The Great Oreo War »« Botanical Wednesday: Not sexy at all

The latest drama comic opera

No, not that one over there. This one on twitter.

I have deeply offended a small group of indignant skeptics. But here, I’ll let you read their side of the story first, although I’m sure that while they have been complaining about not getting my attention, now they’ll start complaining about the horde of vicious winged monkeys I just flung at them.

Now my side of the story. On my twitter account, I get a daily barrage of comments, mostly welcome, but there are idiots and spammers everywhere, and I block them. It’s easy: I click a button labeled “block”, and boom, they can’t write to me anymore. I probably block, on average, one or two pests a day.

So some guy writes to me yesterday and says, hey, you blocked my friend. I said I didn’t know that I had (not surprising, there’s a gigantic pile of bodies trapped in the filter; also, sometimes I do make mistakes and block the wrong person). So I checked. I don’t have a record of who I blocked, but I can at least check the guy’s blog out and see if there was a reason.

And oh, boy, but there was a good reason. His friend was one of those toxic privileged dimwits who was totally unhinged by the idea that a woman might turn down a guy’s proposition in an elevator. He really, really despises Rebecca Watson (I think I want an amulet with her face on it — it would make an excellent asshole detector and moron repellent). Also, what do I see in the comments but the usual slew of misogynist slimepit denizens who show up everywhere someone criticizes Watson, and there’s the blog owner agreeing with them and cussing out those annoying feminazis who are tainting the one True Skepticism™.

It was a righteous block, man, a clean kill. I want nothing to do with this clown and his sleazy associates.

And then Rebecca Watson lets me know that this is a guy who begged her to unblock him before, and called her a rude name. Yeah, that all fits. No, I’m not going to unblock him.

Only now he’s all upset: he didn’t call her that specific rude name, he claims, and it was unjust and unfair that I blocked him over that. You know what? I don’t care. That wasn’t part of my decision. I saw just another boring deranged anti-feminist, and saw no reason to unblock him. I don’t know what all the slighted blog owner said to Rebecca, but I do know that “feminazi” is a damned good tell.

But of course now it has escalated: he and his friends are whining that I wasn’t fair, that I didn’t look at the evidence, I should unblock him. No, I’m not fair, I did look at the evidence, I judged him to be an ass I don’t want to listen to. Done.

So now, to add to the fun, I’m blocking all these privileged twits who are popping up on twitter to whine at me more. With no regrets or remorse, since I even warned them all that I was just going to block anyone who tried to tell me who I must listen to. Also, the ERVites are having a grand time joining in, and I do love pissing them off.

Just let it be known: I can and will block whoever I want on Twitter, just as I can ban anyone I want on my blog. It’s not as if I have a shortage of participants in either medium, and I think it helps to cull out the stupid. And one thing that marks you as especially stupid is when you bother to complain that I don’t want to listen to you. Where does this sense of unfounded entitlement come from? Because it just makes me laugh harder at you.

Comments

  1. adamgordon says

    I didn’t intentionally link to it. I just happened to log on through Facebook.

    Fail

    Surely being involved in the field is enough to consider oneself a sociologist.

    DOUBLE FAIL

    Can women be aggressive and foul? Sure. But in my experience, those people are mostly male.

    HAT TRICK FAIL

  2. says

    @Brownian

    I said I was wrong. That doesn’t mean I didn’t make the assumption. Why is this so hard for you to follow? I made an assumption and there was a reason I made the assumption. It does not then follow that I feel I was right to make the assumption.

  3. Joao says

    Wow, I have been reading PZ’s stuff for quite some time and usually don’t get interested in these quarrels or when PZ goes to the offensive against people who bother him. But this time I did read the guy’s side and some of his blog posts and I must say I am shocked.

    I didn’t see any evidence of a “toxic privileged dimwit”, just some reasonable posts and someone making the point that he thinks Rebecca Watson was hit on in an apparently non-threatening way and over-reacted to it.

    Agree or not, it’s his position and since Rebecca made her story public and the story had so many ramifications, it’s a position that is certainly worth publishing.

    Really, really scary stuff when people start getting labeled a dimwit or toxic because they publicly argue for something that in principle could be defensible.

    My personal position is that I am completely for Rebecca’s and PZ’s arguments in favor of more awareness about harassment and respect towards women, but I have a knee-jerk reaction (that I hope to keep until I die) of completely stopping listening and developing great suspicion towards people who retort to ad-hominem attacks.

  4. says

    My personal position is that I am completely for Rebecca’s and PZ’s arguments in favor of more awareness about harassment and respect towards women, but I have a knee-jerk reaction (that I hope to keep until I die) of completely stopping listening and developing great suspicion towards people who retort to ad-hominem attacks.

    See I have a knee jerk reaction to people who don’t know what a ad-hom is but use the term. my knee jerks and puts my foot in their groin

  5. adamgordon says

    I have been reading PZ’s stuff for quite some time

    Ah, the unmistakable call of the wild Concern Troll.

  6. says

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    There Are No Women On Pharyngula, indeed. Dude, those are some impressively essentialist, archaic gender-stereotypes you’ve got there. Or is fighting against gender-stereotypes also “small stuff” in your very important opinion?

  7. Agent Silversmith, Vendor of +5 Vorpal Feather Dusters says

    Joao

    Don’t lean forward while sitting then.

  8. Josh, Official SpokesBrah says

    I must say I am shocked.

    Have some delicious smelling salts.

    My personal position

    Oh? Is that how you, for one, personally feel as an individual?

  9. says

    jamesmacdonald:

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male. Can women be aggressive and foul? Sure. But in my experience, those people are mostly male.

    I…just…

    I’m trying to point out how stupid this is, but I keep giggling. Seriously? “Ladies are passive and don’t swear”? What world are you on? Here’s a hint: women are human beings. They have the same ability to be aggressive or foul-mouthed as men do, for people have many different qualities and temperaments and backgrounds. They are not aliens.

    Just spend five minutes reading the comments on Regretsy while keeping in mind that those people are primarily women. It should clear up any confusion you have about how women can write online.

  10. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male.

    So, women haven’t got sufficient human attributes to go on aggressive foulmouthed rants.

    I see, you’re an adherent to the Kylie Sturgess school of feminism.
    A lot of us doesn’t really count that as feminism, so to avoid confusion it would be better if you refrained for calling yourself a feminist.

    I think the most compatible term with that school of thought is “chauvinist”. It would be better if you use that to describe yourself.

  11. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Good post. However, expect to be treated like scum for holding such a reasonable position.

    Oh, look who demonstrates his dishonesty again.

  12. Josh, Official SpokesBrah says

    retort to ad-hominem attacks.

    I didn’t know that was a verb.

    “retort”-v., trans. usu considered ignunt
    (1) To place inside the cremation chamber. (2) To re-cremate

  13. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but I have a knee-jerk reaction (that I hope to keep until I die) of completely stopping listening and developing great suspicion towards people who retort to ad-hominem attacks.

    Mine is for folks who tone troll and offer nothing but OPINION, without linking to real evidence…

  14. says

    Sure, if you’re actively involved in the field.

    unless “actively involved” means publishing papers or working for the UN, you’re likely not more involved with the field than I am, even if you’re further ahead on the path on becoming a sociologist. And at least I’m actually getting degrees in sociology, not social science; which is not the same as sociology, and doesn’t make you a sociologist any more than it makes you an anthropologist or psychologist.

  15. adamgordon says

    expect to be treated like scum for holding such a reasonable position.

    Right, just like your Reasonable Positions that people who swear online are men and that gendered pronoun use is just ‘the little stuff’

  16. says

    Gnumann:

    White-washing isn’t a slur – is it?

    :D Touche!

    James:

    I don’t recall claiming to have apologised. Could you quote me?

    Really? It’s in the post you referenced yourself, dumbass:

    I have said it was wrong and I have recognised why it was wrong. The point I am making is that I think focusing on grammar does more bad than good. I think it makes people not want to listen when serious issues are raised.

    Jesus Christ, you can’t even keep track of what you’ve written here.

    Just for curiosity’s sake, what the hell clown college did you graduate from, anyway? I’d check your facebook page, but lord knows you’d accuse me of being a Pinkerton or some shit.

  17. says

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male. Can women be aggressive and foul? Sure. But in my experience, those people are mostly male.

    Well, aren’t you lucky you came to Pharyngula, where your confirmation bias and skewed experiences can be corrected, you fucking piece of privileged lying idiotic trash. You’re so full of shit you make yesterday’s diapers smell good.

    I didn’t see any evidence of a “toxic privileged dimwit”, just some reasonable posts and someone making the point that he thinks Rebecca Watson was hit on in an apparently non-threatening way and over-reacted to it.

    That part that I bolded is just a “polite” way of saying that Rebecca, like all bitches, is a lying bitch.

    It’s not a fucking reasonable point.

    You’re privileged fucking nitwit too.

  18. says

    And I didn’t say that I had a PhD. Surely being involved in the field is enough to consider oneself a sociologist.

    Surely not.

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male.

    Hee. Welcome to Pharyngula.

  19. says

    @Gnumann

    I just said that women can be aggressive and foulmouthed. Therefore, your post is a total nonsequitur.

    @Audley

    I did not say women should not act in that way. I said someone who acts that way more often than not tends to be male. That’s just a fact. Are you really going to argue that women are generally just as aggressive as men? This isn’t a question about rights. It’s a question about what the reality of the situation is.

  20. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    However, expect to be treated like scum for holding such a reasonable position.

    You don’t have a reasonable OPINION. You have fuckwittery, lies and bullshit. Try third party evidence…You know, stuff found here.

  21. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I didn’t see any evidence of a “toxic privileged dimwit”

    Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. Some things are better observed by people not mired in the phenomenon themselves you know. It’s kinda like bad body odour. If you’re the only one in the group you stick out like a sore thumb, but if everybody is lax about their shower habits, people’s noses shut down and you don’t really notice.

  22. says

    And as far as hotshoe goes, it was the aggressive, foulmouthed rants that led me to believe they were male.

    Bwhahahahahahahahahaha! Oh my, there speaks the great and mighty not-a-sociologist feminist!

    You’re seriously stuck deep into stereotype land and you want us to believe you know anything about sexism, let alone fight it?

    I have this bridge for sale, dude…

  23. says

    but I have a knee-jerk reaction (that I hope to keep until I die) of completely stopping listening and developing great suspicion towards people who retort to ad-hominem attacks.

    and I have a knee-jerk reaction that I hope to keep until I die of completely stopping to listen and developing great suspicion towards people who use “ad hominem” as a synonym for insult

  24. says

    @Audley

    Admitting you made a mistake is not the same as apologising. It was a mistake, but it was an innocent one. It does not give you the right to an apology.

  25. adamgordon says

    I said someone who acts that way more often than not tends to be male. That’s just a fact. Are you really going to argue that women are generally just as aggressive as men?.

    Just digging deeper and deeper. You realize that you have no actual evidence for this claim other than anecdotes, right? How very skeptical of you.

  26. says

    Admitting you made a mistake is not the same as apologising. It was a mistake, but it was an innocent one. It does not give you the right to an apology.

    James, you’re a child rapist.

    ok well I was mistaken but I don’t owe you an apology.

  27. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It does not give you the right to an apology.

    If you have honesty and integrity, you would apologize. Which is why we have your number as lacking honesty and integrity…

  28. says

    @Brownian

    You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye. That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

  29. Josh, Official SpokesRetort-"Git in my 1800-degree belly!" says

    shitty ass sociologist

    Puncuation counts my dear.

    “Shitty-ass sociologist”

    “Shitty ass-sociologist”

    The more you know. . .

  30. Brownian says

    However, expect to be treated like scum for holding such a reasonable position.

    It’s the so very skeptical to simply assert your position is the most reasonable.

    Thank god I learned about the skeptics’ community. Now I know where the dumbest white wankers hang out.

  31. says

    You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye. That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    Yeah people who refuse to apologize when they’re assholes are very uncivil

    BTW, it is indeed a known fact that you sodomize chihuahuas.

  32. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    No mr in no way fictional sociologist:
    First supply the evidence towards your theory about social change de la fille de refroidissement, then you can go back to lying about all the apologies you haven’t made.

  33. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    Discussion implies you can change your mind and aren’t just preaching. Show us conclusive evidence that is the case. Or you are preaching with a closed mind…

  34. says

    Admitting you made a mistake is not the same as apologising. It was a mistake, but it was an innocent one. It does not give you the right to an apology.

    by this logic, it’s only appropriate to apologize if I run over your foot with my car and break it if I broke your foot on purpose.

    Which is fucking stupid, since if I did it on purpose, an apology wouldn’t fucking cut it.

    I’ve known people who’ve thought like that, and let me tell you, they’re deeply unpleasant to be around.

  35. adamgordon says

    Where did you say you studied at, James?

    Doesn’t matter. He learned all he needed to learn in My Girlfriend Says It’s Not A Problem 101

  36. Brownian says

    You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye. That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    I’m embarrassed a lying dipshit like you called me brother.

    People like you disgust me.

  37. says

    That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    where, once again, “civil” is being defined by whether people do or don’t use “bad” words, and not by whether they’re intellectually honest participants in a conversation.

  38. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You need a citation to tell you that men are generally more aggressive than women?

    You need a citation for every claim you make…You dug your hole as a liar and bullshitter with OPINION. Now cite your way out of it with facts….Or acknowledge tacitly to the world you don’t have any…

  39. says

    @Jadehawk

    No, an apology is for something that’s worth apologising for. Not all mistakes are automatically followed by an apology.

    Let’s say I see someone who I think is an old friend.

    Me: Hey. How are you?
    Them: Do I know you?
    Me: Aren’t you Jane Bloggs? (see what I did there?)
    Them: No, you have the wrong person.
    Me: My mistake.

    I then go about my day.

    You see how that didn’t warrant an apology?

  40. says

    I said someone who acts that way more often than not tends to be male. That’s just a fact. Are you really going to argue that women are generally just as aggressive as men?.

    No, James, that is not a fact. It’s also interesting to note that you tag any woman who bothers to speak her mind or is assertive in any way as “aggressive in the manner of a male”. You’re ignoring how women and men are, doing a disservice to both by sticking to discredited, idiotic stereotypes.

  41. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Amazing, since on the Bravo, Germany thread, I’m being tone trolled during a discussion of pregnancy. :D

    Let’s just hope they don’t think you’re the MRA messiah

  42. says

    excellent. I’m now Jadehawk the Sociologist, and I insist that y’all refer to me by that title.

    I’ll hood you. The Pharyngula hood flashes – it’s a brilliant display.

  43. says

    why james. are you saying mistaking one person for another is not an offense that requires apologies?

    I’m shocked laughing my ass of at your inability to be consistent.

    aside from that, doing something sexist is not the same kind of mistake as confusing one person for another, seeing as one causes harm, and the other doesn’t. hence my comparison to physical harm, innocently done or otherwise.

  44. says

    @Cain

    See my post above. This is getting to be so ridiculous that I might just bury you in citations to make you feel as silly as you should.

  45. MissEla says

    jamesmacdonald, RE: the info in my last post–On second thought, perhaps you should skip looking at the small excavator and the Dingo. With the amount of shit you’re shoveling, you’re going to need the biggest excavator we carry. Let me know when you’re ready for that phone number and a rate quote.

  46. says

    Even granting that men tend to be more aggressive than women, it’s utterly stupid to assume that perceived aggressiveness automatically means male.

    Humans do this all the time because our brains are somewhat wired that way, but that just means that our brains are wired dumb, and someone who actually studied sociology should know that, I think.

    Meeting someone and assigning characteristics based on their demographics is so pointless. Statistics are not individuals.

    It’s like building a bridge over a river based not on the measurements at the point where you’re building the bridge, but on the overall average width and depth of the river. You MIGHT get it right, but it’d be a coincidence.

  47. Agent Silversmith, Vendor of +5 Vorpal Feather Dusters says

    James

    In an environment where consequences are removed, almost anyone will use aggression if it’s warranted.

    Pharyngula is a place where there’s no consequences for warranted aggression.

    The conclusion looks obvious to me from here.

  48. mythbri says

    @jamesmacdonald

    This thread was started by people quibbling about unimportant things (being blocked on Twitter). You’re complaining about other people quibbling about “unimportant” things. What makes your things more important than my things?

  49. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Here’s a link documenting the chauvinist troll de jour’s ability to supply documentation.

    Also mr. esteemed and in no way utterly failed sociologist – the documentation you didn’t supply wasn’t the documentation asked for, was it?

    Are you really sure you passed primary education?

  50. says

    jamesmacdonald:

    You need a citation to tell you that men are generally more aggressive than women?

    Please, please, please just back down and listen and try to learn something. You’re falling back on gender essentialist arguments and relying on stereotypes. You’re not dealing with gender as a spectrum that covers a wide range of traits. You are, in essence, dehumanizing the human race by ignoring the variety within it.

    It’s very easy to do this, I know. Lots of well-meaning people who’d consider themselves very progressive and very thoughtful do it all the time. There is far more variation within a gender than there is between them. People may be culturally influenced to play out certain stereotypes, but continuing to use those stereotypes to define and identify people reinforces the damage. It genuinely hurts people and efforts to break down those stereotypes.

    Recognizing your own biases and the ways that you have internalized patriarchy doesn’t have to be bad or shameful. If you’re not ready to admit you’re wrong, then walk away. Think. You will gain nothing by digging in deeper here, but someday if you ever see the error of your ways–and I sincerely hope you do–this is going to be a terrible embarrassment to you.

  51. says

    Okay, so the first line of the abstract reads:

    Aggressive behavioral characteristics were assessed in groups of men and women by a self-report instrument, the Aggression Inventory, in which adult males reported more physical and verbal aggression than did females.

    So, more aggressive. Okay. It’s not saying that women aren’t aggressive, but you know, whatevs.

  52. adamgordon says

    People may be culturally influenced to play out certain stereotypes, but continuing to use those stereotypes to define and identify people reinforces the damage. It genuinely hurts people and efforts to break down those stereotypes.

    The fact that someone who is ‘involved in the field of Sociology’ doesn’t already know this is baffling to me.

  53. says

    @Audley

    I didn’t say that woman aren’t agressive, or are never aggressive. I went out of my way to say, simply, that men are generally more aggressive. That does mean men are always more aggressive. All it means is that men are more likely to be aggressive.

  54. says

    Aggressive behavioral characteristics were assessed in groups of men and women by a self-report instrument, the Aggression Inventory,

    Nearly all subjects (97%) were Caucasians of Northern European descent and resided in the upper Midwest.

    This instrument was a modified version of the Olweus Multifaceted Aggres- sion Inventory [Olweus, 1986]. This instrument reliably assessed aggressive behavior and personality characteristics in young adolescent boys.

    just sayin’ (and that’s just from the beginning. I bet it’s similarly entertaining all the way through)

  55. says

    I didn’t say that people weren’t culturally influenced. That has no relevance to my point. I thought that hotshoe was a man because they were particularly aggressive. At no point did I say that the aggression could not have been the result of environmental factors.

  56. 'Tis Himself says

    The fact that someone who is ‘involved in the field of Sociology’ doesn’t already know this is baffling to me.

    It’s quite amazing the amount of sociological things jamesmacdipshit is ignorant of. I’m not a sociologist* and I’ve spotted several things an actual sociologist would know that jamesmacfuckwad doesn’t know.

    *Although I’m in an allied trade.

  57. says

    Ah, the anti-essentialist argument. Who says postmodernism has nothing useful to say?

    Whoa whoa there buddy. You’re starting to sound like you’re not a total liar about this whole college education thing. Careful, you wouldn’t want to ruin this delightful “I’m claiming to be a sociologist (or study sociology) but evince zero knowledge of common sociological concepts and phenomena” Poe schtick you’ve got going on.

  58. says

    This is getting to be so ridiculous that I might just bury you in citations to make you feel as silly as you should.

    No, no you won’t. You’ve put up 53 comments in 7 hours; this is a sure sign of an obsessed kook. You’re done. In all those comments, you’ve failed to make your case, and are looking increasingly stupid.

    Stop now before I have to ban you to shelter what few pitiful shreds of dignity you have left.

  59. says

    I didn’t say that woman aren’t agressive, or are never aggressive. I went out of my way to say, simply, that men are generally more aggressive. That does mean men are always more aggressive. All it means is that men are more likely to be aggressive.

    Is the difference large enough to warrant automatically assuming that every aggressive person you interact with on the internet is male?

    Or is that just your ingrained sexism talking?

  60. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Aggressive behavioral characteristics were assessed in groups of men and women by a self-report instrument

    What’s more likely? Sense of humour or utter cluelessness?

    (Ok, I’m a bad Gnumann. I’m JAQ’ing here. Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself. I’m sure Simon Baron-Cohen has some research based on these very helpful and accurate self-reporting methods that can show me that it’s just my genes and my super-maleness, and gives me some good tools to reinforce my behaviour)

  61. says

    @Audley

    Calling it a stereotype doesn’t change the fact that it is true. Men are generally more aggressive than women. That is all I said.

    What is it that you want me to say that would actually be relevant to the point I made? People are raising issues that have no bearing on what I said, as though I even touched on the role of culture on agression.

  62. Brownian says

    This is what this fuck thinks is important? Justifying why, as a feminist, he’s totes in the right to assume someone is male because of foul language and aggression? The man who lauds civility and honesty above all? This is how he’s fighting the patriarchy?

    What a fucking joke of a human being.

    This is what I get for not assuming he’s a fucking shitbag off the get-go.

  63. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Ah, the anti-essentialist argument. Who says postmodernism has nothing useful to say?

    Ah, it all seems so very clear to me now. James: I’m going to ask you a yes or no question. I’m quite sure PZ won’t ban you for answering either yes or no:

    Your “involvement in sociology” – is it reading “The Blank Slate” while stoned?

  64. says

    jamesmacdonald: we’ve already determined that you’re an idiot. Stop shoveling before we’re forced to conclude you’re demented, too.

  65. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    All it means is that men are more likely to be aggressive.

    Whoopie shit, meaningless without a citation fuckwit…Either step up to an academic debate, or shut the fuck up. Only abject fuckwits keep giving OPINION in place of facts like you do. Your OPINION is considered lies and bullshit, and has been considered that all day. You need to establish some credibility, and it does not come from you continuing to talk.

  66. says

    What is it that you want me to say that would actually be relevant to the point I made?

    Maybe that you’re a sexist idiot being a lazy thinker, rather than saying to yourself, “Gee, although I think it’s true that men in general are more aggressive than women, that doesn’t mean that this particular individual is necessarily a man. Assuming gender on the basis of behavioral trends with small but statistically significant differences between genders would not only be lazy, unscientific thinking, but would also contribute to the overall atmosphere of sexism that pervades society, which is something I know because I studied sociology.”

  67. michaeldean says

    At the risk of being banned for disagreeing….

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment. Read Comment 94 at CoffeeLovingSkeptic’s blog linked above.

    My wife had considered taking part in TAM2012, but sees this issue as a bunch of adolescent squabbling.

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas. ALL ideas. When we can no longer question and debate, we become what we claim to despise.

    Just saying.

  68. adamgordon says

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    I question this idea.

  69. says

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas. ALL ideas. When we can no longer question and debate, we become what we claim to despise.

    So you’re fine with having a rational agreement on whether we should or shouldn’t kill and eat you at the next skeptic convention?

  70. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    At the risk of being banned for disagreeing….

    Let me Derp that for you.

    Thoughtcrime
    Dissent
    Heresy
    What about Freethought?
    Freedom From Thought
    Talibanesque
    Witch-Hunt
    Witch of the Week
    Peezus
    fanbois
    But I disagree!
    Baboons

  71. says

    Comment 94? The one where the clueless “gentle lady” natters on ignorantly about women and elevators? No, I don’t think so. She’s a fool.

    How about if you read farther down where the petulant blog owner is busy talking himself into suing Rebecca Watson for a twitter comment? Now that’s despicable adolescent posturing.

    Also, you don’t get banned for disagreeing here. But if you insist on obstinately fueling another 600 comments here because you feel like repeating yourself 50 times, yeah, then I’ll smack you with the banhammer.

  72. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    No. As Sally has said, if this fractures the “community” then let it fracture. I want to know who the knuckle-dragging assholes are so I don’t turn my back on them and mistake them for allies. This is helping that goal.

  73. says

    Brownian:

    This is what I get for not assuming he’s a fucking shitbag off the get-go.

    Don’t beat yourself up for thinking James had a shot at self-awareness.

    Audley:

    NIXON ALWAYS WINS!

  74. says

    It’s interesting. James assumes someone is male due to aggressiveness and profanity and uses the male pronoun to describe them. This has the effect (if James isn’t called out) of reinforcing James’ stereotyped preconceptions about sex and aggression. It also has the effect (if James isn’t called out) of reinforcing cultural notions about sex and aggression, which can affect people’s views and behavior. But James the Very Real Sociologist doesn’t recognize or care about this.

  75. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    At the risk of being banned for disagreeing….

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment. Read Comment 94 at CoffeeLovingSkeptic’s blog linked above.

    My wife had considered taking part in TAM2012, but sees this issue as a bunch of adolescent squabbling.

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas. ALL ideas. When we can no longer question and debate, we become what we claim to despise.

    Just saying.

    When you and your quite possibly fictional wife attended “He-man fairy-stomper-super-SKEPTIC” booth camp…

    …was there possibly, somewhere between two idiot-machismo-and-coffee-breaks someone who uttered a slight word on what fucking grounds you should question and attack ideas on?

    Does that ring a tiny little silver errm, sorry huge masculine bronze bell in the back of your mind?

  76. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    bah – I canzor bork del too!

    Only “tiny little silver” should be strikethrough.

  77. says

    jamesmacdonald:

    Ah, the anti-essentialist argument. Who says postmodernism has nothing useful to say?

    And now I feel dirty for trying to save him from embarrassing himself. Pleh.

  78. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    So you’re fine with having a rational agreement on whether we should or shouldn’t kill and eat you at the next skeptic convention?

    Whatever you do, just make sure you cook him properly. You don’t know where he’s been and I don’t want to lose you to kuru. You hear?

  79. says

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    Yes, of course, everything and anything is more important than sexual harassment, amirite? Oh, except for all those silly wimminz yakking about sexual harassment, that’s causing actual harm to the community. Uh huh.

  80. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Why do wives and girlfriends always have to be mentioned?

    Immunization for the win!

    Though I’m not quite sure if in their tiny little minds they actually think it works, or if it is for internal use only.

    (No, I can’t be sexist. Not me! I have a wife who agrees with everything I say. I even gave her father a very good price.)

  81. says

    Audley:

    Why do wives and girlfriends always have to be mentioned?

    They think it gives them cred – they can’t possibly be sexist if they have a wife/girlfriend/female friend.

  82. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Why do wives and girlfriends always have to be mentioned?

    Because RealDolls can’t talk.

  83. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas.

    In that screed you forgot the key ingredient. We also look at the evidence. Questions are mental wankery without a reality check. That is required to be a skeptic, checking the concept against the facts. Bigfoot, god, and nessie are still imaginary. Feminism is nothing but treating women like they are people like men. That’s what the evidence says. Show evidence otherwise…

  84. says

    @skeptifem:

    tonight kinda sucks.

    Not for those of us who were observing (if not actively participating in) this conversation. From this point of view, tonight was a smashing success.

    OMFG I LUUUUUUVE YOU GUYS!

    Ahem. Sorry.

    *goes back to lurking*

    *also, drinking*

  85. says

    Yikes. It’s all these aggressive, angry, persistent women.

    Poor jimmy macd. He walked right into the den of gynofury, and got pulverized all day long.

  86. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    I question the idea that we question all ideas.

    I’m skeptical that you feel that way.

    Check CHECK mate!

  87. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    gynofury

    Bwahahahhaah!

    “GynoFury. . . the official emotion of the 2012 Gynococracy™”

  88. says

    Audley:

    And, of course, they must think we’re stupid enough to fall for that crap.

    Naturally. There is another part to the “I can’t be sexist, I have a wife/girlfriend/female friend” pretend cred – the wife/girlfriend/female friend always has no problem with whatever is under discussion.

    In the case of ‘michaeldean’, he brings up wifely disapproval of attending TAM because of course the whole conference will be held in abeyance in favour of adolescent squabbling. Honestly, the “arguments” these fuckwits come up with are better fiction than bigfoot.

  89. says

    I love that the question everything skeptics always focus on sexism and “how do we know the bell curve isn’t true? We can’t just ignore it due to ideology! After all black women are very manly amiright guys?” and not stuff like “Should we eat the rich?”

  90. Enkidum says

    OK, I’m really not foreseeing this going over well here, but isn’t it a problem that Watson has very publicly accused this CLS guy of calling her a cunt, twice, which is in fact not true? I read through his comments on the post, and he doesn’t seem particularly concerned about being blocked by either her or PZ, but he does want a retraction, or at least a deletion, of the false claims made about him. Isn’t that fair enough?

  91. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    You dumb fuck, #147–you haven’t actually read the whole thread, have you?

  92. says

    Poor jimmy macd. He walked right into the den of gynofury, and got pulverized all day long.

    Yeah, that there’s a real shame. Especially since the den of gynofury offers so many other more advanced services than your standard, entry-level pulverization.

  93. says

    PZ:

    It’s all these aggressive, angry, persistent women.

    But there aren’t any women on Pharyngula! Except Nerd.

    Poor jimmy macd. He walked right into the den of gynofury, and got pulverized all day long.

    Delicious! *Waits for Gynofurious to show up appended to someone’s nym*

  94. says

    OK, I’m really not foreseeing this going over well here, but isn’t it a problem that Watson has very publicly accused this CLS guy of calling her a cunt, twice, which is in fact not true? I read through his comments on the post, and he doesn’t seem particularly concerned about being blocked by either her or PZ, but he does want a retraction, or at least a deletion, of the false claims made about him. Isn’t that fair enough?

    no he’s lying. Bros lie

  95. says

    “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”:

    I love that the question everything skeptics always focus on sexism and “how do we know the bell curve isn’t true? We can’t just ignore it due to ideology! After all black women are very manly amiright guys?” and not stuff like “Should we eat the rich?”

    We don’t have to ask questions we already know the answer to, duh.

    (The answer is yes, but with such a small population hunting licenses will have to be carefully regulated.)

  96. Enkidum says

    Ah, never mind. “I’d like to sincerely apologize to the man-children I’ve blocked. That first guy called me a “feminazi,” but maybe not a “cunt.” Sooo sorry.”

    Yeah, she did retract it. FWIW, he says “In a blog I said the term feminaziism a year ago. Is feminaziism an appropriate term? No, it’s ridiculous, but I’m not deleting it a year later as it’s in the past so I can’t change what I said. However, she blatantly lied. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I happily hold my hands up and admit my mistake. It’s there for all to see. I’m not proud of it.”

    But yeah, he doesn’t have much left to ask for, I think.

  97. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    OK, I’m really not foreseeing this going over well here, but isn’t it a problem that Watson has very publicly accused this CLS guy of calling her a cunt, twice, which is in fact not true? I read through his comments on the post, and he doesn’t seem particularly concerned about being blocked by either her or PZ, but he does want a retraction, or at least a deletion, of the false claims made about him. Isn’t that fair enough?

    Yes, as you would discover if you’d actually read the tread – I for one think that white-washing of rank misogyny into the more common, tame garden variety is not quite right.It was a honest mistake though, and I’m pretty sure if Watson chooses to talk about him again, she’ll describe his vileness more accurately.

    Mistakes happen, and vile misogynist are a dine a dozen these days. So one slightly white-washed one is no biggie.

  98. says

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Yeah, calling a woman a feminazi and mistakenly accusing a man of calling a woman a cunt when really all he did was call her a lying feminazi are TOTALLY EQUIVALENT! THEY ARE BOTH REALLY REALLY WRONG.

    /sarcasm tag here in case you are a fucking idiot

    No patience. No three strikes rule. No excuses. Fuck you, Enkidum. Just fuck you. You’re on the losing side of history. Sexist wankers are losers. Defending them makes you a loser.

  99. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Note that these are not Enkidum’s words; they are part of a quote.

  100. says

    I’m sure Watson has a spreadsheet matching the past year of hundreds or thousands of insults, attacks, and slurs to who said them in every blog post or comment, FB wall, YT comment, email, or tweet. If she mistakenly attributes a particular slur to an individual who’s been attacking her, it can only be a vicious, intentional lie. An unaggressive one, of course.

  101. karpad says

    You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye. That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    Well, Russeled Jimmy. I’ve witnessed everyone here have civil discussions before. So clearly they’re capable of it. In fact, I’ve seen civil discussion on Rebecca Watson, Elevatorgate, Feminism, and, most incredulously of all, Joss Whedon.

    So Control of this experiment would indicate this is a civil bunch.

    Makes me think the experimental factor here is the cause of the lack of civility as you see it.

    and by experimental factor, I mean you.

    PZ, you’re a science guy of some note. Perhaps you could help me write a grant request to conduct a study on the presence of dudes named James MacDonald and rage responses. Maybe compare it to Bath Salts as a drug, or at least to the presence of other infuriating people.

    There’s the wealth of human knowledge to be added to!

  102. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    He also made an 11-minute video whining about the “vapidity and narcissism of Rebecca Watson” on 3 June

    Good Christ. What is it about Rebecca that provokes this vitriol? When you step back and (try to) wipe your mind of the “new normal” that is Rebecca-Hate it’s jaw-dropping how many people are inflamed over her and how far they’re willing to go.

    I’ve never, ever seen anything like it; I’m genuinely flummoxed.

    Anyone can help?

  103. says

    Ah, never mind.

    Feel free to fuck right off with your vapid defense of sexist assholes, Enkidum. The “I didn’t call her a cunt, I called her a feminazi!” idiot has been hanging out at the slimepit, getting pats on the back from his fellow sexists and talking about suing Rebecca Watson. Yeah, he’s a fuckin’ hero.

  104. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    “Should we eat the rich?”

    Contrary to common punk attitudes this is not a good idea. The rich are high in the food chain and accumulate a lot of environmental toxins.

    The best use for the rich is therefore to grind them into mulch and use them for fertilizer.

    (Not Penn Jilette though, he will always poison everything he touches and should only be used for stopping runaway trains).

    Does this mean I lose my Tro Skeptick membership card? Pretty please!

  105. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    If she mistakenly attributes a particular slur to an individual who’s been attacking her, it can only be a vicious, intentional lie.

    Worse—she’s deliberately inputting bad formulae in cells so that names are incorrectly cross-referenced with quotations. Evil Excel-wielding biatch.

  106. says

    Two questions occur to me:
    1) How could any human being think that getting hit on by a stranger in an elevator late at night is not “threatening”?
    2) In what universe does England exist in, that “c*nt” is not a gendered insult?

    Apparently the asshat in question is under the thoroughly mistaken impression that if you call a man a “c*nt”, then it isn’t a gendered insult. Obviously, the discussion about whether he is in asshat should end there.

  107. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Ya know, they’re not very bright, are they? Can you imagine the can of financial and publicity whoop-ass that would be dumped on the fire if this douchebag actually sued Rebecca?

    You think the Pharyngu-horde Fund for the Temporarily Down at Heel looks robust? Holy fuck—the Entire Internet would finance the most kick-ass lawyers for Rebecca, there’d be so much left over she could start a Skepchick nonprofit foundation with an endowment, and the MRAs would be thoroughly derided in court rulings and across the media.

  108. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    :snortle, snorfle and guffaw:

    Click my avatar, Caine. It’s simply the best 19th-century satirical cartoon ever: “An Exquisite in Fits.”

  109. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    In what universe does England exist in, that “c*nt” is not a gendered insult?

    You can drop the “*” – it’s the usage of the word that offends, not a combination of four letters.

    And you are asking a slightly wrong question. The really interesting question is that if, for the sake of the argument, accept that England is indeed the fabled land where twat, cunt, prick and dick have lost all their sexual and gendered connotations and exist solely as colourful ways of saying foolish or arrogant person (which of course shouldn’t be used in front of americans): How the flying fuck did that happen?

    Have these people no fucking clue about the basics of semantic drift and etymology?

  110. says

    Good Christ. What is it about Rebecca that provokes this vitriol? When you step back and (try to) wipe your mind of the “new normal” that is Rebecca-Hate it’s jaw-dropping how many people are inflamed over her and how far they’re willing to go.

    I’ve never, ever seen anything like it; I’m genuinely flummoxed.

    Anyone can help?

    She’s a woman and she said no.

  111. Enkidum says

    Just to re-iterate, I don’t think he has anything left to ask for at this point. I do think that we should be specific and accurate about the things people have said or done, but RW does seem to have retracted her statement. So fuck it, he’s got no legs left to stand on.

    And the “ah, never mind” was meant to be a retraction of my first post on this page – I was mistaken to have written it, so please ignore. Or not, as you please. Sorry if any of that was unclear.

  112. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Ya know, they’re not very bright, are they? Can you imagine the can of financial and publicity whoop-ass that would be dumped on the fire if this douchebag actually sued Rebecca?

    Well, I got bad news and good news.

    The bad news is that English libel law is seriously fucked. We’re talking GOP-levels of fuck. So even though you’re perfectly innocent a vindictive arsehole with enough money can make your life a living hell.

    The good news for you USA-ians is that your government knows this, and refuses to enact English libel judgements.

  113. Utakata says

    Sorry…I think this was a bit my fault. I did ask jamesmacdonald to post some more way back on the other page, since I thought he would make he would make an excellent chew toy. I guess he really took that to heart. O.o

  114. says

    (Don’t be silly. Women don’t know how to use Excel.)

    tricky. is using excel a soft skill, or a manly-dude skill?

    the fact that white-collar workers do it argues for the former; the fact that it involves no talking suggests the latter.

    where or where is the mind failer to resolve this important dilemma?

  115. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I do not really have time to comment when everything has gone apeshit the last few days. But I do have to point and laugh at jamesmacdonald while exposing some of feminism’s dirty laundry.

    When james first started doubling down on his sexism by claiming that hotshoe spoke like a male, I was reminded of what some “women-born-women” feminists would say about things written by transgendered women.

    “I could feel the male energy.”

    They though it was obvious and profound. It seemed to me that they were dealing with both confirmation bias and accepting gender stereotypes.

    I had to share and laugh.

  116. says

    And the “ah, never mind” was meant to be a retraction of my first post on this page – I was mistaken to have written it, so please ignore.

    Retraction noted and accepted. I hope you understand that a lot of us are tipsy/on a bit of a hair trigger/burned out/any combination of the above.

  117. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    The bad news is that English libel law is seriously fucked. We’re talking GOP-levels of fuck. So even though you’re perfectly innocent a vindictive arsehole with enough money can make your life a living hell.

    Ask Deborah Lipstadt.

  118. hotshoe says

    You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye. That aside, aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with a bunch of people who can’t have a civil discussion?

    I’m embarrassed a lying dipshit like you called me brother.

    People like you disgust me.

    Oh, good thing I read this post. See, I was (egotistically) re-reading my posts to James, but also (quasi-scientifically) trying to formulate a hypothesis about what in my speech might indicate what gender I am.

    This is one bit I hypothesized is a gender giveaway:

    You are a completely pointless sack of shit, James. You disgust me.

    You should disgust yourself, too.

    “You disgust me”. I can’t remember the last time I heard a male say that. In my ears, it’s stereotypical female, the tight-lipped schoolmarm.

    But I guess my hypothesis has been disproven even before I typed it out. Because Brownian just said exactly that. And Brownian is male, and not a schoolmarm – rather, not a schoolmaster.

    Makes me wonder what other phrases are said that I don’t hear if they come from one gender but hear if they come from amother.

  119. hotshoe says

    shitty ass sociologist

    The American Sociological Association was originally the American Sociological Society, until acronyms became popular. True story.

    Too bad they didn’t pick Society of American Sociologists. Then they would have been SOfAS.

    Well, I thought it was cute. Sorry.

  120. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    And Brownian is male, and not a schoolmarm – rather, not a schoolmaster.

    I’ll be in my bunk.
    [/kidding]

  121. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    “You disgust me”. I can’t remember the last time I heard a male say that

    Interesting. And perhaps some subtle influence of the sexist background noise.

    I first thought “That sounds like something I could say” – but then it dawned on me that I would say “You’re disgusting” instead. Laying the agency (and the blame) closer to the disguster than to the disgustée.

    What do you think? A plausible speculation?

    Could there be a background script that women are more expected to share responsibility for a bad social situation even when they are on the short end?

  122. rg57 says

    I don’t use Twitter, and neither do I care if PZ listens to me. I figure the only person who might read my comment is the next person who wants to leave one. Still, it looks like PZ may block contrary comments, so it may affect me to that extent.

    “Where does this sense of unfounded entitlement come from?”

    OK, rhetorical question I know. But you are talking about the Internet, after all. If you don’t want diverse opinions including back talk, you should ask yourself why you are running a blog. Perhaps a different kind of website would be more suitable.

    “I think it helps to cull out the stupid.”

    Unfortunately, no, that’s not what it does. It makes you look like you’ve lost the argument. It’s self-Pharyngulation.

    You’re misrepresenting valid differences in opinion (not to mention the production of evidence, some of it quite … shocking) as stupidity. I followed the link to the oh-so-terrible blogger. And he’s got valid points there. I’m really disappointed at how he’s been misrepresented, and I’m starting to think that you have abandoned the idea of bothering to have a point, much less argue it.

    So when you just dismiss him as stupid, you lose the argument, even if you might be on the right side of it.

  123. says

    You’re misrepresenting valid differences in opinion (not to mention the production of evidence, some of it quite … shocking) as stupidity. I followed the link to the oh-so-terrible blogger. And he’s got valid points there. I’m really disappointed at how he’s been misrepresented, and I’m starting to think that you have abandoned the idea of bothering to have a point, much less argue it.

    FFS. Bros lie! This is well established.

    You know for not caring about being banned this asshole sure has his entire dudebro frat coming out to defend him.

  124. ChasCPeterson says

    aw, this thread has evolved very far since I was involved, so I won’t do detailed responses to the pre-macdonald shit. But Brownian, thank you; Tethys, I charge extra for screeds by request, talk to my people; Sally: Neither the guy’s ethnicity nor his sexual preference are relevant, and therefore you’re an asshole. Just like Rutee.

    The American Sociological Association was originally the American Sociological Society, until acronyms became popular. True story.

    This is the most fascinating information I have learned today. This is something to savor in solitary contemplation, not something one would ever want to use in a sarcastic or mocking manner in a public forum such as the internet.

  125. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    OK, rhetorical question I know. But you are talking about the Internet, after all. If you don’t want diverse opinions including back talk, you should ask yourself why you are running a blog. Perhaps a different kind of website would be more suitable.

    Was that supposed to be an answer to the rhetorical question? Because it wasn’t one.

  126. says

    Janine: History’s Greatest Monster:

    They though it was obvious and profound. It seemed to me that they were dealing with both confirmation bias and accepting gender stereotypes.

    Good comparison! It’s a trap far, far too many people fall into, too. I’ve tried many times to break people out of that viewpoint, but it really becomes difficult for them to see beyond it.

  127. says

    rg57:

    You’re misrepresenting valid differences in opinion

    Valid differences? Really? Cunt or Feminazi, cunt or feminazi…

    You’re talking about someone who actively defends sexism. Nice to know you consider that sort of shit valid.

  128. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Sally: Neither the guy’s ethnicity nor his sexual preference are relevant, and therefore you’re an asshole. Just like Rutee.

    Wtf now?

  129. says

    Cipher:

    Wtf now?

    In another thread (the misogynist one, I think), Rutee made a reference to Honky McStraighterson or something like that, and Chas took issue with it.

  130. says

    “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”:

    Am I the only one finding it suspicious that these people aren’t over lapping too much?

    One huffs off and a new one immediately shows up. It’s kind of laughable.

  131. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    In another thread (the misogynist one, I think), Rutee made a reference to Honky McStraighterson or something like that, and Chas took issue with it.

    Ohhh. I must have missed that. Thank you.

  132. says

    rg57 #198:

    diverse opinions

    Holy fuck, what is with you righty-authoritarian types and your diversity of opinions?

    In case you didn’t know, this is a blog devoted to skepticism. As such, your diversity of opinions can go fuck itself when those opinions do not match up with reality.

    And if you don’t treat that as a rule, then I damn well hope you don’t call yourself a skeptic.

  133. hotshoe says

    Too bad they didn’t pick Society of American Sociologists. Then they would have been SOfAS.

    I’d be comfortable with that.

  134. says

    Sally: Neither the guy’s ethnicity nor his sexual preference are relevant, and therefore you’re an asshole.

    Chas honey, I love you and you’re awesome, but I’d rather be like Rutee than be like you.

    I am definitely an asshole.

    Keep on struggling with the whole privilege concept. You’re starting to get it, but you’ve got a ways to go.

  135. says

    @ChasCPeterson

    ‘pre-macdonald’ makes it sound like this thread has gone on so long that it has eras. This amused me no end.

    Anyway, carry on talking about me relentlessly me while I’m not part of the discussion.

  136. John Morales says

    rg:

    “I think it helps to cull out the stupid.”

    Unfortunately, no, that’s not what it does. It makes you look like you’ve lost the argument. It’s self-Pharyngulation.“I think it helps to cull out the stupid.”
     
    Unfortunately, no, that’s not what it does. It makes you look like you’ve lost the argument. It’s self-Pharyngulation.

    Only to the stupid.

  137. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Anyway, carry on talking about me relentlessly me while I’m not part of the discussion.

    Did you not get the import of the red text?

  138. says

    This is the most fascinating information I have learned today. This is something to savor in solitary contemplation, not something one would ever want to use in a sarcastic or mocking manner in a public forum such as the internet.

    Oh, you’re an honorary sociologist, Chas. A real member of the profession, circa 1905.

  139. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Anyway, carry on talking about me relentlessly me while I’m not part of the discussion.

    But you left so much for people to play with.

  140. says

    rg57 #198:

    Unfortunately, no, that’s not what it does. It makes you look like you’ve lost the argument.

    To date I have yet to see any of you regressive “centrist” assholes provide an explanation for how not tolerating repeated and incessant dishonesty makes one look like they’ve lost.

    Enlighten me, before I start thinking it’s one of those lies you’re trying to repeat until it becomes true.

  141. says

    Anyway, carry on talking about me relentlessly me while I’m not part of the discussion.

    No problem. By the way, seeing as you’re incredibly thick, here’s a protip: pay attention when PZ talks to you (the red text, Cupcake), as he’s the one who wields the banhammer. I do believe he told you to shut the fuck up for a bit.

  142. says

    Can you say it like Hedley Lamarr?

    Sigh. No, I just come out sounding like a blend of Doris Day and Demi Moore. So I do a shot, while twirling in front of a mirror. (Needless to say.)

  143. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    I propose that just one utterance of the following:

    “But I just disagree!”
    “Diversity of opinions!”
    “I fully expect to be banned for disagreeing. . .”

    be subject to instant execution.

    Yes, you dumb-asses. I’m proposing to institute Thoughtcrime and Censorship! for merely having a different opinion, personally!

  144. marilove says

    I’m totally late to the party, but: what is he defining to be “agressive” behavior, anyway? Don’t we need that definition? Curious that a sociologist didn’t really explain that. Is it the cursing? That would be silly. Women curse, too.

    (I always get mistaken for a guy if my username isn’t feminim-seeming. I say fuck a lot, too.)

  145. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Poor, poor Marilove! Someone pour this woman a beer. She’s been putting up with Brenda for far too long. It’s a wonder she’s not in a sanatorium.

  146. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Holy fucking shit. A spider just crawled up my ass crack and bit me on the tailbone before exiting my underwear. I think I’m going to start screaming.

  147. Utakata says

    @Josh, Official SpokesSimperer 230:

    I think that was rg57 trying to attempt another drive by troll.

  148. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    I’m totally late to the party, but: what is he defining to be “agressive” behavior, anyway? Don’t we need that definition? Curious that a sociologist didn’t really explain that. Is it the cursing? That would be silly. Women curse, too.

    Well, jamesmacdonald? You’re probably doomed anyway, having ignored the Red Text – wanna make a final foray to explain yourself?

    (I always get mistaken for a guy if my username isn’t feminim-seeming. I say fuck a lot, too.)

    The other day I was mistaken for a guy after explicitly identifying as a woman and talking at length about my life and experiences in an attempt to educate the poster who then mistook me for a guy. It was pretty amusing/intolerable. [Warning: Link contains awfulness.]

    Holy fucking shit. A spider just crawled up my ass crack and bit me on the tailbone before exiting my underwear. I think I’m going to start screaming.

    *whimpershudder* Nooooo

  149. says

    Ahaha, for real? I’m amused at the sheer difference of the reaction between “Whitey McStraighterson” and “Honkey McStraighterson”. But not amused enough to suddenly stop. Please, continue complaining about that, I’m sure if we wait long enough we’ll get to the inevitable “SURELY I CAN CALL YOU NOW” without ever realizing the difference. Ah, white people… especially the Honkey Mcstraightersons.

    My favorite part of the faux sociologist is his apparent and complete unfamiliarity with *any* of the devices that reinforce kyriarchy. Shit, his insistence that he just can’t be bigotted is a close second. Sociology, you aren’t good at it.

  150. marilove says

    One more thing:

    “Kindly fuck off, dearie.”

    I think if I would have had to pick anything in your first comment of this thread, hot shoe, that would help me guess (though not assume) what your gender might be, it would be your sarcastic use of “dearie” after james’ original obnoxious use of “Oh dear”. And I would have guessed “woman”. (Also holy run-on sentence batman!)

    But only because it would seem quite out of place for a man to say something like that in this blog, especially when you take into consideration your other comments on the topic (clearly you’re not an idiot). And, because a guy wouldn’t get away with that here, at all (and rightfully so).

    But even then, I could always be wrong and I don’t think I’d normally even consider it. It just jumped out at me (it was an apt response to his patronizing “oh dear” trolling).

    When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me, as the saying goes.

  151. says

    marilove:

    (I always get mistaken for a guy if my username isn’t feminim-seeming. I say fuck a lot, too.)

    Pffft, around here, it’s been presumed that I’m male, along with Lynna, Janine and Carlie, to name just a few. The feminine seeming nym doesn’t seem to have much to do with it, nor do distinctly feminine avatars.

  152. marilove says

    Caine: Oh, I don’t doubt that. I just don’t get it much with “marilove” (though I do get other sorts of tone bullshit).

  153. marilove says

    @Josh:

    I do have beer! Oh yeah. Imperial IPA. In my fridge. Oh yeah. I like to be prepared.

  154. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Heya Sam, welcome. I don’t remember seeing you comment here before.

  155. says

    Jadehawk:

    male, 14-year old, pimply, basement-dwelling /b/tard, wasn’t it?

    Yes, a never ending source of amusement for Lynna. You’re firmly in the list of “assumed to be male while posting” too.

  156. says

    Well actually Chas was mad at me for saying “Whitedude McStraighterson” so make of that what you will.

    Sam, you should know the white dudes gotta stick together, what with being so few and underprivileged and all. Really, being white and male just has nothin’ to do with anything. For realz.

  157. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    jesus. what the fuck is it with you and the spider-horror-stories!?

    Girl, I wish I knew. These land-based arthropods torment and vex me. I don’t deserve it.

  158. says

    You’re firmly in the list of “assumed to be male while posting” too.

    true, but at least I have a gender-neutral handle.

    and actually, I think Lynna ties for best “assumed to be male” with mattir, since hers spawned the Gay Sex With Brownian meme

  159. says

    Girl, I wish I knew. These land-based arthropods torment and vex me. I don’t deserve it.

    well, you’re not allowed to be anywhere near me, if you attract these monsters so. plus, if I actually ever have to witness one of these stories personally, I might never recover O.o

  160. says

    Sam, you should know the white dudes gotta stick together, what with being so few and underprivileged and all. Really, being white and male just has nothin’ to do with anything. For realz.

    Well yeah. I know this, being that I am one and all. :D

    Hiya Josh. Nice to meet you. Dig my gravatar–it’s Errol Flynn!

  161. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Hello White Dude Sam McStraighterson! (Did I guess your last name right?)

  162. says

    Jadehawk:

    well, you’re not allowed to be anywhere near me, if you attract these monsters so.

    I’ll testify. Every spider in Chez Caine managed to be directly over Jadehawk’s head. They like her.

  163. Brownian says

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    What community? The community of sexist, racist assholes who think they’re better than the general population because they got picked on in school for playing D&D and read some Sagan? These are the people who are supposed to be part of my community? I’m supposed to feel something in common with someone like Thunderf00t because I don’t go to church anymore?

    Fuck that noise.

    I’ll side with my moderate Catholic niece who tells off racist customers at her fucking minimum wage job slinging ice cream before I call a bunch of Penn Jillette worshipping libertarians my community.

    Every. Fucking. Time.

    This community is rotten. And all of these assholes who cry that it’s not like the old days before all the uppity bitches wanted more than to be the token tits at the Battlestar Galactica viewing party are the disease.

    I’m terribly sorry you and your wife have to make alternative summer vacation plans, michaeldeen. I cannot express how awful a problem that is. Please, drop everyone a line to let us know how you’ve resolved your conundrum. I won’t sleep a fucking wink until then.

  164. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    You know, to some extent I agree with this, taken completely in isolation, although in context it’s just more whining from Offended Privilege. As a lot of us have said in the past, the ridiculous internet explosions that result from talking about harassment are a good bit of why we feel unwelcome and unsafe. What some people (like the original poster of this sentiment) may be missing is that the feminists are not the ones causing the nasty, messy explosions. It’s the fucking Offended Privilege Brigade showing up to kvetch and cry about how talking about harassment is a witch hunt and a vicious smear against all men and anyway how else is anyone ever supposed to get laid (and the Chill Girls’ Auxiliary spouting the same tripe about how none of this matters to THEM because THEY don’t hate men and THEY don’t think it’s sexist at all) who blew this shit up.

  165. Wowbagger, Vile Demagogue says

    Jadehawk wrote:

    true, but at least I have a gender-neutral handle.

    Weirdly, and even though I know you aren’t, I still think of you as Asian because of the handle.

  166. hotshoe says

    Holy fucking shit. A spider just crawled up my ass crack and bit me on the tailbone before exiting my underwear. I think I’m going to start screaming.

    I’m already screaming, and I’m not even the one who got bit.

    As far as I know, I’ve never been bitten by a spider – although I often have an unexplained bite-type bump or two. Maybe sometimes those are spider bites. If I ever felt one while it was actually biting me, I would be hulk-smash.

    Are you going to be okay ? Not poisoned ?

  167. ronsullivan says

    and actually, I think Lynna ties for best “assumed to be male” with mattir, since hers spawned the Gay Sex With Brownian meme

    Damn, am I embarrassed. Such a slacker these days.

    It’s been fun watching this one from the peanut gallery, though, for those familiar “Holy shit what year is this and we still have to have this argument??” values of “fun.” Cats and mouse(s?), yeah, but somehow I don’t find it in myself to feel sorry for the mice.

  168. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    If I ever felt one while it was actually biting me, I would be hulk-smash.

    Oh I hulk-smashed it to death. I hope, anyway. I was flailing so hard I could’t pinpoint the exact location of its exoskeletal burial.

    Are you going to be okay ? Not poisoned ?

    I am so poisoned at the baseline it would be hard to tell. I think I’ve survived this Arachno-Offensive without permanent damage, but with the red-lining amounts of bile in my system on any random day who can tell?

    I suppose you’ll know if I don’t show up tomorrow to spew acid on some newbie NiceGuy douche.

  169. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Mr. Fix-it and stuff.

    Stop! I love a man with a hammer.

  170. says

    My whiteness and straightness are totes irrelevant, dudes.

    Should I say “totes” or is that, like, a girl thing? Like, a Sex and the City thing. Is it… you know… gay? I mean, I don’t mean anything bad by it, it’s just that gay men tend to use speech abbreviation than straight men. And women, of course. It’s a fact. Also, I read women talk more.

  171. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    For example, even though I know now what Josh looks like, I still keep on picturing him the same way I picture Lord John Grey,

    Obviously you’re trying to flatter me into your Lair of Femine Deceit.

  172. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    “Feminine,” even!

    Now with 28-percent more Feminum™

  173. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Also, I read women talk more.

    Men really like it when you glob it on.

  174. echidna says

    Reading Brownian’s take on the atheist community, in response to

    This fray is causing more harm to this community than underlying issues of harassment.

    I realise he is absolutely right. It’s better to have no community at all, than to have a community which tells you to shut up and not say a word, or else the community will suffer. It makes vulnerable people even more vulnerable. We don’t have to put up with this rubbish in the name of imaginary gods, why the hell should we impose this on our selves in the name of no god?

  175. Aquaria says

    I disagree. I don’t think you have to follow up an insult with “therefore they are wrong” to be guilty of using an ad hominem. Really, how often do you see someone say, “He’s a cunt and is wrong as a result”? I’d say it is pretty rare that you get such an open and shut case.

    You dumbass douchenozzle.

    THE “THEREFORE THEY ARE WRONG” IS WHAT MAKES AN AD HOMINEM AN AD HOMINEM YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!

    Arggbhhhhgghfh!

    How fucking stupid can someone be as to say something that phenomenally fucking ignorant?

    Oh wait–it’s coming from a sexist piece of shit! What a fucking surprise!

  176. Aquaria says

    Hey–what happened to my tags?

    Damn it to hell! Trying again:

    I disagree. I don’t think you have to follow up an insult with “therefore they are wrong” to be guilty of using an ad hominem. Really, how often do you see someone say, “He’s a cunt and is wrong as a result”? I’d say it is pretty rare that you get such an open and shut case.

    You dumbass douchenozzle.

    THE “THEREFORE THEY ARE WRONG” IS WHAT MAKES AN AD HOMINEM AN AD HOMINEM YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!

    Arggbhhhhgghfh!

    How fucking stupid can someone be as to say something that phenomenally fucking ignorant?

    Oh wait–it’s coming from a sexist piece of shit! What a fucking surprise!

  177. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Your comment was stupid the first time you posted it, so quoting me correctly doesn’t really elevate it.

    What an unfortunate use of your likely-soon-to-be-revoked commenting privileges.
    Define “aggressive.”

  178. says

    Oh James, it’s just killing you, not posting your shit every 60 seconds, isn’t it? Tsk. Ah well, let the banhammer fall where it may, given you are so damn hard of thinking.

  179. says

    @Cipher

    PZ didn’t say that I couldn’t comment again. I’ve commented twice in the past few hours, so I’d hardly call it baiting or spamming.

    I would answer your question, but that would probably lead to a lengthy argument. If this post doesn’t get me banned then that most certainly would.

  180. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    I would answer your question, but that would probably lead to a lengthy argument. If this post doesn’t get me banned then that most certainly would.

    LOL

  181. says

    If this post doesn’t get me banned then that most certainly would.

    But just think, you could present your case for being a dense, sexist douchecake and you might persuade all us manly, aggressive wimmins to be proper girls, learn us our place and stuff. You never know unless you try.

  182. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    PZ didn’t say that I couldn’t comment again.

    Regulars here who are familiar with his patterns of behavior are telling you that you’re quite likely to get banned by continuing to post in this thread.

    If you don’t want to be banned, your best chance is to stop posting in this thread immediately, close this browser tab and don’t look back.

  183. Aquaria says

    Admitting you made a mistake is not the same as apologising. It was a mistake, but it was an innocent one. It does not give you the right to an apology.

    Then why the fuck are you here, dumbass?

    YOUR WHOLE SPIEL HAS BEEN WHINING ABOUT AN HONEST MISTAKE!

    Fucking asshole.

    You deserve that knee to the groin, for being such a disgusting and clueless scumbag.

  184. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Oh, please don’t throw you into the briar patch, jamesmcdonald!

  185. says

    jamesmacdonald:

    PZ didn’t say that I couldn’t comment again.

    Woah…you’re putting a new definition to thick. What do the words “Stop now” mean to you? From PZ’s comment to you @ 92:

    Stop now before I have to ban you to shelter what few pitiful shreds of dignity you have left.

  186. says

    @Caine

    One last post since I would actually like to continue this discussion at some point. Since we can’t continue here or I’ll get banned, you are free to suggest somewhere to continue it.

    Now, you can respond to that offer maturely or you can say hilarious things like ‘Whitey McCunterson’ and ‘dudebro’.

  187. says

    Illuminata #72:

    It’s an idea that I’ve been kicking around since Elevatorgate: that (at least part of) the source of the unhinged misogyny we’ve seen lately is the result of the privileged realizing that the internet is the Great Equalizer.

    They can’t tower over someone to initimidate them into silence (I’d wager nearly every woman on the planet knows what I’m talking about here). They can’t mock and insult someone into shamed silence. They can’t scream you down and scare you into agreeing.

    At least, not in person, where such behaviors are at peak effectiveness.

    I have encountered this same problem in the local Occupy. A common response for the righty/libertarian conspiracists, and slightly less common for tone trolls, is to ask for an in-person discussion and then start demeaning the value of internet debate and my points when I inevitably refused. It got to the point where I wrote this post explaining why Internet debate is superior in all aspects to live debate.

    (Also, I assume that in the last quoted line ‘in person’ is meant to be ‘online’ :P)

  188. Josh, Official SpokesSimperer says

    Now, you can respond to that offer maturely or you can say hilarious things like ‘Whitey McCunterson’ and ‘dudebro’.

    Go stick your head so far up your asshole you gag on shit, throw up, eat it, then repeat the cycle.

  189. says

    Since we can’t continue here or I’ll get banned, you are free to suggest somewhere to continue it.

    already done. do try to pay attention, m’kay?

    I’ve commented twice in the past few hours, so I’d hardly call it baiting or spamming.

    it’s not abut spamming, it’s about being told to stop and not stopping. and no, the fact that you haven’t been banned for the last few comments after PZ told you to stop doesn’t mean too much, since it’s 2 in the morning, and PZ is most likely asleep.

  190. says

    Define “aggressive.”

    Unladylike.

    Fuck that shit!

    Also, PZ, and everyone else on Twitter, is free to block whomever they want for whatever reason they feel like. If I decide to block everyone with a “y” in their name, then why is that anyone’s business?

    I only block spammers and haters, dimwits are usually left unblocked, but then I bet they don’t bug me nearly as often as they do PZ.

  191. says

    jamesmacdonald:

    One last post since I would actually like to continue this discussion at some point. Since we can’t continue here or I’ll get banned, you are free to suggest somewhere to continue it.

    If it were someone else, I might take you up on that. However, it’s you, James. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated you’re dishonest and have no desire whatsoever to do anything except parrot your talking points over and over.

    Seriously, you didn’t even gain a clue when both Brownian and Skeptifem ended up disgusted by your behaviour and attitude, after they both went out of their way to treat you in good faith, hoping you were someone who was capable of thinking their way out of paper bag.

    You’re much too fond of the stupid, James. That means, for now, there’s simply no talking to you or with you. You’re invested in your sexist views, you do not care about how you are helping to maintain sexism in every day life, nor do you care about contradicting yourself every other post.

    There’s nothing to be gained when you are determined to steep in intellectual dishonesty.

    Now, you can respond to that offer maturely or you can say hilarious things like ‘Whitey McCunterson’ and ‘dudebro’.

    Oh dear, another bout of stupid struck, didn’t it, James. I didn’t call you any of that – no, check that, I did call you ‘dude’ one time. Deal with it. As for the rest, that’s chat between us regulars and references discussions you weren’t part of – that’s another thing, James – you really need to figure out that everything is not about you.

  192. says

    Oy, James Macdonald! If you really, truly want to carry on, you can freely post in TZT without fear, especially if you confine yourself to TZT.

    I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to keep on chatting with you.

  193. Emrysmyrddin says

    I am from, and in, England. I have been for 99.782%r. of my life(Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement).

    Cunt is a gendered slur. ‘Shite’ doesn’t come from ‘shit’ now? ‘Bollocks’ isn’t a word for testicles? Bitch isn’t a female signifier? My fucking non-existent gods. I must have missed the memo on my own fucking language.

    Words have meaning, yo. I’m beginning to feel as though I should apologise for my country, and it’s the fucking fault of all you fuckers who can’t engage your fucking brain.

    “Oh, these words that spurt from my mouth, I have no control over them, they just spill out in a sparkling Perrier froth of shite and bunnies, they’re just words, they don’t mean anything, it’s not like our entire interpersonal interaction mechanism is dependent on them, or anything.”

    Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck. People. It’s 0815 here and already I’m pissed off, my fuck quotient is through the roof, and for once, it’s not because of some dumb fuck Over There™, but some dumb fuck Over Here™. Don’t bump into me today, jamesmacdonald, or I might be forced to give you a pointed lesson in etymology.

  194. Emrysmyrddin says

    Must. Not. Follow. Because my rage-o-meter has peaked, and I doubt I could be coherent over the sound of my own teeth grinding.

  195. says

    @Emrysmyrddin

    I didn’t say that ‘cunt’ isn’t a gendered slur. If you want to disuss this, head over to TZT.

    And I implore you, read the cunting thread before getting involved. In that way, you might avoid attributing things to me that I didn’t say.

  196. Aquaria says

    Your comment was stupid the first time you posted it, so quoting me correctly doesn’t really elevate it.

    Says the idiot who has posted what–60 or more moronic statements in this one thread?

    I’m fucking heartbroken.

    And it did bear repeating for a clueless gobshite like you. Because you refuse to understand reality.

  197. Aquaria says

    One last post since I would actually like to continue this discussion at some point. Since we can’t continue here or I’ll get banned, you are free to suggest somewhere to continue it.

    It isn’t a discussion. It’s a cleanup after your taking dumps on a valid conversation like a hamster on Ex-Lax.

  198. Aquaria says

    Me: Aren’t you Jane Bloggs? (see what I did there?)
    Them: No, you have the wrong person.
    Me: My mistake.

    Funny, polite people would say at your “my mistake” Oh–I’m so sorry. Forgive me for the intrusion.”

    But some of us weren’t raised by wolves.

  199. says

    Hey I’m normally a lurker and I’ve only been reading for about a year, but i wanted to say that this thread is the reason that I love this blog and the people who comment here. The lack of “civility” is what made me more comfortable being an atheist and feminist and for picking sociology as my field of study. Just thought I would pop up and say Thanks Ya’ll!

    also, fuck any sort of “civility” that means you may argue in bad faith and be totally fine, but as soon as you utter a bad word your argument is invalid.

    Okay back to lurking

  200. Walton says

    “Feminazi”? Really? Because apparently, being told to stop being sexist is equivalent to being a victim of Nazi atrocities. *sigh*

    And when you’re unironically using an insult invented by Rush Limbaugh, of all people, there’s not much lower you can sink.

  201. Emrysmyrddin says

    The spell of repetition was on him.

    It’s still there, no past tense needed.

  202. says

    Eight Hundred Plus comments on this?

    God, the Christians are just loving this free ride that they are getting. When are we going to get back to business of defeating theism, or is that no longer the case?

    Did we win and no one told me about it? It seems only the privileged atheists no longer have to worry about the creep of theism, because they have their flocks to protect and support them.

    Be careful, your flock has been educated and can choose to leave.

  203. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    God, the Christians are just loving this free ride that they are getting. When are we going to get back to business of defeating theism, or is that no longer the case?

    Yeah, when are we going to get away from trivial shit like whether women are people? Fuck.
    Balstrome, stop fucking whining at us, go the fuck away, and actually do some useful secularist activism if that’s what you give a fuck about.
    Which, by the way, I fucking doubt.

  204. Walton says

    Eight Hundred Plus comments on this?

    Strangely enough, some of us think that it is a serious problem when women get harassed and insulted. Evidently you don’t.

    God, the Christians are just loving this free ride that they are getting. When are we going to get back to business of defeating theism, or is that no longer the case?

    Personally, I’m much more interested in defeating sexism than defeating theism.

    It seems only the privileged atheists no longer have to worry about the creep of theism, because they have their flocks to protect and support them.

    What?

  205. says

    God, the Christians are just loving this free ride that they are getting. When are we going to get back to business of defeating theism, or is that no longer the case?

    Do you ever tire of being a whiny fuckwit? Gee, religion doesn’t help maintain and perpetuate sexism at all, does it? I guess that part of it doesn’t matter, eh?

    Guess it’s just fine if people just keep carrying on, thinking that women aren’t full human beings, ’cause that doesn’t really affect you, amirite?

    Guess it’s just fine that there’s a legal war being waged on women in the U.S., right? Why on earth be concerned about such trivia? After all, bitches ain’t shit, right?

    Here’s a thought: shut the fuck up.

  206. Khantron, the alien that only loves says

    Balstrome, your comment might rise to the level of simply wrong if Christians weren’t beating the shit out of us in women membership numbers, but as it stands your comment is fractally wrong.

    Fuck, can’t people just think for one fucking second? Is that so hard?

  207. Agent Silversmith, Vendor of +5 Vorpal Feather Dusters says

    Balstrome the idiot

    Ignoring sexual misconduct within its ranks is what the fucking Catholic Church does. Should we really emulate them?

    Newsflash: this sexism shit matters because a large percentage of people can’t make it go away by shutting down the browser. Good people who deserve a lot better. That ranks above telling theists that god isn’t real.

  208. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    I don’t think people have to pick only one, but if Balstrome demands that I pick only one, then:

    Personally, I’m much more interested in defeating sexism than defeating theism.

  209. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I’ll side with my moderate Catholic niece who tells off racist customers at her fucking minimum wage job slinging ice cream before I call a bunch of Penn Jillette worshipping libertarians my community.

    Word bro!

  210. Marcus Hill (mysterious and nefarious) says

    It’s incredible. A post about the feminazis gathers 800+ comments and they’re all from men – well, I’m assuming you’re all men as you’re so damned aggressive. We all know that ovaries produce some sort of hormone that makes all women placid, don’t we?

  211. says

    It’s incredible. A post about the feminazis gathers 800+ comments and they’re all from men – well, I’m assuming you’re all men as you’re so damned aggressive. We all know that ovaries produce some sort of hormone that makes all women placid, don’t we?

    Yeah, there’s a reason my Twitter profile starts with: “Bitchzilla, Princess of Darkness. Hear me ‘aaarrrgh!’.”

    I May not have ovaries, but there are no angry testosterone in me either. Neither is there any need to. There are plenty of sexist assholes on the internet to aggravate me! In here too. I am more concerned with fighting sexism than Christians. I don’t really care about Christians at all as long as they don’t stomp on my rights. Then I fight back.

    (Also, I assume your post was sarcastic.)

  212. Marcus Hill (mysterious and nefarious) says

    Yes, it was sarcastic – though I should really remember Poe’s Law more often. I know full well that not all women have ovaries, unlike the sort of idiot who thinks all women are placid little things. I couldn’t bring myself to pretend not to know that women also have testosterone, though not to the extent that men do (obviously, only the testosterone produced in testicles is angry testosterone).

  213. feedmybrain says

    I normally read this in work (9-5 in UK). I think I need to change my schedule so I can join in!

  214. thrum says

    You’re a smart guy, Papa Zulu, but sometimes you say some silly shit.

    And one thing that marks you as especially stupid is when you bother to complain that I don’t want to listen to you. Where does this sense of unfounded entitlement come from?

    It’s human nature to want to be listened to, regardless of how much the desired audience would rather just put in some earplugs, and it’s equally normal to have a problem with being insulted. This can be a trivial snub to you, but the response you’re getting indicates the other parties consider it a proper jabbing. Everybody feels entitled to defend their e-honor when slighted.

    You’d react the same way in a similar… whatever type of situation this is. Not sure what an analog is for people who don’t have slightable e-honor.

  215. says

    Papa Zulu

    It’s PZ, moron.

    the response you’re getting

    Let me guess, a moron who just couldn’t be arsed to read the responses. If you had, you wouldn’t be so eager to shove your feet down your throat.

    You’d react the same way in a similar… whatever type of situation this is.

    You think so, do you? I get the feeling thinking isn’t exactly your strong suit.

  216. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Thrum:

    “Entitled” in this context might have a slightly different meaning than you think.

  217. says

    I am sorry to report that Jamesmacdonald had a fatal encounter with a banhammer. He was told not play in traffic, but little jimmy just charged out there without looking, ignoring shouts of warning, and splat, he was gone.

    He is survived by legions of oblivious assholes who will doubtless step forward to take his place.

  218. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    He was told not play in traffic, but little jimmy just charged out there without looking, ignoring shouts of warning, and splat, he was gone.

    Aw! Now I’ll never find out if his entire education was “The Blank Slate”.

    Of course, I suspect that he wouldn’t be able to answer a straight question if given wheels and put on a rail-road track – so maybe it’s for the better

  219. Louis says

    ZOMG ECHO CHAMBER NOFREETHOUGHT CULT OF PERSONALITY HIVEMIND GROUPTHINK!!!!!!

    Louis

    P.S. Can we take all that as read now, and thus save ourselves the effort of laughing at the pitiable fools who keep reciting it?

    P.P.S. If you disagree, proceed directly to DEEEEP RIFTS and miss one turn.

  220. says

    I am sorry to report that Jamesmacdonald had a fatal encounter with a banhammer.

    Aaaw, poor James. I’m sure he’ll feel better if he has a nice cuddle with his stereotypes.

  221. Pteryxx says

    (obviously, only the testosterone produced in testicles is angry testosterone).

    …keyboard risk factor… rising….

  222. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    “Sociologist” who met a few aggressive women he thought were men. Eaten alive.

    Heh.

  223. Brownian says

    Be careful, your flock has been educated and can choose to leave.

    Another favoured meme among the stellar minds of the Skeptics’ Community, humanity’s best and brightest:

    “Fine then. If you don’t want to play my way, I’m going home.”

  224. Tethys says

    Not sure what an analog is for people who don’t have slightable e-honor.

    Mature adults with well developed BS detectors?

  225. julietdefarge says

    A round of huzzahs for PZ! I hope to see him wearing that Rebecca Watson amulet.
    People who are anti-religion – but don’t think women get to complain about the crap they endure every day of their lives Because of over a millenium of religious teaching on gender roles are… words fail me. Maybe you could compare them to people who use the computer to rag about how evil scientists are.

    A rise in the number of atheists means a rise in the number of feminists.

  226. sakrisch says

    I’m baffled that some people need others to appear weak in order for them to feel strong. women are humans and subject to all the good and bad that entails, so whats the offense to them personally when a woman acts human? and a general message to these dudes: only a chump would proposition a woman who has not clearly shown the requisite mutual interest. if you can’t read those signs then take your genetic material back to your basement and video games.

  227. b. says

    At the risk of outing myself as an old fart who’d rather spend their time shaking a cane at small children and yelling at them to get off my lawn*, I must ask where these shitheads were during history class. Have they truly never, ever cracked open a book on American history? (My apologies for the American-centricness of this, but I’m an American–it’s what I know.) Never even looked at Wikipedia’s “Today in History” thingie? Nada? All the whining about, “We need to look at the big picture and not this silly (sic), piddly (sic) little (sic) stuff!” leaves me dumbfounded. Ever hear of Rosa Parks? I can hear them now, “Rosa! Just go to the back of the bus! We got lynchings to worry about!” Ever hear of the Stonewall riots? “Bob! Don’t throw that brick! For Pete’s sake, man, we’ve got other things to worry about than illegal, homophobic police raids to worry about!”

    Holy fucking deity-or-not-of-your-choice! Change generally starts with the so-called little things.

    I have to add that in reference to this:

    Audley:

    Why do wives and girlfriends always have to be mentioned?

    It’s used the same way a racist uses, “Why, some of my best friends are black!” after getting called on being a racist piece of shite.

    *I don’t have a lawn; I have gravel. I spend my time laughing at them for falling and shredding their knees and not warning them of the Burmese tiger pits and punji stick traps awaiting them. I don’t yet have a cane; I prefer to sit in a large throne-like chair and pet the Evil Genius house-rabbit whilst smirking at their plight. It’s a hobby, okay? Don’t judge.

  228. marilove says

    #306 @SamStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant

    That was… a surprisingly really good song.

    Thanks for sharing. :D

  229. Brownian says

    At the risk of outing myself as an old fart who’d rather spend their time shaking a cane at small children and yelling at them to get off my lawn*, I must ask where these shitheads were during history class. Have they truly never, ever cracked open a book on American history? (My apologies for the American-centricness of this, but I’m an American–it’s what I know.) Never even looked at Wikipedia’s “Today in History” thingie? Nada? All the whining about, “We need to look at the big picture and not this silly (sic), piddly (sic) little (sic) stuff!” leaves me dumbfounded. Ever hear of Rosa Parks? I can hear them now, “Rosa! Just go to the back of the bus! We got lynchings to worry about!” Ever hear of the Stonewall riots? “Bob! Don’t throw that brick! For Pete’s sake, man, we’ve got other things to worry about than illegal, homophobic police raids to worry about!”

    More than the fact that I agree with you, I appreciate that this made me laugh. Thanks, b.

    PS. I use punji sticks (well, chopsticks from take-out bul-go-gi shops) to keep my cat from digging in the houseplants.

  230. marilove says

    “We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”:

    I used to, long ago, before FTB came to be (over at Science Blogs).

    But I’m a regular over at Skepchick. That’s probably where you recognize me.

    I tend to come and go as different things catch and lose my attention. :)

  231. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Ing, I think Mariove (or someone else by the same name) comments on Skepchick frequently.

  232. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Noted, Marilove. I thought so, just wasn’t sure for a moment there.

  233. marilove says

    It’s cool. “They” works just as well. I still don’t know how to utilize alternative pronouns. I always think someone is trying to make an anime emoticon (which I also have never been able to figure out), or they made a typo.

  234. Sili says

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas. ALL ideas. When we can no longer question and debate, we become what we claim to despise.

    Yet we’re not allowed to question the idea of the status quo? The idea of the invisible hand of the market? The idea of women having to be subservient?

    We do not have to question dudebros, but we must take their word as fact?

    I fart at your skepticism.

  235. marilove says

    We are supposed to be SKEPTICS…that means we question. We attack ideas. ALL ideas. When we can no longer question and debate, we become what we claim to despise.

    Notice he said ATTACK, not question.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t attack (most) ideas. Except his, of course, because his are idiotic. But in general, that’s a pretty awful way to view Skepticism, isn’t it? So negative and aggressive (hey hey hey, look here, irony! Tone trollin’ the tone troll.)

    I just don’t think “attack” is the best way to view Skepticism as a whole. It’s very narrow.

  236. marilove says

    (Well, I guess he did say question at first — but then he changed it to “attack”. They aren’t the same things!)

  237. marilove says

    Right. There is that as well. That should be implied. He KNOWS this — otherwise he’d be questioning shit all day, including gravity.

  238. jacklewis says

    @Joao
    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site. Nothing she has ever done has been wrong or could be perceived as such. Any form of criticism or anything short of blind obedience will send the local villagers to the their pitch forks.

    The notion that someone could reasonably estimate that RW overreacted in particular vis a vis Dawkins (and now perhaps to Grothe) is lost on the hive mind operating here. I have never succeeded in posting a comment to her blog (tried 2 times with zero use of cunt or any other endearing terms). I have understood that she simply blocks people she doesn’t agree with and that are not sufficiently abusive to help her case. At some point you have to realize how some operate and just stop bothering with them. PZ’s complete acceptance and endorsing of her antics and the way she turns every situation and makes it about her would be mind boggling but for the fact that the reprisals if he did otherwise might be part of it… Ok that’s pure conjecture.

  239. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site.

    Oh, grow up.

  240. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    JL, your concern trolling and hatred for RW is duly noted. And with all concern trolling, it is duly rejected.

    I see no evidence presented, just your OPINION. And your OPINION sounds like every other MRA loudmouth who has posted here ever since EG. And you wonder why we don’t listen to you or your MRA cohorts? After a while all we hear is blah-blah-blah-blah-RW-blah-blah-blah. Boring. Been there, heard that.

    Try real evidence, and just point to it. Don’t talk.

  241. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site.

    Full disclosure: I am largely indifferent towards Rebecca Watson. I’ve seen her around before the shit hit the fan last year, but as a public figure she never appealed much to me.

    I’m still a thinking gnu that’s capable of separating wrong form right though. So when the idiots came rushing at her, and I was nearby, we were forced to circle the wagons. IIRC, a lot of people nesting here regularly had similar attitudes. There might be a strong alliance between RW and the horde now, but that’s largely of the idiots making.

    You brought this on yourself you dolt!

    RW overreacted in particular vis a vis Dawkins

    That’s rich.

    and now perhaps to Grothe

    Basic causality is hard when you’re an idiot misogynist troll apparently.

    What’s the theory down in your parts? Lemme guess: “If RW is involved, it must be her fault”. You know that shit won’t fly? Right?

  242. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Also yeah it’s such a shame people defend someone who has an active WTF campaign put against her by assholes.

    We’re so horrible for not joining your screams of “CUNT”

    Well, she’s a chick. And JackLewis don’t like no chicks. Chicks make mistakes and almost immediately correct them, instead or repeating the same tired, flaccid bullshit lies over and over again, hoping desperately someone will believe them, like JackLewis does. PLUS, chicks don’t like being called CUNT or FEMNAZI, which jacklewis thinks is totes stupid, because who cares what cunts and femnazis think? he’s a skeptic! And REAL SKEPTICS ™ don’t bother with things like facts. REAL SKEPTICs ™ get just hate bitches who won’t shut up when jjacklewis wants them to shut up.

    And, since he can’t beat you into silence, jacklewis will do the only thing he can do: pout “hivemind” and take his toys home.

  243. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    PZ’s complete acceptance and endorsing of her antics and the way she turns every situation and makes it about her would be mind boggling but for the fact that the reprisals if he did otherwise might be part of it

    I endorse what Gnumann said fully in , so imagine all that in here, but this particular bit is always so ridiculously ridiculous that I can’t help but raise eyebrows at it. (no, I can’t do the “raise one eyebrow thing”. I suffer terribly, terribly!)

    In the case of the sexual harassment saga specifically (as you yourself referenced Grothe, I’m referring to that), Rebecca was made guilty post hoc.

    She said something in an interview much, much earlier (in September of 2011, ffs!) about how the backlash after EG and constant rape and death threats and abuse she received from the freethought community because of that made her realize that it wasn’t as safe a space as she (and indeed many of us) assumed.

    This happened LONG before Jen or Stephanie wrote those firsts posts about the harassment issue, way back in May. DJ then continued to lump Rebecca in with Jen, Steph and presumably Ophelia for blogging about it and being careless with their “message” and scaring women off.

    REBECCA WASN’T IN THIS EPISODE UNTIL DJ DRAGGED HER IN BY NAME. In fact, she was preparing to support TAM and raise funds for it and get more women going to it, as is her well-documented wont from years past.

    Yet STILL, STILL these people accuse Rebecca Watson of being a drama queen attention whore who makes it all about her.

    I mean, that’s just the rankest dishonesty from the get-go.

  244. says

    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site.

    how the fuck does “that woman doesn’t deserve to be harassed” mean I am a fan of her? No one deserves to be sexually harassed. I got mad when people made sex dolls and porn of sarah palin or told meghan mccain to shut up for being too fat. Women never deserve the shit sexist men throw at them. I’ve gotten heaps of shit for vocally disagreeing with things skepchick did, thanks, I am hardly a fan of the fun feminist approach.

  245. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site. Nothing she has ever done has been wrong or could be perceived as such. Any form of criticism or anything short of blind obedience will send the local villagers to the their pitch forks.

    What is Embarrassingly stupid hyperbole for 100 Alex?

  246. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    I’ve gotten heaps of shit for vocally disagreeing with things skepchick did, thanks, I am hardly a fan of the fun feminist approach.

    *thumbs through the new Pharyngula manual she got off the Concerned Sociologist™* I think that this means that we are supposed to label you and discredit you forever now. Uhhh… Ah, here it is. Skeptifem, you are a very bad person and are hereby subject to a blacklisting witch hunt! Let that serve as a lesson to everybody.
    Or something.

  247. Amphiox says

    Nothing she has ever done has been wrong or could be perceived as such.

    NOTHING she has ever done deserves the continuous stream of the vilest, meanest, most odious vitriol that she has received.

    I can say that with total certainty because no human being EVER deserves that kind of treatment NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID. Not even mass murderers/child molestors/perpetrators of genocide deserve that kind of continuous unconscionable harassment.

    It is a simple, straightforward, and utterly unambiguous line. One of the very, very few times where a binary division actually does apply.

    On one side you have decent human beings. On the other side you have the slimepitters and their apologists.

    There is no overlap. Period.

  248. kassad says

    I don’t think people have to pick only one, but if Balstrome demands that I pick only one, then:

    Personally, I’m much more interested in defeating sexism than defeating theism.

    And that’s the reason it’s a great atheist blog.

    Well, that and the cursing obviously.

    At the risk of outing myself as an old fart who’d rather spend their time shaking a cane at small children and yelling at them to get off my lawn*, I must ask where these shitheads were during history class. Have they truly never, ever cracked open a book on American history? (My apologies for the American-centricness of this, but I’m an American–it’s what I know.) Never even looked at Wikipedia’s “Today in History” thingie? Nada? All the whining about, “We need to look at the big picture and not this silly (sic), piddly (sic) little (sic) stuff!” leaves me dumbfounded. Ever hear of Rosa Parks? I can hear them now, “Rosa! Just go to the back of the bus! We got lynchings to worry about!” Ever hear of the Stonewall riots? “Bob! Don’t throw that brick! For Pete’s sake, man, we’ve got other things to worry about than illegal, homophobic police raids to worry about!”

    This is a fantastic post. It should be posted everytime someone utter the amazingly blind “big picture” argument. History is awesome, and not always the strong suit of the online skeptic community (compared to biology for example).

    —————————————————————————————
    As a guy who discovered the atheist community online barely a year ago, and began reading several blogs at the same time (Pharyngula, Why Evolution is True, ERV…), I find Elevatorgate weird. Rebecca Watson (I don’t really know her) made a benign statement (don’t hit on stranger in closed spaces is hardly controversial) AND THEN it was blown out of proportion, by her detractors. Which then accused her of blowing the case out of proportion. I always feel like I miss something.

    The anger and insults shocked me, on both sides. This blog made me learn a lot but it took some serious adjustements, in part due to the uncompromising tone I wasn’t used to (and my privileged position too). But by reading I learned and understood that the anger come from being exluded/bullied/abused/discriminated against for a long time, a lifetime even.
    But I don’t know what explain their anger. And their anger at the anger here.

  249. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    fact, she was preparing to support TAM and raise funds for it and get more women going to it, as is her well-documented wont from years past.

    In fact, there have been 12 (I believe) TAM grants given out to women to attend this year’s TAM already.

    Even after Grothe decided to choke on his foot then run away with his tail between his legs, Watson and Skepchick were STILL raising money and giving out grants for people attend TAM.

    But, jacklewis is a member of the He-man Woman Hater Club, so he won’t talk about that. The bitch is a bitch, period. Reality doesn’t have to agree with him. he’s got a tinky winky! That makes him right!

  250. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I have never succeeded in posting a comment to her blog (tried 2 times with zero use of cunt or any other endearing terms).

    The simple fact that you point this out, Jack, does not speak well for you. Seriously, do you have to point out that you did not use any derogatory terms when you send a message to someone? I would have to assume that you use terms like these and feel the need to be petted on the head for not doing so.

  251. says

    Actually, Illuminata, I think they’re up to 22 grants now, which is an all-time record.

    #306 @SamStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant

    That was… a surprisingly really good song.

    Thanks for sharing. :D

    Marilove, good to see you! Yeah, I have a mixtape with a different song by Hot Chip on it, and I was just browsing around to see what other songs they have, and that one popped out as being both good and oddly appropriate to the situation.

    @Jacklewis

    I have never succeeded in posting a comment to her blog (tried 2 times with zero use of cunt or any other endearing terms).

    So, are we supposed to be, like, impressed or something that you restrained yourself from saying “cunt”? Why, was that hard for you?

  252. b. says

    Brownian:

    More than the fact that I agree with you, I appreciate that this made me laugh. Thanks, b.
    PS. I use punji sticks (well, chopsticks from take-out bul-go-gi shops) to keep my cat from digging in the houseplants.

    Awww, that makes me want to finally finish up Form 342(c) for Teh Ghey Sehks with Brownian, though I’m still uncertain as to why it requires my shoe size and a copy of my most recent passport. And I’m hoping to be finished soon with the Obscene Sculpture (Legos and jam tarts required) as requested in Form 342(b); I wrote in, “pending”. I hope that’s all right.
    (Thank you, too, for not pointing out my typing error. Gah. A second “to worry about” was really not needed.)

  253. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    But I don’t know what explain their anger. And their anger at the anger here.

    Yes, you do. You said it in your post: privileged position. I mentioned somewhere here (this thread or another – I’m too lazy to look), that the internet is the Great Equalizer. but, but, but to follow:

    IRL, I’m a short. I’m 5’1. Douchebros LOVE to pull the “towering” over me thing. They think – rightly so, very often – that it’s intimidating. They stand tall, puff up and look down on you, hoping to scare you into complice. If these discussions were happening IRL, it would ba guaranteed that we would see this play out with douchebros trying to scare women into silence. If that didn’t work, there’s always mocking, shaming and shouting.

    But, they can’t do that on the net. They can’t make the bitch shut up. They can’t mock her into silence. They can’t scream at her til she gives up. They can’t use any of the tried and true partiarchy-approved ways of declaring their awesome manly superiority!

    But, that deep belief in their awesome manly superiority ALSO means that they can’t just let the bitches talk *without* their contributions. And definitely can’t let them talk about anything but how oppressed men are. That’s why they’re aso fond of cyber harrassment, stalking, sending death threats, outing personal details of their targets, etc. They WANT that IRL advantage, and there are ways to get it. And, the dangerous unhinged bigots out there, that’s what they do. (and why they focus mainly on people who do the blog thing under their real names)

    But, a fair amount of them aren’t actually dangerous unhinged psychopaths, so getting angry that the bitches just won’t shut up is all there is.

    But, on the flip side, the bitch can also just ignore them. She can ban them from her blog and ignore their e-mails. While they can’t use douchebro tactics to phyiscally intimidate her, they also can’t use those same tatics to trap her. She can just not engage them.

    And, their awesome manly superiority won’t stand for that either!

  254. MyaR says

    In fact, there have been 12 (I believe) TAM grants given out to women to attend this year’s TAM already.

    22. I’m hoping to meet some of them there.

    I mostly lurk, when I have time, but this thread was a thing of beauty. Also, is there some way to get a douche-signal so when some dudebro tries to pull the “my girlfriend/wife is totes okay with [random asshole sexism]” I can immediately reply with “Dude, my husband thinks you’re acting like a privileged, overentitled, sexist douchecake, and would like you to stop it. Right. Now. Also, he has degrees in sociology, history, and computer science, as well as years of practical experience working in mental health care.”

    However, sadly, they would not get the point, and it would rebound on me.

  255. says

    Any more rules? This is turning into a bit of a minefield.

    Actually, the rules here are much simpler than they are at blogs that enforce arbitrary “civility” restrictions. Attack the ideas, attack the behavior, and don’t be a bigot. If this isn’t the sort of discourse you’re used to, sit back and learn, and pay attention to how you communicate and what language you use instead of whining when others point out your mistakes. People will give you the benefit of the doubt if you don’t have a history of being stubbornly obtuse or pridefully ignorant.

  256. Brownian says

    jacklewis wrote:

    Don’t bother posting anything that doesn’t worship RW here, this is just her fan site.

    Back in May, in a thread critical of Sam Harris, he (sarcastically) wrote:

    Still let’s keep bashing Harris it is probably good for one’s inferiority complex…

    That’s all the guy can comprehend. Hero-worship. It’s what he does, and he honestly cannot view the world in any other way. You’re either worshipping the hero he worships in which case you’re the very model of critical thinking or you’re worshipping his favourite arch-villain, in which case you should turn in your skeptic badge until you learn to like the right flavour of ice cream.

    This is the face of the Skeptics’ Community: it’s Star Wars/Batman/Han Shot First vs. Star Trek/Superman/Greedo Shot First all the way down.

    These are the supposed people we’re asking theists and ant-vaxxers to take seriously.

    Fucking rotten.

  257. kassad says

    Yes, you do. You said it in your post: privileged position.

    I should have precise what I meant. While I understand that they could be shocked, since they have those “privilege-blinkers”. But the anger does not look like they don’t understand. I am privileged: white, man, middleclass, and since you mentionned height, 6″1 (just to prove the point, I never even thought about that. Just seeing you write it, it make me think I might have acted like a douche because of that). But the amount of vicousness is amazing. Privilege is never an excuse, but here it is not even an explanation.

    In this case, I even spent some time looking at fault on the part of Watson. Nothing. In the case of the tweet, at least she made a mistake (for 2 damn minutes). But in the Elevator post? NOTHING.
    It may be another privilege blinker lifted, but I can’t understand where that backlash comes from.
    At least religious nuts have a twisted frankness: woman inferior because GOD. They’re deluded. Here, I’m just stunned.

    I didn’t think as the internet as a Great Equalizer. This make perfect sense though. I like that!

  258. Sili says

    I’m still uncertain as to why it requires my shoe size and a copy of my most recent passport.

    1) Correlation with the size of you equipment.

    2) Most of what is done in The Line™ is not allowed in the contiguous United States.

  259. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    But the amount of vicousness is amazing. Privilege is never an excuse, but here it is not even an explanation.

    Oh, it is. The fact that they are forced to notice their privilege makes them feel all funny inside, like maybe their smug superiority is misplaced. Instead of dealing with that, they just get all pissed off because anything that makes them bad must be the fault of whoever brought it to their attention.

    Of course I could be wrong; I’m speaking from personal experience, as I used to be a privilege-denying twit.

  260. Sili says

    And JackLewis don’t like no chicks.

    Now you’ve done it.

    Everyone is gonna attack you for calling poor jack a faggot.

  261. b. says

    Sili:

    1) Correlation with the size of you equipment.

    Ah! Well. Hmm….let’s see….7.5 with a 4″ Schmidt-Cassegrain. Oh! Or the 6″ Mak! And then there’s the 10″ Dobsonian for, let us say, “special” evenings.

    2) Most of what is done in The Line™ is not allowed in the contiguous United States.

    I shall just hope for somewhere with no extradition treaty then, shall I? Please tell me there aren’t more forms for just the line itself. *sobs quietly*

    Kassad:

    In this case, I even spent some time looking at fault on the part of Watson. Nothing. In the case of the tweet, at least she made a mistake (for 2 damn minutes). But in the Elevator post? NOTHING.
    It may be another privilege blinker lifted, but I can’t understand where that backlash comes from.

    RW spoke up, silly! How dare she? How dare she say something as onerous as, “Not cool, guys”? (sarcasm off) Really, that’s all I can come up with after reading enough Dude-speak to make my eyes bleed. Saying that everything they do and say isn’t delightful and alluring to all women everywhere always is tantamount to blasphemy to that group.

    Imagine if she’d just made it a tad harsher. Several million tiny little singularities would have occurred and we would have heard the pop-pop-pop-pop sound of all the Brahs’ brains imploding. Give me a millennia or two and I can probably think of a downside to that…. (C’mon, it’s not like they were *using* those brains anyway.)

  262. Sili says

    As a side note if all skepticism was was Questioning then we’d never move beyond first premises. We’d STILL be questioning bigfoot. Strangely it seems that we actually come to some conclusions.

    You just don’t get it, do you?

    The reason we can by now dismiss Bigfoot, is that that’s the right conclusion.

    The claim that women are people, is obviously not at all settled and anyone who doesn’t keep asking questions is a bad Septic™, because that’s obvious not the right conclusion.

  263. Amphiox says

    I don’t think people have to pick only one, but if Balstrome demands that I pick only one, then:

    Personally, I’m much more interested in defeating sexism than defeating theism.

    The two are individual facets of the same die, sister branches of the same tree. The arise from the same root and mutually support one another.

    So fighting the one automatically fights the other.

    But if one must set priorities on which should be fought first, or with greater weight of resources, then sexism, being the more established, more pervasive, and more universally harmful of the two, is the one that should accrue this focus.

  264. Amphiox says

    (If you kill sexism, at least half of the harm that theism does is automatically eliminated, and a significant fraction of the damage that theism can do is automatically dissipated. But if you kill theism, sexism will for the large part continue unabated, doing the same amount of harm as ever before – something which the supposedly atheist slimepitters amply demonstrate).

  265. Agent Silversmith, Vendor of +5 Vorpal Feather Dusters says

    Sili

    The claim that women are people, is obviously not at all settled and anyone who doesn’t keep asking questions is a bad Septic™, because that’s obvious not the right conclusion.

    It relates to the three laws of Brahbotics.

    1. Do not harm a person, or allow a person to come to harm.
    2. Do not publicly embarrass or brusquely denounce a man*, or allow a third party to do so, provided that this does not contravene the first law.
    3. Do not harm a woman, or allow a woman to come to harm, provided that this does not contravene the first two laws.

    *May be awarded as an honorary title.

  266. Esteleth, Raging Dyke of Fuck Mountain says

    *blink blink*

    1. Do not harm a person, or allow a person to come to harm.
    2. Do not publicly embarrass or brusquely denounce a man*, or allow a third party to do so, provided that this does not contravene the first law.
    3. Do not harm a woman, or allow a woman to come to harm, provided that this does not contravene the first two laws.

    This is a brilliant encapsulation of the phenomenon! May I quote it elsewhere?

  267. says

    carry on talking about me relentlessly

    You planning on going to all the threads on all the blogs that talk about people who aren’t participating in the comments and whining about it?

  268. michaeldean says

    Well now, apologies for the long post, but so many people commented…

    113. Sure. Do you favor murder and cannibalism?

    116. Yes, and having followed “elevatorgate” from the beginning, I think she makes some valid comments. From some of the comments in that thread it would seem so, though.

    117. The problem is that people are being labeled “knuckle-dragging assholes” for the simple act of disagreeing.

    120. Comments like this is exactly what I mean by “this fray”

    121. In my case, because it was HER comment to me.

    126. No, but the vitriolic comments to anyone who disagrees is.

    132. Quite correct. The problem is that I have been following this issue and keep seeing people jump in with cries of “sexist!” whenever anyone disagrees (see comments 28, 120, 128) with posts that basically say “all men are sexist asses.” (And I fully expect the preceding line to provoke such comments.)

    145. Do you really believe that calling everyone who disagrees with you (as you just did to me) a sexist or misogynist will entice more women to be part of the skeptical community?

    201. Isn’t making a comment that generalized behavior to gender sexist?

    255. No, the skeptical community as a whole. My point was you should feel something in common with those who question beliefs, rather than “toe the party line.” I do not agree with everything PZ, Dawkins, Jillette, et. al. say, but I do feel that I do have something important in common with them.

    258. I disagree with you, Cipher. SOME of the feminists ARE part of the problem. I read RW’s original post concerning EG. I did not see any problem with her comments, pointing out how she felt and suggesting that it was not entirely a good idea to approach a lone woman in an enclosed space. The harassment and threats she received after was wrong and should be dealt with, BUT…when EG was labeled a misogynist and some people dared to question that label they were immediately and viscously attacked, and called sexist for not agreeing with the label. My comment to 132 above applies here.

    272. My point…anyone who dares to express support for CLS *based on the posts in the linked thread* (at least the first 95 or so) has been told to shut up, called names, and accused of misogyny, so it appears you are arguing my point…AND THIS attitude diverts attention from the real problem like the camera guy…

    336. The analogy suffers. A better analogy would be Huey Newton calling Rosa racist because she would not pick up a gun. My point being illustrated by the simple fact of mentioning my wife immediately identified me as a sexist pig. THAT leap makes reasonable people dismiss real cases because it makes the poster look paranoid.

    346. But that is not what is happening. I did not see any “questioning of dudebros,” only posts saying, in essence “you don’t’ agree with me, therefore you are wrong and a sexist pig.”

    347. I should have emphasized IDEAS, as so many of the attacks here are personal, rather than the ideas. I did use “question” and “attack” with reason. Would you prefer “challenge” as a better term?

    349 & 380 When I said ALL ideas, I meant that no idea should be considered sacrosanct. Like the idea that using gendered slurs against and stereotyping women is bad, but OK when done to men (as it seems to be accepted behavior).

  269. dysomniak says

    @388 It’s cute that you took the effort to reply to all those posts, but I don’t know who you think is going scroll up to figure out what you’re responding to. Not that it matters. I actually did read most of those words you typed and they look like exactly the same blather we get from every other halfwit privilege-blind concern troll who wanders by.

    You claim that people get “unfairly” branded misogynists for supporting CLS, but the simple fact is that if you support a misogynist, you are supporting misogyny. Would you say that people who support stormfront are unfairly branded racists?

  270. says

    @michaeldean in #388:

    117. The problem is that people are being labeled “knuckle-dragging assholes” for the simple act of disagreeing.

    No, it depends on what they disagree about. Like, say, if they disagree about the proper amount of ground clearance of knuckles.

  271. markw says

    I only rarely post on Pharyngula, but I’m going to stick my 2p in here. (I’m from the UK so you get pence rather than cents from me.)

    I have a hell of a lot of “Honky McStraighterson” privilege, and thanks in no small part to the Pharyngula regulars, I’m slowly learning to recognise it and work against it. So I want to thank everyone here for educating me.

    Maybe I’ll get a comment on the lines of “congratulations cupcake, you’ve learned not to piss on people in public” and maybe I deserve that, but the point I’m trying to make is this:

    To all the Pharyngula regulars who are fighting the good fight: your efforts are not in vain, some people are listening, and you are changing people’s minds.

  272. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    336. The analogy suffers. A better analogy would be Huey Newton calling Rosa racist because she would not pick up a gun. My point being illustrated by the simple fact of mentioning my wife immediately identified me as a sexist pig. THAT leap makes reasonable people dismiss real cases because it makes the poster look paranoid.

    You know, they suggested that you pick up a history book. That’s not a bad idea. You might want to get a primer for logical fallacies too.

    Point 1: The Rosa Parks action was (as an analogy) far more radical than anything I’ve seen anyone suggest we do versus sexism in skeptism/atheism.
    Point 2: No-one that is not in a position of power and influence has been berated for doing things their own way, as long as they don’t tell others they are doin’ it rong!1!(tm)
    Point 3: No-one AFAIK has advocated violence. Hash words are in no way equivalent to violence.

    As for your wife: Why did you bring her into this? What do you think it does for your arguments? Can you see that using her as a testemony without any verification of her consent might be seem as extreme toxic sexism? You’re pissing on your wife’s own agency, and you’re doing it for nothing. It’s utterly pathetic. (unless of course she’s fictional, we have no way of confirming that she exist – and we won’t check since it won’t make a lick of difference. You’re still pathetic. There’s no way you can come gracefully out of the “this person who is not here totally supports me”-shtick

  273. says

    Naked Bunny with a Whip:

    Christ, people. How are we going to protect the forest if you keep making such a big deal over every little tree being cut down?

    This.

    Some people seem to consider themselves allies to women if they support things like equal wages, but the fact that women are paid less than men is merely an effect of misogyny. The cause is that we (society) think of women as being worth less than men – and unless they’re willing to do something about that, they’re hardly allies to women.

  274. says

    …but the regulars here already know that, so I should probably have addressed it directly to the I-totally-support-equal-wages-which-makes-me-an-ally crowd.

  275. michaeldean says

    @389 dysomniak,
    I did not see anything in CLS’s posts indicative of misogyny, and no one presented any evidence of such behavior beyond disagreement with RW, et. al.

    What I see is when someone points a finger and screams “sexist!” anyone who asks for evidence or dares to question that assessment is tarred by the same brush. I gave examples such as posts 28, 120, 128.

    IRL I have been yelled at and called sexist for holding a door open for someone who happened to be female. I DO NOT treat anyone as lesser because of gender/orientation/race…but I am prejudiced against stupidity and hypocrisy…which I have seen in this topic in abundance.

  276. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but I am prejudiced against stupidity and hypocrisy…which I have seen in this topic in abundance

    Right, you only need to read your own posts.

  277. michaeldean says

    oops…I forgot to answer your last point:

    Someone who supports Stormfront financially or their agenda IS racist…but that is not what is happening here. No one has supported a group (or even a position) that rape is acceptable, for example.

    Would you label me a racist for allowing stormfront to erect a billboard? I do not support their speech, but I do support their right to speak. These are two different things, and mature, thinking individuals should be able to see the difference.

  278. michaeldean says

    @392 Gnumann,

    I have read history books, along with critical thinking books.

    Point 1: My analogy was of an extremist who draws the “us/them” line just next to himself. Which is what I see happening here.

    Point 2: “Position of power and authority” seems to mean “male and disagrees with us” in this context.

    Point 3: It was an analogy.

    As to logical fallacies, you are deflecting the issue I was trying to raise. I did not “bring my wife into this.” She was asking me questions about EG and I was asking her questions about what she considers sexist behavior. Her comment to me regarding this thread was “I was thinking about applying for one of the skepchick TAM grants, but it is childish squabbling like that which makes me not want to go. I thought they were SUPPOSED to be skeptical, not ‘agree with me or else.'”

    My comment was immediately followed by cries that I am sexist and she is imaginary (since she did not agree with the extremists, it appears) which simply makes my point.

  279. drbunsen le savant fou says

    Shall we just pause to note who the head of department is – http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/staff/people-profile.php?name=Kath_Woodward

    the interdisciplinary level 1 course Introduction to the Social Sciences: Understanding Social Change

    I guess they introduced that course after jamesmacderp passed their way.

    b.

    Ah! Well. Hmm….let’s see….7.5 with a 4″ Schmidt-Cassegrain. Oh! Or the 6″ Mak! And then there’s the 10″ Dobsonian for, let us say, “special” evenings.

    What, no Leica Rangefinder?

    is a bad Septic™

    Hail Tpyos?

  280. drbunsen le savant fou says

    childish squabbling

    Ah, I see. The discussion about women being harassed at conferences, and whether those conferences have, or should have, sexual harassment policies and procedures is childish squabbling to you and/or your good wife.

    Good to know.

    extremists

    Tell me, kind sir, what is the position that you regard as extreme here?

  281. dysomniak says

    @michaeldean I wouldn’t call you a racist for supporting stormfronts’s right to free speech but if you minimized and defended their message by claiming it was merely a “disagreement” then that would be a very good indicator that you are a a racist. In my youthful, Doc Marten-wearing days I might have kicked your teeth in for it. The fact that you can’t see blatant misogyny when it’s right in front of then that doesn’t say much for you as a human being. I hope you treat your wife with more respect than you seem to have for other members of her gender.

  282. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Firstly

    I did not “bring my wife into this.

    Matches

    My wife had considered taking part in TAM2012, but sees this issue as a bunch of adolescent squabbling.

    very poorly.

    I have read history books, along with critical thinking books.

    Not very well.

    Point 1: My analogy was of an extremist who draws the “us/them” line just next to himself. Which is what I see happening here.

    So, thinking women are fully human is extremist? No wonder I find you a grade 1 rancid arsehole. Feel free to fill it with rotten porcupine so you don’t stink up every locale you frequent.

    Also, you might want to brush up a bit on the civil rights movement. Not very famous for a blurry line between “us” and “them” last time I checked.

    Point 2: “Position of power and authority” seems to mean “male and disagrees with us” in this context.

    You, little idiot. Firstly, servings of porcupine for the needing are dealt out without any discrimination based on gender, delusions of “race” or creed.

    Secondly, “Position of power and authority” was included because people have indeed been included because people have told event organizers they are doing things wrong. That is legit.

    I dare you to show me other instance. Go on! It should be quite easy if it happens to everybody who’s male and clueless (good luck finding a clueless male not spouting the good old “you’re doing it wrong, moderate and accept that women only are partly human” (Ok, that last bit is not said verbatim, but it’s sure as Hell* an indication).

    Point 3: It was an analogy.

    A false equivalence and an analogy isn’t the same, you utter nitwit. Especially when you manage to mangle your facts to the unreconcilable.

    Let me recap it for you in a short sentence:
    Rosa Parks was far more extreme than any atheist has been for the last year (heck, far more extreme than any atheist activist I have ever heard of).

    Mainly because the stakes were higher and she had to be.

    *I’m pretty sure of Hell since I’m at the place at regular intervals. It can be found at 63° 26′ 40″ N, 10° 54′ 14″ E

    “I was thinking about applying for one of the skepchick TAM grants, but it is childish squabbling like that which makes me not want to go. I thought they were SUPPOSED to be skeptical, not ‘agree with me or else.’”

    Stop pissing on your wife in public you fucking arsehole.

    If she wants to argue her case she can do it herself. If not you’re just treating her like a piece of meat with no agency of her own.

  283. says

    MarkW:

    To all the Pharyngula regulars who are fighting the good fight: your efforts are not in vain, some people are listening, and you are changing people’s minds.

    Hey Mark, thank you for stopping to post this, it’s appreciated.

  284. jacklewis says

    Top 5 signs your comment area has become a roach motel.

    5 “It’s cute that you took the effort to reply to all”
    Condescension used to at least require some appearance of superiority…
    4 “Stop pissing on your wife in public you fucking arsehole.”
    Lovely sentiment. This is what the socratic method is all about!

    3. Some people seem to consider themselves allies to women if they support things like equal wages.
    Nah only the ones that don’t should…

    2.No wonder I find you a grade 1 rancid arsehole. Feel free to fill it with rotten porcupine so you don’t stink up every locale you frequent.
    To each their own fetish… I guess.

    1. Attack the ideas, attack the behavior, and don’t be a bigot.
    The code of conduct for the bizarro world pharygula comment area?

    Ok so one more… the winner is:
    “In my youthful, Doc Marten-wearing days I might have kicked your teeth in for it.”
    Definitely pathetic but totally acceptable comment….

    @Brownian
    “Back in May, in a thread critical of Sam Harris, he (sarcastically) wrote:

    Still let’s keep bashing Harris it is probably good for one’s inferiority complex…

    That’s all the guy can comprehend. Hero-worship. It’s what he does, and he honestly cannot view the world in any other way.”

    I love the fact that you keep some of my comments in your scrap book it’s uplifting. What you fail to grasp (but you’re not even trying so it’s OK) is that it is possible to take a side without hero-worshipping anyone.
    Still when knee jerks think that they are making some sort of point by calling reasonably articulate debaters a bunch of childish names, you have to assume they have a motivation beyond simply making fools of them selves. God forbid they should try to actually attack the arguments instead of the person making them. This basically virtually never happens in the comment area here. I don’t know how much time you have to spend here before you can no longer smell the stench.
    Hey we are soooo pro sexual harassment policies… oh and BTW you’re a faggot, a rankid arrshole, a fucking asshole… I guess RW might have had a point when it comes to the “safe place” comment.

  285. maureenbrian says

    So you don’t like it here, jacklewis?

    Well, go and play somewhere else then. We are not a home for the permanently apoplectic.

  286. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Lovely sentiment. This is what the socratic method is all about!

    So, when a guy performs involuntarily wet-sex on his wife in public, we should just walk on by?
    Don’t you think women are fully human?
    Shouldn’t human agency be respected in all we do?
    Is that Socratic enough for you, does it satisfy your faux sense of intellectualism?

    Also, I’d accounts are to be belived. Socrates was offed for being obnoxious. You might want to reflect on that before you co-op the lovely little thinker pissed bugger* into your tone-trolling.

    2.No wonder I find you a grade 1 rancid arsehole. Feel free to fill it with rotten porcupine so you don’t stink up every locale you frequent.
    To each their own fetish… I guess.

    The porcupine is a horde tradition. For a brief moment I tried to convince the horde to replace it with a vegan option (durian fruit), but I was convinced that the porcupine has died of natural causes and has lead a full life up to it’s metaphorical use as a reward for utter inhumanity.

    But enough about us, let’s talk about you: What do you think is an adequate reaction for someone that thinks “women are fully human and should be treated as such” is an extremist position?

  287. says

    Long time lurker. Witnessed the EG civil war (so riveted I didn’t leave my bedroom for days), and the various skirmishes since.

    I wonder if the dudebros thought once they left the church they would be free to do all those naughty, sexy things that god didn’t like and were stumped by the intransigence of the women folk in not going along with the fantasy of free, godless orgies with no fear of the eternal fires. Maybe they imagined it was going to be a free-for-all, just like the Christians claimed it would be. Dudebro: “What? Now we have to still worry about morals? WTF was breaking the chains of party-pooper church all about if I can’t commit sins of the flesh when I feel like it. All this trouble and the girls are still making a fuss about dropping their knickers!”

    Maybe there is a section of the atheist community that really is attracted to the vision of a world without morals. They left god not to find the truth, but to do what they feel like. EG put the spotlight of them, and we don’t need them.

  288. opposablethumbs says

    michaledean #388

    When I said ALL ideas, I meant that no idea should be considered sacrosanct. Like the idea that using gendered slurs against and stereotyping women is bad, but OK when done to men (as it seems to be accepted behavior).

    (my emphasis)
    .
    Somebody hasn’t been paying attention. Or maybe michaeldean just likes the sound of the conclusions to which he blithely leaps – because if you had been paying attention you might have noticed that ALL gendered slurs are lambasted here and they are explicitly NOT “OK when done to men”. People here can expect to be criticised or be-porcupined for their chosen beliefs, politics, attitudes, behaviour – NOT for innate qualities such as gender, skin colour, sexuality, disability etc.
    .
    Tsk tsk.
    .
    If you hope to have something to say that’s at least worthy of discussion, it’s a pity if you also say something as silly as this; it makes it a bit harder to take you seriously.

  289. jacklewis says

    So you don’t like it here, jacklewis?

    >> Well, go and play somewhere else then. We are not a home for the permanently apoplectic.
    But you actually are and that is my obvious point… self awareness sold separately?

    >> Shouldn’t human agency be respected in all we do?
    Only if people agree with your cognitive biases…as been amply demonstrated duh!

    “ALL gendered slurs are lambasted”
    Add canned laughst here, I guess for some reason this slurs are the only ones you don’t favor like calling people faggots for not agreeing with you… How fucking pathetic…

    michaeldean has the unfortunate rare problem of not sounding like an automated quote generator but I’m sure like any half reasonable non sociopathic ass hole he will probably not comment to often down there parts (I’m only guessing but there is only so much entertainment value that can be derived from the mentally challenged little fucks who can’t handle basic argumentation that populate this corner)

  290. Aquaria says

    (I’m only guessing but there is only so much entertainment value that can be derived from the mentally challenged little fucks who can’t handle basic argumentation that populate this corner)

    Shiny, shiny mirror…

  291. says

    “ALL gendered slurs are lambasted”
    Add canned laughst here, I guess for some reason this slurs are the only ones you don’t favor like calling people faggots for not agreeing with you… How fucking pathetic…

    Cite on who was called a faggot here and when/by whom?

    I’ve yet to see anybody show where this actually happened.

  292. meursalt says

    @Cipher:

    Brownians “folks” comments: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/27/are-mermaids-real/comment-page-1/#comment-378292

    and his clarification at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/27/are-mermaids-real/comment-page-1/#comment-379470

    Re: the “bros lie” stuff: You’re right. That was mostly Ing, with yourself, hotshoe, and Sally chiming in. I stand corrected. I’m also going to retract this particular criticism in light of jamesmacdonald’s initial accusation against Rebecca. I can see how the “bros lie” statements were warranted. That was sloppy of me and I apologize for misrespresenting Josh’s statements.