that I don’t have any need of. If I want to shift to renewables I’d go for solar or maybe geothermal or something other than potentially nuke bomb making. Non-weaponisable thorium or liquid salt reactors maybe if it simply had to be nuclear. If I did have nuclera reactors I’d be open and transparent and let UN inspectors in and deal honestly with the world.

    I wouldn’t do things that made it look like I’m preparing an attack on Israel or the West. I’d be their ally and trading partner and learn from them and develop my nation to one that was stronger for that positive engagement with the wider world.

    That’s if *I* were Iranian dictator (never going to happen Iknow!)because I’m a reasonable person and not one like Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah’s pulling his strings who believes in nonsense about Jihads and Hidden Imams and, oh yeah, denying gay people exist in Iran and the Holocaust never happened and suchlike.

    Pity I’m not in charge of Iran and the Jihadists are isn’t it?

    If one of those countries decided to strike, they would, and there would be no deterrent. Nuclear weapons make a hell of a bargaining chip “you toe the line, Iran, or we’ll nuke you off the face of the earth.” And not only that, but warmongering people half a world away want to, for no other reason than pure speculation, preemptively nuke the entire country.

  386. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    “Islamophobia” is, as Hitchens has pointed out, a nonsense word – by definition a phobia is an irrational fear NOT a rational one.

    So, arachnophobia is a nonsense word then?

  387. markw says

    Islamophobia is a rational fear?

    I will concede for the sake of argument that it may, in some circumstances, be rational to be afraid of some individual Muslims.

    Fear of an entire diverse religion is not rational.

  388. StevoR says

    D’oh! Last paragraph was @474. Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort’s :

    If one of those countries decided to strike, they would, and there would be no deterrent. Nuclear weapons make a hell of a bargaining chip “you toe the line, Iran, or we’ll nuke you off the face of the earth.” And not only that, but warmongering people half a world away want to, for no other reason than pure speculation, preemptively nuke the entire country.

    I don’t *want* to preemptively nuke the entire country.

    I understand and think that logically that’s what they may force us to do – or at least nuke certain parts of Iran (military and religious leadership and reactor sites) to prevent them striking first because that’s what they seem very likely to do.

    Because I really seriously do NOT WANT Jihadist sponsoring deluded dictators and crazies to have The Bomb and the the power to vapourise entire cities and perhaps countries.

    I do NOT trust them with The Bomb.
    I don’t think the world can risk that. Do you?

    Its not based on “pure speculation”, its based on what Iran and its leaders and the Jihadist groups they’ve funded and armed (Hams and Hezbollah most notably) have said and done consistently and how they’ve behaved and lied over decades.

    I don’t always like where logic leads me or what the consequences of the conclusions logically derived may be but
    logic leads me, all of us who think logically if we do, there anyhow.

  389. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I do NOT trust them with The Bomb.

    I don’t trust you with a piece of string – does that give me the right to strangle you in your sleep?

  390. markw says

    what they may force us to do

    Sounds like an abusive partner:

    “Goddamn it Iran! I just gone and nuked Tehran! Now look what you made me do!”

  391. StevoR says

    @Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation :

    So, arachnophobia is a nonsense word then?

    No because spiders are “natural mortein” and aren’t harmful unless you get bitten by them which is unlikely if you do the right thing!

  392. StevoR says

    @481. markw s:

    Islamophobia is a rational fear? I will concede for the sake of argument that it may, in some circumstances, be rational to be afraid of some individual Muslims. Fear of an entire diverse religion is not rational.

    Doesn’t that depend on what that religion preaches and how its followers behave?

    If an “entire diverse religion” states non-beleivers must be killed or converted at the point of a scimitar (right word, their curved swords?) and its followers keep doing just that then isn’t fear of that “entire divser religion” entirely rational?

  393. markw says

    None of the Muslims I’ve ever met have killed me (or converted me) at the point of a scimitar. The worst any of them have ever done to me is made me a curry that gave me an upset stomach the next day.

  394. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Doesn’t that depend on what that religion preaches and how its followers behave?

    Since I’m feeling charitable: What you are doing here is called “reification”. Look it up.

  395. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    No because spiders are “natural mortein” and aren’t harmful unless you get bitten by them which is unlikely if you do the right thing!

    If I live in serious spider-country, say Australia* – what are the relative risks of me being killed by a spider vs me being Killed By Islam(TM)?

    BTW – what do you mean by “natural mortein”? I’m not familiar with the phrase and google did nothing for me.

  396. StevoR says

    @483.Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation :

    I do NOT trust them with The Bomb.
    I don’t trust you with a piece of string – does that give me the right to strangle you in your sleep?

    No.

    Wait, how long is that piece of string?

    A short, non-harmful, ordinary length of string? No.

    Now if that piece of string was some unbreakable monofilament capable of cutting through anything and if the other end of this very long deadly string was wrapped around your neck and your families necks and I could kill all of them just by tugging it the wrong way and wasn’t being reasonable and trying to change that situation so your life and the lives of those you love wasn’t at stake and dependent upon my good will then, yeah, maybe you would have a case. In that hypothetical example,yes, you may have the right to kill me in my sleep if there was no better alternative.

    If, say, a string was remotely comparable to an Atomic Bomb.

    But otherwise, no.

  397. says

    @SteveOR:

    That entire diverse religion contains those moderate Muslims you don’t have a problem with and those same Muslims like MarkW just told you who don’t try to kill or convert him by the sword (or me, I have Muslim co-workers who are completely cool with my being a non-Muslim.)

    You’re doing it again lumping in moderate Muslims with the Islamists and Jihadists and then pretending like you’re not.

    (and I’ll get to your responses to me in a while, I have things to do at work, not enough time to find articles, and not enough time to answer. You can expect a reponse to your responses to me later tonight)

  398. StevoR says

    @489. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation :

    BTW – what do you mean by “natural mortein”? I’m not familiar with the phrase and google did nothing for me.

    Mortein is a common flyspray we have in Oz.

    Natural mortein = natural insecticide.

    PS.“What you are doing here is called “reification”. Look it up.” Okay I will. Cheers.

  399. says

    @StevoR in #485:

    No because spiders are “natural mortein” and aren’t harmful unless you get bitten by them which is unlikely if you do the right thing!

    Muslims give to charity and aren’t harmful unless you get bombed which is unlikely if you do the right thing too.

    #492: while you’re doing homework, read this too.

  400. StevoR says

    @Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort says:

    @StevoR : That entire diverse religion contains those moderate Muslims you don’t have a problem with and those same Muslims like MarkW just told you who don’t try to kill or convert him by the sword (or me, I have Muslim co-workers who are completely cool with my being a non-Muslim.)
    You’re doing it again lumping in moderate Muslims with the Islamists and Jihadists and then pretending like you’re not.

    I don’t think that’s what I’m doing.

    I’m not meaning to include moderate Muslims along with the Jihadists. I think I’ve specified that I’m talking about the Jihadists based on the precise language I’ve used and the context and what they do and I refer to – ie. the whole point of the conversion by sword thing.

    If your religion demands conversion by sword then what I wrote at #486 applies but if what you consider your religion does NOT demand that then it (obviously?) does NOT. Does that make sense?

    I may be over-generalising a bit I guess.

  401. chigau (違う) says

    Of all the countries with nuclear capability, only one has ever used The Bomb on other humans.

  402. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, islamoph paranoid bigot StevoR is still an islamophobic paranoid bigot. No surprise there. What I can’t understand, is why it has to spew its bigotry here. We are rational, not paranoid, people. Its bigotry will not work here. And its paranoia is all to obvious for anybody with a modicum of intelligence to see.

  403. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Realistically speaking, most of us in the Western World are more likely to die of heart disease or cancer. It be nice if our research budget were within an order of magnitude of our defense budget.

    Even if I were to agree that the Jihadists (shadowy and ill-defined as they may be) represented a serious threat, the US at least spends piles of wealth in defense of that threat*. We don’t spend nearly enough to help our poorest from the very real threats of poverty and disease.

    *I don’t think this has been effective, for the record, in doing anything other than destabilizing the Middle East further. But for all I know, that may be the goal.

  404. says

    Islamophobia is a rational fear? I will concede for the sake of argument that it may, in some circumstances, be rational to be afraid of some individual Muslims. Fear of an entire diverse religion is not rational.

    Doesn’t that depend on what that religion preaches and how its followers behave?

    If an “entire diverse religion” states non-beleivers must be killed or converted at the point of a scimitar (right word, their curved swords?) and its followers keep doing just that then isn’t fear of that “entire divser religion” entirely rational?

    See, what you’re doing here is once again lumping moderates and extremists together in one pile. Moderate muslims don’t go about preaching people should be converted at the point of a scimitar. You know how I know this? For a fact? Because I know several muslims, that’s why. And none of them have tried to kill or convert me. In fact, we get along splendidly.

    Do you have a similar fear of christianity? After all this diverse religion states that unbelievers, gays, unruly children and people who eat crustaceans should be stoned to death. It’s in their holy book. And don’t you dare claim that christians don’t commit such acts anymore: the murder of abortion doctors, African witch hunts, Anders fucking Breivik. You name it, christianity has got it. So why do you treat Islam any different? Why is ‘islamophobia a rational fear’, while noone seems to be similarly afraid of christians?

    (Pssst, I’ll answer that for you: bigotry!)