You can tell a lot about a neighborhood by its… »« The Amazing Atheist reveals his lack of humanity again

Comments

  1. Lofty says

    GAAAAH!
    Lance Armstrong’s image as America’s clean TDF superhero is now so filthy that elite cycling may never recover.

  2. chigau (みじん切り肝臓) says

    Nepenthe #5
    Bugs are bugs.
    (and my Amelia-rat is a face-hugger)
    wuts yer point?

  3. says

    I’m still puzzled as to why Paul Ryan thought it would be a good idea to pose for Time magazine in workout poses. And the backward baseball cap? I guess Michael Dukakis refused to lend Ryan his tank helmet.

  4. John Phillips, FCD says

    Beatrice from the previous thunderdome, try saying it as woo-ith-greeg where woo is as in what a load of crap, ith pronounced as in with and greeg as in Greek with the k replaced with a hard g. In Welsh, wy, when at the beginning of a word is pronounced wooi and dd is a separate letter of the alphabet pronounced as a hard rather than soft th, as in though and not as in thin. The soft th as in thin is the letter th in Welsh.

    Wy when not the beginning of a word, e.g. gwyn (white) is pronounced gwin as in win. One of my mother’s names is Gwyneira, pronounced gwin eye ra, literally translated as white snow or Snow white. Sadly, living in England and not getting much opportunity to cross the border, I don’t get to use Welsh hardly at all, so it always cheers me up to see it popping up in unexpected places.

  5. JohnnieCanuck says

    It rained off and on most of the day here, which was a welcome end to the record drought we’ve been in.

    Northwet Pacific Coast indeed.

    Umm. This is the Lounge, right?

  6. Orange Utan says

    @Zeno

    I’m still puzzled as to why Paul Ryan thought it would be a good idea to pose for Time magazine in workout poses.

    He’s channeling his inner Putin.

  7. says

    Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Northern Ireland! I’m trying to get a copy of Mark Henderson’s excellent book “The Geek Manifesto” into the hands of each and every member of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly, and could seriously use the help of the Pharyngulites.

    Please have a look at the pledge here: http://www.pledgebank.com/geekmanifulster

    and why it is seriously needed here: http://answersingenes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tiocfaidh-ar-lab-for-science-and-for.html

    If you’d like to be a part of fixing a particularly benighted and religion-addled part of the Western World, I’d be really grateful for your support and re-blogs and retweets!

    Thanks,
    – @shanemuk

  8. Lofty says

    Puppies are cute until they piss on your bed! Puppies are only cute until they grow up! May they remain safely locked up in a picture, forever cute. ;-)

  9. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Puppies are still cute even while they are pissing on your bed. And while they may become slightly less cute after they grow up, they are still quite cute — cuter than adult wolves, who imho are pretty cute themselves.

    Lofty, your cat is pretty cute too. I’m always jarred by the triangular marking. Up close I see it’s not quite a triangle, but it’s still very eye-catching.

  10. Lofty says

    sgbm, meet Oscar. He’s half oriental (my wife got him off a breeder who had a local tom get in)and at 14 he’s still cute in the right light. I just never got such a good pic for an avatar again so he’s it for a couple of different fora. Company for him is a 7 y.o. tortoiseshell female, no fighting thank goodness unlike his previous companion.
    Oh and of course dogs can be cute all the time, just I prefer the aloofeness of cats meself.

  11. thomasbloom says

    I forgot to say, atheists have lots of songs, like “It ain’t necessarily so”, and others. See Dan Barker.

  12. patterson says

    Happy Oglaf day everyone.

    @Zeno

    “I’m still puzzled as to why Paul Ryan thought it would be a good idea to pose for Time magazine in workout poses. ”

    David Duke used to do the same thing, only in a pair of speedos. At least Ryan spared us that.

  13. apucalypso says

    The fun thing about the whole Armstrong doping affair, specifically concerning his Tour De France wins, is that they’ve decided to classify the 7 years where Armstrong won as “no winner”, because a lot of the guys placing after him have admitted to doping or been convicted themselves. So the only thing the Armstrong case does to professional cycling is to prove, that it has basically been a showcase of the ingenuity of the dopers.

  14. says

    Lofty and apucalypso:

    On the subject of elite cycling, William Gibson recently tweeted:
    “I wouldn’t mind competitive bicycling in which teams are assumed to consist exclusively of cutting-edge posthuman constructs.”
    I have nothing intelligent to add to that statement, but I thought it was a cool idea.

    In other news, I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my boyfriend’s mom. She’s supposed to be taking us out to brunch this morning, and I drank enough last night that a big country breakfast is sounding really good right now.
    And, since everyone else is talking about the weather, it is a beautiful 60 degrees and sunny here. This is why autumn is my favorite season.

  15. Dhorvath, OM says

    Didn’t like pro cycling before, still don’t now. I really hate answering customers with negative opinions about the top levels of the sport I am promoting, but the fact of doping and it’s pervasive nature have been clear to me since I started in a shop. It’s sad that the only reason I follow (by which I mean give any mind at all, I don’t seek out information, it’s just part of my culture) grand tours is to see who has been handed suspensions for illicit training aids.

  16. Matt Penfold says

    The fun thing about the whole Armstrong doping affair, specifically concerning his Tour De France wins, is that they’ve decided to classify the 7 years where Armstrong won as “no winner”, because a lot of the guys placing after him have admitted to doping or been convicted themselves. So the only thing the Armstrong case does to professional cycling is to prove, that it has basically been a showcase of the ingenuity of the dopers.

    I noticed during the last Tour de France that Bradley Wiggins and the Sky Team came in for criticism for not being aggressive and attacking enough in their race tactics. Well we know why in recent years the Tour has been noted for the aggressive tactics of teams. It was because the riders were using drugs to enhance their performance. Not surprising then that they could launch attack after attack.

  17. keitho says

    Lots of people are talking about “stealth Christian” novels lately. But there’s another kind of book in town: a stealth atheist novel. “Xmas Carol” is a sci-fi/horror story with ONLY atheist characters (and you’ll love them). The book description says nothing about atheism, making it a “stealth” item. The story will drag people in, and along the way they’ll discover that atheists are people too. Special bonus: the book has two married gay men as its main characters. Seriously, this is the book we all should have written. Check “Xmas Carol” out. Only 3 bucks.

  18. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    What the fuck is it with people that, when they see

    This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.

    Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread

    they immediately go into full-blown “I-can-say-(write)-dirty-words” as if their 6th-grade teacher has suddenly given the students permission to use the seven words?

  19. Hurin, Midnight DJ on the Backwards Music Station says

    POOPY

    I was on board until you said this. Have you no decency sir (or madam)?

  20. dianne says

    @earlycuyler: I’ve said before and will keep saying: There is ample evidence to demonstrate that universal access improves survival. Comparisons between states with expanded medicaid and those without, studies comparing patients with and without insurance, and international comparisons are all fairly clear: lack of health insurance kills. Any politician suggesting policies which will decrease access to health care in the US should be considered a terrorist bent on killing Americans and likely to be more dangerous than the 9/11 terrorists ever could have been. They should be kept out of positions of power if at all possible.

  21. says

    When Romney wins, a lot of credit will be given to the first debate. I can almost see the documentary being called “90 minutes”.

    The reality is that Obama would have been undone by a couple of things:

    1. Persistent high unemployment, even if a sputtered recovery from the depths of hell took place

    2. Money. Obama front-loaded his spending, and got to an unearthly lead, but in the end the corporate SuperPacs were too rich (and yet they spent only 1.2 billion)

    3. The abject disconnect from reality for a significant portion of our population: Look at how think how rich or poor they really are.

  22. UnknownEric says

    I forgot to say, atheists have lots of songs, like “It ain’t necessarily so”, and others. See Dan Barker.

    While we’re talking atheist songs, allow me to plug one of my favorites, Robyn Hitchcock’s “Where Do You Go When You Die?”

  23. says

    Don’t know if anyone else was watching, but Felix Baumgartner has just completed the world’s highest skydive from 128,000 ft/ almost 37km.

    That has to be the most awesome thing I’ve watched all week.

  24. RFW says

    Re atheist novels:

    Jack Vance, the eminent SF writer, has very little religion in his novels. And at least some of what he wrote mocks religion. Example: in one of the four “Planet of Adventure” novels (I think in the second, “Servants of the Wankh”) a shipboard group discuss religion. One girl complains how the priests of her former religion were so familiar (sc. “tended to grope worshippers”), and her new religion is so much simpler, just a few moments first thing in the morning instead of endless droning liturgies.

    In his “Demon Princes” pentalogy (the third, “The Palace of Love”, iirc), there is the worship of the god Kalzibah and the temple of the Sacred Shin in Edmonton, Alberta. (This is set some three millennia in the future.)

    And in another, standalone novel, “Emphyrio”, the characters practice a religion in which the central rite is effectively a complex game of hopscotch.

    Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels also have a strong anti-religious flavor wrapped up in layers of mockery. Offler, the crocodile god, is my fave among his fictional deities.

    None of these are overtly atheistic, but the subliminal message they deliver can’t be mistaken.

  25. Rodney Nelson says

    RFW #40

    Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels also have a strong anti-religious flavor wrapped up in layers of mockery. Offler, the crocodile god, is my fave among his fictional deities.

    One of my favorite Pratchett characters is the golem Dorfl in Feet of Clay:

    Another priest said, “Is it true you’ve said you’ll believe in any god whose existence can be proved by logical debate?”

    “Yes.”

    Vimes had a feeling about the immediate future and took a few steps away from Dorfl.

    “But the gods plainly do exist,” said a priest.

    “It Is Not Evident.”

    A bolt of lightning lanced through the clouds and hit Dorfl’s helmet. There was a sheet of flame and then a trickling noise. Dorfl’s molten armour formed puddles around his white-hot feet.

    “I Don’t Call That Much Of An Argument,” said Dorfl calmly, from somewhere in the clouds of smoke.”

  26. Lofty says

    My favourite Pratchett god is Nuggan. Sooo much the petty and vengeful old testament god. And Quetzovercoatl. Because of the feathers, the deception about size.

  27. Red-Green in Blue says

    Ffaringiwliaid Cymraeg*? Gwych! Bydd rhaid i mi ddarllen Thunderdome yn amlach o hyn ymlaen!

    Bit late to the party, but here’s one of my Welsh favourites: Ethiopia Newydd by Geraint Jarman. A politically charged classic from the late 70s, in the early days of the Welsh-language rock scene.

    * = Welsh-speaking Pharyngulites

  28. opposablethumbs says

    Not forgetting the horrors of Catholicism Omnianism. Who could think of Pterry’s creation Vorbis without a shudder.

  29. cm's changeable moniker says

    Welsh-speaking Pharyngulites

    I’m not sure the plural is warranted.

    You’ve got JP, FCD @#10, but I’m blagging it based on a childhood running around Snowdonia, Llŷn, and Anglesey, plus a hefty assist from Google Translate. :-)

  30. cm's changeable moniker says

    Don’t know if anyone else was watching, but Felix Baumgartner has just completed the world’s highest skydive

    Apparently, due to a steamed up visor, he wasn’t watching either!

    Terrifying and awesome.

  31. tim rowledge, Ersatz Haderach says

    Welsh-speaking Pharyngulites

    Well, Welsh-stumbling Pharyngulite; born in Caerdydd and used to speak kiddy-Welsh, then lost most of it after moving into mainland England. I actually spoke/stumbled six languages as a teen – English, Welsh, French, German, Latin, Russian. All gone now except English and a tiny residue of Welsh that gets used occasionally to talk with my mid-Wales residing nieces.

    What I just adore about Welsh is the total phonetic written nature. You say what is written, you write what is said, including softenings and elisions. So much more logical than English…

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_morphology

  32. A. R says

    [Trans-Pharyngula intercom crackles to life]
    CODE BLUE – THUNDERDOME – CODE BLUE THUNDERDOME
    [A. R comes flying in from PET with the crash cart]

    Pulse is weak! IV, O2, Monitor!
    Administer 0.5 mg Atropine, and prepare to start TCP!
    [Two minutes later] No effect from the atropine, start TCP.
    Good capture, rate at 100 BPM, O2 sat still at 60
    [Three minutes later]
    O2 sat at 50!
    Drop a tube, start mechanical ventilation!

    There we go. That should keep the thread alive for awhile.

  33. chigau (みじん切り肝臓) says

    A. R
    I doubt it.
    It really needs some input from the LoL cannon.
    *kittehs!*

  34. A. R says

    Hmmmm, If I can get the cannon up and running again, I’ll try. (It’s been down since the Great Rule Change)

  35. says

    I’m exhausted, behind on all deadlines, behind on a shitload of stuff I told people I’d get done “tomorrow” sometime in September, and somehow not being on the internet hasn’t given me any more time to get shit done. wtf.

    also, trying to catch up with pharyngulites’ lives by reading the lounge = bad for my bloodpressure.

  36. says

    Has the Thunderdome metastasized in the Lounge?

    no, the argumentative party is simply refusing to follow the rules and take the argument where it belongs.

  37. Aratina Cage says

    There we go. That should keep the thread alive for awhile.

    Uhm, yeah, no. This thread is UNDEAD! You can’t kill it. Muahahahaaaa…

  38. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    It’s unfortunate that one of the combatants with a disdain for T’Dome made a statement contentious enough to be asked to go to T’Dome. You have to give Joe a moment’s leeway. The unexpected outcome for him was obviously disturbing. I feel kind of shitty because I saw his comment, I even had a tinge of ‘This isn’t going to end well,’ and was going to try for an explanation but wandered off somewhere else on the interwebz. By the time I got back, there were broken bottles and ‘Cease and Desist’ notices everywhere.

    I will now go and sit in my shame space.

  39. Lofty says

    The trouble with the Thunderdome is that trolls don’t want to be savaged by wolves, they want to shit in the Lounge. So PZ has to ban them anyway! Eventually TD runs out of quality trolls.
    /sad.
    In other news, that nutcase Austrian skydiver was pinwheeling all the way down until he got enough air resistance to form a dart shape. That wasn’t fog on his visor, it was chunder.

  40. John Morales says

    Lofty:

    Eventually TD runs out of quality trolls.

    All trolls have quality, for certain values of quality — when was there ever such a one that was other than feeble? :)

  41. dianne says

    Hmm…(looks at dead thread lying at her feet). Let’s talk about the ethics of eating animals. (Thread rises from the dead, lumbers off to wreck havoc.)

    Somewhat seriously. It’s clear that agriculture kills animals as well. Has anyone made any serious attempt to calculate the ethics of, for example, eating grass or forest floor fed animals versus grain in terms of lives lost? Are there any food products that can be mass produced with minimal damage to the environment and the people growing/harvesting them? These seem like calculations that should have been done, but I don’t know of any references.

  42. Dhorvath, OM says

    Dianne,
    From a nutritional standpoint can forest critters replace grain? That seems like an invalid comparison to me. Regardless, there is only so much food we can grow in pasture, the more of that which is used to feed cattle or their analogues, the less we can keep to eat ourselves.

  43. dianne says

    From a nutritional standpoint can forest critters replace grain?

    Chickens are forest floor birds. The question is, can you raise enough of them by letting them run around and eat what they want to eat to provide for the needs of 7 billion people? If we have to feed animals grain and then eat them, then obviously that’s no advantage morally because the critters living in the grain die then the animals raised for food die, instead of just the ones in the grain. How many free range chickens and grass fed cows can one raise anyway?

  44. dianne says

    Of course, with climate change, this could all be moot: if the midwest is no longer a food growing region, then we have to think of some other way to get food which might involve more radical changes in diet anyway. More cactus, perhaps?

  45. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Are there any food products that can be mass produced with minimal damage to the environment and the people growing/harvesting them?

    No.

    It isn’t even enough to compare cost of labor/harm to farmer/harm to animal/harm to environment of growing a given foodstuff, the cost of acquiring all the required materials is also necessary: gasoline for tractors, for example.

    The basic problem is two-pronged:

    1. In terms of the planet’s capacity to produce foodstuffs (of all varieties) and the number of mouths with adequate nutrition, our ability to feed ourselves as a species is very near or has already crossed the line into “not possible.”
    2. In terms of what people want to eat versus what is the lowest cost in terms of labor (both monetary and physical work), materials, environmental damage, etc, there is a severe mismatch: as incomes rise, people eat more and more meat than they need, which means that more and more cropland must be dedicated to growing feed. If everyone lived on grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit and beans with meat as an occasional luxury, then we’d be – environmentally, at least – better off and have a better chance of feeding all of ourselves.

  46. Dhorvath, OM says

    My question was more: can any animal food source take staple at the table in the fashion that grains do? It seems readily apparent to me that people can stop eating meat, I know many who do. But to stop eating any and all of our crops seems a harder practice.

  47. dianne says

    I am deeply disappointed in everyone here. No accusations of murder for considering eating meat. No accusations of fascism for considering vegetarianism. Just facts and rational argument. How am I supposed to get angry enough to fill the thread with semicoherent arguments if this continues?

    Also, does anyone know where the nutrition/agriculture literature hides itself? Medline and google scholar have largely failed me and I’m hopeless on other databases.

  48. A. R says

    Dhorvath: Some indigenous arctic populations are quite capable of surviving on animal sourced foods almost exclusively. They do have some weird ass biochemistry though IIRC.

  49. cicely says

    Puppies are cute, but they smell. Better to keep them safely in pictures.

    They smell even worse when they become dawgz.

    Don’t know if anyone else was watching, but Felix Baumgartner has just completed the world’s highest skydive from 128,000 ft/ almost 37km.

    I was watching. I could see a lot of point to it, but couldn’t help (especially as they showed the Long Drop) thinking, “That’s a load of high-octane crazy, right there!”
    -

  50. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    I seem to remember reading that blubber is high in vitamin C.

    Pause while I google it.

    Okay. According to Wikipedia, “Muktuk has been found to be a good source of vitamin C, the epidermis containing up to 38 mg per 100 grams (3.5 oz)” (muktuk is frozen whale skin and blubber) while “Seal blubber has large amounts of vitamin E, selenium, and other antioxidants, which may reduce the effect of the free radicals formed within the body’s cells . . . .” Unfortunately, they also are high in naturally occurring PCBs.

    Weird.

    So my old memory was party right.

  51. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Vitamin C is found in high concentrations in fresh meat, leafy green veggies, and citrus fruits.

  52. ChasCPeterson says

    They do have some weird ass biochemistry though IIRC.

    do you?
    do they?

    You have made a fact claim without any effort whatsoever to reference it or even verify it.

    Why? Why do people do this? Especially while on the internet?

    IIRC, somebody once told me that Mexicans are lazy and Poles are stupid.
    People should give your assertion the exact same weight.

    /grump

  53. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Well, “weird-ass biochemistry” could cover any manner of shit. From a statistical perspective, the fact that some populations of people of European descent maintain their ability to digest lactose after infancy is an oddity. Likewise the lack of functional alcohol dehydrogenase in some populations of people of East Asian descent. I would well be willing to believe that people whose diets are restricted to a single food source (in this case, blubber) would have atypical (from the rest of the species) biochemistry.

  54. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Esteleth,

    I didn’t think that my opinion of SGBM or Morales could get lower than it already was, but…damn.

    You’re speaking from prejudice. I did nothing wrong. In return I had to put up with claims that I was trolling, claims that I came there to wreck things, and claims that I came there to attack or hurt people. All those claims were unfair and hurtful to me, and still I did not escalate. And now you are being unfair to me as well.

    +++++
    trinioler,

    I get there is very probably past history here which makes SG’s request seem more nefarious than it seems to the rest of us.

    I don’t think so. While I don’t know how personally he may have taken any past disagreements, I have never had a fight with Joe before.

    SG, can you please take this past history into account when you interact with Joe in the future?

    Nevertheless, I always take into account past history whenever I interact with anyone.

    If at all possible, maybe get someone else who does *not* have this past history with Joe to ask the questions?

    In any case, though, no, I would never agree to a request like this. I have had disagreements with every regular here. And I am not happy with the idea of asking other people to act as a proxy for me, getting themselves to take the heat when the questioned person reacts badly.

    I am not in timely contact with other people here. I don’t tweet. I haven’t checked my email in weeks, and the people I talk to often don’t check for days. I don’t hang out in IRC or IM chat rooms like some of you do. Even if I was willing to ask other people to do my bidding — which I am not — it’s not feasible.

  55. says

    I get there is very probably past history here which makes SG’s request seem more nefarious than it seems to the rest of us.

    at this point, I’m pretty sure the only “history” here is that all disagreement by SG is assumed to be a personal attack by default, and all self-defense is considered a harangue, also by default. bah.

    I feel extremely conflicted about participating in a social space that actually has a designated scapegoat.

  56. A. R says

    Chas: Firstly, fuck you, and secondly, have you considered that some people are extremely busy, and just dash off quick comments when they see an interesting topic? Also, look up what IIRC means. Thirdly, here are your sources:
    http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417715/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021345
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22456044

    I rarely make claims that I can’t source, even if it is at a later time.

  57. broboxley OT says

    Chas, #80 while yupik and Inupiat traditionally have eaten large amounts of animal protiens and get a lot of vitamins via passthru in the sea mammal fat, they also eat a lot of berries, greens gathered in the spring, eggs and other gathered vegetation.

  58. says

    So, this is completely off topic, but my family sent me the nicest care-package today. It had tea, hot chocolate, coffee, candy, stuff to make pumpkin pie, honey, a long-sleeved shirt, and some origami dinosaurs in it. It totally made my day.
    The best part was from my little brother. We have this running joke where, when we’re joking around, instead of saying “your mom is ___” we say “your face is ____.” So he sent me a little hand-mirror that has “Your face is awesome” written on it in sharpie. It’s pretty much the sweetest thing anyone has ever sent me.

  59. says

    I feel extremely conflicted about participating in a social space that actually has a designated scapegoat.

    I agree, and find it a deeply disturbing dynamic regardless.

    I’m sorry you’re having to put up with this nonsense, sg.

  60. says

    Esteleth: Yeah, my brother’s a pretty cool kid, and much nicer than I was at 17, thank goodness. I can’t wait to see him again over Christmas break.

  61. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Thank you, SC. It’s usually exhausting, but I’m taking plenty of breaks today.

  62. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I was a shithead at 17, blogofmyself, so hearing about a 17-year-old who is a halfway decent person usually elicits in feelings of half shame/half awe.

  63. says

    SGBM, may I offer some advice?

    Your method of argumentation has validity, but you need to consider the larger context of the other person’s emotional state when you respond in your usual manner. I believe you when you say you meant no harm to Joe. Harm was nevertheless done, because Joe was already in a bad emotional state.

    It’s hard to argue with someone without sounding like you’re attacking them (generic “you” here). I find it helpful to make “I” statements, such as “I don’t understand where you are coming from here, can you elaborate?” Or “I would very much like to see any sources you have on this.”

    You know, keep the dialog friendly?

  64. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Flewellyn, I already said I could have been more polite.

    And how about the harm that was done to me? I didn’t accuse him of trolling. I didn’t accuse him of trying to wreck things. I didn’t accuse him of trying to hurt me. I didn’t call him pathetic.

    And I certainly didn’t pull anything like this. That’s such blatant disregard for my feelings, I probably ought to be more angry about it. I’m just kind of numb right now from a dozen or so attacks on me from various people. You want to criticize only me? Hey, I still don’t trust you, after how you’ve treated me before. I just trusted trinioler a couple hours ago, enough to give him a civil response here, and now he’s attacking me over and over in the Lounge. I’m pretty touchy right now. So, is there a reason I should trust you?

  65. says

    I don’t know if you should trust me. But perhaps you should trust the fact that your argument style gets this reaction a lot, as evidence that maybe it needs to change. You’re a rational person, surely you can see the benefit of adjusting your approach in response to feedback?

  66. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ing: It’s an issue of pattern moreso than severity.

    What pattern?

    I took account of Joe’s feelings:

    “Joe, I think that in the morning you may feel differently. So, I will try to stop replying — as long as you stop making accusations about me. I will only respond to defend myself, so please, don’t make me defend myself.”

    I indicated that I was trying to account for his emotional response, and so I wasn’t going to respond to anything which didn’t require me to defend myself. And then I complied with that.

  67. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I don’t know if you should trust me. But perhaps you should trust the fact that your argument style gets this reaction a lot,

    No, I have never gotten such a response from saying to someone “This is nonsense. It might be helpful if you’d cite things.”

    In return I had to put up with claims that I was trolling, claims that I came there to wreck things, claims that I came there to attack or hurt people, being called pathetic, being blatantly condescended to, and now being being flipped off and told to go fuck myself in the Lounge.

    Those things are not my fault. They are the fault of the people who are doing those things to me. I will not give in to a heckler’s veto. I have done nothing wrong.

  68. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Okay, I am breaking my promise.
    SGBM, do you know why I am so angry at you?

    I read the Lounge, and all of your conversation with Joe, hours after the fact. And before I did that, I read Twitter, where Joe’s tweets (time-stamped around the time, or shortly after, your interaction) were worrying, to say the least. And when I say worrying, I mean I am worried about suicide.

    Harassing – even seemingly mildly – someone who is in a severe depressive funk and expressing suicidal thoughts is not okay. Ever. If someone is already having suicidal ideation, the slightest thing can push them over.

    Now, I get that you may not have known how fragile Joe appears to have been in last night. But that just serves to emphasize the importance of keeping emotion in mind. People’s reactions are mostly emotional, especially when they – rightly or wrongly – feel attacked or are otherwise vulnerable.

  69. Brownian says

    Ing: It’s an issue of pattern moreso than severity.

    Right, and the pattern is that people jump all over SGBM, even in cases like this where many people, trinioler included, agreed that IJ had an unwarranted reaction.

  70. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    SGBM, if you’ve been active in the Lounge in the past week, you may have noticed Joe’s complaints and worries over his monetary situation, the fact that his wife is 1500 miles away, that he’s stuck in a bad neighborhood and must pack the house up by himself then drive cross-country, and now he has a major health scare on top of it all.

  71. says

    @A.R

    No offense but IMO that’s bullshit. There are regs who say what SG is being bitched at for in much nastier ruder ways regularly. I don’t know why there a blinder to this…hushfile maybe?

    And honestly SG has responded to me personally saying im feeling he’s getting too personal and to consider that…so no it isn’t like he actively is seeking to nettle people

  72. strange gods before me ॐ says

    This is typical. I understand what you’re doing, Flewellyn. I’ve done it. What you’re doing now is trying to talk to the evidently most calmly-reacting person in the dispute, because it looks more likely that you’ll get a worthwhile response from me. But it’s not me who’s at fault here. It’s not me who should be blamed. And I won’t pretend like I brought all this verbal abuse upon myself. I did nothing to warrant any of this. If people were responding equivalently to me — if perhaps Joe had said “that was rude” in response to my saying “This is nonsense. It might be helpful if you’d cite things” — then we could discuss whether it should be me who spoke differently. But under these circumstances, with all that I have had to put up with in response, no, I will not entertain that line of discussion. That is a heckler’s veto.

  73. says

    But perhaps you should trust the fact that your argument style gets this reaction a lot, as evidence that maybe it needs to change.

    What needs to change is the reaction to him. He’s not the problem. The treatment of him is. It’s absolutely shocking that people don’t recognize this pattern when it’s repeated again and again and more than one person has called attention to it. Stop attacking this person. Stop it. You’re better people than that.

  74. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I do not know what was going through his head last night, but I would suggest re-reading Joe’s comments last night with the mindset that maybe he was not speaking rationally and was instead in the grips of a very bad mental state.

  75. Brownian says

    I read the Lounge, and all of your conversation with Joe, hours after the fact. And before I did that, I read Twitter, where Joe’s tweets (time-stamped around the time, or shortly after, your interaction) were worrying, to say the least. And when I say worrying, I mean I am worried about suicide.

    Harassing – even seemingly mildly – someone who is in a severe depressive funk and expressing suicidal thoughts is not okay. Ever. If someone is already having suicidal ideation, the slightest thing can push them over.

    Now, I get that you may not have known how fragile Joe appears to have been in last night. But that just serves to emphasize the importance of keeping emotion in mind. People’s reactions are mostly emotional, especially when they – rightly or wrongly – feel attacked or are otherwise vulnerable.

    But you’re not angry with Beatrice, nms, Jadehawk, Alethea, etc?

    SGBM, if you’ve been active in the Lounge in the past week, you may have noticed Joe’s complaints and worries over his monetary situation, the fact that his wife is 1500 miles away, that he’s stuck in a bad neighborhood and must pack the house up by himself then drive cross-country, and now he has a major health scare on top of it all.

    I presume the others I mentioned, such as Beatrice, are also aware of Joe’s recent difficulties?

  76. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Harassing – even seemingly mildly

    Ah, but I wasn’t harassing him at all. Not even seemingly mildly. He has been attacking me. I have not attacked him. At all. You will be unable to find a quote of me attacking him.

    But that just serves to emphasize the importance of keeping emotion in mind.

    And I did. I did. I did. How many times do I have to point this out?

    I took account of Joe’s feelings:

    “Joe, I think that in the morning you may feel differently. So, I will try to stop replying — as long as you stop making accusations about me. I will only respond to defend myself, so please, don’t make me defend myself.”

    I indicated that I was trying to account for his emotional response, and so I wasn’t going to respond to anything which didn’t require me to defend myself. And then I complied with that. And I was resisting the temptation to condescend to him in kind; when he called me pathetic and so on, there were a lot of mean things I’d like to have said in return, but they were unnecessary, and, I felt, unfair.

    SGBM, if you’ve been active in the Lounge in the past week, you may have noticed Joe’s complaints and worries over his monetary situation, the fact that his wife is 1500 miles away, that he’s stuck in a bad neighborhood and must pack the house up by himself then drive cross-country, and now he has a major health scare on top of it all.

    Yes, I have noticed all that. And you may notice that I did not attack him, at all, in any way. You may notice that he responded outrageously to me — and by the way you don’t know anything about my emotional state — and I did nothing to escalate in response. Quote me. Stop with the vagueness and quote me.

  77. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Since I realize that I haven’t said this: SGBM, I do not think you were deliberately goading him or that you knew how bad a state he was – apparently – in. While I don’t like you, I don’t think that ill of you.

  78. Brownian says

    I also like Joe and am worried about him. But Joe isn’t the issue here—it’s how SGBM regularly gets turned on, even by those agreeing with him.

    This is one of the reasons I don’t hang in the lounge.

  79. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I dunno SG maybe it would help if you say “no offense” or IMO or that as segways more…hell if I know

    Ing, sure, I could have been more polite. I recognize that. I’m not denying that I could have responded from the very best tail of my behavior, which is always being demanded of me. I’m not denying that; all I’m disputing is that these attacks against me are supposed to indicate that because people are mean to me, I should have been 100% perfectly polite to them.

    I appreciate your input. I’m not disagreeing with you.

  80. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Look, all I’m saying is that the probability that Joe was being rational and was capable of responding rationally to others is rather low. Rationality and saying that you took his emotions into account doesn’t show that he understood that.

    As regards what Joe himself said: was he out of line in his lashing out? Yes. He was. But I do not think he was speaking rationally.

  81. consciousness razor says

    It’s an issue of pattern moreso than severity.

    If there’s a pattern, whatever it is, I don’t see it being noticed when anyone else follows it. So is this an issue of confirmation bias? Are some being unfair or careless (intentionally or not) when they categorize things as falling into that pattern?

    But perhaps you should trust the fact that your argument style gets this reaction a lot, as evidence that maybe it needs to change.

    No, he gets this reaction a lot, from particular people, independent of whichever “argument style” he uses. And even if it were due to something about his “style,” that doesn’t mean it needs to change: it could just as well be that the people reacting need to change. So your “evidence,” such as it is, doesn’t tell us anything.

    Harassing – even seemingly mildly – someone who is in a severe depressive funk and expressing suicidal thoughts is not okay.

    How was he harassing him, even mildly?

    SGBM, if you’ve been active in the Lounge in the past week, you may have noticed Joe’s complaints and worries over his monetary situation, the fact that his wife is 1500 miles away, that he’s stuck in a bad neighborhood and must pack the house up by himself then drive cross-country, and now he has a major health scare on top of it all.

    So it’s “harrassment” if you ask for a citation or correct a claim he was making?

    If you agree that Joe overreacted, what exactly should SG or anyone else have done differently?

  82. A. R says

    I think a discussion about what is is about SG that causes these issues is needed. Because as other have pointed out, he seems to be the only one around whom this occurs.

  83. says

    People’s reactions are mostly emotional, especially when they – rightly or wrongly – feel attacked or are otherwise vulnerable.

    sg, however, even when obviously being attacked by numerous people, has no emotions with which people need concern themselves.

    Just keep on hammering.

  84. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Look, all I’m saying is that the probability that Joe was being rational and was capable of responding rationally to others is rather low.

    I recognize that. That is why I said: “Joe, I think that in the morning you may feel differently. So, I will try to stop replying — as long as you stop making accusations about me. I will only respond to defend myself, so please, don’t make me defend myself.”

    Rationality and saying that you took his emotions into account doesn’t show that he understood that.

    Yes, I recognize that too. Okay. I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, though.

  85. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    If 100 fights break out and the same person was involved in 99 of them, that does not necessarily mean that they were the cause of the fight, or instigated it (in fact, it could well mean that all those other people are out to get them). It does, however, mean that they are a common factor, and that common factor needs to be examined.

  86. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You’re so full of shit, Esteleth. It’s amazing what a goddamned bully you are, without any introspection whatsoever.

    If 100 fights break out and the same person was involved in 99 of them

    There are like 100 fights here on Pharyngula every week. I am not involved in most of them. Stop making up bullshit. You are a bully. Bring some quote and examine them, if you think that’s what you should do. But drop the vague bullshit. It is only bullying.

  87. consciousness razor says

    It does, however, mean that they are a common factor, and that common factor needs to be examined.

    By all means, go ahead and start examining it any time.

    Of course, by “it,” I mean him, but whatever. There are no feelings to be hurt in this case.

  88. Muse says

    I asked this in the Lounge, but seriously, Joe
    s reaction was way out of line. Yes, clearly he’s troubled right now, but how in hell is that SG’s fault? He’s not a mind reader, and he was pretty mild. He said citation please. Joe flipped out and was pretty nasty. Yes, cut Joe the stressed out and scared break, I’m fine with that, but why get pissed at SG?

  89. Brownian says

    Since I realize that I haven’t said this: SGBM, I do not think you were deliberately goading him or that you knew how bad a state he was – apparently – in. While I don’t like you, I don’t think that ill of you.

    Then what was “I didn’t think that my opinion of SGBM or Morales could get lower than it already was, but…damn” all about?

    If 100 fights break out and the same person was involved in 99 of them, that does not necessarily mean that they were the cause of the fight, or instigated it (in fact, it could well mean that all those other people are out to get them). It does, however, mean that they are a common factor, and that common factor needs to be examined.

    That’s a load of self-justifying bullshit.

  90. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    That “99 out of 100 fights” was a metaphor.

    I have not ever counted the number of fights that break out here, nor do I want to.

    FWIW, Joe has resurfaced, and a lot of my worry has thus been alleviated.

  91. strange gods before me ॐ says

    That “99 out of 100 fights” was a metaphor.

    It’s a metaphor which clearly suggests that I am involved in the vast majority.

    FWIW, Joe has resurfaced, and a lot of my worry has thus been alleviated.

    Great. So are you going to stop taking out your misdirected anger on me now?

  92. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Ing,

    If you mean me, you can kindly fuck off. It’s past three fucking am and I haven’t gone to sleep because of worrying about Joe.

    I agree that sg is being used as a scapegoat very often and it’s a nauseating thing to watch.
    I am sorry that I hurt Joe and it quite literally kept me awake tonight, but I was pretty fucking hurt too and I have my reasons for reacting the way i did, whether those are worth anything to you or not.

  93. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Brownian, I can dislike someone and have a poor opinion of them without wishing them ill. The two are not synonymous.

    Likewise, I can dislike someone and disagree with them – even vehemently – without wishing them ill.

    And that “common factor” shit was from my own experience, for what that is worth.

  94. Brownian says

    FWIW, Joe has resurfaced, and a lot of my worry has thus been alleviated.

    So…what? It’s all water under the bridge now?

  95. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    No, it is not all water under the bridge, but I am doing my best to calm down and not be in a blind panic any more.

  96. says

    I’m just gonna throw this out there: It’s entirely possible that what we have here is just plain old personality conflict.

    People who are good people can clash with each other because their personalities don’t mesh. It’s o obvious to me that SGBM clashes with a lot of people here, but that a lot of other people have no problem with him. That’s fine. Just a matter of personalities.

    My only concern is when people (and I don’t just mean SGBM) get so invested in being “right” about these kinds of conflicts, that they put being right ahead of keeping the peace.

    So, maybe all sides should just say “Okay, truce, let’s just drop it and try to get along peacefully”? I’m willing to give it a shot.

  97. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Oh, ok. Wind out of my sails and all that.

  98. consciousness razor says

    That “99 out of 100 fights” was a metaphor.

    Ah, so I guess that causal factor only needs to be examined metaphorically.

    Or maybe “metaphor” means blatantly exaggerated numbers you pulled out of your ass.

  99. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Ing, I am not sure if you would believe me if I told you that I have a not-dissimilar story from my own childhood.

    That said, it was helpful to me in a different matter in dealing with the fucking disaster of my social situation as a kid. But then, teaching social skills to kids with autism is never an easy matter. *shrug*

  100. Brownian says

    Brownian, I can dislike someone and have a poor opinion of them without wishing them ill. The two are not synonymous.

    Likewise, I can dislike someone and disagree with them – even vehemently – without wishing them ill.

    What the fuck is this ‘wishing them ill’ bullshit? You said you didn’t think SGBM was deliberately trying to hurt Joe: “you didn’t think that ill of him” which I took to mean you didn’t think that poorly of him.

    Now you’re saying you meant something else? It’s about wishing him ill? Well, since you said you didn’t wish him that ill, you did just a little bit? WTF?

    This comment doesn’t make any sense, any way you parse it.

    I’m really getting the sense that you saw a good opportunity to let SGBM have it, and now that you can’t justify it, you’re walking away from it.

  101. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Brownian, I can dislike someone and have a poor opinion of them without wishing them ill. The two are not synonymous.

    That’s only half the comment. It’s not that you necessarily wish me ill or not, but that you sniped at me in the Lounge when I had done nothing wrong.

    And that “common factor” shit was from my own experience, for what that is worth.

    It’s not worth shit when you’re using it to attack someone and you won’t back it up or retract it.

    HI THERE. I am a person and I have feelings too and I hate being used as your punching bag.

    +++++

    My only concern is when people (and I don’t just mean SGBM) get so invested in being “right” about these kinds of conflicts, that they put being right ahead of keeping the peace.

    GO BACK AND QUOTE WHATEVER IT IS that you have a problem with. Stop the vague bullshit, Esteleth. If you can’t identify a problem with something I said, then stop making up vague rationalizations for your golden mean fallacy.

    So, maybe all sides should just say “Okay, truce, let’s just drop it and try to get along peacefully”? I’m willing to give it a shot.

    All I am doing is defending myself. I will be happy to stop when people stop making accusations against which I should defend myself. I certainly will not allow myself to be attacked without defending myself.

  102. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Sorry.

    GO BACK AND QUOTE WHATEVER IT IS that you have a problem with. Stop the vague bullshit, Esteleth. Flewellyn

  103. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I am not speaking coherently tonight, am I? :/

    I do not like SGBM. I think that is clear. I have a rather negative opinion of him. I think that is also clear.

    I also do not think he is as shitty a person as to deliberately goad someone into hurting themself. These are not contradictory statements – if I did, I wouldn’t associate myself with him, even tangentially.

    As for whether or not I have it in for him: I do not. I don’t care about him enough to have it in for him.

  104. Brownian says

    My only concern is when people (and I don’t just mean SGBM) get so invested in being “right” about these kinds of conflicts, that they put being right ahead of keeping the peace.

    Then just fucking stop. You applied this standard to SGBM and SBGM only, and now you’re waffling. You fucked up.

    So stop tossing out these half-assed rationalizations. Stop trying to salvage some ‘being right’ and keep the peace or whatever it is you think you mean.

  105. says

    No, it is not all water under the bridge, but I am doing my best to calm down and not be in a blind panic any more.

    I hope when you return from your blind panic you’ll see your comments more clearly and apologize to sg.

    ***

    I’m just gonna throw this out there: It’s entirely possible that what we have here is just plain old personality conflict.

    No, what we have here is plain old scapegoating and ganging up. And the people participating in it, including you, should take a step back and look critically at your actions.

  106. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    I usually just lurk in both the Lounge and Thunderdome. Yes, I stalk all of you regulars on Pharyngula on Pharyngula. I just can’t comment enough and have to pick what I comment on kind of carefully. Today it was on the Sunday Sacrilege post -I had strong feelings.

    I have strong feelings about what I’ve been reading in the Lounge and here too …all of it. I just finished reading the whole thing.

    What the fuck is going on here? What the fuck is wrong with you people (hopefully you know who you are)?

    Confluence of past behaviour my ass. SGBM has been decidedly targeted here by people for having done nothing wrong. Not this time (as if any other time not in evidence ought to necessarily matter anyhow). Joe’s state of mind aside, SGBM, in fact, did nothing to provoke the responses Joe fired off. Further, the deterioration of Joe in that thread is a miserably sad affair to go over, but that was unprovoked too. Joe was losing it and was lashing out at people, at quite good people. Whatever is wrong with Joe, it needs to be dealt with off of here. As for SGBM, some people need to lay the fuck off it and think for a moment about what they’re perpetuating. SGBM is not the bad person here.

    Something stinks on Pharyngula.

  107. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I do not like SGBM. I think that is clear. I have a rather negative opinion of him. I think that is also clear.

    And read the Lounge rules, because you’re not supposed to air that opinion there like you did.

    As for whether or not I have it in for him: I do not. I don’t care about him enough to have it in for him.

    Three times you attacked me in the Lounge, where I cannot equivalently defend myself. Still you refuse to recognize that you were wrong to do so.

  108. says

    Because as other have pointed out, he seems to be the only one around whom this occurs.

    he’s the one around whom this is currently happening; and it does seem that this social dynamic has actually stabilized with him at the focus, hence the “designated scapegoat” thing. However, before this stabilization, it has focused on other people as well, including Algernon, myself, and SC.

    this is a long-running dynamic on Pharyngula, and I can’t say that I share SC’s belief that the Pharynguloid Horde is really better than that. At least, I’ve not seen any evidence for that.

  109. Brownian says

    I also do not think he is as shitty a person as to deliberately goad someone into hurting themself.

    That’s just super duper awesomely well and good, but it does absolutely nothing to explain why you decided to let the world know that:

    I didn’t think that my opinion of SGBM or Morales could get lower than it already was, but…damn.

    Look, I’m going to stop beating around the bush, because I have not a doubt in the world that you thought the drama in that thread was a great opportunity for you to stick it to SGBM, and SC’s right: you need to apologise to him for that.

  110. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Firstly: Was Joe’s rant out of line? YES. Yes, it goddamn well was, as I said @117. He was – as near as I can tell – in a very bad was and was lashing out at whatever target presented itself, however appropriate or inappropriate. Is this okay? NO. It was not. But – keeping what can be guessed regarding his mental state in mind is it at least partially explainable and understandable? Yes.

    Secondly: Was I wrong to complain in the Lounge and insult SGBM? Yes. I admit that. I shall do my best to not do that again.

  111. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Is this okay? NO. It was not. But – keeping what can be guessed regarding his mental state in mind is it at least partially explainable and understandable? Yes.

    I haven’t said otherwise. I don’t see anyone disagreeing with this.

  112. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo, yeah, but you’re not sorry. And you’re not going to admit that SGBM didn’t do anything wrong either. You admit that Joe was lashing out at people, but hedge that with ‘appropriate or inappropriate’.

    Well, Esteleth, who the fuck was the appropriate target of Joe’s breakdown?

    I thought this was bad when I decided to post. This is sick.

  113. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I do not care enough about SGBM (or Morales, for that matter) to want to stick it to them. But then, that is my personality – if I truly loathe someone, I don’t go after them, I avoid the shit out of them. That wasn’t an effort to stir drama, that was an expression of disgust that should have been posted here in Thunderdome.

  114. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    The appropriate target of Joe’s breakdown? The shitty people in his neighborhood, perhaps. The economy, for sucking so hard. His health, for scaring him. The universe in general. The appropriate target was not in the Lounge last night.

  115. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    #161, Heck choose me. I practically only ever engage directly with chew-toys anyhow. Or does the act need to be somewhat believable?

  116. Brownian says

    I do not care enough about SGBM (or Morales, for that matter) to want to stick it to them.

    Esteleth:

    Bull.

    Fucking.

    Shit.

    But then, that is my personality – if I truly loathe someone, I don’t go after them, I avoid the shit out of them.

    Like posting that comment?

    Again:

    Bull.

    Fucking.

    Shit.

  117. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    The appropriate target was not in the Lounge last night.

    I’m glad that’s settled.
    ____________

    It remains, to me, that the stink remains.

  118. Brownian says

    The appropriate target was not in the Lounge last night.

    But you saw a couple of appropriate targets in the Lounge last night, obviously.

  119. strange gods before me ॐ says

    It’s a two-pronged attack. Say something shitty about the person, and then, when someone complains, claim that they’re so beneath you that you’re not interested in saying something shitty about them.

    First outright aggression, then passive-aggressive condescension.

    It’s super effective, when it’s not so transparent.

  120. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Huh? What comment?

    Seriously, can I ask what I would have to do/say for it to be convincing that I am not out to get SGBM? Because (while I know there are people here at Pharyngula who are) I am not.

    When I said that if I really, truly, hate and despise someone I avoid them I fucking meant that because that is the fucking truth.

  121. A. R says

    Is there any chance that we can just not drag this clusterfuck out any longer than we already have? No good is going to come of this if past incidents of this nature are anything to go by.

  122. says

    I do not care enough about SGBM (or Morales, for that matter) to want to stick it to them. But then, that is my personality – if I truly loathe someone, I don’t go after them, I avoid the shit out of them.

    Look over your comments during the last several hours. They are not evidence of avoidance.

    How hard is “I was terribly worried about Joe and took it out on you, sg. I shouldn’t have, and I’m sorry”?

  123. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Look over your comments during the last several hours. They are not evidence of avoidance.

    I do not hate SGBM. I dislike him. Thus, I do not have a motive to avoid him.

  124. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    “I was terribly worried about Joe and took it out on you, sg. I shouldn’t have, and I’m sorry”

    You’re right. I was panicked and very worried, and I vented myself in a way that crossed the line.

  125. consciousness razor says

    I do not care enough about SGBM (or Morales, for that matter) to want to stick it to them.

    Assuming that’s accurate, you don’t have to want to stick it to someone to stick it to them anyway.

    I’d like some kind of answer for this: what should anyone (including you) have done differently?

  126. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Look over your comments during the last several hours. They are not evidence of avoidance.

    Right; Esteleth means she wasn’t avoiding me, because she doesn’t hate me.

  127. says

    I do not care enough about SGBM (or Morales, for that matter) to want to stick it to them. But then, that is my personality – if I truly loathe someone, I don’t go after them, I avoid the shit out of them. That wasn’t an effort to stir drama, that was an expression of disgust that should have been posted here in Thunderdome.

    I do not hate SGBM. I dislike him. Thus, I do not have a motive to avoid him.

    this conversation is not going well.

  128. Brownian says

    Is there any chance that we can just not drag this clusterfuck out any longer than we already have? No good is going to come of this if past incidents of this nature are anything to go by.

    I’m not interested in sweeping this shit under the rug and pretending all is well.

  129. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Aww, thanks, Ing. I like you too. I think I do anyhow. No I’m pretty sure I like just about everyone, you included! Of course, you’re all like some sort of meta-person, the Horde or something. Except NigeltheBold, who I remember from RRS I think and Brownian, who’s been special ever since I got into line and probably before that.

    Fun fact! Did you know that despite my stalking I still don’t know anyone’s preferred pronoun for certain? I always have to check or look for someone’s use or rewrite sentences to avoid using gendered pronouns at all. Really, you’d think I’d know you all better than that, but it just won’t stick.

  130. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    I’ll note this here in case anyone later wonders :
    I’m backing out of both social threads for awhile. I’ll try to ignore them completely.

    If anyone cares, see you around other threads.

  131. Brownian says

    If anyone cares, see you around other threads.

    Okay. I hope you didn’t take my bringing up your name earlier in this thread an indictment of your comments in the Lounge. I was not intending to criticise your reaction or comments to Joe.

  132. A. R says

    I’m not interested in sweeping this shit under the rug and pretending all is well.

    Oh, so we should have a distressing, damaging, blown out of proportion angerfest that will lead to nothing but more anger instead? There are some times when shit does need to be swept under the rug.

  133. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    I will see you elsewhere Beatrice. Good night!

  134. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Ing @179: A camera? Is this a reference to something I’m missing?

  135. says

    I’m backing out of both social threads for awhile.

    understandable, considering. I keep on having to do that, too. See you around

  136. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Kwok

    Ah. Kwok was before my time. Explains why it went over my head.

    I asked my question @175 in seriousness, though.

  137. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    …Amazon says those are $5000. I do not have $5000.

    Sorry, no can do.

    Uh, I can make a knit camera bag?

  138. Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist says

    Brownian,

    Nothing to do with your comment.

    been wanting to bow out the whole day, but I was waiting to see Joe come back ok

  139. Brownian says

    Oh, so we should have a distressing, damaging, blown out of proportion angerfest that will lead to nothing but more anger instead? There are some times when shit does need to be swept under the rug.

    In this case, as SGBM’s the aggrieved party, I guess that’s up to him.

    But now that we’re trading Leicas, I think we’ve gotten to a better place.

    Nothing to do with your comment.

    I didn’t think so, but given your worries over Joe’s well-being, I didn’t want to imply that I thought you handled yourself poorly. I think you handled that admirably. I could not have done better.

  140. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Oh, so we should have a distressing, damaging, blown out of proportion angerfest that will lead to nothing but more anger instead? There are some times when shit does need to be swept under the rug.

    I’m not sure this is one of them. I believe that Esteleth and SGBM can fix whatever remains between them themselves now that we have some honesty out there, but there remains the fact that people were willing, despite two fucking threads of black and white print to illuminate the sad truth, to throw SGBM under the bus to satisfy …what, grudges? SGBM was ill-treated for having done nothing untoward and even if otherwise, I’ve seen more understanding granted people much less deserving.

    I think this problem is serious. We can’t have scapegoats, we can’t have people heap on plainly hurtful words after someone has said how hurtful they are and we can’t have people denying someone’s humanity when right in front of their faces is a plea for it to be recognised. That’s not this Horde. I thought so many of the people here better than that. I want to be shown that they are. I want this stink gone. It doesn’t need to be an angerfest, out of proportion nor damaging, but it does need to be dealt with. This place isn’t worth it otherwise.

  141. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I am going to repost this question because I am actually interested in an answer:

    Seriously, can I ask what I would have to do/say for it to be convincing that I am not out to get SGBM? Because (while I know there are people here at Pharyngula who are) I am not.

    A serious reply, please. Unless buying a $5000 camera was meant to be serious.

  142. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Or I’m wrong? Brownian, are cameras magical? Please, let me be wrong …

  143. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    I can’t speak for SGBM, but an outright apology couldn’t hurt, I expect.

  144. Nepenthe says

    Dang, I was hoping there’d be something fun to chew on in here. I guess the only contribution I can make is this:

    I’ve always liked you strange gods, and so has this bunny.

    Wow. I just realized that I’ve been reading Pharyngula for seven years. That’s a long fucking time.

  145. consciousness razor says

    I’m not interested in sweeping this shit under the rug and pretending all is well.

    Oh, so we should have a distressing, damaging, blown out of proportion angerfest that will lead to nothing but more anger instead?

    Does that follow in any way from what Brownian said? Does it have to be any of those things? Is there any reason it needs to lead to nothing but more anger?

    There are some times when shit does need to be swept under the rug.

    Why do you think this is one of those times?

  146. strange gods before me ॐ says

    In this case, as SGBM’s the aggrieved party, I guess that’s up to him.

    Oh, hell, all the people who should admit they wronged me aren’t going to. I don’t know what to do about it. Generally I just defend myself until the attackers are exhausted.

  147. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Wow. I just realized that I’ve been reading Pharyngula for seven years.

    From when was Pharyngula first on Scienceblogs? I think I started then. Congrats on seven.

  148. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Esteleth. Seriously. If you feel like #180 was an apology then I am fine with it. Now you can’t also expect that everyone is going to say “yes Esteleth we all believe you now that you didn’t want to stick it to SG.” Some people will believe it, some won’t, you’ve done what you can do. How about you shove off now and not make it about yourself anymore than you have.

  149. consciousness razor says

    I am going to repost this question because I am actually interested in an answer:

    Seriously, can I ask what I would have to do/say for it to be convincing that I am not out to get SGBM? Because (while I know there are people here at Pharyngula who are) I am not.

    A serious reply, please. Unless buying a $5000 camera was meant to be serious.

    My personal and entirely serious answer: I sincerely do not give a fuck whether or not you are “out to get SGBM.” Intent is not magic. If you did the wrong thing, even if you didn’t do it maliciously or deliberately, you did the wrong thing. So there’s no point in trying to convince anyone of that.

  150. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    SGBM, I am done fighting. When I asked that, I was mostly asking you. We don’t like each other, and I doubt we ever will, but I do not hate you, nor am I out to get you, and quite frankly, I don’t like being accused to the contrary.

  151. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    How about you shove off now and not make it about yourself anymore than you have.


    Fine.

  152. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    I, for one, skipped it, Esteleth. The convo moved too fast to consider answering it, because I made a suggestion indirectly earlier, and the answer seemed obvious and was really up to SGBM anyhow. You came close to doing what had seemed the obvious answer anyhow. But I answered your re-post. I don’t know how well you care for my opinion or my answer here, but there they are anyhow.

  153. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Nepenthe! Thank you. The feeling is mutual, for both you and the bunny.

    +++++
    CR: there’s #180.

    +++++
    Esteleth

    Fine.

    Great. Thanks.

  154. strange gods before me ॐ says

    And by the way,

    We don’t like each other

    That’s 100% projection talking. I’ve never attacked you. I’ve never given any indication of not liking you. I’ve not had any personal opinion about you, actually, since we haven’t interacted; I’ve only been glad that you’re here for political reasons. That’s it. So you don’t have to like me, but don’t go around declaring that I don’t like you. You made that up.

  155. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    SGBM @ #209. That’s fine for you, but the behaviour directed at you has happened before and to others. I think that’s a problem, even if you’re really okay with just exhausting attackers and being the …scapegoat or whatever it is the receiver of this is.

  156. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I’m not okay with it. I just don’t have any idea how to stop it.

    Except to get StevoR drunk.

  157. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    …I thought you wanted me to leave?

    I’ve never attacked you.

    We have different definitions of “attack.” Or maybe I am misremembering. I go back to old threads and pull quotes only very rarely. That is not how I do things. *shrug*

    I thought the feeling was mutual. I guess not (this does not upset me).

    My intent in asking above was (believe it or not) a serious attempt to make amends. I thought that the first barrier to such amends was the idea that I was out to get you, so I wanted to know what I could do to dissipate said idea. Make of that what you will, I guess.

  158. consciousness razor says

    CR: there’s #180.

    Sure, but it’s incredibly vague:

    You’re right. I was panicked and very worried, and I vented myself in a way that crossed the line.

    There’s no sign it won’t happen again, which is why I’ve asked what anyone should’ve done differently. That could get them thinking about it even if they don’t want to share their thoughts here; and while their behavior still may not change much, at least that has a chance of causing some change. Doing something “in a way that crossed the line” is just empty verbiage.

  159. says

    I think that’s a problem, even if you’re really okay with just exhausting attackers and being the …scapegoat or whatever it is the receiver of this is.

    it’s not a matter of it being ok (or anyone being ok with that), but rather of a lack of solution to the problem, as far as I can see. Currently, the situation only ever gets resolved in one of three ways: 1)the target gets exhausted and leaves; 2)the attacker gets exhausted and leaves; 3) PZ interferes

    of these three, the 2nd is simply the least bad, but it’s not anywhere near to good

  160. strange gods before me ॐ says

    …I thought you wanted me to leave?

    I do, but I wanted to correct that. You’re not filed in any personal category in my mind. Only politics.

    My intent in asking above was (believe it or not) a serious attempt to make amends.

    Alright. As soon as my emotions from this day subside, I will again have nothing against you. Let go of whatever you have against me, and that’ll be that.

  161. says

    Seriously we shoudlnt do that…..but if were going to it should be StevoR!

    Yes but I like you…StevoR on the other hand dispoils our crops and kills our cattle

    I’m not okay with it. I just don’t have any idea how to stop it.

    Except to get StevoR drunk.

    Oh, you meant stop it from happening to anyone.

    this tangent shouldn’t be as funny as it is.

    And that’s why this dynamic won’t go away; it might simply change focus again.

  162. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Okay. I am glad to hear that.

    (Out of curiosity, at some point I’d be interested in hearing your opinion of the “politics” of me being around or what my political category is- I’d think that Pharyngula had enough sloppy leftists – unless you’re referring to the internal politics of Pharyngula. But that can wait.)

  163. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I’d think that Pharyngula had enough sloppy leftists

    There’s never enough as far as I’m concerned.

    unless you’re referring to the internal politics of Pharyngula.

    No. I understand what you mean, but I’d have thought of that as more like personal.

  164. A. R says

    StevoR: I think it’s OK to go after a racist who’s OK with killing brown people indiscriminately.

  165. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    There’s never enough [sloppy leftists] as far as I’m concerned.

    On that we are 100% agreed.

  166. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    And that’s why this dynamic won’t go away; it might simply change focus again.

    Only if someone mentions that nation east of Iraq and Turkey (no, I am not going to actually write it).

  167. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ah, well, this will be over soon enough and Beatrice will not be able to stay away. :)

  168. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Oh, you meant stop it from happening to anyone.

    Yes, that.

  169. says

    I actually had to look at a map. clearly, I need more coffee, since the answer should have been obvious [/fail]

    on a more entertaining note, it’s now official: i will be forced to go to Hawaii this spring break, if I want to graduate by summer. My wallet is already hating me for this, but I find graduating to be a acceptable excuse for blowing $2000 on this.

  170. consciousness razor says

    I don’t like my leftists sloppy.

    Err… that’s not supposed to sound like a sexual proclivity; but even then, I guess it’s still fairly accurate.

  171. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Well, Jadehawk, I don’t see a solution either, except to keep talking about it. Clearly there are people willing to dispense with any empathy in order to satisfy whatever they have against someone, or no one in particular aimed at someone in particular. It keeps happening. I’d like to see this resolved. I’d like to see guilty parties called out. I’d like for what SC foresees to not come to pass.

  172. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Jadehawk, I understand Hawaii is an expensive place as America goes. Enjoy your time there …and eat less? (It’s the food, I hear.)

  173. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Okay. It’s 11pm. It’s an hour past my bedtime and I skipped finishing Footfall (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle) to grace Thunderdome tonight. I still have to shower and I’m tired! Good night!

  174. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Hmmm. I think I have a copy of Footfall upstairs. That one and Lucifer’s Hammer both bring back fond memories from way back in the early/mid 80s.

    That’s 1980s, not 1880s.

  175. nms says

    StevoR will never become the designated Pharyngula scapegoat because no-one actually pays attention to him unless he’s ranting about Muslims or Newt Gingrich.

  176. says

    Jadehawk, I understand Hawaii is an expensive place as America goes. Enjoy your time there …and eat less? (It’s the food, I hear.)

    pretty sure it’s the flying, actually :-p

  177. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    pretty sure it’s the flying, actually :-p

    Take the toll bridge instead.

  178. says

    Take the toll bridge instead.

    was going to try swimming, actually. if google says that swimming from NY to Paris is possible, then goddamnit, swimming to Hawaii should be, too :-p

  179. chigau (棒や石) says

    So why does my MeatSpace so often coincide with an Important Event on Pharyngula?

    First
    a request
    Can all of you who have masterfully mastered the Art of the <blockquote> also Master the Art of saying who you are <blockquote>ing?
    hmmm
    please

  180. chigau (棒や石) says

    Next
    Since I spent my catch-up outside on the patio at 10° (50°F) I must wait a bit until my fingers thaw.

  181. says

    Can all of you who have masterfully mastered the Art of the blockquote also Master the Art of saying who you are blockquote-ing?

    what for? I can see linking to a comment not from the same thread, but why the name? is it just so it’s easier to find responses by Ctrl+F the handle?

  182. chigau (棒や石) says

    Jadehawk #248
    #150 for example
    There is an ongoing discussion and mistakes happen.
    (and don’t interrupt my train of thought, I don’t have them often)

  183. consciousness razor says

    No way to blockquote this without changing it:

    Can all of you who have masterfully mastered the Art of the [blockquote] also Master the Art of saying who you are [blockquote]ing?

    Let’s pretend I’ve mastered blockquoting for a minute.

    I try to do that when it matters where the quotation is coming from or when it isn’t obvious (e.g., if it was from only a few comments before, if it was already quoted and cited in the thread, and so on). Other times, it doesn’t matter, it’s easy enough to figure out, or sometimes I’m lazy or forgetful. But are masters never lazy or forgetful? I think most of them probably are.

    Those who have mastered the capitalization of words for Emphasis should probably stop doing that, for reasons I do not need to explain.

  184. consciousness razor says

    Uh, for the sake of clarity: it isn’t obvious when it isn’t like the examples in the parenthetical.

  185. chigau (棒や石) says

    strange ad hominem pitbull ॐ
    In this case, I am on your side.
    ——
    For the rest, I’m too drunk and too cold and my fingers hurt.

  186. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    Ogvorbis:

    Only if someone mentions that nation east of Iraq and Turkey (no, I am not going to actually write it)

    Just a guess…is that like Bloody Mary? Say that place a few times and he appears?

  187. A. R says

    Tony: Exactly, we have a few like that, with various invocations. Some are as simple as their ‘nym D*vid M*bu* for example.

  188. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    A.R.:
    Ah, thank you.
    I wasn’t around when he [D*V*D M*B*S]was posting so I’ve only heard bits and pieces here and there from some of the longtime Pharyngulites. The little I’ve heard of him doesn’t sound good.

  189. David Marjanović says

    i will be forced to go to Hawaii this spring break, if I want to graduate by summer.

    Awesome. Overwhelming. :-)

  190. strange gods before me ॐ says

    David,

    you can’t follow the Lounge rules.

    I am following Lounge rules, since it is okay to say “This is nonsense. It might be helpful if you’d cite things.”

    But is this really the same Joe who was just yelling “bullshit BULLSHIT” to someone else?

    Huh? How is this relevant?

    The suggestion was that I should leave because I “can’t follow Lounge rules”, although I was in fact following Lounge rules. The suggestion came from someone who was exhibiting what I think was aggressive behavior to someone else a few hours earlier. I found that unfortunately ironic, and wanted him to consider his own behavior.

    I feel a little bit sorry for you… in the spirit of being kind, I offer my hand in friendship to you. Take it how you will, but this is a one-time-only offer.

    I have no need for condescension. I do insist upon being treated fairly.

    …Why do you think it’s condescension? I think you’re jumping to the least charitable possible conclusion.

    I’m not. Displays of this type are well-known. I don’t want to have to explain all this, but, fine. Saying “I feel sorry for you” to someone who is not looking for sympathy, or otherwise expressing personal distress, is prima facie condescension. Saying “I feel sorry for you, so I’m going to be kind to you”, to someone who is not looking for sympathy nor asking for kindness, is outright dick-waving. Saying “I feel sorry for you, so I’m going to be kind to you by offering my friendship” is a blatant display of ape dominance; he might as well have been thumping his chest.

    He’s telling me he’s better than me, that I am “pathetic” — note he used that very word in his next comment when I rejected his condescending display — that I am doing all this to feel better about myself, and therefore I would be glad to put aside all the attacks he just made and take his friendship because all I really want is to be wuvved. Since I know you like tvtropes, I’ll put it like this: he’s treating me as though I am Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, and what I need is a hug from him.

    Note it’s supposed to be a gift — an act of “kindness” granted by him. Not a natural, reciprocal growth of respect or friendship (which, again, I am not averse to). It comes from on high, down to me despite my evident lack of interest. It’s just dick-waving, David. When a person makes an “offer” like that, they know damn well that it’s either going to be slapped away, or, if the other party really is desperate for human contact, that there’s going to be sobbing and excessive, cringing gratitude. The latter is the worse outcome for the victim, since they’re now signed up for a fake friendship which exists only to make the dominant ape look gracious, “the bigger man”.

    (Don’t mistake every talk of friendship during anger as condescension, though. A sincere mention of the possibility will start with the speaker’s own desire: “I hope that we can be friends later.” It is not foisted on the other person as something the other must, of course, desire, because hey who wouldn’t want to be friends with such a great person. Typically sincere talk will include the understanding that one or both parties are probably too upset right now for it to work, but let’s see what happens later.)

    I will only respond to defend myself, so please, don’t make me defend myself.”

    Are you sure you want to phrase it that way?

    I hope not, because that can’t come across well.

    Yes, I’m quite sure that’s how I want to phrase it. The context is clear: “I just don’t want all these false claims being made about me. I have feelings too. And I am especially interested in being treated fairly. [...] What I want is to not be accused of all these things. It’s outrageous what you’re expecting me to put up with here. I really wish that I didn’t have to defend myself against all this stuff, but know this: if you make accusations about me which I think I ought to defend against, I will defend myself. I am not here to be kicked around.”

    Accusations are made against me. I defend myself against the accusations. I do so like this (see last five paragraphs written by me), or citing evidence against the claims, and so on. I use my words. There’s no confusion on your part; there’s no confusion on Ogvorbis’s part; both of you know what I’m saying but you’re temporarily decoupling the context and then worrying that someone else won’t know what I’m saying. I doubt very much that that will happen. And if it does then I’ll explain at length, as usual. But you’re worrying too much. It hasn’t actually come across wrong to anyone yet.

  191. strange gods before me ॐ says

    The suggestion came from someone who was exhibiting what I think was aggressive behavior to someone else a few hours earlier.

    Note I am aware I might be wrong about that. It looked like anger to me, but it is open to interpretation.

  192. carlie says

    Been mulling this over, not that another opinion is needed.

    I came into this whole thing the same way Esteleth did. FtB was down for me the entire time. I woke up in the middle of the night, checked Twitter (yeah I know), and was then up for the next couple of hours until it was time to get up for work worrying about Joe and trying to figure out what to write to him that might help him calm down (I didn’t do well). I was pretty upset too, to the point that I was figuring out a chain of people starting with contact info I had and going through who I thought had what to get to someone I thought had Joe’s real contact info to call if his tweets went any more downhill, even though that would mean getting people up at 4am to answer my call asking for his.

    So reading everything here after that, from that viewpoint it’s crystal-clear that he was depressed and upset, and it looks like everyone is piling on and I’m reading going “don’t you people see what you’re doing to him??? stop stop stop stop stop!!!!” Not just sg, but all the people involved in it. It’s almost impossible for me to think that anybody could miss all those signs, but that’s entirely because I already knew he was in the middle of a depressed episode when I started reading. From that vantage point it’s hard to believe it wasn’t noticed, just like from the other side it’s hard to believe anyone could have noticed or anticipated the results their comments could have had. It was just a bad interpretation/communication setup all around, but I’m not sure how any of it could have been well avoided.

  193. birgerjohansson says

    (wakes up, extends claws)
    (sniffs around for things to bite and tear)
    (gets bored, licks fur, falls asleep)
    — — — — — — —
    Dinosexual? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2750
    — — — — — — — — — —
    discworld has its own Eschaton, in the mechanical computer at Unseen University that ínteracts with the universe of Roundworld (our world)
    — — — — —
    Just finished reading Peter Hamilton’s excellent space opera Great North Road, all 1100 pages. The Merkun edition will be published January 1st.

  194. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Ogvorbis: broken and cynical, both books are great, but doesn’t Lucifer’s Hammer take place in the 70’s? :P Footfall is pretty good. I enjoy the aliens, they’re dumb as bricks. I also always enjoy Niven. You can tell he has a progressive outlook in terms of sexism and such, but he writes characters and situations so damned well in the period they’re supposed to be in that if you’re not careful you begin to think that something like the casual sexism of some characters is a projection of his own, when he’s actually trying to write realistically. Actually, that’s what I love about sci-fi, especially the hard stuff; it’s a study on contemporary human society and culture with decent science and an often optimistic, if bleak outlook for the future.

  195. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Thomathy:

    I read them in the early/mid 1980s.

    One of my favourite parts of Lucifer’s Hammer is the way Niven kept coming up with events that would pass into modern mythology — the surfers, the truck rolling across the new sea in Central Valley on elevated rails, that sort of thing.

    And my favourite aliens are the ones in David Brin’s Uplift series. He manages to come up with different cultures, different ways of using language, different moralities rather than using the standard sci-fi ‘recycle Rome (or Russia, or whatever)’ meme.

  196. ChasCPeterson says

    NOTICE: I AM BLOCKQUOTING A.R BELOW

    have you considered that some people are extremely busy, and just dash off quick comments when they see an interesting topic?

    but why?
    That was my question: why do this, instead of not doing it?
    Why are ‘extremely busy’ people reading Thunderdome comments in the first place, or farting around on the internet at all? Why do such people think that anybody would be interested in half-remembered factoids off the top of their extremely busy heads?

    look up what IIRC means

    I don’t have to look that one up. IIRC, it means either a) this is something that can’t be easily looked up because it was an unrecorded conversation or seen on television a few years ago, or b) the recaller is too fucking lazy busy to get their facts straight but nevertheless thinks highly enough of themselves to imagine that everybody else ought to be interested in whatever ephemera or fabrications manage to float into their consciousness.

    I rarely make claims that I can’t source, even if it is at a later time.

    uh huh. My suggestion would be to wait til then.
    Thanks for the links. There’s no evidence there of “wacky biochemistry” though.

  197. says

    It was just a bad interpretation/communication setup all around, but I’m not sure how any of it could have been well avoided.

    It can be avoided if people understand that the way to address someone’s anguish is not to join in the abuse of someone else. Joining in the attacks on sg* (and that includes using that moment to express your personal dislike for him, telling people to avoid him, attributing bad motives to him, suggesting that he brings it on himself, or advising him to stop defending himself against abusive treatment) does nothing to meaningfully alleviate anyone’s distress, and even if it did it would be a hollow, ultimately counterproductive, and obviously unethical form of “therapy.” All it does is cause another person pain.

    (Of course, this bullying is unacceptable in any circumstances, but it’s important to talk about it in this context because people might actually believe that by participating in it they’re helping someone else.)

    *or any other designated scapegoat

  198. A. R says

    Chas:

    That was my question: why do this, instead of not doing it?

    Um, perhaps because even busy people have a few minutes here and there, and they occasionally see something interesting that they want to make a comment about, but don’t have the time to source like a review article? Unless you mean to suggest that all busy people are permanently banned from commenting on Thunderdome.

    Why do such people think that anybody would be interested in half-remembered factoids off the top of their extremely busy heads?

    Have you ever considered that not all people are like you (i.e. are not hyperskeptical assholes)?

    the recaller is too fucking lazy busy to get their facts straight but nevertheless thinks highly enough of themselves to imagine that everybody else ought to be interested in whatever ephemera or fabrications manage to float into their consciousness.

    I do believe my facts were straight Chas. If I wasn’t sure, I wouldn’t have said what I did. And that “fabrications” bit? Unrelated, and, quite frankly, somewhat imagined, bullshit.

    uh huh. My suggestion would be to wait til then.

    Again, are poster to be banned from writing any facts that they recall (but can cite if needed (BTW Chas, a simple[Citation Needed} would have done quite nicely in your case, take a lesson from SG and the Nerd) unless they an cite them like a fucking Review article?

    Thanks for the links. There’s no evidence there of “wacky biochemistry” though.

    You don’t think a somewhat novel pathway for gluconeogenesis not typically found in other populations is a bit usual?

  199. says

    Joe crossed over a line. Esteleth crossed over a line. SGBM crossed the line, too. There were no innocents in that fight.

    Here’s the thing about SGBM that annoys the hell out of me: these battles occur now and then, and he definitely isn’t responsible for most of them. The problem is that when he gets involved, his utterly inflexible indignation means the fight goes on and on and on and on. Instead of a flare-up that scabs over, we get a running sore that will be picked over for days. If nothing else, it means that when I’m scanning and see a contretemps that is dragging on (rather than one that burns out fast), I tend to see one person who frequently pushes it on.

    And ultimately, I don’t care who started the fight — there’s plenty of blame to go around to lots of people. It’s who keeps it bleeding that catches my eye.

  200. Nepenthe says

    You don’t think a somewhat novel pathway for gluconeogenesis not typically found in other populations is a bit usual?

    That novel pathway is only “whacky” if it’s wearing a beanie with a propeller on top.

  201. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    That novel pathway is only “whacky” if it’s wearing a beanie with a propeller on top.

    *imagines the Krebs cycle wearing silly trousers*

  202. A. R says

    That novel pathway is only “whacky” if it’s wearing a beanie with a propeller on top.

    +1 and thanks for the strangest mental image of the day!

  203. says

    Also, face it, all biochemistry is wacky.

    (I’m reviewing glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation tomorrow and giving an exam on the subject on Friday, so I feel qualified to make that judgment. Then next week is all photosynthesis, which is even wackier.)

  204. says

    Joe crossed over a line. Esteleth crossed over a line. SGBM crossed the line, too. There were no innocents in that fight.

    Here’s the thing about SGBM that annoys the hell out of me: these battles occur now and then, and he definitely isn’t responsible for most of them. The problem is that when he gets involved, his utterly inflexible indignation means the fight goes on and on and on and on. Instead of a flare-up that scabs over, we get a running sore that will be picked over for days. If nothing else, it means that when I’m scanning and see a contretemps that is dragging on (rather than one that burns out fast), I tend to see one person who frequently pushes it on.

    And ultimately, I don’t care who started the fight — there’s plenty of blame to go around to lots of people. It’s who keeps it bleeding that catches my eye.

    sg didn’t cross any line. He’s not to blame for being scapegoated or for defending himself, any more than Rebecca Watson is. I’m amazed you can’t see this. You’ve staked out an unreasonable position, and you’re encouraging this running abuse. You are pushing it on, PZ.

  205. A. R says

    PZ: Truer words have never been spoken. I spent last Tuesday night trying to explain G-proteins to someone with little success, mainly because they didn’t believe something like that could exist. (Also, ATP synthase FTW!)

  206. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    Check it out! ATP synthase as a cartoon.

    Also, face it, all biochemistry is wacky.

    Truer words have never been spoken (I say this as someone with a BA and Ph.D in biochemistry).

  207. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    G-proteins are quite simple, really.

    Try explaining ubiquitination. Seems simple (this thing sticks on, and once there’s enough, whatever it is gets shunted over there and broken down), but seems to defy understanding in some people. I don’t get it.

  208. says

    See there is a clear bias problem if people jump on SG but JM literally being a bully and asshole trying to pour salt in wounds goes unnoted.

    JM has done this at least twice in 24 hours of what I can only read as intentionally trying to upset people, given his intelligence and the background data he has to know its the most likely scenario that this is intentional. SG gets yelled at for picking at scabs when JM right here is taking a cheese grater to it. And I “like?” JM most of the time but he far more than SG is the one who doesn’t give a shit about feelings. Other people have stated he actively makes them uncomfortable for various reasons too but for some reason examples of jerkassery are taken as him just being him.

    I’m not saying to throw JM down the well but be somewhat consistant if were going to care about feelings and being assholes. People in the popular crowd need to be called out more and people at the dweeb table need to be given more slack

  209. says

    I agree that Morales was an insensitive pain-in-the-ass. Would you really like me to start listing all the people who have pissed me off?

  210. Brownian says

    Would you really like me to start listing all the people who have pissed me off?

    As it stands now, SG has been singled out, and it’s clear that signals that it’s okay for anyone to jump in and toss digs at him whenever he’s involved in any sort of argument,

    So yeah. Maybe listing everyone who’s pissed you off might take some of the heat off of him.

  211. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Ogvorbis, I will have to read Uplift.

    I liked the imagery in Hammer too. I just wish I knew for certain what happened to the surfers. I imagine bodies smashed against buildings. Maybe it’s better not to know.

  212. carlie says

    *imagines the Krebs cycle wearing silly trousers*

    *Calvin cycle walks in wearing Doc Martens*

    *CAM walks in twirling in a tutu*

    *C4 stomps in with cowboy boots and a Stetson, harumphs at everyone else, stomps off*

  213. says

    @ A.R

    My computer shed its mortal (silicon) coil today. That might set back the on-screen birth of the LOL-star. On the other hand, I have now demanded (such is what tardigrade dictators tend to do) a new computer, specifically specified for running 3D programs. I have thrown my toys out of the cot, hopefully the IT department will deliver. That being the case, we are still on target. Mwahahahahahaha. {World domination to follow}

  214. A. R says

    PZ:

    Huh? Wait. G proteins? Signaling and signal transduction pathways make far more sense than metabolic pathways!

    In the world of the intro bio student, as I am sure you are aware, all things are weird and incomprehensible. I personally LOVE the dolichol cycle, but that’s just me.

    theophontes: Good to hear the project is still on target!

  215. chigau (棒や石) says

    theophontes

    hopefully the IT department will deliver

    You’re doing this at work?

  216. ChasCPeterson says

    I questioned whether Inuit people had “wacky biochemistry”, which was later clarified to mean “a somewhat novel pathway for gluconeogenesis not typically found in other populations”. In response, A.R cited:

    pubmed/22456044:

    STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional study, comparing Inuit eating a western diet with Inuit eating a traditional diet.

    no comparative data to other populations.

    pubmed/23021345:

    The results demonstrate that allele frequencies were different in the Inuit population compared with the Caucasian population.

    I missed that the first time, but it’s about allele frequencies for genes already known to be polymorphic and to affect lipid metabolism. Nothing even “somewhat” novel.
    It was the third abstract you cited earlier that talked about pathways for gluconeogenesis. It too was nothing unique to Inuits, just the new findings being applied to the Inuit case (with no new data).

    simple logic would suggest that these pathways have to be utilized to a greater extent in arctic peoples

    I guess. That seems a movement of your goalpost though. It ought to be true of any non-wacky human eating a high-fat, carbohydrate-free diet.

    otherwise, we would all be able to survive on that diet (we can’t, by the way).

    And there you go again. Is that another assertion we should buy with the proviso that you might not RC? Did you think that I, a hyperskeptical asshole, was going to let that one slide by without a polite ‘[citation needed]‘?

  217. A. R says

    Chas: Perhaps you should attempt a synthesis of the articles. Or even read them in their entirety (I read the pathways one while waiting for a PCR to run). Perhaps you should also consider that even if you and I are capable of that abnormal form of gluconeogenesis, we don’t use it, or don’t use it to the extent that indigenous arctic peoples do, for the simple reason that our diets are not the same (see the appropriate cited article). Could we survive on such a diet? Possibly, but it would probably not be incredibly healthy (if the reverse situation is anything to go by, as evidenced in the article cited) In addition, the livers of arctic peoples are rather enlarged, to facilitate this novel gluconeogenesis (see the first article cited). Perhaps we simply have different definitions of “whacky,” but I should think that the fact that arctic peoples extensively utilize a novel pathway for gluconeogeneiss (that was fairly recently discovered) that is not seen to an extent even approaching that in Westerners (see appropriate article) is qualification enough to consider the biochemistry of arctic peoples to be whacky. (For that matter, as someone mentioned earlier, the biochemistry of some Europeans is whacky, in regards to the ability to digest lactose after infancy.) Oh, yeah, and one more thing. ChasCPeterson –> Killfile.

  218. strange gods before me ॐ says

    PZ,

    Joe crossed over a line. Esteleth crossed over a line. SGBM crossed the line, too.

    No I did not. Quote me. You are wrong. You cannot identify an actual statement that I made which crossed any line, so you are making vague accusations instead.

  219. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Setar picks a fight with me in the Lounge. I try to deescalate.

    PZ responds in red text, long after I’ve left the thread and brought my responses to David over here instead.

    I am doing nothing wrong in this thread. Stop bullying me.

    WRONG. You made your point; your target has apologized multiple times and is practically begging you to drop it, and you just keep hammering away in the name of your precious “self defense”, and have turned this thread into an angry wrangle. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are long past the point where a normal person would just drop it and and move on.

    Registering a point of disagreement and making a substantial, well-documented argument is not against the rules here, and I know you’re capable of doing that. Turning into a damned avenging robot wolf who can’t recognize the signals that your opponent has surrendered and insisting on your right to rip his throat out is. Battling to death over what was actually a trivial point is NOT WORTH IT.

    I’m this close to banning you from the Lounge forevermore as someone who is incapable of reacting appropriately to normal social cues. We’re close to the normal termination of a subthread, though, so instead I’m going to close it and I’ll expect all involved to DROP THE DAMNED SUBJECT or face my tired wrath as I try to deal with this mess from an airport terminal, on my iPad, which will make me even grumpier.

    I did drop the subject. I did nothing of which I am being accused here. Quote me. You are making up a self-serving story, PZ. You are rationalizing your prejudice.

  220. John Morales says

    ॐ, yeah, you did in his estimation. I quote: “The problem is that when he gets involved, his utterly inflexible indignation means the fight goes on and on and on and on.”

    For some people, it matters not if you’re in the right or not or whether you’re the instigator/aggressor — it’s whether you continue the fight. You’re just supposed to cop it, like I do.

    (Truth is no defence in the realm of emotions)

  221. John Morales says

    ॐ, again: it’s not what you write, it’s that you respond.

    I’ve made multiple attempts

    Exactly. Truth is no defence.

  222. strange gods before me ॐ says

    ॐ, again: it’s not what you write, it’s that you respond.

    And after Joe’s #413, where it became evident that something was wrong, I did not respond to anything else except attacks on me.

    PZ puts self defense in scare quotes, but I’d like for anyone to point to any comment which was not in fact self defense after #413.

  223. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    I did not respond to anything else except attacks on me.

    You call that not responding? ;)

    You keep expecting fairness; it surprises me that by now you don’t see the futility of it.

  224. A. R says

    I’d like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the value of killfile. I use it whenever I get extremely angry at someone, or know that I’m going to go on a tirade about one of their comments.

  225. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You call that not responding? ;)

    Obviously I do not. They are actual self defenses (not scare quoted “self defenses”) which it is unreasonable to demand anyone not make on their own behalf.

    You keep expecting fairness; it surprises me that by now you don’t see the futility of it.

    It isn’t futile. While I do not know what the chances are that PZ will recognize he is wrong (both unfair and objectively wrong about the facts), I am confident that by examining what I actually said and when (and what I ignored and did not respond to) most observers will recognize that PZ is wrong.

    And it is important to me to not have falsehoods believed about me, so I object.

  226. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    sgbm:

    I am not attacking you in any way, shape, or form. I am pointing this out because this is something that I have caught myself doing, in the past, in meatspace and it destroyed some friendships. When you state:

    don’t make me defend myself.

    and

    All I am doing is defending myself. I will be happy to stop when people stop making accusations against which I should defend myself. I certainly will not allow myself to be attacked without defending myself.

    and

    Generally I just defend myself until the attackers are exhausted.

    Whether or not you are correct in your assessment of intent (yes, I know intent is not magic (but people can be wrong without attacking)), you appear, to me (and I am often wrong), to be blaming others for your responses.

    Anyway, I like you (though you sometimes annoy me (and I probably annoy everyone here far more often)). But I do see something that I do which has destroyed relationships. And I am not making nearly as much sense as I think I am. Read those three quotes. Those are yours. Do you see how these may exacerbate an existing disagreement?

    I’ll shut up now. Sorry for sticking my nose in where it really doesn’t belong.

  227. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Whether or not you are correct in your assessment of intent (yes, I know intent is not magic (but people can be wrong without attacking)), you appear, to me (and I am often wrong), to be blaming others for your responses.

    If any of my responses were inappropriate, then that would be problematic.

    I was defending myself. Find a quote that you want to call not a defense.

  228. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Also this stuff about intent is irrelevant.

    If someone calls someone else pathetic, it doesn’t matter whether they intended it as an attack or not. It is objectively an attack.

  229. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    SGBM:

    I am not accusing you of anything, damnit! This has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. It has nothing to do with whether others are right or wrong. Read those three quotes. Those are yours. Now think about how others may respond to responses based on those axioms. Why are you allowing others to control your response?

  230. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Nevermind.

    I’m sorry that I thought I had anything to say that would be in any way useful. Ignore what I wrote. I obviously have absolutely zero to add. Sorry and goodbye.

  231. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    sgbm:

    You deserve an explanation as to why I am flouncing — I tried to point out that your responses, the reasons for your responses, may be contributing to the misunderstandings. I said absolutely nothing about what happened with Joe and others. Yet you are still fixated on the specifics of that conversation rather than taking a step back and look at what I actually wrote.

    Anyway, I’ll still be around here but I’m not sure why.

    Bye.

  232. says

    Ogvorbis, you clearly want to attack sg under the pretense of trying to help. And I don’t believe your notpology for a minute. Your so-called apologies always have an undertone of “I don’t really regret my comments. I’m going to use this ‘apology’ as an opportunity to imply that you’re so stubborn and unreasonable that I don’t want to deal with you anymore,” even when you initiated the conversation.

  233. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    SC:

    You’re right. I’m scum. That’s the only possible answer, right? Not that I see something in sgbm that has screwed me over royally, that couldn’t be it. I think sgbm has been treated very unfairly. I also think that sgbm’s insistence that any slight is deserving of full-on defense to the end has coloured people’s views of him.

    And it comes down to this. What would you think if an abusive spouse said, “Don’t make me defend myself”? Whether sgbm is right or wrong in this instance is, to me, minor. That statement that he has made, and defended, and reiterated, worries me. And it worries me because that is something that I used to pull and it destroyed some friendships when I was younger.

    I wrote my 322 before I read his 321. When I read his 321, I realized that I had made a big mistake by offering some insights to someone I admire. And yes, it was a big fucking mistake.

  234. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ogvorbis: I am writing a response, but I think at this time it would be good for your sake to disengage from this.

    SC: please let me answer him instead.

  235. says

    SC:

    You’re right. I’m scum. That’s the only possible answer, right?

    I didn’t care what answer you came up with. I wanted you to feel like you needed to respond in some way to an attack based on false claims. I could drag it out by criticizing the sarcasm of your response and claiming it’s evidence of your original dishonest motives, but I won’t (I hate lying; also, I like you and it’s unpleasant even fake-attacking you to make a point).

    I wanted you to think about how it feels to be attacked in that way, and then to think about that mutiplied many times and coming from several sources, over a long period of time, and then have your attempts to defend yourself examined and blamed for exacerbating the problem.

    And it comes down to this. What would you think if an abusive spouse said, “Don’t make me defend myself”?

    What on earth is wrong with you? He wasn’t abusing anyone. He wasn’t going after anyone. He was trying to defend himself from unfair and unreasonable attacks, and asking the person attacking him to stop. He’s the victim here, and you’re blaming him for being victimized. It’s like saying to women harassed online that they’re provoking the continuation of the harassment by posting and responding to people’s comments, or being too aggressive in their responses, or whatever. I’m just astounded that people are so unclear on what’s going on here when they’re so clear about it in other contexts.

    He’s not “blaming” anyone for his actions. He doesn’t think he needs to, and he’s right. There was nothing wrong with his actions; they’re justified reactions to being bullied in this way, and in fact he’s been remarkably patient. If people would stop attacking him, saying false things about him, and blaming him for being bullied he wouldn’t have to keep defending himself.

    This whole dynamic is so sickening.

  236. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I am not accusing you of anything, damnit!

    I don’t think I said you were accusing me of anything.

    This has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. It has nothing to do with whether others are right or wrong.

    Of course it does.

    Read those three quotes. Those are yours. Now think about how others may respond to responses based on those axioms. Why are you allowing others to control your response?

    I’m not. I’m informing them of how I intend to respond if they attack me. Frequently people try to attack me while expecting that I will not defend myself. I want them to know that this won’t work.

    Note it is my intent that I am informing them of. Of course in every case there is the possibility that I will not respond as I said. For instance there was Esteleth’s original snipe, which was content-free enough that there was no substance to defend against, so I responded here instead. I decided where I was going to respond. And there were other comments I decided not to respond to at all.

    Ignore what I wrote.

    Thank you for the offer to ignore. You can be sure that if I thought it were wise for me to do so, I would.

    I said absolutely nothing about what happened with Joe and others. Yet you are still fixated on the specifics of that conversation rather than taking a step back and look at what I actually wrote.

    Because what you actually wrote only makes sense in the context of what I actually wrote which you were responding to — “don’t make me defend myself” and so on — and my statements only make sense in the context of the whole conversation. They cannot be sensibly divorced from it.

    If I was escalating the verbal abuse while claiming that I was only defending myself, then that would be suspect. Depending on what exactly was said in the back and forth, it might be rather problematic bullshit on my part.

    But it does in fact matter that I was not escalating. I was only responding to the accusations about me and I was only saying that they were not true.

    You recognize this matters:

    And it comes down to this. What would you think if an abusive spouse said, “Don’t make me defend myself”?

    Well that would be very different. So what you’re doing is recognizing that something would be problematic in certain contexts, and you are erroneously extrapolating to suggest that it is problematic in all contexts.

    I was being accused, by a stranger on a blog, of a several bad and a couple terrible things which are not true of me. My response, saying that I wanted to stop responding but that I would defend myself against further accusations, is very different than the context you’re comparing it to.

    So you’ve acknowledged now that the specifics of that conversation do matter — if a specific context with an abusive spouse matters, then other contexts matter as well.

    That statement that he has made, and defended, and reiterated, worries me. And it worries me because that is something that I used to pull and it destroyed some friendships when I was younger.

    It is a worthwhile thing for people to think about in general. Trust me that I do not destroy friendships in this way. A couple of weeks ago I ended up disengaging from an argument in which a straight man was getting shitty with me because I did not want his advice about dealing with homophobia. He was wrong, I was right, we were both drunk, and I decided to move for reconciliation anyway. Sometime when he’s sober I’ll try explaining it to him again. But I am aware of what you are telling me.

    I think it just isn’t good advice for this particular case. It’s not one size fits all.

    You’re right. I’m scum. That’s the only possible answer, right?

    And of course SC wasn’t saying this. You’re “awfulizing” it.

    (I am confident that SC did not refresh and see my 327 before posting her 329.)

  237. says

    SC: please let me answer him instead.

    Just to make sure it’s absolutely plain: I don’t believe any of the things I said about Ogvorbis in #325. I was trying to pull some false charges out of a hat with as little basis in evidence as those made about sg. So, sorry, Ogvorbis. I’m frustrated that people are suggesting that defending yourself against unfair and untrue attacks is a problem or somehow blameworthy.

  238. Brownian says

    I’m out and about, so I’m just checking this thread periodically.

    Yes, SG sometimes responds in a way that I think is not likely to de-escalate. I see that. I’m wired to be sensitive to emotional fights. But so what? Lots of people respond in ways I wouldn’t. Hell, this community is chockablock with people who act in ways that others find uncomfortable. Why is him defending himself so fucking odd? In this community specifically? Why is it incumbent on him to recognize that he needs to drop it. That his recall and ability to pull up comments in his defense is somehow indefensible?

  239. strange gods before me ॐ says

    (I am confident that SC did not refresh and see my 327 before posting her 329.)

    Ah, I see it would not have been a good idea for her to not reply:

    I wanted you to think about how it feels to be attacked in that way, and then to think about that mutiplied many times and coming from several sources, over a long period of time, and then have your attempts to defend yourself examined and blamed for exacerbating the problem.

  240. strange gods before me ॐ says

    That his recall and ability to pull up comments in his defense is somehow indefensible?

    Anyway, the only comments I pulled up were those from the then-current thread and the immediately previous, and they were all my own comments, for the sake of demonstrating that I do post in the lounge regularly.

  241. says

    And ultimately, I don’t care who started the fight — there’s plenty of blame to go around to lots of people. It’s who keeps it bleeding that catches my eye.

    IOW, it is all Rebecca Watson’s fault for not rolling over when she was attacked after her “guys, don’t do that” comment. got it.

    You are long past the point where a normal person would just drop it and and move on.

    true enough. It’s far more “normal” for the target of bullying to run out of energy long before those doing the bullying do; therefore, it is indeed “normal” for bullying episodes to be relatively short, and for the malicious shit said to be left standing.

    That is indeed normal. However, I find it unacceptable, much less desirable. Why would anyone demand that a target of malicious lies disengage and let the lies stand unanswered?! I thought we were supposed to be uppity and not let the assholes get us down?

  242. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I love the fact that Crawley told Romney to pipe down. :D :D

  243. strange gods before me ॐ says

    And ultimately, I don’t care who started the fight — there’s plenty of blame to go around to lots of people. It’s who keeps it bleeding that catches my eye.

    And that would be Esteleth attacking me six hours after I stopped responding; Azkyroth getting his dig in another hour later (to his credit, Azkyroth acknowledged later he wasn’t being fair, so I’m not upset about this, just pointing out that fact that he did keep it going); trinioler asking me questions which I responded to here in the thunderdome instead, to which he responded by faving Esteleth’s flipping me off in the lounge; Esteleth then telling me to go fuck myself; Setar blatantly attacking me out of nowhere for old shit that he distorted, just flailing and hating on me at the notion that I might be the target of bullying.

    Then there’s the dozen or so other people whose responses can’t be said to be inappropriate, who weren’t doing anything wrong, but who nevertheless kept the discussion fresh in everyone’s minds so that more responses would just keep on coming. It wouldn’t be fair to expect them not to say what they wanted to say about it, but that’s still a big part of how these things keep going — even though I had stopped responding at #451.

  244. strange gods before me ॐ says

    The above is not an attempt to fight with Esteleth about it again. I am defending myself against PZ’s false accusations now.

  245. Tethys says

    *tackle hugs SG and tickles him until he stops arguing*

    Let’s mock Romney instead. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top?

  246. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys. No. Do you see this? It is going to be bad for me to let that go unanswered. PZ is wrong. I did nothing wrong. His words will be used against me later, like this. It is in my interest, therefore, to counter his claims as soon as possible.

    +++++
    John, you are wrong. He ignores the people who jumped into the discussion to attack me, and blames me for responding to them. They are the ones who are at fault. I was not wrong. He falsely suggests that I continued arguing with Joe about criminal law after Joe was apologizing and “practically begging me to drop it”. That is objectively false. I will not let these claims stand unanswered.

  247. Tethys says

    Someone please explain to me how the fuck two parent families have an effect on AK-47’s being legal?

    Or something like that.

  248. John Morales says

    ॐ,

    He ignores the people who jumped into the discussion to attack me, and blames me for responding to them.

    You really don’t get it, do ya?

    Blame and fairness are irrelevant in context.

    (If a thousand people each only post one snipe at you, and you respond to each only the once; there would be two thousand snipe and counter-snipe comments on the his blog, and you’d have made half of them)

  249. John Morales says

    To hammer the point home:

    I will not let these claims stand unanswered.

    And that’s the problem.

  250. strange gods before me ॐ says

    John, I get it just fine. It is morally wrong.

    PZ is a person who cares about right and wrong,

    so I believe he is capable of seeing this, and caring about it, if it is made explicit.

  251. strange gods before me ॐ says

    And that’s the problem.

    No, that is not a problem.

    The problem is the point of view that sees actual self-defense as a problem.

  252. Tethys says

    SG

    Tethys. No. Do you see this? It is going to be bad for me to let that go unanswered.

    Yes, I saw it. So what? Pursuing it will be worse. You will not explode if you just drop it, and you can prove PZ wrong by doing so.

    *calming manatees, cute otters, chocolate, awesome mood altering substances, all dumped on SG to distract him*

  253. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    It is morally wrong.

    Virtue ethics, from you?

    <snicker>

    I quote an imaginary character: “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

  254. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Tethys,

    Yes, I saw it. So what? Pursuing it will be worse.

    I doubt it. In any case I will not acquiesce to injustice against me simply because I might be punished worse for objecting to it.

    You will not explode if you just drop it,

    But I will be harassed with his unanswered claims later.

    and you can prove PZ wrong by doing so.

    No, silence now cannot prove that I did not do something in the past. I cannot prove that I did not continue arguing with Joe about criminal law (or anything else except actual defenses of myself against hurtful accusations) by ignoring that claim.

    If you want to help me, you can tell PZ that I did nothing wrong. You have little or nothing to lose by doing so; you aren’t the designated scapegoat. You will not distract me. I am multitasking anyway. I will not stop until I feel that I, and anyone who wants to help me, have adequately answered his accusations.

    If you are afraid to help, I will not hold it against you, but then please stop burdening me with other things to respond to.

    +++++
    John,

    Virtue ethics, from you?

    No. Punishing, threatening to punish, or making false claims against people who have done nothing wrong produces moral hazards in all known systems.

    PZ like most Americans probably holds at least a mix of deontology and consequentialism. I am confident that he can recognize according to his own moral beliefs that he is doing something wrong.

    I quote an imaginary character: “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

    There are a great many here who will be upset by further unfair treatment of me.

  255. says

    You will not explode if you just drop it, and you can prove PZ wrong by doing so.

    how would accept PZ’s version of events be “proving PZ wrong”? That doesn’t make sense.

    There are a great many here who will be upset by further unfair treatment of me.

    and independently of SG specifically, it would be for the greater good if this toxic social dynamic could be resolved or at least kept in check; after all, it exists independent of SG, and therefore if/when he gets banned from here, it’ll either go back to the unstable state in which random posters will find themselves at the focus of it, or it will stabilize around a new scapegoat.

  256. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    how would accept PZ’s version of events be “proving PZ wrong”? That doesn’t make sense.

    Alas, it does.

    PZ’s very point is that ॐ has shown himself constitutionally unable to “drop it”, and as I’ve noted in various ways, that’s problematic to the blog (and therefore for PZ).

    (Empyrean perspective, you have it not)

  257. Tethys says

    Dropping an unproductive argument does not mean you agree with whoever you are arguing with.

    It is entirely possible to say “I disagree, and have no interest in arguing further”.

    And now I am going to wander off and teach physics to my cat, or some other equally productive activity.

  258. strange gods before me ॐ says

    PZ’s very point is that ॐ has shown himself constitutionally unable to “drop it”

    False. He made several other objectively false claims. Which I have already noted. I cannot prove that I did not continue arguing with Joe about criminal law (or anything else except actual defenses of myself against hurtful accusations) by ignoring that claim.

    +++++

    Dropping an unproductive argument does not mean you agree with whoever you are arguing with.

    Of course it doesn’t. I didn’t claim otherwise. Read what I am actually saying. I will be harassed by other people with his false claims.

    And it is your opinion that this is unproductive. I disagree. There is utility for me in responding to his false claims now so that when I am harassed with them in the future, by Setar or others, I can point to this thread where I have already answered the false claims.

  259. says

    let me just say that I’m very impressed with the way Rmoney managed to basically say that women are such a pain in the ass as employees, what with their needs for flexible schedule (to be able to do their proper job as mommy, of course), that the only way to get employers to want to hire them is to make employers completely desperate to find someone to fill a position.

    Jesus fuck

    now I go back to listening to the debate, and presumably to work. good thing I’m self employed, because clearly any other boss would have been just way too burdened with having to put up with my needs. and I don’t even have children.

  260. chigau (棒や石) says

    Jadehawk
    Women are also a pain in the ass as employees because they spend so much in the washroom.
    and gawd only knows what they’re doing in there.
    (but it probably involves *shudder* tampons)

  261. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I hope PZ will take these comments into consideration. Note that all of them were made after my last comment to Joe, #451.

    [Alethea:] Joe, I’m pretty sure no-one was deliberately trying to hurt you. It looks like an accident to me. And you are actually making things worse for yourself by wallowing and exaggerating, which is a cognitive error that depressed people are prone to. (I refuse to call it awfulising but I have seen that term used.)

    [Tony:] Also, I am genuinely curious-when I read your post about not guilty verdicts, I took it at face value. I believed you. Given how often people online or IRL make statements without backing them up, and how often others will just take them at face value, without checking the veracity of the claims *and* given how (especially around here) the burden of proof is placed on the individual making the claim–I think sgbm‘s request was reasonable. Removing the bit about ‘nonsense’ may have made the query less confrontational (it seems like that’s how you took it; I can see how you could, though I don’t agree that it was). I know you’re probably not looking to get into a discussion similar to the one several weeks back, and I’m not trying to resurrect that one. I am trying to discuss whether or not it is reasonable to support a claim with evidence-even here in The Lounge. I’m also trying to discuss that as kindly as possible.

    [Muse:] I understand Joe is depressed, and I feel for him, however, I’m not seeing where sg did anything wrong. He saw something that seemed incorrect, and asked for more data. Perhaps he did so less kindly than would be nice, but it wasn’t mean near as I can tell. [Joe] responded angrily to the request for more data, and attacked sg. How is sg at fault here? I’m seriously confused.

    [trinioler:] Look, all SG did was ask for some citations. It wasn’t an attack, no one is trying to hurt you or stop being your friends.

    [David Marjanović:] Oh, and, for the record, let me point out that sgbm clearly tried to limit the damage and express sympathy in comment 435 (previous page). It was a clumsy attempt and probably couldn’t have worked very well, but the intent is still clear.

    [Brownian:] Right, and the pattern is that people jump all over SGBM, even in cases like this where many people, trinioler included, agreed that IJ had an unwarranted reaction.

    [SC:] What needs to change is the reaction to him. He’s not the problem. The treatment of him is. It’s absolutely shocking that people don’t recognize this pattern when it’s repeated again and again and more than one person has called attention to it. Stop attacking this person. Stop it. You’re better people than that.

    [Brownian:] I also like Joe and am worried about him. But Joe isn’t the issue here—it’s how SGBM regularly gets turned on, even by those agreeing with him. This is one of the reasons I don’t hang in the lounge.

    [consciousness razor:] No, he gets this reaction a lot, from particular people, independent of whichever “argument style” he uses. And even if it were due to something about his “style,” that doesn’t mean it needs to change: it could just as well be that the people reacting need to change. So your “evidence,” such as it is, doesn’t tell us anything. [...] If you agree that Joe overreacted, what exactly should SG or anyone else have done differently?

    [Muse:] I asked this in the Lounge, but seriously, Joe’s reaction was way out of line. Yes, clearly he’s troubled right now, but how in hell is that SG’s fault? He’s not a mind reader, and he was pretty mild. He said citation please. Joe flipped out and was pretty nasty. Yes, cut Joe the stressed out and scared break, I’m fine with that, but why get pissed at SG?

    [Beatrice:] I agree that sg is being used as a scapegoat very often and it’s a nauseating thing to watch.

    [Thomathy:] Confluence of past behaviour my ass. SGBM has been decidedly targeted here by people for having done nothing wrong. Not this time (as if any other time not in evidence ought to necessarily matter anyhow). Joe’s state of mind aside, SGBM, in fact, did nothing to provoke the responses Joe fired off. Further, the deterioration of Joe in that thread is a miserably sad affair to go over, but that was unprovoked too. Joe was losing it and was lashing out at people, at quite good people. Whatever is wrong with Joe, it needs to be dealt with off of here. As for SGBM, some people need to lay the fuck off it and think for a moment about what they’re perpetuating. SGBM is not the bad person here.

    [Jadehawk:] he’s the one around whom this is currently happening; and it does seem that this social dynamic has actually stabilized with him at the focus, hence the “designated scapegoat” thing. However, before this stabilization, it has focused on other people as well, including Algernon, myself, and SC. this is a long-running dynamic on Pharyngula, and I can’t say that I share SC’s belief that the Pharynguloid Horde is really better than that. At least, I’ve not seen any evidence for that.

    [Thomathy:] there remains the fact that people were willing, despite two fucking threads of black and white print to illuminate the sad truth, to throw SGBM under the bus to satisfy …what, grudges? SGBM was ill-treated for having done nothing untoward and even if otherwise, I’ve seen more understanding granted people much less deserving. I think this problem is serious. We can’t have scapegoats, we can’t have people heap on plainly hurtful words after someone has said how hurtful they are and we can’t have people denying someone’s humanity when right in front of their faces is a plea for it to be recognised. That’s not this Horde. I thought so many of the people here better than that. I want to be shown that they are. I want this stink gone. It doesn’t need to be an angerfest, out of proportion nor damaging, but it does need to be dealt with. This place isn’t worth it otherwise.

    [SC:] It can be avoided if people understand that the way to address someone’s anguish is not to join in the abuse of someone else. Joining in the attacks on sg* (and that includes using that moment to express your personal dislike for him, telling people to avoid him, attributing bad motives to him, suggesting that he brings it on himself, or advising him to stop defending himself against abusive treatment) does nothing to meaningfully alleviate anyone’s distress, and even if it did it would be a hollow, ultimately counterproductive, and obviously unethical form of “therapy.” All it does is cause another person pain. (Of course, this bullying is unacceptable in any circumstances, but it’s important to talk about it in this context because people might actually believe that by participating in it they’re helping someone else.) *or any other designated scapegoat

    [SC:] sg didn’t cross any line. He’s not to blame for being scapegoated or for defending himself, any more than Rebecca Watson is. I’m amazed you can’t see this. You’ve staked out an unreasonable position, and you’re encouraging this running abuse. You are pushing it on, PZ.

    [Brownian:] As it stands now, SG has been singled out, and it’s clear that signals that it’s okay for anyone to jump in and toss digs at him whenever he’s involved in any sort of argument, So yeah. Maybe listing everyone who’s pissed you off might take some of the heat off of him.

    [SC:] He wasn’t abusing anyone. He wasn’t going after anyone. He was trying to defend himself from unfair and unreasonable attacks, and asking the person attacking him to stop. He’s the victim here, and you’re blaming him for being victimized. It’s like saying to women harassed online that they’re provoking the continuation of the harassment by posting and responding to people’s comments, or being too aggressive in their responses, or whatever. I’m just astounded that people are so unclear on what’s going on here when they’re so clear about it in other contexts. He’s not “blaming” anyone for his actions. He doesn’t think he needs to, and he’s right. There was nothing wrong with his actions; they’re justified reactions to being bullied in this way, and in fact he’s been remarkably patient. If people would stop attacking him, saying false things about him, and blaming him for being bullied he wouldn’t have to keep defending himself. This whole dynamic is so sickening.

    [Jadehawk:] It’s far more “normal” for the target of bullying to run out of energy long before those doing the bullying do; therefore, it is indeed “normal” for bullying episodes to be relatively short, and for the malicious shit said to be left standing. That is indeed normal. However, I find it unacceptable, much less desirable. Why would anyone demand that a target of malicious lies disengage and let the lies stand unanswered?!

    [Jadehawk:] and independently of SG specifically, it would be for the greater good if this toxic social dynamic could be resolved or at least kept in check; after all, it exists independent of SG, and therefore if/when he gets banned from here, it’ll either go back to the unstable state in which random posters will find themselves at the focus of it, or it will stabilize around a new scapegoat.

  262. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I told you what you could do to help me if you want to.

    No one here is tasked with looking out for me.

    Let me deal with this how I think best.

    I just want those words to be fresh in his mind.

  263. Tethys says

    SG

    I find your #361 heartbreaking, I will empathize if I want to. :p

    I know it doesn’t resolve anything, but I would hope it is at least slightly helpful to know that other people care about you and wish you peace.

  264. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    SGBM @361:

    When you get mentioned in the red ink in a negative way, I would suggest leaving very, very tiny footprints with respect to the thread that caused the kerfuffle, as well as the followup messages in its evolution. Your post at 361 may not have the effect you are hoping for, considering PZ’s mood. He gave you a hint with his mention of observing certain social graces. You named a good number of people in that post, so mark down a moral victory if you want to, but I have a feeling that not drawing the final period in the book for this chapter is going to lead to something unfortunate for you.

    You mentioned how wronged you felt at certain points in the recent tangle. For your own sake, I ask that you consider what your feelings might be if you were suddenly asked not to participate at all anywhere on this blog. There are a lot more important fights to come on this blog, ones worth winning, and I know you want to be around for those.

  265. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Besides, the red text was in the lounge. (Now please, if you are afraid to actually help me, then just leave me alone, McCthulhu, and stop burdening me with other things to respond to.)

  266. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    /me shrugs, puts on a helmet and moves to a bunker outside minimum safe distance radius.

    /me gets cranky upon discovering someone has already eaten the entire store of emergency ration m&ms in this bunker.

  267. John Morales says

    ॐ, your conditional can only apply were McCthulhu afraid to actually help you and therefore if that is not the case, then your appeal is moot.

    (Your spurning others’ help doesn’t mean you haven’t been offered it)

  268. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Thanks. Often I appreciate our banter. I just can’t do it today, is all.

  269. says

    When you get mentioned in the red ink in a negative way, I would suggest leaving very, very tiny footprints with respect to the thread that caused the kerfuffle, as well as the followup messages in its evolution. Your post at 361 may not have the effect you are hoping for, considering PZ’s mood. He gave you a hint with his mention of observing certain social graces.

    Right, if only sg would tiptoe away and stop being so quarrelsome when people are telling untruths about him, they’ll stop entirely. And it would be better to stay out of PZ’s way when PZ’s in one of his moods. sg should let the false charges stand and accept the scapegoating, for his own protection. Anyway, continuing to defend himself just proves PZ’s point that he brings this all on himself because he’s so quarrelsome, and future hostile responses from PZ are his own fault for stubbornly refusing to shut up and go along.

    Ogvorbis, I hope you’re reading posts like this and noting who’s being recognized as abusive here.

    Will you people give sg credit for understanding that he can anticipate the possible consequences of continuing to defend himself and make rational decisions about how to proceed? You’re not helping him with these attempts to cajole him into silence; you’re helping the bullies, and contributing to the pattern.

    ***

    SG

    I find your #361 heartbreaking,

    Well, that’s a bizarre reaction. Perhaps you should try reading the content of the arguments there (including the fact that several of us note that this isn’t about sg alone) rather than focusing on…what? his having collected and posted some relevant quotes?

    If you really wish him peace, maybe you’ll join us in trying to put an end to this bullying dynamic. (Consider it self-protection: there’s no guarantee you won’t be the next scapegoat.)

  270. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    sgbm:

    I apologize profusely. I did not intend a passive-aggressive, manipulative and condescending attack against you. I also did not intend to accuse you of abusing anyone. But, as we say around here, intent is not magic. My poor writing skills do not convey what I meant to convey and thus I did attack you and accuse you and I am sorry.

  271. chigau (棒や石) says

    My #362 last night was not meant as a remark.
    It was bad copy-pasting and submitting and running without preview.

  272. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    So, now this whole mess is getting swept under the rug, the victim is being blamed and the status quo is being perpetuated.

    This is a rot. This isn’t just about the treatment of SGBM. At least the topic hasn’t died off, but damn this is being poorly addressed.

  273. Tethys says

    SC

    Well, that’s a bizarre reaction. Perhaps you should try reading the content of the arguments there (including the fact that several of us note that this isn’t about sg alone) rather than focusing on…what? his having collected and posted some relevant quotes?

    If you really wish him peace, maybe you’ll join us in trying to put an end to this bullying dynamic. (Consider it self-protection: there’s no guarantee you won’t be the next scapegoat.)

    I find it heartbreaking that SG feels so piled on that he spent time putting that post together.

    I would welcome changing the dynamic, though I am at a loss as to how to do that.

  274. says

    I find it heartbreaking that SG feels so piled on that he spent time putting that post together.

    The point is that it’s not about his feeling like he’s being scapegoated – it’s that he is being scapegoated. That is what is happening. In reality. And that’s what the people he’s quoting are arguing, on the basis of the plain evidence from what’s in fact merely the latest episode.

    I would welcome changing the dynamic, though I am at a loss as to how to do that.

    Contributing to it by trying to get bullied people to meekly submit to the bullying, holding them responsible for its continuation, treating their responses as compulsive and reflexive rather than reasonable and justified reactions to ongoing mistreatment, and failing to call out the people who are doing the scapegoating and demand that they stop won’t move things in that direction.

  275. Tethys says

    SC

    I asked SG very nicely to let it drop. I did not blame him, or ask him to submit meekly so I am confused by your response to me.

    You think I should call out the blog owner? Fine.

    PZ, you have been very unfair to SG in this instance. He did not start this fight, and I object to blaming him for it.

    Now can we drop it?

  276. Bernard Bumner says

    How is letting something drop different from submitting?

    It isn’t, but it may be the pragmatic thing to do, but that depends upon what is at stake.

    sgbm has been treated unfairly in this case, stitched up for reputation rather than on the facts of the matter. (But PZ never claimed to be fair when he was on his own turf, did he?)

  277. says

    I asked SG very nicely to let it drop.

    And that’s the problem. He has no obligation to let it drop, and he shouldn’t let it drop (though it would be perfectly understandable if he did, given what’s being thrown at him) because people are bullying him and making false claims about him. Letting it drop will do nothing to stop the dynamic and will only lead to its continuation, whether it’s sg or someone else people are doing it to. And no one should be asked or coaxed, nicely or sympathetically or cutesily or otherwise, to stop defending themselves against false accusations and scapegoating.

    I honestly don’t understand how people can so fail to apply the same insights they have about similar cases of bullying and scapegoating to this one, such that they repeat behaviors they oppose and condemn elsewhere. I really don’t.

    I did not blame him, or ask him to submit meekly

    Yes, you did.

    You think I should call out the blog owner? Fine.

    I think you should if you genuinely want to contribute to stopping this dynamic rather than continuing it. I think you should because PZ’s part of the problem here, and he’s treating sg unfairly. Because you rightfully object to this sort of bullying. I don’t think you should do it to please or placate me.

    PZ, you have been very unfair to SG in this instance. He did not start this fight, and I object to blaming him for it.

    Without your “nice” requests to sg, and minus the implication that you’re resistant even to saying this much, this would be somewhat helpful.

    Now can we drop it?

    No. And I say that in the full knowledge that PZ could ban me for not letting the matter drop. In fact, as I said before, I’m not sure I want to participate in the face of this nonsense anyway.

  278. Tethys says

    So no one else on this blog has ever dropped an argument simply because they did not wish to argue anymore?

    I should have posted my objection to PZ’s unfair treatment first, but it was many hours after the fact and I was trying to follow the blog owners stated preference. My bad.

  279. Bernard Bumner says

    So no one else on this blog has ever dropped an argument simply because they did not wish to argue anymore?

    Some people choose to do that, others don’t. It is hard to argue that one or the other course is correct, and particularly in the face of apparent injustice. As long as they understand the potential consequences and who has the final say, that is very much up to them.

  280. Dhorvath, OM says

    Tethys,
    The problem is, at least in part, that too many have just let things drop when they could justifiably continue, and so SG looks bad because he won’t conform to that common social trait. I know I have walked away from many instances where I felt unjustly put upon because I am lazy and have good internal rationalizations to capitalize on that fact.

  281. says

    So no one else on this blog has ever dropped an argument simply because they did not wish to argue anymore?

    What are you talking about? sg didn’t drop this “argument,”* and neither have I. If you wish to leave the conversation for whatever reason, go ahead, but don’t expect people to accede to your demands that they change their behavior.

    I should have posted my objection to PZ’s unfair treatment first,

    Yes, and you shouldn’t have objected to sg’s response to that unfair treatment or asked him to quietly submit to it.

    but it was many hours after the fact and I was trying to follow the blog owners stated preference. My bad.

    His stated preference was for people to not defend themselves or others from unfair treatment in the form of bullying, false allegations, and victim-blaming. That’s not a legitimate preference that anyone should follow. We’re actually obliged to oppose that sort of tactic of silencing and intimidation. So yes, your bad.

    *And I reject that characterization. This isn’t an argument. It’s a person defending himself against scapegoating and false and hurtful claims.

  282. ChasCPeterson says

    I’d like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the value of killfile. I use it whenever I get extremely angry at someone, or know that I’m going to go on a tirade about one of their comments.

    and, plus, you can get the passive-aggressive last word by being sure to let that someone know you’ve killfiled them.

    *raises hand for Team SG but no longer cares enough about this place to jump in*

    yeah, tu quoque, so what?

  283. Brownian says

    Now can we drop it?

    What the bizarr-o fuck?

    Telling SG to drop it is telling SG to simply abide this unfair behaviour for the sake of not getting banned from this blog so he can continue to experience this unfair behaviour knowing that others will turn their backs to it.

    I mean, what the fuck is this:

    And ultimately, I don’t care who started the fight — there’s plenty of blame to go around to lots of people. It’s who keeps it bleeding that catches my eye.

    Take a plea, SG. The court system is way overworked, and we’ve got dungeons to fill.

  284. Tethys says

    *sigh*

    People, I assure you that SG and I are not harbouring ill will against each other. We are good.

    I wish to drop it because he isn’t here, and I am deeply uncomfortable dissecting other regulars behavior as a topic of discussion. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by continuing, as the horde consensus is that PZ has been unfair.

    I think SG might appreciate it too.

  285. Nepenthe says

    *drums fingers on tabletop*

    So… dogs are pretty gross. I really don’t like them. Anyone else have any thoughts on this issue?

  286. John Morales says

    Nepenthe, thoughts? Sure. Here’s three:

    1. Humans are pretty gross, too.

    2. You haven’t made it clear whether your alleged dislike for dogs is based on your perception of their grossness. Is it?

    3. People who don’t like dogs are suspect.

  287. Brownian says

    So… dogs are pretty gross. I really don’t like them. Anyone else have any thoughts on this issue?

    I always feel that I should wash my hands after touching one.

  288. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    Nepenthe:

    So… dogs are pretty gross. I really don’t like them. Anyone else have any thoughts on this issue?

    Blasphemer!

    Seriously, overall I don’t think they’re gross. I do think that dogs occasionally engage in gross activities (such as eating each others’ shit or digging in the litter box and eating cat shit). Some dogs drool a lot and that’s rather yucky (one of my rommies has an American Bulldog and boy does he drool). Of course, humans do some yucky things too (nose picking, fingernail biting) and I’m willing to ignore that most of the time, so I can do the same for dogs.
    I love them. They’re great for companionship, for assisting with physical activity, and for affection. The dogs in my home-as well as the cats-are part of my family.
    To each their own though.

  289. John Morales says

    Brownian, unlike cats, dogs don’t cover themselves with their own spit.

    (They’re good at covering other dogs with it, though :) )

  290. John Morales says

    I once watched as one cat was vomiting (walking backwards) and another cat was simultaneously ingesting the vomit (walking forwards).

    (Cuteness!)

  291. Brownian says

    Brownian, unlike cats, dogs don’t cover themselves with their own spit.

    That’s why my point against dogs stands. Cats don’t require that you wash after touching them* (usually) because they cover themselves with their own spit, removing oils and dirt.

    *Cats tend to agree that humans are gross, which is why many cats will wash themselves after being touched by a human. Or possibly an angel.

  292. Brownian says

    I once watched as one cat was vomiting (walking backwards) and another cat was simultaneously ingesting the vomit (walking forwards).

    Sorry, and this is in contrast to which animal that ostensibly doesn’t eat vomit, again?

    Nonetheless, I would add that this example demonstrates that cats are employing modern business practices to the vomit production/consumption chain.

  293. says

    I dislike people who do like dogs.
    I dislike people who do like frogs.
    I would not, could not, touch a cat.
    I would not, could not, touch a rat.
    I don’t like mice, I don’t like snakes.
    I don’t like fish, I don’t like bugs.
    I don’t like spiders. Don’t like slugs.

    I don’t like goats. They’re just so pushy.
    Don’t like sheep. So damned bushy.
    Don’t like cows. They’re always mooing.
    Don’t like horses. Always chewing.

    Don’t like wolves. I hear they eat us.
    Won’t run with cheetahs. They always beat us.
    Lions too, and tigers stalk us.
    Coyotes, too. Hyenas mock us.

    I don’t like owls, always hooting.
    And pigs are weird–always rooting.
    Bonobos, man, they’re just too kinky.
    And humans, hell, they’re just too stinky.

  294. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    nms:

    All dogs smell horrible.

    I have to disagree.
    I literally just smelled T’s dog, Kiara. She doesn’t have much of an odor that I can perceive and what little is present is not offensive by any stretch.
    I would say dogs smell horrible with wet fur though.

    Another plus in the dog column-they like all kinds of food*. I had some leftovers that were in the refrigerator for a few days and I didn’t want them any longer. Instead of throwing them away, I gave them to the dogs (some pasta and pulled pork; and not much of it was left anyway). I also hate the stems of asparagus and broccoli, so they get those too. The pumpkins that I buy for their seeds are a great snack for dogs as well (until I learned that dogs love pumpkin, I always threw the pumpkin away, because all I wanted were the seeds).

    *I know not to feed them onions, grapes, chocolate, garlic, or macadamia nuts

  295. Brownian says

    Another plus in the dog column-they like all kinds of food*. I had some leftovers that were in the refrigerator for a few days and I didn’t want them any longer. Instead of throwing them away, I gave them to the dogs (some pasta and pulled pork; and not much of it was left anyway). I also hate the stems of asparagus and broccoli, so they get those too. The pumpkins that I buy for their seeds are a great snack for dogs as well (until I learned that dogs love pumpkin, I always threw the pumpkin away, because all I wanted were the seeds).

    I have a ‘dog’ like that in my backyard. It’s great, but I had to get another ‘dog’ just for the autumn leaves.

  296. Louis says

    Brownian on the other hand does cover himself with his own spit.

    But only if we’re out of lube and I ask nicely.

    Louis

  297. Brownian says

    Brownian on the other hand does cover himself with his own spit.

    That was just when I was a larva, and needed to make a protective case out of lake-bottom debris.

  298. says

    (/… rewrite: please sub ‘I don’t like gulls, I don’t like eagles./Don’t like hounds, and don’t like beagles.’ for the hanging ‘snakes’ non-rhyme above. Kthxbye.)

  299. Louis says

    That was just when I was a larva, and needed to make a protective case out of lake-bottom debris.

    Oh you’re such a nymph!

    Louis

  300. nms says

    I literally just smelled T’s dog, Kiara. She doesn’t have much of an odor that I can perceive and what little is present is not offensive by any stretch.

    If all dogs smell horrible, and that animal didn’t smell, then it obviously wasn’t a dog. QED.

  301. Louis says

    And Louis is back and better than ever!

    Only briefly, darling, only briefly. I must gan awa’ to sleep at some juncture. Tomorrow is another busy day of work followed by house renovation.*

    “Get married” they said.

    “Have a kid” they said.

    “Buy a house” they said.

    The fuckers wanted revenge.

    I used to have this thing called “a social life”, where I saw these things called “people” and occasionally, juuuuust occasionally, drank something called “beer”. These things are a distant memory. I shall have to go for a lie down and a mint julep for I am overcome. Send for the house boy!

    Louis

    * “Buy the project house” they said. Project. PRO-fucking-JECT. We’re 4 weeks in, 4 weeks to go, and there is nary a day when my testicles are not awash with the honest sweat of physical toil. I feel positively plebian. It’s played havoc with my manicure I can tell you. My cuticles are a disaster and my French Weave merkin is askew and chafing my nadgers something rotten.

  302. says

    What’s your opinion on Cuttlefish

    Well, cuttlefish are kind of cuddly…

    (… checks rhyming dictionary…)

    … but stippled studfish are more studly.

  303. chigau (棒や石) says

    Louis
    When you get to painting the walls, do it naked.
    Skin is waaay easier than clothing to clean.

  304. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    Brownian:
    You made a condom out of lake-bottom debris?
    Is there no end to your talents?

    ****

    Louis:
    comments like yours @413 are why I’ve missed you dear. Sweaty testicles and all.

  305. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ogvorbis,

    I apologize profusely.

    I appreciate you saying this. FWIW, I recognized what you were saying, about other people controlling one’s reactions, to be generally useful therapy stuff (not necessarily yours, possibly relayed to you from other people in your life), simply applied beyond its relevant scope. I’m not upset with you.

    +++++
    Bernard,

    sgbm has been treated unfairly in this case, stitched up for reputation rather than on the facts of the matter. (But PZ never claimed to be fair when he was on his own turf, did he?)

    I don’t know if he goes around asserting that he is fair, but I do know that he cares about fairness generally — so if he were asked “PZ, do you believe that you should try to act fairly?” it’s reasonable to expect that he would answer in the affirmative.

    +++++
    Tethys,

    PZ, you have been very unfair to SG in this instance.

    Thank you.

    People, I assure you that SG and I are not harbouring ill will against each other. We are good.

    Yes, but it’s not ill will that anyone is reading from you.

    I already said that I want to answer PZ’s accusations (Inshallah, time permitting). Subject-unclear questions like “So no one else on this blog has ever dropped an argument simply because they did not wish to argue anymore?” are giving people the impression that you’re talking about me. If you’re talking about yourself, of course, you can drop your participation in the discussion. Thanks again for speaking to PZ.

  306. Brownian says

    And what is your cute little doggy’s name?

    I’d never thought to give it one before. My girlfriend leaves it up to me to feed it, and the housemates can’t be arsed to rake. It doesn’t come when I call, so what’s the need?

    You made a condom out of lake-bottom debris?

    Necessity and latex allergies are the mother of invention.

    (I’m not actually allergic to latex, but it is allergic to me.)

  307. dianne says

    Ah, house buying. We’re currently in the throws of considering that madness. It is foundering on the fact that the house under consideration is way overpriced. Making a final, still much below asking, offer and will then sit here saying “get real” to the sellers until they accept or find someone with more money. Whichever comes first. It took 1.5 hours of paperwork just to get to this stage. I hesitate to think what closing would be like. On the plus side, all the delays give us time to pull out and run away screaming if Romney wins.

  308. Louis says

    Chigau,

    Were I the sort to be offended, your suggestion that I would paint in any other state than nude might just make it!

    ;-)

    Louis

  309. Nepenthe says

    @John Morales 394

    Humans are pretty gross, too.

    Can’t disagree with you there. There’s a reason I interact with them mostly via the internet.

    You haven’t made it clear whether your alleged dislike for dogs is based on your perception of their grossness. Is it?

    That and I’m suspicious of any creature that loyal.

    People who don’t like dogs are suspect.

    Fair enough. We’re at least as suspect as people who don’t like baseball and/or apple pie.

  310. carlie says

    I had a dog for several years. Dogs are ok enough, but I don’t want to own another. They smell a lot worse than cats. And they’re so… licky. And harder to deal with in general. Too much hassle.

    I don’t mind visiting dogs, but I hate when people act like everyone in the world should love their dog and want to pet it and be excited when their dog comes and jumps up on me. No. I should get to decide if I get to interact with your dog, and you haven’t trained it well enough if it thinks it can come over and start jumping and licking and etc. all over me. BAH, I say.

  311. Nepenthe says

    I loved goldfish. I had one as a kid that changed colors and lived for almost 8 years.

    … and then my parents revealed that I’d actually had 10+ goldfish, that goldfish didn’t change color, and that they’d just been replacing it everytime it leaped out of the bowl, been scared to death by the cat, or died of fluoride poisoning.

  312. dianne says

    Either goldfish can change colors (or at least be bleached over time) or our neighbors pulled a fast one on us: we went on vacation leaving two gold and white goldfish and one white goldfish in the care of the neighbors. We came back to two white goldfish, one with touches of gold on its fins, and one gold and white goldfish. The one that is different looks otherwise the same (i.e. size of fins and body), so I’m guessing that it got lighter somehow, but I suppose the neighbors could have let one die and bought a nearly identical fish out of embarrassment.

  313. A. R says

    When I was much younger, I kept a brown trout in a 100 gallon tank system I convinced my parents to buy me at a garage sale. I used an old minifreezer with holes drilled in the front as a cooling system (the water was pumped through a coiled length (about six feet) of tubing in the freezer). Had it for about five years until it died of what I can only assume was old age (it was about 4″ when I caught it).

  314. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    Nepenthe:

    We’re at least as suspect as people who don’t like baseball and/or apple pie.

    Um, I think some baseball players are good looking, does that count?
    Despise apple pie though (for that matter, *any* kind of pie). Does one negate the other?

    ****

    John Morales:

    (Surely no-one can possibly dislike goldfish?)

    They don’t have much taste. Can’t say I like them.

  315. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    nms:
    I thought the same thing. That comment seemed to come out of nowhere too.

  316. John Morales says

    Rutee, he hasn’t been banned because he’s not done anything ban-worthy (as elucidated in the Pharyngula Standards & Practices).

    (IOW, he may be violating the mores, but not the rules)

  317. nms says

    I was fairly confident that he had been confined to TZT at some point, but in my idle Googling I can’t find any evidence of this. I suppose I was misremembering.

    This “Rutee is actually Ing sockpuppeting” conjecture is truly bizarre. And a tiny bit hilarious.

  318. strange gods before me ॐ says

    nms: He spent some time here doing the ZOMG MUSLIMS ZOMالله thing, that’s probably what you’re thinking of.

  319. says

    Repetitive breaking of the mores is potentially bannable. He’s been doing it for literal *YEARS*. Stupidity is also banworthy. Others have been banned for less.

  320. Tony •Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze• says

    I also wonder why StevoR is insistent that Ing apologize to reliwhat. It’s not as if Ing has been the only person decidedly unfriendly towards hir.

  321. Louis says

    John,

    ZOMG! SCARY MUSLIMS in SCARY MUSLIN! Do they eat SCARY MUESLI?

    I’ve heard that some of them are PAEDIATRICIANS!!!! Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children?

    Louis

  322. ChasCPeterson says

    “Rutee is actually Ing sockpuppeting” conjecture is truly bizarre.

    I know. For one thing, I think Ing’s a honky.

  323. nms says

    Can anyone confirm a TZT confinement for StevoR?

    No, I’m quite sure now that I was mistaken about that.

  324. anteprepro says

    I don’t know why he fixates on me.

    Probably for the best. I get the impression that if we truly understood how StevOR’s “mind” operates, we would wind up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth and crying for the sweet release of brain death.

  325. says

    Actually thinking back on it while I don’t think I was the first to call StevoR out I might have been the first to tell him that it’s personal and try to hammer in to him that what he says, to me, isn’t about some anonymous rag-head but about friends and family of friends. I stand by my statements too, the narrative he accepts and regurgitates is very similar to Nazi propaganda, because many racist bullshit is similar to it. He is in many ways just like a Klan’s man.

  326. anteprepro says

    He is in many ways just like a Klan’s man.

    The only thing that makes him different is that his views are ever so slightly more acceptable to the modern conservative than a Klansman’s are. And that the American public is more willing to tolerate violence committed in the name of his flavor of bigotry than a Klansman’s. The benefits of getting the military to do your dirty work.

  327. strange gods before me ॐ says

    For those who enjoy online polls:

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_21792069/controversial-american-border-patrol-president-speaks-at-conference

    Currently:

    Do you think the American Border Patrol, classified as a “hate group” by some, should have been allowed to present at an El Paso border technology conference?
    Total Votes = 640

    Yes, I don’t see a problem with it.
    63.12 %

    No, the group should not have been allowed to present.
    31.56 %

    I’m not sure.
    5.312 %

  328. cm's changeable moniker says

    strange gods, re. meritocracy, I thought this was interesting:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/18/guest-review-by-aaron-swartz-chris-hayes-the-twilight-of-the-elites/

    (Don’t have the £££ for the book, have to settle for the review.)

    And, for the record, I think you did nothing wrong in the Lounge.

    That said (and I think I’ve said at least the first part of this here before), I don’t think saying things that aren’t true is necessarily lying, and I don’t think that repeatedly saying things that aren’t true is necessarily bullying. People go wrong sometimes.

    (But then, the worst thing I’ve been accused of recently is “passive-aggressively insinuat[ing that someone was ignorant]” when I asked how much of a particular topic I needed to explain, so I guess I’ve gotten off lightly. *glum*)

  329. Brownian says

    so I guess I’ve gotten off lightly

    You might not be giving yourself a long enough refractory period.

  330. strange gods before me ॐ says

    cm,

    And, for the record, I think you did nothing wrong in the Lounge.

    Thanks.

    That said (and I think I’ve said at least the first part of this here before), I don’t think saying things that aren’t true is necessarily lying,

    Fact: I didn’t say that anyone was lying.

    and I don’t think that repeatedly saying things that aren’t true is necessarily bullying.

    What I called bullying: this, this immediate reply, this, and this. Those were all unprovoked attacks, all blatant violations of the rules of the lounge, all leveraging the social dynamic there where I could not respond in kind. That is all bullying.

    I also called this bullying, which it was. It was a continuation of the above, and an attempt to blame me for being bullied.

    Don’t be vague. It doesn’t help anyone.

  331. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Ing:
    I look forward to reading those books.
    If you could, would you wander around various websites and peddle the books please, so that you can get your message out to the world before it’s too late? I mean, think of the children (wait…)

  332. cm's changeable moniker says

    Fact: I didn’t say that anyone was lying.

    Ahh. Yes, that’s true.

    I think I conflated my recollection of previous episodes and maybe a dash of Jadehawk’s “Why would anyone demand that a target of malicious lies disengage” (not to ascribe blame to Jadehawk; that’s my mistake).

    Apologies.

  333. cm's changeable moniker says

    (sg, I’m not ignoring the other stuff, it’s just that it’s 1am here.)

  334. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    [cross posted from the Lounge]
    I am so fucking livid right now.
    In Greta’s time of need, Wooly Bumblebee decides to be nice and call a cease fire of hostilities (so grand of her) and actually displayed some humanity by donating money to help her out.
    Now because people (read: Ophelia and Stephanie) said bad things about her, she’s decided not to make a video asking her viewers to assist Greta.
    Yeah, that’s right. She no longer wants to help Greta because of something that is completely unrelated to her situation.
    I thought some of the shit heads we’ve seen in the last year were bad.

    I abhore this vile shitstain.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/10/its-all-trolling-when-you-come-right-down-to-it/#comment-313966

  335. nms says

    I am continually amazed that anyone ever doubted Wooly Bumblebee’s expertise on the subject of bullying

  336. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    keitho:

    Lots of people are talking about “stealth Christian” novels lately. But there’s another kind of book in town: a stealth atheist novel. “Xmas Carol” is a sci-fi/horror story with ONLY atheist characters (and you’ll love them). The book description says nothing about atheism, making it a “stealth” item. The story will drag people in, and along the way they’ll discover that atheists are people too. Special bonus: the book has two married gay men as its main characters. Seriously, this is the book we all should have written. Check “Xmas Carol” out. Only 3 bucks.

    Color me intrigued.
    I want to read the book.

  337. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    SGBM:
    Thank you.
    ****

    Does anyone have experience with Atheist Nexus?

  338. jonmilne says

    Some help needed on a small snippet of an email I’ve been having about Evolution vs ID. Thanks guys :)

    ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology? If there is, ID is true. If there isn’t, Darwinism is true. The falsification of intelligent design is Darwinism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design. Either biology shows evidence of intelligent agency, or it doesn’t. Either intelligent design and Darwinism are both science, or neither is science. If you can’t test the hypothesis of intelligent agency in biology, then you can’t test Darwinism, and Darwinism is immune from evidence and must simply be accepted on faith.
    Darwinism is intelligent design’s doppelganger. So why would Darwinists like Dr. Novella claim that ID isn’t falsifiable, when their own theory is the falsification of ID? As it turns out, there’s a method and a reason. If ID isn’t falsifiable, then the question of design in biology can’t be adjudicated by science, and this renders Darwinism immune from evidence. Darwinism must then be accepted on faith. (Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism, Evolution New and Views, April 9, 2008)

    Jon Milne

  339. John Morales says

    Jon Milne quotes this:

    ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology?

    Nah, Darwinism investigates what is, ID wants to try to rationalise a presupposition.

    (ie what’s been scientifically discovered makes teleology otiose)

  340. Rodney Nelson says

    Either intelligent design and Darwinism are both science, or neither is science.

    Whoever wrote this doesn’t know what science is.

  341. strange gods before me ॐ says

    birgerjohansson,

    -BTW I liked Philp José Farmer’s “To Your Scattered Bodies Go” but I do not use it as a political ideology statement. However it would definitely be better than “Atlas Shrugged”.
    Let us pass this suggestion to the libertarians.

    Was this the only thing you contrasted with Atlas Shrugged recently? I remembered a remark but didn’t note the title.

  342. anteprepro says

    Does any of this help, jon?

    ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology?

    False. “Darwinism” was arrived at by exploring the similarity of species and, over time, stumbled upon an explanation in the form of a deviation from a common ancestry. Via *drumroll* evolution. Teleology wasn’t the question; it was a question that was completely undermined by the answers to a completely separate line of inquiry. Answers that ID simply denies.

    The falsification of intelligent design is Darwinism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design. Either biology shows evidence of intelligent agency, or it doesn’t.

    Falsifying the idea that life is designed does not automatically entail common ancestry, natural selection, etc. Falsifying evolution would not automatically mean that the only option was that life was designed by something Greater Than Life.

    Either intelligent design and Darwinism are both science, or neither is science.

    “Darwinism” accounts for evidence. ID accounts for the evidence that it likes and ignores everything else. I’m afraid only one counts as science.

    Basically, the entire blustery argument relies on one key false premise: The idea that evolution is simply about the question of design. It is much more than that, which makes the equivalence between evolution and ID as Equal and Opposite refutations of one another completely wrong.

  343. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    Ladies and gentlemen:
    The Eternal Chigau!

    I missed that series. When did Michael Moorcock release that one?

  344. McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there. says

    John Morales: I was kindasorta planning on it anyway. I haven’t penciled it in yet. I’ll do it after I have finished procrastinating.

  345. John Morales says

    McC2lhu, ack!

    (You are ahead of me there, I haven’t got around to starting to procrastinate yet)

  346. says

    The falsification of intelligent design is Darwinism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design.

    no. two positive claims can’t be each other’s falsification. The falsification of “Darwinism” would be a failure to demonstrate natural selection as a distinct mechanism that explains certain phenomena no other already accepted mechanism (or a complete lack of mechanism) can account for. The falsification of ID is a failure to demonstrate that a supernatural being exists, and is a necessary mechanism of evolution that no other mechanism (or no mechanism) can account for.

    Which is where testability comes in: if your idea cannot be stated as a question of “if I’m wrong, this is what the results of my experiment would look like”, (meaning, if you cannot formulate your idea as a testable hypothesis), then it becomes unfalsifiable and therefore “not even wrong”, meaning it’s not even rising to the level of a failed hypothesis, it’s not science at all. And usually this is what happens with ID: it rarely presents itself as testable, since it claims to explain everything and its opposite. That’s a lack of falsifiablity.

  347. cm's changeable moniker says

    It’s 6pm and I’m thirsty and while there is beer, there isn’t very much, so when Mrs M gets back with the car, I’ll have to drive to the supermarket to get more, and consequently can’t drink what little I have in the fridge right now.

    Why do you taunt me so, beer? I’m going to teach you later!

  348. says

    It is 1:33 in the morning and there is no end to Blender tutorials. The beers, on the other hand are finished. I am to lazy to walk down five flights of stairs and toddle off to the 7-11 at the end of the road. X(

  349. chigau (棒や石) says

    It’s 11:40AM and I’m ready for lunch but I’d hafta walk all the way to the kitchen.
    meh

  350. says

    chigau

    I really wish that I could buy beer at the supermarket and 7-11

    Never mind gobsmacked, I am Flabbergasted! (How do you survive? (My 7-11 is actually 24-7, …they have everything from beer to whiskey. Hell, they even have pre-made daquiries!))

  351. chigau (棒や石) says

    theophontes
    Remember, I’m in Alberta, Canada.
    The laws surrounding the sale and consumption of alcohol are archaic and puritanical.

  352. Forelle says

    Jadehawk at 492:

    it’s 5am and I can’t sleep and I’m hungry and there’s no food

    Er — I hope I’m missing some obscure reference to a song or saying…? Reading that message on top of the disheartening story about sgbm felt very sad. (By the way: I’m a lurker and PZ is too busy and this story might be over — but he is being unfair and I wish he’d reconsider. I’m sorry you have gone through a grilling again, sgbm.)

    Anyway, here’s hoping for some food and warmth and comfort for you.