Comments

  1. says

    I just wanted you to know I tried looking for a gladiatrix for the image on this thread. Big mistake. It turns out that every illustrator who has ever tried to draw or otherwise portray a female gladiator has decided that their sole means of defense is to attempt to stun their opponent with the sight of their large naked breasts.

  2. John Morales says

    PZ, dunno about stunning, but it would sure distract me.

    (But then, I’m not gay)

  3. anubisprime says

    PZ Myers @ 2

    It turns out that every illustrator who has ever tried to draw or otherwise portray a female gladiator has decided that their sole means of defense is to attempt to stun their opponent with the sight of their large naked breasts.

    They are after all weapons of mass distraction !

  4. says

    Also, I wish to lodge a complaint. I advertise this as “no-holds-barred unmoderated chaos”, and so far it’s mainly nerds talking about Dungeons & Dragons. Can someone at least bust a beer bottle now and then and wave it threateningly while bellyaching about annoyingly incompetent play balance?

  5. Zeckenschwarm says

    Messed up that blockquote, sorry.

    Oh Your God!!!! John Loftus has launched http://www.skepticblogs.com/ to rival the giant of FtB. It may be a welcome addition to the skeptical movement.

    When I open that link, I only get a blank page. Am I doing something wrong?

  6. matthewhunstiger says

    In the famous words of a fellow graduate student:

    go fuck a donut rolling down a hill!

    Why?! Why not?!? argle bargle

  7. McC2lhu saw what you did there. says

    *Busts a bottle of merlot on the counter, accidentally cuts off a finger*

    I’m totally not getting the hang of this violence blogging.

  8. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    Unfortunately the Politburo are on extended vacation and the Ebil Tardigrade is encysted. I am sure they could re-evil this place in just a couple of posts.

    {farts}

  9. dianne says

    American beer is the best glass weaponry in the world!

    Glad to know it’s good for something! The first time I tried Ameican beer I thought someone was playing a practical joke on me and that it was real urine instead of pre-urine (aka beer) that I was drinking. In a moment of insane sensibility for a 16 year old (ja, ja, it’s long past the statute of limitations) I decided not to drink any more because being thought cool wasn’t worth putting up with that crap.

  10. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    Yeah, the Skepticblogs link goes to a blank page, but if you go to the new Debunking Christianity there are links to all the other blogs there. I don’t recognise any of the others, so it would at least seem he hasn’t decided to be a hub for slimepitters and other scumbags just yet, though there are a few of the notorious creeps on the old DC page praising him.

  11. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    Dammit, hyperdeath beat me to it. That aside, their site’s a bit buggy on a few pages.

  12. matthewhunstiger says

    hey Fuckers!

    let’s normalize our means of production and watch a good movie like Red Dawn!

  13. says

    Taking a look at skepticblogs.com, I can’t see that much which is bad. I think Loftus is consciously trying to prevent it degenerating it into another Slimepit.

    The biggest problem is the external links from Musings From the Skeptical Left by Maria Maltseva AKA bluharmony. It includes Franc Hoggle’s blog, that obsessive anti-Pharyngula wiki, that bizarre FTB “parody”, Coffee Loving Skeptic, some deranged female MRA, and several other crackpots.

  14. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Glad to know it’s good for something! The first time I tried Ameican beer I thought someone was playing a practical joke on me and that it was real urine instead of pre-urine (aka beer) that I was drinking. In a moment of insane sensibility for a 16 year old (ja, ja, it’s long past the statute of limitations) I decided not to drink any more because being thought cool wasn’t worth putting up with that crap.

    You need to not drink the macro brewed american beer. There are currently about 2000 breweries in the US. Most all of them aren’t the shitty Coors, Anheuser-Busch, Miller types. Most are small craft breweries and many are making products that rival breweries anywhere.

  15. dianne says

    RBDC, yeah, but I didn’t know that as a teenager. Also, it was the 1980s in Texas. Not sure microbreweries were a concept in that particular space/time coordinate.

  16. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    Oh, I didn’t spot Bluharmony on there when I had a glance around. Well, I won’t be surprised to see some slime ooze out of that particular pit – though I should say ‘hear about’, since there’s no way I’m going there.

  17. John Morales says

    Oddly enough, Loftus is the only FTB blogger ever to ban me (though Kylie long ago requested I post no more there, since my sycophancy quotient was not up to her standards — not a problem, but obviously that entails not reading her pap, either).

  18. says

    Back in the day, when we played (2nd Ed), magic-users actually had to get (and carry! and use!) the material components — and also the travelling spell-books — and we applied encumbrance.

    By the rules, as written and carried out (at official events, no less), the component pouch carries literally everything you could possibly need at its regular, ludicrously low weight without mention, provided that component does not have a listed gold cost. Spellbook weight is not particularly high, and spellbooks are easy enough to carry elsewhere, as you don’t need to physically carry the book to get spells back, just access it. If a DM actually wants to try to ‘get’ a player like this, there’s solutions; such as, if necessary, a Heward’s Handy Haversack, that always pulls up what you need, that you stored in it.

    Not that it’s a good for relationships or the game to think of it in these terms. Compiling lists of asshole things to do to a spellbook just encourages paranoia preparations and spellbook defenses, backup spellbooks, etc.* Granted, it’s not necessarily good for relationships for casters to win everything, but generally less than locking the GM and the wizard into a game of Paranoia, without the silly fun of Friend Computer.

    There’s a lot people do with spellcasters they really can’t. For example, full round actions vs round spells. People don’t distinguish between the two. A spell that isn’t supposed to take effect until your next turn is treated as immediately going off at the end of your turn.

    Not the balancing factor you think it is. It’s when people try to do things like “Hurl 1000 blowpipe needles with mage hand” htat problems appear (since Mage Hand can’t be attacked with, as it doesn’t grant attacks) that this really comes up.

    Can someone at least bust a beer bottle now and then and wave it threateningly while bellyaching about annoyingly incompetent play balance?

    I don’t drink. Do plastic soda bottles shatter?

    I also can hide behind honesty; DnD was a major issue for me years ago, not now XD

    *There are reasons I’m done with DnD. Some of them I even talk about :D

  19. julietdefarge says

    I like the way a British friend described American beer as “love in a canoe…” because it’s fucking close to water.

    Not feeling very violent at the moment, tho I am ready to rumble with the first person who rags on me about the shooting at Family Research Council HQ. Every liberal and gay rights group I’m aware of immediately condemned the shooting and offered no excuses for the actions of the shooter. I’m not apologizing for anything. Hate groups are still hate groups. Let the Righties have a few days of triumphal yammering – until the next totally predictable anti-gay attack.

  20. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    RBDC, yeah, but I didn’t know that as a teenager. Also, it was the 1980s in Texas. Not sure microbreweries were a concept in that particular space/time coordinate.

    ahhh, sorry.

    I assumed more from your comment than I should have.

  21. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I haven’t played d&d in decades but would love to get into a game at some point.

  22. birgerjohansson says

    An article in Big Think:

    “Do Americans Really Envy Sweden’s Egalitarianism?” http://bigthink.com/praxis/how-much-equality-would-you-like?utm_source=Big+Think+Weekly+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=d53a43cfc0-Michio_Kaku_s_Playlist8_15_2012&utm_medium=email

    The bottom 40 percent HAVE ONLY 0.3%. OF THE TOTAL AMERICAN WEALTH (not to be confused with income)
    .
    Comment:
    “The total GDP of the United States is $14 trillion dollars. But that doesn’t really tell the whole story. If you wanted to see how we REALLY compare to other nations in real terms then you must split us into two nations: USAA and USAB. USAA has a GDP of 12.6 trillion dollars and consists of a population of 30 million and USAB a GDP of $1.4 trillion that consists of 270 million people. Let’s compare it to a country such as Norway (pop 5 million) whose GDP is around 400 billion dollars. That breaks down to $47370 per capita for USAB and $80,000 per capita for Norway. Quite a difference; but that’s not even the half of it.

    What are we getting for our money? And how much did we have to work to get it?

    A Norwegian works on average 34 hours per week. The average employed American works a 46-hour work week (38% of Americans work more than 50 hours per week) Americans average 10 paid holidays a year compared to Norwegian and British workers averaging twenty-five paid holidays, German employees average thirty. Americans work twelve weeks more a year in total hours than Europeans”
    .
    Why do you guys not start a revolution?

  23. dianne says

    Why do you guys not start a revolution?

    Because we’re not poor, we’re just temporarily embarrassed billionaires who don’t want the tax breaks to have evaporated when we finally make our fortunes. Or something like that.

    Speaking of Sweden, anyone got any thoughts on Julian Assange?

  24. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Speaking of Sweden, anyone got any thoughts on Julian Assange?

    Looks like he’ll be spending long days on the beaches of Ecuador enjoying fruity drinks.

  25. dianne says

    Looks like he’ll be spending long days on the beaches of Ecuador enjoying fruity drinks.

    If he can somehow make it to the airport. Right now he appears to be enjoying a sunless room with an air mattress in London. OTOH, he is not enjoying waterboarding, which he likely would be if Sweden did send him to the US.

    The Brits appear to be threatening to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status and raid the embassy. Isn’t that about one step away from declaring war?

  26. ChasCPeterson says

    Rev. Sun Myung Moon looks to be near death.

    I give him three days.
    (of death, of course)

    thought I’d test this unmoderated thing and stir up some controversy

    Why don’t you try saying something controversial then?

  27. ChasCPeterson says

    btw, PZ is lazy as hell. You only have to scroll down like 4 or 5 screens to find a pic of a gladiatrix whose enormous breasts are protected by what seem to be stainless-steel mixing bowls (with metal nipples welded on there).

  28. says

    though Kylie long ago requested I post no more there

    Ah, that one is dead to me. Not just because she decided to ban me because I disagree with her sometimes, but also because she put up a thread asking for female opinions on harassment and females in the movement, and in the very same thread she blocked the female commenters who disagreed with her. So yeah, fuck Kylie Sturgess. (and I have evidence, people mailed me)

  29. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    The Brits appear to be threatening to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status and raid the embassy. Isn’t that about one step away from declaring war?

    Oh, well.

    Right

    there’s that

    *note to self: read the whole article

  30. DLC says

    *kicks in the doors, barges in with a broken beer bottle in one hand and a bar towel wrapped around the other fist * “now will ya gimme some fuckin game balance, you miserable TSR bastards! ”

    (just for PZ)

    birgerjohansson @35 : There is no evidence for Revolution.
    (See the previous post, Back into the Trenches, here)

  31. Bernard Bumner says

    The Brits appear to be threatening to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status and raid the embassy. Isn’t that about one step away from declaring war?


    Or not?
    (It would seem the threat is that there might be more legal proceedings.)

    The UK is currently in breach of its legal obligation to Sweden to fulfil an arrest warrant. Assange continues to avoid answering serious criminal allegations, and still can’t explain why the US wouldn’t simply seek his extradition directly from the UK (a much easier process, apparently).

  32. emburii says

    *looks at blog title ‘Notes From The Skeptical Left’*

    *reads comments from author on how politics and skepticism shouldn’t mix*

    *tries to locate all bits from exploded skull*

    This is the same person who blew a gasket on Greta’s blog because I dared ask for evidence of said commentor’s statements in somewhat impatient terms, but has a post up on how it’s such a shame other skeptics get all tetchy over other people’s language. Yeesh. If that’s what Loftus is offering, I’m perfectly happy over here and recommending as such to others.

  33. Bernard Bumner says

    All this so Assange can be questioned by Sweden about sex crime allegations, eh?

    Er, “sex crime allegations” should read “rape“.

  34. PatrickG says

    Re: SkepticBlogs, I have no real knowledge of any of the players there, but I gotta say my instinctive hyperskepticism kicks into WARP FACTOR 9 at the mere mention of EvoPsych.

    I suppose it’s possible that the EP I’ve been exposed to is the equivalent of “creationist evolution” to the real thing. I’ll try to give it a fair shake.

    Also, women evolved big breasts to win arguments via stun in blog forums. My evidence for that is that PZ is clearly afraid of losing an argument to the breasts of doom.

  35. ChasCPeterson says

    Had a look at the new new SkepticsBlogs zone.
    As others have noted, one is by bluharmony, and not only is her blogroll well-stocked with the antiwatsonistan Resistance but she’s already drawing comments from the likes of Giordana and MK Gray…anly a matter of time for The Justicar to weigh in (btw Welch seems to have moved over to Thunderf**t’s full-time).
    There’s also a blog there by Ed Clint that bears watching. His ‘field’ is apparently evolutionary psychology, heh heh heh.

  36. emburii says

    Dangit, Welch has decided that Thunder00t’s decisions are somehow ethical or right? He seemed to have some integrity over the matter, it’s a shame to see him succumb to cognitive dissonance.

  37. emburii says

    Huh. He was a little disingenuous in later replies at Thibeault’s, but I didn’t see Welch go full defensive on Thunderf00t’s behalf there at least. Where did he change his mind?

  38. says

    ChasCPeterson:

    [bluharmony is] already drawing comments from the likes of Giordana and MK Gray

    Judging from the dates, the posts with comments have been imported from her old blog. The new posts have yet to attract any comments, besides an empty test comment.

  39. says

    I must be doing something wrong. I’ve never been banned from an online forum, or threatened with a ban, and sometimes I find myself almost jealous of people who have. Guess I have to try harder.

  40. Louis says

    PZ,

    You want more fights, beer bottle breakages and nastiness?

    No worries.

    {Cricks Neck}

    {Rolls Up Sleeves}

    RIGHT THEN!

    I disagree moderately with some of your positions, whatever they might be. I also question some of your personal habits, your choice in facial hair and your ability to smell truffles.

    Into the car park now, pal, and we’ll have this out properly.

    Louis

  41. says

    RE: American Beer

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/against-craft-beer.html

    I’m fortunate enough to live in Raleigh, NC, where we have 5 or 6 of the top 100 beer bars in the U.S. Lunchtime visits not only make the afternoon go smoothly, but have also introduced me to the many, MANY craft beers available to us.

    I will buy macrobrewery products – after all, served cold enough on a hot summer day they are refreshing (I stick to Yuengling – decent cold and inexpensive). But if I really want to TASTE the beer and enjoy it slowly, I hit a beer bar or local beer store to grab a proper beer.

  42. says

    Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever been banned from anywhere.

    What does Pharyngula look like to someone in The Dungeon? Does it have an animation of PZ wagging his finger and repeating “Uh Uh Uh!”?

  43. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    What does Pharyngula look like to someone in The Dungeon? Does it have an animation of PZ wagging his finger and repeating “Uh Uh Uh!”?

    The site probably looks normal (well, by ‘normal’ I mean the way that unendungeonated users see it) until one tries to log in (or comment?) at which point the entire screen goes to late-90s colour schemes, wall of text, and flasing bolded flourescent orange words thrown in at random.

  44. ChasCPeterson says

    the posts with comments have been imported from her old blog.

    good eye. My bad.
    Bears watching, was my real point.

    Last time I read Tf00t’s blog, Welch was commenting a lot. I could be wrong about him too.

  45. Pteryxx says

    That women fighters tumblr is awesome. All of my picture needs for Thunderdome for the next century are now met.

    Now we just need a tumblr of cute MALE baby animals for the Lounge. *flees*

  46. Bernard Bumner says

    Fine, Bernard. Rape allegations.

    Well, I do think it is an important point. Many supporters of Assange have (mistakenly or otherwise) tried to imply that the allegations are of a minor nature, when actually they are in the most serious category of sex crime.

    If the Swedish allegations were of indecent exposure or similar, then a full-scale diplomatic incident would be much more surprising. (If only English justice pursued all alleged rapists with the same vigour and regard for the letter of the law, then I would be much happier.)

  47. David Marjanović says

    That women fighters tumblr is awesome. All of my picture needs for Thunderdome for the next century are now met.

    Ooh. There’s a vaguely pirate-themed one with an octopus.

    There’s another pirate with a rat… and more pirates…

    …and one with what looks like a banhammer.

    Starting up an entire blog network over a personal grudge. Charming.

    But funny, you must admit.

    It’s phaWRONGula 2.0!!!

    Guess I have to try harder.

    Bah. Wander over to Free Republic.

  48. David Marjanović says

    I’m fortunate enough to live in Raleigh, NC, where we have 5 or 6 of the top 100 beer bars in the U.S.

    Oh, so that’s why this year’s meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology will be there!

    I’m coming, BTW. But not for the beer.

  49. postman says

    @2
    Morgause from the tv series Merlin wears a nice set of armour in her first appearance.

  50. ChasCPeterson says

    so that’s why

    You’ve also got NC State, UNC, and Duke within a few miles (to name just the big ones). And a really nice little science museum downtown.

  51. says

    Banned people see exactly the same site everyone else does. The only difference is that, while they can type frantically in the little text box all they want, all of their words fall instantly into the trash when they click “Submit Comment”.

    I occasionally visit the trash pile to chortle over the futile ravings of the banned, rather like a Christian might dream of going to heaven and peering over the side to gloat at the sufferings of the damned.

  52. ChasCPeterson says

    peering over the side

    If not peeing over the side.

    (but no wait–in heaven there is no beer)

  53. broboxley OT says

    Raleigh also has Hurricane season, awesome fleamarket and a great southern diner at the northend where it meets durham

  54. says

    I occasionally visit the trash pile to chortle over the futile ravings of the banned…

    Is there any chance of the “I get email” feature being supplemented by the best of these? In fact, is there any chance of a sub-Thunderdome dungeon thread, where Hoggle, Mabus and Kwok are free to frolic, dance and sing?

    …rather like a Christian might dream of going to heaven and peering over the side to gloat at the sufferings of the damned.

    Isn’t that supposed to be the best bit?

  55. broboxley OT says

    83 Imp Joe,
    its not heated, everyone seems to be on the same wavelength, Assange asshat Manning tossed under the bus

  56. says

    I’m just dropping in to add a quick chapter to Tales of Kylie Past™, because frankly, I fear for my mental safety in the searing hellscape of this unmoderated donnybrook.

    Early on in my F’book life, I created the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Quantum Physics (SPCQP, ask to join, it’s fun!). It was meant to be a jocular spot for skeptics to post and mock crazy, woo-soaked products and articles. In my innocence, I “invited” all my skeptical friends and heroes to join. Now, little did I know that by “invite” F’book meant “force to join automatically.” This provoked a high-pitched, antipodean shriek of fury that any steam locomotive would have been proud to produce. Kylie Sturgess, in very, very high dudgeon, proceeded to treat me as some kind of stalker/rapist/kitten-eviscerator for my faux pas. “How dare I . . .” ect., etc. I was mortified. I had vexed someone who I read from time to time and thought well of. Of, course, I tried very nicely to explain that I had no idea that inviting meant forced participation, but that just brought more invective-laced dudgeon and a thourough blocking which basically has rendered her cloaked from my predatory, boreal, evilness. As far as I know, she’s not even on F’book anymore as I can’t see any post of any kind from her. Another Australian explained that this was par for the course and that I shouldn’t spend much time dwelling on it.

    Carry on . . .

  57. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    Also, I wish to lodge a complaint. I advertise this as “no-holds-barred unmoderated chaos”, and so far it’s mainly nerds talking about Dungeons & Dragons. Can someone at least bust a beer bottle now and then and wave it threateningly while bellyaching about annoyingly incompetent play balance?

    You want unmoderated kaos? Fine. Call in the lawyer.
    “Lawyer?”
    “Here.”
    “Commence lawyering.”
    “I am getting paid by the word, right?”
    “Er, yeah. Why?”
    “Just checking.
    ahem
    The Committee of the 38th Plenary Commission of the 8th Convocation for the 3rd Five-Year Plan of the People’s Comintern of the Ministry of NonWar of the Pharyngulite People’s Republic of Northern Loungia is not amused, charmed, cheered, cracked up, delighted, diverted, fractured, gladdened, gratified, interested, knocked dead, amused, made to roll in the aisles, occupied, amused, or tickled at the continued claim, assertion, statement, declaration, allegation and/or contention by the deposed, overthrown, ousted, toppled, removed and unseated former Chairman to continued power, authority, control, influence, supremacy, rule, command, clout, authority, sway or dominance within The Counter Committee of the 38th Plenary Commission of the 8th Convocation for the 3rd Five-Year Plan of the People’s Comintern of the Ministry of NonWar of the Pharyngulite People’s Republic of Northern Loungia. Moreover, since the Committee of the 37th Pleniary Commission of the 7th Convocation for the 3rd Five-Year Plan of the Peoples’ Comintern of the Ministry of Non-war of the Pharyngulite Peoples’ Republic of Southern Loungia was shown to be Schismatic, was shown to have been Schismatic, and will be shown to have always been, and will be, Schismatic, split from, broken and ruptured, the Counter Committee of the 38th Plenary Commission of the 8th Convocation for the 3rd Five-Year Plan of the People’s Comintern of the Ministry of NonWar of the Pharyngulite People’s Republic of Northern Loungia, legal, lawful, officially permitted and authorized, permissible and legal notice is now given to theophontes777 that he is to cease, stop, cause to come to an end and close, stop, finish, end, close down, conclude and terminate all references to himself as Chairman or any other permutation, variation, change, transformation, version, incarnation, combination, or alternative to said Chairman including, but not limited to, head, manager, person in charge, organizer, principal, chief, boss, director, dictator for life, first among equals, or chairperson immediately, instantly, directly, instantaneously, and abruptly. Failure to comply with this notice will be noticed.
    This simple, clear, direct, easy to read, and totally legal and aboveboard document has now been legally posted within the most recent incarnation of the The TZT Zombie Thread, now known as Thunderdome! (I will not dump this legal shit on the carpet of the lounge) and is therefore, within the Pharyngulite Peoples’ Republic of Southern Loungia (PPRSL) legal and binding within the confines, boundaries, and LOLcatstrikes of PPRSL.”

    “Thank you.”

    “No problem. You get my bill in the morning.”

  58. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I’m fortunate enough to live in Raleigh, NC, where we have 5 or 6 of the top 100 beer bars in the U.S.

    I’ll be there tomorrow, but only for a quick drive through to Durham to hit our warehouse there. Thinking about stopping in The Times possibly for a beer afterwords.

  59. says

    Assange has gotten me into a number of heated discussions. Yes, he’s being extradited to answer questions. Yes, the presumption of innocence applies. However, that this legal affair might well suit Washington and America’s close allies quite nicely does not mean that the allegations themselves ‘smell’ or can be dismissed, as some chums have argued.

    I’ve seen some otherwise progressive guys recently get very defensive about the whole thing and clearly want to offer Assange a pass on the whole rape business.

  60. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    No mention of the shooting at the Family Research Council HQ on Pharyngula?

    It’s been in the comments. I mentioned it as soon as I saw it yesterday.

  61. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    No mention of the shooting at the Family Research Council HQ on Pharyngula?

    It was. No post, but it has been brought up.

  62. Amphiox says

    I occasionally visit the trash pile to chortle over the futile ravings of the banned, rather like a Christian might dream of going to heaven and peering over the side to gloat at the sufferings of the damned.

    They actually do that? Type into that comment box like a star dribbling hydrogen into a black hole even when they know they’re banned?

    That is some conditioning you’ve done here, PZ.

    There must be some sort of behavioural science in this, there must!

  63. gragra, something clever after the comma says

    I wish to put in a plug for American beer as well. It has a really bad reputation in Australia, but they are always thinking of your Buds, Coors, Pabsts, etc. But here are tons of much better beers. We have a brewery here in Syracuse, Middle Ages brewery that makes fantastic stuff. 10 bucks for a great India Pale Ale. You have to pay at least 15 for a 6 pack in Oz that is only marginally better than Budweiser. Sigh… so much beer, so little time.

  64. KG says

    getoveryourselves,
    Get over yourself. You can safely assume that pretty much everyone who comments here, as well as PZ, alsolutely disapproves of the FRC shooting. It’s been covered by posts on at least two other FTB blogs (Greta Christina’s and Ed Brayton’s).

  65. Manu of Deche says

    @ PZ, #61

    Please, consider adding her to the roster as well. kthxbai

    On more pressing matters: Why is it that DnD 2E Psionics are so FUBAR? Does anyone have experience with it? Is there any way to fix it? Thanks in advance

    A desperate Psionicist from Athas

  66. broboxley OT says

    nice commentary from elsewhere

    your ancestors were immigrants, too. Contrary to popular belief among American whites of dubious intelligence, God did not create the middle chunk of the North American continent for white people, nor did Jesus wave his hand creating a home-grown white American race, and shockingly, the North American continent, as celebrated, was discovered and first colonized by people whom you, as a clear racist, would describe as Hispanics.

  67. David Marjanović says

    crossposted from the [Lounge]

    Mon Tour d’Amérique

    So… I want to plan my US trip. I’d like to book all flights at once, as a multi-stop flight, because that makes them cheaper. But that means I have to plan a lot in advance.

    All I know hope for sure is that I’ll be at the SVP meeting in Raleigh from Oct. 17th to 20th and then go to Rhinebeck the same day.
    I should also visit the collections in DC (Smithsonian), NYC (American Museum of Natural History) and Pittsburgh (Carnegie), but haven’t contacted the curators yet, because of the circular problem of scheduling everything.
    I also hope to spend some extra time in the DC area with assorted local Pharyngulites and in Alabama with Jules (…uh, for the newbies, that’s someone who used to be a regular before Pharyngula moved to FtB and now frequents the Farcebork group) before we can, I hope, go to Skepticon together and meet even more Pharyngulites (Nov. 9th to 11th).
    At some point I hope to visit my uncle and Psych-Oh in Atlanta. That’s not possible before the SVP meeting.

    An ESTA visa waiver is valid for 90 days. I won’t stay that long (a month is more like it). However, to apply for one, I need to know things like my first address in the US.

    So, my question: who else wants to meet me, and when?

  68. anubisprime says

    The Assange debacle is really a chronic soap gone septic!

    From what I can gather from the hysteria….by no means accurate…but as close as I can get it…

    The rape allegations were originally dismissed by the prosecutor assigned to the case, the judges also ruled no evidence for proceeding with charges.

    But Swedish law in sex crime is a weird one in parts.
    One of the legal snags being that mismatch b’twixt ‘n’ b’tween Swedish and Brit law on this subject, in Blighty Assange would never have been pursued in the first place.

    Apparently the allegations lodged by two women, several months after the supposed ‘rapes’ occurred, is based on a facet of Swedish sex criminal justice.
    Scuttlebutt has it that they complained after they were urged to…by who…no one seems sure!.
    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?
    Assange claims consensual sex…the Swedish justice system agreed that is was and no evidence was offered that it was any more so.
    They ignored the condom stipulation and threw the case out.
    Probably a pragmatic move which might be a standard result in these cases…cos on the surface that law is absolutely barking!

    The public prosecutor declared that the Swedish justice system was no longer interested in Assange in this matter.

    Then something happened… a considerable time later a new Swedish prosecutor declared otherwise and revamped the case…there was a suggestion that one of the women had been approached by a CIA officer…but who knows!
    Anyway a non-case is apparently an on-case, but no formal charges have been laid as of this time!

    The suggestion seems to be that the USA would find the Swedish authorities more amenable to extradition requests then Blighty…the Gary McKinnon case is an ongoing bone of deep contention there!

    But first the Swedes have to nab him…but there are still no charges filed…
    The Swedes just want to ask questions..apparently…no mention of arrest or charges…but they refuse to interview him in England or even the Embassy where he is now!

    That seems to be the state of play…but if anyone else can add to this or even correct it I would be grateful…I think the Brit Swede and US governments are in cahoots and cross purposes they all want him but not really!

    He has become a bit of an embarrassment in all their machinations.

    US politicians do not help with boasting about wishing the death penalty for Assange…they really scuppered the process for themselves and left a very ridiculous diplomatic mess elsewhere!

    As for Blighty raiding the Ecuadorian Embassy… very unlikely.
    If they did that then Brit embassies around the world would be extremely vulnerable to the host country violating Brit sovereign territory…even though the sovereign territory is on foreign national land!

    It is a fucking mess…and no one dares blink…least of all Assange!

  69. Beatrice says

    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?

    Er, but if the woman says that she will only have sex if a condom is used and the man refuses to use it and goes on fucking her anyway then it’s not consensual any more, wouldn’t you say?

    And wasn’t the case that one of the women was asleep when he started to fuck her.

  70. broboxley OT says

    anubissubprime
    if conditions change during the act and one party wants to stop having sex and the other keeps on a trucking, you consider that no harm no foul?

  71. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    . . . the supposed ‘rapes’ occurred . . .

    Two things. First, the use of the word supposed is a little jarring. The legal term is alleged, not supposed. The use of the word supposed would lead me to think that you have dismissed the possibility of a law being broken. Why, because beyotches lie?

    Second, why the scare quotes around rape? Just because a sexual act begins as concensual does not mean it will end that way. Not all rapes are strangers in a dark alley. There are many types of rape. For instance,

    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?

    If a woman says, “Yes, you can have sex with me but only with a condom,” and the man has unprotected sex with her without her permission, that sounds like rape to me.

  72. anubisprime says

    Beatrice @ 102

    Er, but if the woman says that she will only have sex if a condom is used and the man refuses to use it and goes on fucking her anyway then it’s not consensual any more, wouldn’t you say?

    Absolutely agree…but that has never been mentioned or raised as to what Assange had actually done.

    And hysteria seems to be the flavour regarding this debacle… make no apologies for that but as I say there is a whole Internet out there and the jist of it is what I wrote…but yeah hysteria seems about right.

    I might also be wrong…I do not claim absolute truth…it is just my impression of rough chronology and some circumstance.

    I am not an Assange supporter…not really interested in wikileaks but this does seem rather a strange and murky tale!

  73. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    And hysteria seems to be the flavour regarding this debacle… make no apologies for that but as I say there is a whole Internet out there and the jist of it is what I wrote…but yeah hysteria seems about right.

    Do you know the roots of the word ‘hysteria’? If you do and insist on using it, that is pretty damning. If you do not, go look it up and then decide if you want to continue using it.

  74. cuervodecuero says

    Just read a local article talking about how the beer magnates have discovered they could get more money by selling beer to women instead of gearing their sales pitches to uhm…beer drinkers not being wimmins nope nope nope. But it’s still all about the not-calories and low alcohol of small beer. How they’re going to silo that against their branded *unmasculine!!111!” ads that strut about beer equalling testosterone, I dunno.

    Oddly, when I look around the pub(s) and my family’s summer parties, I see women drinking ‘manly’ beer, not diet beer, which must say something to the product because beer ads are so often egregiously sexist.

    I take the word of brewmasters that they can make small beer that is very drinkable (less alcohol equals fewer calories, go figure) but that’s science of the craft vs art. Gimme me regular and strong beer every time for flavour. Innis and Gunn when you can get it. I had the fun of introducing the PZmeister to an 8.5percent Canadian porter ale in Kamloops.

    There should be a dedicated beer/booze thread or is that the Lounge?. Hooch *is* a source of founding sciences after all. Biology! Chemistry!! Math! Physics! Everyone is scattered around enough to point out local craft and qualities thereof. It might make for interesting drink sessions at conventions.

  75. opposablethumbs says

    “Small beer” = lower alcohol content, right? Then it usually also means it tastes better: anything between 4.0 and 4.5 tastes better than anything above 5.0 because those high-alcohol beers are always too damn sweet. Yeuch. If I wanted to drink mead, I’d ask for mead, dammit. (and anything below 4.0 isn’t actually beer in the first place)

    And all of the above refers to bitter. Obviously. The only stuff worth drinking. Lager is universally dog-piss, and abominations like budweiser aren’t fit to swill the gutters with.

  76. Beatrice says

    anubisprime,

    Absolutely agree…but that has never been mentioned or raised as to what Assange had actually done.

    It has. That’s why I mentioned it.

  77. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    @cuervodecuero
    While I have yet to try good “small beer” (kudos on using the historical term instead of this “lite” crap) I have no doubt that they can be made. My lowest gravity homebrew (a hefeweizen, for the curious) fermented out to less than four and a half per cent ABV and took second place in a local homebrew competition.

    One of these days I really do want to make a three point session beer, but my brewing partner has a thing for “big” (I wouldn’t wish our twelve percent, pound-and-a-half of hops for a five gallon batch imperial IPA on anyone) so I’m not sure I’ll get the chance anytime soon.

  78. emburii says

    Er, anubisprime, those circumstances were very much raised, the entire him continuing intercourse after removing the condom that his partner insisted on and that he had agreed to. It wasn’t in mainstream media as much, true, but it required very little digging; pretty much any feminist or social justice site had discussions of those very specifics. If you haven’t looked deep enough past the most minimal mainstream to know that such details were publicly elucidated, why are you so very sure that you’re informed enough to have a valid opinion?

    Was the case given more attention and effort than a ‘mere’ rape case otherwise would have, because they wanted to get to that particular defendant? Probably. But it doesn’t mean it was the fault of those women that politics exist, nor does it have to be some lying conspiracy on their part. The premises that the authorities are exploiting the case to squelch Assange for his whistle-blowing but that he also raped those women don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

  79. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    @opposablethumbs Small beer is indeed a low alcohol brew, typically containing less than four per cent alcohol. Historically it was made using the second runoff from the mash tun, salvaging sugars left behind from the first. Not that long ago it was rather hard to find clean drinking water in England so small beer was the standard beverage, even at breakfast.

  80. emburii says

    Hello, I think it was mentioned even on some sites without the feminist/free speech focus, if only so that some of his proponents could dismiss said acts as ‘not rape’.

  81. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Sorry, “mash tun” should be “lauter tun.” I brew using a single vessel for both steps so I sometimes forget there’s a difference.

  82. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    The premises that the authorities are exploiting the case to squelch Assange for his whistle-blowing but that he also raped those women don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

    Absolutely. In a perfect world I would like to see Assange tried for what he did, but given the circumstances (and the fact that the victims seem to have no desire for prosecution) I can’t help but thing there’s something fishy going on. I’d guess that the best case scenario for him, were he to be extradited, would be serving the maximum allowable sentence for his crimes. That’s assuming they don’t ship him over here to face more serious charges and potential execution.

  83. anubisprime says

    Ogvorbis @ 107

    Certainly the Brit public is very ‘divided’ on this issue.
    And the press is not much better, as I say it is a mess!
    It is very difficult to actually work out what happened and when or indeed if there is a statement or indictment actually filed, seems not at this time, what should he actually be arrested for?

    If he has actually raped those women then he deserves every grief coming his way including the eventual sentence.

    There is just very little clarity only unsubstantiated rhetoric…I include my contribution to that…but I genuinely tried to state what information is available on the net, I did attempt to verify the basics. and they seem to be what a few folks are aware of.
    It is apparent you do not like the word ‘hysteria’, I see nothing else suitable.

  84. Beatrice says

    emburii,

    It’s difficult to remember after all this time, but I think I read about the condom thing in regular papers and not feminist sites. Or if it was on feminist sites, they linked to the source in papers.

  85. emburii says

    dysomniak, the only fishy part is that they’re actually pursuing it when they wouldn’t have taken action on behalf of those women otherwise. They are exploiting the case only in that such efforts aren’t being expended for what he did to the women, but for larger political ends. It’s still wrong, and it’s still part of the reprehensible treatment of rape victims. And the fact that the authorities would mix this vendetta with true justice is absolutely sickening.

  86. emburii says

    anubisprime, it’s not ‘very difficult’. He is alleged to have committed multiple sexual violations to several women. The authorities have pounced on this charge when they otherwise would have let ‘boys be boys’. What about this is hard to understand?

    Beatrice, you might be right. Certainly more right and more informed than the prime-grade slime I addressed above that thinks it has two brain cells to rub together. Just a hint, primeslime, ‘hysteria’ might be the wrong word because we’re using facts that you admit you didn’t even know, and yet you accuse US of unsubstantiated rhetoric?

    Go choke a live alligator with your face, asshole.

  87. Beatrice says

    anubisprime,

    As I already mentioned on TET in the Lounge, I was first questioning the accusations of rape too. But when you think about it, it gets pretty obvious that if some false charges were going to be trumped up against him, it wouldn’t be rape. It would be something “really bad”. Or at least something that would look more clear-cut to an average US mind instead of this strange charge of rape where there were no torn clothes and screaming women begging for their virtue to be spared.

  88. PatrickG says

    Go choke a live alligator with your face, asshole.

    Now THAT’s Thunderdome material. The PoopyHead will be pleased.

  89. anubisprime says

    Beatrice @ 110

    It has. That’s why I mentioned it.

    Sorry I have never seen any accusations like that…I plead ignorance…do you have a link to those?

  90. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    My understanding is that the only reason the victims reported in the first place was because they wanted to know if there was a way to make him get an STD test. I don’t know that either of them feels they were raped, or that they want him punished. Hell, my girlfriend initiated unprotected sex without my consent pretty early in our relationship and even joked about raping me while she did it. Speaking only for myself I do not believe I am a victim, in fact I very much enjoyed it and would take the risk again. I’m not sure what my little anecdote says about this particular case, but the idea of this guy rotting in jail for a decade or more just doesn’t seem right.

  91. anubisprime says

    I have just come across another weird claim now…

    In the original case 2010 Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex.”

    the mind truly boggles!

  92. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    It is apparent you do not like the word ‘hysteria’, I see nothing else suitable.

    Considering that some of this comes from allegations of rape, hysteria is a loaded word with a shitload of baggage. From a wiki page:

    From the ancient Greeks up until the early 20th century, hysteria was considered a disease that women suffered from due to problems in the uterus. The belief of the cause of this disease ranged from went from the uterus roaming the body and causing pain (Plato); to women not being sexually satisfied (Galen); to women suffering from the stresses of modern life (physicians in 1859).
    The symptoms were a very large range of things. This included faintness, fluid retention, irritability, heaviness in the abdomen, being troublesome, and many other things. Eventually, near the 20th century, doctors found other causes for these symptoms, such as schizophrenia. The term then turned more colloquial and became a general meaning for when something causes someone to loose control of their laughter just like the women who allegedly suffered from hysteria did.

    From The Guardian:

    Let’s start with etymology. Hysterical. It’s a word with a very female-baiting history, coming from the Latin hystericus (“of the womb”). This was a condition thought to be exclusive to women – sending them uncontrollably and neurotically insane owing to a dysfunction of the uterus (the removal of which is still called a hysterectomy). Here’s another: loony. Coming from lunacy – a monthly periodic insanity, believed to be triggered by the moon’s cycle (remind you of anything?). These etymologies have cemented a polarisation of the female and male mental states: men being historically associated with rationality, straightforwardness and logic; women with unpredictable emotions, outbursts and madness.

    Think about how that plays out today. Let’s invent a character. This person is quirky, outspoken and highly intelligent – sometimes to the bewilderment of those around them. If he’s a man, he’s a “bearded eccentric intellectual”, “misunderstood” or a “tortured genius”. But what if our invented character is a woman? My guess is that she would be described as “shrill”, “unhinged”, “depressed”, “bonkers” and almost certainly “hysterical”. We seem to describe hyper-intelligent women and men using different value judgments.

    Two quick google hits that show how the word hysteria is (a) linked to women, (b) linked to imaginary or difficult to pin down complaints, and (c) is linked to mental illness. So, in the context of a discussion of rape allegations, perhaps the word hysteria could be considered loaded? and aimed at the victims of rape?

  93. Beatrice says

    Googling “assange condoms” gives this article by Daily Fail, among others:


    She had snagged perhaps the world’s most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.

    Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz23jp3EdSm

    The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the ­second, concluded that both women were victims: that ­Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz23jpDunmJ

    The article is pretty vile. The two women are being painted in the worst light possible, lying sluts and all that.

    But there is the part about condoms. I’m not really willing to look further. You’re welcome to do the same search.

  94. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    And here is a very good write up showing the baggage attached to even modern uses of the word hysteria.

    Make sense now?

  95. Bernard Bumner says

    I’m fed up with people defending Assange without even bothering to look at the legal submissions tested before every court in England, including the Supreme Court.

    Assange is very much accused of rape, not least of all because he is accused of having sex with a sleeping woman. Those allegations remain to be proved, but there is no doubt that having sex with someone who is no position to consent is rape under UK as well as Swedish law.

    A valid European Arrest Warrant was issued and the UK must comply under European law.

    It is very difficult to actually work out what happened and when or indeed if there is a statement or indictment actually filed, seems not at this time, what should he actually be arrested for?

    Read the High Court judgment rejecting an appeal against the original magistrate’s ruling (and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court).

  96. Beatrice says

    I googled a bit more anyway. I think this particular link needs a trigger warning for Assange’s lawyer using the tactic of describing the rape in detail in order to make the victim’s story less believable upset the victim (let’s be honest here).

    Julian Assange’s lawyer makes graphic defence during extradition hearing

    Sweden is seeking Assange’s extradition in relation to the allegations of rape, sexual assault and sexual molestation by the two women. The second woman, Miss B, accuses Assange of having sex with her while she was sleeping, which amounts to an allegation of rape.

    Assange denies all the allegations, and is fighting the extradition request. He has not been charged. The defence argues that the sexual behaviour would not amount to rape and sexual assault in English law, and that the European arrest warrant against him was invalid.

    But Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish prosecutor, said of Miss A’s account: “In popular language, that’s violence.” The account given by Miss B, meanwhile, “would undoubtedly be rape here. If you penetrate a sleeping woman there’s an evidential assumption that she did not consent.”

  97. emburii says

    dysomniak, as for what your anecdote ‘reveals’…nothing about the topic at hand? You were in a committed relationship and didn’t feel violated, fine. She didn’t abrogate any previous agreements. He was not in a committed relationship with his alleged rape victim, and went against her express wishes of protected sex.
    As for ‘rotting in jail for ten years’, I dislike the idea of his prosecution the way matters stand only because I’m not sure he’d actually make it to the cell alive. But if that’s what the sexual misconduct/assault charges would usually get someone, well, maybe then he shouldn’t have been so averse to wearing a rubber.

  98. Bernard Bumner says

    For anyone who wants to see broad descriptions of the allegations against Assange, search here for “There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:”

    WARNING: There are potentially triggering details given, including descriptions of sexual violence.

  99. jamesfish says

    The known knowns of the Assange case are hardly hidden away in dank corners of the internet, which is why the constant repetition of the lie that he’s “wanted for having sex without a condom, which is a crime in Swedish law” is so very, very grating.

    I thought this post offered a pretty neat trot through the current crop of wilful misconceptions: http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html?m=1

    Sanal Edamaruku, who actually is wanted on trumped up charges, and who does face a less than fair trial, is currently sleeping in a spare room somewhere in Finland. I suppose the synchronicity would be more pleasing if he was dossing down in Stockholm, but you get where I’m going.

  100. emburii says

    …and even beyond not wearing the rubber, there’s the accounts of force being used. So it’s even worse than I was giving the man credit for.

    Thanks for the data-spelunking, Beatrice and Bernard.

  101. peterhearn says

    Oh shit! I can say whatever I want? This kicks ass.

    Dear PZ,

    You are a fat, boring asshole. The past few weeks I have spent reading your blog has been the most boring reading I’ve ever experienced. I never imagined anyone could be as boring as you. Even my dead hamster, Roger, is more fun to be around. I hate your guts and anything else having to do with your inner bowels.

    Seeing your picture on the front page is like a nightmare come true and I don’t think I’ll ever recover from the mental scarring. In fact, I would rather be buried alive with a dead corpse than be anywhere near your general vicinity. Even rotting jackrabbit poop sounds appetizing compared to what you have to offer. I must have been drunk when I decided to read your blog. There is no other logical conclusion.

    If I ever meet you in person don’t be surprised if I start screaming obscenities before gouging my eyes out. Right now I’ll settle for burning a doll of you in effigy. I’ll perform this ritual every day at midnight and then pretend to dance over your shallow little grave. I hope you die from choking on a penis.

  102. Janine: Fucking Dyke Of Rage Mountain says

    The past few weeks I have spent reading your blog has been the most boring reading I’ve ever experienced.

    If it is so awful for you, the solution is simple. Delete this blog from your memory. Never come back and never comment again.

    But is the fuckface intelligent enough to follow such simple advise?

  103. Bernard Bumner says

    I hope you die from choking on a penis.

    Have you ever considered that this fantasy of yours might just be unhealthy?

  104. Janine: Fucking Dyke Of Rage Mountain says

    Bernard Bumner, what if I said that I wish that peterhearn dies with a dildo suck up his ass and wearing two wetsuits?

    Except that this was not a fantasy.

  105. Beatrice says

    peterhearn,

    Oh well. Since the blog is so boring, I guess you’ll be leaving. We’ll just have to live without you. I’m sure we’ll manage somehow. Make sure the door hits you on the way out.

    And since PZ isn’t interested sexually in men, I’m going to assume you are wishing for him to die during a rape. That’s a really really shitty thing to do, wishing rape on someone. I’m not holding much hope that you will consider this seriously, but it had to be said.

    Now fuck off, dear.

  106. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Dear peterhearn,

    You are a sad, pathetic, boring asshole. The past few weeks I have spent reading your comments has been the most boring reading I’ve ever experienced. I never imagined any whiny ass bigot troll could be as boring as you. Even my dead rabbit, Niko, is more fun to be around. I pity you.

    Seeing your comments get destroyed by smarter and better people is like a dream come true and I don’t think you’ll ever recover from the mental scarring. In fact, I would rather you be buried alive with a dead corpse than be anywhere near these smart and better people. Even rotting horseshit sounds appetizing compared to what you have to offer. You must have been drunk when you decided to comment. There is no other logical conclusion.

    If I ever meet you in person don’t be surprised if I start screaming obscenities before kicking you in the teeth. Right now I’ll settle for ice cold beer. I’ll perform this ritual every day at midnight and then pretend to dance over your shallow little grave. I hope you die from choking on your rage, hate and general worthless to the world.

    kisses!

  107. says

    Wow, peterhearn, you’re even dumber than I thought to so persist in an activity you find repellent, especially when there is no shortage of other things you could be doing.

  108. Beatrice says

    Considering peterhearn’s contributions to Pharyngula, I think it’s quite possible that he dies of dehydration. The diarrhea he has been suffering from must be playing havoc with his body.

  109. gragra, something clever after the comma says

    95. gragra $15 for a sixpack? For that kind of money I hope strippers are involved

    No strippers. And that was last time I was there nearly 2 years ago. On the other hand it costs half as much to see a doctor as in the US, and that’s before insurance factors in.

  110. says

    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?

    Yeah, actually; if you consent on the condition that sex involves a condom, and no condom is used, you didn’t actually consent to the sex at hand. Fucking idiot.

    The asshat relied on “Yeah I did it, but it isn’t RAPE” for all of a day and ‘leftists’ are still having trouble admitting he MIGHT be a rapist. Is it so hard to admit that someone who does good work for society is a piece of shit personally?

  111. Bernard Bumner says

    …what if I said that I wish that peterhearn dies with a dildo suck up his ass and wearing two wetsuits?…

    I’m not sure that there is anything worse you could wish upon him than his own putrid existence. I’d say that is a pretty unhealthy wish. But I have some sympathy.

    Except that this was not a fantasy.

    Er, I trust that I know what you mean!

    (Yeah, we all tend to wish ill upon others at times. More often than not, they aren’t healthy thoughts. Some people are able to recognise their own unhealthy thoughts, where others simply revel in them for their own amusement.)

  112. Tethys says

    buried alive with a dead corpse

    Versus being buried alive with an undead corpse?

    How does one tell the difference between a dead corpse, and a soon to be zombie undead corpse?

  113. Beatrice says

    How does one tell the difference between a dead corpse, and a soon to be zombie undead corpse?

    I’m afraid you can’t be sure until you find it nibbling on your toes.

  114. Bernard Bumner says

    @149,

    Indeed, as the magistrate wrote in the original ruling (I linked to above):

    The obvious and straightforward way of reading that allegation is that the complainant had made it clear that she would not consent to unprotected sex, and yet it occurred without her knowledge and therefore without her consent. Mr Assange was aware of this. Unprotected sex is wholly different from protected sex in that its potential repercussions are not confined to disease and include
    pregnancy. Again this meets the criteria for section 64(3) set out above.

    Actually, the full allegation concerning that incident is far more serious, as laid out in the EAW it also alleges sexual violence.

  115. Beatrice says

    Or ripping your heart out of your chest. Unless we’re talking about Roger the hamster. Then it’s probably toe nibbling.

  116. Bernard Bumner says

    Forgive me if I misinterpret, but it kind of sounds like you don’t know what xe means.

    Yes, I knew about Aldridge. Read literally, however, “..this was not a fantasy…” could sound like a thread.

    (However, I’m familiar with Janine’s oeuvre and decided it was reference to the former!)

    And hell, even if you do, count this as reveling in an unhealthy thought for my own amusement.

    I’m no stranger to the appreciation of irony, but for all the darkness we permit ourselves we have to try to balance it with light. (Yeah, I laughed, but I also felt sorry for his nearest and dearest. That was right, wasn’t it?)

  117. PatrickG says

    @ Bernard:

    Sorry! Your statement read two different ways to me, so I opted for the one with more dark comedic value.

    But, well, I think I can multitask: while I’m (still) amused at the whole macabre mess, given the hypocrisy of it all, I’m also horror-stricken at the thought of a mentality so damaged (not quite the word, I weant…) that repressed sexual desires came out in such a self-destructive way.

  118. says

    There are many, many strange things about the Swedish case against Assange, and they all seem to stem from the two alleged victims talking to each other, comparing encounters, and then going to a police station to ask if Assange could be compelled to take an STD test. Sometime after that, it was decided that Assange may have a rape case to answer. Assange willingly turned up to a police station for questioning.

    A Swedish prosecutor saw no case against Assange and Assange was told he could leave Sweden. When the sexual assault investigation was re-opened by a new prosecutor, Assange was already back in England. He offered to answer police questions by phone or in person to Swedish authorities in England, but Sweden ignored those offers and demanded his arrest.

    Assange was advised by legal counsel that even though he had not been charged with a crime in Sweden, if he returned there he would be held in a jail cell while the case was investigated.

    This obviously concerned Assange, as it’s known that a grand jury has been assembled in the USA to consider the laying of charges against Assange that could lead to life imprisonment or even death.

  119. Beatrice says

    I don’t see what’s so strange about the two victims talking to each other. Just because they discussed him doesn’t somehow make it a conspiracy.

  120. SteveV says

    Apparently Swedish law prohibits extradition if that would result in the subject facing the death penalty.

  121. emburii says

    peterhearn, you’ve been drunk for the…weeks straight you’ve been reading his blog, by your own admission? When you fantasize about PZ and him dying on someone’s cock, is it your own you’re picturing? Because what you’re describe is less hatred and more obsession. A sick, twisted obsession that involves wishing death by rape on someone, and you say we sicken you? The feeling is mutual.

    Go dive face-forward into a tank of starved piranha, so that they eat you little by little bit and you can feel every bite before you die. And at least that way you get some of your fantasy material of vore before the end, even if it’s you as the meal. Everybody wins!

  122. emburii says

    adrianluca, is it so odd that two women would talk to each other and both be horrified when they find out that they’ve both been subject to unprotected sex against their will by a man who makes a habit of this? A man who, by that pattern, could have any number of STDs? I’d want to make him take that test as well.

  123. oolon says

    @Peterhearn, cheers that made me laugh – but why pick on PZ how do the other bloggers on here make you feel? Let rip my friend…

  124. cm's changeable moniker says

    could have any number of STDs

    … which he could have contracted afterwards? This is a stupid reason for police action. If you suspect you might have an STD, you go get tested. (Who knows? You might have had it already.)

    *grump*

    That said: He should be extradited to Sweden on the EAW for alleged rape and sexual assault. Case closed.

    Ecuador and the US are side-issues. I’m pretty sure that if the US were so pissed-off about Wikileaks, I’m sure someone in the CIA could find a way to “disappear” him in a tiny South American country right next to the world’s biggest and most militarised cocaine producer.

    *grump grump*

  125. peterhearn says

    @oolon

    Glad you liked it. I don’t hate anyone here. Its just that this place is full of grade A troll bait and I can’t help myself.

  126. PatrickG says

    @ peterhearn

    Continue bringing it, you’re genuinely hilarious, and sometimes people really just want something easy to chew. All those rubber/leather chewtoys are hard on the teeth.

    You, sir, are the frozen yogurt of trolls.

  127. emburii says

    No. He might have already had the STDs if he’d done this unprotected thing with other people who had them and he could have transferred it to the two women in the encounters, that being something they might have figured as a serious risk after talking to each other. He’s a much more likely vector than they are, so the demand that he get himself tested is completely sensible.

    Mind you, I don’t know if that was their thinking process. But it’s one possibility.

  128. PatrickG says

    @ Beatrice: Perhaps I should clarify that I find him, personally, hilarious. His comments make me laugh because they’re funny, but they’re not ha-ha funny.

  129. oolon says

    @Peterhearn, I think you were a little misrepresented as PZ apparently couldn’t choke on cock as he is not gay. WTF he looks pretty flexible to me, years of bent over specimens of zebra fish may have given him the power to auto-choke himself? I think you bring up some good points about the important issues of atheists being likely to choke on their own members.

  130. emburii says

    Wow, oolon’s really trying to make it so that peterhearn’s comment is not an allusion to rape. Maybe he doesn’t like the idea of that? Maybe he’s got enough of a shred of decency somewhere not to like rape-centered comments. If so, here’s an idea…DON’T ENCOURAGE THE PERSON MAKING THEM.

    Or else own your place as a rape apologist. You wouldn’t disappoint us by doing so; that would require we had any hope of you to begin with.

  131. Beatrice says

    Still, meh.

    I know some find it entertaining to bait the troll around the cage, and I like to join occasionally, but this one just doesn’t seem to be worth the trouble of finding a long enough stick.

    I wouldn’t touch anyone who wrote that last sentence about choking on a penis with anything shorter than 2 meters.

  132. cm's changeable moniker says

    the demand that he get himself tested is completely sensible

    Not really. Transmission rates are < 100%. Probability of their pre-infection is > 0%. Possiblity of his post-infection is > 0%.

    Testing him gives you little information. Testing yourself does.

    If you test negative before and positive after, well of course, then there’s something to go on. But “I’m worried so test them” is wrong.

    (This has nothing to do with the case, of course.)

  133. Bernard Bumner says

    Assange was advised by legal counsel that even though he had not been charged with a crime in Sweden, if he returned there he would be held in a jail cell while the case was investigated.

    This is standard practice in Sweden. There can be no legal basis for the UK to interfere. Read the judgments I linked to.

    This obviously concerned Assange, as it’s known that a grand jury has been assembled in the USA to consider the laying of charges against Assange that could lead to life imprisonment or even death.

    Either that or he is a guilty man attempting to evade justice.

    If he really believes his life to be at risk, then he can apply for asylum if the US do issue politically-motivated extradition proceedings (which they haven’t, so far), but more importantly he would first be able to claim the protection of the ECHR. It is illegal for any Member State to send someone to their death.

  134. oolon says

    @emburii a worthy challenge indeed…

    Maybe PZ might be giving a talk in Japan one day and drop in for a friendly meal from a local?
    Or all this pressure from Peterhearn and others make him finally snap – the fundies would not be surprised if he takes this path. And eating it raw he is more likely to go?

    Or surreal? With this thing around no one is safe!

    Looking for meaning in possibly drunk troll comments is about as reliable as scrying, tea leaf reading or the noble profession of searching for the number 23. Unless you are trolling him with expressions of surreal distaste in regard to his spewings, in which case well played…

  135. cm's changeable moniker says

    your ancestors were immigrants, too. Contrary to popular belief among American whites of dubious intelligence, […] the North American continent, as celebrated, was discovered and first colonized by people whom you, as a clear racist, would describe as Hispanics

    Siberians, actually.

    *raspberry*

    (Maybe Polynesians, too.)

  136. Pteryxx says

    re STD testing, there’s a very good reason to test *the likely carrier* instead of testing yourself. STDs have incubation periods, during which you’ll still test negative until the disease actually manifests. Some STDs can be prevented by immediate treatment during the prospective incubation phase – most importantly HIV. You damn well want to know if someone exposed you to HIV *BEFORE* you yourself test positive months or years later – because after that it’s too late for preventive treatment. You’re stuck with it for life, short of great good luck and/or a bone marrow transplant.

    That’s also why in animal bite cases they test the potentially rabid animal – so the bite victim can be treated immediately and thus prevented from developing a high-mortality disease before ever testing positive themselves.

  137. cm's changeable moniker says

    Some STDs can be prevented by immediate treatment during the prospective incubation phase – most importantly HIV.

    Really? I know ARVs make HIV+ a managable condition these days, but this suggests that prophylaxis during the “incubation phase” needs to be done quickly (within 3 days), and isn’t totally effective.

  138. oolon says

    @emburii, Ahh Fuck it — I’m off to bed — just checked to see if you flamed me and no bites for my bait- and now you’ve forced me to be serious :-(

    I was assuming @emburii is for real and would interpret my jokes in comment #176 as me owning my own

    place as a rape apologist

    rather than me having

    a shred of decency somewhere not to like rape-centered comments

    … If so then fuck off…Porcupine…Bottom etc.

    However even if not serious minimising the importance of tackling actual rape jokes or rape threats is not a good thing. And this was to be my response…

    It may have escaped your notice but Beatrice said

    And since PZ isn’t interested sexually in men, I’m going to assume you are wishing for him to die during a rape.

    Note the word ‘assume’ there? I assume you know what that means?

    So based on a pretty dodgy assumption about meaning in an admitted troll comment you call one person a rape apologist and I am intimated to be so. Great and I spent the last few days taking the piss out of Thunderf00t and the slimepit lot because they are so butthurt by people on here supposedly doing exactly that. here, here, here and here, to mention a few I found by googling ‘rape apologist’ on his site.

    They really are the most idiotic whiney bunch of morons I’ve met on the internet and joined by TF in his wimminz make ‘rape apologist’ claims to shut up teh menz gibes in the post so it pisses me off when they are proved right – even a little. Rape jokes are not acceptable and should be tackled where ever they are seen – making assumptions in order to create one is not at all productive. If you want a real unambiguous one then have a look Here (Ironically ends with ‘GO CHOKE ON A DICK AND DIE’ – that was not the bit I objected to) and you can see my response to that unambiguous arsehole from a couple of days ago. There really is no need to go looking for the number 23, there are actual rape apologists all over the place unfortunately.

  139. says

    emburii,

    No, what I find remarkable is that the two women remained enthused about their continued contact with Assange after the alleged attacks occurred. One even rejected an offer that Assange stay at a home other than hers, after the date of the alleged attack.

    It seems that after the two compared experiences and noted the unprotected sex, they rationally feared possible STD exposure. One of the women attempted to contact Assange by phone to request that he be tested, but he did not return her call. It was then that the women together went to the authorities to see if Assange could be compelled to take a test. They did not go to the police to report an assault.

    At the police station, authorities told the women that in their opinion Assange may have a case to answer in regard to sexual assault.

    It seems Assange is a promiscuous asshole in regards to women, has unsafe sex, and he doesn’t return phone calls.
    The prosecutor decided these facts were not grounds for criminal prosecution. Assange was told he was free to leave Sweden.

    Then, suddenly, once Assange is out of the country, the Swedish government authorises Interpol to post a red notice for Assange. This is only the second time the Swedes have authorized a red notice for a sex offender. The previous red notice was for a notorious child rapist.

    If you can’t see something fishy in that, then…

  140. joed says

    Is peterhearn an amalgam of several commenters at this blog?
    peterhearn could fuck up a shit sandwich.
    and he not the only one.

  141. Pteryxx says

    cm, and this was your claim:

    Testing him gives you little information. Testing yourself does.

    If you test negative before and positive after, well of course, then there’s something to go on. But “I’m worried so test them” is wrong.

    so unless you think the concerned person’s going to seroconvert within 3 days, your objection’s mis-aimed. AFTER 72 hours, HIV prophylaxis isn’t effective at all. It still works *during those three days* with decreasing effectiveness, which is damn important to a rape victim, not to mention any of THEIR partners.

    A better course than testing the rapist would be providing prophylaxis to all victims, immediately, no questions asked. For bacterial STDs, that’s a shot of antibiotics. For HIV it’s a 28-day triple-drug combo. Guess how well that goes over in the US health care system.

    Here’s a summary of New York State’s HIV testing for defendants.

    http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/9596/

  142. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Hey joed, you still think it’s okay to approvingly link to white nationalist websites?

  143. says

    n practice, every one since ADnD has this, because cats are represented as creatures with attacks and human peasants had 2 HP (ADnD and 3.0/.5/.P) or “Goes down in a single hit” (4.0). If Cats exist in the MM at all (which I can’t check on this computer and don’t remember off hand), they still do this. I’m also not saying it wasn’t true in DnD’s first edition, I’m just not that familiar with it. Make of it what you will. I can tell you how that would and would not be avoided in other systems, but that’s not as funny as “Peasants mauled to death in cat uprising; Local lord dispatches army to quell them”

    Became a joke in my game where one villain was a house cat arch necromancer. He had a human as a familiar.

  144. says

    There’s a reason why DMs exist, and this exemplifies it.

    Any DM who’d have a domestic cat be able to kill a wizard (never mind a peasant) is not worthy of the title.

    (Bah)

    >->

    <-<

    What if the cat itself was a wizard?

    The party did tremble before Nekokhan the great and powerful!

    In all seriousness as a D&D against a regular house cat I would have interpreted it's claws as non-lethal, sub-dual damage…if at all

  145. Amphiox says

    Its just that this place is full of grade A troll bait and I can’t help myself.

    “She was grade A jail bait, your honor. I couldn’t help myself.”

    Even when snarking it goes the blaming-the-victim/no-personal-responsibility route.

    Quite telling.

  146. Amphiox says

    There’s a reason why DMs exist, and this exemplifies it.

    Any DM who’d have a domestic cat be able to kill a wizard (never mind a peasant) is not worthy of the title.

    (Bah)

    I don’t know. Depends on the DM. Properly managed, a campaign featuring a horde of feline murder-machines could be quite entertaining to play…

  147. says

    Not really. Transmission rates are 0%. Possiblity of his post-infection is > 0%.

    Testing him gives you little information. Testing yourself does.

    Sorry if someone caught this before but incubation time. Test the carrier and THEN see if you even need to test anyone else.

  148. crocswsocks says

    Hmm… What to say…

    CATS ARE SIMILAR IN MERIT TO CEPHALOPODS

    Also,

    SHIT PISS FUCK CUNT COCKSUCKER MOTHERFUCKER TITS FART TURD TWAT

    Thank you.

  149. says

    Anything you say. OK, I say Eric Holder really sucks because he let Goldman Sachs off without any prosecution. Various officials of GS, including slimy CEO Blankfein. At the very least these guys can clearly be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice. But Holder defended white collar criminals before Barack appointed him (I support BO but one of his problems was in fact, unlike the perpetual politician, he simply didn’t know enough people to staff an administration and so he fell for flacks like Holder). Matt Taibbi, the best foe GS could have, may not survive given how much this outrage is driving up his pulse rate. GS is quite possibly the most evil thing since religion.

  150. strange gods before me ॐ says

    crocswsocks,

    Sexist slurs will still get your speech recognized as sexist here.

    Please don’t say sexist shit. Thanks in advance.

  151. Rip Steakface says

    @192

    Yes, those are sexist slurs. And intent isn’t magic, but… he was quoting George Carlin.

  152. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Fuck him. George Carlin is burning in Hell with all the other Dads.

  153. Bernard Bumner says

    If you can’t see something fishy in that, then…

    …you aren’t a conspiracy theorist who hasn’t bothered to read the legal submissions.

    Assange likes to pretend that the Swedish authorities didn’t try to question him further on the remaining allegation (only one was originally dismissed, but that dismissal was overruled by a the senior prosecutor). The magistrate who upheld the EAW noted that Assange’s legal representative was an unreliable witness on this matter.

  154. emburii says

    Pteryxx covers it pretty well. I know that incubation periods could be an issue because I give blood frequently (O-, so they’re pretty insistent about it), and the educational materials stress over and over again that if there’s even a chance of exposure to something then the donation should be deferred for a few months, because their tests can’t pick up all nascent infections and the symptoms won’t show quickly or atall. If, on the other hand, Assange was tested, the women might at least know what to look out for as possibilities for detection or treatment. Plus they might have wanted to make him cover the costs of the medical expenses incurred from his actions, and would have needed a complaint or trail of evidence to compel him in doing so.

    As for the woman who asked him to stay, he was well known and popular at the time. She may have been worried about reprisal, the disapproval of her friends…people stay with or cover over abusive partners, but it doesn’t mean the abuse didn’t happen. It can easily mean they were afraid to do otherwise. The only thing that was ‘fishy’ about this is that for once the authorities took women’s complaints seriously when otherwise rape culture (and yes, Europe has it as well, in some cases even worse than here) would have let him escape consequence. Yes, the authorities are probably pursuing it mostly out of political motivation, but there was a basis for action as several people have pointed out through linkage.

  155. dianne says

    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?

    Consent to intercourse is not a blank check consent to every possible act. If the accuser consented to protected intercourse and the defendent through deception or force committed unprotected intercourse with her then that is rape because she did not consent to the sexual act that occurred.

  156. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Snore. Loftus and bluharmony were pretty much irrelevant before they teamed up. They will remain pretty much irrelevant. Unless PZ starts linking to them, I guess.

  157. dianne says

    The only thing that was ‘fishy’ about this is that for once the authorities took women’s complaints seriously when otherwise rape culture (and yes, Europe has it as well, in some cases even worse than here) would have let him escape consequence.

    This is, to me, the crux of the matter. The seriousness with which the complaint is being taken is not consistent with normal law enforcement in similar cases. It makes me think that Assange’s fear of extradition is founded.

  158. emburii says

    …dammit, Coyne.

    And dianne, I agree that he has something to fear from the authorities beyond actual justice. But to smear those women or imply that he couldn’t possibly be a rapist because he did this good thing over here is rape culture all the way down.

  159. Louis says

    Peter Hearn, #139,

    A weak start, and I felt it lacked originality. Sophomoric fat shaming, insults that could be considered homophobic, really not great. I’ll give you a D- must try harder.

    Try calling PZ a Poopyhead. He really hates that.

    Hoggle on, Peter. Hoggle on.

    Louis

  160. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ strange gods

    But that’s just the problem.

    I am Two True Popes!

    Special Limited Time Offer: Trade in your two little pope-inesses for a single double-sized Mega-pope title! ¹

    ¹ (Certain additional charges may apply.)

    @ Ogvorbis #88

    It’s legal depositions such as this that may awaken the tardigrade from its ametabolic cryptobiosis.

    @ David Marjanović

    who else wants to meet me…?

    Me!

    But sadly I can’t afford to fly over there :'(

  161. dianne says

    But to smear those women or imply that he couldn’t possibly be a rapist because he did this good thing over here is rape culture all the way down.

    Definitely. And Assange’s defense of himself was …not helping. He should really ahve a good lawyer telling him to shut up already. Personally, I think he should spend a significant amount of time in a nice, safe Swedish prison contemplating the wrongness of exloiting others and taking advantage of consent to one act to commit another. But I really don’t think that extradition to the US will be a good thing ever. For him or the world or even the US.

  162. oolon says

    How come my reply to emburii last night ended up in moderation? I thought this was an unmoderated thread… It wasn’t even that rude or anything.

  163. Bernard Bumner says

    This is, to me, the crux of the matter. The seriousness with which the complaint is being taken is not consistent with normal law enforcement in similar cases.

    But that simply highlights the problems of enforcing justice for rape victims.

    Remember that the Swedish justice system was left embarrassed by a string of reports that it wasn’t doing enough to bring rapists to justice, even though it has some of the broadest (most progressive?) definitions of rape in law. The fact that the allegations of rape by such a notorious/famous individual were leaked via the media may go a long way to explain why the case is being pursued with unusual (but not unwelcome) vigour. Sweden has been trying to demonstrate that it can properly prosecute rape; to show that it can do so even when the accused is famous would be a feather in its cap.

    Therefore there is a much a less sinister explanation as to why Assange is being properly pursued in this case.

    It makes me think that Assange’s fear of extradition is founded.

    Except that no-one, not even Assange’s defence, can explain how extradition to Sweden helps the (non-existent) US efforts to extradite him. Legal analysts seem to agree that he would actually be afforded more protection.

    It seems more likely that Assange is afraid of being convicted on (he would claim trumped-up) charges of rape and sexual assault.

  164. John Morales says

    oolon:

    How come my reply to emburii last night ended up in moderation? I thought this was an unmoderated thread… It wasn’t even that rude or anything.

    Incompetence is its own reward.

    (Moderation works on keywords and links; I’ve yet to be moderated)

  165. dianne says

    @209: It’s a reasonable alternate hypothesis. I’ll be more impressed when they pursue every rape accusation with this kind of vigors, but I can see where it might look good for them to be active in this case. It seems to me that they could end run this problem by simply declaring that they will not extradite anyone to the US until it stops using torture and the death penalty. At that point they could also point out that Ecuador gets invaded by the US every time the US is bored on a Saturday night, but Sweden is far more secure…if Assange is willing to face his accusers and make restitution for his crime (if convicted.)

  166. KG says

    It seems to me that they could end run this problem by simply declaring that they will not extradite anyone to the US until it stops using torture and the death penalty. – dianne

    Who are the “they” you refer to hear. The Swedish government, as far as I understand, cannot make any such promise – they can’t bind either the courts of their successors. Nor could any court issue such a declaration where no case has been brought. The more I read about the case (thanks Bernard Bumner), the more convinced I am that the possibility of extradition from Sweden is a red herring.

  167. dianne says

    The Swedish government, as far as I understand, cannot make any such promise – they can’t bind either the courts of their successors.

    Why not? Whatever the Swedish law making organization is simply makes it illegal to extradite to countries that use torture or execution. The law could, of course, be repealed by future governments or (if it works vaguely like in the US) thrown out by the courts, but so could any law.

  168. dianne says

    @213: Aw, crap! Speaking of immoral governments sliding into dictatorship…makes the US’s crimes look positively banal in comparison. Isn’t “complete lack of respect” what a punk band is supposed to have?

  169. Bernard Bumner says

    Whatever the Swedish law making organization is simply makes it illegal to extradite to countries that use torture or execution.

    It would already be illegal to extradite Assange if the realistic possibility exists that he would face an unfair trial, extrajudicial justice, torture, or the death penalty. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Assange could appeal extradition on to the US to Swedish Courts (including the Supreme Court), English Courts (including the Supreme Court), and the European Court of Human Rights. As it is, the US has not requested the extradition of Assange.

  170. oolon says

    @John Morales – so is it number of links as I had quite a few in there…? It was just swallowing the post whole at first until I goo.gl’d the links to short ones…

    Damn PZ and his ‘unmoderated’ thread … Another proof of FtBS iniquity to add to phawrongula, I may have to join twitter just so I can add to the ftbullies hash thingy.

  171. Bernard Bumner says

    By the way, if people want to see what an intelligent and vocal admirer of WikiLeaks makes of the extradition of Assange, they could look here (TRIGGER WARNING: some details of the allegations are contained in the body of the text).

    It should also make interesting reading for those who think that the allegations are concocted or malicious. Owen Jones, who has bothered to follow the legal cases, notes that:

    …Assange’s own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: “Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with…”

    People should also look at some the legal commentaries – I get many links via sources from David Allen Green. (I certainly don’t claim any expertise, but I have been trying to seek out primary documentation, where it is available.)

  172. oolon says

    @John Morales, Hmm ok – well it had six in it so I’ll try again with five. But I warn you if it works I’m going to look even more of a fool than usual reposting a comment from late at night when I was butthurt about being called a rape apologist by emburii. I know how sensitive you are to stupidity John…

  173. oolon says

    @emburii, Ahh Fuck it — I’m off to bed — just checked to see if you flamed me and no bites for my bait (#176) – and now you’ve forced me to be serious :-(

    I was assuming @emburii is for real and would interpret my jokes in comment #176 as me owning my own

    place as a rape apologist

    rather than me having

    a shred of decency somewhere not to like rape-centered comments

    … If so then fuck off…Porcupine…Bottom etc.

    However even if not serious minimising the importance of tackling actual rape jokes or rape threats is not a good thing either. And this was to be my response…

    It may have escaped your notice but Beatrice said

    And since PZ isn’t interested sexually in men, I’m going to assume you are wishing for him to die during a rape.

    Note the word ‘assume’ there? I assume you know what that means?

    So based on a pretty dodgy assumption about meaning in an admitted troll comment you call one person a rape apologist and I am intimated to be so. Great and I spent the last few days taking the piss out of Thunderf00t and the slimepit lot because they are so butthurt by people on here supposedly doing exactly that. here, here, here and here

    They really are the most idiotic whiney bunch of morons I’ve met on the internet and joined by TF in his wimminz make ‘rape apologist’ claims to shut up teh menz gibes in the post so it pisses me off when they are proved right – even a little. Rape jokes are not acceptable and should be tackled where ever they are seen – making assumptions in order to create one is not at all productive. If you want a real unambiguous one then have a look Here and you can see my response to an unambiguous shit from a couple of days ago, there really is no need to go looking for the number 23…. There are actual rape apologists all over the place unfortunately.

  174. Louis says

    [Whisper]

    Oolon,

    I know it’s a pain in the neck to be told this stuff sometimes, but I recently discovered that “butthurt” has homophobic over/undertones. So I knocked off using it. I liked the word but it had to go. YMMV, but just be aware that someone might sit on you for it. Word to the wise, nod nod, wink wink, say no more.

    Louis

    [/Whisper]

  175. Pteryxx says

    Reposted from Lounge so Bernard and whoever can go gonzo on it here.

    —–

    Pteryxx
    17 August 2012 at 8:41 am

    Y’all following the Assange situation, check it: Ecuador’s formal statement via Singham.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/08/17/the-assange-ecuador-uk-standoff/

    6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights

    Singham:

    What is remarkable about the Ecuadoran government’s statement is that they saying openly what is widely expressed privately about what has been obvious for some time, that the US is a rogue nation that has little regard for the law or due process or human rights if they happen to get in the way of its geopolitical goals.

    More details – the embassy has offered to allow Swedish officials entry to question Assange on site (which is supposedly all they want from him) but the Swedish refused.

  176. oolon says

    Louis, wtf I only started using butthurt because everyone on here does – I assume it is some sort of americanism as I’ve never come across it before. Is that not a bit of a stretch to say it is homophobic? Da internetz seem to think it is more a combination of take the stick out of your ass and don’t let hurt feelings affect you.

    But surely since I applied it to myself surely there is no limit to what words I can use – I can call myself any number of insults. I’m sure John would agree with that.

  177. Bernard Bumner says

    Wandering back to the Assange case, I thought Bernard had a convincing position, but then I read this: The Swedish refused to question Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy.

    As I’ve posted in the lounge; it is a valid arrest warrant, it can’t just be ignored.

    Also, the legal process for rape investigations is apparently quite different in Sweden than it is in either the UK or US. The stage at which charges are files is different, and that has implications for the whereabouts of the accused. It is discussed in the High Court judgement I linked to above.

    Reposted from Lounge so Bernard and whoever can go gonzo on it here.

    Is that a cheap shot or am I just being touchy?

  178. emburii says

    If it’s your post upthread with all the short links, oolon, I didn’t even look at. I don’t click on shot links unless it’s clearly labeled what they are.

    I was being all Thunderdome about it, going with the assumption because why not? If you were a rape apologist you wouldn’t mind the comment, and if you weren’t then maybe the accusation would make you think twice about how you look when you go along with even a joking insinuation. PZ has gotten rape threats before, and it wasn’t funny when female activists were getting them and comments that look like it aren’t funny now. If it bothered you, awesome, I’m glad to find out I was wrong in my cynical assessment. Consider it an unbegrudged moral victory from me on your part.

    Oh,and as for the links thing? I suspect it’s to cut down on substance-free copypasta/spam like the stuff cooler used to post over at Orac’s in lieu of actual contact. I do think, though, PZ should at least note how many links will throw something into the spam filter.

  179. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    oolon:

    Everyone uses it on Pharyngula? I may have used it in the past (not sure) but I definately have not been using it recently as I have become more aware of silencing effect of insults based on genders. My advice (and you can take it or leave it) is that, if you are in a community, and someone within that community lets you know that something you have said (or, in this case, written) may be considered offensive, don’t try to defend you position. Go with the standards of that community.

    One of the most difficult things about posting here, for me, is realizing just how much ableist shit I toss out on a regular basis. Hell, in one comment, I managed to slut shame, fat shame, toss in an ableist insult and still managed to use a gendered insult. I think I did it in one sentence. We have all been raised (well, almost all, I can’t speak for everyone) in patriarchal societies in which gendered and homophobic insults are considered normal.

    Unfortunately, what they do, and, in many cases, what they are meant to do, is to silence portions of the population. And they do it well. I am not claiming that this was your intent or desire. Just letting you know that I understand the pervasiveness of gendered, ableist and homophobic insults. They are pervasive to the point where most of us do not even recognize them for what they are. So when it is pointed out, politely, that what you have written may be offensive, you have a choice — defend your right to use that phrase (and it is your right) or adapt to the standards of this community — a bloodthirsty, sarcastic community that is rather vicious about fairness and the unacceptability of gendered, ableist, homophobic, or other insults of that ilk.

  180. Louis says

    Oolon,

    Different places, different standards. I think you’re right that it got a reasonable amount of use here until relatively recently, and I’m not having a go at you by any means. I too thought it was a stretch, but it ain’t up to me to decide! I’m not on the receiving end of homophobia. I was just pointing out one of the cultural aspects of Pharyngula.

    Louis

  181. Beatrice says

    oolon,

    The troll was publicly masturbating, and it was a poor show. It is doubtful that he would actually, really want PZ to be raped. But it’s not impossible, and he certainly wouldn’t be the first. It’s also unacceptable. Jokey or not.

    Rape jokes, in any form, are frowned upon here. emburii was in perfect right to call you a rape apologist.

    Threatening with rape : a big no-no
    Joking about threatening with rape : a big no-no

    It’s pretty simple. I even used short sentences and small words, especially for you.

  182. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    Could someone elaborate on this?

    I may be wrong (frequently), but I think this may come from forced anal sex in prisons, anal rape, and unwanted anal sexual intercourse. Without proper preparation, anal intercourse can hurt. When someone says, “Oh, Mitt’s all butthurt about it,” that person is, in many cases, implying that ‘Mitt’* is complaining and whining the same way that a gay man complains and whines (in much of popular humour, entertainment and other culture). It can be used to silence a man by implying that he has been on the recieving end of anal sex and is thus not worth listening to. (Maybe I am reading too much into this. This was the way it was used when I was in college way back in the late 1980s.)

    * Fictional name used for example!

  183. Pteryxx says

    Bernard: wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot, though if it *were* this’d be the place for it, neh? No, I didn’t realize so much heated discussion had gone on over here until I saw dianne’s post go up almost the same time as mine.

  184. Pteryxx says

    From Singham’s post again:

    Can anyone really be that naïve to think that constant discussions are not going on between the US, UK, and Sweden on how to get Assange into the hands of the US? Is it really unreasonable for Assange to think that Sweden asking him to be returned just for questioning is merely a ruse, when he has agreed to be questioned in the UK and in the Ecuadoran embassy? The fact that the US has not initiated extradition proceedings is hardly a sign that they will not do so as soon as he is in Sweden.

    I find it surprising that there are still people who think that the US and Britain and Sweden act according to the law. Governments tend to obey the law only when it is convenient to do so. When it is not, they either change the law or interpret it conveniently to make it conform to their needs or simply ignore it. The US is one of the leaders in such hypocrisy and the British and Swedish governments have already shown a clear willingness to act as its agents. Sweden showed that it is willing to obey the US by extraditing people to third countries to be tortured. The British government has acted similarly. Do we really expect this trio of nations that have previously treated the law and human rights so cavalierly to suddenly adhere scrupulously to the law in this case, when the US is clearly anxious to get its hands on Assange?

    which is why I’m inclined to think, Bernard, that your technically-correct strict explanation of the laws and rights isn’t very relevant here, unless you can justify how those laws wouldn’t just get ignored when inconvenient.

  185. emburii says

    Er, don’t click on short links rather.

    Thank you for the support, Beatrice. :)

    oolon, you are free to insult yourself if you want; notice that people didn’t attack you for using it, they just pointed out information on its usage that they hadn’t been aware of until recently and included it for you as a courtesy or point of discussion.

  186. Bernard Bumner says

    Bernard: wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot, though if it *were* this’d be the place for it, neh?

    Sure, I’m just a bit pissed off by this subject (mainly because of the slut-shamers and rape-apologists who have been offering their commentaries, often unopposed).

    …unless you can justify how those laws wouldn’t just get ignored when inconvenient.

    They could be. At any time. Including now. And I would howl just as loudly as I could.

    My main concern is that a rapist could escape justice. (And I’m not presuming guilt there.)

    If Assange faced imminent extradition to the US, then I would support his efforts to resist it. At the moment, I’m sure the US want him, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything via legal channels to get him.

  187. oolon says

    @Beatrice and Emburii

    Threatening with rape : a big no-no
    Joking about threatening with rape : a big no-no

    It’s pretty simple. I even used short sentences and small words, especially for you.

    I was obviously not writing in sufficiently clear language for Beatrice – I was trying to agree with the above and add my own category ->

    Making assumptions to see rape jokes where there is only a tenuous link at best then throwing around ‘rape apologist!’ is a big no-no.

    Emburii pretty much admits to trolling me – which I also considered to be poor form as using what is a serious issue as troll bait I would have thought beneath Pharyngula. I know I’m assuming higher standards here than at the slimepit and this is ‘Thunderdome’ etc but why not – peterhearn proved just because you can say anything it doesn’t mean you should.

    @louis, ogvorbis… Wasn’t saying it is not a bad term – just looking for clarification, which I got! So I’ll try and stop using it and replace with ‘miffed’… Unless you have better?

  188. Pteryxx says

    At the moment, I’m sure the US want him, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything via legal channels to get him.

    That’s the crux of the problem.

  189. broboxley OT says

    On Assange, In order to put on a show trial you first need a show so all of the legal maneuverings are necessary so the US when they eventually get their hands on him they can be self righteous about how they did it.

  190. Bernard Bumner says

    That’s the crux of the problem.

    Oh, I agree.

    But extraditing him to Sweden via due legal process – which has happened here – will not change that one bit.

    Even Assange’s own lawyer says he didn’t doubt the sincerity of the accusers in the rape cases. So what are we to do about justice for alleged rapists? Assange simply must be extradited (unless we are to allow suspects to dictate the terms of their own arrest).

  191. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    @louis, ogvorbis… Wasn’t saying it is not a bad term – just looking for clarification, which I got! So I’ll try and stop using it and replace with ‘miffed’… Unless you have better?

    Your word choice is just that, your word choice. Louis (the eloquent one) and I were pointing out a potential trouble spot. Your word choice remains yours.

  192. emburii says

    oolon,

    Not so much trolling as not bothering to be charitable or nice in calling you out. It IS serious, that’s why I reacted angrily when I couldn’t tell whether you were agreeing with peterhearn for realz or not. The reaction came from distaste, not out of some cheap excuse to call someone or anyone out as trolling would actually been, and I consider your use of it to be one of the reasons why the word has lost all meaning. (Not the only reason, mind you, many regular FTBers have an issue with overusing it as well).

  193. Bernard Bumner says

    On Assange, In order to put on a show trial you first need a show so all of the legal maneuverings are necessary so the US when they eventually get their hands on him they can be self righteous about how they did it.

    Sorry for the double reply, but I’m going to be away from a keyboard for a while.

    If, and that still remains a big if, Assange is legally extradited to the US after exhausting due legal process, then there is little that the UK could or would want to do to resist. However, if a nation were to step in to grant asylum to someone who actually is subject to politically-motivated charges, then I would wholly support it.

    If the legality issue is simply a sideshow and Assange is to be criminally removed from a country, then there can be no show of due-process. The free press of the UK or Sweden would not permit it.

  194. Beatrice says

    oolon,

    I don’t really give a fuck if troll’s fantasy was actually about auto-fellatio gone wrong, intent not being magic and all, it read as a rape joke.

  195. Louis says

    Oolon,

    @louis, ogvorbis… Wasn’t saying it is not a bad term – just looking for clarification, which I got! So I’ll try and stop using it and replace with ‘miffed’… Unless you have better?

    Buggered if I have a better! Just thought I’d save you from a potential Pharyngulean Heffalump Trap. Miffed is good I feel.

    Louis

  196. Ogvorbis: The only post-Permian seymouriamorph says

    Relatedly, has anyone else ever heard the phrase “makes my ass tired”? Would that be contentious as well?

    I don’t think that ‘my ass is dragging’ or ‘makes my ass tired’ or ‘tired ass’ has a sexual connotation. I think that one really does refer to just being exhausted. I may be wrong.

    I’m not trying to be language police. All I did was point out why a particular phrase may be contentious. It really is your choice regarding the language you use. I am not telling you what you can or cannot use. Honest.

    Shit, I sound like an asshole, don’t I? Sorry.

  197. Pteryxx says

    Even Assange’s own lawyer says he didn’t doubt the sincerity of the accusers in the rape cases. So what are we to do about justice for alleged rapists?

    Bernard, you know how apologists like to talk about their friend who got beat up by a bunch of guys because some woman said he’d raped her? (leaving out the ‘bitchez lie’ for now). That’s not justice, that’s a bunch of vigilantes committing assault. It’s also so rare that it’s not a valid reason to criticize rape reporting. But the US pressuring its allies through quiet, extra-legal or illegal means isn’t improbable at all. Odds are that what happens to Assange if he’s extradited won’t bear any resemblance to justice, even the justice that a rapist deserves.

    As for what to do about it, you’re the extradition expert. I suggest you find a way of carrying out the rape case against Assange that minimizes his *actual* exposure to the threat of US rendition, not the legal aboveboard irrelevant version of rendition.

  198. oolon says

    @Beatrice – fair enuff, when you added assumptions to your interpretation I felt that was you equivocating about it. I cannot argue with your interpretation of a statement other than to say I didn’t interpret it that way. No malice intended.

    @louis,Can you say buggered? Definitely has homosexual if not homophobic overtones :-) could be a good way of trolling people on Pharyngula this. Unfortunately I’d totally undermine my argument that it is a bad idea :-(

    And seriously thanks for the pointer to the possible provenance to ‘butthurt’… I will try and avoid it the same as I try and avoid gender slurs, racist or other homophobic language. I sometimes try and take the piss but I also try and make the subject of piss taking the ideas and opinions of the person not group attributes. Richard Dawkins said it was ok so it must be.

  199. Bernard Bumner says

    But the US pressuring its allies through quiet, extra-legal or illegal means isn’t improbable at all.

    I don’t think it is.

    Obviously, I’m not an expert, but legal process has been followed so far.

    I suggest you find a way of carrying out the rape case against Assange that minimizes his *actual* exposure to the threat of US rendition, not the legal aboveboard irrelevant version of rendition.

    Extradition to Sweden provides the best legal safeguards and also serves justice.

    In order to protect Assange from rendition, you’d need to put him in prison for the rest his life. That seems like a poor option.

    Asylum in a non-extraditing state, granted at the right time for the right reasons, is a poor second, but better than nothing.

    The best way to protect him from mistreatment would be to change the attitude of the US public to administrations that permit or encourage abuse, and to mobilise the sort of support that would make abusers unelectable. We could graft wings onto pigs at the same time.

    If the US go after Assange by illegal means, he is fucked.

  200. says

    Shit, I sound like an asshole, don’t I?

    Not to me. I appreciate the discussion. It is through dialogs such as this that has helped me recognize and correct harmful speech. (I used to be fond of “pansy” until Josh helped me understand the problems with it.)

  201. KG says

    dianne, Pterryx,

    It’s true the Swedes have not agreed to interview Assange in the UK, and AFAIK, have not said why. That’s the only slightly suspicious aspect of the case I can see so far. But suppose they did agree, interviewed him, and charged him. Do you think those supporting Assange’s attempts to stay out of Swedish custody would then say: “Oh, OK then, fair enough. Send him to Sweden.”?

    As for the stuff about US pressure, well sure it’s quite possible that’s being exerted – but why would they be trying to get him sent to Sweden? The UK has about the feeblest safeguards against extradition to the USA possible, while the legal situation if he’s sent to Sweden and then the USA makes an extradition request to Sweden becomes very complicated, with possible appeals to Swedish, UK and European courts. What I’d expect is that they would have launched their own extradition request to the UK while he was in custody here, and then pressured Sweden to drop theirs.

  202. Paul says

    As for the stuff about US pressure, well sure it’s quite possible that’s being exerted – but why would they be trying to get him sent to Sweden? The UK has about the feeblest safeguards against extradition to the USA possible, while the legal situation if he’s sent to Sweden and then the USA makes an extradition request to Sweden becomes very complicated, with possible appeals to Swedish, UK and European courts.

    This is conspiracy-mongering, but has the Swedish population backlashed against the government for complacency with the US’s renditions like the UK’s has? The UK could be hoping to avoid any more negative press by getting him out of their court and into another country. Neither the UK nor Sweden could in good faith extradite to the US with the about of “kill him” rhetoric due to the ECHR, so if the US wants him they already need to use extrajudicial means. Cooking up this sort of shell game where the US, UK, and Sweden are trying to work out the way to get Assange renditioned does not seem too unlikely, if Sweden is seen as less likely to suffer domestic unrest than the UK. Sweden is following their official policy on pursuing rape suspects, the UK follows its treaty obligations, and both don’t fall afoul of the ECHR (unless possibly a paper trail demonstrating their complacence with the scheme comes out). And the US is just doing what the US does, which it has support for domestically and nobody internationally with the power or will to make an issue of it.

  203. Louis says

    Oolon,

    Buggered if I know you can say buggered or not. I’ve been saying buggered for a buggering long time and no bugger has buggering well got me on it. I think bugger is even Vicar Friendly here in Blighty. Not that that matters. We evolve. I got caught on butthurt, doubtlessly I’ll get buggered on buggered, sodded on sod, and fucked on fucked. Nothing’s without some splash damage methinks, it’s pretty much a case of minimising it as far as possible.

    Louis

    P.S. Fucking interesting derail this….perhaps not! ;-)

  204. KG says

    Paul,

    This is conspiracy-mongering

    Yes, it is.

    but has the Swedish population backlashed against the government for complacency with the US’s renditions like the UK’s has?

    Well there have certainly been disagreements between the US and Swedish governments over rendition

    The UK could be hoping to avoid any more negative press by getting him out of their court and into another country.

    Whatever the UK government (I assume that’s what you mean by “the UK” here) is hoping, it has been following the legal procedure for responding to an EAW (European Arrest Warrant) from Sweden, and has no (legal) alternative to doing so.

    Neither the UK nor Sweden could in good faith extradite to the US with the about of “kill him” rhetoric due to the ECHR, so if the US wants him they already need to use extrajudicial means.

    So you’re suggesting they want him back in Sweden and once he’s there, they’ll what? Have him kidnapped? Get the Swedish government to rendition him? And you think the Swedish government is going to agree to that, in the full glare of publicity? Srsly?

    Cooking up this sort of shell game where the US, UK, and Sweden are trying to work out the way to get Assange renditioned does not seem too unlikely, if Sweden is seen as less likely to suffer domestic unrest than the UK.

    No, that won’t do. You have to provide some plausible way in which the course of events (a) could have been orchestrated by the USA and (b) would serve their purposes. Just talking about “Cooking up this sort of shell game” does neither. If the USA wanted Assange in Sweden, why let him leave? That Assange is in the UK is down to Assange.

  205. Paul says

    No, that won’t do. You have to provide some plausible way in which the course of events (a) could have been orchestrated by the USA and (b) would serve their purposes. Just talking about “Cooking up this sort of shell game” does neither. If the USA wanted Assange in Sweden, why let him leave? That Assange is in the UK is down to Assange.

    Was the US aware of his position before he went to the UK? I thought he was lying low and not making his location public before that point, but I haven’t been following the situation that closely.

    You asked a “why” regarding why the US would want him in Sweden. I took a stab at it. I do agree that he should go to Sweden to face the charges, regardless of if he suspects that it may be a trap. One doesn’t get to ignore the law just because they fear the government might be acting in bad faith. That is not a sustainable arrangement, especially when it comes to legitimate and non-political legal charges.

  206. strange gods before me ॐ says

    broboxley, I know you’re a fucking moron, but pointing out that faggot also refers to a bundle of sticks doesn’t make it not a homophobic term.

  207. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys,

    The poopyhead was quite clear about his feelings on Inspector Javert type behavior.

    Don’t fucking troll me, you goddamned hypocrite. You’re fucking doing exactly what you’re complaining about, Javert. Fuck off.

  208. KG says

    Paul,

    Was the US aware of his position before he went to the UK? I thought he was lying low and not making his location public before that point, but I haven’t been following the situation that closely.

    I don’t know, although I would think they’d be keeping tabs on him as far as possible, and would know about the preliminary investigation – so that would be the obvious time to ensure he stayed in Sweden, if that’s where they wanted him. But in any case, what relevance does it have, if there’s no plausible reason for them wanting him in Sweden rather than the UK?

    You asked a “why” regarding why the US would want him in Sweden. I took a stab at it.

    And pretty unconvincing it was.

  209. KG says

    At the moment, I’m sure the US want him, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything via legal channels to get him.

    That’s the crux of the problem. – Pteryxx

    In what way?

    On Assange, In order to put on a show trial you first need a show so all of the legal maneuverings are necessary so the US when they eventually get their hands on him they can be self righteous about how they did it. – broboxley

    Come on now, that’s pretty feeble. The legal maneuverings have all been on Assange’s part. Is he conspiring with the CIA to put on the show?

  210. broboxley OT says

    sgbm #259, well I got laid recently and never finished high school but didja stop to consider the sentence to be a segue into what I thought was an amusing link as opposed to trying to redeem the term itself from its obvious homophobic roots?

  211. strange gods before me ॐ says

    broboxley,

    didja stop to consider the sentence to be a segue into what I thought was an amusing link as opposed to trying to redeem the term itself from its obvious homophobic roots?

    I did not. Thank you for clarifying.

  212. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys,

    I understand your concern. I’m sure if it becomes an issue, a mod will bring it to PZ’s attention.

    I’m sure they won’t, because this place is a nest of eusocial wasps who believe that social lying is a good thing. It’s no secret that some commenters can treat outsiders here nastily, without being asked to stop, because they play the ingroup/outgroup dynamics quite naturally.

    Please don’t do the Inspector Javert* thing. I don’t want the Poopyhead to get upset with you again.

    Please let me decide what degree of personal hypocrisy I can tolerate for myself. If you weren’t making such a issue of it right now, by the way, all that my comment would have been is a simple reminder of how to treat people in the lounge, without reference to anyone in particular.

    *Calling me Inspector Javert is also a personal attack. Please don’t do that in the Lounge either, hypocrite.

  213. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I’m sure if it becomes an issue

    And it already is a fucking issue as soon as the personal attacks begin. Don’t fucking tell me when I get to consider it an issue. I hate seeing new people get shit on here by the cliques. And I don’t want it to escalate if sc_b3852da0511075db84e787440ae4d8ec doesn’t know the rules and decides to respond with equivalent vitriol as the situation apparently allows.

  214. Tethys says

    SG,

    It is not an attack. It is a reference to something I am fairly certain that you found highly distressing and wish to avoid.

  215. strange gods before me ॐ says

    It is not an attack.

    Namecalling is a personal attack.

    You know what’s really distressing to me? Starting up this conversation with me over there where I feel like merely responding is going to be a problem.

    Again, I have some nontrivial awareness of the social dynamics here, and I have personal insight into the degree of personal hypocrisy I can tolerate in myself.

  216. PatrickG says

    @SGBM:

    I haven’t followed the full thread in the Lounge, though I did try to go back because it was such a non sequitur here (made more sense when I realized you two had taken it here, but was sort of a “what now?”). So, no direct comment on the subject at hand.

    I’m sure they won’t [bring it to PZ’s attention]

    Um, the Almighty Moderator simply gets special/rapid attention when PZ’s off at his day job. Nothing’s stopping you from contacting him yourself.

    I’m sure they won’t, because this place is a nest of eusocial wasps who believe that social lying is a good thing. It’s no secret that some commenters can treat outsiders here nastily, without being asked to stop, because they play the ingroup/outgroup dynamics quite naturally.

    Again, if you believe this true, you might want to make more specific assertions about who you believe is “above the law”. Doesn’t have to be to me, but I’m sure PZ would be interested in “eusocial wasps who believe that social lying is a good thing”. He has, after all, made some rather substantive attempts to regulate tone (in the neutral sense of regulate, not the Tea Party version).

    It’s the Thunderdome, but damn, some rather aggressive stuff. Care to elaborate? The abilities imputed to some commenters are a secret to me, but then I’m new here. :)

  217. David Marjanović says

    from the Latin hystericus (“of the womb”)

    *sigh* Directly from Greek hyster, “womb”. Hence, the surgical procedure of womb-out-cutting is hyster-ec-tomy.

    oolon, you get up to 6 linkies with which to bore us.

    No, the limit is down to 5 for, presumably, some reason.

  218. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Um, the Almighty Moderator simply gets special/rapid attention when PZ’s off at his day job. Nothing’s stopping you from contacting him yourself.

    There’s no reason to. A personal attack that might be the beginning of a problem ought to be possible to nip in the bud by simply reminding people what the rules are, without a personal reference that might heighten any individual’s need to save face.

    Again, if you believe this true, you might want to make more specific assertions about who you believe is “above the law”.

    I might not. Every regular here knows what I’m talking about. I don’t feel like it’s right that you should be in the dark, but I’m going to get mobbed if I go into detail. So you can research it for yourself or let it go.

    It’s the Thunderdome, but damn, some rather aggressive stuff. Care to elaborate?

    No.

  219. PatrickG says

    @SGBM:

    I don’t feel like it’s right that you should be in the dark, but I’m going to get mobbed if I go into detail. So you can research it for yourself or let it go.

    Ok. A quick clarification: my point was that if you didn’t feel comfortable doing here, PZ’s address is easily accessible.

    However, after re-reading the Lounge thread it seems that the only real candidate for “personal attack” you’re referencing is the ‘nym remark by Caine.

    Everything else I read seemed to center around (1) direct engagement of the “Atheist women are harder to find/date” assertion, or (2) startled reactions to the somewhat bizarre structure of sc_*’s post itself.

    YMMV, I guess I just don’t see criticizing that particular screen name (what an eyesore!) as a personal attack. I suppose the “or go the fuck away” part might have been a bit strong for the Lounge, but, then, that’s just a personal opinion.

    Just my 2 cents. Shred me at will.

  220. David Marjanović says

    didja stop to consider the sentence to be a segue into what I thought was an amusing link as opposed to trying to redeem the term itself from its obvious homophobic roots?

    You need to mark your humor more clearly.

    Tethys, you did exactly what PZ said he didn’t want: you brought up an old grudge.

    What sgbm pointed out was the fact that, when numbermess sounded like he could be a misogynist, so many people didn’t try to find out if he really was one, and didn’t try to talk him out of it, but instead tried to punish him for being a misogynist. That’s something else PZ has said he doesn’t want.

    …While I am at it, sgbm, let me dredge up something old: it turns out I misused the term Straw Vulcan about a month ago. I think I meant you often expect people to not let their emotions distract them from the topic at hand, even when those emotions go all the way to being triggered. I think you sometimes underestimate how powerful such emotions can be. And I think I’m somewhat prone to the same thing.

  221. says

    I’m not giving up butthurt just yet.

    I’ve always thought of it in two senses,

    1. “You just got your ass kicked and now you’re all butthurt” – for a sore loser.
    2. Someone moping after an admonishment as if they were spanked kind of butthurt.

    The homophobia connotation strikes me as a little bit of a reach.

    But, obviously if it turns out it is a general sense people get from the term and let me know directly I’ll cut it out.

  222. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ok. A quick clarification: my point was that if you didn’t feel comfortable doing here, PZ’s address is easily accessible.

    Righto. But I don’t want sc_b3852da0511075db84e787440ae4d8ec to respond by escalating — my hope by commenting was to prevent such.

    YMMV, I guess I just don’t see criticizing that particular screen name (what an eyesore!) as a personal attack.

    I don’t either. (By the way, the sc_hexadecimal type nyms are automatically generated by the software here. It almost certainly wasn’t deliberately chosen.)

    I suppose the “or go the fuck away” part might have been a bit strong for the Lounge,

    That is what I was referencing.

    but, then, that’s just a personal opinion.

    And I’ve seen enough to know what’s likely to come next.

  223. says

    Hmm.

    After some google-fu on butthurt, I’m seeing a number of references to anal sex.

    Fuck.

    Looks like I’ve got to expunge teh butthurt.

    Now I’m all butthurt.

    Last time.

  224. PatrickG says

    @ SGBM, @ David Marjanović

    After scanning the entire thread once more, I really don’t see people trying to punish him for a misogynist. I see a lot of people saying he might be, usually in a snarky way, followed by tips on how to meet women and how to generally improve self-confidence and such, in reaction to someone who said they were going to “die alone”.

    Even after sc_*’s second post, the responses still mostly stayed in the “it does suck to live amongst the religious” and “well, I’m married to an atheist” zone. The only exception I saw was Caine’s pungent words of SCREEN NAME OR GTFO. Which really had nothing to do with accusations of misogyny.

    So I kind of have to say that I don’t agree with this assertion:

    many people didn’t try to find out if he really was one, and didn’t try to talk him out of it, but instead tried to punish him for being a misogynist.

    Now, my searching skills are perhaps not very good, so I may have missed some examples. A lot of people didn’t address sc_* by full name*, or put their reply in a much lengthier post. Or I’m just truly blind and in need of education. Also possible.

    Without further clarification, I guess I just don’t get the conflict here.

    P.S. I have to drive across town to pick someone up, but really, if I’ve missed something… no immediate replies from me, but I will check later.

    * And FSM almighty, try searching for sc… people on this blog use the word science too much! :)

  225. PatrickG says

    Just a quick note to say I really should refresh before replying, didn’t see your reply SGBM.

    Thanks for your clarification on what you were addressing.

    But seriously, what does come next from me having an opinion? Me restating that I have an opinion and observing that others may not share it? Yeesh.

  226. David Marjanović says

    Now, my searching skills are perhaps not very good, so I may have missed some examples. A lot of people didn’t address sc_* by full name*, or put their reply in a much lengthier post.

    I read the entire subthread, from comment 1 to comment 188. You may have missed things like comment 29.

  227. strange gods before me ॐ says

    But seriously, what does come next from me having an opinion?

    I mean what comes next after “go the fuck away”, the likely social dynamic.

  228. Tethys says

    Tethys, you did exactly what PZ said he didn’t want: you brought up an old grudge.

    Did not! :)

    I didn’t mean to anyway, though it could look that way.
    I care about SG, and don’t want him to get in trouble. I am not trying to bring up an old grudge, I’m trying to gently remind him to not go there because it really pisses off PZ.

    Can we all drop it now? It is not a productive line of discussion.

  229. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I didn’t mean to anyway, though it could look that way.

    It sure did to me. So, mentally strike the cussing from my responses, if possible.

  230. PatrickG says

    @ Tethys: Sorry to drag it out, just wanted to do a quick response to David. But wait, this is the Thunderdome! NO APOLOGY RAWR!

    @ David Marjanović:

    You may have missed things like comment 29.

    While I did indeed miss that*, I’d argue that wasn’t misogyny, but xenophobic**/ablist crap. So I’ll stand behind my point that it wasn’t many people assuming misogyny per your post above.

    But eh, feel free not to respond. I won’t mind. :)

    * Not sure how I did, misogyny questions aside, that was a pretty fucked up post. I’ll blame my scanning skills.

    ** Probably not the right term, but I don’t know one offhand that dismisses people for perhaps not speaking English as a native tongue…

  231. Tethys says

    So, mentally strike the cussing from my responses, if possible.

    Done.

    Is there a way I can respectfully bring such concerns to your attention? A code word that would not make you feel attacked?

    I really want to avoid pissing off PZ again. The last repetition was rather traumatic to me, and I’m mostly sure that you feel the same way.

  232. says

    Re: Butthurt

    According to my google-fu (admittedly, which can be weak) Butthurt relates to spanking, getting spanked (physically or verbally) etc. I’m still not seeing the strong homophobic connection. I think that any homophobic connotation is being placed there through only the most tenuous path.

    It seems that a similar argument could be made for Pwned:

    Pwned is derived from owned. Owning someone can be construed as supporting slavery. Therefor any usage of Pwned or Pwn is denigrating and should not be used.

  233. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys, can I email you? Or, if you don’t want to put your email address up here publicly (like I don’t), can you email me?

  234. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ye Olde Blacksmith,

    Please cf this thread, where skepticalmath (another gay man) and I (in my pitbull with lipstick emanation) explain it.

    It seems that a similar argument could be made for Pwned:

    Pwned is derived from owned. Owning someone can be construed as supporting slavery. Therefor any usage of Pwned or Pwn is denigrating and should not be used.

    We’re not talking about how it “might” be construed, but how it is actually used in the real world. If in the real world people did start to use “pwned” pretty regularly in a racist way, that would be worth considering.

    +++++
    Tethys,

    SG, if I leave you an address there, can you delete it?

    I can. The best way is to leave it on a new page that doesn’t exist yet. Try this one.

  235. says

    #286 look upthread to Ogvorbis #233 post, you dont need google for that

    please see #241 & #252

    Sorry, but I’m looking for more than basically “someone somewhere thinks it means butt sex hurts therefor it is homophobic.” From what I can find, it was originally (and still is) used as a slang for being/getting spanked. I can’t find where it is used as Og described above.

    And for the record: I am NOT saying it is not homophobic. I am saying that I don’t think it is (at the moment) and I have not been presented with any plausible argument stating that it is, in fact, homophobic. See Pwned in my comment above at #286.

  236. says

    Gotta learn to type and submit faster.

    SGBM @ 290: Thanks for the link. That was what I was looking for.

    Dropping it now.

    However, this being Thunderdome:

    Pwned

    thesaurus for pwned:
    owned pwn noob own pwnage ownage lol n00b raped pwnt 1337 pwnd fail destroyed pwn3d served dominated rape rofl powned more…

    Dig down deep enough at that link and you can find it being used in some very disturbing ways.

  237. oolon says

    In regards to ‘butthurt’ – I suppose it comes down to will you offend anyone by using it? As strange gods says once an innocuous term is uses as denigration then it becomes offensive. I suppose gay/queer have probably gone through more changes in meaning than most words.

    But then why would you want to use it when miffed is so much more civilised?

    miffed   [mift]
    adjective
    put into an irritable mood, especially by an offending incident: I was miffed when they didn’t invite me to the party.

  238. Beatrice says

    My google search showed a significant number of people are trying to find out where butthurt comes from and whetherit should be avoided because of possible homophobic connotations.

    The mere fact that we’re one of the many asking ourselves that question tells me that maybe there’s something there. Besides possible homophobia, it seems that another concern about that term is possible joking about abuse/rape.

    It’s not very difficult for me to avoid it since I’m pretty sure I’ve first encountered the term right here and probably haven’t even used it.

  239. cm's changeable moniker says

    @Pteryxx, you’re absolutely right. I’m posting from the UK about Sweden (even better universal healthcare than ours) and I assumed prophylaxis would be available. I should have made that explicit.

    Guess how well that goes over in the US health care system.

    Urgh, I’d rather not try. :-/ I should have added a caveat along those lines, so yeah: doesn’t apply in the US.

    And now I’ll shut up (about this, at least).

  240. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys, deletion done.

    +++++

    Dig down deep enough at that link and you can find it being used in some very disturbing ways.

    Yes, there is a baseline of bigotry in every page at UD. However, it is possible to compare the rate of bigotry on a page in question with other pages which should reflect the baseline (are not expected to rise above the baseline), and the difference should be an indicator of social use beyond UD.

    As I explained to nigel, there’s a reason why we can expect assclown to not accumulate homophobic connocations the way butthurt does.

  241. Pteryxx says

    @cm, thanks. I actually did find numbers for STD prophylaxis in the US and they’re about as dismal as you’d expect. When I win the lottery I’ll fund the heck out of Planned Parenthood so they can provide it to everyone, sigh.

  242. cm's changeable moniker says

    if I leave you an address there, can you delete it?

    Obligatory plug for mailinator:

    There are 2 ways to get email into any given inbox. When you check an inbox, listed at the top is the Alternate Inbox name. Emailing that alternate name is the same as emailing the regular name of the inbox. For example, the alternate name for “joe” is “M8R-yrtvm01″ (all alternate names start with “M8R-“).

    [… T]here is no way to guess an an alternate name. If you give out the alternate, only YOU will be able to check the emails because only you know the original inbox name.

    In short, pick yourself a nice, long, and hard-to-guess mailinator name – and then give out the alternate. People can email you but can’t read your email!

    –FAQ

    /psa

  243. One Thousand Needles says

    I have to ask this, because my Google-fu is weak:

    Have there ever been a successful White House petition that achieved anything more than a boilerplate response from the Obama administration?

    If there has, then people are rightfully chastising ‘the atheist movement’ for their apathy regarding Alexander Aan.

    If there hasn’t, then the criticism of apathy is, in this case, unwarranted.

  244. cm's changeable moniker says

    oolon, you get up to 6 linkies with which to bore us.

    No, the limit is down to 5 for, presumably, some reason.

    I think it’s to spare us the contents of Janine’s iPod. ;-P

  245. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Even without homophobic repercussions, I have always found “butthurt” to be a vile utterance. It’s meant to mock someone whose feelings are hurt. Or worse, to draw attention away from an actual argument.

    Also: how did Howard Stern become an arbiter of talent? He is much more apt for judging how people may become famous without any talent at all.

  246. broboxley OT says

    #305 Stern knows what sells, he also knows how to create a market. Like him or not he can turn a well tuned fart into a profit

  247. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    So does Ronald McDonald, but he doesn’t get a show with Ozzy’s wife.

  248. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    My mugga fennel tea back at ya.

    (I’m generally a glass hoister meself, but I been a little messed up since my yellow fever booster…something got me while my immune system was busy with more pertinent matters I guess*)

    *I’m just glad it isn’t yellow fever.

  249. broboxley OT says

    Oh yellow fever is fun, picture high fever sweats runny bloody shits and frozen chills with monster pukes. Fastest weight loss system this side of ebola I imagine.

  250. Dhorvath, OM says

    CM, spare? There are few things which would give me more pleasure than absconding with Janine’s playlist.

  251. John Morales says

    Dhorvath,

    There are few things which would give me more pleasure than absconding with Janine’s playlist.

    For some, oral pleasure > aural pleasure.

  252. dorfl says

    @ Dianne, post 215


    Why not? Whatever the Swedish law making organization is simply makes it illegal to extradite to countries that use torture or execution. The law could, of course, be repealed by future governments or (if it works vaguely like in the US) thrown out by the courts, but so could any law.

    There was actually a quote by the foreign minister in the newspaper this morning explaining just that. Translated, it becomes roughly:


    I cannot make any statements that binds the judicial system in any way. If I did, I would violate the Swedish constitution. I don’t think they quite understand that, to be perfectly frank. Because I think the principle of the judicial system’s independence is not as firmly established in Ecuador, to express myself with unusual diplomatic finesse.

  253. dorfl says

    Apparently the allegations lodged by two women, several months after the supposed ‘rapes’ occurred, is based on a facet of Swedish sex criminal justice.
    […]
    It is apparently ‘rape’ if no condom is used during intercourse even if that intercourse was consensual…go figure?

    Yes. If a Swedish man ever has sex without a condom, the Swedish feminazi cavalry immediately arrive on their war mooses and take him away for eight years forced labour in the crispbread mines of Kiruna.

    This is absolutely how Swedish criminal justice works, and is not a fiction based on popular national stereotypes.

  254. broboxley OT says

    So I gather from your post dorf el that swedes are mined and not born. So how is your golf game these days

  255. says

    There’s some annoying troll hanging out in the comments of Jen’s post on Thunderf00t’s malfeasance who keeps insisting that Jen is a massive hypocrite for posting about what Thunderf00t did and not also posting about some obscure newsoid about how Obama (“B. Hussein Obama”, in hir rendering of the name) supposedly violated some opposing candidate’s privacy in order to gain a campaign advantage. I haven’t really cared enough to actually investigate this newsoid on accounta it has essentially zero relevance to anything I do at this point, so for all I know, it’s even true.

    Anyway, I told the troll that if ze actually cared about getting an audience for this super-important news about Obama’s supposed malfeasance, rather than just sliming all over Jen, then ze would stop ranting in the comments of a nearly-dead and completely-unrelated thread and come over here where everything is on topic. So we’ll see if ze does…

  256. Ogvorbis: faucibus desultor singulari says

    completely off topic, is anyone else seeing the last few comments in all italics?

  257. PatrickG says

    @ Anne C. Hanna: Yeesh, what an annoying troll that is. Somehow I doubt xe will make it over here. :)

    @ Ogvorbis: Nope, everything looks normal to me.

  258. cm's changeable moniker says

    Well, I was until kid #1 wandered out of bed and then threw up.

    Clean up caused me to miss most of the last 15 minutes. *sigh*

    Still, it all worked out OK in the end.

  259. 'Tis Himself says

    Anne C. Hanna #317

    I know the story behind the troll’s attempted smear of Obama. It’s rather interesting.

    Jack Ryan was the Republican candidate in the 2004 senatorial election in Illinois, running against Obama. Ryan had been married to Jeri Ryan (the actress who played 7 of 9 in Star Trek: Voyager) but they divorced in 1999. The divorce records were sealed. During the 2004 election the Chicago Tribune and a Chicago TV station petitioned to have the records released. The Illinois GOP Chair, Judy Baar Topinka, asked Ryan if there was anything scandalous in the records and Ryan told her no.

    When the records were unsealed it turned out that Jeri Ryan claimed that Jack Ryan had asked her to perform sexual acts with him in public in sex clubs. Topinka said that Ryan had lied to her. Ryan then withdrew from the senate race.

    Obama had nothing to do with the release of the Ryan divorce records.

  260. cicely says

    Maybe I should armor up and check in here more often:

    Became a joke in my game where one villain was a house cat arch necromancer. He had a human as a familiar.

    Brilliant, Ing! Brilliant!

    In all seriousness as a D&D against a regular house cat I would have interpreted it’s claws as non-lethal, sub-dual damage…if at all

    With a possible save-at-a-plus vs. cat scratch fever.
    :D

    Hmmm…halfling were-housecats? Or other small-sized humanoids.

    “You just got your ass kicked and now you’re all butthurt” – for a sore loser.

    That was my previous understanding, too…but there’s no reason why the phrase couldn’t have got cross-pollination from other sources, i.e., both origins could apply. Convergence.
    -

  261. PatrickG says

    Post-tumbleweed post, I know things have been mentioned, I just sort of wanted to get this off my chest.

    So, I was, uh, playing WoW tonight, prior to going out to a bar to support Planned Parenthood (hoping you’ll look at the last one and ignore the WoW part), and got some kid on Ventrilo who thought the funniest thing in the world would be to just start yelling “nigga nigga nigga nigga nigga”* ad nauseum.

    Fucking kids today. I stayed on a bit and tore him a new one, with most people on vent agreeing, but all he came back with was the same. Over and over. Until we booted him from the raid.

    Yeesh. That’s my frustrated rant. Don’t hold the fact that I play WoW against me. :)

    * Spelling is accurate, he included no ending ‘r’.

  262. says

    ‘Tis @323, holy crap! It’s worse than Thunderf00t! Why isn’t everyone on FTB talking about this to the exclusion of everything else?!?!

    *shrug* Digging into the troll’s link and its sources, I see that the supposed link to Obama is actually through a previous case, in which the Obama campaign supposedly pushed the Tribune behind the scenes to go for an opponent’s records. The insinuation is that that’s clearly what happened in the Ryan case too. The weird thing is, I seem to remember from my time living in the Chicago area that the Tribune is a somewhat right-wing paper. But maybe that’s changed since I moved away. Regardless, I dunno why a newspaper would need a political campaign egging it on to go after something juicy and scandalous related to a major political race.

    The part where it starts to get more serious-sounding is when it’s claimed that in the previous case, that of Blair Hull, “many people” said that David Axelrod himself leaked the information that Hull’s ex-wife had sought an order of protection against him in their divorce proceedings. This leak supposedly caused Hull and his ex-wife to feel pressured to allow the proceedings to be unsealed. Thus one could argue that what David Axelrod allegedly did is similar to what Thunderf00t did, in the sense of publicizing secret information that he didn’t have a right to access, with the intention of damaging opponents.

    But, meh. I’m not really sure what all of this proves even assuming that Ann Coulter (who is the immediate source of the info the troll linked to, and who does not herself usefully cite her sources) is being scrupulously factual and not just engaging in her usual cherry-picking and distortion of whatever suits her nasty little agenda. Was there anybody here suggesting that Obama is such a champion of reason and decency that he ought to be invited to join the FTB blogroll?

  263. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Everyone’s commenting on the anti-caturday post. It’s beetles for chissakes. What could they be discussing?

  264. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Crossposted from Jen’s thread, which is quite brilliant.

    +++++
    I suggest using no adjectives or other verbal modifiers.

    It’s a rhetorical trap. (Visual signals like the ones Jadehawk uses for feminism+atheism are excellent — they’ll do the work of signaling our presence to each other. With descriptive alt-text for screen readers.)

    A minor but important victory will come when the misogynists and racists start complaining that the word atheism has become so contaminated with progressive connotations that they don’t want to self-identify as atheists anymore. “Blech! Atheism is too feminist! We need a new word!”

    That will probably not happen if we use some kind of [adjective] atheism.

    They’ll always be able to say “I’m just an atheist. I’m not an [adjective] atheist. I don’t need anything else.”

    And that kind of “purist” self-identification is very attractive to naive people (here naive is not intended as a pejorative; there are always people who are new to atheism and who may, in the beginning, feel overwhelmed by the Deep Rifts; we want to appeal to the new and naive people).

    If we brand ourselves as a subtype then we’ll always remain a subtype. We want to be the ones who, if you’re a misogynist and you don’t want to be confused for us, you’ll have to apply an adjective to yourself. We don’t want to be a subtype. We want to be the type.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_%28biology%29

  265. broboxley OT says

    Apparently the entrance to hades has been well known for a while
    http://www.philipcoppens.com/cumae.html
    Also since politics has infiltrated everywhere including here can we keep the religious fight between the bankers and the other bankers out of here for the time being? If we must have a discourse between tweedlefuck and tweedlefuckyoumore can we ask pz for a separate unmonitored political thread until after the prez election and keep that useless twaddle out of here and the lounge?
    thank you
    bill

  266. John Morales says

    PatrickG:

    Don’t hold the fact that I play WoW against me. :)

    I expected no better, and you obviously realise how pathetic that is — so that’s something.

    (Be proud that at least you can manage to point and click)

    Fucking kids today.

    Why, what’s wrong with you?

  267. John Morales says

    broboxley:

    If we must have a discourse between tweedlefuck and tweedlefuckyoumore can we ask pz for a separate unmonitored political thread until after the prez election and keep that useless twaddle out of here and the lounge?

    Hey, you are here, so obviously useless twaddle is permitted.

    (What’s with this ‘we’ business, anyway? You want something, at least don’t pretend it’s what others want!)

  268. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    If we brand ourselves as a subtype then we’ll always remain a subtype. We want to be the ones who, if you’re a misogynist and you don’t want to be confused for us, you’ll have to apply an adjective to yourself. We don’t want to be a subtype. We want to be the type.

    We?

    (You mean the subset of atheists that excludes me?)

  269. strange gods before me ॐ says

    (You mean the subset of atheists that excludes me?)

    Maybe, sometimes, probably.

    I’m rather positively disposed toward you after your hilarious comment to broboxley, so at the moment I can’t think clearly about you.

  270. John Morales says

    ॐ, aww, you know I’m just being contentious — eristical, even.

    (Not that I’m a Discordian!)

  271. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ SG #330

    This is why you are the two true doublepope!

    Experiment (hieroglyph):

    p:t

  272. ChasCPeterson says

    Dear Josh, Official SpokesGay:
    Yeah, you irked me, all right. Yes, I am consistently irked by some repeated behavior. Some of it–a lot of it, actually–is yours. Yes, the truth is that you irk me a lot. I think you’re a hyperjudgemental asshole. I think you believe that only your intent is magic. I think you believe that your shit doesn’t stink and that you ought to be above criticism. I find the occasional ironic (I guess) camp schtick excedingly tiresome. Yes, irksome even. I also think you’re overly snide, and, well, a hyperjudgemental asshole. But I repeat myself. (You’ve also said a few unnecesarily vehement and insulting things to me personally over the years, but I find your behavior toward others sufficiently irksome at regular enough intervals that I don’t have to carry a grudge.)
    Have a nice day, asshole.
    Sincerely,
    CCP

  273. julian says

    @strange gods

    I understand where you’re coming from in regards to Jen’s post and, pretty much, agree. But the “just an atheist” distinction already exists. Look at Harriet Hall, look at Tf00t, look at any discussion surrounding libertarianism. People have already decided atheism is not to be tied up in “politics” (meaning left wing politics).

  274. says

    In response to this post.

    Dear Julien, I just redirected you to a basic textbook / review article in an area in which you argue with loud voice and little understanding.

    As opposed to you who are not arguing at all that such a definition is not stupid, instead appealing to the authority of others.

    As it is obvious from what you later wrote, you chose to ignore it.

    No, I chose not to spend an inordinate amount of time reading a long text in its entirety, only a part of which, at most, could support your contention that it is not a stupid definition. That you choose to redirect me to long texts with no argument instead of presenting your argument and then directing to part of the text for more details is no different than somebody choosing to say “read the bible” with no argument instead of presenting their argument and redirecting to those part of the bible that support their argument.

    Tell me, if you had a student who behaves like that, how would you react?

    I’m not your student so you have no claim to impose a reading assignment on me. I know, it’s an easy mistake to make, I inadvertantly made recently myself.

    Maybe it comes as a shock to you, but words may have different meanings in different contexts.

    Maybe it comes as a shock to you but I know about slang, jargon, terms of art…

    I will however admit that it is a good point. So how about this:

    I will concede that there can be domains in which such a definition may not necessarily be stupid (note that I am only admitting the possibility here, not the actuality), however I maintain that lacking any qualifier on zoniedude’s part to specify that he meant the philosophical definition, his assertion is best interpreted as applying to the nontechnical use and as such, is stupid.

    Now, are you going to stop arguing that such a definition exist and start arguing that such a definition in a non-technical setting is stupid, which is the point I was making and that you are disputing?

    For example, to observe anything, to make a single scientific experiment, we must start with a belief of existence of an observable, objective reality.

    No we don’t, we only need to believe in the existence of sensations, which are self-evident. Note that it is not the same as believing that those sensations are reliable, only that they exist.
    This is, however, a totally different debate, so if you disagree then explain your disagreement if you want to but don’t expect me to start another debate with you about it. If you are interested in a more fleshed out articulation of my position, it is very close (probably the same, I don’t remember disagreeing with it when I read it) as Richard Carrier’s in this post. (See how it is done, you put forward your argument, then redirect the person to more details.)

    You call that empiric? Now that is funny. Mathematics is a dogmatic, rational system, inherently non-empiric; without starting with axioms and definitions, you will not arrive anywhere.

    Let’s see if it holds by using an historical example.

    A little while ago a guy called Euclid used 5 axioms to construct what we now call Euclidean geometry.

    It turned out that one of those axioms was not always true. It is false on a sphere, for example.

    According to zoniedude’s definition, such an axiom is a dogma, not to be questioned.

    So if mathematics is based on dogma that cannot be questioned, then why do we have non-Euclidean geometry? Why didn’t all mathematicians say “No, the fifth postulate is dogma” and reject non-Euclidean geometry?

    It seems that if mathematics conflicts with reality, reality wins.

    So unless you want to redefine dogma to mean something else than dogma (geeze, what is the philosophical definition of dogma?) then it seems that even the philosophical definition does not use dogma (oh wait, I should have asked of philosophers accept non-euclidean geometry, not mathematicians), choosing instead to say that something was a bad intuition, or an intuition that doesn’t hold in all contexts.

    Are there philosophers that use the same definition as zoniedude? Maybe. But if there are, then they would have to reject non-euclidean geometry based on the established dogma of the fifth postulate. Calling such philosophers rational still seems stupid to me.

    P.S.: For ease of reading, would you mind using blockquotes. You can do so that way:
    <blockquote>
    text you want to blockquote
    </blockquote>

    Which gives the result:

    text you want to blockquote

  275. says

    Apparently the jackhuskey troll is too chicken to come to Thunderdome. Its excuse is that I used a naughty word, so “folks” don’t respect my arguments (therefore it’s not going to come here where there might be people who aren’t me to make arguments it actually would respect? Does not compute…). I’m assuming that jackhuskey must actually be some kind of Borg collective type of entity, in order to be able to speak for “folks”.

  276. strange gods before me ॐ says

    julian,

    I understand where you’re coming from in regards to Jen’s post and, pretty much, agree. But the “just an atheist” distinction already exists. Look at Harriet Hall, look at Tf00t, look at any discussion surrounding libertarianism. People have already decided atheism is not to be tied up in “politics” (meaning left wing politics).

    I know; I think we can shove them out of the way and occupy that space. They’re already reacting to a correlation between atheism and leftism (which is not new).

    The rhetoric for doing so in the case of skepticism is easy to imagine — they’ve imposed an arbitrary boundary on the scope of skepticism and there’s nothing skeptical about arbitrary boundaries.

    For staking claim to atheism per se, it’s not quite as obvious, but I can think of two tactics which will be useful. Don’t take on verbal modifiers that imply we’re a subtype. And when encountering <a href="http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/dictionary_atheistsdictionary atheists, point out that they are a subtype despite any claims to the contrary, and that saying “atheism is only the lack of belief in gods” is an incomplete and thus insufficient description of any individual’s atheism.

    Maybe three tactics. There’s that epistemological argument — that knowledge claims about both the supernatural, and politics, and indeed everything — have to be answerable to the question “how do you know that?” And this epistemology is necessarily a part of any atheism worth having. SC is better at explaining this than I am, though.

  277. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Fixing link:

    And when encountering dictionary atheists, point out that they are a subtype despite any claims to the contrary, and that saying “atheism is only the lack of belief in gods” is an incomplete and thus insufficient description of any individual’s atheism.

    Anyway, I don’t claim this will all be sufficient to succeed; these are just the methods I can think of at this time. There’s probably more.

  278. David Marjanović says

    Kiruna! Nooooooooooo!!!

    (“B. Hussein Obama”, in hir rendering of the name)

    What? Not “B. HUSSEIN Obama”, in all-caps? How frothless at the mouth.

  279. cm's changeable moniker says

    And that kind of “purist” self-identification is very attractive to naive people [e.g.,] people who are new to atheism and who may, in the beginning, feel overwhelmed by the Deep Rifts

    If it’s the more accurate identifier, why force people to assume a different one? I’m neither new nor naive, but I just think words should be used to denote what they actually mean. ;-)

    If we brand ourselves as a subtype then we’ll always remain a subtype.

    But being a subtype is definitionally true (atheist+X-ist must be a smaller category than atheist alone), so as aspiring rationalist, I have to support it. I get that you want to expand the range of political policy associated with the brand … but is there even a brand to be managed?

    correlation between atheism and leftism (which is not new)

    *teehee*

    You know, in the UK, the Church of England is actually rather leftish.

    :-)

    You probably want to define “left” a bit more accurately. US “left” is not UK “left” is not French “left” is not Chinese “left”. (I suspect you mean progressive, but even that’s fraught: what is “progress”?)

  280. consciousness razor says

    And when encountering dictionary atheists, point out that they are a subtype despite any claims to the contrary, and that saying “atheism is only the lack of belief in gods” is an incomplete and thus insufficient description of any individual’s atheism.

    I agree, but I guess I don’t understand why you’re approaching it this way. It’s not about what an atheist or the atheist movement is, but what they should do, where the movement should go, how to think and act like rational and ethical people. Someone is free to say “I’m an atheist who hates black people and believes in Bigfoot,” but they’re not going to “define” the movement that way, because most of us (hopefully) won’t accept it.

    When you say we shouldn’t brand ourselves as a subtype, I agree that we shouldn’t come up with some new label that we all use to identify ourselves as the Brights or the star-bellied Sneetches or whatever. Otherwise, I don’t get it. There are rational atheists and irrational atheists, for example. Those are both subtypes of atheists. The latter isn’t subordinate to the other, just worse. Nor should they stop identifying as atheists, because that by itself isn’t the problem, and pressuring them to do so won’t solve anything. The problem is that they’re being irrational (which of course it is for theists too).

  281. strange gods before me ॐ says

    cm,

    If it’s the more accurate identifier,

    It ain’t necessarily so. Ignoring the typical existentialist error about free will, they were otherwise right that godlessness necessarily implies other things about the world. That a bunch of idiots and bigots deny these things doesn’t make those idiots into coherent atheists.

    I’m neither new nor naive, but I just think words should be used to denote what they actually mean.

    Meanings change. Libertarian meant something quite different a hundred years ago, for instance. We get to decide what we want words to mean.

    «It is up to us to craft new intrinsic identities, by mocking “dictionary atheism” and pronouncing our moral aesthetics as the future. We can and must speak confidently enough that one day the very notion of a “right-wing atheist” will provoke confusion, just as the mention of a “left-wing libertarian” does now though it didn’t a century ago.

    I look forward to this common dialogue:
    “But why do you believe we need more welfare funding?”
    “Because there is no God.”»

    But being a subtype is definitionally true (atheist+X-ist must be a smaller category than atheist alone)

    Not when all atheists are also X-ists. And we should insist that they must be, in order to be coherent.

    I get that you want to expand the range of political policy associated with the brand … but is there even a brand to be managed?

    Of course there’s a brand to be managed. It’s like you’re asking “is there really an atheist movement?” We’ve been over this a thousand times; honestly I don’t see how a regular at Pharyngula could be unaware that atheism is a brand.

    If the person on the street thinks of any connotations to “atheist” then there is a brand.

    You know, in the UK, the Church of England is actually rather leftish.

    And it is here too. Same for the UUs and a lot of Presbyterians. I did not say that because there’s a correlation between atheism and leftism that there aren’t also other correlations.

    You probably want to define “left” a bit more accurately. US “left” is not UK “left” is not French “left” is not Chinese “left”. (I suspect you mean progressive, but even that’s fraught: what is “progress”?)

    Yo, I’m an internationalist communist. I know there’s variation. The correlation holds in all the countries you’ve mentioned so far. (It probably doesn’t hold where liberation theology is a huge thing.) And no, ‘progressive’ is not fraught either. These words acquire meaning, and have already acquired meaning, by their usages in the real world. Similar as why ‘libertarian’ (in the Anglosphere) now needs a modifier if it’s going to be used to refer to any kind of leftism.

    +++++
    consciousness razor,

    When you say we shouldn’t brand ourselves as a subtype, I agree that we shouldn’t come up with some new label that we all use to identify ourselves as the Brights or the star-bellied Sneetches or whatever.

    Well, that’s basically what’s happening right now.

  282. Beatrice says

    I’m finding this whole “Yay, we’re A+” thing seriously underwhelming, despite my excitement yesterday. I don’t feel like this is going anywhere beyond making a few shiny new signs.

    Maybe I’m too much of a pessimist.

  283. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Someone is free to say “I’m an atheist who hates black people and believes in Bigfoot,” but they’re not going to “define” the movement that way, because most of us (hopefully) won’t accept it.

    Yeah hopefully. I think this splintering is going to make it easier though for the bigots to make even more of a claim to atheism per se, if people on our side become more concerned about defending “atheism+”.

    I ♥ Ing and Brownian, but their nearly-defeated attitude about associating themselves with the atheist movement lately is, I think, very similar to this “atheism+” thing, and if energy is expended by making ourselves a new tent, I think that strengthens the bigots rather than hurting them.

    Nor should they stop identifying as atheists, because that by itself isn’t the problem, and pressuring them to do so won’t solve anything.

    This isn’t necessarily so. People pick up values from the communities they associate with. I can dredge up my bookmarked polls if you insist, but I hope it’s uncontested that atheists as a group are associated with more progressive politics than the general population. So when someone becomes an atheist and starts self-identifying that way and then seeking out an atheist community, they’re somewhat more likely to encounter a progressive community than a conservative one, and thus more likely to absorb progressive values.

    We can tilt this even further.

  284. strange gods before me ॐ says

    … but their nearly-defeated attitude about associating themselves with the atheist movement lately is, I think, very similar to this “atheism+” thing [which also seems defeatist] …

  285. cm's changeable moniker says

    Meanings change. Libertarian meant something quite different a hundred years ago, for instance. We get to decide what we want words to mean.

    «It is up to us to craft new intrinsic identities, by mocking “dictionary atheism” and pronouncing our moral aesthetics as the future. We can and must speak confidently enough that one day the very notion of a “right-wing atheist” will provoke confusion, just as the mention of a “left-wing libertarian” does now though it didn’t a century ago.

    I’m sure they won’t, because this place is a nest of eusocial wasps who believe that social lying is a good thing. It’s no secret that some commenters can treat outsiders here nastily, without being asked to stop, because they play the ingroup/outgroup dynamics quite naturally.

    See?

    Who is “we”? Who is “they”?

    Or, more accurately: in our interations, how much do we trust the classifications of “us” and “them”, and how far are we willing to allow “them” to participate with “us”?

  286. consciousness razor says

    I look forward to this common dialogue:
    “But why do you believe we need more welfare funding?”
    “Because there is no God.”

    I don’t look forward to arguments with hidden premises.

    Yeah hopefully. I think this splintering is going to make it easier though for the bigots to make even more of a claim to atheism per se, if people on our side become more concerned about defending “atheism+”.

    Sure, I get that. But there’s nothing for them to defend anyway. “Atheism+” means fuck all at this point, to most people and even most atheists. Just be specific about what the fuck you stand for and drop this meaningless bullshit where you try to cram everything good and pure into one label. It’s just a useless buzzword.

    That’s why I think it’s also counterproductive for you to likewise defend plain old vanilla new atheism (1.0 beta or whatever it is). Whatever we want the word to mean, we shouldn’t want it to mean that much. Don’t get me wrong: the nonexistence of a god does have lots of non-religious (or non-theological) implications for what we ought to think and do, but there are other things that also matter, to atheists or to anyone else. For example, there are people. So why do we need more welfare funding? Because there are people, who we should care about, and because we can create societies and institutions capable of providing for them.

    I ♥ Ing and Brownian, but their nearly-defeated attitude about associating themselves with the atheist movement lately is, I think, very similar to this “atheism+” thing, and if energy is expended by making ourselves a new tent, I think that strengthens the bigots rather than hurting them.

    Yeah, I agree. The defeatist stuff makes it even more tiresome than it already is, if you ask me. I don’t like to come down too hard on that because I want people to be comfortable expressing their dissatisfaction with the movement however they like. Anyway, I don’t know about Ing, but I get the feeling Brownian isn’t keen on expending energy on too many things.

    And if they stop being involved in the atheist movement, I’m sure they’ll still do the right things … or the wrong things, as the case may be. ;) Anyway, it doesn’t change much at all.

    So when someone becomes an atheist and starts self-identifying that way and then seeking out an atheist community, they’re somewhat more likely to encounter a progressive community than a conservative one, and thus more likely to absorb progressive values.

    Perhaps that’s more likely, but they could reverse course because they find it’s too progressive for them. They’d be atheists, but not in the movement. Or they could form a conservative atheist movement which does the same thing. But there’s no way to avoid talking about progressive atheists and conservative atheists, X-atheists and not-X-atheists, etc.

  287. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Obama had nothing to do with the release of the Ryan divorce records.

    In what showed what a class act Obama is, he never used any of that information in his campaigning, even though at the time it was considered a tight election. And Obama always downplayed any significance of the release, and kept up promoting his ideas and ideology. The NeoCon Rethuglicans forced Ryan to withdraw, and brought in Alan Keyes to be the sacrifical candidate in the election. Ideology over practicality is is the Neocon Rethuglican motto in Illinois.

  288. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The weird thing is, I seem to remember from my time living in the Chicago area that the Tribune is a somewhat right-wing paper. But maybe that’s changed since I moved away.

    Nope, gotten even more right-wing with the last reorganization (bankruptcy of Tribune Corp) a couple of years ago.

  289. cm's changeable moniker says

    We can tilt this even further.

    For the record, for the percentage of my Heisenberg athiesm that is in “us”, I heartily agree, and “we” should. ;-)

  290. Janine: Fucking Dyke Of Rage Mountain says

    The NeoCon Rethuglicans forced Ryan to withdraw, and brought in Alan Keyes to be the sacrifical candidate in the election. Ideology over practicality is is the Neocon Rethuglican motto in Illinois.

    This make for some great comedy. Including Alan Keyes trying to defend his move from Maryland to Illinois just to run against Barack Obama. It was around this time that Maya Keyes, his daughter, came out as a lesbian.

    I wonder if a buffoon like Alan Keyes can be portrayed as being part of the conspiracy that got Obama in the White House. As it was, Obama being a calm and reasoned speaker looked even more so when put up against Alan Keyes.

  291. abb3w says

    Thanks for the compliments from theophontes (坏蛋) and strange gods before me ॐ in the last TD thread.

    (Just passing by….)

  292. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Who is “we”? Who is “they”?

    In the first quote, “we” is progressives.

    In the second quote, “they” is a clique here on Pharyngula.

    Context is obvious. Next weird question?

    Or, more accurately: in our interations, how much do we trust the classifications of “us” and “them”, and how far are we willing to allow “them” to participate with “us”?

    If that was more accurate, I can’t see how.

    +++++

    I don’t look forward to arguments with hidden premises.

    Really? Would you like every argument you’ll ever have to start from properly basic premises? In discussing health care, should we have to keep a heavy stone around to kick to refute immaterialism? (That’ll surely raise health care costs.)

    That’s why I think it’s also counterproductive for you to likewise defend plain old vanilla new atheism (1.0 beta or whatever it is). Whatever we want the word to mean, we shouldn’t want it to mean that much

    Seems like wishful thinking. Atheism has come to have some particular connotations (positive and negative), and more lately (it seems) we’ve been having some qualified success in improving some of the negatives. We really can’t prevent people from thinking of a bunch of connotations — but we can influence what those connotations will be.

    Don’t get me wrong: the nonexistence of a god does have lots of non-religious (or non-theological) implications for what we ought to think and do, but there are other things that also matter, to atheists or to anyone else. For example, there are people. So why do we need more welfare funding? Because there are people, who we should care about, and because we can create societies and institutions capable of providing for them.

    Another way of saying this is that since there’s no god to impose interests on the world, only the interests that animals (including humans) have are the interests that exist — and thus that’s necessarily what any ethics must focus on. And because there is no god to take care of us, we must take care of each other.

    Certainly all that can be stated without reference to gods, and normally I do, but if a discussion begins with regard to gods, that’s a way to move it toward care for each other; the latter does follow from the former, even if it’s not the only thing it follows from.

    And if they stop being involved in the atheist movement, I’m sure they’ll still do the right things … or the wrong things, as the case may be. ;) Anyway, it doesn’t change much at all.

    A few people don’t change much. A mass exodus for the lands of “atheism+” might.

    Perhaps that’s more likely, but they could reverse course because they find it’s too progressive for them.

    This is largely dependent upon cognitive plasticity, i.e. age.

    But there’s no way to avoid talking about progressive atheists and conservative atheists, X-atheists and not-X-atheists, etc.

    There might eventually be, if atheism ends up being so inundated with progressives that a lot of conservatives don’t want to identify as atheists anymore. There’s already that funny phenomenon where some people identify as nontheists because atheist strikes them as too confrontational.

    As atheism used to refer to the affirmative belief that there’s no gods, and now also refers to a lack of belief in gods, I see potential for it to further refer to the implications of a lack of gods.

    I’m not proposing that we can (yet) stop talking about the existence of conservative atheists — rather, we should identify them as stupid, shitty atheists who are bad at figuring out what the nonexistence of god coughandfreewillcough entails — generally we should not accept their claims that they should be respected as fellow atheists.

  293. cm's changeable moniker says

    In the first quote, “we” is progressives.

    In the second quote, “they” is a clique here on Pharyngula.

    Nice elision.

    they play the ingroup/outgroup dynamics quite naturally.

    ^^ My point.

    Another way of saying this is that since there’s no god to impose interests on the world, only the interests that animals (including humans) have are the interests that exist — and thus that’s necessarily what any ethics must focus on. And because there is no god to take care of us, we must take care of each other.

    See Hobbes, Thomas. ;-)

    Seriously, you need to decouple religion from (US) conservatism. I’m all for (aspiring rationalist) people realising there isn’t a God. But to expect that that realisation will result in them inventing utopia is … unproven.

  294. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Nice elision.

    What the fuck? It’s the answer to your weird fucking questions.

    ^^ My point.

    No, your point is as yet unstated, and apparently gibberish.

    Seriously, you need to decouple religion from (US) conservatism.

    You need to stop assuming that’s what I’m doing. FFS, it’s Sartre and Marx I’m riffing from, not Americans.

    But to expect that that realisation will result in them inventing utopia is … unproven.

    I asserted no such expectation. I said it logically and empirically follows that we have to take care of each other, since we are social creatures, and since there’s no benevolent deity to take care of us. I can make that argument endlessly, and so can most people here. But I said nothing about it being obvious to everyone who becomes an atheist. There are reasons for the correlation, but it’s not a 100% correlation.

    And if you’re imagining that I believe in historical inevitabilities, you’re wrong; I’ve been clear against that shit.

  295. strange gods before me ॐ says

    See Hobbes, Thomas. ;-)

    Why? Do you think Hobbes was right? ‘Cause I sure as fuck didn’t say that everyone who rejects a certain view of god will come to progressive values.

  296. consciousness razor says

    Really? Would you like every argument you’ll ever have to start from properly basic premises?

    I was only saying what you quoted is a poor argument. We don’t always need to get down to whatever the “properly basic” is, but we should try not to skip over large swaths of an argument when it’s likely to confuse people.

    In discussing health care, should we have to keep a heavy stone around to kick to refute immaterialism? (That’ll surely raise health care costs.)

    Maybe you don’t have to, but occasionally it would be useful. (Try wearing steel-toe boots.) Just like gods, when it’s relevant, we should make it explicit that we are soulless, have no free will or other magical psychic powers, and anything else immaterialism entails. In some cases that matters to people just as much as a god does, if not more. And since you seem to be okay with doing that with a god which doesn’t exist, you should probably be willing to extend it to a few more things, even things which do exist.

    As atheism used to refer to the affirmative belief that there’s no gods, and now also refers to a lack of belief in gods, I see potential for it to further refer to the implications of a lack of gods.

    Like I said, I already agree with that, and I can’t wait for others to catch up. However, I doubt it’s going to mean any damn thing we want it to mean, or that every rational and ethical person will agree with or understand what we think it implies. So I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but there are limits.

  297. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ abb3w

    Thanks for the compliments

    Well deserved. Your comments where both on the mark and entertaining.

    Soyuz Voinstvuyushchikh Bezbozhnikov

    Our official anti-religion? Or the new official name for Teh Thunderdome?

    Официальный Союз воинствующих безбожников

    It looks really cool in Russian.

  298. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    Interesting tidbit for those too lazy to read the entire linky posted by our Holy Double-pope ™ (We have your nyms on record, it is not too late to recant):

    An answer to this report was found when Nazi Germany invaded in 1941, and churches were re-opened under the German occupation, while believers flocked to them in the millions. In order to gain support for the war effort (both domestic and foreign; the allies would not support Stalin if he continued the campaign (ie: LMG)) against the German forces that were effectively “liberating” religious believers from the persecution against them, Stalin ended the antireligious persecution and the LMG was disbanded.

    Well there you go, the church did help the Nazis against the Soviets. But in a rather unusual way.

    /Godwin

  299. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ His Double-pope-iness, SG

    From the images: This is what we need! (Is there any other thread on any other blog on the ENTIRE PLANET that has its own ship? Indeed, I think not! Victory is certain!

    {theophontes smiles, contemplating the sheer terror the introduction such a vast Leviathan will instill on the other threads. Prepares to launch champagne bottle at the prow. Thinks better of it and takes a large gulp. Back in business…}

  300. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Our leviathan will be christened in the blood of the bourgeoisie!

    Failing that, I suppose champagne will do.

    Failing that, I have a bottle of Spumante. It was a gift. I’m not going to drink it.

  301. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Now that I have the place to myself, might as well do some redecorating.

    *Will not become involved in Lounge matters*

  302. Louis says

    SGBM,

    I’m not being personally defensive, that assumption on your part presumes I have something to be defensive about. In my opinion, I don’t. And as far as I’m concerned it’s my opinion that matters in this.

    Since this is the last I will converse with you about this sort of topic on this or any other thread, and I am remarkably uninterested in discussing anything like this with you anywhere,* I invite you to have a wonderful day, and go about your business. If it helps you, just killfile me. Incidentally the same goes for anyone.

    When I have to answer to you, or indeed anyone here up to and including PZ, I’ll let you know. My participation in Pharyngula is optional, not mandatory and entirely on my terms. If it ends, it ends, if it changes, it changes, {shrug} and it will by my doing. Your rather infantile thread copping etc is just that in my opinion, one of the endless series of childish, divisive little “holier than thou” games you clearly enjoy playing.

    As I said, there is nothing more than an insignificant difference of style to “defend” (i.e. nothing). What you consider meaningful, I don’t. So, to finish with the immortal words of the Prophet Mohammed: Please put that in your pipe and smoke it. when you have something useful to say to me, do so. Hint: this wasn’t one of those times, big fella!

    Louis

    * I consider the majority of discussion with you, especially on topics like this, to be remarkably like my anally fisting a kinky pig: it serves no purpose except pleasuring the pig and getting pigshit all over my fist. Whether or not you feel the same way about me…{yet another shrug} not a single fuck will be given. In my opinion you are, more often than not, a pathetic and rather tiresome irrelevance.

  303. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I’m not being personally defensive,

    The “fuck off” is prima facie evidence that you are.

    that assumption on your part presumes I have something to be defensive about. In my opinion, I don’t. And as far as I’m concerned it’s my opinion that matters in this.

    The comfort of ever Pharyngula commenter matters in the Lounge.

    When I have to answer to you, or indeed anyone here up to and including PZ, I’ll let you know.

    It’s remarkably naive that you characterize this as having to answer to someone. It’s nothing of the sort. It’s a request to keep the Lounge the way the community wants it. You can ignore the community’s preferences, but be aware that’s what you’re doing.

    There is nothing wrong with my pointing out that the rules should not be considered to apply only to non-regulars like huntstoddard but waived for beloved commenters like yourself.

    Your rather infantile thread copping etc is just that in my opinion

    Of course, you’ve never been willing to consider any evidence that gets in the way of your preformed opinions.

    Nevertheless, if you have the rational ability to do so, you could consider my arguments on their merits.

    Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

    As I said, there is nothing more than an insignificant difference of style to “defend” (i.e. nothing).

    “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. And especially if you’re right, then a self-obsessed fool would be inclined to show up in the Lounge and defend against that charge.

  304. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Audley, is it your contention that “self-obsessed fool” is not a personal attack?

  305. Louis says

    SGBM,

    The “fuck off” is prima facie evidence that you are.

    And that’s the only reason? The only interpretation? There are no other clues in my comment that might lead any reader to think something else, perhaps a self deprecating joke, was going on?

    It’s “evidence” of nothing more than yet another of your baseless assumptions that you pretend to be reality. You assume your meaning is the only one and proceed from there as ever. I don’t.

    Anyway, isn’t it excitingly interesting that in ~5 hours and a number of comments spread across the blog from you that you chose that thread and that time to make your divisive little snipe? You could have done what I did and linked here if you considered my transgression meaningful, but you didn’t. Who escalated the what now?

    As for the “merits of your arguments”, since the “merits” of your “argument” are derived solely from your assumptions about intent and meaning, they are are irrelevant as wisps of vapour.

    Oh and not reading things in context, SGBM, as you habitually do when you have a little personal axe to grind, is beyond pathetic and dishonest. Like it or not, my comment “about” Huntstoddard was vastly more to do with my own limitations than anything to do with him/her. Of course I’d expect such a subtle point to fly straight by you, as it did.

    Louis

    P.S. By the way, I am more than excitingly aware of my own flaws, hypocrisies, limitations and what not. When I need the likes of you to point them out to me, I’ll let you know.

    Fuck, is that pigshit on my fist AGAIN? Oy vey!

  306. strange gods before me ॐ says

    And that’s the only reason? The only interpretation?

    No, but you do seem very defensive.

    You assume your meaning is the only one and proceed from there as ever. I don’t.

    Actually that’s exactly what you’ve done here:

    Your rather infantile thread copping etc is just that in my opinion, one of the endless series of childish, divisive little “holier than thou” games you clearly enjoy playing.

    I care about the fair treatment of people you don’t care about. Now, I dislike huntstoddard, and you’ve probably already noticed I consider him a self-obsessed fool.

    But I don’t want to see what’ll happen if he shows up in the Lounge and tries to argue with you because you dragged that argument in where it doesn’t belong. I know that’s a recipe for unfair treatment of huntstoddard, who I still want to see treated fairly even though I don’t like him personally.

    Anyway, isn’t it excitingly interesting that in ~5 hours and a number of comments spread across the blog from you

    No, only one other comment, the immediately prior one to rorschach. You’re imagining things.

    that you chose that thread and that time to make your divisive little snipe?

    It was the pre-packaged “don’t criticize me for this comment” which was most objectionable. That was divisive sniping from you, you know.

    You could have done what I did and linked here if you considered my transgression meaningful, but you didn’t. Who escalated the what now?

    I didn’t because there was no reason to. I didn’t make any personal attacks against you. I merely pointed out that what you were doing was not helpful.

    As for the “merits of your arguments”, since the “merits” of your “argument” are derived solely from your assumptions about intent and meaning, they are are irrelevant as wisps of vapour.

    Explain what you mean here. I haven’t mentioned anything about intent or meaning.

    “Well meaning fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

    Oh and not reading things in context, SGBM, as you habitually do when you have a little personal axe to grind, is beyond pathetic and dishonest. Like it or not, my comment “about” Huntstoddard was vastly more to do with my own limitations than anything to do with him/her.

    Oh, I can see that. I don’t see how it makes your personal attack against huntstoddard into not a personal attack, though — that’s pure magical thinking.

    P.S. By the way, I am more than excitingly aware of my own flaws, hypocrisies, limitations and what not. When I need the likes of you to point them out to me, I’ll let you know.

    “Well meaning fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

  307. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Improbable Joe, is it your contention that “self-obsessed fool” is not a personal attack?

  308. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Haha. I got Nerd of Redhead’s “well meaning fool” line mixed up in there.

    Ahem.

    “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

  309. ChasCPeterson says

    Louis: if “fuck off” is supposed to be self-deprecating then you are operating at levels of irony far beyond my ken. Can you teach me these things?

  310. says

    SG,

    Improbable Joe, is it your contention that “self-obsessed fool” is not a personal attack?

    My “contention” is solely in the words that I typed there. There’s barely even any words there, so I’m surprised you’re having a problem with them. Let’s look back, shall we?

    Louis… sometimes there’s a time to stop and quit when you’re sure you’re right. This seems like one of those times.

    Notice that it is directed at Louis. I’m suggesting that he thinks he’s correct, which is me not taking a side either way… mostly because I don’t care. I’m suggesting he let this go, even though he thinks he’s right.

    And now I’m going to give you the same suggestion that I gave Louis. There are times when you know you’re right, and it is STILL time to stop and drop it. You’ve both said what you have to say, after all. And for fuck’s sake don’t try to rope anyone else into it, especially me!

  311. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    I fear this Hunstoddard person is a self obsessed fool. I know, I know, meanness in the lounge, someone threadcop me (and if anyone does, here is a prearranged “fuck off!”, I am expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination).

    Louis, it doesn’t matter. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed here. At all. There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen here, because you started it here.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

    What context looks like:

    It doesn’t matter that you were expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack even if it does not rise to the level of character assassination. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed in the Lounge. At all. That’s the rules — they actually say “at all.” There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen in the Loung, because you started it there.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

    +++++
    Improbable Joe,

    My “contention” is solely in the words that I typed there. There’s barely even any words there, so I’m surprised you’re having a problem with them

    I was curious. Thank you for sating my curiosity.

  312. Paul says

    I was curious. Thank you for sating my curiosity.

    Man, nobody ever gets curious about what I say, even when I actively try to say curious things! I suck at the internet. Maybe I should try Twitter, instead.

  313. cm's changeable moniker says

    *tiptoes in*

    I’m too tired and drunk to respond

    Spooky! So was I … emphasis on the latter.

    Anyhow, it’s OK. If some people on the internet want to redefine A to mean A+X in their social group, whatever. I’ll be over in Dictionary Corner™ grumbling about being shunned despite supporting X.

    *grumble grumble*

    ;-)

  314. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Paul, try being cryptic — you can take notes from cm’s changeable moniker.

    :p

  315. Paul says

    Anyhow, it’s OK. If some people on the internet want to redefine A to mean A+X in their social group, whatever. I’ll be over in Dictionary Corner™ grumbling about being shunned despite supporting X.

    You must be a hoot at political gatherings. I bet you loved the “splitters” scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

    /grin

  316. ChasCPeterson says

    de-Lounged:

    If, for instance, refusing to extend equal rights to gay people is prima facie irrational, not coherent with reality,

    yes…

    and if the only justifications for doing so are appeals to a reality we can’t verify — the moral commandments of a deity which is only alleged to exist

    See, there it is. But that’s not the only justification. That was my point.
    Hell, people don’t even need a justification. Just culture. And—perhaps—biology.

    Being an atheist—a stone atheist, 100%–is in no way incompatible with owning slaves, killing Jews, bashing gays, or, I dunno, oppressing a harem of kidnapped teenaged sexslaves or whatever. AFAICT.

    but I’ve never bought this connection from PZ or SC either, so I doubt I’ll engage in further discussion. I’ll read it though.

  317. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Chas,

    See, there it is. But that’s not the only justification. That was my point.

    Yes, I agree with you that it’s not the only purported justification — so my argument perhaps is incomplete. (Perhaps implicitly not incomplete: at the “prima facie irrational” point we would expect other purportedly rational justifications to be offered.)

    The other justifications, upon inspection, are also not logically and empirically coherent with reality.

    Hell, people don’t even need a justification. Just culture. And—perhaps—biology.

    But if people don’t feel like they need justifications for it, then that’s irrational. Rationality involves justifications. Something not yet justified is not based in rationality.

    Obviously people do things, for various reasons, which are not rationally justified. That’s what I’m saying.

    Being an atheist—a stone atheist, 100%–is in no way incompatible with owning slaves, killing Jews, bashing gays, or, I dunno, oppressing a harem of kidnapped teenaged sexslaves or whatever. AFAICT.

    In one important way incompatible:

    doing those things is logically and empirically incoherent with observed reality — and an atheist can’t call on a deity to provide a super-reality.

    So doing those things makes them a shitty atheist who hasn’t thought out the consequences of observed reality.

    +++++
    If you got the impression that I was saying religion is the root of all oppression, then maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but I’d hope you know by now that I recognize other roots. (And that’s not PZ’s or SC’s position either.)

  318. consciousness razor says

    See, there it is. But that’s not the only justification. That was my point.

    I don’t get it. What do you think some of the others are?

    Hell, people don’t even need a justification. Just culture. And—perhaps—biology.

    What do you mean? What is it about a culture or something biological which isn’t a justification that causes them to refuse extending equal rights to gay people? How would that work? People support some social policy, and they don’t even attempt to justify it with anything? What would they do instead?

    SGBM makes a good point that it wouldn’t be “rational,” unless I’m misunderstanding you (a definite possibility, given my questions), but I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying.

    Being an atheist—a stone atheist, 100%–is in no way incompatible with owning slaves, killing Jews, bashing gays, or, I dunno, oppressing a harem of kidnapped teenaged sexslaves or whatever. AFAICT.

    The issue was whether it was rational or coherent, not whether there exist atheists who do that shit. It’s like the accommodationists arguing for the compatibility of science and religion by citing the existence of religious scientists. There certainly are such people, but that’s missing the point.

  319. cm's changeable moniker says

    you can take notes from cm’s changeable moniker

    Have I been promoted to … role model?

    This is alarming. And, if true, deeply unwise.

  320. Paul says

    Have I been promoted to … role model?

    This is alarming. And, if true, deeply unwise.

    This definitely sounds cryptic. Unfortunately, you’re making SGBM’s point.

  321. cm's changeable moniker says

    This definitely sounds cryptic. Unfortunately, you’re making SGBM’s point.

    Only if you’re unfamiliar with the context.

    We’re joking (joshing, spraffing). I hope.

    (And since I’m a danger-loving poster, I’m not even gonna preview.)

  322. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why are the bloody italics still here?

    Don’t see them with FireFox v14 and MacOS SnowLeopard.

  323. strange gods before me ॐ says

    It is the position of the Central Committee of Commenters on Pharyngula that I have no sense of humor, and do not read for context.

    Because I do not fully understand their comments, I hereby accuse Paul and cm both of making jokes — cryptic jokes.

    Put them in the iron maiden.

  324. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You know my entire worldview is based on Wyld Stallyns, with added hedonism.

    Welcome to the future. San Dimas, California, 2688. And I’m telling you it’s great here. The air is clean, the water’s clean, even the dirt, it’s clean. Bowling averages are way up, mini-golf scores are way down, we’ve abolished suffering in all sentient life. And we have more excellent water slides than any other planet we communicate with.

  325. says

    Fuck me but Louis can get a persecution complex going on.

    And a fuckin’ real life tough guy, to boot. Ain’ no holdin’ him down, no sir.

    His terms.

    His terms.

    What is it about SGBM that makes people feel he’s out to get them personally? He’s out to get everybody, for fucks sake.

  326. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Dear Josh, Official SpokesGay:
    Yeah, you irked me, all right. Yes, I am consistently irked by some repeated behavior. Some of it–a lot of it, actually–is yours. Yes, the truth is that you irk me a lot. I think you’re a hyperjudgemental asshole.

    Dear ChasCPeterson,

    I am, sometimes, a hyperjudgmental asshole. And believe it or not, I get how some people can find my personality exceedingly grating. It’s not to everyone’s taste, but then, neither is yours. Few of us are omni-palatable.

    I do appreciate your post on the Point On Atheism thread just the same. Thank you.

  327. chigau (違う) says

    Rev
    I don’t get any of the recent conversation:
    italic self-indulgent humor
    or something.
    We saw bears today and they probably saw us so we called for air-support.

  328. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    What a cornucopia of magic! The Wyld Stallyns will be most triumphant.

    Also, the next video in the Youtoob vid queue was Herman Li. I love Herman Li. I LOVE HERMAN LI!

    Also, I don’t think Rejection of all of these isms follows logically from atheism alone. Or if it does, I don’t see it. Can you break it down in the form of
    Premise: there is no god.
    Some argument.
    Conclusion: People should be treated fairly.
    ?

    Or some such? Because I think some other premise must be necessary to reach that conclusion.

  329. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I don’t get any of the recent conversation:

    I don’t either. So I default to self-indulgent humor.

    (Are you seeing the italics? I’m not. But I think we can safely blame Owlmirror.)

    We saw bears today and they probably saw us so we called for air-support.

    In the future, we have a boat.

    +++++

    Also, I don’t think Rejection of all of these isms follows logically from atheism alone.

    Not alone, but from other things that also happen to be evident, and would’ve need a magical skyhook (god) to override them.

    I’ll modify the argument to deal with Chas’s objection:

    If, for instance, refusing to extend equal rights to gay people is prima facie irrational, not coherent with reality,

    and if all the justifications raised thus far concerning reality have also been shown to be irrational

    and if the only other justifications for doing so are appeals to a reality we can’t verify — the moral commandments of a deity which is only alleged to exist —

    then if that god isn’t believed to exist, then because the homophobic value isn’t coherent with observed reality and no god can be called upon to supply the value from a super-reality,

    there’s no coherent way to be an atheist who wants to deny equal rights to gay people.

    (And it’s trivial to extend this to racism and sexism.)

  330. strange gods before me ॐ says

    So, as the magical skyhook is not present, denying equal rights to gay people is incoherent, et cetera.

  331. strange gods before me ॐ says

    … the bears will get us?

    That explains why Stephen Colbert is still a Christian.

    +++++
    Maybe simpler:

    Denying equal rights to gay people is not ethically coherent with what’s verifiable about the world. It is unempirical and therefore incoherent to do so.

    Such homophobia could, in divine command theory,* be justified by values imposed by a deity from a super-reality.

    But atheists do not believe in deities, and cannot use such appeals to super-realities, so atheists are stuck with what’s verifiable about the world. An atheist who wants to deny equal rights to gay people, then, is incoherent.

    *Divine command theory is dubious (read: obviously evil) even if a deity does exist, but whatevs.

  332. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    If, for instance, refusing to extend equal rights to gay people is prima facie irrational, not coherent with reality,…

    Maybe a language thing, but how can you say that such a refusal is incoherent with reality when it is reality?

    I can see how one could come to the empirical conclusion that such a practice is contra the goal of preserving well-being, but then we have to take the desire to preserve well-being as axiomatic.

    If one chooses a different axiom, I think that one can be rational, atheist, and still be a complete fucker.

  333. consciousness razor says

    If, for instance, refusing to extend equal rights to gay people is prima facie irrational, not coherent with reality,…

    Maybe a language thing, but how can you say that such a refusal is incoherent with reality when it is reality?

    Yeah, it’s just an ambiguous bit of language. The reality is that people do refuse equal rights to gay people. The reality is also that their reasons for that refusal don’t agree with the parts of reality which aren’t themselves that refusal. (It would be circular to justify it with itself, so that wouldn’t be valid.)

    I can see how one could come to the empirical conclusion that such a practice is contra the goal of preserving well-being, but then we have to take the desire to preserve well-being as axiomatic.

    I don’t think that’s an axiom. That’s just reality. We have that desire, because we evolved to live as social beings on a finite planet, where we need to cooperate for a limited amount of resources and where we’re only physically capable of doing so many things to make that happen.

    If one chooses a different axiom, I think that one can be rational, atheist, and still be a complete fucker.

    It’s not just an arbitrary choice, like you make it sound. They have to be useful for doing something or thinking about things in the real world. So they don’t all allow for rationality. You can get consistency with a lot of things (though a contradiction could be hiding somewhere in the background), but consistency isn’t enough for rationality. You’re irrational if you believe communist aliens abducted Obama and replaced him with a Kenyan Muslim, even though your views on it might be consistent.

  334. Louis says

    Tkreacher,

    Fuck me but Louis can get a persecution complex going on.

    Your reading, not my intent. Think what you will. The original “fuck off” in my original post was humour, the second (and subsequent) “fuck offs” to SGBM and sundry, yourself included if it makes you feel special, are sighs of annoyance at the drivel of personal grudges and hobby horses from humourless muppets playing a disingenuous card of “I see no other meaning here” so they can tilt at whatever windmill they like.

    If you want me to capitulate in the face of what I consider pathetic idiocy…erm…why? I know what “moral” argument SGBM is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle. I know what snipe Chas is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle. Why do I have to pretend these people are honest interlocutors in these matters when it’s my opinion that they aren’t? Seriously, they aren’t worth the slime from the end of my dobber, why waste serious consideration on them?

    Louis

  335. Louis says

    It is the position of the Central Committee of Commenters on Pharyngula that I have no sense of humor, and do not read for context.

    And Tkreacher claims *I’m* the one with a persecution complex. Oy vey.

    Louis

  336. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You know I’m the Central Committee of Commenters on Pharyngula, right?

    It’s a Hyperon-era joke. Maybe you had to be there.

  337. strange gods before me ॐ says

    The original “fuck off” in my original post was humour,

    A bit more than that, it was an attempt to deflect criticism even though you knew you were doing something wrong by bringing “meanness in the lounge”.

    the second (and subsequent) “fuck offs” to SGBM and sundry, yourself included if it makes you feel special, are sighs of annoyance at the drivel of personal grudges and hobby horses

    You’re the one evincing a personal grudge here, Louis. My “hobby horse” is that people shouldn’t be treated unfairly. I know what happens when someone shows up in the Lounge to defend themselves against personal attacks — and I’ve seen it happen to other people besides me.

    There is a place here, right here, the Thunderdome, where you can make those personal attacks and if the other person wants to defend themself they won’t be treated unfairly for it. It’d be nice if you’d use it.

    from humourless muppets

    Hey, I don’t make the rules:

    There’s no joking in Thunderdome.

    playing a disingenuous card of “I see no other meaning here” so they can tilt at whatever windmill they like.

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    I fear this Hunstoddard person is a self obsessed fool. I know, I know, meanness in the lounge, someone threadcop me (and if anyone does, here is a prearranged “fuck off!”, I am expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination).

    Louis, it doesn’t matter. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed here. At all. There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen here, because you started it here.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

    What context looks like:

    It doesn’t matter that you were expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack even if it does not rise to the level of character assassination. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed in the Lounge. At all. That’s the rules — they actually say “at all.” There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen in the Loung, because you started it there.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

    I know what “moral” argument SGBM is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle.

    Yes, the argument is that it’s unfair for you to consider yourself above the rules which apply to everyone else. Do you disagree with that?

    I know what snipe Chas is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle.

    That telling people to “fuck off” is not self-deprecating? He’s right.

    Why do I have to pretend these people are honest interlocutors in these matters when it’s my opinion that they aren’t?

    The argument is important whether you think I honestly care about it or not.

    “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

  338. Louis says

    A bit more than that, it was an attempt to deflect criticism even though you knew you were doing something wrong by bringing “meanness in the lounge”.

    Here starteth and endeth your problem. Until you abandon this unevidenced claim, a claim you can never and will never have any evidence other than your gut for, no conversation is possible.

    It’s not true, you cannot know this, and you are deliberately playing this interpretation to make one of you asinine “ethical” points in the absence of any consideration of fact.

    Louis

  339. Louis says

    Yes, the argument is that it’s unfair for you to consider yourself above the rules which apply to everyone else. Do you disagree with that?

    And I don’t, do you understand that? Is there no other possible understanding or ethical dimension that is possible here? Is the simple existence of “{name} + {conditional clause}* + {less than complimentary comment}” immediately raised to the level of “personal attack”? You might think so, I don’t. Not for any particularly convenient reason as it happens, just because I have a different, and apparently higher bar, for what constitutes a personal attack.

    I know what’s going on SGBM, why you pretend, or why anyone pretends differently is beyond me.

    You have this hobby horse to ride, this windmill to tilt at about differential treatment between “regular” commenters and “newbie”/”unpopular” commenters. You have this as an article of faith from your particular ethical stance of pseudo-objective utilitarianism. It’s a particular twist that deliberately ignores how human societies evolve in fact, how game theory applies to simple ethical considerations (like for example simple considerations and “iterative prisoner’s dilemmas”), how pragmatism and other mixed ethical systems apply, how history is rationally useful etc etc in fact it ignores everything you consider inconvenient for you simply because they would get in the way of you picking this particular nit.

    Why treat you as an honest interlocutor in this when I don’t think you are?

    This is YOUR problem, not mine. You don’t like what I said, how I said it, or what interpretation you can force onto it? Fine. No skin off my nose. There is more than one way to skin a cat after all. Don’t expect me to buy into your premises when they are specifically, shallowly, and in my opinion dishonestly, adhered to to allow you to work out the kinks in your own psychology. Not every group dynamic is bullying and you are not the lone knight on a charger of reason. Whatever fantasy you might have.

    Why engage the rest of your drivel when it is predicated on a convenient and deliberately false interpretation?

    Louis

    *Ignored by you I note…as usual.

  340. Louis says

    “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

    1) Repeating this does not make it true.

    2) I moved to the lounge because any conversation with you, especially about this, eventually devolves into abuse. Let’s be blunt, if you were being honest, and I have no reason to think you are, you’d have linked your original complaint to here for discussion. That you didn’t do so only makes me think this little aside of your is cheap point scoring.

    Again: I do not think of you as an honest interlocutor in this, why treat you as such?

    Louis

  341. Louis says

    Oh and Chas is trolling. He rarely misses a chance to snipe, he’s not right simply because he reinforces your particular interpretation.

    “Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it.”
    George Saintsbury, A Last Vintage, p. 172

    Being capable of making some feeble “joke” is not evidence of a sense of humour. Finding the humour even in something one dislikes, finds abhorrent, or does not find funny, is. It doesn’t follow that the specific humour is then appropriate or agreed with or excused, just that it is comprehended as humour. The ability to put yourself in the other’s shoes and, no matter how wrong, see their point, their humour, has demonstrable value. That you act as if you think it doesn’t in these cases is more than a little telling.

    Louis

  342. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    But atheists do not believe in deities, and cannot use such appeals to super-realities, so atheists are stuck with what’s verifiable about the world.

    Hidden premise: that “super-realities” (aka the supernatural) necessarily entail deities.

    Implication: that atheists necessarily believe that the supernatural entails deities.

    (What about the paranormal, or is dowsing right out? ;) )

  343. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Here starteth and endeth your problem. Until you abandon this unevidenced claim, a claim you can never and will never have any evidence other than your gut for, no conversation is possible.

    Oh. So you were deflecting criticism for something you knew was against the rules but still didn’t think was wrong. Okay. Noted.

    It’s not true, you cannot know this,

    It probably was true, and we can have strong evidence of it, from your own words. But hey, okay, another plausible interpretation is offered above.

    and you are deliberately playing this interpretation to make one of you asinine “ethical” points in the absence of any consideration of fact.

    No, my ethical point stands even if you didn’t know what you were doing is wrong. Consequentialism is true regardless.

    Is the simple existence of “{name} + {conditional clause}* + {less than complimentary comment}” immediately raised to the level of “personal attack”? You might think so, I don’t.

    That really depends on the content of the comment.

    If you’d said “huntstoddard is bothering me” then that would also be less than compliementary, but would not obviously be a personal attack.

    Calling anyone a “fool” of any kind is prima facie a personal attack. It is not simply less than complimentary. It’s calling them a fool, and that’s a personal attack. You cannot coherently deny this.

    You seem to think your intention makes it not a personal attack. That is a false assumption. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of intention — they are personal attacks because of their content.

    Not for any particularly convenient reason as it happens, just because I have a different, and apparently higher bar, for what constitutes a personal attack.

    Ah, but you’re objectively wrong, and you can’t justify your claim.

    I know what’s going on SGBM, why you pretend, or why anyone pretends differently is beyond me.

    You have this hobby horse to ride, this windmill to tilt at about differential treatment between “regular” commenters and “newbie”/”unpopular” commenters.

    Why would you accuse me of pretending differently when I just said “There is nothing wrong with my pointing out that the rules should not be considered to apply only to non-regulars like huntstoddard but waived for beloved commenters like yourself” ?

    I said that. Not you. You flatter yourself by taking credit for uncovering some Great Secret about my motivations.

    You have this as an article of faith from your particular ethical stance of pseudo-objective utilitarianism.

    Article of faith is of course a misnomer. It follows from utilitarianism.

    It also follows from most deontologies, and most virtue ethics, though I wouldn’t make the argument that way.

    I think most people, whether utilitarians or not, understand that it’s fair to treat people fairly.

    It’s a particular twist that deliberately ignores […]

    No, it doesn’t, but as you’ve never bothered to participate in these discussions there’s no point in acting like you’re interesting in understanding how it doesn’t.

    Why treat you as an honest interlocutor in this when I don’t think you are?

    What don’t you think I’m honest about?

    You don’t think I honestly care about how outsiders are treated because of my utilitarianism?

    You just said that I do. Do you simulateously claim that this is my motivation and not my motivation?

    This is YOUR problem, not mine. You don’t like what I said, how I said it, or what interpretation you can force onto it? Fine. No skin off my nose.

    And I’m also allowed to object to what you said. You can tell me to fuck off, and I can ask you to nevertheless think about what I said,

    because it is still true that I requested you to keep personal attacks out of the Lounge because I don’t like to see what happens when someone shows up to defend themself and gets piled on — and most other people here don’t like that either. That’s why we have Thunderdome, so that people can say mean things to each other.

    There is more than one way to skin a cat after all. Don’t expect me to buy into your premises

    I’ve never expected that you’re capable of understanding the arguments anyway.

    when they are specifically, shallowly, and in my opinion dishonestly, adhered to to allow you to work out the kinks in your own psychology.

    The evidence against this is that I was a deontologist when I arrived here — KG chided me for it and warned me it was a broken mode of thought. It took me a couple more years to understand that he was correct.

    Not every group dynamic is bullying

    I haven’t claimed such.

    and you are not the lone knight on a charger of reason.

    Actually there are several other people here who I’m almost entirely in agreement with, so I’m certainly not alone.

    In any case I am just as much allowed to argue what I believe to be true as anyone else is.

    *Ignored by you I note…as usual.

    What’s your point here? “I think you’re a jerk” is just as much a personal attack as “you’re a jerk”.

    1) Repeating this does not make it true.

    Repeating it makes your error obvious, though.

    “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. Is it preferable to prevent escalating personal attacks in the lounge? [Your taking this argument here to Thunderdome suggests you think it might be.] If it is preferable, then it should be done, and my asking you to do so is a legitimate request for a legitimate goal.

    2) I moved to the lounge because any conversation with you, especially about this, eventually devolves into abuse.

    Entirely one-sided, from you, I note. I’ve tried to be kind to you throughout.

    Let’s be blunt, if you were being honest, and I have no reason to think you are, you’d have linked your original complaint to here for discussion.

    Wow, man, that’s really, really weird.

    Why is it important for me to link it when you didn’t? The discussion was with you. It’s you I’m trying to get through to. In any case — and this is only in retrospect, since this is the first time I’ve thought about whether or not there should have been a link made, by me, and not you, what a weird thought — I think it was evident to anyone who cared where the discussion started at the time, since it was current on both Lounge and Thunderdome at the time.

    But if it bothers you so much, and you’re incapable of linking it yourself, here you go:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/19/lounge-359/comment-page-1/#comment-436466

    The whole gallery can reference it. I’m sure everyone besides you and me really cares at this point.

    That you didn’t do so only makes me think this little aside of your is cheap point scoring.

    What’s cheap? What’s the point being scored?

    I’m asking you to think about the same thing I asked you before:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/19/lounge-359/comment-page-1/#comment-436481

    Louis, instead of getting personally defensive, please think about what I said. [The Lounge] isn’t the place for personally attacking other Pharyngula commenters, and there’s a reason for that — it tends to drag contentious arguments from other threads into [that] one.

    Again: I do not think of you as an honest interlocutor in this,

    What don’t you think I’m honest about?

    You don’t think I honestly care about how outsiders are treated because of my utilitarianism?

    You just said that I do. Do you simulateously claim that this is my motivation and not my motivation?

    why treat you as such?

    I expect that doing so could avoid a lot of tangents. You bring up these claims about my honesty (really weird claims too), and then we discuss them endlessly, when you could probably save a lot of time and effort by sticking to the issue of personal attacks and why they’re not supposed to happen in the Lounge.

    Oh and Chas is trolling. He rarely misses a chance to snipe, he’s not right simply because he reinforces your particular interpretation.

    He happens to be right that telling other people to fuck off is not self-deprecation — that much is obvious.

    Whether or not he’s also sniping doesn’t make him not correct. I think he was sniping, too.

    Whether or not he’s also trolling doesn’t make him not correct. I do not think he was trolling.

    Finding the humour even in something one dislikes, finds abhorrent, or does not find funny, is. It doesn’t follow that the specific humour is then appropriate or agreed with or excused, just that it is comprehended as humour. The ability to put yourself in the other’s shoes and, no matter how wrong, see their point, their humour, has demonstrable value. That you act as if you think it doesn’t in these cases is more than a little telling.

    You seem to be asking me to compliment you on your humor, Louis.

    I can’t say the comment about huntstoddard contained any humor, because it was too trite.

    Your Private Eye reference elicited a chuckle. You’re a very funny man.

    However, adding humor to a personal attack does not make it okay, and certainly does not have any demonstrable value of lessening the hurt. Often it makes it more hurtful.

    If you’re also asking me to tell you that your sense of humor makes you a good person, I really don’t see it. Sorry. I think you’re a pretty alright fellow in any case, but I don’t believe that humor is an important part of it. You’d be pretty alright if you evinced no sense of humor.

    You insist that I should see some value that you see in your humor, some moral worth, it seems, which is like so obvious to you that you can’t even understand you ought to explain it — and it’s telling of something if I don’t, though what it tells also isn’t obvious — yet at the same time you think it’s absurd for me to ask anyone to engage with my moral arguments. Just absurd on its face. Don’t you find that funny? I do.

  344. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Hidden premise: that “super-realities” (aka the supernatural) necessarily entail deities.

    No hidden premise. No such claim is made.

    There is no evidence for super-realities, thus super-realities are not coherent with observed reality, thus anyone who believes in super-realities is not coherent.

    Implication: that atheists necessarily believe that the supernatural entails deities.

    False again. Why do you keep getting this so wrong?

    Atheists who believe in supernatural entities are incoherent, because supernatural beliefs are not coherent with observed reality.

  345. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    There is no evidence for super-realities, thus super-realities are not coherent with observed reality, thus anyone who believes in super-realities is not coherent.

    […]

    False again. Why do you keep getting this so wrong?

    Leaving aside that it’s possible to have coherent yet unevidenced beliefs*, theists who believe in supernatural entities are incoherent, because supernatural beliefs are not coherent with observed reality.

    So, gods have nothing to do with theism (and therefore it’s non-acceptance we call ‘atheism’)?

    When did ‘atheist’ become synonymous with ‘has no incoherent beliefs’, and stop being about belief in god(s)?

    (I see: dowsing and numerology are right out!)

    * Shit! To be an atheist one must also be an empiricist?

    (No-one who believes in Kirlian photography or the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs is an atheist, eh?)

  346. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Leaving aside that it’s possible to have coherent yet unevidenced beliefs*,

    It’s not possible to have unevidenced beliefs which are coherent with observed reality. If they were coherent with observed reality then they would not be unevidenced.

    theists who believe in supernatural entities are incoherent, because supernatural beliefs are not coherent with observed reality.

    Correct; they are incoherent people.

    So, gods have nothing to do with theism

    Gods evidently do have something to do with theism.

    When did ‘atheist’ become synonymous with ‘has no incoherent beliefs’,

    Uh, it didn’t. Indeed there are a lot of incoherent people in the world, people who hold a lot of beliefs incoherent with observed reality

    Them who hold beliefs incoherent with observed reality, and don’t believe in gods, are incoherent atheists. Them who hold beliefs incoherent with observed reality that would be more coherent if a god existed, but don’t believe in gods, are incoherent atheists in a particularly stupid way that makes them stupid and bad atheists, bad at being atheists.

    * Shit! To be an atheist one must also be an empiricist?

    To be coherent with observed reality one must be an empiricist.

  347. strange gods before me ॐ says

    (No-one who believes in Kirlian photography or the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs is an atheist, eh?)

    They’re stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

  348. Louis says

    SGBM,

    1) And again, you proceed only from interpretations and assumptions that suit you. In the absence of any evidence, simply your interpretation, hilariously claimed to be “objective” in part. Joy!

    2) Bigger hint, since this seems to be confusing you:

    Appearance of defensiveness for purposes of comedy =/= actual genuine defensiveness. It may even in fact, shock horror, be part of a joke at one’s own expense, for example cupidity, trusting nature, naivety, willingess to engage the obviously muppetacious etc. Clues may have been given in general tone or postscripts, they usually are.

    Appearance of annoyance at yet again being roped into the SGBM Show About How His Ethics Are So Wonderful And He is So Objective = actual genuine annoyance.

    ZOMG It’s like those things are totally different and everything! It’s like the first use of fuck off and the second were like, totally different and everything! WOW! Nuance in language, who knew?

    3) I insist nothing about seeing value in any humour, let alone mine. I do insist that you are capable of acknowledging something is humour, and that that humour modifies arguments of intent (an argument by the way you are specifically making with regards to defensiveness and what not). Your interpretation of some words is not the only one and is hardly objective. Especially as it is suspiciously convenient for you to ride your hobby horse. (I don’t believe I was claiming credit for noticing this, I just notice this, have before, and will again, this is hardly the first time. Nice attempt at irrelevance though).

    Louis

  349. Louis says

    Oh and 4) Lack of engagement with SGBM on this issue on this or any other blog =/= lack of interest or ability to comprehend those subjects/arguments.

    Thank you for playing. Enjoy your hair.

    Louis

  350. strange gods before me ॐ says

    1) And again, you proceed only from interpretations and assumptions that suit you. In the absence of any evidence, simply your interpretation, hilariously claimed to be “objective” in part. Joy!

    Dude, it is objectively true that calling someone a fool is a personal attack.

    If you’d said “huntstoddard is bothering me” then that would also be less than compliementary, but would not obviously be a personal attack.

    Calling anyone a “fool” of any kind is prima facie a personal attack. It is not simply less than complimentary. It’s calling them a fool, and that’s a personal attack. You cannot coherently deny this.

    You seem to think your intention makes it not a personal attack. That is a false assumption. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of intention — they are personal attacks because of their content.

    Appearance of defensiveness for purposes of comedy =/= actual genuine defensiveness.

    It was the way that you acted like I’d attacked you, Louis, which made you appear defensive. It really came off that way.

    I’m not married to this matter, so I’ll be happy to drop it. There is something more important here. So:

    You’ve never been defensive, ever.

    Appearance of annoyance at yet again being roped into the SGBM Show About How His Ethics Are So Wonderful And He is So Objective

    Dear God.

    Louis, you brought all this shit up. I did not. You brought up my utilitarianism. I’m capable of discussing the matter without relying on that. I can discuss it deontologically if you prefer. It’s not a big deal to me.

    You made it be about this. Not me. All I wanted was for you to consider:

    Louis, instead of getting personally defensive, please think about what I said. [The Lounge] isn’t the place for personally attacking other Pharyngula commenters, and there’s a reason for that — it tends to drag contentious arguments from other threads into [that] one.

    3) I insist nothing about seeing value in any humour, let alone mine. I do insist that you are capable of acknowledging something is humour, and that that humour modifies arguments of intent (an argument by the way you are specifically making with regards to defensiveness and what not).

    Dude, if this is what you’re fixated on, I’ll happily grant all of it to you. There you go. Your wonderful hilarious intent is teh humour. You have never been defensive, ever.

    Your interpretation of some words is not the only one and is hardly objective. Especially as it is suspiciously convenient for you to ride your hobby horse.

    Dude, it is objectively true that calling someone a fool is a personal attack.

    If you’d said “huntstoddard is bothering me” then that would also be less than compliementary, but would not obviously be a personal attack.

    Calling anyone a “fool” of any kind is prima facie a personal attack. It is not simply less than complimentary. It’s calling them a fool, and that’s a personal attack. You cannot coherently deny this.

    You seem to think your intention makes it not a personal attack. That is a false assumption. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of intention — they are personal attacks because of their content.

    (I don’t believe I was claiming credit for noticing this,

    Well, here’s the fucked up thing, then:

    I know what’s going on SGBM, why you pretend, or why anyone pretends differently is beyond me.

    You did claim I was pretending otherwise — otherwise than that it’s about the way outsiders are treated.

    You certainly insinuated that you were uncovering some Great Secret.

    Nice attempt at irrelevance though).

    So would you like to admit that you did in fact claim I was pretending something I was not pretending?

    Do you have it in you to admit one mistake?

    +++++
    Now, to the point:

    Do you agree that if huntstoddard is a self-obsessed fool (for I certainly agree that he is), that would make him more likely, not less likely, to show up in the Lounge and want to defend himself from that very charge?

    Do you agree that that occurance would be disruptive in the Lounge?

    Do you agree that that should be avoided, for the sake of others?

    (Do you agree that that should be avoided, for the sake of even treating huntstoddard fairly? This one is bit of a tangent, but I’d like to know.)

    Do you agree that that could be avoided by having made your comment about huntstoddard here in Thunderdome instead?

  351. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Oh and 4) Lack of engagement with SGBM on this issue on this or any other blog =/= lack of interest or ability to comprehend those subjects/arguments.

    The thing is, it’s all discussed here quite often by others, and you show no ability to participate, so I do think you are incurious and incompetent.

  352. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    They’re stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

    So they are atheists, right?

    Why then does the paranormal qualify, in your view, yet the supernatural doesn’t? :)

  353. strange gods before me ॐ says

    So they are atheists, right?

    Stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

    Why then does the paranormal qualify, in your view, yet the supernatural doesn’t? :)

    Why do you falsely claim this about me?

    Atheists who believe in anything supernatural are stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

  354. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    Atheists who believe in anything supernatural are stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

    In a nice inversion, I’ve already responded to this in the Lounge — seeing as the conversation has gone in parallel between the two domains.

    Anyway, I shan’t respond further in the lounge for some time, lest I breach PZ’s new rules.

    (But this is TD!)

  355. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Anyway, I shan’t respond further in the lounge for some time, lest I breach PZ’s new rules.

    Eerie; I just got the same notion and said so over there.

  356. John Morales says

    [meta]

    ॐ, over at the Lounge you just wrote:

    By the way, I get the feeling we’re making too many comments too fast for the Lounge here. Would you be willing to move it over to the Thunderdome?

    (I point to #448 and salute you)

  357. Louis says

    SGBM,

    You are AGAIN proceeding only from your interpretations and assumptions, you are ignoring phrasing, conditionality, the way that comment was framed and the obvious, stated humorous intent, which yes, does dramatically modify the nature of that comment. Context, and obvious humour is part of that, matters. That’s all fine and dandy but you are trying to claim your interpretation is somehow binding on me when it isn’t.

    {1) and 2) and 3)}Do you agree that if huntstoddard is a self-obsessed fool (for I certainly agree that he is), that would make him more likely, not less likely, to show up in the Lounge and want to defend himself from that very charge?

    4) Do you agree that that occurance would be disruptive in the Lounge?

    5) Do you agree that that should be avoided, for the sake of others?

    6) (Do you agree that that should be avoided, for the sake of even treating huntstoddard fairly? This one is bit of a tangent, but I’d like to know.)

    7) Do you agree that that could be avoided by having made your comment about huntstoddard here in Thunderdome instead?

    Numbering mine. In numerical order:

    1) I fear that X is Y (and thus I have been doing Z) {conditional clause, not necessarily emphasising the Yness of X} =/= X is Y (and thus I have been doing Z)

    Especially when the first half of that “equation” is obviously couched as humour. It makes it stark…well to anyone without an agenda.

    2) Is Huntstoddard a self obsessed fool? I genuinely don’t know or care, NOR WAS THAT THE POINT OF WHAT I WAS SAYING IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT! The simple use of the word “fool” is insufficient. You are trying to remove that word from its context to make a specific claim. No dice, old bean!

    Ever made a joke about…and I have no idea what this is called in the USA…being a “nutter magnet”? I.e. you always “seem” (see: confirmation bias etc) to be the person the one man band masturbating garlic enthusiast seems to sit next to on the bus. The person who the nutjob in the pub seeks out. The joke isn’t about “oh woe is me these lesser mortals target me”, the joke is about a) confirmation bias, b) self pity, and c) if true, WHY (i.e. what qualities I possess that encourage this) these things keep happening to “me”.

    It’s a joke about one’s own flaws done through the lens of pointing out supposed flaws in others. One finger points out, three point back etc. The comedy lies in the juxtaposition of the apparent criticism of another whilst being deliberately, overtly unaware of the potential criticism of the self. The idea is to laugh at the joker, not the superficial object. That’s what the original “fuck off” was in there for, to make that over the top faux defensiveness obvious. Hell, there was even a postscript about the level of frustration being exaggerated for humour to hammer this point home. AND YOU STILL AREN’T GETTING THIS!

    3) I have no idea whether or not this individual is more or less likely to turn up to “defend” himself from anything (if you understand that anything uncomplimentary I said about him was tangential to the much more uncomplimentary things I was implying about myself, you might grasp this). If he did and was in high dudgeon I would have directed any further conversation here. That’s not to say I think the original comment was out of line, just to say that subsequent comments derived from high dudgeon might be. If he’d shown up and not reacted in high dudgeon, I might have dealt with it there in a milder manner. The situation would change depending on the reaction.

    4) If I was doing what you claim, then yes, it would be. But I’m not. A fact you seem to be struggling to grasp.

    5) As above.

    6) The “fairly” part of this depends on whether or not you understand the humour. Not whether you agree with it, but whether you understand it. The “fairly” part depends on whether or not you make certain ethical judgements about certain values and is a book length tangent. Whilst I might be interested in this discussion generally, whether or not I am interested in having this discussion with YOU is a different ballgame. Make of that what you will. I’m not sure I could be clearer…I can try. It involves the word fuck a lot.

    7) That depends. It could have been vastly less highlighted by you letting it slide (if you considered it such an issue). Not that I think that’s a good idea to be honest (I don’t), but you are claiming a serious issue exists where it doesn’t because it fits your particular agenda (not Super Secret btw, very obvious). This does not map well to the sexism in atheism/harassment at conferences issue for example. So claiming that Huntstoddard is a victim of something hideous and thus any complaint about his/her treatment is unjustified is not the same extent of issue as that one. The appropriateness of a response is in part modified by the severity of the issue.

    I see a million things a day (underestimate) that I let slide. I have to to focus on other, hopefully more substantial, almost certainly more enjoyable, things. BTW I’m not claiming it’s a secret that you have a bee in your bonnet about some aspects of the commenting culture here, you importing that insinuation is, again, your own affair. Seriously, it’s your problem that you think this was some great “TahDah!” moment on my part. It’s not. If I were a betting man, and luckily I am, I would have put a goodly amount of hard cash on you and a couple of other agenda grinders to be the first to reach for the thread cop cape, and particularly on this issue. It was simply a matter of time before I or anyone else did something that allowed you to climb back on that horse and tilt at that windmill. Oh and I’m relatively certain that I’m not the first one, IIRC. I wouldn’t care either way if I were, I’m just saying that given the way PZ phrased those rules it was more than obvious that certain people, you at the top of the list, would be using them as a cudgel to batter your issues onto a thread.

    Do you have it in you to admit one mistake?

    a) Since I have done this dozens of times on this very blog, I think everyone knows the answer is “yes”.

    b) Physician heal thyself.

    Oh and as for the “pretend” thing, fuck me deftly is your ability to parse the written word really so poor? Look up the conditional tense some time, look at where that sentence is in a paragraph look at how its phrased and what’s around it. That might aid in reading for comprehension rather than Fisking for point scoring.

    Louis

  358. Louis says

    SGBM,

    The thing is, it’s all discussed here quite often by others, and you show no ability to participate, so I do think you are incurious and incompetent.

    So lack of participation here = lack of ability to participate therefore I am incurious and incompetent.

    LOL

    Could you be any more of a pathetic fuck up?

    Louis

  359. Louis says

    Oh and referring to my #455, I don’t discuss sexism with frank Hoggle. You might want think about why this applies here.

    Louis

  360. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You are AGAIN proceeding only from your interpretations and assumptions, you are ignoring phrasing, conditionality, the way that comment was framed and the obvious, stated humorous intent, which yes, does dramatically modify the nature of that comment.

    Louis, You are AGAIN proceeding only from your interpretations and assumptions.

    None of your interpretations and assumptions makes calling huntstoddard a self-obsessed fool not a personal attack.

    This is objective. It is not based in either of our opinions about how much it might be hurtful — a personal attack doesn’t actually have to be hurtful.

    It is objective with reference to the fact that you were making a comment which disparages huntstoddard, personally.

    That’s all fine and dandy but you are trying to claim your interpretation is somehow binding on me when it isn’t.

    Louis, it is objectively true that calling someone a fool is a personal attack.

    If you’d said “huntstoddard is bothering me” then that would also be less than compliementary, but would not obviously be a personal attack.

    Calling anyone a “fool” of any kind is prima facie a personal attack. It is not simply less than complimentary. It’s calling them a fool, and that’s a personal attack. You cannot coherently deny this.

    You seem to think your intention makes it not a personal attack. That is a false assumption. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of intention — they are personal attacks because of their content.

    {conditional clause, not necessarily emphasising the Yness of X}

    States the Yness of X, regardless of emphasis. This is a personal attack.

    2) Is Huntstoddard a self obsessed fool? I genuinely don’t know or care, NOR WAS THAT THE POINT OF WHAT I WAS SAYING IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT! The simple use of the word “fool” is insufficient. You are trying to remove that word from its context to make a specific claim. No dice, old bean!

    I’m not trying to remove it from any context. I’ve acknowledged all the context you want to acknowledge, numerous times. It’s just that it doesn’t make it into not a personal attack.

    Context, all over again:

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    I fear this Hunstoddard person is a self obsessed fool. I know, I know, meanness in the lounge, someone threadcop me (and if anyone does, here is a prearranged “fuck off!”, I am expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination).

    Louis, it doesn’t matter. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed here. At all. There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen here, because you started it here.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

    What context looks like:

    It doesn’t matter that you were expressing moderate frustration, not character assassination. “Self obsessed fool” is a personal attack even if it does not rise to the level of character assassination. There are no personal attacks against other Pharyngula commenters allowed in the Lounge. At all. That’s the rules — they actually say “at all.” There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    If huntstoddard reads this and wants to defend himself, where’s that argument going to happen? It’s going to happen in the Loung, because you started it there.

    There is a place for you to express all the frustration you want. Please use it.

  361. strange gods before me ॐ says

    2) I moved to the lounge because any conversation with you, especially about this, eventually devolves into abuse.

    Entirely one-sided, from you, I note. I’ve tried to be kind to you throughout.

  362. strange gods before me ॐ says

    The joke isn’t about “oh woe is me these lesser mortals target me”, the joke is about a) confirmation bias, b) self pity, and c) if true, WHY (i.e. what qualities I possess that encourage this) these things keep happening to “me”.

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    It’s a joke about one’s own flaws done through the lens of pointing out supposed flaws in others. One finger points out, three point back etc. The comedy lies in the juxtaposition of the apparent criticism of another whilst being deliberately, overtly unaware of the potential criticism of the self. The idea is to laugh at the joker, not the superficial object. That’s what the original “fuck off” was in there for, to make that over the top faux defensiveness obvious. Hell, there was even a postscript about the level of frustration being exaggerated for humour to hammer this point home. AND YOU STILL AREN’T GETTING THIS!

    I have been getting this the whole time.

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    +++++
    Here’s the thing, though: you actually can make that joke without including a personal attack at a particular individual, which you did in the case of huntstoddard.

  363. Louis says

    Entirely one-sided, from you, I note. I’ve tried to be kind to you throughout.

    And entirely derived from my annoyance at what I consider your disingenuous thread copping, deliberate lack of understanding, and IMO genuine pointlessness on this issue.

    Not every “fuck off” is a defence you know. Some times, juuuuust sometimes, they are (shock horror) the expression of annoyance with a particularly bothersome moron.

    Louis

  364. hugo says

    just venting, I don’t mind the ads in the RSS stream but lately it’s become more ads than content and most of the times a lot of double ads

  365. Louis says

    There isn’t an exception for “no personal attacks unless you are expressing moderate frustration”.

    You do get the frustration is non-existent, right? You do get that it exists only as part of the joke?*

    Seriously, you’re not getting that no word of that whole comment was serious or representative of any reality. I even made that explicit! It’s like things must only be appreciated on the one level you are willing to permit.

    Louis

    * The budgie, an annoying fucker, in my house keeps chirruping. Fucking budgie. I’m going to stick it up my arse, feet first, I’m not a maniac, and back towards a fan to kill it. I’m going to cover it in petrol and set it on fire. I’m going to hammer it to death with a pineapple.**

    ** No actual budgie was harmed in the course of this joke. No frustration with budgie actually exists. The joke is not about budgies. The budgie may or may not be an annoying fucker even if it does exist. It just doesn’t matter to the point of this joke.

  366. strange gods before me ॐ says

    If he did and was in high dudgeon I would have directed any further conversation here.

    That’s wishful thinking. It’s more difficult than you might think to make that happen.

    It’s better to avoid it in the first place.

    4) If I was doing what you claim, then yes, it would be. But I’m not. A fact you seem to be struggling to grasp.

    You seem not to have understood the question.

    4) Do you agree that that occurance [huntstoddard showing up to defend himself] would be disruptive in the Lounge?

    5) As above.

    You seem not to have understood the question.

    6) The “fairly” part of this depends on whether or not you understand the humour.

    Yeesh. No, it depends on something rather different.

    It depends on whether you recognize that someone who’s not known here as a regular, showing up to defend himself against personal attacks, might not be afforded the same lenience you are afforded to make personal attacks in the Lounge.

    Again you seem to have misunderstood the question:

    6) (Do you agree that that [occurance, huntstoddard showing up in the lounge to defend himself] should be avoided, for the sake of even treating huntstoddard fairly [since it would be happening in the lounge and nonregulars are treated somewhat differently there than they are here]?

    7) That depends. It could have been vastly less highlighted by you letting it slide (if you considered it such an issue).

    In retrospect it appears that’s true, but I really didn’t expect you to react like this.

    Nevertheless, it’s better for us all if we (and that includes you) don’t make personal attacks in the lounge, and it’s better for us all if we (and that includes you) don’t pre-package a deflection of criticism into those attacks. And since you pre-packaged said deflection so blatantly, it really looked like you did not understand this part of the rules:

    “TET will become [Lounge]. It is still the same: an open thread, talk about what you want, but I’m going to be specific: it is a safe space. Discussion and polite disagreement are allowed, but you will respect all the commenters, damn you. No personal attacks allowed at all.

    Now, I didn’t make any personal attacks at you in there. I just wanted to point this out to you since you appeared not to understand it — and you still appear not to understand its importance, since you keep failing to acknowledge what happens when someone tries to defend themself in there.

    Not that I think that’s a good idea to be honest (I don’t), but you are claiming a serious issue exists where it doesn’t

    Wrong. It has been observed already in the past.

  367. Louis says

    Let me guess, the budgie joke is encouraging of cruelty to budgies, or encouraging of a culture where budgie cruelty is tolerated. It couldn’t be that the joke is not highlighting a serious inequality or problem in budgie treatment, but instead using hyperbole to make humorous reference? It couldn’t be that budgie cruelty is actually an entirely fictional issue that doesn’t map onto any real issue…

    Oh what’s the use. This isn’t about rational engagement, it’s about satisfying Javert’s sanctimony.

    Louis

  368. Louis says

    SGBM,

    I understood all the questions, I do not accept your premises. You are not understanding this. You do not understand why and you are making claims for which you have no evidence (claims of intent, claims of interest etc). There is no point pretending this is an honest discussion. On this issue, in this way, I consider you manifestly incapable of it based on PRESENT evidence, not on absence of contrary evidence.

    Louis

  369. strange gods before me ॐ says

    This does not map well to the sexism in atheism/harassment at conferences issue for example. So claiming that Huntstoddard is a victim of something hideous and thus any complaint about his/her treatment is unjustified is not the same extent of issue as that one. The appropriateness of a response is in part modified by the severity of the issue.

    What a bizarre bunch of word salad.

    I didn’t claim that huntstoddard is a victim of something hideous.

    You’re really not making sense now.

    BTW I’m not claiming it’s a secret that you have a bee in your bonnet about some aspects of the commenting culture here, you importing that insinuation is, again, your own affair.

    Yet you claimed I was pretending otherwise:

    I know what’s going on SGBM, why you pretend, or why anyone pretends differently is beyond me.

    Seriously, it’s your problem that you think this was some great “TahDah!” moment on my part. It’s not.

    Well that’s nice to hear. So why did you claim I was pretending otherwise?

    I’m just saying that given the way PZ phrased those rules it was more than obvious that certain people, you at the top of the list, would be using them as a cudgel to batter your issues onto a thread.

    No, man, really I don’t like the rules. But I want to see them apply to everyone equally. That’s what I want. If the rules said “fighting and personal attacks are totally cool in the lounge” then I’d want to see that apply to everyone. I just want fairness.

    a) Since I have done this dozens of times on this very blog, I think everyone knows the answer is “yes”.

    Then why aren’t you doing it?

    b) Physician heal thyself.

    Dude, I did. I granted you your humor modified your intent. See that part where I granted it? You wanted me to note that, you thought it was very important, I didn’t think so, but I can see that it’s important to you so I’m acknowledging it. Maybe this would have gone better if I had acknowledged it before —

    wait, wait, I did acknowledge it earlier:

    Louis, I find it interesting that you suggest I was saying something I clearly did not say:

    that your comment referring to huntstoddard was not vastly more to do with your own limitations than anything to do with him,

    or that you were attempting character assassination, or that you were not expressing moderate frustration.

    I have said none of those things. You’re not reading my comments in context.

    — but now I’m acknowledging it even harder. You were making a joke. Some of it was supposed to be at your expense. I see all of it. So brilliant, your joke.

    Oh and as for the “pretend” thing, fuck me deftly is your ability to parse the written word really so poor?

    So you weren’t accusing me of pretending otherwise — otherwise than that it’s about the way outsiders are treated?

    You haven’t been perfectly clear about this, that’s why I’m asking.

    So lack of participation here = lack of ability to participate therefore I am incurious and incompetent.

    You do participate in other things here which you evince competence and curiosity about. So yeah, the lack of participation on certain matters does seem to imply a lack.

    Oh and referring to my #455, I don’t go out of my way to discuss sexism with frank Hoggle. You might want think about why this applies here.

    Are you saying everyone at Pharyngula is bad at such discussions? I mean, if you’re not saying that, what are you saying? My point wasn’t simply that you don’t discuss it with me, but that you don’t discuss it with anyone.

    Maybe you’re quite brilliant about it but the thing is I just don’t see it. And I do see you do other things competently. So, given all the opportunities you pass up, I wonder why.

    And entirely derived from my annoyance at what I consider your disingenuous thread copping,

    Again,

    What don’t you think I’m honest about?

    You don’t think I honestly care about how outsiders are treated because of my utilitarianism?

    You just said that I do. Do you simulateously claim that this is my motivation and not my motivation?

    deliberate lack of understanding,

    I promise you, I am doing my best to understand you. I want this argument to end sooner rather than later.

    and IMO genuine pointlessness on this issue.

    You’re of course entitled to that opinion, but I don’t see why it has to lead to you tossing out so much abuse. You know, given that I’m going to reply to it all, you could limit the amount of content you read from me by limiting any unnecessary interjections.

    Not every “fuck off” is a defence you know.

    I already granted you this; I don’t know why you’re acting like I didn’t.

    You do get the frustration is non-existent, right? You do get that it exists only as part of the joke?*

    Okay, but a lack of frustration doesn’t make the personal attack into not a personal attack. I’m not sure why you think the frustration is so important here. Whatever degree of frustration you say was present, I’m agreeing to.

    Seriously, you’re not getting that no word of that whole comment was serious or representative of any reality.

    One was: “huntstoddard”. It’s representative of a person. A commenter here at Pharyngula, who you called a self-obsessed fool. That’s a personal attack, best avoided in the lounge.

    I even made that explicit! It’s like things must only be appreciated on the one level you are willing to permit.

    Dude, this is so far out it doesn’t make sense. I’ve been agreeing to every characterization of your comment that you’ve made, except your denial of the objective fact that it involved a personal attack.

    Let me guess, the budgie joke is encouraging of cruelty to budgies,

    Since you asked: probably to a degree. You know that, right? But I didn’t think it was worth focusing on.

    It couldn’t be that budgie cruelty is actually an entirely fictional issue

    https://google.com/search?q=budgie+abuse

    I understood all the questions, I do not accept your premises.

    No, you evidently did not understand all the questions. For example:

    4) Do you agree that that occurance [huntstoddard showing up to defend himself] would be disruptive in the Lounge?

    You answered as though your opinion about what you said to huntstoddard has any bearing on whether or not that occurance [huntstoddard showing up to defend himself] would be disruptive in the Lounge.

    You do not understand why and you are making claims for which you have no evidence (claims of intent, claims of interest etc).

    No, no I’m not. What claims of intent have I made? Where? Quote me.

    There is no point pretending this is an honest discussion.

    Again,

    What don’t you think I’m honest about?

    You don’t think I honestly care about how outsiders are treated because of my utilitarianism?

    You just said that I do. Do you simulateously claim that this is my motivation and not my motivation?

  370. ChasCPeterson says

    Gotta love the Dome. This is top-drawer procrastination fodder right here.

    1. Josh: I apologize for my intemperance (albeit honest). I guess we understand–and irk–each other.

    2. atheism plus or not?

    In one important way incompatible:
    doing those things is logically and empirically incoherent with observed reality

    and if all the justifications raised thus far concerning reality have also been shown to be irrational

    SGBM makes a good point that it wouldn’t be “rational,”

    After some thought, I agree with that. I guess I am simply sticking to the dictionary thing. The reality of what the word ‘atheist’ means outside of the blogosphere. Both descriptively and prescriptively, it does not entail humanitarian values, or empiricism, or even rationalism. That’s reality–the reality of the term we’re talking about.
    My point all along has simply been that the vast majority of people are not rational empiricists, yet some of them are still honest no-shit atheists. If you ask them, “Are you an atheist?” they can reply with an intellectually honest “yes”.

    So doing those things makes them a shitty atheist who hasn’t thought out the consequences of observed reality….
    They’re stupid, shitty atheists, who are bad at being atheists and should feel bad.

    Still disagree. They’re stupid shitty unthoughtful irrational people (who also happen to be atheists).

    People support some social policy, and they don’t even attempt to justify it with anything?

    Correct. Gay-bashers are not in general motivated by religious fervor or even religious give-a-shit. They simply feel a visceral disgust and violent anger (no doubt motivated by deep psychological conflicts and inadequacies etc.)–there need be no actual justification in mind for hate.
    Or the justification need not be rational. ‘People who are not of our clan need not be treated fairly’ is sufficient if taught early and deep. ‘My grandfather told me about the time…’ might even do.

    It’s like the accommodationists arguing for the compatibility of science and religion by citing the existence of religious scientists.

    It’s not like that. Atheism ≠ rationality. But I repeat myself with the dictionary thing.

    I just don’t do ideological redefinition well.

    3. Louis

    The original “fuck off” in my original post was humour

    It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t even obviously intended as humor. Now that I know that it was intended (somehow) as humor? Still isn’t funny.

    I know what snipe Chas is trying to make…Why do I have to pretend these people are honest interlocutors

    yeah, the point I was trying to make via that snipe was the exact one that I typed: it’s very difficult to see telling people to fuck off as in any way self-deprecating. Intent notwithstanding. What’s dishonest about that?

    Chas is trolling.

    Certainly not trolling, as I make no attempt to actually elicit a response of any kind. Just sniping.

    He rarely misses a chance to snipe

    That’s actually not true either. I edit myself a lot. (Especially since I can’t get the damn killfile script to work on this laptop.)

  371. says

    Louis, @427

    Your reading, not my intent.

    Wow, Louis. My reading, as I stated pretty clearly, was that you took SGBM’s behavior as part of a personal vendetta:

    What is it about SGBM that makes people feel he’s out to get them personally? He’s out to get everybody, for fucks sake.

    I mean, that can’t be any more obvious.

    You say I’m reading your intent wrong when you explicitly confirm,

    annoyance at the drivel of personal grudges

    So… yeah.

    Which is strange because you later go on to intimate my point about SGBM likely having an issue with anyone on this matter,

    It was simply a matter of time before I or anyone else did something that allowed you to climb back on that horse and tilt at that windmill. Oh and I’m relatively certain that I’m not the first one, IIRC. I wouldn’t care either way if I were, I’m just saying that given the way PZ phrased those rules it was more than obvious that certain people, you at the top of the list, would be using them as a cudgel to batter your issues onto a thread

    As in not some personal grudge against you, but rather just how he is.

    That was my whole fucking point. Heh.

    Think what you will. The original “fuck off” in my original post was humour, the second (and subsequent) “fuck offs” to SGBM and sundry, yourself included if it makes you feel special

    I didn’t think anything about the “fuck offs” and wasn’t addressing them. But it does make me feel like a butterfly covered in snowflakes under cloud breaking sunshine, thanks.

    If you want me to capitulate in the face of what I consider pathetic idiocy…erm…why? I know what “moral” argument SGBM is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle. I know what snipe Chas is trying to make, it’s not exactly subtle. Why do I have to pretend these people are honest interlocutors in these matters when it’s my opinion that they aren’t? Seriously, they aren’t worth the slime from the end of my dobber, why waste serious consideration on them?

    I don’t post here as often or prolifically as many, so I won’t go so far as to say you should know that I’m not the kind of person to tell someone they ought to just fall in line and not stick up for themselves if they feel wronged – but I’m not.

    My “And a fuckin’ real life tough guy, to boot. Ain’ no holdin’ him down, no sir.

    His terms.

    His terms.”

    Was just a jab at how “I don’t answer to anyone, I don’t need you, I do as I please” you got. And, this actually goes into my final point, it was meant to be humorous. You were giving off a Riddick vibe to me.

    I do a great Vin Diesel impersonation and I literally was using his voice out loud while writing that. (Off topic and obscure footnote for any movie buffs, the “his terms… his terms” was patterned after how cryo-sleeping Riddick says, “but what route… what route” at the beginning of Pitch Black)

    But what I said is what I said, and whether or not I had my tongue in my cheek as I was typing is irrelevant to the words that end up on the screen.

    A humorous intent isn’t magic. And frankly, this is the only reason I ever look at any of your posts sideways. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you attempt to claim that humorous intent is magic.

    So, I saw SGBM’s behavior as consistent in both regard to SGBM and the lounge, rather than some dishonest, personal grudge against you just because you carry a shiv and you’ve had your eyes shined to better see in the dark.

    And… well, I don’t really know where I’m going with this post any more. I’m really not that invested in the whole thing since we don’t have a Louis Hatfield and TK McCoy thing going on.

    So… I’ll just end this comment in a fizzle.

    Let me add a no-hearted, passion-free fuck off, so I can give some respect to the Thunderdome and whatnot.

  372. ChasCPeterson says

    …only now do I see that I just replicated much of the parallel discussion @ the Lounge. Sorry.

  373. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    I don’t think that’s an axiom. That’s just reality. We have that desire, because we evolved to live as social beings on a finite planet, where we need to cooperate for a limited amount of resources and where we’re only physically capable of doing so many things to make that happen.

    I’m fine with the assertion that we are intrinsically cooperators. This doesn’t mean that the desire to maximize well-being extends any farther than to those with whom we cooperate. Even within that group, it is apparent that cooperation is provisional.
    In short, reality (to me) seems too complex to provide prima facie evidence that bigotry is irrational, without being premised by commitment to goals that are far from universally held. I can think of non-hypothetical situations in which atheists and groups of atheists have benefitted from sexist behavior. These examples represent humans behaving functionally as cooperators, and scapegoating others to increase community status. This is I think completely in line with the reality of most communities of humans. Pessimistic as that may be.

  374. Paul says

    He rarely misses a chance to snipe

    Heh, if you think that, you must not have been around long. He’s really toned it down.

    My point all along has simply been that the vast majority of people are not rational empiricists, yet some of them are still honest no-shit atheists. If you ask them, “Are you an atheist?” they can reply with an intellectually honest “yes”.

    First off, if it’s not clear I’m not actually arguing with you. Just riffing.

    I’m sure you noted this already, but for the peanut gallery the conversation wasn’t about intellectual honesty, it was about coherence and rationality (which their value structure may yet be, but by sheer luck or coincidence). Although I wouldn’t be surprised if SGBM would consider any who have insulated themselves from challenging any with ideas validating inequality/mistreatment of others intellectually dishonest.

    The good news, I suppose, is that if they’re truly intellectually honest about rationality and atheism, they should be easy to lead to the no sexism/racism/homophobia watering hole. If they are not, I don’t see why we should coddle them, and still consider them “good atheists”. It should be fair game to follow that equal treatment follows quite readily from application of rationality and the observation that there is not any evident higher power that justifies mistreatment of certain populations.

    After a lot of the skeptic/atheism flareups over the last year or so I was really in the Brownian camp, not really interested in the labels anymore. But after following some of the fallout from this A+ thing, SGBM has me wanting to appropriate the atheism label again. Thanks.

  375. KG says

    What is it about SGBM that makes people feel he’s out to get them personally? He’s out to get everybody, for fucks sake.

    As Yossarian said when it was pointed out to him that “they” were trying to kill everybody, not just him: “What difference does that make?” ;-)

  376. says

    In response above my defeatism isn’t limited to “oh there are sexists “. It is a seriously phylisophical view point I’m looking over in regards to the value of publically expressed rationality. I’m not on board with a+ though partner is but I think its better than trying to reinvent the wheel. The culture and community of nmuch of skepticism and atheism as much as I enjoy it does not make me feel welcome. Its mentioned I have friends who I feel uncomfortable associating with skepticism and atheism around because of hate heavily promoted in those groups towards them. I don’t appriciate it being viewed as defeatism for not wanting to be around assholes who don’t want me around or give money to orgs I think are gonna fuck me over. And as a side note there’s a bit of a religiousesq “shame the backslider” so fuck that

  377. Paul says

    What is it about SGBM that makes people feel he’s out to get them personally? He’s out to get everybody, for fucks sake.

    The truly bizarre regular occurrence is people who think SGBM is out to get them where they’re defending themselves against charges he didn’t make (and where what they’re arguing is pretty identical to what he was already saying). Good example on the Lounge this morning.

  378. consciousness razor says

    I’m fine with the assertion that we are intrinsically cooperators.

    Uh, I didn’t want to imply we’re only cooperators*, but does this mean you agree that it’s not an axiom? That is independent of how we bridge the is-ought gap (which is difficult, but we have to do it somehow or we stop doing ethics), since it’s only dealing with what kind of “is” we’re starting from — an axiomatic principle or an empirical observation.

    *Human societies are complicated and shit. And I’m not a scientist (social, biological or any other kind), so I won’t try to go into it right now or pretend I understand all the nuances. However, I think the evidence we have does back up something like this picture. I could try to be more specific, but I’m not sure what the point of contention might be. I also don’t have much time right now.

    In short, reality (to me) seems too complex to provide prima facie evidence that bigotry is irrational, without being premised by commitment to goals that are far from universally held.

    They don’t need to be universally held. I’m not claiming everybody does in fact have all the same goals which they think should apply to everyone else — I know that’s false. The claim is that everyone ought to have those goals because those are in fact the goals that do more good. I could be wrong about it, but it wouldn’t be wrong simply because other people think so, but because there’s a valid reason for thinking so.

    And in case this comes up, doing more good is not a value I’m imposing so that I can sneak in my own ethical system. That’s just what any ethical system is concerned with demonstrating. If you’re not trying to do that, you’re not trying to do any kind of ethics.

    I can think of non-hypothetical situations in which atheists and groups of atheists have benefitted from sexist behavior.

    Why should we care about some kind of Randian “rational self-interest”? I’m sure there is some benefit which someone derives from sexist behavior, but that’s beside the point. The point is that there is more benefit for more people when we avoid sexist behavior. That is a fact. You can’t cite the existence of some benefit in an ethical system and treat it as equivalent to greater benefits in other ethical systems, because that would be contrary to the facts.

  379. KG says

    If one chooses a different axiom, I think that one can be rational, atheist, and still be a complete fucker. – Antiochus Epiphanes

    Yes, I agree. If one chooses the axiom (and some atheists do):
    Only my own interests matter
    then one not only can but very probably will be a complete fucker. But not many of them acknowledge doing so, since that would not generally be in their interests; and as a consequence, it’s hard to tell how many such atheists there are. It is hard to see how such an atheist could coherently hold sexist, racist or homophobic beliefs (since these are inconsistent with empirical evidence), but it could easily be to their advantage to pretend to do so, particularly if they are highly privileged. I would judge that most of the slimepitters and others of that kind are not rational psychopaths*, but instead are fooling themselves that their prejudices are rationally justified.

    As to what this means for atheism+… I’ll come back to that when I’ve thought it through.

    *I’m using the term in its philosophical sense.

  380. says

    As Yossarian said when it was pointed out to him that “they” were trying to kill everybody, not just him: “What difference does that make?” ;-)

    Heh.

    No, I get that. I’m not saying someone shouldn’t defend themselves against what they think is an unfair or trivial admonishment just because the person admonishing them seems to be consistent in their admonishment.

    What I mean is that claiming the behavior is a “personal grudge” when the behavior is consistently applied to everyone is poisoning the well. Particularly when one is also claiming the behavior is intellectually dishonest.

    This isn’t the first time I’ve seen Louis do this when in an argument with SGBM.

    What I see is SGBM admonishes X for Y. SGBM admonishes Z for Y. Repeat a few more times with alternate letters followed by “for Y”.

    Then SGBM admonishes Louis for Y and Louis starts talking about a “personal grudge” and dishonesty and bad faith with an implication that these are a result of some grudge.

    It just doesn’t mesh to me.

  381. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I don’t appriciate it being viewed as defeatism for not wanting to be around assholes who don’t want me around or give money to orgs I think are gonna fuck me over. And as a side note there’s a bit of a religiousesq “shame the backslider” so fuck that

    Ing, I was a little bit apprehensive that you’d feel that way, which is why I wanted to make sure I emphasized the ♥, and I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way anyway. I really didn’t mean anything shameful about it. I don’t blame you for not wanting to be around assholes (and I’ve never said that you should want to).

    Referencing your and Brownian’s arguments, with your nyms, was a way to get a handle on the phenomenon — since you two I’m familiar enough with to think that I understand your motivations. Nevertheless, I’ll leave out mention of you in the future. I apologize for bothering you personally about it.

  382. oolon says

    Hi, anyone know what happened to Lady Greys post on the Coffee Loving Skeptic site?
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-8e-sY0hMEcJ:coffeelovingskeptic.com/%3Fp%3D1717+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    It was a really good take down of the eponymous Coffee Loving ones hate-on for PZ, RW and FTBullies etc… Given it was titled my first and possibly last post and Tony Ryan made a little squeaky comment saying ‘an email would have done’ I wonder how it got deleted?

    I took the piss out of CLS recently on TFs blog where he was joining in saying Comradde Physioproffe is the worst blogger here. My point being he cannot say much as he is called a hater on his own blog, so this going undermines my point!

  383. 'Tis Himself says

    The truly bizarre regular occurrence is people who think SGBM is out to get them where they’re defending themselves against charges he didn’t make (and where what they’re arguing is pretty identical to what he was already saying).

    I don’t think SGBM is out to get me personally. I know he doesn’t give a shit about me. After all, I’m a white, cis-hetero, healthy, intelligent male. As far as he’s concerned, I don’t push any of his “can’t say anything nasty about them” buttons. He can’t feel superior to me by “protecting” me against oppression, so I’m nothing to him.

    He pushed one of my buttons big time but since I’m nobody he has any sympathy for, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that. Besides in his mind he’s justified insulting me, so he doesn’t feel obligated to apologize for insulting me and people like me.

  384. Paul says

    @483

    You quoted me, but I don’t really see that what you’re saying has any bearing on what I said. Just checking that you’re not expecting any real response, and it was just buying some context?

    He pushed one of my buttons big time but since I’m nobody he has any sympathy for, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that.

    I wouldn’t call “clarifying his intent, which he did in that same thread and in a couple threads where you brought it up subsequently” as “not giving a rat’s ass”, but I really don’t intend on touching your feud with a ten-foot pole. I fit in the same general demographic as you (well, I’m not strictly “white”, but I look white enough that it never really mattered), and I suffered some of the same social issues that resulted in your “button”. Perhaps I am biased by not having participated in the thread when it happened, but my take-away on reading it was significantly different than yours (please note that I am not telling you how you should feel). And I have never felt shunned or neglected here because I don’t need “protection against oppression”, even though my favorite posters have always been those tackling social justice issues.

  385. strange gods before me ॐ says

    ‘Tis Himself,

    I don’t think SGBM is out to get me personally. I know he doesn’t give a shit about me. After all, I’m a white, cis-hetero, healthy, intelligent male.

    You are making false claims. I care about people qua people. You don’t get special consideration, but you shouldn’t be concerned about that.

    As far as he’s concerned, I don’t push any of his “can’t say anything nasty about them” buttons.

    That’s a weird distortion. Indeed, it’s not a social problem if someone calls you a cracker. I have nevertheless objected to calling white people crackers. Not because it’s a social problem — it’s not — but because it simply isn’t helpful.

    And it’s not a social problem if someone mocks you for being a breeder. And it’s not a social problem if someone says “die cis scum” to you.

    However, your many privileges do not mean that hurting you in every way imaginable would be acceptable.

    The evidence against your specific claim here, as I’ve pointed out numerous times now, is that I did acknowledge that my original phrasing of “picked on” seemed to present a contrast with bullying per se, I have clarified I meant no such contrast, bullying is bullying for both queer and non-queer kids, and again I regret that misleading phrasing which was my fault.

    I apologized specifically to Chas — who, you’ll note, is a white, cis, hetero, healthy, intelligent male — because Chas objected to something that I did in fact say. Specifically the “picked on” phrasing, which had a plausible hurtful reading which I wanted to disavow.

    He pushed one of my buttons big time but since I’m nobody he has any sympathy for, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that.

    I didn’t say what you claim I said. And you know that I didn’t say what you claim I said. I have sympathy for you as a person, but it is not my fault that you pretend I said something I didn’t say. I will not grovel before you and pretend that you were right to make false claims.

    Besides in his mind he’s justified insulting me, so he doesn’t feel obligated to apologize for insulting me and people like me.

    I have in fact apologized to people like you. I specifically will not apologize to you for saying something I didn’t say. I would apologize to you if I’d said something worth apologizing for.

    Anyway, you said:

    If you don’t bring the subject up again I won’t either. I’ll neither forgive nor forget but I won’t mention it if you don’t.”

    Yet you keep making bringing it up, to make the same false claims.

    I did not say what you claim I said. I will not apologize for saying something I didn’t say. That would not be honest.

  386. Louis says

    tkreacher,

    I don’t think SGBM has a personal grudge against me, I think his dishonesty is of a different stripe. You can quote mine me (which you did, read that whole sentence you quote in context, there’s other options and “translations”) all you like. I know what I think better than you know what I think. Like SGBM you are insisting what you think I am saying is true and trying to find ways to make it that way. You have to ignore a number of other things I’ve said to do so. Why, isn’t there a word for something like that?

    I’ll state it explicitly, I definitely don’t think what SGBM does is personal to me (or likely anyone) at all. I do think it serves an agenda he, in my opinion, has and he is not entirely up front about. I think his choice of “ethics” is also quite deliberate and plays into this agenda.

    If you don’t recognise his act of master manipulator to maintain a persecution complex, I can’t help you. It’s manifestly obvious to me. I’ve seen it all before a dozen times in a dozen different people. Just wait for his next round of Javert-esque actions, and the inevitable ennui from PZ, when he’ll plead persecution because other people have done the “same” thing. It’s all in a little file somewhere, a little series of links that he thinks he can use to justify anything. Why else has he taken to the role of “rules cop” with such relish? It’s hardly like he’s beyond enjoying the fruits of social currency when it suits him to. This is a game he plays, it’s not a game I have a great deal of respect for (obviously) but it’s game that requires more than snipping the odd word out of context to observe, see the whole pattern.

    He sets bars for other people actions and words where it is convenient for him to do so. Look up, he’s done it a few times in this thread already if you’d bother to observe it. Try “not participated in conversation X therefore incapable of conversation X” as a starter. It’s manifestly ridiculous. I don’t begrudge the fuckwit his clearly and obviously designed-to-be-inflammatory “opinion”, but don’t pretend it’s supportable or anything other than convenient. Pull the fucking wool from over your eyes, you’re being played.

    Louis

  387. ChasCPeterson says

    If you don’t recognise his act of master manipulator to maintain a persecution complex, I can’t help you.

    Seriously?
    I honestly don’t think that’s what’s going on.
    I guess you can’t help me then.

    maybe no one can help me

  388. Paul says

    Just wait for his next round of Javert-esque actions, and the inevitable ennui from PZ, when he’ll plead persecution because other people have done the “same” thing.

    You do realize that the last “round of Javert-esque actions” was ‘Tis Himself very openly and vindictively insulting SGBM in TET, right? SGBM was not the aggressor, and wasn’t the one that brought the fight to the lounge.

  389. 'Tis Himself says

    SGBM,

    Your hypocrisy is quite amazing. You harass people relentlessly for “oppressing” people with thoughtless language yet you have no problem triggering me with your thoughtless dismissal of non-gay bullying.

    You are right in one respect. I said I’d drop the subject. I guess your sanctimony and hypocrisy is something I can’t let go. So I apologize to you for that. Now are you going to apologize to me for trivializing something that you said that’s obviously upsetting to me? Or are you too much of a self-righteous asshole to do that?

  390. Paul says

    I should note that SGBM wasn’t even supposed to post in TET at that time. Characterizing any of that situation as a “persecution complex” is just fucking insane. Seriously.

  391. consciousness razor says

    I do think it serves an agenda he, in my opinion, has and he is not entirely up front about.

    What do you think that agenda is? And how exactly does telling people the rules of the lounge play into his nefarious plans, whatever they are?

    ———

    ‘Tis Himself: here, have a nice, healthy “fuck you” for your bullshit on the Blag Hag thread. Feel free to pull your head of your ass long enough to read what people are saying any time you like.

  392. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You do realize that the last “round of Javert-esque actions” was ‘Tis Himself very openly and vindictively insulting SGBM in TET, right? SGBM was not the aggressor, and wasn’t the one that brought the fight to the lounge.

    I should note that SGBM wasn’t even supposed to post in TET at that time.

    Actually I had already been allowed back in TET at that time. But yeah. This was my last prior comment.

  393. strange gods before me ॐ says

    ‘Tis Himself,

    Your hypocrisy is quite amazing. You harass people relentlessly for

    I don’t harass anyone for anything.

    “oppressing” people with thoughtless language

    Why the scare quotes? You don’t believe oppression exists?

    yet you have no problem triggering me with your thoughtless dismissal of non-gay bullying.

    I did not dismiss non-gay bullying.

    I have no problem with apologizing for something I actually did.

    The evidence against your specific claim here, as I’ve pointed out numerous times now, is that I did acknowledge that my original phrasing of “picked on” seemed to present a contrast with bullying per se, I have clarified I meant no such contrast, bullying is bullying for both queer and non-queer kids, and again I regret that misleading phrasing which was my fault.

    I apologized specifically to Chas — who, you’ll note, is a white, cis, hetero, healthy, intelligent male — because Chas objected to something that I did in fact say. Specifically the “picked on” phrasing, which had a plausible hurtful reading which I wanted to disavow.

    I have sympathy for you as a person, but it is not my fault that you pretend I said something I didn’t say. I will not grovel before you and pretend that you were right to make false claims.

    I have in fact apologized to people like you. I specifically will not apologize to you for saying something I didn’t say. I would apologize to you if I’d said something worth apologizing for.

    I did not say what you claim I said. I will not apologize for saying something I didn’t say. That would not be honest.

    Now are you going to apologize to me for trivializing something that you said that’s obviously upsetting to me?

    If I had said something wrong, I would apologize for that.

    If you are willing to admit that you are wrong and you have no real complaint with what I actually said — but that you are still upset simply about the way this argument has gone on for so long, maybe we should talk about that instead. I won’t rule out any possibilities.

  394. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I love! just love the idea that someone thinks I’m an evil mastermind, though. That’s truly flattering. It makes me want to tell you everything.

    You know, seriously though, no shit, I used to think rorschach was an evil genius.

    I know. But people sometimes give weird impressions.

    I do think it serves an agenda he, in my opinion, has and he is not entirely up front about.

    I think I’ve been very clear about my agenda.

    I think his choice of “ethics” is also quite deliberate and plays into this agenda.

    The interesting thing is that my ethics have changed so dramatically since I arrived at Pharyngula — as a natural-rights deontologist, classical liberal and democratic socialist — that if you ask about any particular piece, I can probably point you to the conversations that persuaded me how I’d been wrong.

    My ethics are not so much chosen as they are the last remaining things I can still justify. (Note: I’m actually a bit more optimistic since that writing, since by comparing notes with Fincke I’ve decided I’m not off base to decide that “good” can have an objective meaning as the positively valenced affects.)

    Just wait for his next round of Javert-esque actions, and the inevitable ennui from PZ, when he’ll plead persecution because other people have done the “same” thing.

    This seems to be a manifestly false claim, since I’ve never claimed that other people here have done quite the same things as I do.

    Sounds like confabulation, Louis.

    It’s all in a little file somewhere, a little series of links that he thinks he can use to justify anything.

    Honestly, there’s no file. I have a peculiarly verbal memory for bits of sentences — see? — and Google does the rest.

    Why else has he taken to the role of “rules cop” with such relish?

    You have this hobby horse to ride, this windmill to tilt at about differential treatment between “regular” commenters and “newbie”/”unpopular” commenters.

    I believe you’ve already answered your own question, Louis.

    It’s hardly like he’s beyond enjoying the fruits of social currency when it suits him to.

    It would be amusing to hear what this is supposed to refer to.

    This is a game he plays, it’s not a game I have a great deal of respect for (obviously) but it’s game that requires more than snipping the odd word out of context to observe, see the whole pattern.

    Mwahahahaha!

    (I just thought I should enjoy the flattery while it lasts.)

    He sets bars for other people actions and words where it is convenient for him to do so.

    You know everyone does this, right? It’s how we all navigate life. You did it here:

    Being capable of making some feeble “joke” is not evidence of a sense of humour. Finding the humour even in something one dislikes, finds abhorrent, or does not find funny, is. It doesn’t follow that the specific humour is then appropriate or agreed with or excused, just that it is comprehended as humour. The ability to put yourself in the other’s shoes and, no matter how wrong, see their point, their humour, has demonstrable value. That you act as if you think it doesn’t in these cases is more than a little telling.

    I’m still not sure what your point was, but it obviously had to do with some bar I wasn’t meeting.

    Look up, he’s done it a few times in this thread already if you’d bother to observe it. Try “not participated in conversation X therefore incapable of conversation X” as a starter.

    Yes, let’s look at that in context, shall we?

    It’s a particular twist that deliberately ignores […]

    No, it doesn’t, but as you’ve never bothered to participate in these discussions there’s no point in acting like you’re interesting in understanding how it doesn’t.

    That’s me not bothering to engage with your blatant assertions, because I think it’s a waste of time. I do have some evidence that it would be a waste of time — you only made assertions, without backing them up in any way, and you evince zero awareness of the discussions I have participated in regarding game theory, pragmatism, or history. And I have no evidence that it wouldn’t be a waste of time, since you evince no ability to discuss the matters; again, you merely asserted.

    It’s manifestly ridiculous.

    What’s manifestly ridiculous is acting like I should jump when you say “game theory”. You said nothing of substance. If you want more from me then you’ll have to engage. Otherwise I talk about what interests me most.

    Pull the fucking wool from over your eyes, you’re being played.

    Why, tkreacher hasn’t even yet been offered a position in the TZT politburo, nor any indulgences from the Boltzmann Brontosaurus.

    Of course, these things could be arranged…